{"title":"The Work of Boundaries: Critical Cartographies and the Archaeological Record of the Relatively Recent Past","authors":"Mark W. Hauser","doi":"10.1146/annurev-anthro-101819-110141","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Discussions of boundaries have enjoyed a renaissance in anthropological archaeology of recent years, especially as conversations surrounding forced migration and border walls look toward the material record for clarification about what borders are and what they do. Since 1995, when the Annual Review of Anthropology last addressed a similar issue, numerous methodological and conceptual changes in the field have led to a large proliferation in the literature. A brief Google Scholar search of the words “archaeology,” “boundaries,” and “work” between 1995 and the present produces 365,000 results and makes one point clear: Archaeologists have had a lot to say about the topic. By framing this review around the work of boundaries, I signal two trends in the field of archaeology with conceptual and methodological implications. The first trend is the increased centrality of materiality as a theoretical register as new questions relating to object agency, human/nonhuman boundaries, and new models of environmental archaeology have populated the literature. In such climates it is important to focus on boundaries as a kind of assemblage of actants that takes on agencies beyond notions of territory. Associated border, crossing, transnational, and refuge assemblages are discussed. The second trend is the increased attention to boundary work in archaeology. Whether it is in the form of postcolonial/decolonizing archaeologies, new materialities/symmetrical archaeologies, or contemporary archaeologies, there has been increased pushback against attempts to define anthropological archaeology along processual lines. In this article I review one thread of that literature, critical cartographies, and how they have used the archaeological record to develop radical renditions of political space where boundaries are involved. I focus on scholarship surrounding the relatively recent past (ca. 1200 CE to the present). Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Anthropology Volume 51 is October 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.","PeriodicalId":48296,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Anthropology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annual Review of Anthropology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-101819-110141","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
Discussions of boundaries have enjoyed a renaissance in anthropological archaeology of recent years, especially as conversations surrounding forced migration and border walls look toward the material record for clarification about what borders are and what they do. Since 1995, when the Annual Review of Anthropology last addressed a similar issue, numerous methodological and conceptual changes in the field have led to a large proliferation in the literature. A brief Google Scholar search of the words “archaeology,” “boundaries,” and “work” between 1995 and the present produces 365,000 results and makes one point clear: Archaeologists have had a lot to say about the topic. By framing this review around the work of boundaries, I signal two trends in the field of archaeology with conceptual and methodological implications. The first trend is the increased centrality of materiality as a theoretical register as new questions relating to object agency, human/nonhuman boundaries, and new models of environmental archaeology have populated the literature. In such climates it is important to focus on boundaries as a kind of assemblage of actants that takes on agencies beyond notions of territory. Associated border, crossing, transnational, and refuge assemblages are discussed. The second trend is the increased attention to boundary work in archaeology. Whether it is in the form of postcolonial/decolonizing archaeologies, new materialities/symmetrical archaeologies, or contemporary archaeologies, there has been increased pushback against attempts to define anthropological archaeology along processual lines. In this article I review one thread of that literature, critical cartographies, and how they have used the archaeological record to develop radical renditions of political space where boundaries are involved. I focus on scholarship surrounding the relatively recent past (ca. 1200 CE to the present). Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Anthropology Volume 51 is October 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
近年来,关于边界的讨论在人类学考古学中得到了复兴,特别是在围绕强迫移民和边界墙的讨论中,人们寻求通过材料记录来澄清边界是什么以及它们的作用。自1995年《人类学年度评论》(Annual Review of Anthropology)上次讨论类似问题以来,该领域的许多方法和概念变化导致了文献的大量扩散。从1995年到现在,谷歌学者对“考古学”、“边界”和“工作”等词进行了简短的搜索,得到了36.5万个结果,并明确了一点:考古学家对这个话题有很多话要说。通过围绕边界工作构建这一综述,我表明了考古学领域的两种趋势,具有概念和方法上的含义。第一个趋势是物质性作为一种理论记录的中心地位的增加,因为与对象代理、人类/非人类边界和环境考古学的新模型有关的新问题已经充斥了文献。在这样的气候下,把边界作为一种行为者的集合来关注是很重要的,这种行为者承担着超越领土概念的代理。相关的边界,过境,跨国,和避难组合进行了讨论。第二个趋势是越来越重视考古学的边界工作。无论是后殖民/去殖民化考古学,新材料/对称考古学,还是当代考古学,越来越多的人反对沿着过程线定义人类学考古学。在这篇文章中,我回顾了这些文献的一个线索,即批判性地图学,以及他们如何利用考古记录来发展涉及边界的政治空间的激进再现。我关注的是相对较近的过去(大约公元1200年到现在)的学术研究。预计《人类学年度评论》第51卷的最终在线出版日期是2022年10月。修订后的估计数请参阅http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates。