Pub Date : 2020-05-26DOI: 10.1017/s1380203820000124
R. Coelho
Abstract What are the circumstances through which we become archaeologists? In April 2018, Rui Gomes Coelho met with his former adviser, Randall H. McGuire, and his adviser’s adviser, Michael B. Schiffer, for a conversation about the reasons why they became interested in archaeology, about mentorship and about how they connect their experiences to broader social questions. This conversation is an affective reflection that crosses the emergence of behavioural archaeology, Marxist archaeology, the postprocessual turn and the context that shaped the origins of the archaeology of the recent past.
{"title":"The juniper tree. A conversation with Michael B. Schiffer and Randall H. McGuire","authors":"R. Coelho","doi":"10.1017/s1380203820000124","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1380203820000124","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract What are the circumstances through which we become archaeologists? In April 2018, Rui Gomes Coelho met with his former adviser, Randall H. McGuire, and his adviser’s adviser, Michael B. Schiffer, for a conversation about the reasons why they became interested in archaeology, about mentorship and about how they connect their experiences to broader social questions. This conversation is an affective reflection that crosses the emergence of behavioural archaeology, Marxist archaeology, the postprocessual turn and the context that shaped the origins of the archaeology of the recent past.","PeriodicalId":45009,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological Dialogues","volume":"28 1","pages":"95 - 108"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2020-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/s1380203820000124","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46006238","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-03-26DOI: 10.1017/S1380203820000082
Rachel J. Crellin, O. Harris
Abstract In this paper we explore ancient DNA (aDNA) as a powerful new technique for archaeologists. We argue that for aDNA to reach its full potential we need to carefully consider its theoretical underpinnings. We suggest that at present much aDNA research rests upon two problematic theoretical assumptions: first, that nature and culture exist in binary opposition and that DNA is a part of nature; second, that cultures form distinct and bounded identities. The nature–culture binary, which underpins much aDNA research, not only is a misunderstanding of our world but also results in placing archaeology and material culture in a secondary and subservient position to science and aDNA. Viewing cultures as distinct and bounded creates exclusionary, simplistic and singular identities for past populations. This stands in contrast to the work of social scientists, which has revealed identity to be complex, multiple, changing and contradictory. We offer a new way forward drawing upon assemblage thinking and post-humanism. This allows us to consider the messy and complex nature of our world and of human identities, and demands that we expect equally messy and complex results to emerge when we bring aDNA into conversation with other forms of archaeological evidence.
{"title":"Beyond binaries. Interrogating ancient DNA","authors":"Rachel J. Crellin, O. Harris","doi":"10.1017/S1380203820000082","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203820000082","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this paper we explore ancient DNA (aDNA) as a powerful new technique for archaeologists. We argue that for aDNA to reach its full potential we need to carefully consider its theoretical underpinnings. We suggest that at present much aDNA research rests upon two problematic theoretical assumptions: first, that nature and culture exist in binary opposition and that DNA is a part of nature; second, that cultures form distinct and bounded identities. The nature–culture binary, which underpins much aDNA research, not only is a misunderstanding of our world but also results in placing archaeology and material culture in a secondary and subservient position to science and aDNA. Viewing cultures as distinct and bounded creates exclusionary, simplistic and singular identities for past populations. This stands in contrast to the work of social scientists, which has revealed identity to be complex, multiple, changing and contradictory. We offer a new way forward drawing upon assemblage thinking and post-humanism. This allows us to consider the messy and complex nature of our world and of human identities, and demands that we expect equally messy and complex results to emerge when we bring aDNA into conversation with other forms of archaeological evidence.","PeriodicalId":45009,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological Dialogues","volume":"27 1","pages":"37 - 56"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2020-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1380203820000082","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49626563","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-12-01DOI: 10.1017/S1380203819000175
