ABSTRACT
In conclusion, it will be apparent that the preceding discussion relies largely on suggestive arguments about the relative plausibility of alternative explanations rather than on a rigorous analysis of formal models. This is in keeping with the modest intentions of this chapter, which were not to suggest that the data currently available refute the hypothesis of direct Mediterranean trade in Hallstatt Europe, but merely to indicate, in the spirit of ‘devil’s advocate’, that an equally plausible hypothesis can be advanced to accommodate these data which does not invoke Mediterranean interests or presence in west-central Europe. Doubtless, other reasonable hypotheses are possible as well. A detailed study of the archaeological data bearing on the structural relations of all the regional socioeconomic systems in question and the mechanisms articulating them is the only viable means of sorting out the probable from the plausible among these hypotheses, and arriving at some understanding of the complex nature of the influence of Mediterranean civilizations in the area. The simple dichotomization of intricate patterns of interaction into relations of dominant ‘centres’ and dependent ‘peripheries’ will be of little heuristic value if it obscures other important socio-economic relations and processes. In this case, as in others, the usefulness and relevance of the centre-periphery concept will depend upon the subtlety of its application and, most critically, on the attention paid to the structural articulation of the ‘peripheries’.
