Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:46:57.240Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter Fourteen - Long-Distance Interaction in Fourth Millennium bce Eurasia

from Part IV - Marxian And Post-Colonial Approaches as well as World System Theory in Relation to Gift Exchange and MacroRegional Exchange

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 August 2022

By
Svend Hansen
Edited by
Johan Ling ,
Richard J. Chacon  and
Kristian Kristiansen
Johan Ling
Affiliation:
University of Gothenburg, Sweden
Richard J. Chacon
Affiliation:
Winhrop University, South Carolina
Get access

Summary

The archaeology of Eurasia has undergone a tremendous change in the last thirty years. The chronology was completely revised by using calibrated radiocarbon dates. The radiocarbon revolution was already on the horizon in the 1970s (Renfrew 1973), but the whole potential for Prehistoric archaeology emerged from calibration since the 1990s. And this changed a lot. The Neolithic period started much earlier than previously thought; the Bronze Age in Central Europe was also dated much earlier. Perusing archaeology handbooks from the 1980s, the changes in our knowledge become clear. For the first time Prehistoric archaeology was able to date archaeological findings directly by scientific methods. It was no longer necessary to speculate about the time necessary for the formation of archaeological layers in tell settlements. Prehistoric archaeology was no longer dependent upon the Egyptian or the Mesopotamian chronologies. Yet, the revised chronologies make it necessary to reassess the whole framework of interpretations. New finds were the motor of new research. In 1991, a mummy was found in the Ötztaler Alps near the Hauslabjoch. The archaeological importance of the find attracted detailed research on the life and the death of ‘Ötzi’. An end to this research is still not in sight (Fleckinger 2011). The first dating of the mummy to the Early Bronze Age in the second millennium bce had to be revised after the radiocarbon dates. Ötzi died in the last quarter of the fourth millennium bce. This surprising date triggered a complete revision of the alpine Late Neolithic and Copper Age (de Marinis 1992: 389ff.). Firstly concerned was the Italian Remedello culture, but then all other cultures in the regions as well. The new chronology also touched upon the huge number of anthropomorphic stelae in the alpine region (Casini 1994; Philippon 2002; Casini and Fossati 2004). Whole groups of metal objects like the halberds were re-dated. Their development did not take place during a short period in the second millennium but instead during a very long one starting from the middle of the fourth millennium bce (Horn 2014). Actually, the revision of the regional chronology was part of a comprehensive rearrangement of chronologies in Europe. This concerned especially the chronology of the third and fourth millennia bce.

Type
Chapter
Information
Trade before Civilization
Long Distance Exchange and the Rise of Social Complexity
 , pp. 334 - 360
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adamczak, K., Kowalski, L., Bojarski, J., Weinkauf, M., Garbacz-Klemka, A. (2015). Eneolithic Metal Objects Hoard from Kałdus, Chełmno Commune, Kujawsko-Pomorskie Voivodeship. Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 67, pp. 199–219.Google Scholar
Angeli, W. (1967). Der Depotfund von Stollhof. Annalen des Naturhistorischen Museums Wien 70, pp. 491–496.Google Scholar
Austin, M., and Vidal-Naquet, P. (1984). Gesellschaft und Wirtschaft im alten Griechenland.Google Scholar
Bátora, J. (2003). Kupferne Schaftlochäxte in Mittel-, Ost und Südosteuropa (Zu Kulturkontakten und Datierung – Äneolithikum / Frühbronzezeit). Slovenská Archeológia 51, pp. 1–38.Google Scholar
Casini, S., ed. (1994). Le pietre degli dei. Menhir e stele dell´Età del Rame in Valcamonica e Valtellina. Bergamo.Google Scholar
Casini, S., and Fossati, A. E., eds. (2007). Le pietre degli dei. Statue-stele del’ età del rame in Europa. Lo stato della ricerca. Atti del Congresso Internazionale Brescia 16.–18.9. 2004. Notizie Archeologiche Bergomensi 12, 2004.Google Scholar
