Pub Date : 2023-06-08DOI: 10.1080/00438243.2023.2216182
Anke Hein
{"title":"Theory and methods of settlement archaeology – the Chinese contribution","authors":"Anke Hein","doi":"10.1080/00438243.2023.2216182","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2023.2216182","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47942,"journal":{"name":"WORLD ARCHAEOLOGY","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44770723","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-02-22DOI: 10.1080/00438243.2022.2156592
Xu Wei, Wentai Lou, Ting Li, Ruxi Yang, Tingting Liang, C. He, Liwei Wang, Junjie Yuan, Yinghua Li
{"title":"Understanding Chinese archaeology by statistical analysis of papers published by Chinese researchers in Chinese and World core journals during the past century (1920–2020)","authors":"Xu Wei, Wentai Lou, Ting Li, Ruxi Yang, Tingting Liang, C. He, Liwei Wang, Junjie Yuan, Yinghua Li","doi":"10.1080/00438243.2022.2156592","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2022.2156592","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47942,"journal":{"name":"WORLD ARCHAEOLOGY","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41935435","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-08DOI: 10.1080/00438243.2023.2169341
J. Beck, Colin P. Quinn
ABSTRACT Archaeology lends a critical perspective to research on social inequality due to the field’s unique access to deep history, emphasis on materiality, and explicit incorporation of multiple lines of evidence. This paper offers a concise overview of archaeological approaches aimed at students and scholars in other fields. We develop a categorization of disciplinary strategies, arguing that archaeologists address institutionalized inequality through examining inequalities in the accumulation of goods or resources (economic differentiation); access to resources or knowledge (social differentiation), and inequalities in action, the ability to make decisions for oneself or others (political differentiation). We illustrate these categories with reference to the distinctions between material, relational, and embodied wealth. We draw upon a broad range of geographic, chronological, and cultural case studies to illustrate the flexibility and utility of archaeological methods for answering questions about inequality in human societies.
{"title":"Balancing the scales: archaeological approaches to social inequality","authors":"J. Beck, Colin P. Quinn","doi":"10.1080/00438243.2023.2169341","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2023.2169341","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Archaeology lends a critical perspective to research on social inequality due to the field’s unique access to deep history, emphasis on materiality, and explicit incorporation of multiple lines of evidence. This paper offers a concise overview of archaeological approaches aimed at students and scholars in other fields. We develop a categorization of disciplinary strategies, arguing that archaeologists address institutionalized inequality through examining inequalities in the accumulation of goods or resources (economic differentiation); access to resources or knowledge (social differentiation), and inequalities in action, the ability to make decisions for oneself or others (political differentiation). We illustrate these categories with reference to the distinctions between material, relational, and embodied wealth. We draw upon a broad range of geographic, chronological, and cultural case studies to illustrate the flexibility and utility of archaeological methods for answering questions about inequality in human societies.","PeriodicalId":47942,"journal":{"name":"WORLD ARCHAEOLOGY","volume":"54 1","pages":"572 - 583"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43319138","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-08DOI: 10.1080/00438243.2022.2233798
R. McGuire
In this World Archaeology issue – An Archaeology of Inequality – archaeologists continue the discipline’s engagement with social inequality in a wide range of contexts and times. My work has always been about power, oppression and how to change these things. Robert Paynter and I wrote an earlier volume – The Archaeology of Inequality – that addressed these goals (McGuire and Paynter 1991). When Bob and I published the book thirty years ago, Anglophone archaeology was locked in a debate between a culture history of traditions and a processual archaeology focused on cultural evolution. Culture history primarily asked how traditional societies reproduced themselves with little or no attention to the power relations that might entail. The cultural evolutionists saw power as something that ‘egalitarian’ societies lacked except for distinctions of age and gender. They told (and some still tell) a story of how the powerful drove cultural evolution and created inequality (e.g. Flannery and Marcus 2012). We challenged these perspectives and took a relational view of humans and cultural that emphasized the conscious actions of people in their mundane lives as the place people make change. Bob and I participated in a general movement in anthropology, at the end of the 20th century, which emphasized power and the expression of power in domination and resistance. We were greatly influenced by James Scott’s (1985) book Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. Like many others, we only later discovered Elizabeth Janeway’s (1980) book Power of the Weak. Then as now, focusing on inequality brought us to not just study the world but rather to try and change it. Before the 1980s, most anthropologists assumed a Weberian (Weber 1978, 53) concept of power to whit; the