Society for American Archaeology

Toward an Understanding of Borderland Processes

Author(s): Bradley J. Parker
Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 71, No. 1 (Jan., 2006), pp. 77-100
Published by: Society for American Archaeology
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40035322 .
Accessed: 21/06/2014 19:47

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.242 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 19:47:16 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 TOWARDAN UNDERSTANDING OF BORDERLAND PROCESSES

BradleyJ. Parker

Although the study of frontiers is of fundamental importance to a variety of academic fields and subdisciplines, few
researchershave proposed terminology,models or conceptualframeworks that allow a cross-disciplinarysupra-regional
comparisonof frontier dynamics.In this paper I take three steps toward rectifyingthis situation. First, I propose a simpli-
fied lexicon that is widely applicable across disciplinary,temporaland regional divides. This lexicon is meant to be a start-
ing point in defining boundary situations. Second, lay out a model, called the "continuumof boundary dynamics."This
model is meantto aid researchersin characterizingvarious types of boundarysituations.And third,propose a model, called
the "borderlandmatrix" with which to visualize the dynamic interaction between differentcategories of boundaries. This
model is meant to aid researchersin isolating processes that occur in borderlands.It is my position that only throughsys-
tematic comparisons of boundarysituations at various times and locations can we hope to understandthe processes that
takeplace in borderlands.By definingand characterizingboundarysituations and then isolating theprocesses takingplace
there, I believe that we will come much closer to understandingthe commonand unique themes that makefrontier studies
a central interregionaland interdisciplinarysubject of study.

Aunqueel estudio de fronteras es de fundamentalimportanciapara una variedad de campos academicos y sub-disciplinas,

pocos investigadoreshan propuesto terminologia,modelos o los conceptosfundamentals que permitan una comparacion
supra-regionalmultidisciplinariade dindmicasfronterizas.En este ensayo yo tomo trespas os para rectificaresta situacion.
Primero,propongo un lexico simplificadoque sea extensivamenteaplicable atravezde disciplinasy de divisiones regionales
y temporales.Este lexico tiene el propositode ser unpunto de partidapara definirlas situacionesfronterizas.Segundo,esque-
mar un modelo llamado "continuode dindmicaslimitantes."El proposito de este modelo es el de ayudar a investigadoresa
caracterizarvarios tipos limitesfronterizos. Y el tercero,propone un modelo, llamado la "matrizfronteriza"con la cual se
puede visualizar la interacciondindmicaentre diferentescategorias de limitesfronterizos. Este modelo esta disenadopara
ayudara investigadoresa aislar los procesos que ocurrenen zonasfronterizas.Es mi posicion que solo atravezde compara-
ciones sistemdticasde situacionesfronterizas, en diferentestiemposy ubicaciones que esperamosentenderlos procesos que
suceden en zonasfronterizas.Definiendoy caracterizandolas situaciones de lafrontera y aislando los procesos que suceden
ahi, que vendremosmuchomas cerca a entenderlos temas comunesy extraordinariosque hacen los estudiosfronterizos un
sujeto central de estudios interregionalese interdisciplinarios.

Constructing an Interdisciplinary Approach encedby a varietyof geographic,political,demo-

to Frontier Studies1
Frontiersareareasbetween.Theyareplaces at the
edge of culturalspheresandthereforeembodythe
loci withinwhichculturecontacttakesplace.Like
othertypesof boundaries,frontierscomeintobeing
as a resultof particularhistoricalcircumstancesor
processesand are thus uniquesocial phenomena.
Nearly all partsof the world were, at some point
in their history, in some way connected to, or
definedby,a frontier.Furthermore, sincethenature
of interactiontakingplacein frontierscanbe influ-
graphic,cultural,and economic factors,frontiers
are extremelydynamicand often unstablezones
thatexhibita markeddegreeof variabilitythrough
space andtime.
Severalrecentattemptsto summarizethe state
of whatis often termed"frontierstudies"recount
its importanceto manyacademicdisciplineswhile
at the same time, whetherintentionallyor unin-
tentionally,illustratingthe intellectualdividesep-
arating scholars both within anthropology and
between anthropology,history,and archaeology
(Anderson1996;DonnanandWilson 1994;Green

Bradley J. Parker Departmentof History,Universityof Utah, 380 S. 1400 E. Rm. 211, Salt Lake City, UT, 841 12
(Bradley.J.Parker@utah.edu)

AmericanAntiquity,71(1), 2006, pp. 77-100

Copyright©2006 by the Society for AmericanArchaeology

77

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.242 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 19:47:16 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
78 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
andPerlman1985;Kopytoff1987a;Lightfootand
Martinez1995; Parker2002; Parkerand Rodseth
2005; Rice 1998;RosierandWendl1999;Wilson
andDonnan1998).It is a simplefactthatalthough
frontierstudiesarefundamentalto a varietyof aca-
demic fields andsubdisciplines(geography,polit-
ical science, history, anthropology and
archaeology,for example),eachhas typicallyheld
fast to its own discourse on the topic, and only
rarelyhas researchin any field been informedby
cross-disciplinarydiscussion or comparison.In
spiteof the factthatthe studyof frontiersis unique
in its cross-disciplinaryandmultiregionalappeal,
few researchershaveexplicitlyaddressedthisissue
by proposingmodels that can be applied across
spatial,temporal,anddisciplinarydivides.One of
the reasons that interdisciplinarycomparisonof
this, or anytopic,is relativelyrareis becausesuch
comparisonsintroducea multitudeof problems.
Diverse sources,methodologies,goals, and theo-
retical frameworksare just the beginning of the
evils to escape the Pandora'sbox of interdiscipli-
narystudyonce it is opened.These difficultiesare
particularly acute in archaeology. One of the
impactsof postprocessualtheoryhas been to stig-
matize modeling and discouragebroadcompari-
son. However,if we areto begin to understandthe
mechanismsof culturalprocesseswe mustreturn
to comparativeresearch,both withinarchaeology
and between archaeologyand other disciplines.
For this reason, as scholars of specific fields,
regions,andsubdisciplines,we mustaskourselves
two things.First,whatwould a cross-disciplinary
or interregionalcomparisonof frontiershope to
achieve?And second, how should we go about
addressingthe methodologicaldifficultiesthatare
inherentin this kind of comparison?
Ontheissueof methodology:inasmuchas many
of us would like to become well versedin regions
outside of our own, consideringthe demandsof
modernacademiclife, this is, in most cases, unre-
alistic.Thus,unlesswe areeachto becomea Jack-
of-all-disciplines,it is essentialto createa platform
uponwhich commonthemescan be analyzedand
discussed across disciplinary and/or regional
divides. The first goal of this paperis to reintro-
duce such a platform,called "the Continuumof
BoundaryDynamics"(Parker2002), upon which
to characterizevariousfrontiersituationsand in
doing so bringtheminto comparativefocus.
This content downloaded from 195.34.78.242 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 19:47:16 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 71 , No. 1 , 2006
Butwhatis thepointof wideningourview from
ourown specificstudiesto contributeto a body of
workthatis accessibleto scholarsof variousfields,
regions,and subdisciplines?This reachesthe core
of what frontierstudies should hope to address.
Throughthe comparisonof variousboundarysit-
uations, the overall goal should be to define the
mechanisms behind, or factors contributingto,
frontier dynamics. With such an approach,we
shouldseekto understand howthedynamicsof var-
ioustypesof boundariesaffectedboththecorearea
by which it is defined, and how core dynamics
affectedthe boundaries.Throughthe comparison
of various specific frontiersituationswe should
definecommonanduniquethemesin frontierstud-
ies, and, by characterizingand analyzing these
themes, we should begin to build models within
which to understand the nature of boundary
processes (Parker 2002:372). Boundary
processes- the finite, if complex, set of dialectic
interactionsthattakeplace in contactzones- this
is what bridgesour fields, regions, and subdisci-
plines and makesus all studentsof the frontier.It
is an understandingof these processesthatcross-
disciplinaryandinterregional comparisonsof fron-
tierscanhopeto achieve.Thesecondgoal andmain
purposeof this paperwill be to introducea new
modelwithwhichwe canbeginto isolate,analyze,
andhopefully,morefullyunderstandtheprocesses
takingplace in frontiersituations.
Boundaries, Borders, Frontiers
and Borderlands
Such an agenda must begin with definitions.
AlthoughI havepreviouslyaddressedthe issue of
definitions (Parker2002:372-375; Rodseth and
Parker2005), I feel thatit is importantto reiterate
my position.My intentionhereis not to reviewall
of thevariousdifferentwaysin whichscholarshave
approachedtheseterms(summaries - fromvarious
points of view- can be found in manyof themajor
worksin frontierstudiesincluding:Anderson1996;
Donnan and Wilson 1994; Elton 1996b; Klein
1996; Kratochwil 1986; Lamar and Thompson
1981; Parker2002; ParkerandRodseth2005; Rice
1998;RosierandWendl1999;WilsonandDonnan
1998amongothers),butinsteadto simplifytheter-
minology and propose a more generalized and
widely applicablelexicon.I will thereforefocus on
Parker] TOWARD AN UNDERSTANDING OF BORDERLAND PROCESSES
what I see as key aspects of the various terms,
knowingfull well thatat this level of generaliza-
tionsomeof theparticularnuancesof specificfron-
tiersmay need furtherexplanation.
The termsboundary,border,frontier,and bor-
derlandsmeanmanythingsto manypeople.Hugh
Eltonhas pointedout thatthe vocabularyused in
modern scholarshipto refer to various types of
boundariesadds to the problemof definingsuch
phenomenain the ancientworld.He observesthat
even though we distinguishin English between
borderssuchas thoseof a modernnationstate,and
frontiers which he defines as transitionalzones,
suchdistinctionsdo notexist,forexample,in Span-
ish wherethe termfronterarefersto both borders
and frontiers(Elton 1996a:127; also see Kristof
1959).It is thispotentialforthe confusionof terms
in the modernworld thatmakes it imperativefor
us to agreeon a unifiedterminology.And for this
reasonit is essentialto situatethe termfrontierin
relationshipto the closely relatedtermsboundary,
border,andborderlands.
In the introductionto Untamingthe Frontier,
Lars Rodsethand I proposedthat we should use
the OxfordEnglishDictionary'sdefinitionsof the
existing English terms as a starting point for
addressingthis issue. Although I would suggest
thatthe termsboundary,border,frontier,andbor-
derlandsare in no way synonymous,the fact that
theyareoftenused interchangeablyshowsthatthe
relationshipbetween them is often blurred.2This
situationbothemphasizestheneedformorerefined
definitionsand at the same time shows thatthere
is indeedroomfor some scholarlylicense in defin-
ing the nuancesof these terms.
Boundary,most would agree,is the most gen-
eral of these terms (althoughsee Anderson1996
and Jones 1959). The OxfordEnglish Dictionary
definesboundaryas "thatwhich servesto indicate
the bounds or limits of anything."This rather
genericdefinitionfits well, I believe, with the ver-
nacularuse of the word.Boundariesareunspecific
dividesor separatorsthatindicatelimitsof various
kinds(Barth1969, 1994;Cohen1985, 1994;Rosier
andWendl1999:8).Withthis definitionin mind,it
is logicalto deducethatwhenthinkingon a regional
scale, this term encompasses the more specific
termsborderandfrontier(Anderson1996).
I have previously defined borders as "linear
dividinglines, fixedin a particularspace,meantto
This content downloaded from 195.34.78.242 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 19:47:16 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
79
markthe divisionbetweenpoliticaland/oradmin-
istrative units" (Parker 2002:373). Wendl and
Rosierreferto the modernnatureof borderssay-
ing that this term pertainsspecificallyto interna-
tional boundariesbetween modernnation states
(WendlandRosier1999:8;also see Hamilton1999;
Kopytoff 1999; Wilson and Donnan 1998; Roth-
man 2004). Again, I feel that this definitionfits
well withthevernacularuse of theword;whenone
leavesone countryto enteranother,one crossesthe
"border"that is a tangibleline between separate
politicalor administrativeentities.However,bor-
ders of modernnation states do not necessarily
govern other types of boundaries.For example,
national borders often do not mark a division
between ethnic or linguisticgroups.In fact, Wil-
son andDonnanhaveexemplifiedmanysituations
in which cross-borderrelationshave been instru-
mental in shapingtransnational(or trans-border)
identities(see the case studiesin DonnanandWil-
son 1994;RosierandWendl1999;WilsonandDon-
nan 1998; also see Anderson and Bort 1998;
Pavlakovich-Kochiet al. 2004). Thus, one might
say thatalthoughbordersare, like all boundaries,
a type of division,the weightingcharacteristicof
bordersis thatthey markpolitical,administrative,
andin most cases also military,boundaries.Other
boundaries,instead of correspondingto politial
borders,are conditioned,in a varietyof ways, by
them.
Thisthenbringsus to thetermfrontier.Thomp-
son and Lamarhave defineda frontieras "a zone
of interpenetration betweentwopreviouslydistinct
peoples"(ThompsonandLamar1981:7 [thisdef-
inition follows from Lattimore 1962]; also see
Kristof 1959; Lightfootand Martinez1995; Rice
1998).I haveaddedto thisthe ideathatsucha zone
could separatevarioustypesof politicalor cultural
units andthatsuch zones may also be madeup of
emptyareaswhereno suchunitsexistorwherethey
do not come onto directphysical contact(Rosier
and Wendl's "external"and "internal"frontiers;
Parker2002:373; 2001:263-268; see also Elton
1996b:127). This position is underscoredby Lat-
timore's statementthat,in spite of the greateffort
that went into constructingChina's GreatWall,
"ThelinearFrontierneverexisted[inChina]except
in concept"(Lattimore1962:115).
The key characteristicthat makes the concept
of the frontieran interestingframefor anthropo-
80 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
logical researchis the idea developed by Hugh
Eltonthatfrontiersarecomposedof varioustypes
of boundaries(Elton 1996b). In his exemplary
studyof theRomanfrontier,Eltondefinesfrontiers
as zones of variouslyoverlapping(butnot congru-
ent) political, economic, and culturalboundaries
(Elton 1996b:3-9;also see Parker2002). The var-
ious types of boundariesdiscussedin the literature
on frontiersin variousfields,andthefactthatmany
scholarsemphasizetheinterconnectedness of such
boundariesin the make up of specific frontiers
(Lightfootand Martinez1995), supportsElton's
view of a frontieras a zone wherevarioustypes of
boundariesintersectandoverlap(see,e.g.,Alconini
2005;Aron2005; Eaton1993,2005). Thisconcept
is instrumental to themodelsproposedin thispaper.
If we acknowledgethat frontiersare made up of
varioustypes of boundariesincluding,for exam-
ple, geographic,political, demographic,cultural,
andeconomicboundaries,thenthe conceptof the
frontieris freed from the uni-causalconundrum
that so fatally ensnaredTurner(1920). In fact, it
could be said thatit is preciselythis complicated
matrixof overlappingboundariesthatis the very
essence of frontiers.
The termborderlandsis much more problem-
aticthanthetermsdiscussedso far,largelybecause
it is defineddifferentlyby anthropologistsandhis-
torians.The OEDdefinesborderlandsas "theland
or districton or nearthe borderbetweentwo coun-
tries."In line with this definition,culturalanthro-
pologists are focusing on borderlandsas regions
wherenewcommunitieshavedeveloped/aredevel-
oping across or around, and most importantly,
becauseof, moderninternationalborders(Alvarez
1999, 1995;DonnanandWilson1994;Flynn1997;
Hansen1981;Martinez1994;Pavlakovich-Kochi
et al. 2004; Rosier and Wendl 1999; Wilson and
Donnan 1998). This very fruitfulnew subfieldof
anthropologyobviouslyhas a greatcontributionto
makebothto anthropologyas a whole andto other
fields such as historyandarchaeology.In fact, the
emphasisit placeson thecreationandmaintenance
of identityhas manyimplicationsfor the studyof
the ancientworld(Dodd 2005).
Reactingto the stigmaattachedto thetermfron-
tier in the backlash against the TurnerThesis
(Turner1920), Westernhistorianshave recently
proposedto distinguishbetweenfrontiersthatthey
defineas "meetingplace of peoples in which geo-
This content downloaded from 195.34.78.242 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 19:47:16 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 71 , No. 1 , 2006
graphic and cultural borders were not clearly
defined"(AdelmanandAron 1999:815)and bor-
derlandsthat describe"the contestedboundaries
between colonial domains"(Adelmanand Aron
1999:816;Aron2005). The commondenominator
between the use of the termborderlandsby both
anthropologistsandhistoriansis the idea thatbor-
derlandsdefinea geopoliticalspace.
In my previousworkI havebeenhesitantto use
thetermborderlandsforseveralreasons.First,with
anthropologistsalreadyusingthistermto describe
whatis fastbecominga new subdiscipline(Alvarez
1999, 1995),I saw no needto confusethe situation
by borrowingthetermforotherpurposes.Andsec-
ond, its definitionin the OED and the fact that it
includesthe word borderbetraysits close associ-
ation with the linearityand rigidnessof borders,
whichI believerarely,if ever,existedin theancient
world (althoughsee Smith 2005). Nevertheless,I
acknowledgethe usefulnessof the term and thus
include it in the overall lexicon here proposed.
However,readersshould keep in mind that this
termis used in variousways dependingupon the
field and subdiscipline.
To be clear then, borderlandsin the sense uti-
lizedhererefersto regionsaroundorbetweenpolit-
ical or culturalentities- the geographicspace in
which frontiers and borders are likely to exist
(WendlandRosier 1999:8-10). Thisleadsus to an
interestingpoint.If we followthisdefinitionwe can
say thattherearetwo types of boundaries(or bet-
ter,boundarysets) thatmay occurin borderlands:
bordersandfrontiers.This allowsus to distinguish
a slightlymorenuanceddefinitionof borderlands
andat the same time move towardan understand-
ing of thenatureof theprocessesthatoccurin such
areas. Borderlands as defined here are regions
aroundor between political or cultural entities
wheregeographic,political,demographic,cultural,
and economic circumstancesor processes may
interactto createbordersor frontiers.
Characterizing Boundaries that May Occur
in Borderlands
If we follow the OxfordEnglish Dictionaryand
considerthe term boundaryto describeall cate-
gories of limits or divides- borderto be a linear,
staticdividingline, andfrontierto be a dynamic,
fluidzone- two importantrelationshipscome into
Parker] TOWARD AN UNDERSTANDING OF BORDERLAND PROCESSES 81