Chernych, E. N., and Orlovskaja, L.B. (2008). Fenomen majkopskoj obshnosti i ee radiouglerodnaja khronologija. In Merpert, N. Ja. and Korenevskij, S. N., eds., Arkheologia Kavkaza i Blizhnego Vostoka. Moscow, pp. 259–275.Google Scholar
Chernykh, E. N. (1992). Ancient Metallurgy in the USSR: The Early Metal Age. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Childe, V. G. (1958) [2009]. The Prehistory of European Society. London.Google Scholar
Czekaj-Zastawny, A., Kabaciński, J., and Terberger, T. (2011). Long Distance Exchange in the Central European Neolithic: Hungary to the Baltic. Antiquity 85, pp. 43–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, G. (1965). Primitive Money. American Anthropologist 67, pp. 44–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Marinis, R. C. (1992). La più antica metallurgia nell´Italia settentrionale. In Höpfel, F., Platzer, W. and Spindler, K., eds., Der Mann im Eis. Innsbruck, pp. 389–409.Google Scholar
Dergačev, V. (2002). Die äneolithischen und bronzezeitlichen Metallfunde aus Moldavien. Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Dreyer, G. (2011). Tomb U-j: A Royal Burial of Dynasty 0 at Abydos. Günter Dreyer. In Teeter, E., ed., Before the Pyramids: The Origins of Egyptian Civilization. Chicago, pp. 127–136.Google Scholar
Eliade, M. (1980). Schmiede und Alchemisten. Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Engels, F. (1884) [1981]. Der Ursprung der Familie, des Privateigentums und des Staats. In Anschluss an Lewis. H. Morgans Forschungen. MEW 21. Berlin; Ost, pp. 25–173.Google Scholar
Feinman, G. M. (2017). Multiple Pathways to Large-Scale Human Cooperative Networks: A Reframing. In Chacon, R. J. and Mendoza, R. G., eds., Feast, Famine or Fighting? Multiple Pathways to Social Complexity. Cham, pp. 459–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleckinger, A., ed. (2011). Ötzi 2.0. Eine Mumie zwischen Wissenschaft, Kult und Mythos. Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1978). Dispositive der Macht. Über Sexualität, Wissen und Wahrheit. Berlin.Google Scholar
Fried, M. H. (1967). The Evolution of Political Society. New York.Google Scholar
Gaudszinski-Windheuser, S., and Jöris, O. (2015). Contextualizing the Female Image: Symbols for Common Ideas and Communal Identity in Upper Palaeolithic Societies. In Coward, F., Hosfield, R., Pope, M. and Wenban-Smith, F., eds., Settlement, Society and Cognition in Human Evolution: Landscapes in Mind. Cambridge, pp. 288–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genthe, H. (1874). Über den etruskischen Tauschhandel nach dem Norden. Frankfurt.Google Scholar
Gimbutas, M. (1995). Die Sprache der Göttin. Das verschüttete Symbolsystem der westlichen Zivilisation. Frankfurt.Google Scholar
Godelier, M. (1999). Das Rätsel der Gabe. Geld, Geschenke, heilige Objekte. München.Google Scholar
Govedarica, B. (2001). Zur Typologie und Chronologie der Hammeräxte vom Typ Pločnik. In Boehmer, R. M. and Maran, J., eds., Lux Orientis. Archäologie zwischen Asien und Europa. Festschrift für Harald Hauptmann. Rahden; Westf, pp. 153–164.Google Scholar
Govedarica, B. (2002). Die Majkop-Kultur zwischen Europa und Asien: Zur Entstehung einer Hochkultur im Nordkaukasus während des 4. Jts. v. Chr. In Aslan, R. et al., eds., Mauerschau. M. Festschrift für Manfred Korfmann Bd. 2. Remshalden-Grumbac, pp. 781–799.Google Scholar
Govedarica, B. (2005). Eine Kupferaxt aus Frankfurt/Oder, die Datierungsprobleme des Hortfundes von Cărbuna und die Chronologie der Hammeräxte vom Typ Pločnik. In Spinei, V. et al., eds., Scripta praehistorica. Miscellanea in honorem nonagenarii magistri Mircea Petrescu-Dîmboviţa oblata. Iaşi, pp. 445–459.Google Scholar
Govedarica, B. (2010). Spuren von Fernbeziehungen in Norddeutschland während des 5. Jahrtausends v. Chr. Das Altertum 55, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
Grote, K. (2004). Die spätneolithische Kupferaxt von Reiffenhausen, Ldkr. Göttingen, Südniedersachsen. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 34, pp. 321–336.Google Scholar
