Pub Date : 2017-07-03DOI: 10.1080/00938157.2017.1361277
M. Harkin
On the day of this writing, an otherwise normal muggy summer day, the trending news items were that the son of the president of the United States, acting on behalf of his father’s campaign, met with a Russian agent to obtain information harmful to the Clinton campaign; and that the largest chunk of ice yet had separated from the Antarctic ice sheet. As pundits are fond of saying, especially regarding the Trump clan, this is not normal. But it seems that abnormal has become the new normal. Welcome to the Anthropocene! Two questions emerge immediately: How do we define the Anthropocene, and what do we do about it? Climate scientists generally define it with reference to parts per million (ppm) of carbon in the atmosphere, or to particular temperature thresholds. Historians and many others, including anthropologists, would use the term to refer to the period beginning with the Industrial Revolution. Both have good justification. But given the complex and holistic nature of our discipline, I would offer a definition of the Anthropocene as the unraveling of structures—philosophical, political, social, and economic— inherited from the Enlightenment, which defined and regulated humanity’s relation to the natural world, and the relations of groups of humans (classes, nations, races, sexes, etc.) to one another. Thus, it is possible to view the breakup of Antarctic ice and the breakdown of American electoral democracy as analogous events. Responses to the Anthropocene (to those who believe it has arrived; remember that Trump was elected primarily by those who think climate change is a “hoax”) have varied considerably, from a sort of giddiness seen in the precincts of Silicon Valley that this crisis is a variant of their beloved “creative disruption” that is begging for technological fixes ranging from the already tangible, such as Tesla’s electric car and battery technology scaling up to take advantage of the economies of mass production, to the fartherfetched but quite conceivable (and terrifying to those who are wary of technological fixes) geoand bio-engineering. Beyond even that, a version of post-humanism is imagined in which humans meld with technology to extend lifespan and capabilities far beyond the biological inheritance. Within anthropology and adjacent disciplines in the social sciences and humanities, two main approaches have been followed. On the one hand, critical social science employs approaches deriving ultimately from the Marxist critique of capitalism, which is, undeniably, the driver of forces leading to our current none defined
{"title":"Editor’s introduction","authors":"M. Harkin","doi":"10.1080/00938157.2017.1361277","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00938157.2017.1361277","url":null,"abstract":"On the day of this writing, an otherwise normal muggy summer day, the trending news items were that the son of the president of the United States, acting on behalf of his father’s campaign, met with a Russian agent to obtain information harmful to the Clinton campaign; and that the largest chunk of ice yet had separated from the Antarctic ice sheet. As pundits are fond of saying, especially regarding the Trump clan, this is not normal. But it seems that abnormal has become the new normal. Welcome to the Anthropocene! Two questions emerge immediately: How do we define the Anthropocene, and what do we do about it? Climate scientists generally define it with reference to parts per million (ppm) of carbon in the atmosphere, or to particular temperature thresholds. Historians and many others, including anthropologists, would use the term to refer to the period beginning with the Industrial Revolution. Both have good justification. But given the complex and holistic nature of our discipline, I would offer a definition of the Anthropocene as the unraveling of structures—philosophical, political, social, and economic— inherited from the Enlightenment, which defined and regulated humanity’s relation to the natural world, and the relations of groups of humans (classes, nations, races, sexes, etc.) to one another. Thus, it is possible to view the breakup of Antarctic ice and the breakdown of American electoral democracy as analogous events. Responses to the Anthropocene (to those who believe it has arrived; remember that Trump was elected primarily by those who think climate change is a “hoax”) have varied considerably, from a sort of giddiness seen in the precincts of Silicon Valley that this crisis is a variant of their beloved “creative disruption” that is begging for technological fixes ranging from the already tangible, such as Tesla’s electric car and battery technology scaling up to take advantage of the economies of mass production, to the fartherfetched but quite conceivable (and terrifying to those who are wary of technological fixes) geoand bio-engineering. Beyond even that, a version of post-humanism is imagined in which humans meld with technology to extend lifespan and capabilities far beyond the biological inheritance. Within anthropology and adjacent disciplines in the social sciences and humanities, two main approaches have been followed. On the one hand, critical social science employs approaches deriving ultimately from the Marxist critique of capitalism, which is, undeniably, the driver of forces leading to our current none defined","PeriodicalId":43734,"journal":{"name":"Reviews in Anthropology","volume":"46 1","pages":"55 - 60"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2017-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00938157.2017.1361277","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43101375","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-07-03DOI: 10.1080/00938157.2017.1343025
G. Middleton
ABSTRACT Collapse is a theme addressed by specialists from many disciplines, from environmental and sustainability studies to popular culture and the hard sciences, as well as by archaeologists and historians. This review focuses on three recent books about past collapses and sets them in the context of collapse studies. The new contributions build on the growing body of collapse theory and increasing data on individual case studies, but each takes a new direction, adding to the ongoing debates about collapse, resilience, and transformation. While taking us forward, it is apparent that issues of definition and terminology are still an issue in collapse studies. The review also demonstrates that collapse is an area of lively research that can be regarded as a recognizable subfield of archaeological and historical research that also crosses over into other disciplines.
{"title":"The show must go on: Collapse, resilience, and transformation in 21st-century archaeology","authors":"G. Middleton","doi":"10.1080/00938157.2017.1343025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00938157.2017.1343025","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Collapse is a theme addressed by specialists from many disciplines, from environmental and sustainability studies to popular culture and the hard sciences, as well as by archaeologists and historians. This review focuses on three recent books about past collapses and sets them in the context of collapse studies. The new contributions build on the growing body of collapse theory and increasing data on individual case studies, but each takes a new direction, adding to the ongoing debates about collapse, resilience, and transformation. While taking us forward, it is apparent that issues of definition and terminology are still an issue in collapse studies. The review also demonstrates that collapse is an area of lively research that can be regarded as a recognizable subfield of archaeological and historical research that also crosses over into other disciplines.","PeriodicalId":43734,"journal":{"name":"Reviews in Anthropology","volume":"46 1","pages":"105 - 78"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2017-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00938157.2017.1343025","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47519084","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-01-02DOI: 10.1080/00938157.2017.1279506
L. Schepartz
ABSTRACT Bioarchaeology is a relatively new and dynamic area of anthropological research, having grown out of the New Archaeology’s emphasis on understanding formation processes within a broader anthropological/behavioral context. Current bioarchaeological research is increasingly focused on questions of identity and social roles from the perspectives of agency and embodiment and with an emphasis on contextual interpretation, as illustrated by the edited volumes discussed in this review. The relevance of this bioarchaeology research extends to other areas of anthropological enquiry, especially when considering the importance of the body in power and identity construction in contemporary societies.
{"title":"The body of power, the body of memory","authors":"L. Schepartz","doi":"10.1080/00938157.2017.1279506","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00938157.2017.1279506","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Bioarchaeology is a relatively new and dynamic area of anthropological research, having grown out of the New Archaeology’s emphasis on understanding formation processes within a broader anthropological/behavioral context. Current bioarchaeological research is increasingly focused on questions of identity and social roles from the perspectives of agency and embodiment and with an emphasis on contextual interpretation, as illustrated by the edited volumes discussed in this review. The relevance of this bioarchaeology research extends to other areas of anthropological enquiry, especially when considering the importance of the body in power and identity construction in contemporary societies.","PeriodicalId":43734,"journal":{"name":"Reviews in Anthropology","volume":"46 1","pages":"35 - 53"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2017-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00938157.2017.1279506","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46672751","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-01-02DOI: 10.1080/00938157.2017.1296252
M. Harkin
The history of anthropology is a haunted one, built on its association with colonialism and colonial states, its participation in the exploitation of indigenous people and, of course, scientific racism. It is not, however, a unitary history. We celebrate anthropologists such as Franz Boas and Margaret Mead for their rejection of racism and support for progressive causes. At the same time, Boas was known for what would now be seen as highly unethical acts in the collection of human remains. The nineteenth century was, as Alex W. Barker reminds us, the great age of collection, from small cabinets of curiosities to the great museums that still exist to this day. Much of this collecting was done willy-nilly, according to the salvage mentality prevalent at the time. Anything and everything should be collected and catalogued, with some sense being made of it at a later date. To a certain degree that is indeed what happened: the amassed human remains provided a data set so large that many questions about human variation were answered and, ironically, the very concept of race—the premise upon which these remains were collected—was discredited. If all this happened behind the scenes, at the museum’s back door, what happened in the front was equally important to the history of the discipline. During the discipline’s “museum period,” such displays were the primary means of interpreting and communicating information about human biological and cultural variation to a larger public. If this was true of museums in general, it was especially true of World’s Fairs and similar exhibitions, such as the Columbian Exhibition in Chicago discussed here. These were intended to express a wide range of ideas about the American nation and its role in the world, the advances of technology and, of course, human variation. The role of indigenous peoples is central to this and deeply ambiguous. The use of indigenous families—from North America and elsewhere—as living displays raises concerns in our era that were not considered in the 1890s. The role of American Indians—living within the territory of the United States—was especially fraught. While Native Americans were, as Barker asserts, the glue that held American anthropology together in their guise as representatives of primitive societies, they also represented populations that constituted part of the modern American society being celebrated. One wonders if the mask often slipped and the illusion shattered.