Figure 1. A continuum showing the interrelationships between borderlands (territories or regions around or between
political or cultural entities), borders (linear dividing lines fixed in a particular space) and frontiers (loosely defined areas
or transition zones that lie between political or administrative entities or between one such entity and a hinterland), and
boundaries (unspecific divides or separators that indicate limits of various kinds) (Parker 2003).

focus. First,bordersand frontiersare made up of upof multiple,overlappingboundaries.A complete

varioustypesof boundaries(i.e., geographic,polit-
ical, demographic,cultural,and economic).They
arein factboundarysets.And second,in theirmost
extrememanifestations,bordersandfrontiersare
oppositetypesof divides- thefirsthard,static,and
linearandthe second soft, fluid, and zonal. How-
ever,as socialscientistswe allknowthatdatararely
if everfitneatlyintotypologicalcategories.In fact,
a review of the literatureon this topic shows that
there is considerablevariationbetween various
types of boundariesand between specific frontier
situations.To deal with this variation,I have pre-
viously proposedthat boundarydiversitycan be
categorizedby juxtaposingbordersandfrontiers
on a continuumwiththestatic,linearborderon one
endandthedynamic,fluidfrontieron theother.The
continuumstartswith the most extremevariation
of the static borderon the far left. This type of
boundaryis a spatiallyrestrictedborderor line of
separationthatcanbe describedas staticor closed.
This is juxtaposedwith the most extremeversion
of the fluid frontieron the far right.This type of
boundaryis a zone thatis spatiallyexpansiveand
can be described as dynamic or open (Parker
2002:374). Combiningthese distinctionswith the
conceptof borderlandsdescribedaboveproduces
the paradigmshownin Figure 1.
Intheabovediscussion,I highlightedtheimpor-
tance of the multidimensionalaspect of frontiers
describedby Elton.Eltonsumsit upthisway,"even
the idea of a simple frontier zone needs to be
expandedto that of multiple zones since not all
types of activitycan be boundedin the same way"
(Elton1996b:113).Bordersandfrontiersmaythus
be consideredboundarysets; thatis, theyaremade
analysisof anyparticularboundarymusttherefore
includevariouscategoriesof data.Inorderto allow
for this variationI have previouslyproposedfive
categoriesof datathatcan be appliedto the Con-
tinuumof BoundaryDynamics:geographic,polit-
ical, demographic,cultural,andeconomic(Parker
2002). I envisionthe characterof eachof thesecat-
egoriesof databeingmeasuredas separateyet inter-
dependentlines on the continuum.I refer to this
modelas the "Continuumof BoundaryDynamics"
(Figure2 andParker2002:374).Thismodelallows
for a morenuancedanalysisof the variousbound-
aries thatmight occur in borderlands.In this sys-
tem one might, for example, characterize a
particularboundaryas geographicallyand politi-
cally restrictivebut economicallyporous, demo-
graphicallyfluid but politically static, etc. In my
analysisof Assyria'sAnatolianfrontierduringthe
MesopotamianIronAge (ca. 900-600 B.C.), for
example,I arguedthatAssyria'spoliticalandmil-
itary control over the region, which penetrated
nearlyall aspects of frontiersociety, made this a
politicallyrestrictivezone. However,some of the
sameforcesthatcausedthisregionto be politically
restrictivecontributedto its demographicandcul-
turalporosity.The geographywas also, I argued,
quite restrictive,but at the same time geography
played a key role in the porouseconomic charac-
ter of the area(Parker2001, 2002).
Althoughthe Continuumof BoundaryDynam-
ics is, I believe, a good step towardcharacterizing
borderlandsituations,it is not withoutproblems.
One problemwith this model is thatthe variables
measuredon the continuum(geographic,political,
demographic,cultural,andeconomic)areverygen-

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.242 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 19:47:16 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
82 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 71 , No. 1 , 2006

Figure 2. The Continuum of Boundary Dynamics. This figure is an expanded version of figure one that illustrates five
major categories of boundaries (or boundary sets) that are likely to occur in borderlands (from Parker 2003).

eralandthusthe model may not captureall of the processestakingplace in borderlands.In the next
nuancesof anyspecificborderland.Onemight,for section we will turnto an exampleof how a spe-
example,wishto studytheethnicorlinguisticchar- cific borderlandmightbe viewed by analyzingthe
acterof a borderland.However,I feel it is impor- interplaybetween these varioustypes of bound-
tantnotto overcomplicatethemodelby addingtoo aries.But first,let us beginwith a discussionof the
manycategoriesto the continuum.Forthisreason, Table 1. Possible SubcategoriesSubsumedunderthe
I considerethnic and linguisticboundariesto be GeneralCategories(or BoundarySets) Measuredon the
subcategories of thelargercategoryof demographic Continuumof BoundaryDynamics.
boundaries,andmilitaryandadministrative bound-
aries fall under the political heading, etc. Thus, GeographicBoundaries
topographicfeatures
insteadof makinga new categoryfor each type of physical character
boundarythatmight occur in a particularborder- climate
land,my hopeis thatmostof themorenuancedand flora and fauna
naturalresources
specific subtypesof data will fall within one of
these overarchingcategories(Table1). Political Boundaries
Anotherproblemis that, althoughthis model political
maybe veryhelpfulin characterizingvariousbor- administrative
derlandsituationsandthusbringingthemintocom- military
parativeperspective,it does littleto highlighteither
the processes behind boundarydynamics or the DemographicBoundaries
ethnic
ways in which varioustypes of boundariesmight populationdensity
interactto producespecificborderlandsituations. health
Boundary processes can best be understood, I gender
believe, as the dynamic interactionbetween the
CulturalBoundaries
categoriesand subcategoriesof datameasuredon linguistic
the Continuumof BoundaryDynamics(Figure2). religious
Thisis wherea furtherconsiderationof the above- materialcultural
mentionedcategories,or boundarysets, might be
Economic Boundaries
helpful.A detailedanalysisof how each of these
extractionof raw materials
boundarysets (geographic,political,demographic, transshipmentof commodities
cultural,andeconomic)contributesto specificbor- productionof finishedproducts
derlandsituationsshouldaid us in identifyingthe agriculturalproduction

