Migration Concepts in Central Eurasian Archaeology: Further

ANNUAL REVIEWS
Further
Click here for quick links to Annual Reviews content online, including: Other articles in this volume Top cited articles Top downloaded articles Our comprehensive search
Migration Concepts in Central Eurasian Archaeology

Michael D. Frachetti
Department of Anthropology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri 63130; email: frachetti@wustl.edu
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2011.40:195-212. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org by Washington University, Medical Library on 09/28/11. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2011. 40:195212 First published online as a Review in Advance on June 29, 2011 The Annual Review of Anthropology is online at anthro.annualreviews.org This articles doi: 10.1146/annurev-anthro-081309-145939 Copyright c 2011 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved 0084-6570/11/1021-0195$20.00
Keywords
culture, ethnogenesis, Soviet Union, steppe, prehistory, migration
Abstract
Theories of migration hold a pervasive position in prehistoric archaeology of Central Eurasia. International research on Eurasia today reects the juxtaposition of archaeological theory and practice from distinct epistemological traditions, and migration is at the crux of current debates. Migration was employed paradigmatically during the Soviet era to explain the geography and materiality of prehistoric ethnogenesis, whereas in the west it was harshly criticized in prehistoric applications, especially in the 1970s. Since the dissolution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), migration has resurfaced as an important, yet polemical, explanation in both academic arenas. Short- and longdistance population movements are seen as fundamental mechanisms for the formation and distribution of regional archaeological cultures from the Paleolithic to historical periods and as a primary social response to environmental, demographic, and political pressures. Critics view the archaeological record of Eurasia as a product of complex local and regional interaction, exchange, and innovation, reinvigorating essential debates around migration, diffusion, and autochthonous change in Eurasian prehistory.
This article is part of a special theme on Migration. For a list of other articles in this theme, see http://www.annualreviews. org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-an40#h2.
195
INTRODUCTION
Since the earliest studies of prehistory, models of human migration have been at the heart of archaeological discourse, and the elds paradigms have alternately promoted and rejected migration as a rigorous explanatory tool (Rouse 1986, Renfrew 1987, Anthony 1990). In recent decades, the conuence of nonwestern epistemologies (e.g., post-Soviet, Chinese, and postcolonial) with Anglo-American theory and new technological approaches in archaeology (globally) has again brought this fundamental theme to the fore, especially in the archaeology of Central Eurasia (Figure 1) (Dergachev 2002, Anthony 2006, Frachetti 2008). This article investigates migration within Central Eurasian archaeology and addresses its use as a paradigm for explaining social change in prehistoric and proto-historic periods. The intellectual roots of migration theories in Soviet archaeology and contemporary applications in Eurasian archaeology are reviewed along with todays alternative explanations of prehistoric processes from Eastern Europe to the borders of China. Archaeologists, by denition, interpret the lifeways and relationships of past human societies using remnant material artifacts distributed across territories and through time. Humans have always been on the move, thus migration has long been used in archaeology to explain the fundamental issue of how culturein all its complicated diversity has morphed and spread across the globe (Watson 1995). The difculty of documenting prehistoric migrations has been to identify clear material signatures of processes of demographic displacement within the imperfect chronology, patchy geographic coverage, and complex taphonomy of the archaeological record (Champion 1980). Critics argue that migration is recognizable historically yet often appears to be a conjectural explanation for mechanisms of social, economic, and ideological transition in prehistory (Adams et al. 1978, Chapman & Dolukhanov 1992, Burmeister 2000). Debates over the past century have
pitted migration versus diffusion and colonization versus autochthonism, dening major theoretical shifts in archaeology discourse (Childe 1937, Binford 1965, Hodder 1982). Archaeologists currently exist in an era of diffuse theoretical communities (Preucel & Mrozowsky 2010). After nearly one century of disciplinary transformations, archaeologists today recombine an array of theoretical and methodological tenets, mixing environmentalecological approaches and scientic modeling with Neo-Marxist, practice-oriented, and postmodern theories (among others) to cobble an interpretively reexive yet broadly scientic explanation of the past. With the welcome addition of new-national and postcolonial voices in the debate, archaeology is far from nding a one-size-ts-all theoretical mainstream (Liebmann & Rizvi 2008). The shifting theoretical ground between scientic and historico-interpretative epistemologies has also loosened the footing of normative perspectives on related anthropological concepts such as diffusion and culture (Shennan & Wilkinson 2001, Smith 2006). As an inherent cost to archaeologys theoretical exibility today, migration and diffusion sometimes slip back to vernacular application or, in the best cases, nd articulation within regional cases restricted by specic data sets (compare Clark 1994, Chapman & Hamerow 1997b). In his review of arguments for and against migratory waves throughout European prehistory, Richards (2003) illustrates the rigorous high-precision reconstruction of both regional migration and local assimilation from the Paleolithic to later prehistory using a rich corpus of genetic and archaeological data. Nearly a century of research provides complementary data in support of both regional migration models and autochthonous social and economic processes that shaped the landscape of Western Europe over the past 20,000 years. Unfortunately, such dense and diverse data are not available everywhere, and in such cases migration appears as an inferred explanation without positive archaeological signatures.
196
Frachetti
This is arguably the case in Central Eurasia. Although signicant progress in archaeological science, excavation, paleoenvironmental studies, radiocarbon dating, genetics, and material analysis is populating the Eurasian database, contemporary archaeological reconstructions rely largely on general notions of migration to explain the chronological and geographic distributions of stone tools (Matyushin 2003), ceramics (Kuzmina 2003), metallurgy (Chernykh 2004), human biological traits (Wells et al. 2001, Hemphill & Mallory 2004), and language and ethnicity (Mallory & Mair 2000, Kuzmina 2004, Anthony 2007). Migration itself is described often in rich conceptual terms (e.g., Anthony 2007, Kuzmina 2007), but the analogical link between historically modeled migration and prehistoric practice is difcult to prove archaeologically (compare Burmeister 2000; also Kohl 2009). Nevertheless, migration has a deep explanatory history in Central Eurasian archaeology.
CENTRAL EURASIA AND CONCEPTS OF MIGRATION

Geographically astride Europe and Asia, Eurasia is a region often mapped at various scales of regional specicity. Common geographic monikers include Central Asia, Inner Asia, and the Eurasian steppe zone, and typically include southwest Siberia/Mongolia (Soucek 2000, Beckwith 2009). Central Eurasia, dened here, extends from Eastern Europe and the Caucasus to the western borders of China and the Altai Mountains (Figure 1). North to south, it reaches from the southern edges of Siberias forest-steppe ecotone across the steppe grasslands to the deserts of Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. The inclusion of various territories in this denition relates as much to the history of archaeological explanations of migration as it does to the geopolitical history of the former Soviet Union, China (and Mongolia), and the states of southwest Asia (Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan). Although I do not explicitly address these neighboring regions, the relevant issues concerning
migration and culture history in Central Eurasia resonate beyond the immediate region (for the Caucasus, see Smith 2005; Mongolia, see Honeychurch & Amartuvshin 2006; the Indus Valley, see Wright 2010). Migration itself has a more complex identity crisis, especially in Eurasian archaeology. Contemporary conceptual deployments in archaeology include a range of behaviors and pressures that shape population movement (observed historically) while considering the archaeological limitations of documenting migrations at prehistoric timescales (Adams et al. 1978; Anthony 1990, 1997). Beyond archaeology, social anthropologists, geographers, demographers, and others have tried to quantify and qualify cases of (pre)historic migration using a variety of approaches (Lee 1966, Kearney 1986, McNeil 1979, Manning 2006). Viewed synthetically, key differential factors of population movement include the scale, timing, and permanence of migratory processes. Small-scale migrations may reect border shifts or moving population centers among seasonally transhumant groups, for example, whereas large-scale cases include colonization, invasions (often conceived as slow demic waves), leapfrog migrations, or cyclical migration (back and forth) (Anthony 1990, p. 903). Also important are the environmental, social, economic, and political pressures that cause migration, often described as push or pull factors (Anthony 1997). Migration models in Central Eurasian prehistory uniquely conceptualize these processes from an epistemological and material foundation rooted in Soviet archaeology.
Migration in the Soviet Era