Haak, W., Lazaridis, I., Patterson, N., Rohland, N., Mallick, S., Llamas, B., Brandt, G., Nordenfelt, S., Harney, E., Stewardson, K., Fu, Q., Mittnik, A., Bánffy, E., Economou, C., Francken, M., Friederich, S., Garrido Pena, R., Hallgren, F., Khartanovich, V., Khokhlov, A., Kunst, M., Kuznetsov, P., Meller, H., Mochalov, O., Moiseyev, V., Nicklisch, N., Pichler, S. L., Risch, R., Rojo Guerra, M. A., Roth, C., Szécsényi-Nagy, A., Wahl, J., Meyer, M., Krause, J., Brown, D., Anthony, D., Cooper, A., Alt, K. A. and Reich, D. (2015). Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe. Nature 522, 207–211. doi:10.1038/nature14317.Google Scholar
Hansen, S. (1995). Aspekte des Gabentauschs und Handels während der Urnenfelderzeit in Mittel- und Nordeuropa im Lichte der Fundüberlieferung. In Hänsel, B., ed., Handel, Tausch und Verkehr im bronze- und früheisenzeitlichen Südosteuropa. München; Berlin, pp. 67–80.Google Scholar
Hansen, S. (2009). Kupferzeitliche Äxte zwischen dem 5. und 3. Jahrtausend in Südosteuropa. Analele Banatului, S.N. 17, pp. 129–158.Google Scholar
Hansen, S. (2010). Communication and Exchange between the Northern Caucasus and Central Europe in the Fourth Millennium BC. In Hansen, S., Hauptmann, A., Motzenbäcker, I. and Pernicka, E., eds., Von Majkop bis Trialeti. Gewinnung und Verbreitung von Metallen und Obsidian in Kaukasien im 4.–2. Jt. v. Chr. Kolloquien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 13. Bonn, pp. 297–316.Google Scholar
Hansen, S. (2011). Technische und soziale Innovationen in der zweiten Hälfte des 4. Jahrtausends v. Chr. In Hansen, S. and Müller, J., eds., Sozialarchäologische Perspektiven: Gesellschaftlicher Wandel 5000–1500 v. Chr. zwischen Atlantik und Kaukasus. Archäologie in Eurasien 24. Main, pp. 153–191.Google Scholar
Hansen, S. (2012). The Archaeology of Power. In Kienlin, T., Zimmermann, A., eds., Beyond Elites: Alternatives to Hierarchical Systems in Modelling Social Formations. International Conference at the Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Germany October 22–24, 2009. Bonn, pp. 213–224.Google Scholar
Hansen, S. (2014a). Goldene Scheiben aus der Kupferzeit. Das Altertum 59, pp. 81–108.Google Scholar
Hansen, S. (2014b). Gold and Silver in the Maikop Culture. In Meller, H., Risch, R. and Pernicka, E., eds., Metalle der Macht – Frühes Gold und Silber. Metals of Power – Early Gold and Silver. Halle, pp. 389–410.Google Scholar
Hansen, S. (2016a). Gabe und Erinnerung – Heiligtum und Opfer. In Hansen, S., Neumann, D. and Vachta, T., eds., Raum, Gabe und Erinnerung. Weihgaben und Heiligtümer. Berlin Studies of the Ancient World 38. Berlin, pp. 211–236.Google Scholar
Hansen, S. (2016b). Early Neolithic Figurines in Aşağı Pınar, Turkish Thrace. In Yalçın, Ü., ed., Anatolian Metal VII. Anatolien und seine Nachbarn vor 10.000 Jahren. Anatolia and Neighbours 10,000 Years Ago. Bochum, pp. 85–94.Google Scholar
Hansen, S. (2016c). Prähistorische Innovationsforschung. Das Altertum 61, pp. 81–132.Google Scholar
Hansen, S., and Helwing, B. (2016). Die Anfänge der Silbermetallurgie in Eurasien. In Bartelheim, M., Horejs, B. and Krauße, R., eds., Von Baden bis Troia; Ressourcennutzung, Metallurgie und Wissenstransfer. Eine Jubiläumsschrift für Ernst Pernicka. Rahden; Westf, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar
Harris, M. (1990). Kannibalen und Könige. Die Wachstumsgrenzen der Hochkulturen. Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Haßmann, H., Fries, J. E., and Zehm, B. (2015). Kupfer aus der Steinzeit. Hortfund in Osnabrück-Lüstringen. Archäologie in Deutschland 6.Google Scholar
Hodder, I., and Mol, A. (2015). Network Analysis and Entanglement. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 22:1, pp 1–32.Google Scholar
Hoppenhaupt, M. E. (1750). Ausführliche Beschreibung eines alten heydnischen Grabes. Merseburg.Google Scholar
Ivanova, M. (2016). Stop and Go: Die Ausbreitung kaukasischer Metallformen in Osteuropa in der ersten Hälfte des 3. Jt. v. Chr. In Nikolov, V. and Schier, W., eds., Der Schwarzmeerraum vom Neolithikum bis in die Früheisenzeit (6000–600 v. Chr.). Kulturelle Interferenzen in der zirkumpontischen Zone und Kontakte mit ihren Nachbargebieten. Rahden; Westf, pp. 403–415.Google Scholar