人类学的历史是一部令人困扰的历史，建立在它与殖民主义和殖民国家的联系上，它参与了对土著人民的剥削，当然还有科学上的种族主义。然而，这并不是一段单一的历史。我们赞扬弗朗茨·博阿斯(Franz Boas)和玛格丽特·米德(Margaret Mead)等人类学家，因为他们反对种族主义，支持进步事业。与此同时，鲍亚士也因收集人类遗骸的不道德行为而闻名。正如亚历克斯·w·巴克(Alex W. Barker)提醒我们的那样，19世纪是一个收藏的伟大时代，从收藏珍品的小柜子到至今仍存在的大型博物馆。根据当时流行的打捞心态，大部分的收集都是不情愿地进行的。任何东西都应该被收集和分类，在以后的日子里有一些意义。在某种程度上，这确实发生了:人类遗骸的积累提供了一个如此庞大的数据集，以至于许多关于人类变异的问题得到了回答，具有讽刺意味的是，种族的概念本身——这些遗骸被收集的前提——被怀疑。如果说这一切都发生在幕后，在博物馆的后门，那么发生在前门的事情对这门学科的历史同样重要。在该学科的“博物馆时期”，这样的展示是向更大的公众解释和交流有关人类生物和文化变化的信息的主要手段。如果说博物馆一般都是这样的话，那么世界博览会和类似的展览尤其如此，比如这里讨论的芝加哥哥伦比亚展览。这些作品旨在表达关于美国民族及其在世界上的角色、技术进步，当然还有人类变异的广泛观点。土著人民的作用是这方面的核心，而且非常模糊。使用来自北美和其他地方的土著家庭作为生活展示，在我们这个时代引起了人们的关注，这在19世纪90年代是没有被考虑到的。居住在美国境内的印第安人的角色尤其令人担忧。正如巴克所断言的那样，印第安人作为原始社会的代表，是将美国人类学凝聚在一起的粘合剂，他们也代表了构成被颂扬的现代美国社会一部分的人口。人们不禁要问，面具是否经常滑落，幻觉是否经常破灭。
{"title":"Editor’s introduction","authors":"M. Harkin","doi":"10.1080/00938157.2017.1296252","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00938157.2017.1296252","url":null,"abstract":"The history of anthropology is a haunted one, built on its association with colonialism and colonial states, its participation in the exploitation of indigenous people and, of course, scientific racism. It is not, however, a unitary history. We celebrate anthropologists such as Franz Boas and Margaret Mead for their rejection of racism and support for progressive causes. At the same time, Boas was known for what would now be seen as highly unethical acts in the collection of human remains. The nineteenth century was, as Alex W. Barker reminds us, the great age of collection, from small cabinets of curiosities to the great museums that still exist to this day. Much of this collecting was done willy-nilly, according to the salvage mentality prevalent at the time. Anything and everything should be collected and catalogued, with some sense being made of it at a later date. To a certain degree that is indeed what happened: the amassed human remains provided a data set so large that many questions about human variation were answered and, ironically, the very concept of race—the premise upon which these remains were collected—was discredited. If all this happened behind the scenes, at the museum’s back door, what happened in the front was equally important to the history of the discipline. During the discipline’s “museum period,” such displays were the primary means of interpreting and communicating information about human biological and cultural variation to a larger public. If this was true of museums in general, it was especially true of World’s Fairs and similar exhibitions, such as the Columbian Exhibition in Chicago discussed here. These were intended to express a wide range of ideas about the American nation and its role in the world, the advances of technology and, of course, human variation. The role of indigenous peoples is central to this and deeply ambiguous. The use of indigenous families—from North America and elsewhere—as living displays raises concerns in our era that were not considered in the 1890s. The role of American Indians—living within the territory of the United States—was especially fraught. While Native Americans were, as Barker asserts, the glue that held American anthropology together in their guise as representatives of primitive societies, they also represented populations that constituted part of the modern American society being celebrated. One wonders if the mask often slipped and the illusion shattered.","PeriodicalId":43734,"journal":{"name":"Reviews in Anthropology","volume":"46 1","pages":"1 - 3"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2017-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41681038","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-01-02DOI: 10.1080/00938157.2017.1279498
A. Barker
ABSTRACT In this essay I review two quite different works concerning the rise of American anthropology as a discipline. Both address the display of anthropology and the ways it presented itself to the public and represented itself to the field during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and provide alternative views of the coalescence of the field. I argue that each provides valuable insights into those formation processes without fully coming to grips with the contradictions inherent to the discipline during its formation, and which remain as fault lines in anthropological inquiry today.