Soviet scholars carried out the bulk of archaeological research in Central Eurasia during the twentieth century. Among Soviet archaeologists, migration arose as a dominant explanatory concept in the 1950s after Stalins purge of Marrist notions of stadial in situ evolution (Minns 1942). Early in Soviet archaeology, Nikolai Marr proposed that ethnically circumscribed societies passed through explicit historical stages of economic (i.e., class)
197
www.annualreviews.org Migration Concepts & Eurasian Archaeology
development, as described by Marx (Bulkin et al. 1982; Trigger 1989, p. 330). Marrs theories generally excluded migration from archaeological interpretation, but this practice changed sharply under Stalins regime and in the postwar Soviet academic arena. By 1950, Marrism had been completely denounced as a vulgarization of Marxism (Dolukhanov 1993, p. 150). Over the next 40 years, migration was forwarded as an appropriate explanatory tool within the historical-materialist epistemology of Soviet archaeology (Merpert 1978). Although their research was far from monolithic (Bulkin et al. 1982), Soviet archaeologists evoked migration and ethnic assimilation to explain how material culture was geographically and chronologically distributed across Eurasia (Merpert 1978). The concept of etnos shaped Soviet scholars ethnographic and archaeological approaches (Bromlei 1974) and was attested prehistorically through the identication of regionally coherent assemblages of material artifacts, or kultury (cultures) (Davis 1983, p. 417; Smith 2005). Elements of a culture group recovered outside the established geographic cultural-homeland were viewed as evidence of either a demographic colonization or a material (e.g., genetic) blending process with aboriginal or other shifting groups (Formozov 1959; Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1985; Tkacheva & Tkachev 2008, p. 88). Folk migrations accounted for the spread of cultural communities (kulturnoi obshchnosty) and became an increasingly powerful paradigm in Soviet archaeological literature from the 1950s onward (Formozov 1959). In Soviet terminology, changes in productive forces led to the formation of new material cultures, which physically represented the historical process of ethnogenesis (Trigger 1989, p. 230). Paralleling contemporary culture-historians in the west (Gimbutas 1956, 1961), Soviet materialhistorians presented artifact assemblages as direct proxies for social communities; thus, cultural typologies inherently became proxies for actual populations (compare LambergKarlovsky 2002). The correlation between demographic communities, ethno-linguistic
198 Frachetti
identity, and material culture provided a simple ethnogenetic roadmap for explaining the (pre)historic trajectories of populations from primitive hunters of the Stone Age to the great nomadic empires of the Scythians and Huns (Merpert 1978, Artamonov 1971). Considered together, etnos, kultura, and demos dened a simple tripartite formula for archaeological explanation throughout the Soviet period (Mongait & Kiselyov 1959) that still underpins many explanations today (Tkacheva & Tkachev 2008). Yet in its earliest applications, this ethno-cultural-demographic foundation did not explain how and why human migrations took place (Bulkin et al. 1982). Migrations were traced to the historical dialectics of productive economic modes and, drawing on Marx, were conceptualized from theoretical platforms such as economic primitivism, environmentalism, and imperialism. Primitivism, in the Marxist sense, fundamentally structured Soviet explanations of primordial colonization of Eurasia by premodern hominins and, later, early anatomically modern human populations (Davis 1983, p. 408). Environmentalism rooted explanations of migrations from the Neolithic to the early Iron Age (Kosarev 1984, p. 8). Imperialist notions commonly framed historical archaeologies of migration, especially those proposed from the late Iron Age to Medieval times. Early archaeological studies of the rst hominins and the earliest modern humans in Central Eurasia were shaped directly by the Marxist concept of primitive economies, which emerged in Soviet archaeology even before the 1930s (Davis 1983). Paleolithic peoples were commonly associated with primitive modes of production, illustrated by their technological simplicity and classless socioeconomic organization (i.e., primitive communism) (Emenko 1953). This uniquely Marxist brand of primitivism situated migration as a deus ex machina to link the sparse Paleolithic evidence found across the territory of Soviet Central Asia with primordial economic modes of production identied by Marx and Engels (Ranov & Davis 1979). Migration was seen as the primary response of Paleolithic groups to changes or limitations
in Pleistocene environmental resources and climate (Alpysbayev 1979). For example, the middle Pleistocene colonization of Eurasia is thought to have resulted from the pull of optimal environmental conditions and mammalian cohorts 300 thousand years ago (kya) (Derevianko 2005). Sites of the Middle Paleolithic, such as Teshik-Tash in Uzbekistan, tied regional models of migration with broader global narratives of Neanderthal colonization (Gremyatskii 1949, Vishnyatsky 1999), whereas evidence of stone-tool continuity in ecological refuges, such as the Altai and Pamir Mountains, stimulated notions of autochthonous development as well (Ranov et al. 1995). These models for the Middle Paleolithic, along with the limited fossil evidence and the diverse tool assemblages, provided an ecumenical interpretation of early stages of migration and subsequent local development (Ranov & Davis 1979, Vishnyatsky 1999). By the 1980s, more stone tool evidence accumulated from across Central Asia and southwest Siberia, prompting major gures in Paleolithic archaeology to favor an in-situ explanation for the development of Upper Paleolithic populations after the initial migrations of Homo erectus to the region (Derevianko et al. 2005). Environmentalist arguments rounded out Marxist studies of economically primitive societies, and climate was seen as an omnipresent factor for Neolithic and Bronze-Age economies in later prehistory (Okladnikov 1956; Merpert 1978; Kosarev 1984, p. 25), notably for pastoralist societies of the Eurasian steppe (Tkacheva & Tkachev 2008). In a seminal article on migration in the Neolithic, Merpert (1978) argued that demographic growth of populations and their expansions into new areas were the result of external reasons such as specic ecological changes, especially those impacting the stability of economic production (p. 10). The Soviet cultural-ecological approach grew most profoundly in the 1970s (Gumilev 1979, 1990; Kosarev 1984; Klejn 1977) with the integration of geological and paleoclimatic research across the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR)
(Bulkin et al. 1982, Khotinksy 1984). Today, new methods such as genetic analysis and detailed paleoenvironmental reconstruction provide increasingly scientic proof of prehistoric migration events, yet the subtle tenor of environmentalism and primitivism survives in todays interpretations of Eurasias earliest populations (Dolukhanov 2004; see below). Imperialism is another concept that underpinned Soviet explanations of Eurasian migrations, especially concerning the political history of Eurasia from the rst millennium B.C. to Medieval times (Khazanov 1994, p. 263; Smith 2006). Medieval historiography of Moscovys interaction with Turko-Mongolian nomads, (i.e., the Golden Horde) was used to validate the Russian imperialist agenda across Eurasia during the later Tsarist era (Halperin 1985). Of course, in reality the USSRs expansionist program all but mirrored the Tsarist agenda of Asian reclamation in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, itself validated by nationalist claims to steppe territory traced to Muscovite entitlement (Soucek 2000). The narrative of Russian struggle against Mongolian invasion remained a fundamental, if muted, discourse in the Soviet Marxist reconceptualization of Eurasian history (Halperin 1982). Viewed historically, the conquests of steppe empires provided seemingly appropriate depictions of aggressive societies whose territorial ambitions promoted and brought about long-distance migrations and regional recongurations of populations (Khazanov 1994). Although imperialist narratives were not explicitly espoused by Marxist scholars (Zlatkin 1971), the historical conquests and despotism of Eurasian nomadic hordes were used to describe historically the dynamics of Asiatic and feudal modes of production (Potapov 1954). Paired with literal readings of ancient and medieval sources (e.g., Herodotus, Stabo), Soviet archaeologists, ethnohistorians, and orientalists envisioned territorial conquests by the Scythians, Alans, Sarmatians, Xiongnu, Tatars (Turks), and Mongols through a historical lens that cast Eurasian nomadic empires as highly mobile and warlike (Grakov 1971).
199
Soviet scholars coined the rst millennium B.C. as the Age of Nomadism in Central Eurasia. Archaeological studies of Scythian and Saka Kurgan burials, such as Arzhan in southwest Siberia (Gryaznov 1980), lent material support to historical claims such as the eastern origins of the Scythians described by Herodotus (Marcenko & Vinogradov 1989). In some regions, the Scythian-type cultures putatively the rst true nomads of Eurasia were thought to have evolved along distinct regional trajectories (Yablonsky 1998). Rich inventories of steppe weaponry and riding tack among Eurasian groups from Eastern Europe to Mongolia crystallized the view of Eurasian nomads as warlike, extensively mobile, and politically dependant on urban agriculturalists (Khazanov 1994). Comparable artistic motifs and technologies inspired theories of widespread migrations and conquest across the Scytho-Saka world (Bokovenko 2004).
Migration in Eurasian Archaeology Today

In archaeological studies ranging from the Lower Paleolithic to the Iron Age, new discoveries are shaping substantial revisions of archaeological interpretations concerning Eurasian migrations throughout prehistory (Rassamakin 1999, Hanks 2002, Parzinger 2006, Glantz et al. 2008, Kradin 2008). Equally often, newly rened data and improved analytical methods are used as fresh support for earlier explanations (Dergachev 2002, Ranov et al. 1995, Kuzmina 2007). Of course, the academic paradigms that shaped Soviet archaeology have a necessary impact on the way scholars worldwide interpret archaeological evidence today because they form the analytical basis of research in Eurasia. Thus even for revisionists, it is difcult to construct synthetic arguments without relying on extant cultural categories and entrenched relative chronologies (for discussion, see Kohl 2007, p. 18). In an attempt to wrangle migration into an archaeologically testable process, Anthony (1997) has outlined various forms and scales
200 Frachetti
of behavioral mobility, including local, circular, chain, career, and coerced migration, along with subsequent return-migration. In archaeological practice, however, migrations in Eurasian archaeology are presented either as episodic, long-distance moves of pioneer groups (Bokovenko 2004) or as slow, systematic expansions of communities with considerable sociocultural assimilation along the frontiers of cultural territories (Koryakova & Epimakhov 2007). In Eurasian archaeology, the scalar recognition of migration partitions scholars into historical and anthropological schools of thought (Manning 2006). This division broadly shapes debates in Eurasian archaeology because in Russia (and much of continental Europe) archaeology is conceived as a historical discipline, whereas Anglo-American archaeology has promoted an anthropological approach (Kohl 2007, p. 6). Eurasian archaeology today pivots around this epistemological difference, and contemporary arguments for and against migration serve to contrast current interpretations of Paleolithic, Bronze-Age, and Iron Age archaeological data from Eurasia (Anthony 2007, p. 458).
PALEOLITHIC OCCUPATION OF CENTRAL EURASIA

