​

The concept of movement has been addressed in archaeology since the 1930s within the contexts of diffusionism (Childe 1951), migration, exchange (Mauss 1990), settlement patterns, communication, formation and interaction (Schiffer 1987; Trigger 1989; Renfrew & Bahn 2016). However, these approaches have predominantly evaluated movement as large-scale, linear, and singular events, often framing it within static models and systems. Today, it is increasingly recognized that movement cannot be understood as a unidirectional phenomenon or within closed systems (Dawdy 2013; Hodder 2012).

A significant portion of archaeological research has analyzed movement by limiting it to spatial displacement, often treating it as events specific to certain periods or as one-time occurrences (Cribb 1991; Yakar 1990; Azkia 2002). However, movement encompasses not only physical movements but also the circulation of time, space, objects, rituals, ideas, and identities (Ingold 2007; Aldred 2021). Movement must be examined not only within social and economic contexts but also through its symbolic and emotional dimensions (Hahn & Weiss 2013). In contemporary archaeology, actor-network theory (ANT), materiality studies, new materialism, and phenomenological approaches enable movement to be understood as a dynamic, multi-layered, and relational process (Latour 2005; Fowler 2013). Entities in motion are not limited to humans; objects, buildings, animals, the environment, and even settlements are also part of or catalysts for movement. The circulation of cultural and material entities is not merely an exchange of materials but also a process through which identities, memories, and meanings are reproduced (Joyce & Gillespie 2015; Knappett 2011).

In this context, rather than confining movement to narrow frameworks such as migration, it is necessary to conceptualize it as a continuously transforming, reconfiguring phenomenon with its own internal dynamics. This is particularly relevant when considering the dimension of time. Movement can be compulsory/voluntary, continuous/intermittent, individual/collective, ritualistic, or economic (Cresswell 2006). For contemporary archaeology, the central question is no longer who is moving but rather in what contexts, with what meanings, and how movement occurs (Van Dommelen 2014). Advanced technologies, particularly Geographic Information Systems (GIS), contribute significantly to making the physical dimensions of movement patterns more visible.

​

The Purpose of the Meeting

In this meeting, we aim to approach movement not as a fixed or confined phenomenon but as a multi-dimensional network of interactions, adopting a non-human-centric perspective. At the same time, we invite a rethinking of movement beyond the confines of trade or exchange.

• How can movement be defined within geographic, cultural, technological, symbolic, ecological, and intellectual frameworks?

• How does movement carry different meanings for individuals and communities, and what are its traces in archaeological contexts?

• Are only humans and objects in motion? How do abilities, thoughts, knowledge, symbolic elements, belonging, and beliefs circulate among contexts within local and regional cultural geographies?

• Formation/deformation and construction/deconstruction are tied to motion and can be slow or fast by nature. How can these phenomena be defined within the concept of movement?

• How can the movement of objects, spaces, and people be analyzed and interpreted more holistically using archaeological data?

• How can more flexible and multi-layered theoretical frameworks be developed to move beyond traditional paradigms of movement?

This meeting aims to open a comprehensive and critical space for inquiry into the concept of movement, moving beyond one-dimensional frameworks.

​

How Can We Rethink Movement?

Movement is not merely an analysis of the past but also a phenomenon with continuity in the contemporary world. Indeed, movement, as it has throughout history, continues today. Many disciplines that investigate the past by working backward from the present also approach this movement as an inverted methodological process.

We invite you to this multi-layered discussion to push boundaries and explore movement within new theoretical frameworks.

​

​

Adnan Baysal & Güneş Duru