Preindustrial Markets and Marketing: Archaeological Perspectives

Feinman, Gary M.; Garraty, Christopher P.

doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.012809.105118

Cited by 130 publications

(80 citation statements)

References 134 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Yet central places still played a significant functional role in sedentary huntergatherer societies as the optimal loci of networks of cultural and material exchange (Redman 1999, Hamilton et al 2009, Kaplan et al 2009, Burnside et al 2012, Brughmans 2013, Ortman et al 2014. Long before the rise of cities and urban lifeways, the importance of social networks and centrality in structuring the processes of sociocultural niche construction, cultural and material accumulation and subsistence exchange were established (Dyson-Hudson and Smith 1978, Cowgill 2004, Hamilton et al 2009, Kaplan et al 2009, Feinman and Garraty 2010, Burnside et al 2012, Brughmans 2013, Ortman et al 2014.…”

Section: Social Upscaling Centrality and Urbanizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecology in an anthropogenic biosphere

Ellis

2015

Ecological Monographs

477

510

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Humans, unlike any other multicellular species in Earth's history, have emerged as a global force that is transforming the ecology of an entire planet. It is no longer possible to understand, predict, or successfully manage ecological pattern, process, or change without understanding why and how humans reshape these over the long term. Here, a general causal theory is presented to explain why human societies gained the capacity to globally alter the patterns, processes, and dynamics of ecology and how these anthropogenic alterations unfold over time and space as societies themselves change over human generational time. Building on existing theories of ecosystem engineering, niche construction, inclusive inheritance, cultural evolution, ultrasociality, and social change, this theory of anthroecological change holds that sociocultural evolution of subsistence regimes based on ecosystem engineering, social specialization, and non-kin exchange, or ''sociocultural niche construction,'' is the main cause of both the long-term upscaling of human societies and their unprecedented transformation of the biosphere. Human sociocultural niche construction can explain, where classic ecological theory cannot, the sustained transformative effects of human societies on biogeography, ecological succession, ecosystem processes, and the ecological patterns and processes of landscapes, biomes, and the biosphere. Anthroecology theory generates empirically testable hypotheses on the forms and trajectories of long-term anthropogenic ecological change that have significant theoretical and practical implications across the subdisciplines of ecology and conservation. Though still at an early stage of development, anthroecology theory aligns with and integrates established theoretical frameworks including social-ecological systems, social metabolism, countryside biogeography, novel ecosystems, and anthromes. The ''fluxes of nature'' are fast becoming ''cultures of nature.'' To investigate, understand, and address the ultimate causes of anthropogenic ecological change, not just the consequences, human sociocultural processes must become as much a part of ecological theory and practice as biological and geophysical processes are now. Strategies for achieving this goal and for advancing ecological science and conservation in an increasingly anthropogenic biosphere are presented.

show abstract

Section: Social Upscaling Centrality and Urbanizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecology in an anthropogenic biosphere

Ellis

2015

Ecological Monographs

477

510

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Initially, tropical environments were believed to be unsuitable for the development or maintenance of urbanism (Meggers 1954; but see Coe 1957). Several factors contributed to a general view that the Maya were less complex than their northern neighbors in central Mexico and were not truly urban (e.g., Sanders and Webster 1988; but see D. Chase et al 1990;Smith 1989): an incomplete understanding of the scale and variability of Maya sites (A. combined with the early investigation of sites with smaller populations in the southern lowlands (e.g., Piedras Negras [Weeks et al 2005] and Copan [Andrews and Fash 2005]), a lack of recognition of the variation in naturally available resources within the Maya Lowlands (Sanders 1973) and of their economic system (subsequently corrected by Dahlin et al 2007;Feinman and Garraty 2010;Garraty and Stark 2010), and to some degree expectations that urban forms should fit Western models (see discussion by Smith 2007).…”

Section: Maya Urbanismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Caracol, Belize, and Changing Perceptions of Ancient Maya Society

Chase

2016

J Archaeol Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Archaeological research at Caracol, an ancient Maya site that was rediscovered in 1937, has become a major resource in the interpretation and understanding of the ancient Maya. Caracol, in west-central Belize, is situated in a subtropical region once characterized as being unsuitable for the development or maintenance of complex societies, yet it is one of the largest, if not the largest Classic period Maya site in the southern Maya Lowlands, home to over 100,000 people at its height between AD 600 and 700. The investigations at Caracol underscore the utility of long-term archaeological projects incorporating large-scale settlement study that combine excavation with varied research designs and the use of a contextual approach. By employing Maya epigraphic history, traditional archaeology, and modern technology like LiDAR, research at Caracol details the rise, maintenance, and fall of an ancient Maya city, affording a large window into ancient Maya lifeways. Archaeological work provides evidence of sustainable agriculture, a market economy, city planning that included a road system, the impact of warfare on the site's inhabitants, the sociopolitical status of women, the role that archaeology can play in refining written history, and the significance of commemorating the cyclical passage of time to the ancient Maya. This article

show abstract

“…Here we review just two of the significant findings in this area: the existence of dynamic nonmarket state economies in some regions and the distinctive character of early market economies in others. This work was made possible by methodological advances in tracing the exchange of goods and conceptual advances in establishing the material correlates of commercial and noncommercial economic institutions (16)(17)(18).…”

Section: States and Markets In Deep Historymentioning

confidence: 99%

Archaeology as a social science

Smith

Feinman

Drennan

et al. 2012

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Because of advances in methods and theory, archaeology now addresses issues central to debates in the social sciences in a far more sophisticated manner than ever before. Coupled with methodological innovations, multiscalar archaeological studies around the world have produced a wealth of new data that provide a unique perspective on long-term changes in human societies, as they document variation in human behavior and institutions before the modern era. We illustrate these points with three examples: changes in human settlements, the roles of markets and states in deep history, and changes in standards of living. Alternative pathways toward complexity suggest how common processes may operate under contrasting ecologies, populations, and economic integration.anthropology | cultural evolution | economics | sociology | political science

show abstract

Preindustrial Markets and Marketing: Archaeological Perspectives

Cited by 130 publications

References 134 publications

Ecology in an anthropogenic biosphere

Ecology in an anthropogenic biosphere

Caracol, Belize, and Changing Perceptions of Ancient Maya Society

Archaeology as a social science

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About