In Paleolithic archaeology, models of pioneer migrations and population dispersals remain prevalent theoretical explanations for the initial occupation of Eurasia by premodern hominins, as well as by anatomically modern humans during the late Pleistocene (Bar-Yosef & Belfer-Cohen 2000, Dolukhankov et al. 2002). Today, few scholars dispute the diffusionary migration of Homo erectus out of Africa into southwest Eurasia at Dmanisi by 1.77 million years ago (mya) (Derevianko & Shunkov 2002, Lordkipanidze et al. 2007; but see Dennell 2008). Yet lower Paleolithic tool assemblages from Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kazakhstan offer sparse and poorly dated evidence to trace how early hominins migrated into the region during the Middle Pleistocene (800900 ka)
(Vishnyatsky 1999, Glantz 2008). No early hominin fossils have been recovered in Central Asia, and lithic technologies include pebble, core/ake, and Acheulian-type bifaces (Ranov et al. 1995), complicating models of direct dispersal from either western or eastern territories (Movius 1953; compare Lycett & Bae 2010). To muddle the picture further, the Pleistocene fossil and archaeological evidence from northeastern Asia predates the earliest tool assemblages from Central Eurasia by more than 700 ky (Zhu et al. 2004). As Dennell (2003) points out, [I]t may be more realistic to assume . . . a palimpsest of intermittent dispersal events, only some of which resulted in longterm colonization (p. 422). Subtle regional distinctions in stone tool production throughout the Paleolithic as well as the relative continuity of Middle to Upper Paleolithic tool forms have bolstered the autochthonous regional model proposed earlier by Russian scholars (Reich et al. 2010; see sidebar, Hominin Diversity at Denisova Cave?). The Middle Paleolithic site of Teshik-Tash, in Uzbekistan, provides one of the earliest known hominin fossils in Central Eurasia and has long been cited as the eastern-most geographic extension of the Neanderthals (Movius 1953). Most scholars think that Neanderthals colonized Central Asia while retreating eastward from poor climatic conditions in Europe or evading modern humans in southwest Asia (Stringer & Gamble 1993, Glantz 2008). Although the chronology of the Middle Paleolithic in Eurasia remains problematic, early fossil remains from the site of Obi-Rakhmat (Uzbekistan) indicate occupation from 90 kya to 70 kya (Glantz et al. 2008). The identity of the Middle Paleolithic occupants of Central Asia, however, has come under recent scrutiny. Reanalysis of fossils from both Teshik-Tash and Obi-Rakhmat documents characteristics aligned with both Neanderthals and modern Homo sapiens (Glantz et al. 2008, Bailey et al. 2008). Thus, Glantz et al. (2008) interpret the skeleton from Teshik-Tash as mosaic and eschew a clear typological distinction between Late Pleistocene Neanderthals from Europe
HOMININ DIVERSITY AT DENISOVA CAVE?

Recently, Reich et al. (2010) have suggested that Neanderthals and modern humans were not alone in Central Eurasia in the Middle Paleolithic. They argue that ancient mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) extracted from a hominin fossil from Denisova Cave in southwest Siberia (5030 kya) illustrates a genetic divergence 1 mya from the common lineage shared by Neanderthals and modern Eurasians (400250 kya). However, nuclear DNA from the Denisova sample indicates a chronological split similar to that proposed for humans and Neanderthals. They suggest that the Denisova sample, genetically, is a sister group to Neanderthals but did not make a genetic contribution to modern Eurasians. This proposal impacts models of Paleolithic population dispersals because the authors indicate that Eurasia may have been host to regional hominin populations from the Middle to Late Pleistocene that were genetically separate from European Neanderthals and distinct from modern humans migrating out of Africa. Discussed below, DNA analysis presents an exciting, but also problematic, methodology for reconstructing human migrations and gene ows.
and hominins from Central Asia (Glantz 2008, p. 108).
BRONZE-AGE MIGRATIONS, INDO-EUROPEANS, AND THE CULTURE CONCEPT

Over the past 20 years, Anthony (1990, 1997, 2007) has provided some of the most in-depth thinking about migration in the Eneolithic and Bronze Age of Central Eurasia. Simple invasion models proposed by Gimbutas (1956) to explain the spread of Eneolithic and Bronze-Age Indo-Europeans, or Kurgan-cultures, into Eastern Europe and the Eurasian steppe have been rejected archaeologically and critiqued conceptually (Anthony 1986, Chapman & Dolukhanov 1992, Koncha 2001). Today, the archaeological details of regional interactions and localized processes of linguistic, material, and socioeconomic development are increasingly ner grained across Eurasia (Rassamakin 1999, 2002; Frachetti 2008; Shishlina 2008; Epimakhov 2009). Yet migration is still viewed as a formative factor in Eurasian prehistory.
201
Considering the dangers of either overreliance on migration or its blind rejection, Anthonys (2007) recent synthesis of the Bronze-Age expansion of Eurasian cultural horizons (complexes of technology, material innovation, ideology, and languages) relies in some cases on familiar models of extensive pioneer migrations and in other cases illustrates complex trade, interaction, emulation, and conquest among later prehistoric Eurasians (also Mallory 1989). In spite of Anthonys (2006) ambition to disentangle cultural groups from the processual realities of migration, a broad correlation between archaeologically attested cultural communities and demographic processes remains the fundamental evidence for migration in Eurasian archaeology today (Dergachev 2002, Kuzmina 2007; compare Champion 1980, pp. 3334). One of the most elaborated models for Eurasian migration relates how Late Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age (40003000 B.C.) mobile herding communities, associated with the Yamnaya or pit-grave archaeological culture, initiated both long- and short-distance migrations from the Caspian region east and west in the third millennium B.C. (Danilenko 1974, Merpert 1974, Mallory 1989, Hemphill & Mallory 2004, Masson 2005, Stepanova 2009). Presumed horse riders and among the earliest Eurasian societies to use four-wheeled bullock carts (Anthony 1986, Morgunova & Khokhlova 2006), Yamnaya populations purportedly migrated as far as the Altai Mountains, where comparable pottery and broadly analogous burial rites are found among the Afanasev Culture (Danilenko 1974, Merpert 1974). New radiocarbon studies complicated the idea of Yamnaya origins for the Afanasev culture (Rassamakin 1999, Gorsdorf et al. 2001, Shishlina 2004, Chernykh 2009; but see Svyatko et al. 2009). Furthermore, detailed ecological and economic reconstructions across the Yamnaya territory indicate that mobile pastoralists in the Caucasus and Caspian region were not extensively mobile during the fourth and third millennium B.C. (Shishlina 2008). Rather, local mobility patterns are documented throughout the Yamnaya and later
202 Frachetti
Catacomb archaeological phases (30002000 (Shishlina 2004). The revised chronology and reassessment of Yamnaya mobility have sparked the idea that Yamnaya archaeological traits may be attributable to localized western Eurasian societies already in the early fourth millennium B.C. (Rassamakin 2002, Polyakov & Svyatko 2009). The earlier archaeological comparisons between western Eurasian hunter/herder cultures and the Afanasev culture have prompted Anthony to revise the eastward migration narrative of Afanasev origins. Anthony (2007) proposes that just before the Yamnaya horizon appeared, the Repin culture of the Volga-Ural region threw off a subgroup that migrated across the Kazakh steppes about 37003500 B.C. and established itself in the western Altai, where it became the Afanasievo [sic] culture (p. 305). Anthony then argues for a number of subsequent migrations among Yamnaya-type communities westward back to the Ural and Caspian regions, as well as Yamnaya migrations from the North Caspian region into Eastern Europe, all during the third millennium B.C. Anthonys revision putatively solves both the chronological discrepancy and the apparent similarities in ceramic styles found between western steppe (Repin, Kvalynsk, and Yamnaya cultures) and Afanasev assemblages of the mid fourth millennium B.C. Central to current iterations of the migration hypothesis is the reliance on horse riding, which has sparked an entire eld of research oriented around the earliest domestication and evidence for horse riding in Eurasia (Anthony & Brown 2003, Levine 2005, Olsen 2006). The domestication of horses is now well documented in Central Eurasia by 3500 B.C. (Outram et al. 2009). However, recent data suggest that domesticated horses were not as pervasive a resource in Early Bronze Age Eurasia as previously envisioned (Benecke & von den Dreisch 2003, Frachetti & Beneke 2009) and that horse riding may not have been a dominant practice until well into the rst millennium B.C. (Drews 2004). The expansion of Eurasian steppe societies during the middle and late Bronze Age
B.C.)
(23001000 B.C.) is also explained by waves of migration by mobile pastoralists (Kuzmina 1986; Anthony 2007, pp. 42731). Kuzmina (1994, 2007) argues that environmentally driven migrations sparked the expansion of regional variations from the Bronze-Age Andronovo culture in the Ural Mountains to Western China and southern Central Asia during the second millennium B.C. (Kuzmina 1998, 2004). Although environmental change across Eurasia is clearly evident during the Holocene (Kremenetski 2003), quantitative assessments of pasture productivity within the diverse, local grassland ecologies across the steppe indicate that localized mobility and diversied use of regional microniches would have enabled pastoralist economies to persevere in spite of periodic climate changes (Frachetti 2008, Shishlina 2008). New radiocarbon dates from across the steppe also weaken the chronology of proposed regional culture groups and migrations (Hanks et al. 2007). For example, local Bronze-Age communities are now documented in the southeastern steppe regions millennia before the purported immigration of Andronovo pastoralists (Avanessova 1996, Frachetti & Maryashev 2007). In attempt to revise the traditional steppe culture concept, Koryakova & Epimakhov (2007, p. 20) propose an explicitly nonethnic denition of archaeological cultures. In fact, they address generally the same archaeological evidence described by Kuzmina, Anthony, and others (e.g., Kohl 2007) but envision the development of regional societies through nuanced local and long-distance networks of economic and social interaction, as well as through targeted cases of migration (Koryakova 1998). Kohl (2007) also critiques the dominant association among archaeological assemblages, languages, and communities in Eurasian archaeology, as well as the rampant use of migration to explain the widespread distribution of archaeologically comparable materials (also Kohl 2009). For Kohl (2007), migration is a notable reality that shaped, in some cases, the Bronze-Age steppe landscape, but he denes the social culture of communities (in
the ethnographic sense) as hybrid, ssioning or coalescing, assimilating or modifying the customs of the neighboring peoples with whom they constantly interact (p. 18). Revisionist models are becoming more common in the archaeological literature of the past ve years and provide both conceptual and typological alternatives to interpret the formation and organization of the vast regional distribution of materials and their potential points of similarity and difference across Eurasia in the Bronze Age (Kohl 2005, Olsen 2006, Kohl 2007, Peterson 2007, Frachetti 2008, Kohl 2008, Shishlina 2008, Hanks & Doonan 2009). Metallurgical analysis and provenience studies have had an important impact on understanding the realities of migrations and economic relationships across prehistoric Eurasia (Peterson 2007, Roberts et al. 2009). Eurasian copper and bronze technologies have been studied most extensively by Chernykh, who has proposed regional provinces of metallurgy production and circulation across Central Eurasia from at least the fth millennium B.C. (Chernykh 1992, 2004). Expansion and connection of regional metallurgical traditions through time are generally understood in terms of exchange and interaction (Linduff 2004, Mei 2009), but migration also gures prominently in many interpretationsnotably to explain the Late Bronze Age distributions of Altaic Seima-Turbino metals (Chernykh 1992, 2009). Chernykh argues that the displacement of this unique tin-bronze assemblage was the result of westward migration by warrior metallurgists around 2000 B.C. (Koryakova & Epimakhov 2007, Chernykh 2009). Alternative models envision the distribution of Seima-Turbino bronzes as the result of a rapid dissemination of forms and technology through regional trade networks and emulation on the part of local metallurgists (Anthony 2007, p. 477; Frachetti 2008, p. 174).
IRON AGE MIGRATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL DRIVERS