{"title":"Representing anthropological collections in the Gilded Age","authors":"A. Barker","doi":"10.1080/00938157.2017.1279498","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00938157.2017.1279498","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this essay I review two quite different works concerning the rise of American anthropology as a discipline. Both address the display of anthropology and the ways it presented itself to the public and represented itself to the field during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and provide alternative views of the coalescence of the field. I argue that each provides valuable insights into those formation processes without fully coming to grips with the contradictions inherent to the discipline during its formation, and which remain as fault lines in anthropological inquiry today.","PeriodicalId":43734,"journal":{"name":"Reviews in Anthropology","volume":"46 1","pages":"18 - 4"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2017-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48265789","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-01-02DOI: 10.1080/00938157.2017.1279505
G. White
ABSTRACT This review takes up three works that represent recent approaches to the anthropology of memory and affect. Echoing themes in Holocaust literature, a central issue here is the role of violent memory in forging collective identifications and sentiments. Taken together, these volumes suggest a continuing evolution of efforts to theorize the remembrance of violence and the social and bodily practices that mediate its reproduction. In particular, these studies demonstrate the value of ethnography in tracing the social career of violent memory as it is variously projected, suppressed, and transformed in moral communities and across generations.
{"title":"Violent memories/memory violence","authors":"G. White","doi":"10.1080/00938157.2017.1279505","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00938157.2017.1279505","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This review takes up three works that represent recent approaches to the anthropology of memory and affect. Echoing themes in Holocaust literature, a central issue here is the role of violent memory in forging collective identifications and sentiments. Taken together, these volumes suggest a continuing evolution of efforts to theorize the remembrance of violence and the social and bodily practices that mediate its reproduction. In particular, these studies demonstrate the value of ethnography in tracing the social career of violent memory as it is variously projected, suppressed, and transformed in moral communities and across generations.","PeriodicalId":43734,"journal":{"name":"Reviews in Anthropology","volume":"46 1","pages":"19 - 34"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2017-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00938157.2017.1279505","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44782634","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-10-01DOI: 10.1080/00938157.2016.1250577
R. A. Garnett
ABSTRACT Four recently published books examine sound in social contexts, including brass bands on the streets of New Orleans, Hawaiian steel guitar, the genre of Noise and its social circulation, and Aboriginal radio production in northern Australia. The authors present the material and metaphoric power of sound in social contexts through thoughtful and thorough historical research and long-term ethnographic study. The influential thinking of John Blacking, Steven Feld, and others is expanded and critiqued in new contexts. Three of the authors are editors or contributors to a recent publication on keywords related to sound in anthropology and ethnomusicology.