Kelly-Buccelati, M. (1999). Trade in Metals in the Third Millennium: Northeastern Syria and Eastern Anatolia. In Matthiae, P., van Loon, M. and Weiss, H., eds., Resurrecting the Past: A Joint Tribute to Adnan Bounni. Istanbul, pp. 117–132.Google Scholar
Knappett, C. (2014). Commentary: What Are Social Network Perspectives in Archaeology? Archaeological Review from Cambridge 29:1, pp. 179–184.Google Scholar
Kohl, P. L. (2007). The Making of Bronze Age Eurasia. Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korenevskij, S. N. (2008). Sovremennye problemy izuchenija maikopskoj kul’tur. In Merpert, N. Ja. and Korenevskij, S. N., eds., Arkheologia Kavkaza i Blizhnego Vostoka. Moscow, pp. 71–122.Google Scholar
Korenevskij, C. H. (2011). Древнейший метaлл Предкавказья. Moscow.Google Scholar
Kunkel, O. (1937). Der ‘steinzeitliche’ Kupferfund von Mühlenbeck, Kr. Greifenhagen. Monatsblätter der Gesellschaft für Pommersche Geschichte und Altertumskunde 51, pp. 75–80.Google Scholar
Laux, F. (2000). Die Äxte und Beile in Niedersachsen I (Flach-, Randleisten- und Absatzbeile). Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1981). Die elementaren Strukturen der Verwandtschaft. Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
Liverani, M. (2006). Uruk: The First City. London: Oakville.Google Scholar
Malinowski, B. (1984). Argonauten des westlichen Pazifiks. Frankfurt.Google Scholar
Marx, K. (1976). Die ethnologischen Exzerpthefte. Herausgegeben von L. Krader. Frankfurt.Google Scholar
Marx, K., and Engels, F. (1848). Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei. In Karl Marx und Friedrich Engels, Werke Bd. 4. Berlin, pp. 461–493. English translation by S. Moore in cooperation with F. Engels 1888, Marxists Internet Archive. marxists.org.Google Scholar
Mattheußer, E. (1991). Die geographische Ausrichtung bandkeramischer Häuser. In Studien zur Siedlungsarchäologie I. Bonn, pp. 3–43.Google Scholar
Matthias, W. (1969). Die Schnurkeramik im westlichen Mitteldeutschland. In Veröffentlichungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte in Halle 24, pp. 9–28.Google Scholar
Mauss, M. (1968). Die Gabe. Form und Funktion des Austauschs in archaischen Gesellschaften. Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
Mauss, M. (2012). Schriften zur Religionssoziologie. Berlin.Google Scholar
McGovern, P. E., Hartung, U., Badler, V. R., Glusker, D., and Exner, L. (1997). The Beginnings of Winemaking and Viniculture in the Ancient Near East and Egypt. Expedition 39, pp. 3–21.Google Scholar
Meillassoux, C. (1972). A Marxist Approach to Economic Anthropology. Economy and Society 1, pp. 93–105.Google Scholar
Möller, A. (2000). Naukratis. Trade in Archaic Greece. Oxford.Google Scholar
Montelius, O. (1911). Der Handel in der Vorzeit mit besonderer Hinsicht auf Skandinavien und die Zeit vor Christi Geburt. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 4, pp. 249–291.Google Scholar
Muscarella, O. W. (1969). The Tumuli at Sé Girdan. A Preliminary Report. Metropolitan Museum Journal 2, pp. 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muscarella, O. W. (1971). The Tumuli at Sé Girdan: Second Report. Metropolitan Museum Journal 4, pp. 5–28.Google Scholar
Muscarella, O. W. (2003). The Chronology and Culture of Sé Girdan: Phase III. Ancient Civilizations from Skythia to Siberia 9, pp. 117–132.Google Scholar
Müller, D. W. (1994). Die Bernburger Kultur Mitteldeutschlands im Spiegel ihrer nichtmegalithischen Kollektivgräber. Jahreschrift für Mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 76, pp. 75–200.Google Scholar
Müller, J., Hoffmann, R., Brandstätter, L., Ohlrau, R., and Videiko, M. (2016). Chronology and Demography: How Many People Lived in a Mega-Site? In Müller, J., Rassmann, K. and Videiko, M., eds., Trypilla Mega-Sites and European Prehistory 4100–3400. Oxford, pp. 133–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oka, R., and Kusimba, C. M. (2008). The Archaeology of Trading Systems, Part 1: Towards a New Trade Synthesis. Journal of Archaeological Research 16, pp. 339–395.Google Scholar