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.242 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 19:47:16 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Parker] TOWARD AN UNDERSTANDING OF BORDERLAND PROCESSES
basicdatacategoriesandsubcategories,keepingin
mind thatthis discussionis not meantto be com-
prehensivebut is insteadillustrativeof how spe-
cific boundariesmightbe brokendown.
GeographicBoundaries
This categoryis meantto referto the naturaldivi-
sions,physicalcharacterandclimate,in or around
a borderlandor betweena borderlandandthe core
polity or polities by which it is defined.This may
include, for example,the presenceor absence of
prominentphysicalfeaturessuchas riversormoun-
tainranges,thetypeof, orvariationin, weatherpat-
ternsincludingprecipitationand temperature,the
compositionof the soils andavailabilityof ground
water,the typesanddensitiesof vegetationandthe
distributionof naturalresources.
Characterizingthe physical geography of a
regionunderstudyis importantfor severalreasons.
Early geographers such as Curzon (1907) and
Holdich (1916) envisioned the limits of ancient
polities as being determinedby constraininggeo-
graphicfeaturessuchas riversandmountainranges
(Pounds1951).Althoughin some sense it is logi-
cal to assumethatphysicalfeaturesmayhaveacted
to restrainactivity across a borderland,various
scholarshaveshownthatthe presenceof suchfea-
turesmay also have aidedor even providedimpe-
tus for movementinto suchan area.Whittaker,for
example,has shownthatriverslike the Rhine,the
Danube,andtheTigriswereprimarilylinesof com-
municationduringthe Romanperiod,eventhough
theywererecognized(by most)to be the "border"
of Romanpower (Isaac 1990; Whittaker1994). I
havediscovereda similarphenomenonin theUpper
TigrisRiverregion duringthe AssyrianIronAge
(ca. 900-600 B.C.) when the Assyriansused the
riverbothas a defensivebarrierin timesof impend-
ing attack,and a transportationcorridorfor the
shipmentof rawmaterialssuch as timberand sur-
plus agriculturalproducts(Parker2001).
In additionto constrainingmovement,thepres-
ence of a mountainrangethrougha borderland,for
example,also meansthatthereis likelyto be a con-
trast in ecological zones within the region or
between the borderlandand neighboringareas.
Some ecological zones might harborresources
desirablein the core polity. Such resourcescould
be in the formof naturalfloraandfaunaas was the
case in NorthAmericaduringthe colonial period
This content downloaded from 195.34.78.242 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 19:47:16 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
83
when the fur tradegave impetusto the movement
of Europeanexplorersinto the Americaninterior
(see especiallyWishart1977;also see Cook 1981;
Hinderaker1997; White 1991 and below under
"EconomicBoundaries"). Anotherexamplecanbe
found duringthe MesopotamianIronAge when
Assyria's movementinto highlandAnatoliawas,
at least in part,conditionedby the need to procure
timberandotherresources(Parker2001:206-208).
The distributionof sourcesof metals and pre-
cious or semipreciousstonesmightalso contribute
to thecharacterof a boundaryzone.Thompsonand
Lamar(1981), for example,have arguedthat the
presence and distribution of diamond sources
greatlycontributedto the methodand pace of the
boundaryprocessesin SouthAfrica,andYenerhas
showntheimportanceof Anatoliaas a metalsource
areafor Mesopotamiathroughmuchof its history
(Yener2000).
Theexploitationof naturalresourcesmayresult
in a significantalterationof the naturalenviron-
ment. Such alterationsmay be evidenced in the
archaeologicalrecordby changesin archeabotan-
ical assemblagesandshiftsin subsistencepatterns.
In southeasternTurkeyat the site of KenanTepe,
for example,wood andwood charcoalgive way to
dung as the most common cooking and heating
fuel, suggestingthatthe destructionof Anatolia's
forestswas well underwayduringtheEarlyBronze
Age (Parkeret al. 2003; see alsoYener1982).This
borderlandsituationis underscoredby documents
from the AssyrianIronAge that confirmthat, at
least by the reign of Sargon II (721-705 B.C.),
Assyrianadministrators hadto travelfarintoenemy
territoryto acquirelogs suitablefor construction
projects taking place in the Assyrian heartland
(Parker2001:227-230).
Political Boundaries
This category is meant to encompass political,
administrative, andmilitaryboundaries.Sincemost
boundariesaredefinedby theirrelationshipto one
or more cores, this categoryplays a particularly
importantrole in definingthe characteristicsand
dynamicsof borderlandsand for this reasonit is
perhapsthe most commonlydiscussedmanifesta-
tion of boundaries.However, the subcategories
encompassedhereareobviouslydeeplyintertwined
andthusit maybe difficult,orin somecasesimpos-
sible, to distinguishbetweenthem.Such a distinc-
84 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
tion is neverthelessimportantsince it might give
us insightsintothepoliticaldynamicstakingplace
at a particulartime in a specificborderland.A core
might, for example,projectmilitarypower into a
borderlandfor strategic,economic,or ideological
gainwithouteverintendingto establishpoliticalor
administrative control.If holdingsomesortof polit-
ical dominionover an areais the goal, then such
dominionmighttakethe formof indirect,or hege-
monic, rule (D'Altroy 1992; Hassig 1985, 1988,
1992).Inthiscase,politicalcontrolmayultimately
be held by the core, but the administrationof that
controlmightbe leftto a subordinate politicalentity
such as a vassal state. In othercases, a core may
choose more invasivemeasuresthatcan resultin
thecolonizationof a borderland.Suchcolonization
can eventuallylead to the completeannexationof
such an area and the "closing"or shifting of the
frontier(Aron2005).Thepointhereis thatalthough
thesesubcategoriesareinterrelatedandmaythere-
fore work in tandem,an analysisof the interplay
betweenthemis an importantinterpretivetool.
TheAssyrianempiremadeextensiveuse of indi-
rectruleespeciallyin logisticallydifficultlocations
whereexistingstate-levelpolitiesofferedtheoppor-
tunityfor indirectexploitationthroughan existing
administrativesystem.Assyriandominationover
its vassalsis illustratedwell by its relationshipwith
Kumme,a statelocatedin the farsoutheasterncor-
ner of modern Turkeynear the modern city of
Zakho(Parker2001;butsee alsoPostgate1973and
Liverani1992).Assyrianlettersshowthat,although
the daily operationof state was left to the Kum-
meanroyalfamily,theAssyrianshadfreereign,not
only to demandregulartributepayments in the
formof luxurygoods andstapleproducts,butalso
to exploitnaturalresourcesin Kummeanterritory
(LanfranchiandParpola1990:69-87; for analysis
see Parker2001:89-94). To ensurethatthe vassal
stateslivedupto theirobligationstoAssyria,"royal
delegates"were assignedto monitoractivitiesand
protectAssyrian interests in peripheralregions.
Besides ensuring the cooperation of the Kum-
means,one of the most importantjobs of the royal
delegatein Kummewas to gathermilitaryintelli-
gence about Assyria's enemies. To this end
Kumme'sdelegate,a certainAssur-resuwa,had a
networkof spies or informantscalled daialu who
kept him apprisedof occurrencesin rival states.
This exampleillustratesthatindirectrule may be
This content downloaded from 195.34.78.242 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 19:47:16 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 71 , No. 1 , 2006
usedto administerfrontierregionsevenwhensuch
administration does not involvethe use of military
force or the establishmentof new politicalbound-
aries.
Sinceindirectruleonly alterstheadministrative
structureof a frontierregionand may not involve
significantpoliticalreorganizationormilitaryinter-
vention,this type of boundarymay be very diffi-
cult to define in the archaeologicalrecord.In his
study of the Urartianempire, Zimansky (1995)
notes thatthroughoutthe empire,butespeciallyin
frontierregions,Urartianmaterialculture(ceram-
ics, architecture,and metal artifacts)is largely
restrictedto Urartiandefensiveandadministrative
sites.The creationof the empireout of a multitude
of ethnicgroupsappearsto havehadlittleeffecton
the materialcultureof most of the empire'ssub-
jects. A similar phenomenonhas been noted in
partsof the Inca empire (Morrisand Thompson
1970).
The attempt,whethersuccessfulor not, to inte-
gratea borderlandintothepoliticalormilitarysys-
tem of a neighboringcore can be manifestin the
archaeologicalrecord in a variety of ways. The
activitiesof one or severalmilitaryforces inside a
boundaryzone mightappearin the archaeological
recordas destructionlayersor destroyedor aban-
donsites.Longer-term militarypresencemayentail
the constructionof militaryinfrastructure such as
fortressesor garrisoncenters(Parker1997a).The
mostobviousmanifestationof militaryboundaries
is perhapsthe creationof the Romanlimes.These
frontierdefenses actedas the frontline of Roman
militarydefense,evenwhenadministrative orpolit-
icalboundariesreachedbeyond,orfell behindthem
(Isaac 1990).
Frontiermilitaryfacilitiesaremost likely to be
locatedin strategicpositions.Theconstructionand
maintenanceof transportation andcommunication
corridorsas well as permanentadministrative cen-
tersareimportantstepsin establishingmilitarycon-
trol over a borderlandand are often prerequisites
to shiftingpoliticalboundaries.Generallyspeak-
ing, one would expect the materialculturein and
aroundsuchfacilitiesto be reminiscentof thecore,
althoughtheoverallmake-upof thematerialassem-
blages across the archaeologicallandscapeis not
likely to show significantchanges unless large-
scalepopulationshiftsoccurorin cases wherecon-
siderabletime-depthis at issue (Zimansky1995).
Parker] TOWARD AN UNDERSTANDING OF BORDERLAND PROCESSES
In a recentstudyof the UpperTigrisRiverval-
ley in southeasternAnatolia,I suggested that an
Assyrianpolicy thatI call "agricultural coloniza-
tion"was responsiblefor significantlyalteringthe
archaeological landscape of the valley (Parker
2003, andsee below under"DemographicBound-
aries";note the parallelswith Lewis 1985). This
policy includedthe establishmentof a significant
numberof new settlementsin thehinterlandaround
and between Assyrian militarystrongholds.The
existence of these ruralsettlementsimplies more
thanjust the military dominationof the region.
Assyriantexts show that, once the empireestab-
lishedmilitarycontrolof anarea,theprocessof the
consolidationof that control includederecting a
complex administrativeapparatus.Although the
provincialgovernorheld the highestrankingposi-
tionon theprovincialadministration, directadmin-
istrationof the populationwas in the hands of a
large numberof low-rankingofficials known as
"village managers."These officials kept careful
controlof the taxablerevenues,corvee labor,and
probablyalso legal disputes.The invasivenature
of Assyrianprovincialadministrationmeantthat,
unlike areaswhere the empiregovernedthrough
vassalstates,military,political,andadministrative
systemsinteractedto significantlyalterthe archae-
ological record.
DemographicBoundaries
I use "demography" herein theverybroadestsense
of theterm,thatis, anythinghavingto do withpeo-
ple. Thus,this categoryincludesthe presence,dis-
tributionand interactionof variousethnic groups
as well as the number,health,and genderof pop-
ulations.Some scholarshave definedfrontiersin
termsof demographicshifts, arguingthat a fron-
tier is itself characterizedby the influx of settlers
or pioneers to a sparsely populated hinterland
(Turner1920;also see Kopytoff1999).Inmy opin-
ion, using a demographicshift,especiallyone that
is unidirectional,as the definingfeaturecreatesa
core-centeredview of boundarysituationsthatis
far too rigid. Instead,I believe that demographic
shifts can and often do play an importantrole in
boundarydynamics,but this is not necessarilyso.
Furthermore,the characterof such demographic
shiftscan takemanyforms- it is not alwayschar-
acterizedby unidirectionalmigration.Neverthe-
less, it is importantto evaluate,inasmuchas it is
This content downloaded from 195.34.78.242 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 19:47:16 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
85
possible,the demographicmakeupof a borderland
and to attemptto gauge how such a makeupdoes
ordoes notchangeovertime(Lefferts1977;Zadok
1995).
Demographyas definedhere can be explored
throughphilological,ethnohistorical,and archae-
ological means, and with enough data, sophisti-
cated demographic analysis can be applied to
frontierpopulations(Lefferts1977). SeveralNear
Easternscholarshave successfullyused onomas-
tic andprosopographicdatato evaluatethe ethno-
linguistic characterof Mesopotamia in various
periods(e.g., Zadok 1989, 1995, 2002), and eth-
nohistoryhas been particularlyhelpful in recon-
structingtheethniclandscapein theAndes(Stanish
1989).
In most cases even remotefrontierregions are
populated,if sparsely,by one or more groupsof
people (althoughsee Rodseth2005). It is also true
that boundaryprocesses often involve the move-
ment of people- usually visible in the archaeo-
logical record as changes in settlementpatterns.
However,such shifts might includethe migration
of one or more exogenousgroupsinto or through
a borderland(Aron2005; HinderakerandMancall
2003; Lattimore1962:307-324; Turner1920, for
example),themigrationof one ormoreindigenous
groupswithinoroutof a borderland(Deagan1985,
and see otherstudiesin Fitzhugh1985, for exam-
ple), the demiseof one or moreindigenousgroups
within a borderland(Faragher1998; Hill 1998;
Palka1998;Turner1985, for example),or the cre-
ation of new ethnic groups within a borderland
(Hill 1996;Roosens 1989;Rodseth2005; Rice and
Rice 2005, for example).
The inwardmigrationof exogenousEuroamer-
ican settlers, especially as articulatedby Turner
(1920), is the social contextthat shapedmuch of
the historiographyof the NorthAmericanfrontier
experience.Itis truethatsuchinwardmigrationcer-
tainly had a reorientingeffect on frontierdemo-
graphics.However,outwardmigrationand/orthe
demise of indigenouspeoples- often due to war
or disease (Dobyns 1993; Farnsworth1989; Hill
1998; HinderakerandMancall2003; Palka 1998;
Sundstrom1997)- may also be a key component
in manyfrontiersituations.Hickerson(1997), for
example, has shown that well before significant
Europeansettlement,epidemicdiseasesin eastern
Texas broughton by Europeancontact resulted
86 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
both in the depopulationof some areasand inter-
nal shift and populationcoalescence in others.In
manypartsof Africa,disease traveledthe reverse
path- it struckthe colonialpopulationratherthan
the indigenouspeoples (Pagaard1986), slowing
the pace of inwardmigrationandoften restricting
the location and function of colonial settlement
(McNeill1976).Pearson's(1997) studyof thecolo-
nial period in Madagascardemonstratesthat the
effects of exogenous penetrationinto a frontier
region are far from uniform or predictable.
Althoughsettlementshifts are recognizedduring
the eraof colonialcontact,Pearsonattributessuch
shifts to endemic warfare between indigenous
groups, ratherthan interactionsbetween indige-
nous communitiesandEuropeancolonialists.
Shiftsin the demographiccharacterof a region
in a givenperiodcanoftenbe detectedin thechang-
ing patternsof settlementacross a landscape.In
most cases, changes in the number,size, integra-
tion,andecologicalsettingof sitescanyieldimpor-
tantdemographicinformation(Ammerman1981;
Kolb 1985). Clearchronologicaland culturaldif-
ferencesbetweenceramicassemblageshavebeen
instrumentalin untanglingthe changing demo-
graphicpatternsin the UpperTigrisRiverregion
during the Neo-Assyrian Imperial period (ca.
900-600 B.C.). By juxtaposing the low-fired,
handmadecorrugatedceramics indicativeof the
pre-Assyriansettlementsin muchof southeastern
Turkey,withthe distinctivemass-producedAssyr-
ian ceramics (Parker2003:Figures6, 9 and 10),
and by closely examining the morphology and
ecological contextsof sites where these ceramics
occur, I have attemptedto discern demographic
patterns along parts of the Upper Tigris River
(Parker2001, 2003). These data supportthe con-
clusion that during the Early Iron Age (ca.
1100-900 B.C.), the era immediately prior to
Assyrianannexationof partsof its Anatolianfron-
tier,the UpperTigrisRivervalley was home to 19
villages that were not partof a complex regional
polity.Excavationsat the site of KenanTepe sug-
gest thatthis, and probablyotherkey sites in the
valley,was abandonedordestroyedpriorto ordur-
ingAssyria'sconquestof theregion(Parker2003).
Of the 19 Early IronAge sites identified,only 9
continued to be occupied during the Imperial
Period.Thus thereis clear evidence for eitheran
outwardmigrationand/orviolent attritionof the
This content downloaded from 195.34.78.242 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 19:47:16 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 71 , No. 1 , 2006
local inhabitantsof thevalleyin thewakeof Assyr-
ian annexationof the region.
The settlementdataalso indicatethattherewas
a largeinwardmigrationduringtheAssyrianImpe-
rial Period when 20 new sites were established
(Parker2003). I have agued elsewherethatmuch
of this inwardmigrationis at leastpartlythe result
of Assyrian resettlementpolicies that saw large
numbersof people deportedfromtheirhomelands
and resettled, often in volatile frontier regions
(Parker2001;ParkerandCreekmore2002;also see
Oded 1979).Whetheror not thisinwardmigration
was due to Assyrianresettlementpolicies, it cer-
tainly changed the demographicmakeup of the
UpperTigrisRiverregionin a dramaticandarchae-
ologically recognizableway. Parallelsfor forced
populationmovementsinto,or out of, borderlands
can be foundin variouspartsof the ancientworld
includingInca Peru(La Lone and La Lone 1987;
Murra 1980), Shang China (Trigger 2003:112,
398), andVijayanagaraIndia(Stein 1989).
Culturemutationand/orthecreationof neweth-
nic groupsin boundaryzones have attractedcon-
siderableattentionin recentyears.RichardWhite's
(1991) theory of "the Middle Ground"demon-
stratedthat frontiersbetween previouslydistinct
peoples can often act as interactionregions that,
undertherightcircumstances,canproducea hybrid
areaor "middleground"wherepreviouslydistinct
cultures blend into new forms (Hannerz 1996).
Using archaeologicaldata,van Dommelendocu-
menteda similarsituationin Sardinia,arguingthat
colonialsituationscancausea hybridizationeffect
in which culturaltraitsof variouspeoples (in his
case, the Carthaginianand indigenousSardinian
peoples) aremixedto producea Creole,or hybrid,
culture(vanDommelen1997, 1998;also see Kopy-
toff 1999;LightfootandMartinez1995;Wendland
Rosier 1999).
Although borderlandsituationsmay result in
hybridization,this is not always the case. Barth
(1969, 1994) andothers(Hodder1982;Vermeulen
and Grovers 1994) have shown that, instead of
breakingdown boundaries,interactionbetween
ethnicallydistinctpopulationscan solidifyorrein-
force ethnic differences as the groups involved
striveto maintainidentitiesin a contextof cultural
exchangeandeconomicinterdependence. It should
also be notedthat,in his studyof Romanprovinces
in whatis todaysouthernGermany,PeterWellshas
Parker] TOWARDAN UNDERSTANDING OF BORDERLAND PROCESSES
arguedthatRomanpresenceand the proliferation
of Romangoodsthatfollowedhada limitedimpact
on the identitiesof local inhabitants(Wells 1998),
whileKopytoffhas shownthatin traditional Africa,
shiftingdemographic boundaries encouragedcul-
tural continuity or "reproduction"rather than
changeandhybridization(Kopytoff1987b:7-8).
Rodseth(2005), and to some extent Rice and
Rice (2005),taketheconceptof thecreationof new
cultural formations in frontiers a step further,
demonstratingthat frontierscan be the scene of
ethnogenesis. Rodseth enumeratestwo ways in
which ethnogenesis can occur: merger or frag-
mentation.The first is clearly a trend in many
boundarysituationsand is in a sense an extreme
resultof the processof hybridization(see also Hill
1996; Roosens 1989). However,Rodseth points
out an importantexceptionto this rule. His study
of the Himalayasshows firstthatborderlandscan
be spaces that limitratherthanpromoteintercul-
turalcontact.And second, a geographicsituation
thatlimitsor curtailsinterregionalcontactcan also
resultin ethnogenesisas previouslyunitedgroups
fragmentandtakeon new identities.
CulturalBoundaries
This category is meant to encompass linguistic,
religious, and material culture boundaries and
thereforeincludes,bothin andaroundborderlands,
thenumber,location,andrelationshipof languages
spoken,the religiousbeliefs andpracticespopula-
tions,andthe type anddistributionof materialcul-
ture.
Linguisticboundariesare particularlyimpor-
tantbecauselanguageis a key ingredientdefining
group identity (Barth 1969; Schubert 1999).
Althoughnotoriouslydifficultto delineate,when
linguisticgeographycanbe workedoutit has often
addedconsiderabledepthto thecharacterization of
borderlands.RanZadok,for example,has uncov-
ered a very detailedpictureof the ethnolinguistic
characterof large partsof Mesopotamiathrough
the analysisof onomasticevidence (Zadok 1989,
1995, 2002). References to interpretersin Neo-
Assyrianlettersattestto the difficultiesthatcolo-
nial officialshad in dealing with the vast number
of nativelanguagesandculturesthey encountered
in the process of colonization(a similarsituation
to thatencounteredby colonialauthoritiesin North
America3,000 years later).These texts containa
This content downloaded from 195.34.78.242 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 19:47:16 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
87
numberof referencesto translatorsand in some
cases even includequotes from otherwiseundoc-
umentedlanguages (Parker2001:386-387; Lan-
franchiandParpola1990:35).
Religiousbeliefs andpracticesareperhapsthe
most difficultcategoryof data to evaluatein the
archaeologicalrecord.Thelocationof shrines,tem-
ples, and pilgrimagesites may play an important
rolein frontierdynamics(BauerandStanish2001).
Insomeinstancesa coreorcolonialpowermaypro-
motea statereligion,in whichcasereligiousbound-
ariesmay be pushedinto or througha borderland
(Farnsworth1989), while in othercases religious
leadersnotofficiallyconnectedto, orevenin oppo-
sitionwith, a core authoritymay havea significant
and lastingimpacton local belief systems (Eaton
1993). It has long been recognizedthataccultura-
tion is usually a two-way process (see especially
Cusick 1998);however,religiousconversionmay
cause social change that is much more unilinear,
thusactingin oppositionto thehybridizationeffect
describedabove.Oftenthe promotionof an estab-
lished religioussystem not only acted as a means
of justifying asymmetricalrelationshipsbetween
theinhabitantsof a corepolityandthoseof anadja-
cent borderland(Liverani1979), but suppliedthe
agents that brought about religious, and social,
change. Several authors have emphasized the
importantrole thatmissionariesplayedin the col-
onization of various borderlands(Axtell 1981;
Elphick 1981; Farnsworth1989, for example).
Althoughthe goal of missionarieswas the conver-
sion of nativepopulations,Axtell arguesthatreli-
gious conversionwas "tantamountto a complete
transformation of cultural identity" (Axtell
1981:238). Eatonhas shown that Sufi mystics in
medieval Bengal did much more than establish
mosques in ruralareas. They mobilized frontier
communities,organizingforestclearingand agri-
culturaldevelopment.These "Muslimpioneers"
werethusinstrumentalin the shiftingreligiousand
economicfrontiersin theBengaldelta(Eaton1993,
2005).
Materialcultureboundariescan oftenbe deter-
minedby plottingthe distributionof, for example,
ceramic type fossils or assemblages, portable
objects,architectureandburialtypes(see,forexam-
ple, Parker1997b).Althoughthereare obviously
manymethodsby whichtheseandothercategories
of materialculturebecome distributedacross an
88 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
archaeologicallandscape,comparingmaterialcul-
tureboundariesto otherboundarycategoriesand
subcategoriescan help to illuminatethe processes
responsiblefor materialculturedispersal.Barth
and other anthropologistsinterestedin ethnicity
andthe creationof groupidentityhavearguedthat
interactionbetweendistinctgroupstendsto create
orreinforcesocialboundaries,some of whichmay
be expressedin the archaeologicalrecordthrough
the distributionof materialremains(Barth1969,
1994; Cohen 1985, 1994; Stark1998). Othercat-
egories of material culture may be dispersed
througheconomic networks.By plottingthe dis-
tributionof variouscategoriesof materialculture,
severalscholarshave shownhow the creationand
maintenanceof the Roman frontierdramatically
affectedregionaltradepatternswithin and across
politicalandadministrative boundaries(e.g., Elton
1996b:77-96; Whittaker 1994:113-131; Woolf
1992). This exampleservesas an excellenttransi-
tion in to the next subsectionsince it ultimately
involves economics. More importantly,however,
theexamplescitedin thissectionillustratetheinter-
connectednessof theseandotherboundarysubsets.
EconomicBoundaries
This category includes but is not limited to the
extractionand exportof naturalresourcesin bor-
derlands,the productionof finished productsin
borderlands,the importof rawmaterialsandman-
ufacturedgoods into borderlands,and the trans-
shipmentof rawmaterialsandmanufactured goods
acrossborderlands(Paynter1985). In the subsec-
tion on geography,I alreadymentionedthe impor-
tancethatnaturalresoursesplayed in the makeup
of several case studies (i.e., North America and
SouthAfrica),andI amcertainthatmanymoresuch
case studies could be cited. However,underthe
categoryof economicboundariesI wouldempha-
size the modes andintensityof the exploitationof
those materials,the meansby which such materi-
als are convertedinto finishedproducts,and the
effectsthatshiftingeconomicboundariesmayhave
on frontiersocieties and ecosystems. Finally,the
remainsof importsin a borderlandmay illuminate
economic networks that linked remote frontier
regions with largerinteractionnetworks (Woolf
1992).
In cases wherecorepolitiesprojecttheirpower
into or througha borderlandfor the purpose of
This content downloaded from 195.34.78.242 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 19:47:16 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 71 , No. 1 , 2006
acquiringnaturalresources,the methodandinten-
sityof resourceextractioncanhavea lastingimpact
on both the naturaland the humanenvironment.
The Americanfur tradeoffersan exampleof eco-
nomic exploitationthatboth attractedimmigrants
and degradedthe environment.As overexploita-
tionravagedanimalpopulations,trappers,andtheir
aboriginaltradingpartners,increasedthe intensity
of that exploitationin formerlyproductiveareas,
andin doing so causedirreparabledamageto local
ecosystems (Richter2001; Wishart1977). Over-
exploitationanddiminishingreturnsalsopromoted
deeper and more intrusive penetrationinto the
Americaninterior(Hinderaker1997;White 1991;
Wishart1977).Anotherexamplecanbe founddur-
ing the MesopotamianIronAge when the textual
recordindicatesthatone of the majorconcernsof
theAssyrianprovincialadministration was thepro-
curementof timber(see below and Parker2001:
227-229). These sources also show that overex-
ploitationof forestresourcesled to the deforesta-
tionof largeportionsof severalAssyrianprovinces
(see aboveunder"GeographicBoundaries").
Oftencolonistsarebroughtormigrateintosuch
areasfor the expresspurposeof resourceextrac-
tion.Suchcolonization,whetherlongorshortterm,
can have a dramaticeffect on the archaeological
record by altering and/orreorientingsettlement
systems and producingmany contemporarysites
with a similar,usually intrusive,materialculture
(Parker2003). Miningin thewesternUnitedStates,
Africa,and elsewhereoffersinterestingexamples
of how such forces contributeto the dispersalof
sites into very remotelocations(Godoy 1985).
Sincethetransportation of largequantitiesof ore
is usuallyimpractical,mineralresourcesoften go
throughinitial processingat or neartheir source.
Yenerhas not only shown that in Anatoliainitial
oreprocessingwas done veryclose to ore sources,
butthatsecondaryprocessing,refining,andsmelt-
ing was alsooftenundertaken in sourceareaswhere
fuel was more readily available (Yerner2000).
Anotherexamplecanbe foundin thirdmillennium
Iranwhere the inhabitantsof TepeYahyacarved
localchloritein a so-called"internationalstyle"for
transport and distribution in southern Iraq
(Lamberg-Karlovsky 1973).
In cases where core polities establishcolonies
in a frontierregion, indigenouspopulationsmay
takeadvantageof new marketscreatedby thepres-
Parker] TOWARD AN UNDERSTANDING OF BORDERLAND PROCESSES
ence of largenumbersof itinerantor newly settled
people.Severalscholarshaveshownhow thepres-
enceof Romanlegionsin frontierregionshada pro-
foundreorientingeffect on local economies(Elton
1996b;Fulford1992).My own researchat several
sites in the UpperTigrisRivervalley of southeast-
ern Turkey suggests that Assyrian colonization
therecaused a dramaticshift in local subsistence
patterns.Excavationsat KenanTepe suggest that
the EarlyIronAge inhabitantsof the valley prac-
ticed a mixed agro-pastoraleconomy. Sheep and
goat were raised largely for secondaryproducts
such as wool and milk, while cereals were culti-
vatedin the surroundingfields.The diet was prob-
ably supplementedby a variety of wild species
(Parker2003; Parkeret al. 2003). Excavationsat
the site of Boztepe show thatthis patternshifted
duringtheAssyrianImperialPeriodwhen the vil-
lage economy appearsto have become more spe-
cialized, probably focusing on agricultural
production rather than animal husbandry.Pig
becomesthemostcommondomesticateandtherel-
ativeproportionof sheep declines sharply(Parker
andCreekmore2002). Sincethetextualrecordindi-
catesthatthe imperialauthoritiesmaintainedlarge
state-ownedflocks, the lack of faunalremainsof
sheepandgoatat siteslike Boztepemaybe a result
of the empire'scontrolover certainaspectsof the
regionaleconomy (Parker2003).
Althoughthereis very little datawith which to
evaluatepre- and postconquestmetallurgyin the
Upper Tigris River region, some generalizations
can be proposed.Excavationsat the site of Gre
Dimse show that the Early IronAge inhabitants
werecapableof producinghigh-qualityiron(Karg
2001). However, if the production facilities
unearthedat KenanTepe duringthe same period
areanyindication,themetalproductionwas small-
scale andlocally administered(Parkeret al. 2003).
In contrast,metal artifactsdiscoveredat Ziyaret
Tepe,theAssyrianadministrative centerin the val-
ley, are not only madeof variousmaterials, includ-
ing silverand bronze(Matney et al. 2003), butare
luxurygoods probablyproduced for an imperial
elite. The size and location of the metallurgical
facilitiesat ZiyaretTepe furthersuggest thatdur-
ing theAssyrianimperialperiodthe productionof
such goods was both large-scale and centrally
administered(Parker2003).
Severalstudiesof modernborderlands highlight
This content downloaded from 195.34.78.242 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 19:47:16 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
89
thewaysin whichborderlandcommunitiesexploit,
with varyingdegreeof success, the transshipment
of goods acrossborders(AlvarezandCollier1994;
Driessen1999;Flynn1997;Nugent1999).Flynn's
study of the borderbetween Benin and Nigeria
exemplifieshow frontierscanofferlucrativeoppor-
tunities to local inhabitants,especially in cases
where such areas lack centralizedgovernmental
authority.Suchcross-frontier networkingoftenpre-
cipitates intraregional ties between borderland
inhabitants(Pacheco2004). An interestingparal-
lel can be drawnbetweenthis modernborderland
and the northernand northeasternfrontiersof the
Assyrianempireat the end of the eighth century
B.C. Severallettersfromthecorrespondenceof the
Assyrianking SargonII (721-705 B.C.) concern
persons involved in cross-frontiercommerce,or,
whatis in the eyes of Assyrianofficials,smuggling
(Lanfrachi and Parpola 1990:79-80; Parpola
1987:46). Like their moderncounterparts,these
smugglerstake advantageof resourcedisparities
and exchange rates. In a letter addressedto the
Assyrianmonarch,an officialin theAssyrianvas-
sal stateof Kummereportson a smugglingringthat
transportsluxurygoods purchasedin theAssyrian
heartlandacrossthe frontierinto the highlandsof
Anatoliawhere they sell them in the rivalempire
of Urartu(LanfrachiandParpola1990:79-80).The
official recommends that the king write to the
mayorof a friendlybordertown and requestthat
he arrestandextraditethe individualsinvolvedso
that they can be interrogatedand punished.Like
the modernexample,the Assyriansseek to estab-
lish governmentalauthorityin frontierregionsand
thus regulateillicit cross-frontiercommerce,not
only to controlthe types of goods traded,but also
to divert revenue to governmentcoffers (Flynn
1997:316-317).
Isolating and Analyzing Boundary Processes
The Continuumof BoundaryDynamics(Figure2)
is meantto help researcherscharacterizespecific
boundarysituationsand will hopefullyallow var-
ious types of boundariesto be more easily com-
pared.Thus I feel this model is a big step toward
reachingthe second goal set out in this paper:it
providesa platformfortheinterdisciplinary and/or
interregionaldiscussionof varioustypesof bound-
aries.Unfortunately,thecontinuumdoes notgauge
90 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 71 , No. 1 , 2006

