Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:32:14.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Alternative Sources in Regional Exchange Systems: A Gravity Model Approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2014

Sylvia Chappell
Sylvia Chappell*
Affiliation:
Museum of Anthropology, University Museums Building, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The influence of alternative sources on patterns of abundance of exchanged goods within a region is investigated. A gravity model is developed, which predicts relative abundance of goods from each source at each site in the region. Results of the application of this model to an ethnographic example indicate that observed patterns of abundance of exchanged goods which seem anomalous in terms of previously proposed models of exchange distributions can be explained through the effects of alternative sources. Results of the application of this model to an archaeological example suggest that some aspects of the observed spatial patterning in abundance of exchanged goods can be related to the presence of alternative sources in the region. It is concluded that the multiple sources gravity model has wide utility in the investigation of the operation of prehistoric exchange systems.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 52 , Issue 1 , 1986 , pp. 131 - 142
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bradley, R., 1971. ‘Trade competition and artefact distribution’, World Archaeol. 2, 347–52.Google Scholar
Bulmer, S., 1964. ‘Prehistoric stone implements from the New Guinea Highlands’, Oceania 34, 246–68.Google Scholar
Celoria, F., 1974. ‘Preliminary list of neolithic axes from the London region with petrographic data’, London Studies 1, 87–92.Google Scholar
Chappell, J., 1966. ‘Stone axe factories in the Highlands of East New Guinea’, Proc. Prehist. Soc. 32, 96–121.Google Scholar
Clark, J. R., 1979. ‘Modelling trade in non-literate archaeological contexts’, J. Anthrop. Research 35, 170–90.Google Scholar
Clough, T. H. McK. and Green, B., 1972. ‘The petrological identification of stone implements from East Anglia’, Proc. Prehist. Soc. 38, 108–55.Google Scholar
Cummins, W. A., 1974. ‘The neolithic stone axe trade in Britain’, Antiquity 48, 201–05.Google Scholar
Cummins, W. A., 1979. ‘Neolithic stone axes: distribution and trade in England and Wales’, in Clough, T. H. McK. and Cummins, W. A. (eds), Stone Axe Studies, 5–12. CBA Research Report No. 23, Council for British Archaeology, London.Google Scholar
Cummins, W. A., 1983. ‘Petrology of stone axes and tools’, in Kempe, D. R. C. and Harvey, A. P. (eds), The Petrology of Archaeological Artefacts, 171–226. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Cummins, W. A. and Moore, C. N., 1973. ‘Petrological identification of stone implements from Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire and Rutland’, Proc. Prehist. Soc. 39, 219–55.Google Scholar
Elliott, K., Ellman, D. and Hodder, I., 1978. ‘The simulation of neolithic axe dispersal in Britain’, in Hodder, I. (ed.), Simulation Studies in Archaeology, 79–87. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Ericson, J. E., 1977. ‘Egalitarian exchange systems in California: a preliminary view’, in Earle, T. K. and Ericson, J. E. (eds), Exchange Systems in Prehistory, 109–26. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Evens, E. D., Grinsell, L. V., Piggott, S. and Wallis, F. S., 1962. ‘Fourth report of the Sub-Committee of the South-Western Group of Museums and Art Galleries on the Petrological Identification of Stone Axes’, Proc. Prehist. Soc. 28, 209–66.Google Scholar
Evens, E. D., Smith, I. F. and Wallis, F. S., 1972. ‘The petrological identification of stone implements from Southwestern England’, Proc. Prehist. Soc. 38, 235–75.Google Scholar
Hallam, B. R., Warren, S. E. and Renfrew, C., 1976. ‘Obsidian in the Western Mediterranean: Characterisation by Neutron Activation Analysis and Optical Emission Spectroscopy’, Proc. Prehist. Soc. 42, 85–110.Google Scholar
Hodder, I., 1974. ‘Regression analysis of some trade and marketing patterns’, World Archaeol. 6, 172–89.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. and Lane, P., 1982. A contextual examination of neolithic axe distribution in Britain’, in Ericson, J. E. and Earle, T. K. (eds), Contexts for Prehistoric Exchange, 213–35. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. and Orton, C., 1976. Spatial Analysis in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hughes, I., 1977. New Guinea Stone Age Trade. Terra Australis 3. Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University, Canberra.Google Scholar
Keen, L. and Radley, J., 1971. ‘Report on the petrological identification of stone axes from Yorkshire’, Proc. Prehist. Soc. 37, 16–37.Google Scholar
Moore, C. N. and Cummins, W. A., 1974. ‘Petrological identification of stone implements from Derbyshire and Leicestershire’, Proc. Prehist. Soc. 40, 59–78.Google Scholar
Rappaport, R. A., 1968. Pigs for the Ancestors: Ritual in the Ecology of a New Guinea People. Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C., 1972. The Emergence of Civilization: The Cyclades and the Aegean in the Third Millennium BC. Methuen, London.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C., 1975. ‘Trade as action ata distance: questions of integration and communication’, in Sabloff, J. A. and Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. (eds), Ancient Civilization and Trade, 3–59. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Renfew, C., 1977. ‘Alternative models for exchange and spatial distribution’, in Earle, T. K. and Ericson, J. E. (eds), Exchange Systems in Prehistory, 71–90. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C., Dixon, J. E. and Cann, J. R., 1968. ‘Further analysis of Near Eastern obsidians’, Proc. Prehist. Soc. 34, 319–31.Google Scholar
Smith, I. F., 1979. ‘The chronology of British stone implements’, in Clough, T. H. McK. and Cummins, W. A. (eds), Stone Axe Studies, 13–22. CBA Research Report No. 23, Council for British Archaeology, London.Google Scholar
Stanley, J. W., 1976. ‘A preliminary description of thin sections of some neolithic stone axes from the London region’, Science and Archaeology 18, 3–11.Google Scholar
Strathern, M., 1965. ‘Axe types and quarries: a note on the classification of stone axe blades from the Hagen Area, New Guinea’, J. Polynesian Soc. 74, 182–91.Google Scholar