ability of individuals or groups to get their way when opposed by others. In this sense, power is a quantifiable thing that people can acquire, store, win, lose and expend. In contrast, and following the lead of many others, we advanced a relational concept of power. Our thought started with the work of Karl Marx and the relational dialectic as discussed by Bertell Ollman (2003). We treated power not as a thing or a quantity, but rather as a relationship between humans’ power to do and to have power over. This led to a focus in the book on resistance to inequality as opposed to inequality simply being something imposed from above. Soon after the publication of our book, critics within Anthropology questioned the concept of resistance (Ortner 1995; Seymour 2006). They noted the vagueness of the concept and the catch all nature of it. They pointed out that researchers rarely defined resistance. The basic consensus among anthropologists had been that resistance involves intent in opposing those exerting ‘power over’. So, if the peasants stole rice because they were hungry, but not with an intent to resist, was rice stealing resistance? Critics accused scholars of romanticizing and fetishiz
{"title":"Reflections on archaeology and inequality. A foreword","authors":"R. McGuire","doi":"10.1080/00438243.2022.2233798","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2022.2233798","url":null,"abstract":"In this World Archaeology issue – An Archaeology of Inequality – archaeologists continue the discipline’s engagement with social inequality in a wide range of contexts and times. My work has always been about power, oppression and how to change these things. Robert Paynter and I wrote an earlier volume – The Archaeology of Inequality – that addressed these goals (McGuire and Paynter 1991). When Bob and I published the book thirty years ago, Anglophone archaeology was locked in a debate between a culture history of traditions and a processual archaeology focused on cultural evolution. Culture history primarily asked how traditional societies reproduced themselves with little or no attention to the power relations that might entail. The cultural evolutionists saw power as something that ‘egalitarian’ societies lacked except for distinctions of age and gender. They told (and some still tell) a story of how the powerful drove cultural evolution and created inequality (e.g. Flannery and Marcus 2012). We challenged these perspectives and took a relational view of humans and cultural that emphasized the conscious actions of people in their mundane lives as the place people make change. Bob and I participated in a general movement in anthropology, at the end of the 20th century, which emphasized power and the expression of power in domination and resistance. We were greatly influenced by James Scott’s (1985) book Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. Like many others, we only later discovered Elizabeth Janeway’s (1980) book Power of the Weak. Then as now, focusing on inequality brought us to not just study the world but rather to try and change it. Before the 1980s, most anthropologists assumed a Weberian (Weber 1978, 53) concept of power to whit; the ability of individuals or groups to get their way when opposed by others. In this sense, power is a quantifiable thing that people can acquire, store, win, lose and expend. In contrast, and following the lead of many others, we advanced a relational concept of power. Our thought started with the work of Karl Marx and the relational dialectic as discussed by Bertell Ollman (2003). We treated power not as a thing or a quantity, but rather as a relationship between humans’ power to do and to have power over. This led to a focus in the book on resistance to inequality as opposed to inequality simply being something imposed from above. Soon after the publication of our book, critics within Anthropology questioned the concept of resistance (Ortner 1995; Seymour 2006). They noted the vagueness of the concept and the catch all nature of it. They pointed out that researchers rarely defined resistance. The basic consensus among anthropologists had been that resistance involves intent in opposing those exerting ‘power over’. So, if the peasants stole rice because they were hungry, but not with an intent to resist, was rice stealing resistance? Critics accused scholars of romanticizing and fetishiz","PeriodicalId":47942,"journal":{"name":"WORLD ARCHAEOLOGY","volume":"54 1","pages":"491 - 492"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45055868","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-08DOI: 10.1080/00438243.2023.2170911
H. Vogel, R. Power
ABSTRACT This paper employs a historiographical approach to review the allied fields of Egyptology and Egyptian Archaeology in relation to studies of disability and bodily differences in ancient Egypt. We incorporate critical disability studies and embodiment theories to consider whether ableism is prevalent across these disciplines. The focus of this study has been inverted from ‘identifying’ disability. Instead our primary driving question is: are Egyptological approaches to bodily differences and disabilities contributing to a production and maintenance of ableism in Egyptology? Here we first identify ableist narratives within numerous methodologies highlighting the need to reconsider existing approaches, terminologies, models, and assumptions regarding studies of disability in the ancient past. We then challenge readers to recognise ableism as a form of inequality in the existing scholarship, and in turn, call for better awareness of assumptions relating to bodily norms, terminologies, and inclusivity in ancient world studies.