S. Rathbone
best interest through skilful manipulation of social circumstances and material resources. But another answer is that in many cases they didn’t submit; aggrandizers were curtailed by overt and subversive resistance to their ends. This point brings to the forefront one issue not fully addressed by Borake – the relationship between the theory of anarchism and the concept of egalitarianism. They are not the same thing – anarchism, with its emphasis on autonomy and decentralization, staves off centralization at a political level and maintains autonomy at a local level, but it does not necessarily maintain egalitarianism in all social contexts. Coast Salish societies of the Pacific Northwest Coast of North America had significant inequalities, yet remained politically decentralized and maintained a high degree of autonomy in decision making (Grier 2017). In short, they traded off equality for autonomy. The empirical component of Borake’s study offers a fresh look at monumental constructions in Iron Age and medieval Scandinavia (monumental in the sense of Grier and Schwadron 2017). Most critical is the notion that we should see in many of the collective, expansive and iterative construction works she considers not the heavy hand of centralized power, but the product of decentralized collective action. How such enduring works can serve to reify decentralized politics and local autonomy has been quite underappreciated. Collective action in the service of autonomy might seem incongruous, but only from starting assumptions that preclude it (see Trigger 1990). We do get inklings of similar connections and practices from the archaeology of hunter-gatherer-fishers in the south-eastern US (e.g. Randall 2015; Wallis 2008), and similar to Borake’s study of Danevirke, there is a long arc to the construction process, often covering millennia, that reiterates, reinforces and at times remakes the social order over time. Similar ideas are also emerging from the Northwest Coast of North America (Grier, Angelbeck and McLay 2017). The archaeological question then becomes, how do we confidently recognize the products of anarchic organization in the archaeological record? Does a slow additive emergence and repeated investment in material thing sites directly imply networks, justified authority, autonomy and decentralization? That is Borake’s assertion in using the term ‘thing sites’ to describe such places – that the materiality and sociality of these places are embedded in a recursive and persistent relationship through time, reflecting expressions of anarchism principles. This is something we should be evaluating in archaeological contexts around the world. So I see strength in Borake’s application of anarchism as both a theoretical and an analytical framework. Ultimately this approach can provide a way to rethink aspects of the material record of collective action and its relation to a core set of principles that were undoubtedly operating in many social contexts in th
通过巧妙地操纵社会环境和物质资源获得最大利益。但另一个答案是，在很多情况下，他们没有提交;夸大者被公然的和颠覆性的抵抗所削弱。这一点引出了一个波拉克没有完全解决的问题——无政府主义理论与平等主义概念之间的关系。它们不是一回事——无政府主义强调自治和权力下放，在政治层面上避免中央集权，在地方层面上保持自治，但它不一定在所有社会背景下都保持平等主义。北美太平洋西北海岸的海岸萨利什社会存在显著的不平等，但在政治上仍然分散，并在决策中保持高度自治(Grier 2017)。简而言之，他们用平等换取了自治。Borake研究的实证部分为铁器时代和中世纪斯堪的纳维亚半岛的纪念性建筑提供了新的视角(Grier和Schwadron 2017意义上的纪念性)。最关键的是，我们应该在许多集体的、广泛的、反复的建筑作品中看到这样一个概念，她认为这不是中央集权的高压手段，而是分散的集体行动的产物。这些经久不衰的作品是如何将权力下放的政治和地方自治具体化的，一直没有得到足够的重视。为自治服务的集体行动可能看起来不协调，但这只是从一开始就排除了它的假设(参见触发器1990)。我们确实从美国东南部的狩猎-采集-渔民的考古中得到了类似的联系和实践的暗示(例如Randall 2015;Wallis 2008)，与Borake对Danevirke的研究类似，建筑过程有一个很长的弧线，通常覆盖数千年，随着时间的推移，它重申，加强，有时重塑社会秩序。北美西北海岸也出现了类似的想法(Grier, Angelbeck和McLay 2017)。那么考古学的问题就变成了，我们如何自信地在考古记录中识别无政府组织的产物?对实物网站的缓慢增加和重复投资是否直接意味着网络、合理的权威、自治和去中心化?这就是Borake在使用术语“物点”来描述这些地方时的主张——这些地方的物质性和社会性嵌入了一种递归的、持久的关系，反映了无政府主义原则的表达。这是我们应该在世界各地的考古背景下评估的东西。因此，我看到了波拉克将无政府主义应用于理论和分析框架的力量。最终，这种方法可以提供一种方法来重新思考集体行动的物质记录的各个方面，以及它与一套核心原则的关系，这些原则无疑在过去的许多社会环境中起作用。从这个意义上说，它提供了一个自下而上的理论视角，可以让我们-用Borake的话来说-“对社会如何运作获得更复杂和细致的理解”(第62页;另见Furholt et al. 2019)。