Oppitz, M. (1991). Onkels Tochter, keine sonst. Heiratsbündnis und Denkweise in einer Lokalkultur des Himalayas. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Orell, J. H. (1786). Vollständige theoretische und praktische Geschichte der Erfindungen. Oder Gedanken über die Gegenstände aller drey Naturreiche, die im menschlichen Leben teils zur Beschäftigung des Körpers, teils auch der Seele beygetragen haben. Zürich.Google Scholar
Pétrequin, P., Cassen, S., Errera, M., Klassen, L., Sheridan, A., and Pétrequin, A. M., eds. (2012). Jade. Grandes haches alpines du Néolithique européen Ve et Ive millénaires av. J.-C. Bd. 1–2. Gray.Google Scholar
Plessing, F. V. L. (1787). Memnonium oder Versuche zur Enthüllung der Geheimnisse des Altertums Bd. 1. Leipzig.Google Scholar
Polanyi, K. (1944) [1977]. The Great Transformation. Politische und ökonomische Ursprünge von Gesellschaften und Wirtschaftssystemen.Google Scholar
Polanyi, K. (1963). Ports of Trade in Early Societies. The Journal of Economic History 23, pp. 30–45.Google Scholar
Polanyi, K. (1979). Ökonomie und Gesellschaft.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C. (1973). Before Civilization: The Radiocarbon Revolution and Prehistoric Europe. New York.Google Scholar
Rezepkin, A. D. (2000). Das frühbronzezeitliche Gräberfeld von Klady und die Majkop-Kultur in Nordwestkaukasien. Archäologie in Eurasien 10. Rahden; Westf.Google Scholar
Roscoe, P. (2000). New Guinea Leadership as Ethnographic Analogy: A Critical Review. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7, pp. 79–126.Google Scholar
Rossel, S., Marshall, F., Peters, J., Pilgram, T., Adams, M. D., and O’Connor, D. (2008). Domestication of the Donkey: Timing, Processes, and Indicators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105, pp. 3715–3720.Google Scholar
Salavert, A. (2008). Olive Cultivation and Oil Production in Palestine during the Early Bronze Age (3500–2000 B.C.): The Case of Tel Yarmouth, Israel. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 17, Supplement 1, pp. 53–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schunke, T. (2013). Klady-Gölitzsch. Vom Kaukasus nach Mitteldeutschland oder umgekehrt? In Meller, H., ed., 3300 BC. Mysteriöse Steinzeittote und ihre Welt. Halle; Saale, pp. 151–155.Google Scholar
Service, E. (1975). Origins of the State and Civilization: The Process of Cultural Evolution. New York.Google Scholar
Šmíd, M. (2008). Der Fund von Kupfergegenständen auf dem Burgwall Rmíz bei Laškov. Pravĕk NŘ 18, pp. 139ff.Google Scholar
Soroceanu, T. (2012). Die Kupfer- und Bronzedepots der frühen und mittleren Bronzezeit in Rumänien. Archaeologia Romanica 5. Cluj Napoca.Google Scholar
Stig Sørensen, M. L. (1990). Handel, udveksling og dansk arkeologi. Overvejelser omkring nye perspektiver. Hikuin 16, pp. 7–15.Google Scholar
Szeverényi, V. (2013). The Earliest Copper Shaft-Hole Axes in the Carpathian Basin: Interaction, Chronology and Transformations of Meaning. In Anders, A. and Kulcsár, G., eds., Moments in Time: Papers Presented to Pál Raczky on His 60th Birthday. Budapest, pp. 661–669.Google Scholar
Testart, A., Jeunesse, C., Baray, L., and Boulestin, B. (2012). Les esclaves des tombes néolithiques. Pour la science 76, pp. 107–111.Google Scholar
Trésors, (1886). Trésors archéologiques de l’Armorique occidentale: album en chromolithographie. Publié par la Société d’émulation des Côtes du-Nord. Rennes.Google Scholar
Trifonov, B. A. (2000). Трифонов, Курганы майкопского типа в северо–западном Иране. В: Судьба Ученого. К 100-летию со дня рождения Б. А. Латынина. St Petersburg: pp. 244–278.Google Scholar
Vulpe, A. (1970). Die Äxte und Beile in Rumänien I. Munich.Google Scholar
Warmuth, V., Eriksson, A., Bower, M. A., Canon, J., Cothran, G., Distl, O., Glowatzki-Mullis, M.-L., Hunt, H., Luís, C., do Mar Oom, M., Tupac Yupanqui, I., Zabek, T., and Manica, A. (2011). European Domestic Horses Originated in Two Holocene Refugia. PLoS ONE 6, e18194.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×