the processes takingplace aroundor within bor-

derlands.However,the above discussion, which
highlightssome of the intricaciesof each category
of datameasuredon the continuum,will, I believe,
aid us in analyzingthese processes.
It is my position that boundaryprocesses can
best be understoodas the dynamicinteractionthat
takes place between the categoriesand subcate-
gories of data measuredon the continuum.My
effortto breakdown the varioustypes of bound-
ariesthatmayexist in borderlandsshowsthatthere
is not only a considerable amount of overlap
betweenthesecategoriesof data,butalso thattheir
componentsare inextricablyinterconnected.For
example, the colonizationof a region (political)
mayresultin a changein the ethnic(demographic)
and linguistic (cultural)makeupof a borderland;
the extractionof rawmaterials(economic)is con-
ditioned by the types and quantityof resources
available(geographic);populationshifts (demo-
graphic)may affect the natureand distributionof
materialfoundin a borderland(cultural),andso on.
Thus,definingandcharacterizing thevariouscom-
ponents thatmake up boundaries
and carefullyana-
lyzing these componentsbrings us much closerto
understanding the natureof boundaryprocesses.
Thenextstep,then,shouldbe to analyzehow these
variouscomponentsinteractand how such inter-
Figure 3. The Borderland Matrix. This figure is a concep-
action producesvariationboth throughtime and tualization of how various types of boundaries (or bound-
withinandbetweenspecificborderlandsituations. ary sets) combine and interact in borderlands. Boundary
processes are here envisioned as the dynamic interaction
Considering,for example,how the distributionof between various types of boundaries both within and
resources (geographic)and the method of their between boundary sets through time. The top half of the
exploitation (economic) affects the relationship figure shows the diagram in plan view. The arrows repre-
sent the interconnectedness of the boundary sets. As we
betweenindigenousandexogenouspeoples(demo- move through time the relationships between the various
graphic),or how religious and materialcultural types of boundaries represented in the model vary. This
boundaries(cultural)affectandareaffectedby the interaction- the interaction that takes place within and
between boundary sets through time- is the essence of
projectionof militaryorpoliticalpowerinto a bor- boundary dynamics.
derland (political) should allow us to consider
boundaryprocessesmoreclosely and much more
systematically. gories. (Thusthe "cultural'boundaryset is made
Tohelpus visualizethenatureof borderlandsit- up of linguistic, religious, and materialcultural
uationsI haveattemptedto representthis dynamic boundaries,for example.) The dynamics of the
set of interactionsin Figure3. This figure,called interactionbetweenthese boundarysets are envi-
the "Borderland Matrix"showseachof thebound- sioned as being propelledby time. Thus, as we
ary sets thatmakeup bordersandfrontierswithin move fromthe bottomof Figure3 towardthe top,
borderlands.These boundarysets are shown as we move throughtime. The interactionthattakes
intertwinedstrings.Weshouldenvisioneachstring place between the boundarysets throughtime is
(whether geographic, political, cultural, demo- representedby the interwovenstrings.
graphic,or economic) as a boundaryset that is The top half of the figureshows the diagramin
made up of various smaller strandsor subcate- plan view. The arrowsrepresentthe interconnect-

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.242 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 19:47:16 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Parker] TOWARD AN UNDERSTANDING OF BORDERLAND PROCESSES 91

Figure 4. Map of the Middle East showing the location of the area referred to in the texts as the Tigris Borderlands.

ednessof the boundarysets. Eachof the boundary iouspublicationswherethesedataappear.Through

setshas thepotentialto influenceanyotherbound-
aryset.As we move throughtime the relationships
between the various types of boundariesrepre-
sentedin the modelvary.It is this interaction- the
interactionthat takes place within and between
boundarysets throughtime- thatis, in my opin-
ion, the essence of boundarydynamics.
Thenatureof borderlandprocesses,envisioned
hereas thedynamicinteractionwithinandbetween
boundarysets, can be illustratedby brieflyexam-
iningAssyria'sinvolvementin the Tigris border-
lands in southeasternAnatolia over a period of
slightlymorethantwo hundredyears(fromabout
91 1 to 705 B.C.). I must emphasizefrom the out-
set, first,thatthe followingcase studyis not meant
to be comprehensive,and second,thatthis discus-
sionreliesheavilyon my previouswork(especially
Parker2001, 2002, and2003). Thepointhereis not
to repeatpreviouslypublisheddata,but insteadto
throwthesedataintoa new lightby analyzingthem
withinthe borderlandframeworkpresentedin this
paper.For this reason, I will speak in relatively
broadtermsand,ratherthanreiteratingeveryaspect
of thedatapreviouslydiscussed,will referencevar-
this analysisit shouldbecome clear to the reader
thateven the storiesof thoroughlyresearchedbor-
derlandscanyield new andinterestinginsightsinto
borderland processeswhenviewedthroughthelens
of the models here proposed.It is my hope that,
even thoughthe data used to constructthis illus-
trationare not new, the following analysiswill be
helpful in applyingthese models to otherborder-
landsituationsandwill thusaidresearchersin com-
paringvariousborderlandsthroughspaceandtime.
The TigrisBorderlandsthroughthe Lens of the
"BorderlandMatrix"
Assyrianimperialpolicytowardsoutheastern Ana-
tolia was conditionedby geographicenticements
and constraints.To begin with, the heartlandof
Assyria, in what is today northern Iraq, and
Assyria'snorthernborderland,in whatis todaythe
southeasterncornerof modernTurkey(Figure4),
contrastsharply in elevation, climate, flora and
fauna, topography,and naturalresources(Parker
2001:159-160, 2002:377-380).Theruggedtopog-
raphy of much of southeasternAnatolia was an
obvious impedimentto Assyrian imperialambi-