{"title":"We run tingz, tingz nah run we","authors":"S. Rathbone","doi":"10.1017/S1380203819000175","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203819000175","url":null,"abstract":"best interest through skilful manipulation of social circumstances and material resources. But another answer is that in many cases they didn’t submit; aggrandizers were curtailed by overt and subversive resistance to their ends. This point brings to the forefront one issue not fully addressed by Borake – the relationship between the theory of anarchism and the concept of egalitarianism. They are not the same thing – anarchism, with its emphasis on autonomy and decentralization, staves off centralization at a political level and maintains autonomy at a local level, but it does not necessarily maintain egalitarianism in all social contexts. Coast Salish societies of the Pacific Northwest Coast of North America had significant inequalities, yet remained politically decentralized and maintained a high degree of autonomy in decision making (Grier 2017). In short, they traded off equality for autonomy. The empirical component of Borake’s study offers a fresh look at monumental constructions in Iron Age and medieval Scandinavia (monumental in the sense of Grier and Schwadron 2017). Most critical is the notion that we should see in many of the collective, expansive and iterative construction works she considers not the heavy hand of centralized power, but the product of decentralized collective action. How such enduring works can serve to reify decentralized politics and local autonomy has been quite underappreciated. Collective action in the service of autonomy might seem incongruous, but only from starting assumptions that preclude it (see Trigger 1990). We do get inklings of similar connections and practices from the archaeology of hunter-gatherer-fishers in the south-eastern US (e.g. Randall 2015; Wallis 2008), and similar to Borake’s study of Danevirke, there is a long arc to the construction process, often covering millennia, that reiterates, reinforces and at times remakes the social order over time. Similar ideas are also emerging from the Northwest Coast of North America (Grier, Angelbeck and McLay 2017). The archaeological question then becomes, how do we confidently recognize the products of anarchic organization in the archaeological record? Does a slow additive emergence and repeated investment in material thing sites directly imply networks, justified authority, autonomy and decentralization? That is Borake’s assertion in using the term ‘thing sites’ to describe such places – that the materiality and sociality of these places are embedded in a recursive and persistent relationship through time, reflecting expressions of anarchism principles. This is something we should be evaluating in archaeological contexts around the world. So I see strength in Borake’s application of anarchism as both a theoretical and an analytical framework. Ultimately this approach can provide a way to rethink aspects of the material record of collective action and its relation to a core set of principles that were undoubtedly operating in many social contexts in th","PeriodicalId":45009,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological Dialogues","volume":"26 1","pages":"75 - 78"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1380203819000175","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45496613","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-12-01DOI: 10.1017/S1380203819000163
C. Grier
{"title":"What can the theory of anarchism and its analytical possibilities do for us?","authors":"C. Grier","doi":"10.1017/S1380203819000163","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203819000163","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45009,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological Dialogues","volume":"26 1","pages":"74 - 75"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1380203819000163","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44764576","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-12-01DOI: 10.1017/S1380203819000229
Svein Vatsvåg Nielsen
Abstract Scholars writing within symmetrical archaeology, or speculative realism, have lately claimed that archaeology should strive to grasp the thing-in-itself. This paper questions the rationale of this claim. It presents the philosophical definition of the concept of a thing-in-itself and a short presentation of its reception. The author argues that the concept of the thing-in-itself has nothing to offer archaeology, and questions why contemporary theoretical archaeologists show such an interest in this term.
{"title":"The thing-in-itself. A reaction to current use of the term in archaeology","authors":"Svein Vatsvåg Nielsen","doi":"10.1017/S1380203819000229","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203819000229","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Scholars writing within symmetrical archaeology, or speculative realism, have lately claimed that archaeology should strive to grasp the thing-in-itself. This paper questions the rationale of this claim. It presents the philosophical definition of the concept of a thing-in-itself and a short presentation of its reception. The author argues that the concept of the thing-in-itself has nothing to offer archaeology, and questions why contemporary theoretical archaeologists show such an interest in this term.","PeriodicalId":45009,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological Dialogues","volume":"26 1","pages":"123 - 126"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1380203819000229","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41406394","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-12-01DOI: 10.1017/S1380203819000151
T. Borake
Abstract A general interest in centralized institutions, state formation and prestige objects has dominated research on social organization and dynamics in Scandinavia from the Late Iron Age to the Middle Ages. Accordingly, a focus on kingly power, aristocratic influence, hierarchies and warrior might has dominated archaeological research designs for the last forty years. Subsequently, other perspectives have been evaded and their significance has been diminished. In this article, I use anarchistic principles as an analytic perspective and present examples of anarchistic actions – network organization, justified leaders and decentralization – drawing on well-known but ambiguous phenomena such as thing sites, the southern Danish defence system Danevirke, and migration and mobility. I suggest a perspective that recognizes resistance, authority and decentralization as well as centralization and institutionalization, allowing a broad spectrum of social engagement and interrelations to influence social organization. I will argue that human intentionality has been overlooked in favour of structures and institutions, and that the power of network organization and decentralization is influential in shaping social organization and dynamics.
{"title":"Anarchistic action. Social organization and dynamics in southern Scandinavia from the Iron Age to the Middle Ages","authors":"T. Borake","doi":"10.1017/S1380203819000151","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203819000151","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract A general interest in centralized institutions, state formation and prestige objects has dominated research on social organization and dynamics in Scandinavia from the Late Iron Age to the Middle Ages. Accordingly, a focus on kingly power, aristocratic influence, hierarchies and warrior might has dominated archaeological research designs for the last forty years. Subsequently, other perspectives have been evaded and their significance has been diminished. In this article, I use anarchistic principles as an analytic perspective and present examples of anarchistic actions – network organization, justified leaders and decentralization – drawing on well-known but ambiguous phenomena such as thing sites, the southern Danish defence system Danevirke, and migration and mobility. I suggest a perspective that recognizes resistance, authority and decentralization as well as centralization and institutionalization, allowing a broad spectrum of social engagement and interrelations to influence social organization. I will argue that human intentionality has been overlooked in favour of structures and institutions, and that the power of network organization and decentralization is influential in shaping social organization and dynamics.","PeriodicalId":45009,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological Dialogues","volume":"26 1","pages":"61 - 73"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1380203819000151","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42404292","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-12-01DOI: 10.1017/S1380203819000187
Bill Angelbeck
1 The title of this piece is a Jamaican proverb. 2 Clastres did not resolve how authoritarian rule in neighbouring communities could have originated beyond invoking influence from a further external group, and so on, leaving a ‘chicken-and-egg’-style ‘mystery’ of the origin of political authority for future researchers to grapple with (Clastres 1989, 205). Barclay (1990, 136) identified the ‘big-man’ style of leadership as being most vulnerable to internal authoritarian takeover. 3 There is serious doubt whether there ever was a historical Robin Hood, and even if we were to accept that the medieval stories did derive from an actual person, their actions and motivations are entirely obscured by time (Knight 2006; Baldwin 2010).
