58 Thomas D. Hall
non-hierarchical core/semiperiphery relationship characterized the Middle Bronze Age,
with peer polities involved in active trade. Beginning in the Late Bronze Age, the rela-
tionships tended to become more unequal as a “battle between the two strongest powers
[Crete and the mainland] resulted in the marginalisation of most other islands in the
Aegean” (481). Berg suggests that other islands still engaged in the system. Because there
was an ongoing competition between the major players, the smaller partners maintained
the ability to actively shape their relations with them.
This is an instance where a specific kind of world-system gave more autonomy to periph-
eral areas. What remains unclear is how common this sort of relationship was, and if there
are others ways by which such autonomy is both generated and maintained. There are also
questions about how cores eventually began to exert more control and curtail peripheral
autonomy.
I now turn to some recent examples of the various disconnects between archaeology
and WSA, and how those affect the treatment of ethnicity.
WSA and the Ancient World: Opportunities
and Challenges
In two papers and a book, Alan Greaves (2007a, 2007b, 2010) makes some use of WSA.
He notes that the metaphor of an Anatolian bridge between East and West implies a
divide to be overcome, rather than a zone of interaction. He argues, “Ancient Anatolia
is now recognised, not as a passive conduit for communications between the East and
the West, but as a region of great diversity that was an active participant in such com-
munications” (2007a: 1–2). He later notes that this notional divide is exacerbated by
the often real divide between classical archaeologists focusing on “great traditions” and
“new archaeologists.” He says:
In both regions, scholars apparently look to areas outside Anatolia: on the Aegean coast they
look west towards the Aegean, while in the Euphrates Valley they look southeast towards
Mesopotamia. Such attitudes served to de-value the study of Anatolia and the recognition
of its own rich regional diversity (10).Greaves argues that this academic discourse fails to recognize that social practices in east-
ern and western Turkey have served to bridge the periphery and core located beyond
Turkey—i.e., Mesopotamia and the Aegean.
He comments further that this bridging had often been ignored because “Aegean
prehistorians are retrojecting the contemporary fault-line created by the modern
Greek–Turkish border onto...the past...” (2007a: 4). This divide began with the
Persian wars (499–477BCE), and “became enshrined in the creation of ‘Greek’ and
‘Barbarian’ as diametrically opposed ideals” (Greaves 2007a: 4). This is an instance of
“ethnographic upstreaming”—that is, projecting the present into the past, especially
in the form of modern identities assumed for the ancient world. This problem is not
limited to ancient Anatolia, but is a common occurrence.
WSA can help span such gaps and studies that are too localized. First, it addresses
the forces and factors that shape and reshape the modern divide within a larger context