ABSTRACT

In 1987, Blaikie and Brookfield isolated three broad categories of marginality: sociopolitical, ecological and economic (Blaikie & Brookfield 1987a: 20). It has struck us quite forcibly that most archaeological discussions of ‘marginality’ and the ‘margin’ have followed these divisions, either consciously or subconsciously, often privileging one category above the others. However, we hope to show below that such categorizations of, and approaches to, marginality are not mutually exclusive. Conversely, we do not believe that where one form of marginality can be identified, the others must necessarily also be in place.