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.242 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 19:47:16 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
92 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
tions, but at the same time the abundantnatural
resources of the Anatolian highlands probably
underlieAssyria'slong-terminterestin thisregion
(Maxwell-Hyslop1974).3Inspiteof this,Assyria's
economicboundarieswerenotthe firstto shiftinto
southeasternAnatolia.Instead,the firstboundary
to move into this region was Assyria's military
boundary.
The first two kings of the Assyrian Imperial
period(Adad-narari II [911-891 B.C.] andTukulti-
NinurtaII [890-884 B.C.]) campaignedrepeat-
edly in southeasternAnatolia and in doing so
createda militaryfrontierbetween the lowlands
of northSyria and northernIraq,and the Taurus
foothills in southeastern Anatolia (Parker
2001 :165-1 67).4 The textual data suggest that,
althoughtheircampaignsin whatI will referto as
the "Tigrisborderlands"(Figure4) were, from a
militarypoint of view, quite successful (Grayson
1982:249-253), shifting militaryboundariesdid
not, at least at first, guaranteethat political and
administrativeboundarieswould follow. Neither
Adad-narariII norTukulti-Ninurta II were able to
consolidate their military gains in southeastern
Anatoliaas neitherof thesekingsattemptedto per-
manentlyoccupy the areasthey conqueredthere
(Parker2001:165-166).
The nexus of two boundarysets probablycon-
tributedto this situation.First,geographydictated
that early attemptsto permanentlyoccupy and
administerthisborderlandwouldhavebeen logis-
tically difficult.Since the UpperTigrisRiverval-
ley is separatedfromnorthSyriaandnorthernIraq
by the arid TurAbdin Mountains,the Assyrians
would have had to establishtransportation corri-
dors throughthis rugged terrainto link potential
colonies along the Tigris River to the Assyrian
heartland.And second,the politicalboundariesof
existing polities in this regionmay have made its
annexationa riskymilitarygamble.Until any sig-
nificantpoliticalunits in the region were neutral-
ized, Assyriancolonies in the UpperTigriswould
be open to attack.Thus geographicand political
boundarysets in southeasternAnatoliaprobably
workedto constrainAssyria'smilitaryboundaryin
its northernborderlandsandkeep themboth from
shiftingfurthernorthandconsolidatinginto a sta-
tic or restrictiveborder.Instead,between at least
911 and884 B.C., thisregionremaineda fluidmil-
itaryfrontier.
This content downloaded from 195.34.78.242 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 19:47:16 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 71 , No. 1 , 2006
DespitethetheorythatAssyria'smilitarybound-
ary in southeasternAnatoliaremainedfluidfor as
long as three decades at the end of the tenth and
the beginningof the ninthcenturiesB.C., the pro-
jectionof Assyrianmilitaryforce5intothisareadid
have an effect on administrative boundariesthere.
Referencesto "rebellions" in theTigrisborderlands
in the military annals of Tukulti-Ninurta II
(Grayson 1991b:171-172) and his son and suc-
cessorAshurnasirpal II (Grayson1991b:200-201),
andthe fact thatTukulti-Ninurta II installeda pro-
Assyrian rulerin the state of Bit Zamani(ancient
Diyarbakir [Grayson 1991b: 171-172]) suggest
that,ratherthanface a possible militaryinvasion,
some politiesin theTigrisborderlandsenteredinto
tributaryrelationshipswith the empire (Grayson
1982:211, 249-251; Parker 2001:166-167).6
Whetheror not any such agreementswere in fact
vassal treatiesdirectly administeredby Assyrian
officials (such as Assyria's vassal treaty with
Kumme discussed above) or were instead less-
elaboratemilitaryalliances,is impossibleto say.
Nevertheless,any such agreementswere the first
indicationof an attempton the partof the empire
to shift administrativeboundariesinto the Tigris
borderlands.
Political boundariesin the Tigris borderlands
changeddramaticallywiththe accessionof Ashur-
nasirpalII in 883 B.C. Knowing the economic
potentialof the region and faced with a rebellion
among Assyria's newly acquired allies there,
AshurnasirpalII embarkedon a policy thatwould
lead to the annexationof a large section of the
UpperTigrisRivervalleyeastof Diyarbakir.Inthe
firstfive years of his reign,AshurnasirpalII both
consolidatedAssyria's militaryfrontierin south-
easternAnatoliaandpushedAssyria'spoliticaland
administrativeboundaries to the Upper Tigris
River.7In doing so, Ashurnasirpal laid the founda-
tionforchangesin demographic,cultural,andeco-
nomic boundariesin the Tigrisborderlands.
Ashurnasirpal IIbeganwitha full-scalemilitary
invasionaimedprimarilyatkey enemystrongholds
both in the TurAbdin Mountainsand the areain
andaroundtheUpperTigrisRivervalley.8Tosolid-
ify Assyria'smilitaryboundaryon theTigrisRiver
andfurtherestablishAssyria'spoliticalandadmin-
istrative boundaries in the surroundingvalley,
AshurnasirpalII constructeda series of fortresses
along the south bank of the Upper Tigris River
Parker] TOWARD AN UNDERSTANDING OF BORDERLAND PROCESSES
(Parker2002:380; also see Parker1997a).9These
fortresseswere, first and foremost, militaryand
administrativefacilities. The provincial govern-
ment centered at the site of Tushan (Parker
2001:167-175, 2002:381-382) eventually grew
into a complexbureaucracythattightlycontrolled
mostaspectsof life in theTigrisborderlands.Assyr-
ian provincialadministrationincluded,of course,
manyhigh-rankingofficials.But it also includeda
largenumberof lesserbureaucratssuchas tax col-
lectors, corvee labor officers, and, as mentioned
above,villagemanagers(Parker2002:382-383).10
In projecting the military boundaries of the
empire, creatinga militaryfrontierin the Tigris
borderlandsandthen consolidatingthatboundary
on the Tigris River,the Assyriansinitiatedwhat
wouldbecomea drasticshiftin the demographyof
the region.Priorto Assyrianmilitarypenetration
intotheTigrisborderlands, thisareahadbeenhome
to whatwas probablya numberof smallpolitically
autonomouspolities (Liverani1992:107; Parker
2003:534). The collapse of the indigenoussettle-
ment system, which is clearly evident in the
regionalsurveydata(see aboveandParker2003),
was almostcertainlytheresultof Assyrianmilitary
aggression.WiththeTigrisbasinnow protectedby
Assyrian fortresses,AshurnasirpalII began the
process of colonizing the fertile land along the
banks of the Tigris River.Althoughthis process
undoubtedlytook manygenerationsandprobably
includedbothforcedandvoluntarymigration(see
above,andParkerandCreekmore2002), it resulted
in a sharprise in the numberof ruralsettlementsin
the UpperTigrisRivervalley.This influxdramat-
ically changedthe ethnic and linguisticcharacter
of the Tigrisborderlands.
The indigenousinhabitantsof the Tigris bor-
derlandswho may have spoken some variantof
Human,Shubrian,or perhapsevenAramaicwere
eitherreplacedor complementedby settlersand
deporteesfrom variouspartsof the ancientNear
East (Oded 1979). In addition,ethnicAssyrians,
Babylonians,andothergroupsarrivedin theTigris
borderlandsto performvarioustasksfor the impe-
rial administration or to claim propertygrantedto
them,or to institutionswith whichthey were affil-
iated,by royal decree.11This inwardand outward
migrationprobablycreateda complicatedmix of
ethnic and linguistic boundariesboth within the
areas directly administeredby the empire and
This content downloaded from 195.34.78.242 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 19:47:16 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
93
between those areas and neighboring polities
(Parker2002:383-385). The complex ethnic and
linguisticcharacterengenderedby shiftingdemo-
graphicboundariesin the regionis exemplifiedby
the referencesto interpreters,foreignnames, and
a few foreignwordsquotedin Assyriantextsnoted
above.Whetherornotthese shiftingethnicandlin-
guistic boundariesproduceda 'Tigris Creole"is
impossibleto say with the presentevidence. One
thingis certain,however- throughthe eighthand
seventhcenturies,ethnicAssyriansand theirlan-
guage were fast becoming a minorityin this and
many other parts of the empire (Tadmor1978,
1991).
Assyria'scolonizationof theUpperTigrisRiver
valleybroughtwithit the spreadof Assyrianmate-
rial culture,the most archaeologicallyvisible cat-
egory of which is ceramics(see above).Assyrian
ceramic type fossils, which contrast sharply in
shape, ware, and manufacture with the pre-
Assyrianand indigenousceramicsof the region,
become ubiquitousin the UpperTigrisRiverval-
ley afterthe reignof AshurnasirpalII. Outsidethe
Upper Tigris River valley, many sites retain an
indigenous ceramic assemblage.Although some
of thevariationbetweentheseassemblagesmaybe
chronological, their distribution suggests that
demographicand/oreconomicboundarysetsinter-
actedto producea materialcultureboundaryin the
Tigrisborderlands(Parker1997a).
Thesolidificationof Assyria'spolitical,military,
and administrativeboundariesaroundthe Upper
Tigris River duringthe reign of AshurnasirpalII
not only paved the way for shifting ethnic, lin-
guistic, and materialcultureboundaries,but also
opened the area to economic development and
exploitation.As mentionedabove, one of the fac-
torsmotivatingAssyria'sinterestin the Tigrisbor-
derlandswas clearlyeconomics.The textualdata
suggest that once Assyrian political boundaries
were establishedin the Tigrisborderlands,much
of the provincialadministration's effortswere put
toward the exploitation of the region's natural
resourcesandtheagricultural developmentof rural
areasaroundandbetweenAssyrianfortresses.
Assyrianlettersdatingto the reignof SargonII
(721-705 B.C.)12demonstrateAssyria'sinterestin
acquiringtimber from this region. I have noted
elsewhere(Parker2001:227-230, 2002:388-389)
that overexploitationof lumberin the Tigrisbor-
94 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
derlandsmeantthattheAssyrianspushedthe eco-
nomic boundariesof the empire well beyond its
political boundariesas logging expeditionswere
often requiredto travelfar into hostile territoryto
find suitabletimber.13 The provincialadministra-
tion also concentratedon accumulatingagricul-
turalsurpluses.Much of the colonial population
broughtinto the regionby the Assyrianswas set-
tledin smallvillagesin the fertilelandin theTigris
basin.This policy was undoubtedlyan attemptby
theprovincialadministration to bringunderutilized
land into agriculturalproduction(see above and
Parker1997a,2001:262-263).
Althoughthe precedingsummaryof Assyria's
interventionin the Tigrisborderlandsis far from
comprehensive,it does createa startingpoint for
the furtherresearchinto this andotherborderland
situations.To begin with, this summaryillustrates
theusefulnessof examiningtheinteractionbetween
boundary sets and demonstrateshow intercon-
nectedthese categoriesof dataare. In the case of
the Tigris borderlands,this summaryshows that
geographicboundarysets workedboth to aid and
obstructAssyria's interventionin the Tigris bor-
derlands;thatAssyrianpoliticalboundariescaused
indigenousdemographicboundaryshifts while at
thesametimecreatedtheconditionsforexogenous
demographicboundaryshifts;thatAssyria'seco-
nomic boundarieswere in some respects condi-
tionedby Assyria'sadministrative boundaries,and
in othercases workedoutsideof the these bound-
aries,etc. Butperhapsmoreimportantly,this sum-
marydemonstratesthatthe dynamiccharacterof
this, andpresumablyother,borderlands - the very
dynamismthatmake borderlandsboth intriguing
andelusive subjectsof study- can be brokeninto
a set of constituentparts.Not only can those parts
be examinedseparately,buttheinteractionbetween
theseparts,whatI believeto be the essence of bor-
derlandprocesses,can also be studied.
Conclusion
Thereis no questionthestudyof thedynamicinter-
actionsthattakeplace in borderlandsis an impor-
tant topic of researchfor many subdisciplinesof
the Humanities and Social Sciences. However,
since the natureof these dynamicscan be influ-
enced by a variety of geographic,political, cul-
tural, economic, and demographicfactors, it is
This content downloaded from 195.34.78.242 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 19:47:16 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 71 , No. 1 , 2006
importantto developa platformuponwhichcom-
monanduniquethemesin the studyof borderlands
can be analyzed.This articleattemptsto establish
sucha platformby proposingterminologyandthe-
oreticalconstructswithinwhich to define,charac-
terize, and isolate the components of, and the
processesthattakeplace in, borderlands.The first
model,presentedas Figure1, assumesthatin their
mostextrememanifestations,bordersandfrontiers
canbe envisionedas oppositeends of a continuum
thatflows fromthe staticclosed borderon one end
to the open fluidfrontieron the other.The second
model, presentedhere as Figure 2, elaborateson
theseideasby acknowledgingthatbordersandfron-
tiers are in fact composites made up of various
types of boundariesthatcan be fit into five general
categoriesor "boundarysets":geographic,politi-
cal, cultural, economic, and demographic. By
studying historicalcircumstancesand processes
thatcontributeto each of these categoriesof data,
researcherscan characterizethe dynamicsof the
varioustypes of boundariesthat occur in border-
landsandin doing so come muchcloserto under-
standing the nature of a specific borderland
situationat a specific point in history.The third
model, presented here as Figure 3, allows
researchersto envisionthe forcespropellingfron-
tier dynamics. This model assumes that the
processesthattakeplacein borderlandsarea result
of the interactionbetween the various types of
boundarysets thatmakeup bordersand frontiers.
It also assumesthat dynamicsof these processes
are propelled by time. As geographic,political,
demographic,cultural,andeconomicpressuresin
any specific borderlandchange throughtime, the
interactionbetweentheseboundarysetscreatesthe
dynamicsthatcharacterizeborderlands. Thus,bor-
derlandprocesses can be definedas the dynamic
interactionwithin and between boundarysets as
theircharacteristics(i.e., static,restrictive,porous,
fluid)andthe natureof theirinterconnectionsvary
throughtime.
Acknowledgments.This article began as a conference paper
that was presentedin a panel organizedby Gyles Iannoneat
the annualmeetingsof the Society forAmericanArchaeology
in Milwaukee,Wisconsin in April 2003. I benefited greatly