{"title":"Applying an anarchist lens to the archaeological record. On Borake’s ‘anarchistic actions’ in Scandinavian culture history","authors":"Bill Angelbeck","doi":"10.1017/S1380203819000187","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203819000187","url":null,"abstract":"1 The title of this piece is a Jamaican proverb. 2 Clastres did not resolve how authoritarian rule in neighbouring communities could have originated beyond invoking influence from a further external group, and so on, leaving a ‘chicken-and-egg’-style ‘mystery’ of the origin of political authority for future researchers to grapple with (Clastres 1989, 205). Barclay (1990, 136) identified the ‘big-man’ style of leadership as being most vulnerable to internal authoritarian takeover. 3 There is serious doubt whether there ever was a historical Robin Hood, and even if we were to accept that the medieval stories did derive from an actual person, their actions and motivations are entirely obscured by time (Knight 2006; Baldwin 2010).","PeriodicalId":45009,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological Dialogues","volume":"26 1","pages":"78 - 80"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1380203819000187","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42080509","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-12-01DOI: 10.1017/S1380203819000199
T. Borake
have both acted together and debated each other for well over a century, each sharpening the views of the other. Randall McGuire (2012, 576) has emphasized that we ‘should embrace the intersections and the tensions between anarchism and Marxism : : : Both lead us to critical understandings of our noncapitalist pasts’. Elsewhere, I have tried to show how both approaches can integrate (Angelbeck 2017), as there are many shared avenues of concern, if different points of departure. Again, the theory of anarchism primarily concerns methods of power in relationships, which places it at the heart of what constitutes the proper concern of social sciences (Russell 2004; Flyvbjerg 2001). Moreover, anarchism concerns various ways to implement such principles in practice, as appropriate for the cultural or environmental circumstances. Many principles concern resisting the concentration and centralization of power in ways that are seen as not justified. Other aspects of anarchism concern the harnessing of power collectively, whether for the accomplishment of economic, religious, or recreational projects, or inmovements of resistance, as emphasized by Borake here. The theory concerns both types of power expression. Too often, we can limit ouruse of ‘power’ to refer to top-downexertionsof power, as in those ‘withpower’or ‘in power’; these are ‘vertical’ forms of power. Yet just as important are forms of power that are exercised in conjunction, through alliance, or what is referred to as the ‘horizontal power’ of collectivities. It is important to recognize multiple forms if we are to adequately theorize social life. To reserve the use of ‘power’ for only vertical forms literally disempowers any consciousness of collective capability, and may contribute to a lack of understanding of such horizontal efforts in the past societies we investigate. Anarchism provides a reminder that state and society are separate phenomena. This is emphasized by Pierre Clastres (1987) in Society against the state. Too often, we can lazily slip into equating the two as one and the same, which is not helpful for understanding sociopolitical dynamics in the past. Rather, Clastres stressed that the ‘state’ is a sociopolitical structure organized often by a subset of the society overall; we should extend such to any structure of political hierarchy, not just states, but chiefdoms, and other formations, especially those of dominance. As Borake emphasizes here, these need to be evaluated for whether they are viewed as justified in their position of hierarchy and how they apply their power. In this article, Borake shows how an anarchist perspective can provide alternative and useful interpretations for cases in Scandinavian culture history, and by extension how such analyses might be applicable for archaeohistorical analyses of other areas and times. Her cases here have been at a macro scale, given the orientation; however, these cases provide examples of how such analyses could be carried o
{"title":"Anarchistic actions. Reply by Trine Borake","authors":"T. Borake","doi":"10.1017/S1380203819000199","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203819000199","url":null,"abstract":"have both acted together and debated each other for well over a century, each sharpening the views of the other. Randall McGuire (2012, 576) has emphasized that we ‘should embrace the intersections and the tensions between anarchism and Marxism : : : Both lead us to critical understandings of our noncapitalist pasts’. Elsewhere, I have tried to show how both approaches can integrate (Angelbeck 2017), as there are many shared avenues of concern, if different points of departure. Again, the theory of anarchism primarily concerns methods of power in relationships, which places it at the heart of what constitutes the proper concern of social sciences (Russell 2004; Flyvbjerg 2001). Moreover, anarchism concerns various ways to implement such principles in practice, as appropriate for the cultural or environmental circumstances. Many principles concern resisting the concentration and centralization of power in ways that are seen as not justified. Other aspects of anarchism concern the harnessing of power collectively, whether for the accomplishment of economic, religious, or recreational projects, or inmovements of resistance, as emphasized by Borake here. The theory concerns both types of power expression. Too often, we can limit ouruse of ‘power’ to refer to top-downexertionsof power, as in those ‘withpower’or ‘in power’; these are ‘vertical’ forms of power. Yet just as important are forms of power that are exercised in conjunction, through alliance, or what is referred to as the ‘horizontal power’ of collectivities. It is important to recognize multiple forms if we are to adequately theorize social life. To reserve the use of ‘power’ for only vertical forms literally disempowers any consciousness of collective capability, and may contribute to a lack of understanding of such horizontal efforts in the past societies we investigate. Anarchism provides a reminder that state and society are separate phenomena. This is emphasized by Pierre Clastres (1987) in Society against the state. Too often, we can lazily slip into equating the two as one and the same, which is not helpful for understanding sociopolitical dynamics in the past. Rather, Clastres stressed that the ‘state’ is a sociopolitical structure organized often by a subset of the society overall; we should extend such to any structure of political hierarchy, not just states, but chiefdoms, and other formations, especially those of dominance. As Borake emphasizes here, these need to be evaluated for whether they are viewed as justified in their position of hierarchy and how they apply their power. In this article, Borake shows how an anarchist perspective can provide alternative and useful interpretations for cases in Scandinavian culture history, and by extension how such analyses might be applicable for archaeohistorical analyses of other areas and times. Her cases here have been at a macro scale, given the orientation; however, these cases provide examples of how such analyses could be carried o","PeriodicalId":45009,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological Dialogues","volume":"26 1","pages":"80 - 86"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45891689","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-12-01DOI: 10.1017/S1380203819000242
Bill Angelbeck
Bill Angelbeck is an archaeologist and anthropologist who focuses on cultures of Salishan peoples of the Northwest Coast and Interior. Since the year 2000, he has worked throughout the Northwest on academic and applied projects, involving archaeology, ethnography and ethnohistory. He holds a doctorate in archaeology from the University of British Columbia and a master’s degree in cultural anthropology from the University of Missouri. Topical interests are in archaeological theory, sociopolitical organization, religion, ideation and heritage, as well as collaborative and indigenous archaeologies. His fieldwork is based in North America (Southeastern Woodlands, Central Plains, Interior Plateau, Northwest Coast of North America, Alaska) and his current field project investigates the social organization of pithouse villages throughout Lil’wat traditional territory in south-central British Columbia. Recent publications include articles in the Journal of contemporary archaeology, World archaeology and Current anthropology.
Bill Angelbeck是一位考古学家和人类学家，主要研究西北海岸和内陆的萨利山人的文化。自2000年以来，他一直在西北地区从事学术和应用项目，涉及考古学、民族志和民族史。他拥有不列颠哥伦比亚大学考古学博士学位和密苏里大学文化人类学硕士学位。主题兴趣是考古理论、社会政治组织、宗教、思想和遗产，以及合作和本土考古。他的实地调查以北美（东南部林地、中部平原、内陆高原、北美西北海岸、阿拉斯加）为基地，他目前的实地调查项目调查了不列颠哥伦比亚省中南部Lil’wat传统地区的髓屋村庄的社会组织。最近的出版物包括《当代考古学杂志》、《世界考古学》和《当代人类学》上的文章。
{"title":"List of contributors","authors":"Bill Angelbeck","doi":"10.1017/S1380203819000242","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203819000242","url":null,"abstract":"Bill Angelbeck is an archaeologist and anthropologist who focuses on cultures of Salishan peoples of the Northwest Coast and Interior. Since the year 2000, he has worked throughout the Northwest on academic and applied projects, involving archaeology, ethnography and ethnohistory. He holds a doctorate in archaeology from the University of British Columbia and a master’s degree in cultural anthropology from the University of Missouri. Topical interests are in archaeological theory, sociopolitical organization, religion, ideation and heritage, as well as collaborative and indigenous archaeologies. His fieldwork is based in North America (Southeastern Woodlands, Central Plains, Interior Plateau, Northwest Coast of North America, Alaska) and his current field project investigates the social organization of pithouse villages throughout Lil’wat traditional territory in south-central British Columbia. Recent publications include articles in the Journal of contemporary archaeology, World archaeology and Current anthropology.","PeriodicalId":45009,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological Dialogues","volume":"26 1","pages":"127 - 128"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42670270","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","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：