Introduced above, migration models of imperialist (pre)historic migrations by the
203
Cimmerians, Scythians, Saka, Xiongnu (Huns), Avars, Tatars, and Mongolians (among others) signicantly inuenced the study of early historical societies of Central Eurasia among scholars worldwide (Lattimore 1940, Grousset 1952, Jettmar 1964, Khazanov 1978, Marcenko & Vinogradov 1989, Yablonsky 1998). New excavations in the eastern steppe zone at Arzhan-2 (Chugunov et al. 2010) and Berel (Samashev & Brodovsky 2004) as well as advances in radiocarbon dating at sites such as Pazyryk (Mallory et al. 2003) add welcome nuance to the canonical migratory history of groups such as the Scythians (Alekseev et al. 2001, Bokovenko 2004). Revised historical analyses also recast the scale and reality of Asiatic invasions in terms of the regional development of political groups across Central Eurasia over the past 2500 years (Iskhakov 2004, Beckwith 2009). Recent environmental archaeology has more explicitly addressed the link between episodes of population displacement and climate change across Eurasia during the Iron Age (Dolukhanov 2004, Scott et al. 2004). A climatic push factor has always been identied with the transition to nomadism in the Iron Age (Khazanov 1994, Hanks 2002, Koryakova & Epimakhov 2007). Furthermore, van Geel et al. (2004) argue that environmental conditions drove pastoralists in the Altai foothills to move to uninhabited areas such as Tuva (southwest Siberia) and subsequently across Eurasia. Similarly, Makhortykh (2004) proposes a continuous process of Cimmerian migrations depopulating the Black Sea steppe regions owing to increasing aridization at the start of the rst millennium B.C. (generally Bokovenko 2004). Analogous to case studies of Bronze-Age migrations, the primary pieces of evidence illustrating Iron-Age migration are the displacement and change of characteristic material culture and their rough correlation with a period of climatic change (Taylor 1994, Leskov & Erlich 1999, Kristiansen 2000, Kazanskii & Mastykova 2002, Kohl 2007). Alternative explanations beyond interregional nomadic migrations during the
204 Frachetti
Scythian-Saka period are based in contextual evidence for local and regional political dynamics as well as unique economic strategies among various Iron-Age steppe populations (Chang et al. 2003, Wright et al. 2009). Long thought to epitomize the purely nomadic way of life, Saka-Wusun populations of southeast Kazakhstan are now known to have been, at least in part, intensive agriculturalists (Rosen et al. 2000). Research concerning the later Xiongnu Empire of Eastern Eurasia further illustrates that the archaeological record may signicantly revise our historical picture of steppe communities and their regional political engagements, especially with larger state-like polities (Rogers 2007, Miller 2009).
Craniometry, Bioarchaeology, and DNA

The rapid growth of international collaborative research and improved scientic methodologies in Eurasian archaeology engenders renements in regional radiocarbon chronologies, material provenience, bioarchaeology, and regional archaeological sequences (Chang et al. 2003, Shishlina 2004, Smith et al. 2004, Anthony et al. 2005, Frachetti & Maryashev 2007, Hanks et al. 2007, Masimov et al. 2008, Chernykh 2009, Outram et al. 2009, Chugunov et al. 2010). For example, new approaches in biological anthropology are emerging as key to both the culture-concept and the migration models, which dominate Eurasian prehistory. Craniometry of prehistoric populations across Eurasia has long been viewed as independent proof to relate archaeological cultures with movements of Europoid or Mongoloid populations between distant territories and destinations (Evisukhov & Zhukova 2001, Chikisheva 2008, Kozintsev 2009). Multivariate analyses of craniometric traits today apparently provide discriminatory evidence for eastward migrations across Eurasia in the Early Bronze Age, while rejecting the link between Bronze-Age steppe populations and those of western China (Hemphill & Mallory 2004). Nevertheless, general identication
of speculative European features (such as red hair and blue eyes) for the Bronze-Age mummies from Xinjiang perpetuates broad migration narratives, which appear regularly in popular and academic press (Mallory & Mair 2000). An issue plaguing bioarchaeology in Eurasia is the a priori use of heuristic cultural categories to organize and classify skeletal populations. Such taxonomies articially divide or relate populations while masking potentially normal, clinal distributions of biological variation. Long held as an effective method for distinguishing regional displacements of populations, craniometric analyses increasingly appear to reinforce circular argumentation and do not introduce an independent assessment of regional genetic afnity (see sidebar, Population Diversity and Regional Craniometry). Fortunately, contemporary bioarchaeology is not limited to studies of cranial phenotypes and genetic drift. New forensic studies and skeletal anthropology are also providing insights into the occupations, diets, practices, and death of Eurasian societies of the Bronze and Iron Ages (Murphy & Mallory 2000). Population genetics is another method central to debates about regional migrations in Eurasian prehistory (Richards 2003). Eurasian genetic analyses illustrate R1a1a haplotypes in southwest Siberia and eastern Eurasia among both modern and ancient populations (Keyser et al. 2009). In the modern genome, R1a1a haplotypes are more common among European groups but are also concentrated in South and Central Asian gene pools (Li et al. 2010). The occurrence of R1a1a haplotypes in eastern Eurasia is best explained by genetic drift 20 kya (Keyser et al. 2009; Li et al. 2010, p. 10). The study by Comas et al. (2004) of mtDNA illustrates admixture of western and eastern haplotype lineages in Central Eurasia, but again they are attributed to slow genetic drift by population dispersal during the Middle Paleolithic. Even though genetics currently provides no clear evidence of vectors of genetic drift in later prehistory, hypothesized migration models of east-west migrations
POPULATION DIVERSITY AND REGIONAL CRANIOMETRY