from the paperspresentedin that panel and from the issues
raisedby the discussants.This articlealso benefitedfrom the
lengthyemail exchangesthatI had with Gyles afterthe meet-
ings. I would like to sincerelythankthe organizerandthe par-
Parker] TOWARDAN UNDERSTANDING OF BORDERLAND PROCESSES
ticipantsfor such fruitfuldiscussions.The ideas in this paper Barth,Fredrick
buildon an earlierarticle(Parker2002) thatalso came out of
a paperpresentedat an SAA meeting.Thatpanel, which took
place in Philadelphiain 2000, was particularlyfruitfuland I
would like to thankSteve Rosen for his inputand for encour-
aging me to continue with the topic. Funding for the field-
work discussed in this paper was providedby the National
Endowmentfor the Humanities.I would like to thankDrew
McGaraghanfor creatingFigure 3 and Mary Ann Villarreal
for translatingthe abstract.I am also deeply indebtedto the
four anonymous reviewers whose insightful comments I
found extremelyhelpful. This article is dedicatedto Tabitha
Rose (can you say hippopotamus?).When you opened your
eyes you changedmy life.
References Cited
Adelman,Jeremy,and StephenAron
1999 FromBorderlands to Borders:Empires,Nation-States, Cusick,
and the Peoples in Between in NorthAmericanHistory.
AmericanHistoricalReview:8 14-841.
Alconini,Sonia
2005 The Dynamicsof MilitaryandCulturalFrontierson
the SoutheasternEdge of the InkaEmpire.In Untaming
the Frontierin Anthropology,Archaeologyand History,
editedby B. J. ParkerandL. Rodseth,pp. 115-146. Uni- Deagan,
versity of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Alvarez,RobertR.
1995 The Mexican-USBorder:The Makingof anAnthro-
of Borderlands. Annual Review
pology of Anthropology
24:447^170.
1999 Toward an Anthropology of Borderlands: The
Mexican-U.S.Borderand the Crossingof the 21st Cen-
tury.In Frontiersand Borderlands:AnthropologicalPer- Dodd,
edited M. Rosier and T.Wendl,pp. 225-238.
spectives, by
PeterLang,Frankfurt.
Alvarez,RobertR., andGeorgeA. Collier
1994 The Long Haulin MexicanTrucking:Traversingthe
Borderlandsof the Northand South.AmericanEthnolo-
gist 2\{?>):606-621 .
Ammerman,AlbertJ.
1981 SurveysandArchaeologicalResearch.AnnualReview
of Anthropology 10:63-88.
Anderson,Malcolm
1996 Frontiers:Territoryand StateFormationin theMod-
ern World.Polity Press,Cambridge.
Anderson,Malcolm, and Eberhard Bort
1998 TheFrontiersof Europe.Pinter, London.
Aron,Stephen
2005 The Meetingsof Peoples andEmpiresat the Conflu-
ence of theMissouri,Ohio,andMississippiRivers.In Unt-
aming the Frontier in Anthropology,Archaeology and
History,editedby B. J.ParkerandL. Rodseth,pp.174^202.
University of ArizonaPress, Tucson.
Axtell, James
1981 The InvasionWithin:The Conquestof Culturesin
ColonialNorthAmerica.In TheFrontierinHistory:North
America and SouthernAfrica Compared,edited by H.
Lamarand L. Thompson,pp. 237-269. Yale University
Press,New Haven.
Barth,Fredrick(editor)
1969 EthnicGroupsand Boundaries:TheSocial Organi-
zationof CultureDifference.Little,BrownandCompany,
Boston.
This content downloaded from 195.34.78.242 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 19:47:16 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
95
1994 EnduringandEmergingIssuesin theAnalysisof Eth-
nicity. In TheAnthropologyof Ethnicity:Beyond 'Ethnic
Groupsand Boundaries',editedby H. VermeulenandC.
Grovers,pp. 11-32. Het Spinhuis,Amsterdam.
Bauer,BrianS., andCharlesStanish
2001 RitualPilgrimagein theAncientAndes: TheIslands
of the Sun and Moon. Universityof TexasPress,Austin.
Cohen,AnthonyP.
1985 TheSymbolicConstructionof Community. Tavistock
Publications,New York.
1994 Self Consciousness:An AlternativeAnthropologyof
Identity.Routledge,New York.
Cook, Ramsay
1981 The Social andEconomicFrontierin NorthAmerica.
In TheFrontierin History:NorthAmericaand Southern
Africa Compared,editedby H. LamarandL. Thompson,
pp. 175-208. YaleUniversityPress,New Haven.
Curzon,George
1907 Frontiers.ClarendonPress,Oxford.
James.G. (editor)
1998 Studies in Culture Contact: Interaction, Culture
ChangeandArchaeology.CenterforArchaeologicalInves-
tigations,Carbondale.
D'Altroy,TerranceN.
1992 ProvincialPower in the Inka Empire.Smithsonian
InstitutionPress,Washington,D.C.
KathleenA.
1985 Spanish-IndianInteraction in Sixteenth-Century
FloridaandHispaniola.In Culturesin Contact:TheImpact
of EuropeanContactson NativeAmericanCulturalInsti-
tutions,edited by W. W Fitzhugh,pp. 281-318. Smith-
sonianInstitutionPress,Washington,D.C.
Dobyns, HenryF.
1993 DiseaseTransferatContact.AnnualReviewofAnthro-
pology 22:21 ?>-29\.
LynnS.
2005 Territory,Legacy, andWealthin IronAge Anatolia.
In Untamingthe Frontierin Anthropology,Archaeology
and History, edited by B. J. Parkerand L. Rodseth,pp.
238-260. Universityof ArizonaPress,Tucson.
Donnan, Hastings,andThomasM. Wilson (editors)
1994 BorderApproaches:AnthropologicalPerspectiveson
Frontiers.Universityof AmericaPress, Lanham,Mary-
land.
Driessen, Henk
1999 Smugglingas a BorderWayof Life:A Mediterranean
Example.In Frontiersand Borderlands:Anthropological
Perspectives, edited by M. Rosier and T. Wendl, pp.
117-127. PeterLang,Frankfurt.
Eaton,Richard
1993 TheRiseofIslamandtheBengalFrontier,1204-1760.
Universityof CaliforniaPress,Berkeley.
2005 ThreeOverlappingFrontiersin EarlyModernBen-
gal: Religious,Agrarian,Imperial.In Untamingthe Fron-
tier in Anthropology,Archaeologyand History,editedby
B. J. ParkerandL. Rodseth,pp. 52-82. Universityof Ari-
zona Press,Tucson.
Elphick, Richard
1981 Africans and the ChristianCampaignin Southern
Africa. In The Frontierin History:NorthAmerica and
SouthernAfrica Compared,edited by H. Lamarand L.
Thompson, pp. 270-307. Yale University Press, New
Haven.
Elton,Hugh
1996a DefiningRomans,Barbarians,andtheRomanFron-
tier. In ShiftingFrontiersin LateAntiquity,editedby R.
96 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
W. MathisenandH. S. Sivan,pp. 126-135. AshgatePub-
lishingCompany,Hampshire.
1996b Frontiersof the RomanEmpire.IndianaUniversity
Press,Bloomington.
Erentoz,Cahit,andLhsanKetin
1962 Diyarbakir:ExplanatoryTextof the Geographical
Map of Turkey. Maden Tetkik ve Arama Enstitiisii
Yayinlarindan,Ankara.
Faragher,John
1998 "MoreMotley than Mackinaw":FromEthnicMix-
ing to EthnicCleansingon the Frontierof the LowerMis-
souri, 1783-1833. In ContactPoints:AmericanFrontiers
from the MohawkValleyto the Mississippi,1750-1830,
editedby A. Caytonand F. Teute,pp. 304-326. Univer-
sity of NorthCarolinaPress,ChapelHill.
Farnsworth,Paul
1989 NativeAmericanAcculturationin the SpanishColo-
nial Empire:The FranciscanMissions of Alta California.
In CentreandPeriphery:ComparativeStudiesinArchae-
ology,editedby T.C. Champion,pp. 186-206. OneWorld
Archaeology,vol. 11. Routledge,London.
Fitzhugh,WilliamW. (editor)
1985 Culturesin Contact:The Impactof EuropeanCon-
tactsonNativeAmericanCulturalInstitutions,A.D. 1000-
1800. SmithsonianInstitutionPress,Washington,D.C.
Flynn,DonnaK.
1997 "WeAre the Border":Indentity,Exchange,and the
Statealong the Benin-NigeriaBorder.AmericanEthnol-
ogist 24:311-330.
Fulford,Michael
1992 TerritorialExpansionandthe RomanEmpire.World
Archaeology23(3):294-305.
Godoy,Richardo
1985 Mining:Anthropological Perspectives. AnnualReview
of Anthropology14:199-217.
Grayson,AlbertK.
1982 Assyria:Ashur-danII to Ashur-NirariV (934-745
B.C.). In The CambridgeAncient History, edited by J.
Boardman,I. E. S. Edwards,N. G. L. Hammond,and S.
Sollberger,pp. 238-281. Vol. Ill, part1. CambridgeUni-
versityPress,Cambridge.
1991a Assyrian Civilization.In The CambridgeAncient
History,editedby J. Boardman,I. E. S. Edwards,N. G. L.
Hammond,and S. Sollberger,pp. 194-228. Vol. Ill, part
2. CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.
199 1b AssyrianRulersof the EarlyFirstMillenniumBC I
(1114-859). The Royal Inscriptionsof Mesopotamia:
Assyrian Periods, Vol. 2. University of TorontoPress,
Toronto.
Green,StantonW, and StephenM. Perlman(editors)
1985 TheArchaeologyof Frontiersand Boundaries.Aca-
demic Press,Orlando.
Hamilton,Carolyn
1999 Whereis theBorderNow?:TheNew Politicsof Iden-
tityin SouthAfrica.InFrontiersandBorderlands:Anthro-
pological Perspectives,editedby M. RosierandT.Wendl,
pp. 45-58. PeterLang,Frankfurt.
Hannerz,Ulf
1996 TransnationalConnections:Culture,People,Places.
Routledge,New York.
Hansen,Niles
1981 TheBorderEconomy:RegionalDevelopmentin the
Southwest.Universityof TexasPress,Austin.
Hassig,Ross
1985 Trade,Tribute,and Transportation:The Sixteenth-
CenturyPoliticalEconomyof the Valleyof Mexico. Uni-
versityof Oklahoma,Norman.
This content downloaded from 195.34.78.242 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 19:47:16 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 71 , No. 1 , 2006
1988 AztecWarfare: ImperialExpansionandPoliticalCon-
trol.Universityof Oklahoma,Norman.
1992 WarandSocietyinAncientMesoamerica.University
of CaliforniaPress,Berkeley.
Hickerson,DanielA.
1997 HistoricalProcesses,EpidemicDisease, andthe For-
mation of the Hasinai Confederacy. Ethnohistory
44(l):31-52.
Hill, JonathanD. (editor)
1996 History, Power and Identity: Ethnogenesis in the
Americas,1492-1992. Universityof Iowa,IowaCity.
Hill, JonathanD.
1998 Violent Encounters:Ethnogenesisand Ethnocidein
Long-TermContactSituations.In Studiesin CultureCon-
tact:Interaction,CultureChange,andArchaeology,edited
by J. Cusick, pp. 146-171. Center for Archaeological
Investigations,SouthernIllinoisUniversity,Carbondale.
Hinderaker,Eric
1997 Elusive Empires: ConstructingColonialism in the
Ohio Valley,1673-1800. CambridgeUniversity Press,
Cambridge.
Hinderaker,Eric, andPeterC. Mancall
2003 At the Edge of Empire:The Backcountryin British
NorthAmerica. Johns Hopkins UniversityPress, Balti-
more.
Hodder,Ian
1982 Symbolsin Action: EthnoarchaeologicalStudies of
Material Culture. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cam-
bridge.
Holdich,T. H.
1916 PoliticalFrontiersandBoundaryMaking.Macmillan,
London.
Isaac,Benjamin
1990 TheLimitsof Empire:TheRomanArmyin the East.
ClarendonPress,Oxford.
Jones, StephenB.
1959 BoundaryConceptsin the Settingof PlaceandTime.
Annals of the Association of American Geographers
49(3):241-255.
Karg,Norbert
2001 FirstSoundingsat GreDimse. In SalvageProjectof
theArchaeologicalHeritageof the Ihsu and Carchemish
Dam Reservoirs,Activitiesin 1999, editedby N. Tuna,J.
OztiirkandJ.Velibeyoglu,pp.643-693. MiddleEastTech-
nical University,Ankara.
Kataja,Laura,andRobertWhiting
1995 Grants,DecreesandGiftsof theNeo-AssyrianPeriod.
State Archives of Assyria Vol. XII. Helsinki University
Press,Helsinki.
Kessler,Karlheinz
1980 Untersuchungen zur historischen Topographie
Nordmesopotamiens. LudwigReichertVerlag,Wiesbaden.
Klein, KerwinL.
1996 Frontiersof Historical Imagination:Narratingthe
EuropeanConquestof NativeAmerica,1890-1990. Uni-
versityof CaliforniaPress,Berkeley.
Kolb,Charles
1985 DemographicEstimatesin Archaeology:Contribu-
tionsfromEthnoarchaeology on MesoamericanPeasants.
CurrentAnthropology26(5):581-599.
Kopytoff,Igor (editor)
1987a TheAfrican Frontier:The Reproductionof Tradi-
tionalAfricanSocieties.IndianaUniversityPress,Bloom-
ington.
Kopytoff,Igor
1987b TheInternalAfricanFrontier:TheMakingof African
PoliticalCulture.In TheAfricanFrontier:TheReproduc-
Parker] TOWARD AN UNDERSTANDING OF BORDERLAND PROCESSES
tion of TraditionalAfricanSocieties, edited by I. Kopy-
toff, pp. 3-84. IndianaUniversityPress,Bloomington.
1999 The InternalAfricanFrontier:CulturalConservatism
and Ethnic Innovation.In Frontiersand Borderlands:
AnthropologicalPerspectives,editedby M. RosierandT.
Wendl,pp. 31-44. PeterLang,Frankfort.
Kratochwil,Fredrich
1986 Of Systems,Boundaries,andTerritoriality :An Inquiry
into the Formationof the State System. WorldPolitics
39(l):27-52.
Kristof,LadisK. D.
1959 The Natureof Frontiersand Boundaries.Annals of
theAssociationofAmericanGeographers49(3):269-282.
Kuzucuoglu,Catherine
2002 PreliminaryObservationon theTigrisValleyTerraces
between Bismil and Batman.In Salvage Project of the
ArchaeologicalHeritageof theIhsuand CarchemishDam
ReservoirsActivitiesin 2000, edited by N. Tuna and J.
Velibeyoju, pp. 759-771. Middle East TechnicalUni-
versity,Ankara.
La Lone, MaryB., andDarrellE. La Lone
1987 The Inka State in the Southern Highlands: State
Administrativeand ProductionEnclaves. Ethnohistory
34(l):47-62.
Lamar,Howard,andLeonardThompson(editors)
1981 TheFrontierin History:NorthAmericaand South-
ernAfricaCompared.YaleUniversityPress,New Haven.
Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C.
1973 UrbanInteractionon the IranianPlateau: Excava-
tionsat TepeYahya1967-1973. OxfordUniversityPress,
London.
Lanfranchi,GiovanniB., and Simo Parpola
1990 The Correspondenceof Sargon II, Part II: Letters
from the Northern and Northeastern Provinces. State
Archives of Assyria Vol. V. Helsinki University Press,
Helsinki.
Lattimore,Owen
1962 Studies in Frontier History: Collected Papers
1928-1958. OxfordUniversityPress,London.
Lefferts,H. L.
1977 FrontierDemography:An Introduction.In TheFron-
tier: ComparativeStudies,editedby D. H. Miller and J.
O. Steffen,pp. 33-55. The Universityof OklahomaPress,
Norman.
Lewis, Kennith
1985 FunctionalVariationamongSettlementson the South
CarolinaFrontier:An ArchaeologicalPerspective.In The
Archaeologyof FrontiersandBoundaries,editedby S. W.
GreenandS. M. Perlman,pp. 251-274. AcademicPress,
Orlando.
Lightfoot,KentG., andAntoinetteMartinez
1995 FrontiersandBoundariesin ArchaeologicalPerspec-
tive.AnnualReviewof Anthropology24:471-492.
Liverani,Mario
1979 The Ideology of the AssyrianEmpire.In Powerand
Propaganda:A SymposiumonAncientEmpires,editedby
M. T. Larsen,pp. 297-317. Mesopotamia7. Akademisk
Forlag,Copenhagen.
1992 Studies in the Annals of AshurnasirpalII 2: Topo-
graphicalAnalysis. Universitadi Roma "La Sapienza",
Roma.
Luttwak,Edward
1976 TheGrandStrategyof the RomanEmpire:Fromthe
FirstCenturyA.D. to the Third.JohnsHopkinsUniversity
Press,Baltimore.
Martinez,OscarJ.
1994 BorderPeople: Life and Society in the U.S.-Mexico
This content downloaded from 195.34.78.242 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 19:47:16 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
97
Borderlands.Universityof ArizonaPress,Tucson.
Matney,Tim, John MacGinnis,Helen McDonald, Kathleen
Nicoll, LynnRainville,MichaelRoaf, MonicaL. Smith,
DianaStein
2003 ArchaeologicalInvestigationsat ZiyaretTepe 2002.
Anatolica29:175-221.
Maxwell-Hyslop,K. R.