{"title":"Materiality and metaphor: Sound in circulation","authors":"R. A. Garnett","doi":"10.1080/00938157.2016.1250577","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00938157.2016.1250577","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Four recently published books examine sound in social contexts, including brass bands on the streets of New Orleans, Hawaiian steel guitar, the genre of Noise and its social circulation, and Aboriginal radio production in northern Australia. The authors present the material and metaphoric power of sound in social contexts through thoughtful and thorough historical research and long-term ethnographic study. The influential thinking of John Blacking, Steven Feld, and others is expanded and critiqued in new contexts. Three of the authors are editors or contributors to a recent publication on keywords related to sound in anthropology and ethnomusicology.","PeriodicalId":43734,"journal":{"name":"Reviews in Anthropology","volume":"45 1","pages":"158 - 175"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2016-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00938157.2016.1250577","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59028138","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-10-01DOI: 10.1080/00938157.2016.1250578
M. Harkin
Historical ecology as a specialization within archaeology, cultural anthropology, and related fields, has been in a process of re-articulating and extending a set of concerns with deep roots in North American and especially Americanist anthropology. The classic cultural ecology of the 1950s and 1960s assumed a feedback relationship between human groups and the environment at the landscape level and beyond. Going further back, this links with the original purpose of Franz Boas’s fieldwork on Baffin Island: to examine the myriad ways in which the environment shaped culture, and in which humans perceived, utilized, and altered the environment. The resurgence of ecological concerns in the 1990s and 2000s led by anthropologists such as William Balée and Carole Crumley was timely, coming on the heels of the “spatial turn” in cultural anthropology in the early 1990s and coinciding with awareness of global warming and what would come to be called the Anthropocene. One can only imagine how archaeologists of the future (assuming they exist!) will read the historical ecology of our era, but certainly present-day archaeologists are contributing greatly to our understanding of the historical ecology of many world regions, none more so than Amazonia. Christian Isendahl discusses several volumes of work in historical ecology of the past decade, and traces development of certain themes such as sustainability, around which, Isendahl argues, the field has coalesced. It is of historical interest to note that this set of books, the most recent of which was published in 2013, makes no mention of the Anthropocene, which was to become the central concept in American anthropology at the 2014 American Anthropological Association meeting in Washington, DC.
{"title":"Editor’s introduction","authors":"M. Harkin","doi":"10.1080/00938157.2016.1250578","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00938157.2016.1250578","url":null,"abstract":"Historical ecology as a specialization within archaeology, cultural anthropology, and related fields, has been in a process of re-articulating and extending a set of concerns with deep roots in North American and especially Americanist anthropology. The classic cultural ecology of the 1950s and 1960s assumed a feedback relationship between human groups and the environment at the landscape level and beyond. Going further back, this links with the original purpose of Franz Boas’s fieldwork on Baffin Island: to examine the myriad ways in which the environment shaped culture, and in which humans perceived, utilized, and altered the environment. The resurgence of ecological concerns in the 1990s and 2000s led by anthropologists such as William Balée and Carole Crumley was timely, coming on the heels of the “spatial turn” in cultural anthropology in the early 1990s and coinciding with awareness of global warming and what would come to be called the Anthropocene. One can only imagine how archaeologists of the future (assuming they exist!) will read the historical ecology of our era, but certainly present-day archaeologists are contributing greatly to our understanding of the historical ecology of many world regions, none more so than Amazonia. Christian Isendahl discusses several volumes of work in historical ecology of the past decade, and traces development of certain themes such as sustainability, around which, Isendahl argues, the field has coalesced. It is of historical interest to note that this set of books, the most recent of which was published in 2013, makes no mention of the Anthropocene, which was to become the central concept in American anthropology at the 2014 American Anthropological Association meeting in Washington, DC.","PeriodicalId":43734,"journal":{"name":"Reviews in Anthropology","volume":"45 1","pages":"125 - 126"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2016-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00938157.2016.1250578","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59028154","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-09-16DOI: 10.1080/00938157.2016.1210959
R. Handler
ABSTRACT This review considers new work on translation, cultural interpretation, and cross-cultural comparison, all three terms suggesting different but related approaches to the central problem of sociocultural anthropology, that of understanding human meaning-making. Translating Worlds brings together ten authors who take language translation as a paradigmatic example of cultural translation within and across different kinds of linguistic and social boundaries. The Chimera Principle is a historically and ethnographically grounded study of Amerindian pictographies, focusing on cultural translation across media and on the uses of different media in ritual.
{"title":"Found in translation","authors":"R. Handler","doi":"10.1080/00938157.2016.1210959","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00938157.2016.1210959","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This review considers new work on translation, cultural interpretation, and cross-cultural comparison, all three terms suggesting different but related approaches to the central problem of sociocultural anthropology, that of understanding human meaning-making. Translating Worlds brings together ten authors who take language translation as a paradigmatic example of cultural translation within and across different kinds of linguistic and social boundaries. The Chimera Principle is a historically and ethnographically grounded study of Amerindian pictographies, focusing on cultural translation across media and on the uses of different media in ritual.","PeriodicalId":43734,"journal":{"name":"Reviews in Anthropology","volume":"45 1","pages":"148 - 157"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2016-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00938157.2016.1210959","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59027434","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：