By sequencing 727 ancient individuals from the Southern Arc (Anatolia and its neighbors in Southeastern Europe and West Asia) over 10,000 years, we contextualize its Chalcolithic period and Bronze Age (about 5000 to 1000 BCE), when extensive gene flow entangled it with the Eurasian steppe. Two streams of migration transmitted Caucasus and Anatolian/Levantine ancestry northward, and the Yamnaya pastoralists, formed on the steppe, then spread southward into the Balkans and across the Caucasus into Armenia, where they left numerous patrilineal descendants. Anatolia was transformed by intra–West Asian gene flow, with negligible impact of the later Yamnaya migrations. This contrasts with all other regions where Indo-European languages were spoken, suggesting that the homeland of the Indo-Anatolian language family was in West Asia, with only secondary dispersals of non-Anatolian Indo-Europeans from the steppe.

In this article, we explore the typological distinction between primary and secondary states. We outline a methodology for exploring variability in the formation and organization of secondary states that integrates aspects of traditional neoevolutionary approaches, Marcus's "dynamic model," Blanton et al.'s "dual-processual model," and world-systems theory. We discuss the development of the Minoan and Mycenaean states of the Bronze Age Aegean and argue that they arose via different mechanisms of secondary state formation, through direct and indirect contact with neighboring societies in the Eastern Mediterranean, Near East, and Egypt. We argue that a model that measures state formation along several different theoretical dimensions encourages archaeological exploration of secondary states along varied historical trajectories, in different (pre)historic contexts.

No abstract

No abstract

This article reviews current developments in European regional studies. A brief history of settlement archaeology as practiced in Europe is followed by a discussion of new approaches to regional analysis and surface survey. I argue that recent, steady investments in the technology, methods, and theory of regional archaeological analysis and surface survey have stimulated advances in the study of settlement patterns and settlement pattern change through time in many parts of Europe. When innovative technologies (e.g., remote sensing, GPS, GIS), methods (e.g., geoarchaeology, "siteless" survey), and new theoretical frameworks (both processual and postprocessual) have been combined, breakthroughs in our understanding of European settlement have resulted. In the last half of the article, I describe some of these breakthroughs in a broad discussion of European settlement history, beginning with the earliest prehistory of Europe through the Middle Ages. Shifts in perspective are particularly apparent for phases of transition: from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic, Paleolithic to Mesolithic to Neolithic, and with the rise and expansion of states.

We present the first ancient DNA data from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of Mesopotamia (Southeastern Turkey and Northern Iraq), Cyprus, and the Northwestern Zagros, along with the first data from Neolithic Armenia. We show that these and neighboring populations were formed through admixture of pre-Neolithic sources related to Anatolian, Caucasus, and Levantine hunter-gatherers, forming a Neolithic continuum of ancestry mirroring the geography of West Asia. By analyzing Pre-Pottery and Pottery Neolithic populations of Anatolia, we show that the former were derived from admixture between Mesopotamian-related and local Epipaleolithic-related sources, but the latter experienced additional Levantine-related gene flow, thus documenting at least two pulses of migration from the Fertile Crescent heartland to the early farmers of Anatolia.

In this article, we address the historical question of why Aegean Bronze Age economies are characterized as redistributive systems and whether it is appropriate to continue to describe them as such. We argue that characterizing the political economies of the Aegean as redistributive is inaccurate and misleading. Instead, we suggest it is more fruitful to describe how specific prehistoric social institutions were used to organize and allocate goods and services and thereby to study how political and economic systems interacted with one another. By examining how Aegean social institutions were constituted and changed over time, we will be in a position to use the prehistoric Aegean to develop and refine general models of political economy.* * We thank Seth Richardson and an anonymous AJA reviewer for their valuable suggestions.

No abstract