1974 Assyrian Sources of Iron:A PreliminarySurvey of
the Historical and Geographical Evidence. Iraq
XXXVI:139-154.
McNeill, WilliamH.
1976 Plagues and Peoples.AnchorBooks, New York.
Morris,Craig,andDonaldE. Thompson
1970 HuanucoViejo:An IncaAdministrative Center.Amer-
icanAntiquity35(3):344-362.
Murra,JohnV.
1980 The Economic Organizationof the Inka State. JAI
Press,Greenwich,Connecticut.
Nugent,Paul
1999 Power versus Knowledge:Smugglersand the State
along Ghana'sEasternFrontier,1920-1992. In Frontiers
andBorderlands:AnthropologicalPerspectives,editedby
M. RosierandT.Wendl,pp. 77-99. PeterLang,Frankfurt.
Oded,Bustenay
1979 MassDeportationandDeporteesin theNeo-Assyrian
Empire.Dr.LudwigReichertVerlag,Wiesbaden.
Pacheco,FranciscoJ.
2004 TransborderUrbanRegime in the El Paso-Ciudad
JuarezRegion.In ChallengedBorderlands:Transcending
Political and Cultural Boundaries, edited by V.
Pavlakovich-Kochi, B. J.MorehouseandD. Wastl-Walter,
pp. 251-267. Ashgate,Burlington,Vermont.
Pagaard,StephanA.
1986 Disease and the British Army in South Africa,
1899-1900. MilitaryAffairs50(2):71-76.
Palka,JoelW
1998 LacandonMaya CultureChangeand Survivalin the
LowlandFrontierof theExpandingGuatemalanandMex-
icanRepublics.InStudiesin CultureContact:Interaction,
CultureChangeandArchaeology,editedby J. Cusick,pp.
457-^-75.CenterforArchaeologicalInvestigations,South-
ernIllinoisUniversity,Carbondale.
Parker,BradleyJ.
1997a GarrisoningtheEmpire:Aspectsof theConstruction
and Maintenanceof Fortson the AssyrianFrontier.Iraq
59:77-87.
1997b The NorthernFrontierof Assyria:An Archaeologi-
cal Perspective.InAssyria1995, editedby S. Parpolaand
R. Whiting,pp. 217-244. The Neo-AssyrianTextCorpus
Project,Helsinki.
1998 ArchaeologicalEvidencefortheLocationof Tushan:
A ProvincialCapitalon the NorthernFrontierof Assyria.
In IntellectualLife in theAncientNear East: PapersPre-
sented at the 43rd RencontreAssyriologique Interna-
tionale,Prague,July1-5, 1996, editedby J. Prosecky,pp.
299-314. OrientalInstitute,Prague.
2001 TheMechanicsof Empire:TheNorthernFrontierof
Assyriaas a Case Studyin ImperialDynamics.The Neo-
AssyrianTextCorpusProject,Helsinki.
2002 At the Edge of Empire:ConceptualizingAssyria's
AnatolianFrontierca. 700 B.C. Journalof Anthropologi-
cal Archaeology21(3):371-395.
2003 ArchaeologicalManifestationsof Empire:Assyria's
Imprinton SoutheasternAnatolia.AmericanJournal of
Archaeology107(4):525-557.
Parker,BradleyJ., andAndrewCreekmore
2002 The UpperTigrisArchaeologicalResearchProject:
98 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
A Final Reportfrom the 1999 Field Season. Anatolian
Studies52:19-74.
Parker,Bradley J., Andrew Creekmore,Lynn Swartz Dodd,
CathrynMeegan,EleanorMoseman,RichardPaine,Meg
Abraham,andPeterCobb
2003 The Upper TigrisArchaeologicalResearchProject
(UTARP):A PreliminaryReportfromthe 2001 FieldSea-
son. Anatolica29:103-174.
Parker,BradleyJ., andLarsRodseth(editors)
2005 UntamingtheFrontierinAnthropology, Archaeology
and History.Universityof ArizonaPress,Tucson.
Parpola,Simo
1981 AssyrianRoyal Inscriptionsand Neo-AssyrianLet-
ters.InAssyrianRoyalInscriptions:New Horizonsin Lit-
erary,Ideological, and HistoricalAnalysis, edited by F.
M. Fales, pp. 117-142. OrientisAntiqviCollectio XVII.
Centroperle Antichitae la StoriaDell'ArtedelVicinoOri-
ente, Roma.
1987 TheCorrespondence ofSargonII,PartI: Lettersfrom
Assyria and the West.State Archives of Assyria Vol I.
HelsinkiUniversityPress,Helsinki.
Pavlakovich-Kochi,Vera, BarbaraJ. Morehouse and Doris
Wastl-Walter(editors)
2004 ChallengedBorderlands:Transcending Politicaland
CulturalBoundaries.Ashgate,Burlington,Vermont.
Paynter,Robert
1985 SurplusFlow betweenFrontiersand Homelands.In
TheArchaeologyof Frontiersand Boundaries,editedby
S. W. Greenand S. M. Perlman,pp. 163-21 1. Academic
Press,Orlando.
Pearson,Mike P.
1997 CloseEncountersof theWorstKind:MalagasyResis-
tance and Colonial Disasters in SouthernMadagascar.
WorldArchaeology28(3):393-417.
Postgate,NicholasJ.
1973 The Inscriptionof Tiglath-pileserIII at Mila Merge.
Sumer29:47-58.
1974 Taxationand Conscriptionin the AssyrianEmpire.
StudiaPohlSeriesmaior3. BiblicalInstitutePress,Roma.
Pounds,NormanJ. G.
195 1 The Originof the Ideaof NaturalFrontiersin France.
Annals of the Association of American Geographers
41(2):146-157.
Rice, PrudenceM.
1998 Contextsof ContactandChange:Peripheries,Fron-
tiersandBoundaries.In Studiesin CultureContact:Inter-
action, CultureChange, and Archaeology,edited by J.
Cusick,pp. 44-66. Centerfor ArchaeologicalInvestiga-
tions, SouthernIllinoisUniversity,Carbondale.
Rice, PrudenceM., andDon S. Rice
2005 The Final Frontier of the Maya: Central Peten,
Guatemala,1450-1700 CE. In Untamingthe Frontierin
Anthropology,Archaeologyand History,edited by B. J.
Parkerand L. Rodseth,pp. 147-173. Universityof Ari-
zona Press,Tucson.
Richter,Daniel K.
2001 Facing Eastfrom Indian Country:A Native History
of EarlyAmerica.HarvardUniversityPress,Cambridge.
Rodseth,Lars
2005 The FragmentaryFrontier:Expansion and Ethno-
genesis in the Himalayas.In Untamingthe Frontierin
Anthropology,Archaeologyand History,edited by B. J.
ParkerandL. Rodseth,pp. 83-109. Universityof Arizona
Press,Tucson.
Rodseth,Lars,andBradleyJ. Parker
2005 Introduction: TheoreticalConsiderationsin theStudy
of Frontiers.In Untamingthe Frontierin Anthropology,
This content downloaded from 195.34.78.242 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 19:47:16 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 71 , No. 1 , 2006
Archaeologyand History,edited by B. J. Parkerand L.
Rodseth,pp. 3-21. Universityof ArizonaPress,Tucson.
Roosens,EugeenE.
1989 CreatingEthnicity:TheProcessofEthnogenesis.Sage
Publications,NewburyPark,California.
Rosier,Michael,andTobiasWendl(editors)
1999 Frontiers and Borderlands:AnthropologicalPer-
spectives.PeterLang,Frankfurt.
Rothman,Mitchell
2004 Beyond the Frontiers:Mu§ in the Late Bronze to
RomanPeriods.In A Viewfrom the Highlands:Archaeo-
logical Studiesin Honourof CharlesBurney,editedby A.
Sagona,pp. 121-178. Peeters,Leuven,Belgium.
Schubert,Klaus
1999 FrontierLanguages,LanguageBoundaries.In Fron-
tiers and Borderlands:Anthropological Perspectives,
edited by M. Rosier and T. Wendl,pp. 201-209. Peter
Lang,Frankfurt.
Smith,StuartT.
2005 To the Supportsof Heaven:PoliticalandIdeological
Conceptionsof Frontiersin AncientEgypt.In Untaming
the Frontierin Anthropology,Archaeologyand History,
editedby B. J. ParkerandL. Rodseth,pp. 207-237. Uni-
versityof ArizonaPress,Tuscon.
Stanish,Charles
1989 HouseholdArchaeology:Testing Models of Zonal
Complementarityin the South CentralAndes.American
Anthropologist91(l):7-24.
Stark,MiriamT. (editor)
1998 TheArchaeologyof Social Boundaries.Smithsonian
InstitutionPress,Washington,D.C.
Stein,Burton
1989 Vijayanagara.CambridgeUniversity Press, Cam-
bridge.
Sundstrom,Lenea
1997 Smallpox Used Them Up: Referencesto Epidemic
Disease in NorthernPlains WinterCounts, 1714-1920.
Ethnohistory44(2):305-343.
Tadmor,Hayim
1978 The Aramaizationof Assyria: Aspects of Western
Impact.In Mesopotamianundseine Nachbarn,editedby
H. NissenandJ.Renger,pp.449-69. DietirchReimerVer-
lag, Berlin.
1991 On the Role of Aramaicin the AssyrianEmpire.In
NearEasternStudiesDedicatedto H.I.H.PrinceTakahito
Mikasa on the Occasioin of His Seventy-FifthBirthday,
Wiesbaden.
editedby M. Mori,pp.419-425. Harrassowitz,
Thompson,Leonard,andHowardLamar
198 1 ComparativeFrontierHistory.In TheFrontierin His-
tory: North America and SouthernAfrica Compared,
editedby H. LamarandL. Thompson,pp. 3-13. YaleUni-
versityPress,New Haven.
Trigger,Bruce
2003 UnderstandingEarly Civilizations:A Comparative
Study.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.
Turner,E. Randolph
1985 Socio-Political Organizationwithin the Powhatan
Chiefdom and the Effects of EuropeanContact, A.D.
1607-1634. In Culturesin Contact:TheImpactof Euro-
pean Contactson NativeCulturalInstitutions,A.D. 1000-
1800, editedbyW W.Fitzhugh,pp. 193-224. Smithsonian
InstitutionPress,Washington,D.C.
Turner,FredrickJackson
1920 TheFrontierinAmericanHistory.H. Holt andCom-
pany,New York.
van Dommelen,Peter
1997 ColonialConstructs:ColonialismandArchaeologyin
Parker] TOWARDAN UNDERSTANDING OF BORDERLAND PROCESSES
the Mediterranean.WorldArchaeology28(3):305-323.
1998 On ColonialGrounds:A ComparativeStudyof Colo-
nialismandRuralSettlementin FirstMillenniumBC West
CentralSardinia.TheFacultyof Archaeology,LeidenUni-
versity,Leiden.
Vermeulen,Hans,andCoraGrovers(editors)
1994 The Anthropology of Ethnicity: Beyond 'Ethnic
Groupsand Boundaries'. Het Spinhuis,Amsterdam.
Wells, PeterS.
1998 CultureContact,Identity,andChangein theEuropean
Provincesof the Roman Empire.In Studies in Culture
Contact:Interaction,CultureChangeand Archaeology,
editedby J. Cusick,pp. 316-334. CenterforArchaeolog-
ical Investigations,SouthernIllinois University,Carbon-
dale.
Wendl,Tobias,andMichaelRosier
1999 Introduction: FrontiersandBorderlands. TheRise and
Relevanceof anAnthropological ResearchGenre.InFron-
tiers and Borderlands:Anthropological Perspectives,
editedby M. RosierandT. Wendl,pp. 1-27. PeterLang,
Frankfurt.
White,Richard
199 1 TheMiddleGround:Indians,EmpiresandRepublics
in the GreatLakesRegion, 1650-1815. CambridgeUni-
versityPress,Cambridge.
Whittaker,C. R.
1994 Frontiersof the RomanEmpire:A Social and Eco-
nomicStudy.JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,Baltimore.
Wilson,ThomasM., andHastingsDonnan(editors)
1998 BorderIdentities:Nation and State at International
Frontiers.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.
Wishart,DavidJ.
1977 TheFurTradeof theWest,1807-1840:A Geographic
Synthesis.In The Frontier:ComparativeStudies,edited
by D. H. MillerandJ. O. Steffen,pp. 161-200. The Uni-
versityof OklahomaPress,Norman.
Woolf, Greg
1992 Imperialism,EmpireandtheIntegrationof theRoman
Economy.WorldArchaeology23(3):283-293.
Wyman,WalkerD., andCliftonB. Kroeber(editors)
1957 TheFrontierin Perspective.The Universityof Wis-
consin Press,Madison.
Yener,Ashhan
1982 A Review of InterregionalExchange in Southwest
Asia. AnatolicaVIIL33-76.
2000 TheDomesticationof Metals: TheRise of Complex
MetalIndustriesin Anatolia.Brill, Leiden.
Zadok,Ran
1989 HistoricalNotes on the Geographyof Mesopotamia
andNorthSyria.Abr-Nahrain:154-169.
1995 The Ethno-LingmsticCharacterot the Jezirehand
AdjacentRegionsin the9th-7thCenturies(AssyriaProper
vs. Periphery).InNeo-AssyrianGeography,editedby M.
Liverani,pp.217-282. Universitadi Roma"LaSapienza",
Roma.
2002 TheEthnolinguisticCharacterof NorthwesternIran
and Kurdistanin the Neo-AssyrianPeriod.Archaeologi-
cal CenterPublications,Jerusalem.
Zimansky,Pual
1995 The UrartianFrontieras anArchaeologicalProblem.
In Neo-AssyrianGeography,edited by M. Liverani,pp.
171-180. Universitadi Roma,La SapienzaRoma.
Notes
1. This paper is an attempt to construct a theoretical
This content downloaded from 195.34.78.242 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 19:47:16 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
99
model thatcan be used to help isolate anddefinethe natureof
boundaryprocesses.The ideas presentedhererely on my pre-
vious work, especially "At the Edge of Empire:
ConceptualizingAssyria'sAnatolianFrontier"(Parker2002),
TheMechanicsof Empire(Parker2001) and the introduction
to Untamingthe Frontierin Anthropology,Archaeology,and
History (Parkerand Rodseth 2005). My intention is not to
repeatthe argumentsmade in these publicationsbut ratherto
buildon them.In orderto do so it is necessaryfor me to sum-
marizehere some of the pointsmade in these previouslypub-
lished studies.
2. The first definitionoffered for the term border in the
OED is "A side, edge, brinkor margin,a limit, or boundary,
the partof anythinglying along its boundaryor outline."The
second definitionis "The district lying along the edge of a
countryor territory,a frontier."Among the definitionsoffron-
tier offeredby the OED is "thepartof a countrythe frontsor
faces anothercountry,the marches,the borderor extremity
conterminouswith another."Boundary is defined as "That
which serves to indicate the bounds or limits of anything."
Note also that limit is definedas "A boundary,frontier..."
3. The Maden Tetkik ve Arama EnstitusiiYayinlanndan
publishes maps and other data from the TurkishGeological
Survey. The pertinent volume for the Upper Tigris River
regionis editedby Erentozand Ketin(1962). A brief descrip-
tion of the geomorphologyof the Upper Tigris River valley
can also be found in Kuzucuoglu2002.
4. The military annals of the Assyrian kings are being
publishedin a seriesfromthe Universityof Torontocalled the
Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. The annals of Adad-
narariII (911-891 B.C.), Tukulti-NinurtaII (890-884 B.C.)
and Ashurnasirpal II (883-859 B.C.) are published in
Grayson 1991b.Unfortunately,comparativelylittle is known
aboutAdad-narari'sexploits since only three versions of his
annalshave survived,two of which date to relativelylate in
his reign.The limitationsof ourknowledgeaboutthe exploits
of Adad-narariin Assyria's northernborderlandsare exem-
plified by a summaryinscriptioncontainedwithin an annal-
isic text of relatively late date (893 B.C.) in which
Adad-narariclaims to have marchedinto the Upper Tigris
River region (referredto as the "Landsof Nairi")four times
(Grayson 1991b:148-149). Tukulti-NinurtaII, the son of
Adad-narari,ruledAssyriafor only six years (890-884 B.C.).
Althoughhis militaryexploits arepreservedin only one copy
of his annalsandtwo summaryinscriptions,it is clearthatthe
Tigrisborderlandswere his primarytargetsince he launched
at least three campaigns to that area during his short reign
(Grayson 1991b:163-179). Not only is the reign of
Ashurnasirpalone of the most importanterasin the formation
of the Assyrian empire but, Ashurnasirpal' s annals are very
well preserved,explicitly written and come down to us in
numerouscopies. These texts containa wealthof detailabout
various aspects of geography and society at the time (see
especially Liverani1992).
5. For a discussionof Assyrianmilitaryforce and the dif-
ference betweenpower andforce see Parker2001:259-260.
Note thatmany of the ideas presentedthereare adaptedfrom
Luttwak1976:195-200.
6. Note that the same individualinstalled in Bit Zamani
and forced to take an oath of loyalty by Tukulti-NinurtaII is
1 00 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 71 , No. 1 , 2006]

