Interregional Trade and the Formation of Prehistoric Gateway Communities

Abstract

Interregional exchange of commodities appears to have been important in the formation of complex societies. The transition from reciprocal to redistribution economies involved an institutionalization of long distance exchange. Large and important settlements called gateway communities emerged along natural trade routes at key locales for controlling the movement of commodities. A model is constructed that relates long distance trade and regional economics to the emergence of market centers in Formative Mesoamerica. The gateway community model depicts early interregional trade more efficiently than central place formulations. This model is examined in light of data collected from Chalcatzingo in Morelos, Mexico, a community that maintained an important position in both local and long distance trade during the first half of the Mesoamerican Formative.

Determinación de procedencia mediante análisis por Espectroscopía FTIR, del ámbar de una cuenta de collar del sepulcro megalítico de La Velilla (Osorno, Palencia)

“…Por esta razón, los intercambios a cierta distancia debieron haber sido un importante factor en el proceso de consolidación de la estratificación social (Hirth, 1978). Y las redes de intercambio habrían jugado un papel muy importante, ya que a través de ellas se habría favorecido la interacción entre las comunidades prehistóricas y la circulación de ideas y objetos.…”

Ancient Maya Commerce : Multidisciplinary Research at Chunchucmil

“…However, assuming that each sherd has a mass of 10 g, the ratio of grams of obsidian per kilogram of sherds at Edzna is 0. (Hirth 1978) for obsidian that would eventually be distributed across the western side of northern Yucatán (Dahlin and Ardren 2002). In other words, obsidian went to Chunchucmil first via the gulf route and then to sites with ample Early Classic populations further inland, such as Chac and Yaxuná.…”

Introduction: European Prehistory and Urban Studies

“…The first one is centrality. Central places are understood variably in archaeology: as properties of geographically-inspired Thiessen polygons (Christaller 1966); as meaningful nodes in the landscape (Schmidt 2012); as the dominant part of a core-periphery model (Kardulias 1999); or as a gateway community integrating a centre with its hinterland (Hirth 1978). There is a strong tendency to assign a hierarchical position to such central places.…”