In human biology, craniometric analysis has met with substantial criticism as an indicator of regional population afnity. Strauss & Hubbe (2010) recently applied a technique to assess the signicance of variation among phenotypical craniometric traits according to a calculated dissimilarity fraction (), or the proportion of pairs of individuals from the same population that is genetically more different than pairs sampled from different populations (pp. 31718). They concluded that the results for phenotypic data indicate that when all morphological [craniometric] information is used to compute the dissimilarity fraction, this index does not even reach 0.35 as its smallest value. Considering that the maximum value for is 0.50, the dissimilarity fraction for human cranial morphology is considerably high and supports the statement that two individuals of the same population are often more different than two individuals from different populations, in contrast to what is observed with neutral molecular markers when enough loci are used in the analysis (Witherspoon et al. 2007) (p. 324). They further note that when an index not designed [a priori] to accentuate differences between groups is used, the contrast in skull shape between three major regions of the globe (Europe, Asia, and Africa) becomes ephemeral (p. 326).
(above) are used selectively to explain shared genetic traits in western and eastern Eurasia (e.g., M17 haplotype) (Wells et al. 2001). Genetics offers high potential to decipher historical distributions of human populations, but mutual misapplication of concepts, theories, and data by archaeologists and geneticists can promote ideas underpinned by limited scientic evidence.
SUMMARY AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Eurasian archaeology is anachronistically coming of age, and its conceptual engagement with migration may provide a key stimulus for the theoretical avant-gardes more generally (Trigger 1978). Since the end of the Soviet era, the diverse intellectual paradigms that shaped Anglo-American archaeology and the historical-materialist paradigms of the USSR
205
have been exposed under a common light. The archaeological canon in Central Eurasia was established from the perspective of Soviet archaeology and, beyond notable early pioneers (C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, P. Kohl, D. Anthony), most western archaeologists have had less than 20 years to reconnoiter and digest the material and ideas central to Eurasian archaeology (Klejn 1993). By rehashing older debates such as culture-history versus middle-range analysis, relative versus absolute chronology, and positivist versus contextual archaeological approaches, todays epistemological conuence places new strains on the traditional archaeological paradigms used to explain prehistoric materials and societies across Eurasia. With optimistic collaboration, the intellectual charge of the past two decades has been to recast Eurasian archaeology using the theoretical and methodological lessons learned from both traditions, and migration is in the limelight (Hanks 2010).
Migration is a visible phenomenon in world demographics today, yet our understanding of migrations in prehistory is hampered by the discordance between archaeological evidence and the complexity of motivations for why people might migrate, and how they do so. The migration paradigm in Eurasian archaeology has been used to explain the growth and collapse of archaeology cultures for nearly a century and remains a dominant paradigm in contemporary archaeological literature. In Central Eurasia, historical and theoretical arguments for migration have developed through the lenses of economic primitivism, environmental adaptation, and episodic political agendas of imperialist civilizations. Each of these theoretical tenets has been critiqued (in some cases, rebuked) in contemporary discourse; but by virtue of its apparent utility within archaeology, genetics, linguistics, and history, the migration paradigm has retained a strong explanatory voice in Eurasian scholarship.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The author is not aware of any afliations, memberships, funding, or nancial holdings that might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review. LITERATURE CITED
Adams WY, Van Gerven DP, Levy RS. 1978. The retreat from migrationism. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 7:483532 Alekseev AY, Bokovenko NN, Boltryk YV, Chugunov KA, Cook G, et al. 2001. A chronology of the scythian antiquities of Eurasia based on new archaeological and 14 C data. Radiocarbon 43:1085108 Alpysbayev KA. 1979. Pamiatniki nizhnego paleolita Yuzshnogo Kazakhstana. Alma-Ata: Nauka Kazakhstanskovo SSR Anthony DW. 1986. The Kurgan culture, Indo-European origins and the domestication of the horse: a reconsideration. Curr. Anthropol. 27:291313 Anthony DW. 1990. Migration and archaeology: the baby and the bathwater. Am. Anthropol. 92:895914 Anthony DW. 1997. Prehistoric migration as social-process. See Chapman & Hamerow 1997a, pp. 2132 Anthony DW. 2006. Three deadly sins in steppe archaeology: culture, migration, and Aryans. In Beyond the Steppe and the Sown, ed. DL Peterson, LM Popova, AT Smith, pp. 12241. Boston, MA: Brill Acad. Anthony DW. 2007. The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press Anthony DW, Brown DR. 2003. Eneolithic horse rituals and riding in the steppes: new evidence. See Levine et al. 2003, pp. 5569 Anthony DW, Brown DR, Brown E, Goodman A, Kokhlov A, et al. 2005. The Samara Valley project: Late Bronze Age economy and ritual in the Russian steppes. Eurasia Antiq. 11:395417 Artamonov MI. 1971. Akheologicheskaya kultura i etnos. In Problemy istorii feodalnoy Rossii, ed. AL Shapiro, pp. 1632. Leningrad: Izd. Leningr. Univ.
206 Frachetti
Avanessova NA. 1996. Pasteurs et agriculteurs de la Vallee du Zeravshan (Ouzbekistan) au debut de lAge du Bronze: relations et inuences mutuelles. In Sarazm (Tadjikistan) C ramiques: (Chalcolithique et Bronze e Ancien), ed. B Lyonnet, N Avanessova, N Isakov, pp. 11730. Paris: De Boccard Bailey S, Glantz M, Weaver T, Viola B. 2008. The afnity of the dental remains from Obi-Rakhmat Grotto, Uzbekistan. J. Hum. Evol. 55:23848 Bar-Yosef O, Belfer-Cohen A. 2000. Early human dispersal: the unexplored constraint of African diseases. In Early Humans at the Gates of Europe: Proceedings of the First International Symposium, Dmanisi, Tbilisi (Georgia) September 1998, ed. D Lordkipanidze, O Bar-Yosef, M Otte, pp. 7986. Liege: Etud. Rech. Archeol. Univ. Liege (E.R.A.U.L.) 92 Beckwith CI. 2009. Empires of the Silk Road: A History of Central Eurasia from the Bronze Age to the Present. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press Benecke N, von den Dreisch A. 2003. Horse exploitation in the Kazakh steppes during the Eneolithic and Bronze Age. See Levine et al. 2003, pp. 6982 Binford LR. 1965. Archaeological systematics and the study of culture process. Am. Antiq. 31:20310 Bokovenko N. 2004. Migrations of the early nomads of the Eurasian steppe in context of climatic changes. See Scott et al. 2004, pp. 2134 Boyle K, Rendrew C, Levine M, eds. 2002. Ancient Interactions: East and West in Eurasia. Cambridge, UK: McDonald Inst. Monogr. Bromlei YV. 1974. Ethnos and endogamy. Sov. Anthropol. Archaeol. 13(1):5569 Bulkin VA, Klejn LS, Lebedev GS. 1982. Attainments and problems of soviet archaeology. World Archaeol. 13:27295 Burmeister S. 2000. Archaeology and migration: approaches to an archaeological proof of migration. Curr. Anthropol. 41:53967 Champion TC. 1980. Mass migration in later prehistoric Europe. In Transport Technology and Social Change Symposium 1979, pp. 3142. Stockholm, Swed.: Stockholm Tekniska Mus. Chang C, Benecke N, Grigoriev FP, Rosem AM, Tourtellotte PM. 2003. Iron Age society and chronology in South-East Kazakhstan. Antiquity 77:298312 Chapman J, Dolukhanov PM. 1992. The baby and the bathwater: pulling the plug on migrations. Am. Anthropol. 94:16974 Chapman J, Hamerow H, eds. 1997a. Migrations and Invasions in Archaeological Explanation. Oxford, UK: Archaeopress Chapman J, Hamerow H. 1997b. On the move again: migrations and invasions in archaeological explanation. See Chapman & Hamerow 1997a, pp. 121 Chernykh EN. 1992. Ancient Metallurgy in the USSR: The Early Metal Age. Cambridge, UK/New York: Cambridge Univ. Press Chernykh EN. 2004. Kargaly: the largest and most ancient metallurgical complex on the border of Europe and Asia. See Linduff 2004, pp. 22338 Chernykh EV. 2009. Formation of the Eurasian steppe belt cultures: viewed through the lens of archaeometallurgy and radiocarbon dating. See Hanks & Linduff 2009, pp. 11545 Chikisheva TA. 2008. The origin of the early nomadic populations of Tuva: craniometrical evidence. Archaeol. Ethnol. Anthropol. Eurasia 2008:12039 Childe VG. 1937. A Prehistorians Interpretation of Diffusion. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press Chugunov KV, Parzinger H, Nagler A, Pustovoytov K. 2010. Der skythenzeitliche Furstenkurgan Ar an 2 in z Tuva. Mainz: P. Von Zabern Clark GA. 1994. Migration as an explanatory concept in paleolithic archaeology. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 1:30543 Comas D, Plaza S, Wells RS, Yuldaseva N, Lao O, et al. 2004. Admixture, migrations, and dispersals in central Asia: evidence from maternal DNA lineages. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 12:495504 Danilenko VN. 1974. Eneolit Ukrainy: Etnoistoricheskoe Issledovanie. Kiev: Nauka Davis RS. 1983. Theoretical issues in contemporary Soviet Paleolithic archaeology. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 12:40328 Dennell R. 2003. Dispersal and colonization, long and short chronologies: How continuous is the Early Pleistocene record for hominids outside East Africa? J. Hum. Evol. 43:42140
www.annualreviews.org Migration Concepts & Eurasian Archaeology 207
Derevianko AP. 2005. The Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition: a view from Central Asia. Archaeol. Ethnol. Anthropol. Eurasia 3:1018 Derevianko AP, Postnov AV, Rybin EP, Kuzmin YV, Keates SG. 2005. The Pleistocene peopling of Siberia: a review of environmental and behavioral aspects. Indo-Pac. Prehist. Assoc. Bull. (Taipei Pap.) 25(3):5768 Derevianko AP, Shunkov MV. 2002. Middle Paleolithic industries with foliate bifaces in Gorny Altai. Archaeol. Ethnol. Anthropol. Eurasia 1(9):1642 Dergachev VA. 2002. Two studies in defense of the migration concept. See Boyle et al. 2002, pp. 92112 Dolukhanov PM. 1993. Archaeology in the ex-USSR: post-Perestroyka problems. Antiquity 67:15056 Dolukhanov PM. 2004. Prehistoric environment, human migrations and origin of pastoralism in northern Eurasia. See Scott et al. 2004, pp. 22542 Dolukhanov PM, Shukurov AM, Tarasov PE, Zaitseva GI. 2002. Colonization of northern Eurasia by modern humans: radiocarbon chronology and environment. J. Archaeol. Sci. 29:593606 Drews R. 2004. Early Riders: The Beginnings of Mounted Warfare in Asia and Europe. London: Routledge Dunnell RW. 2008. Human migration and occupation of Eurasia. Episodes 31(2):20710 Emenko PP. 1953. Pervobytnoe Obshchestvo: Ocherki po Istorii Paleoliticheskogo Vremeni. Kyiv: Izdatelstvo Akad. Nauk Ukr. SSR Epimakhov AV. 2009. Settlements and cemeteries of the Bronze Age of the Urals: the potential for reconstructing early social dynamics. See Hanks & Linduff 2009, pp. 7490 Evisukhov AN, Zhukova OV. 2001. The geography of the stationary speed of gene migrations in the population of Northern Eurasia. Genetika [Genetics] 37:40717 Formozov AA. 1959. Etnokulturnye oblasti na territorii Evropejskoj casti SSSR v kamennom veke. Moskva: Izd-vo Akad. nauk SSSR Frachetti MD. 2008. Pastoralist Landscapes and Social Interaction in Bronze Age Eurasia. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Frachetti MD, Benecke N. 2009. From sheep to (some) horses: 4500 years of herd structure at the pastoralist settlement of Begash (south-eastern Kazakhstan) Antiquity 83:102337 Frachetti MD, Maryashev AN. 2007. Long-term occupation and seasonal settlement of the eastern Eurasian pastoralists at Begash, Kazakhstan. J. Field Archaeol. 