mentionedagain in the annalsof Ashurnasirpalwhen he was
murderedby rebels (Grayson 1991b:261, 1982:254; Parker
2001:172).
7. Ashurnasirpalcampaignedin the Tigris borderlands
duringthe firstand fifthyears of his reign (883 and 879 B.C.,
respectively[Grayson1982:253-259;Parker2001:167-173]).
8. The routes taken by Ashurnasirpalare outlined in
Liverani 1992 and discussed in Grayson 1982 and Parker
2001.
9. Fromeast to west these fortressesare:Tushan(Ziyaret
Tepe), Tidu (U§ Tepe) and Sinabu (Murattas.[Kessler
1980:117-120; Liverani 1992:38^10; Parker 1998, 2001:
162-164, 188-206, 2002:380-381]).
10. For an overview of the Assyrian bureaucracy,see
Grayson1991a and Postgate 1974. For corvee labor officers,
see Parker 1997a:84-85. For village managers, see Parker
2001:225-226. Note that recent excavations at the site of
Ziyaret Tepe (Assyrian Tushan) have unearthedwhat the
excavatorbelieves to be the office of a tax collector (Matney
et al. 2003).
11. There is a relativelylarge corpus of grantsand royal
decrees from the Assyrian Imperialperiod. Although there
are no directreferencesto propertygrantedin the Tigrisbor-
derlands,this practiceis well attestedand it is thereforelogi-
cal to assume that some of the territoryadministeredby the
Assyrian'sin this region would have been grantedto individ-
uals or institutions(KatajaandWhiting 1995).
12. A largenumberof lettersfrom the Neo-Assyriancor-
pus, most of which originate from the Assyrian capitals at
NimrudandNineveh,can be datedto the reignof Sargon.For
a review of the chronologyandgeneralcategoriesof the Neo-
Assyrianletters,see Parpola1981.
13. Tensionsbetween Assyria and two states beyond the
Tigrisborderlands(Shubriaand Urartu)are exemplifiedby a
series of letters sent from the governor of Tushan to the
Assyrianking SargonII. Among these is a reporton the var-
ious diplomaticefforts employed in an attemptto persuade
the Shubriansto grantthe Assyriansthe rightto cut timberin
Shubrian territory (Lanfranchi and Parpola 1990:27-28).
However, even during the course of these negotiations,the
Assyriangovernorsent a logging team escortedby cavalryto
continue to cut timber without the permission of the
Shubrians.And in anotherletter, the same authortells the
king that he will need an armedescort in orderto bring out
timberthathas been cut but still lies waitingto be transported
from a Shubrianforest (LanfranchiandParpola1990:25-26).
Received September13, 2004; RevisedAugust 9, 2005;
AcceptedAugust 15, 2005.

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.242 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 19:47:16 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions