Cross-Cultural Interaction and Migration: Retheorizing Greek Colonization in the 7th-4th Centuries BC with the Exchange of Attic Figured Pottery

University of Minnesota Ph.D. dissertation.June 2018. Major: Anthropology. Advisor: Peter Wells. 1 computer file (PDF); viii, 748 pages.This study examines interaction between Greeks and non-Greeks in the regions of Western Europe, particularly southern France, and the northern coast of the Black Sea through an analysis of the exchange of Attic pottery vessels. This research validates the importance of material culture for understanding culture contact. Furthermore, it demonstrates how interdisciplinary frameworks are essential for this type of interpretation. Finally, this study is particularly relevant as a case for comparison to today where migration and cross-cultural interaction are a constant. Previous scholarship on the movement of Greeks beyond Greece in the Archaic period (7th-5th c. BC) has focused on models of acculturation and/or colonization. These models lack a full appreciation of the nuances of interaction and local agency. Migration as a framework changes the perception of interaction drastically from the colonial mindset by upsetting preconceived notions of power differentials and intentionality. My project looks at interaction using the deposition of Attic pottery in both Greek and non- Greek contexts in order to fully explore these nuances. Comparison of both contexts allows for greater local agency and opens up questions about our general understanding of this period of history. The conclusions of this study are that 1) colonization is not an adequate model for the interaction of the Greeks entering the regions of Western Europe and the northern coast of the Black Sea and the local populations they encountered, 2) migration is a better model for understanding the relative positions of power occupied by both parties, 3) Attic pottery was significant in among the objects exchanged between these groups as demonstrated by its depositional contexts, and 4) Attic pottery was significant not just as a trade item, but because of symbolic associations, perhaps best understood in terms of social networks or diplomacy, that were attached to this category of physical object