{"title":"Recognising inequality: ableism in Egyptological approaches to disability and bodily differences","authors":"H. Vogel, R. Power","doi":"10.1080/00438243.2023.2170911","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2023.2170911","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper employs a historiographical approach to review the allied fields of Egyptology and Egyptian Archaeology in relation to studies of disability and bodily differences in ancient Egypt. We incorporate critical disability studies and embodiment theories to consider whether ableism is prevalent across these disciplines. The focus of this study has been inverted from ‘identifying’ disability. Instead our primary driving question is: are Egyptological approaches to bodily differences and disabilities contributing to a production and maintenance of ableism in Egyptology? Here we first identify ableist narratives within numerous methodologies highlighting the need to reconsider existing approaches, terminologies, models, and assumptions regarding studies of disability in the ancient past. We then challenge readers to recognise ableism as a form of inequality in the existing scholarship, and in turn, call for better awareness of assumptions relating to bodily norms, terminologies, and inclusivity in ancient world studies.","PeriodicalId":47942,"journal":{"name":"WORLD ARCHAEOLOGY","volume":"54 1","pages":"502 - 515"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42853240","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-08DOI: 10.1080/00438243.2023.2170910
Maryam Dezhamkhooy
ABSTRACT The growing rate of global inequality, on the one hand, and hyper-consumerism, particularly among higher socio-economic classes in developed countries, on the other, have resulted in the emergence of new forms of subsistence, lifestyles and settlement types where subaltern groups and populations live and work. This paper investigates the emergence of two of these kinds of settlement in Tehran, Iran, that have developed based on the intersection of two factors: garbage and undocumented migration. In these places, undocumented Afghan migrants sort and sell dry garbage. At the same time, these places shelter the workers, chiefly teenage and underage undocumented Afghan migrants. This paper is a preliminary effort to archaeologically categorize and conceptualize these garbage-based settlements. Archaeology is among the best methodologies to investigate the materiality and inequality faced by such transient subaltern groups in the short and long term. Here I discuss how several factors, beyond absolute poverty, participate in turning garbage into a livelihood and generate garbage-based settlements.
{"title":"Wandering Islands1: towards an archaeology of garbage-based settlements","authors":"Maryam Dezhamkhooy","doi":"10.1080/00438243.2023.2170910","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2023.2170910","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The growing rate of global inequality, on the one hand, and hyper-consumerism, particularly among higher socio-economic classes in developed countries, on the other, have resulted in the emergence of new forms of subsistence, lifestyles and settlement types where subaltern groups and populations live and work. This paper investigates the emergence of two of these kinds of settlement in Tehran, Iran, that have developed based on the intersection of two factors: garbage and undocumented migration. In these places, undocumented Afghan migrants sort and sell dry garbage. At the same time, these places shelter the workers, chiefly teenage and underage undocumented Afghan migrants. This paper is a preliminary effort to archaeologically categorize and conceptualize these garbage-based settlements. Archaeology is among the best methodologies to investigate the materiality and inequality faced by such transient subaltern groups in the short and long term. Here I discuss how several factors, beyond absolute poverty, participate in turning garbage into a livelihood and generate garbage-based settlements.","PeriodicalId":47942,"journal":{"name":"WORLD ARCHAEOLOGY","volume":"54 1","pages":"542 - 554"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58988267","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-08DOI: 10.1080/00438243.2023.2196956
Kevin Kay, S. Haddow, C. Knüsel, C. Mazzucato, M. Milella, R. Veropoulidou, Katheryn C. Twiss
ABSTRACT Archaeologists have adopted the Gini coefficient to evaluate unequal accumulations of material, supporting narratives modelled on modern inequality discourse. Proxies are defined for wealth and the household, to render 21st century-style economic tensions perceptible in the past. This ‘property paradigm’ treats material culture as a generic rather than substantive factor in unequal pasts. We question this framing while suggesting that the Gini coefficient can prompt a deeper exploration of value. Our study grows from multi-material evaluation of inequality at Çatalhöyük, Turkey. Here we use the Gini coefficient to scrutinise distributions of burial practices among houses. To the expectations of the property paradigm, the result is unintuitive – becoming slightly more equal despite rising social complexity. We explore possible explanations for this result, each pointing to a more substantive link between past futures and differentiated lives as a framework for archaeologies of inequality.