32:22143 Gamkrelidze TV, Ivanov VV. 1985. The migrations of tribes speaking the Indo-European dialects from their original homeland in the near east to their historical habitations in Eurasia. J. Indo-Eur. Stud. 13:4991 Gimbutas M. 1956. Culture Change in Europe at the Start of the Second Millenium B.C: A Contribution to the Indo-European Problem. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press Gimbutas M. 1961. Notes on the chronology and expansion of the Pit-grave culture. In LEurope a la n de ` lAge de la pierre, ed. J Bohm, SJ De Laet, pp. 193200. Prague: Czechoslovak. Acad. Glantz M, Athreya S, Ritzman T. 2008. Is Central Asia the eastern outpost of the neandertal range? A reassessment of the Teshik-Tash child. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 138(1):4561 Glantz MM. 2008. The history of hominin occupation of Central Asia in review. In Asian Paleoanthropology: From Africa to China and Beyond, Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology, ed. CJ Norton, DR Braun, pp. 10112. New York: Springer Gorsdorf JH, Parzinger H, Nagler A. 2001. New radiocarbon dates of the North Asian steppe zone and its consequences for the chronology. Radiocarbon 43(2):11520 Grakov BN. 1971. Ski: Nauchno-populiarnyi ocherk. Moskva: Izd-vo Moskovskogo Univ. Gremyatskii MA. 1949. Skull of the Neandertal child from Teshik-Tash Cave, Southern Uzbekistan. In Teshik-Tash: Paleolithic Man, ed. MA Gremyatskii, pp. 13782. Moscow: Moscow State Univ. Grousset R. 1952. LEmpire des Steppes: Attila, Gengis-Khan, Tamerlan. Paris: Payot Gryaznov MP. 1980. Arzhan. Leningrad: Nauka s Gumilev LN. 1979. Etnogenez i biosfera zemli. Moskva: Mi el Gumilev LN. 1990. Ethnogenesis and the Biosphere. Moscow: Progress Halperin C. 1982. Soviet historiography on Russia and the Mongols. Russ. Rev. 41:30622 Halperin C. 1985. Russia and the Golden Horde. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press Hanks B. 2002. The Eurasian Steppe nomadic world of the rst millennium BC: inherent problem within the study of iron age nomadic groups. See Boyle et al. 2002, pp. 18399
208 Frachetti
Hanks BK. 2010. Archaeology of the Eurasian steppes and Mongolia. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 39:46986 Hanks BK, Doonan R. 2009. From scale to practice: a new agenda for the study of early metallurgy on the Eurasian steppe. J. World Prehistory 22:32956 Hanks BK, Linduff KM, eds. 2009. Social Complexity in Prehistoric Eurasia: Monuments, Metals, and Mobility. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Hanks BK, Renfrew AC, Epimakov AV. 2007. Rened chronology for the Bronze Age of the south Urals. Antiquity 81:35367 Hemphill BE, Mallory JP. 2004. Horse-mounted invaders from the Russo-Kazakh steppe or agricultural colonists from western central Asia? A craniometric investigation of the Bronze Age settlement of Xinjiang. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 124:199222 Hodder I. 1982. Symbols in Action: Ethnoarchaeological Perspectives on Material Culture. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Honeychurch W, Amartuvshin C. 2006. States on horseback: the rise of Inner Asian confederations and empire. In Asian Archaeology, ed. M Stark, pp. 25578. Cambridge, UK: Blackwell Iskhakov DM. 2004. The Tatar ethnic community. Anthropol. Archeol. Eurasia 43:828 Jettmar K. 1964. Art of the Steppes: The Eurasian Animal Style. London: Methuen Kazanskii MM, Mastykova AV. 2002. The Alans on the Dniepr during the great migration period Marcianuss evidence and archeological data. Anthropol. Archeol. Eurasia 41:2234 Kearney M. 1986. From the invisible hand to visible feet: anthropological studies of migration and development. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 15:33161 Keyser C, Bouakaze C, Crub zy E, Nikolaev VG, Montagnon D, et al. 2009. Ancient DNA provides new e insights into the history of south Siberian Kurgan people. Hum. Genet. 126:395410 Khazanov AM. 1978. Characteristics of communities in the Eurasian steppes. In The Nomadic Alternative, ed. W Weissleder, pp. 11926. Paris: Mouton Khazanov AM. 1994. Nomads and the Outside World. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Khotinskiy NA. 1984. Holocene vegetation history. In Late Quaternary Environments of the Soviet Union, ed. AA Velichko, HE Wright, CW Barnosky, pp. 179200. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press Klejn LS. 1977. A panorama of theoretical archaeology. Curr. Anthropol. 18:142 Klejn LS. 1993. Phenomem Sovietskoj Archaeologii. St. Petersburg: Farn Kohl PL. 2005. The transformation of culture from mobile herding to settled agriculture (The BactriaMargiana Archaeological Complex). [Transformatsia kultury ot mobilnyx skotovodov k osedlym zemledyeltsiam (Bactrijsko-Margiansky Arkheologicheskyj Komplex)]. Russ. Archaeol. [Ross. Arkheol.] 1:6471 Kohl PL. 2007. The Making of Bronze Age Eurasia. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Kohl PL. 2008. Shared social elds: evolutionary convergence in prehistory and contemporary practice. Am. Anthropol. 110:495506 Kohl PL. 2009. Perils of carts before horses: linguistic models and the underdetermined archaeological record. Am. Anthropol. 111:10911 Koncha SV. 2001. Kontseptsiya Steppovikh invasii M. Gimbutas sproba kritichnogo analizu. Arkheolohiia 3:3543 Koryakova LN. 1998. Cultural relationships in north-central Eurasia. In Archaeology and Language II: Correlating Archaeological and Linguistic Hypotheses, ed. R. Blench, M Spriggs, pp. 20919. London: Routledge Koryakova LN, Epimakhov AV. 2007. The Urals and Western Siberia in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Kosarev MF. 1984. Zapadnaia Sibir v Drevnost. Moskva: Nauka Kozintsev A. 2009. Craniometric evidence for the early Caucasoid migrations to Siberia and eastern Central Asia. Archaeol. Ethnol. Anthropol. Eurasia 37:12536 Kradin NN. 2008. Early state theory and the evolution of pastoral nomads. Soc. Evol. Hist. 7:10730 Kremenetski KV. 2003. Steppe and forest-steppe belt of Eurasia: Holocene environmental history. See Levine et al. 2003, pp. 1128 Kristiansen K. 2000. Europe Before History. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Kuzmina EE. 1986. Drevneishie skotovody ot Urala do Tian-Shania. Frunze: Ilim Kuzmina EE. 1994. Otkuda prishli indoarii? Materialnaia kultura plemen andronovskoi obshchnosti i proiskhozhdenie indoirantsev. Moskva: MGP Kalina
Kuzmina EE. 1998. Cultural connections of the Tarim Basin people and pastoralists of the Asian steppes in the Bronze Age. In The Bronze Age Peoples of Eastern Central Asia, ed. VH Mair, pp. 6398. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Mus. Kuzmina EE. 2003. Origins of pastoralism in the Eurasian steppes. See Levine et al. 2003, pp. 20333 Kuzmina EE. 2004. Historical perspectives on the Andronovo and early metal use in eastern Asia. See Linduff 2004, pp. 3784 Kuzmina EE. 2007. The Origin of the Indo-Iranians. Leiden: Brill Lamberg-Karlovsky CC. 2002. Archaeology and language. Curr. Anthropol. 43(1):6388 Lattimore O. 1940. Inner Asian Frontiers of China. New York: Am. Geogr. Soc. Lee ES. 1966. A theory of migration. Demography 3:4757 Leskov AM, Erlich VR. 1999. Mogilnik Fars/Klady. Pamjatnik perechoda ot epochi pozdnej bronzy k rannemu zleznomu veku na Severo-Zapadnom Kavakze. Moscow: Gos. Muz. Vostoka Levine M, Renfrew C, Boyle K, eds. 2003. Prehistoric Steppe Adaptation and the Horse. Cambridge, UK: McDonald Inst. Levine MA. 2005. Domestication and early history of the horse. In The Domestic Horse: The Origins, Development and Management of its Behaviour, ed. DM Mills, SM McDonnell, pp. 522. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Li C, Li H, Xie C, Cai D, Li W, et al. 2010. Evidence that a West-East admixed population lived in the Tarim Basin as early as the early Bronze Age. BMC Biol. 8:15 Liebmann M, Rizvi U. 2008. Archaeology and the Postcolonial Critique. Lanham, MD: Altamira Linduff KM, ed. 2004. Metallurgy in Ancient Eastern Eurasia from the Urals to the Yellow River. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Lordkipanidze D, Jashashvili T, Vekua A, Ponce LMS, Zollikofer CP, et al. 2007. Postcranial evidence from early Homo from Dmanisi, Georgia. Nature 449:30510 Lycett SJ, Bae CJ. 2010. The Movius Line controversy: the state of the debate. World Archaeol. 42 (4):52144 Makhortykh SV. 2004. The northern Black Sea steppes in the Cimmerain Epoch. See Scott et al. 2004, pp. 3544 Mallory JP. 1989. In Search of the Indo-Europeans. London: Thames and Hudson Mallory JP, Mair VH. 2000. The Tarim Mummies: Ancient China and the Mystery of the Earliest Peoples from the West. London: Thames & Hudson Mallory JP, McCormac GF, Reimer PJ, Marsadolov LS. 2002. The date of Pazyryk. See Boyle et al. 2002, pp. 18399 Manning P. 2006. Cross-community migration; a distinct human pattern. J. Soc. Evol. Hist. 5:2454 Mar enko K, Vinogradov Y. 1989. The Scythian period in the northern Black Sea region. Antiquity 63:80313 c Masimov IS, Salvatori S, Tosi M, Cerasetti B, eds. 2008. The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in the Margiana Lowlands: Facts and Methodological Proposals for a Redenition of the Research Strategies. Oxford: Archaeopress Masson VM. 2005. Drevnie Obshchestvo stepei Evrazii I Struktura Mirovoi Istorii. Arkheologischeskie Vesti 12:172 Matyushin G. 2003. Problems of Inhabiting Central Eurasia: Mesolithic-Eneolithic exploitation of the Central Eurasian Steppes. See Levine et al. 2003, pp. 36795 McNeill WH. 1979. Historical patterns of migration. Curr. Anthropol. 20:95102 Mei J. 2009. Early metallurgy and socio-cultural complexity: archaeological discoveries in northwest China. See Hanks & Linduff 2009, pp. 21534 Merpert N. 1974. Drevneishie skotovody Volzhsko-Ural skogo mezhdurech iya. Moskva: Nauka Merpert N. 1978. Migratsii v epolhu neolita i eneolita. Sov. Arkheologia 3:928 Miller B. 2009. Power politics in the Xiongnu Empire. PhD diss. Univ. Penn., Phila. 435 pp. Minns EH. 1942. Archaeology in Soviet Russia. Man 42:4647 Mongait A, Kiselyov S. 1959. Archaeology in the U.S.S.R. Moscow: Foreign Lang. Morgunova NL, Khokhlova OS. 2006. Kurgans and nomads: new investigations of mound burials in the southern Urals. Antiquity 80:30317 Movius HL. 1953. The Mousterian cave of Teshik-Tash, southeastern Uzbekistan, Central Asia. Bull. Am. Sch. Prehistoric Res. 17:1171
210 Frachetti
Murphy EM, Mallory JP. 2000. Herodotus and the cannibals. Antiquity 74:38894 Okladnikov AP. 1956. Dreneye naselenie sibiri i ego kultura: pervonachalnoye zaselennie sibiri chelovyekom. In Narody Sibiri, ed. MG Levin, LP Potapov, pp. 21107. Leningrad: Nauka Olsen SL. 2006. Early horse domestication in the Eurasian steppes. In Documenting Domestication the Intersection of Genetics and Archaeology, ed. MA Zeder, pp. 24569. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Outram AK, Stear NA, Bendrey R, Olsen S, Kasparov A, et al. 2009. The earliest horse harnessing and milking. Science 323:133235 Parzinger H. 2006. Die Fruhen Volker Eurasiens: Vom Neolithikum Bis Zum Mittelalter. Munchen: Verlag Peterson DL. 2007. Changing technologies and transformation of value in the Middle Volga and Northeastern Caucasus, circa 30001500 BCE. PhD diss. Univ. Chicago. 585 pp. Polyakov AV, Svyatko SV. 2009. Radiouglerodnoe datirovanie arkheologicheskikh pamyatnikov neolita nachala zheleznogo veka srednego Yeniseya: obzor rezultatov i novye dannye. Teoriya i Praktika Arkheologicheskikh Issledovaniy 5:2055 Potapov LP. 1954. O sushchnosti patriarkhalno-feodalnykh otnoshenii u kochevykh narodov Srednei Azii i Kazakhstana. Voprosy Istorii 6:7389 Preucel RW, Mrozowski SA. 2010. Contemporary Archaeology in Theory: The New Pragmatism. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell Ranov VA, Carbonell E, Rodriguez XP. 1995. Kuldara: earliest human occupation in central Asia in its AfroAsian context. Curr. Anthropol. 36:33746 Ranov VA, Davis RS. 1979. Toward a new outline of the Soviet Central Asian Paleolithic. Curr. Anthropol. 20:24970 Rassamakin Y. 1999. The Eneolithic of the Black Sea Steppe: dynamics of culture and economic development 45002300 BC. In Late Prehistoric Exploitation of the Eurasian Steppe, ed. M Levine, Y Rassamakin, A Kislenko, TN Kislenko, pp. 59182. Cambridge: McDonald Inst. Rassamakin Y. 2002. Aspects of Pontic steppe development (45503000 BC) in light of the new culturalchronological model. See Boyle et al. 2002, pp. 4974 Reich D, Green RE, Kircher M, Krause J, Patterson N, Durand EY, et al. 2010. Genetic history of an archaic hominin group from Denisova Cave in Siberia. Nature 468:105360 Renfrew C. 1987. Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins. London: Pimlico Richards M. 2003. The neolithic invasion of Europe. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 32:13562 Roberts BW, Thornton CP, Piggott VC. 2009. Development of metallurgy in Eurasia. Antiquity 36:101222 Rogers JD. 2007. The contingencies of state formation in Eastern Inner Asia. Asian Perspect. 46(2):24974 Rosen AM, Chang C, Grigoriev FP. 2000. Palaeoenvironments and economy of Iron Age Saka-Wusun agropastoralists in southeastern Kazakhstan. Antiquity 74:61124 Rouse I. 1986. Migrations in Prehistory: Inferring Population Movement from Cultural Remains. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press Samashev ZS, Brodovsky AP. 2004. Decorative horn horse trappings from the Berel necropolis. Archaeol. Ethnol. Anthropol. Eurasia 3:8287 Scott EM, Alekseev AY, Zaitseva GI, eds. 2004. Impact of the Environment on Human Migration in Eurasia. Dordrecht: Kluwer Acad. Press Shennan SJ, Wilkinson JR. 2001. Ceramic style and neutral evolution: a case study from Neolithic Europe. Am. Antiquity 66:57793 Shishlina NI. 2004. North-west Caspian Sea steppe: environment and migration crossroads of pastoral culture population during the third millennium BCE. See Scott et al. 2004, pp. 91105 Shishlina NI. 2008. Reconstruction of the Bronze Age of the Caspian Steppes: Life Styles and Life Ways of Pastoral Nomads. Oxford: Archaeopress Smith AT. 2005. Prometheus unbound: Southern Caucasia in prehistory. J. World Prehist. 19:22979 Smith AT. 2006. Undisciplined theory. Archaeol. Dialogues 13:15863 Smith AT, Badalyan R, Avetisyan P, Zardaryan M, Hayrapetyan A, et al. 2004. Early complex societies in southern Caucasia: a preliminary report on the 2002 investigations by project ArAGATS on the Tsakahovit plain, republic of Armenia. Am. J. Archaeol. 108:141 Stringer C, Gamble C. 1993. In Search of the Neandertals. New York: Thames and Hudson
Soucek S. 2000. A History of Inner Asia. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Stepanova NF. 2009. Problemy absolyutnoy i otnositelnoy khronologii pamyatnikov afanasevskoy kultury Gornogo Altaya. In Rol Estestvenno-nauchnykh Metodov v Arkheologicheskikhb Issledovaniyakh, ed. YF Kiryushin, AA Tishkin, pp. 15459. Barnaul: Izdatelstvo Altayskogo Gosudarstennogo Univ. Strauss A, Hubbe M. 2010. Craniometric similarities within and between human populations in comparison with neutral genetic data. Hum. Biol. 82(3):31530 Svyatko SV, Mallory JP, Murphy EM, Polyakov AV, Reimer PJ, Schulting RJ. 2009. New radiocarbon dates and a review of the chronology of prehistoric populations from the Minusinsk Basin, southern Siberia, Russia. Radiocarbon 51:24373 Taylor T. 1994. Thracians, Scythians, and Dacians: 800 BCAD 300. In The Oxford Illustrated Prehistory of Europe, ed. B Cunliffe, pp. 373411. Oxford/New York: Oxford Univ. Press Tkacheva NA, Tkachev AA. 2008. The role of migration in the evolution of the Andronov community. Archaeol. Ethnol. Anthropol. Eurasia 35:8896 Trigger BG. 1978. No longer from another planet. Antiquity 53:19398 Trigger BG. 1989. A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press van Geel BJ, Bokovenko N, Burova ND, Chugunov KV, Dergachev VA, et al. 2004. Climate change and the expansion of the Scythian culture after 850 BC: a hypothesis. J. Archaeol. Sci. 31:173542 Vishnyatsky LB. 1999. The paleolithic of central Asia. J. World Prehist. 13:69122 Watson P. 1995. Archaeology, anthropology, and the culture concept. Am. Anthropol. 97:68394 Wells RS, Yuldasheva N, Ruzibakiev R, Underhill PA, Evseeva I, et al. 2001. The Eurasian Heartland: a continental perspective on Y-chromosome diversity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98:1024449 Wright J, Honeychurch W, Amartuvshin C. 2009. The Xiongnu settlements of Egiin Gol, Mongolia. Antiquity 83:37287 Wright R. 2010. The Ancient Indus: Urbanism, Economy and Society. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Yablonsky LT. 1998. Model rannego etnogeneza v Skifo-Sakskoi kontaktnoi zone. Rossiskaya Arkheologiya 4:3549 Zhu RX, Potts R, Xie F, Hoffman KA, Deng CL, et al. 2004. New evidence on the earliest human presence at high northern latitudes in northeast Asia. Nature 431:55962 Zlatkin II. 1971. A Toinbi ob istoricheskom proshlom i sovremennon polozhenii kochevykh narodov. Voprosy Istorii 2:88102
212
Frachetti
UR AL Mts .
Ob
R.
SIBERIA E. EURASIA
A L T A I Mts.
Yenesei R.
To b
ol
.R
EUROPE
W. EURASIA
Dne ipr R .
Do
R.
lg Vo
aR
Irt ys h
CENTRAL EURASIA
rD a Kyzl Kum rya Desert Am uD Kara Kum ar Desert ya
Aral Sea
R.
Sy
L. Balkhash
Black Sea
Dzhungar Mts.
Gansu/Hexi Corridor
C A U C A S U SSea
Caspian
AN TIAN SH
PAMIR
Tarim Basin
XINJIANG (W. CHINA)
r Tig
S O GR ZA
Mediterranean Sea
N W S E
Eu
ph
alle y
rat
H I N D U K U S H Mts.
Iranian Plateau
is R
es
Ind us V
R.
SW ASIA
Persian Gulf
HI
Tibetan Plateau
M
G
AL
ge s
AY
R .
S. ASIA
an
Mt
s.
500 1,000 Kilometers
Red Sea Indian Ocean
Figure 1 Map of Central Eurasia.
C-1
Annual Review of Anthropology Volume 40, 2011
Contents
Prefatory Chapter
Anthropological Relocations and the Limits of Design Lucy Suchman p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 1 Archaeology The Archaeology of Consumption Paul R. Mullins p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 133 Migration Concepts in Central Eurasian Archaeology Michael D. Frachetti p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 195 Archaeologists and Indigenous People: A Maturing Relationship? Tim Murray p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 363 Archaeological Ethnography: A Multitemporal Meeting Ground for Archaeology and Anthropology Yannis Hamilakis p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 399 Archaeologies of Sovereignty Adam T. Smith p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 415 A Century of Feasting Studies Brian Hayden and Suzanne Villeneuve p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 433 Biological Anthropology Menopause, A Biocultural Perspective Melissa K. Melby and Michelle Lampl p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p53 Ethnic Groups as Migrant Groups: Improving Understanding of Links Between Ethnicity/Race and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes and Associated Conditions Tessa M. Pollard p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 145 From Mirror Neurons to Complex Imitation in the Evolution of Language and Tool Use Michael A. Arbib p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 257
vi
From Hominoid to Hominid Mind: What Changed and Why? Brian Hare p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 293 The Human Microbiota as a Marker for Migrations of Individuals and Populations Maria Gloria Dominguez-Bello and Martin J. Blaser p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 451 Linguistics and Communicative Practices Publics and Politics Francis Cody p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p37 Ritual and Oratory Revisited: The Semiotics of Effective Action Rupert Stasch p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 159 Language and Migration to the United States Hilary Parsons Dick p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 227 The Balkan Languages and Balkan Linguistics Victor A. Friedman p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 275 International Anthropology and Regional Studies Central Asia in the PostCold War World Morgan Y. Liu p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 115 The Ethnographic Arriving of Palestine Khaled Furani and Dan Rabinowitz p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 475 Sociocultural Anthropology Substance and Relationality: Blood in Contexts Janet Carsten p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p19 Hallucinations and Sensory Overrides T.M. Luhrmann p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p71 Phenomenological Approaches in Anthropology Robert Desjarlais and C. Jason Throop p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p87 Migration, Remittances, and Household Strategies Jeffrey H. Cohen p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 103 Climate and Culture: Anthropology in the Era of Contemporary Climate Change Susan A. Crate p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 175 Policing Borders, Producing Boundaries. The Governmentality of Immigration in Dark Times Didier Fassin p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 213
Contents
vii
The Cultural Politics of Nation and Migration Steven Vertovec p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 241 Migrations and Schooling Marcelo M. Su rez-Orozco, Tasha Darbes, Sandra Isabel Dias, and Matt Sutin p p p p p p 311 a Tobacco Matthew Kohrman and Peter Benson p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 329 Transnational Migration and Global Health: The Production and Management of Risk, Illness, and Access to Care Carolyn Sargent and St phanie Larchanch p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 345 e e
Concepts and Folk Theories Susan A. Gelman and Cristine H. Legare p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 379 Migration-Religion Studies in France: Evolving Toward a Religious Anthropology of Movement Sophie Bava p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 493 Theme I: Anthropology of Mind Hallucinations and Sensory Overrides T.M. Luhrmann p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p71 Phenomenological Approaches in Anthropology Robert Desjarlais and C. Jason Throop p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p87 From Mirror Neurons to Complex Imitation in the Evolution of Language and Tool Use Michael A. Arbib p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 257 From Hominoid to Hominid Mind: What Changed and Why? Brian Hare p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 293 Concepts and Folk Theories Susan A. Gelman and Cristine H. Legare p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 379 Theme II: Migration Migration, Remittances, and Household Strategies Jeffrey H. Cohen p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 103 Ethnic Groups as Migrant Groups: Improving Understanding of Links Between Ethnicity/Race and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes and Associated Conditions Tessa M. Pollard p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 145 Migration Concepts in Central Eurasian Archaeology Michael D. Frachetti p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 195
viii
Contents
Policing Borders, Producing Boundaries. The Governmentality of Immigration in Dark Times Didier Fassin p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 213 Language and Migration to the United States Hilary Parsons Dick p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 227 The Cultural Politics of Nation and Migration Steven Vertovec p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 241 Migrations and Schooling Marcelo M. Su rez-Orozco, Tasha Darbes, Sandra Isabel Dias, a and Matt Sutin p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 311
Transnational Migration and Global Health: The Production and Management of Risk, Illness, and Access to Care Carolyn Sargent and St phanie Larchanch p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 345 e e The Human Microbiota as a Marker for Migrations of Individuals and Populations Maria Gloria Dominguez-Bello and Martin J. Blaser p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 451 Migration-Religion Studies in France: Evolving Toward a Religious Anthropology of Movement Sophie Bava p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 493 Indexes Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 3140 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 509 Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 3140 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 512 Errata An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Anthropology articles may be found at http://anthro.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml
Contents
ix

Migration Concepts in Central Eurasian Archaeology: Further

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Migration Concepts in Central Eurasian Archaeology: Further

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

ANNUAL REVIEWS

Migration Concepts in Central Eurasian Archaeology

CENTRAL EURASIA AND CONCEPTS OF MIGRATION

Migration in the Soviet Era

www.annualreviews.org Migration Concepts & Eurasian Archaeology

www.annualreviews.org Migration Concepts & Eurasian Archaeology

Migration in Eurasian Archaeology Today

PALEOLITHIC OCCUPATION OF CENTRAL EURASIA

HOMININ DIVERSITY AT DENISOVA CAVE?

and hominins from Central Asia (Glantz 2008, p. 108).

BRONZE-AGE MIGRATIONS, INDO-EUROPEANS, AND THE CULTURE CONCEPT

www.annualreviews.org Migration Concepts & Eurasian Archaeology

IRON AGE MIGRATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL DRIVERS

www.annualreviews.org Migration Concepts & Eurasian Archaeology

Craniometry, Bioarchaeology, and DNA

POPULATION DIVERSITY AND REGIONAL CRANIOMETRY

SUMMARY AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

www.annualreviews.org Migration Concepts & Eurasian Archaeology

XINJIANG (W. CHINA)

500 1,000 Kilometers

Red Sea Indian Ocean

Figure 1 Map of Central Eurasia.

www.annualreviews.org Migration Concepts & Eurasian Archaeology

Annual Review of Anthropology Volume 40, 2011

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi