Archaeological Approaches to Market Exchange in Ancient Societies

2: Detecting Marketplace Exchange in Archaeology: A Methodological Review

33 Methods appropriate to archaeological studies are so crucial to research progress that we devote this review essay to the subject (see also Hirth 1998). Several factors have conspired to slow development of archaeological methods and deflect archaeologists ’ attention from the subject. First, it is a difficult endeavor for which the most compelling approaches place a high demand on the amount and structure of data (Hirth, Chapter 11). Second, there is a considerable challenge from equifinality of patterns, particularly for marketplace exchange compared with centralized redistribution (Timothy Earle’s mobilizing redistribution [1977:215]; see also Blanton and Fargher, Chapter 10). Third, we lack parallel analyses of distribution patterns in state or imperial systems in which market system development was not prominent, such as the Andes. Fourth, some endeavors that might have sparked more interest in the investigation of market systems have instead led researchers to focus on other questions . For example, models from economic geography, including central-place theory (Christaller 1966 [1933]) and locational analysis (Chorley and Haggett 1967), have been adapted to address other, non-market research issues, such as political structure (Steponaitis 1978) and human ecology (Evans 1980). In this review we emphasize the importance of considering multiple spatial scales in the study of marketplace exchange, from localized activity areas to interregional interaction (Feinman and Nicholas, Chapter 4). We note the importance of multiple working hypotheses (Chamberlin 1965 [1890]), that is, consideration of alternative economic models, which is part of the problem of equifinality. We also emphasize Barbara L. Stark and Christopher P. Garraty Chapter Two Detecting Marketplace Exchange in Archaeology: A Methodological Review BARBARA L. StARk AnD ChRiStophER p. GARRAty 34 the importance of multiple lines of evidence, some of which operate at distinct scales. Much of our discussion of methods and equifinality hinges on inferring the archaeological expectations for marketplace exchange versus central redistribution or command economies, which involve dissemination of goods from a central location by authorities—both are allocation mechanisms that might produce an archaeological distribution pattern resembling that of marketplace exchange. Finally, we identify a companion to Kenneth Hirth’s (1998) household distributional approach to take into account a regional scale of production and distribution, in other words, specialization in production at some locations and a wide multi-community spatial scale of distribution , with sufficient quantities of items in regular household use that consumption involves most of the population in the area served. We designate this the “regional production-distribution” approach. Background: Multiple exchange MechanisMs, histories, and equivalencies Multiple mechanisms and spheres of exchange (Bohannan 1955) operated simultaneously in ancient complex societies, complicating the study of marketplace exchange. Marketplace exchange often coexists with reciprocity among kin (or other social groups), gift giving, household auto-production, communal share-outs, tribute, and labor service (Earle 1977; Halperin 1991; Polanyi 1944:53, 1957:250–256). Where it exists, marketplace exchange is of variable importance. In complex societies it is usually contrasted with central redistribution by governmental agents as a mechanism for large-scale economic integration. Central redistribution is often discussed with respect to “middle-range” societies. A cognate form of allocation in states is command economies (Ericson 2008; La Lone 1982:294–299), in which central government institutions set production objectives for many goods and services and, in modern cases, attempt to control the circulation of products to the population (Ericson 2008:1–2). Barter (transactions enacted without media of exchange) involves exchange with aneyetowardgainandlossand,ataminimum,involvesanelementofmarketexchange even if a marketplace is not established (for definition of terms, see Garraty, Chapter 1). Barter is widespread (Dalton 1982:185), and regularized contexts for barter across a region may have afforded a historical antecedent to the establishment of marketplaces and market systems. Regularization of occasions for barter is one of a variety of scenarios for growth of market exchange, however (Garraty, Chapter 1). Instead of a “bottom-up” development, governmental or central institutions may also contribute to the growth of market exchange, for example, by sponsoring merchant expeditions (Hudson 2004). John Lie (1991) indicates for sixteenth- through eighteenth-century England that market development was not a smooth, linear process of growth and expansion in which new economic goods and sectors were continually integrated to the market domain (cf. Polanyi 1944); rather, it was nonlinear, with dynamic patterns of social regulation and ethical standards regarding self-interested behavior. DEtECtinG MARkEtpLACE ExChAnGE in ARChAEoLoGy 35 Barter or marketplace exchange may articulate with the timing of community rituals or...