{"title":"No gentry but grave-makers: inequality beyond property accumulation at Neolithic Çatalhöyük","authors":"Kevin Kay, S. Haddow, C. Knüsel, C. Mazzucato, M. Milella, R. Veropoulidou, Katheryn C. Twiss","doi":"10.1080/00438243.2023.2196956","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2023.2196956","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Archaeologists have adopted the Gini coefficient to evaluate unequal accumulations of material, supporting narratives modelled on modern inequality discourse. Proxies are defined for wealth and the household, to render 21st century-style economic tensions perceptible in the past. This ‘property paradigm’ treats material culture as a generic rather than substantive factor in unequal pasts. We question this framing while suggesting that the Gini coefficient can prompt a deeper exploration of value. Our study grows from multi-material evaluation of inequality at Çatalhöyük, Turkey. Here we use the Gini coefficient to scrutinise distributions of burial practices among houses. To the expectations of the property paradigm, the result is unintuitive – becoming slightly more equal despite rising social complexity. We explore possible explanations for this result, each pointing to a more substantive link between past futures and differentiated lives as a framework for archaeologies of inequality.","PeriodicalId":47942,"journal":{"name":"WORLD ARCHAEOLOGY","volume":"54 1","pages":"584 - 601"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44193276","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-08DOI: 10.1080/00438243.2023.2199008
M. L. Hattori
ABSTRACT This paper examines the death and unequal treatment of human remains in contemporary Brazilian society. It provides an innovative approach to documenting practices such as state inaction and structural violence from an archaeology perspective and explores concepts such as contemporary regimes of disappearance, state apparatus, violence and the ‘right to memory’ in a neoliberal context. Rather than merely using dichotomies such as repression and visibility, or oppression versus rights, the aim is to use archaeological evidence to problematize the dominant understandings of politics and question the ways in which class, race and gender are used in neoliberal policies by transforming human beings who were not ‘profitable in life’ into ‘profitable in death’.
{"title":"Contemporary regimes of disappearance and the unequal treatment of human remains","authors":"M. L. Hattori","doi":"10.1080/00438243.2023.2199008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2023.2199008","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper examines the death and unequal treatment of human remains in contemporary Brazilian society. It provides an innovative approach to documenting practices such as state inaction and structural violence from an archaeology perspective and explores concepts such as contemporary regimes of disappearance, state apparatus, violence and the ‘right to memory’ in a neoliberal context. Rather than merely using dichotomies such as repression and visibility, or oppression versus rights, the aim is to use archaeological evidence to problematize the dominant understandings of politics and question the ways in which class, race and gender are used in neoliberal policies by transforming human beings who were not ‘profitable in life’ into ‘profitable in death’.","PeriodicalId":47942,"journal":{"name":"WORLD ARCHAEOLOGY","volume":"54 1","pages":"528 - 541"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43157590","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-08DOI: 10.1080/00438243.2023.2169339
Matthew C. Sanger
ABSTRACT Monumental architecture has long been associated with the rise of the State and societal inequality, yet recent studies have shown some small and relatively egalitarian societies also built large-scale architecture. This study posits that some of these groups utilized ‘institutional flexibility’ – a strategy of creating and then dismantling hierarchical power systems during limited periods of time – as a means of harnessing group labor, establishing ritual cycles, and policing behavior during periods of gathering, but then reverting to more autonomous power relations for the remainder of the year when groups were dispersed. Poverty Point, a complex earthwork site in Louisiana (USA), built by hunter-gatherer-fisher peoples over a 500-year period (ca. 3600–3100 cal B.P.) exemplifies the use of ‘institutional flexibility’ and demonstrates how this strategy can result in extremely complex activities, while also preserving autonomous power relations by containing elite aspirations to particular temporal, spatial, and social contexts.
纪念碑建筑长期以来一直与国家和社会不平等的加剧联系在一起，但最近的研究表明，一些相对平等的小社会也建造了大型建筑。这项研究假设，其中一些群体利用“制度灵活性”——一种在有限的时间内创建然后拆除等级权力系统的策略——作为利用群体劳动、建立仪式周期和在聚会期间监管行为的手段，但在今年剩下的时间里，当团体分散时，又恢复了更自主的权力关系。贫困点是美国路易斯安那州的一个复杂的土方工地，由狩猎采集的渔民在500年的时间里建造（约3600–3100 cal B.P.），它体现了“制度灵活性”的使用，并展示了这种策略如何导致极其复杂的活动，同时也通过包含精英对特定时间、空间、，以及社会背景。
{"title":"Anarchy, institutional flexibility, and containment of authority at Poverty Point (USA)","authors":"Matthew C. Sanger","doi":"10.1080/00438243.2023.2169339","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2023.2169339","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Monumental architecture has long been associated with the rise of the State and societal inequality, yet recent studies have shown some small and relatively egalitarian societies also built large-scale architecture. This study posits that some of these groups utilized ‘institutional flexibility’ – a strategy of creating and then dismantling hierarchical power systems during limited periods of time – as a means of harnessing group labor, establishing ritual cycles, and policing behavior during periods of gathering, but then reverting to more autonomous power relations for the remainder of the year when groups were dispersed. Poverty Point, a complex earthwork site in Louisiana (USA), built by hunter-gatherer-fisher peoples over a 500-year period (ca. 3600–3100 cal B.P.) exemplifies the use of ‘institutional flexibility’ and demonstrates how this strategy can result in extremely complex activities, while also preserving autonomous power relations by containing elite aspirations to particular temporal, spatial, and social contexts.","PeriodicalId":47942,"journal":{"name":"WORLD ARCHAEOLOGY","volume":"54 1","pages":"555 - 571"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45207544","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-08DOI: 10.1080/00438243.2023.2185288
Seth Quintus, Jennifer G. Kahn
ABSTRACT Polynesian societies have long framed discussions of chiefdoms. Often, these discussions treat Polynesia as a relatively homogenous region. Despite this, substantial variability in political forms developed in the region that came to affect the structure and nature of archaeologically attested past communities. Here we use two case studies to highlight these patterns: the Manuʻa group in West Polynesia and Moʻorea Island in East Polynesia. We demonstrate how a dualism in chieftainship based on the ideological flexibility of mana, defined loosely as active power, was used in each place, giving rise to different patterns of settlement and economic activities. This dualism intersects with archaeological models of corporate versus network power strategies. Elements of both strategies are evident in each of our case studies but to different degrees. Power strategies in Manuʻa are argued here to be more corporate, while those in Moʻorea were more exclusive.
{"title":"Materializations of variable power strategies and inequalities in Polynesia","authors":"Seth Quintus, Jennifer G. Kahn","doi":"10.1080/00438243.2023.2185288","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2023.2185288","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Polynesian societies have long framed discussions of chiefdoms. Often, these discussions treat Polynesia as a relatively homogenous region. Despite this, substantial variability in political forms developed in the region that came to affect the structure and nature of archaeologically attested past communities. Here we use two case studies to highlight these patterns: the Manuʻa group in West Polynesia and Moʻorea Island in East Polynesia. We demonstrate how a dualism in chieftainship based on the ideological flexibility of mana, defined loosely as active power, was used in each place, giving rise to different patterns of settlement and economic activities. This dualism intersects with archaeological models of corporate versus network power strategies. Elements of both strategies are evident in each of our case studies but to different degrees. Power strategies in Manuʻa are argued here to be more corporate, while those in Moʻorea were more exclusive.","PeriodicalId":47942,"journal":{"name":"WORLD ARCHAEOLOGY","volume":"54 1","pages":"625 - 639"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48165592","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"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：