Pub Date : 2022-10-24DOI: 10.1146/annurev-anthro-041320-123953
L. Montgomery
Beginning in earnest in the 1990s, archaeologists have used the material record as an alternative window into the experiences and practices of Black and Indigenous peoples in North America from the sixteenth century onward. This now robust body of scholarship on settler colonialism has been shaped by postcolonial theories of power and broad-based calls to diversify Western history. While archaeologists have long recognized the political, cultural, biological, and economic entanglements produced by settler colonialism, the lives of Indigenous peoples have largely been studied in isolation from peoples of African descent. In addition to reinforcing static ethnic divisions, until recently, most archaeological studies of settler colonialism have focused on early periods of interethnic interaction, ending abruptly in the nineteenth century. These intellectual silos gloss over the intimate relationships that formed between diverse communities and hinder a deeper understanding of settler colonialism's continued impact on archaeological praxis.
{"title":"The Archaeology of Settler Colonialism in North America","authors":"L. Montgomery","doi":"10.1146/annurev-anthro-041320-123953","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-041320-123953","url":null,"abstract":"Beginning in earnest in the 1990s, archaeologists have used the material record as an alternative window into the experiences and practices of Black and Indigenous peoples in North America from the sixteenth century onward. This now robust body of scholarship on settler colonialism has been shaped by postcolonial theories of power and broad-based calls to diversify Western history. While archaeologists have long recognized the political, cultural, biological, and economic entanglements produced by settler colonialism, the lives of Indigenous peoples have largely been studied in isolation from peoples of African descent. In addition to reinforcing static ethnic divisions, until recently, most archaeological studies of settler colonialism have focused on early periods of interethnic interaction, ending abruptly in the nineteenth century. These intellectual silos gloss over the intimate relationships that formed between diverse communities and hinder a deeper understanding of settler colonialism's continued impact on archaeological praxis.","PeriodicalId":48296,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Anthropology","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2022-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41493872","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-24DOI: 10.1146/annurev-anthro-102317-050241
Bregje F. van Eekelen
This article discusses historical and anthropological approaches to the life of social science. After presenting the thematic of social science concepts that figure as found object in cultural anthropology, this review briefly introduces the domain of history of social science (HSS). It then examines HSS studies that could enrich anthropological encounters with social science concepts, both methodologically and through the vivid social histories of relevant concepts, categories, and methods. I complement my review of these approaches in HSS with a discussion of anthropological studies of social science concepts. I review both the historical and the anthropological literature with the same key questions, focused on the analytical tools that each approach brings to the study of social science: what conditions of emergence of these social imaginaries are incorporated in the analyses, what contexts and processes relevant to their appropriation and travel are presented, and how these enquiries examine the effects on the worlds in which they circulate. In my conclusion, I point out how cultural anthropology can uniquely contribute to the domain of HSS.
{"title":"Traveling Concepts: Anthropological Engagements with Histories of Social Science","authors":"Bregje F. van Eekelen","doi":"10.1146/annurev-anthro-102317-050241","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102317-050241","url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses historical and anthropological approaches to the life of social science. After presenting the thematic of social science concepts that figure as found object in cultural anthropology, this review briefly introduces the domain of history of social science (HSS). It then examines HSS studies that could enrich anthropological encounters with social science concepts, both methodologically and through the vivid social histories of relevant concepts, categories, and methods. I complement my review of these approaches in HSS with a discussion of anthropological studies of social science concepts. I review both the historical and the anthropological literature with the same key questions, focused on the analytical tools that each approach brings to the study of social science: what conditions of emergence of these social imaginaries are incorporated in the analyses, what contexts and processes relevant to their appropriation and travel are presented, and how these enquiries examine the effects on the worlds in which they circulate. In my conclusion, I point out how cultural anthropology can uniquely contribute to the domain of HSS.","PeriodicalId":48296,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Anthropology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2022-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42933390","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-24DOI: 10.1146/annurev-anthro-101819-110107
Douglas Hollan
This article reviews work in anthropology over the last 30 years that has been informed by psychoanalysis, much of it drawing on contemporary schools of psychoanalytic thought that further develop or even directly challenge some of the fundamental assumptions of the original Freudian corpus. It assumes that what happens at the margins or horizons of human consciousness, as a body of work, should be closely examined and included in anthropological theorizing rather than ignored or downplayed, and it examines how such states of consciousness both affect and are affected by entanglements with the world. Focal topics of the review include work on dreams, fantasies, and imaginal thought; loss and melancholia; aspects of emotional suffering, distress, and alienation; the effects of transference and countertransference on fieldwork; the sense of being haunted by personal and social injustices; and how the contingencies of self-awareness affect the development of ethics and morality.
{"title":"Anthropology and Psychoanalysis: The Looping Effects of Persons and Social Worlds","authors":"Douglas Hollan","doi":"10.1146/annurev-anthro-101819-110107","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-101819-110107","url":null,"abstract":"This article reviews work in anthropology over the last 30 years that has been informed by psychoanalysis, much of it drawing on contemporary schools of psychoanalytic thought that further develop or even directly challenge some of the fundamental assumptions of the original Freudian corpus. It assumes that what happens at the margins or horizons of human consciousness, as a body of work, should be closely examined and included in anthropological theorizing rather than ignored or downplayed, and it examines how such states of consciousness both affect and are affected by entanglements with the world. Focal topics of the review include work on dreams, fantasies, and imaginal thought; loss and melancholia; aspects of emotional suffering, distress, and alienation; the effects of transference and countertransference on fieldwork; the sense of being haunted by personal and social injustices; and how the contingencies of self-awareness affect the development of ethics and morality.","PeriodicalId":48296,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Anthropology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2022-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42010362","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-24DOI: 10.1146/annurev-anthro-041320-013018
Monica L. Smith
Although ubiquitous today, the “state” did not always exist. Archaeological and historical assessments of state beginnings—and research on the characteristics of the state form in both past and present—help address how the state as a social, economic, and territorial construct became dominant. Utilizing the categories of politics, violence, literacy, and borders, this article examines how individuals and households are mutually implicated in negotiations of power and expressions of everyday life that have been present from before the inception of the state through to the modern day. The state is constituted and expressed through nested exploitative engagements predicated on actual and perceived benefits; the outcomes of the existence of the state range from collaborative platforms for integration to the realities of inequality, environmental degradation through future discounting, and institutionalized power dynamics. As a container for human interactions, the state may be situationally unwanted but also seems inescapable once initialized.
{"title":"The Fundamentals of the State","authors":"Monica L. Smith","doi":"10.1146/annurev-anthro-041320-013018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-041320-013018","url":null,"abstract":"Although ubiquitous today, the “state” did not always exist. Archaeological and historical assessments of state beginnings—and research on the characteristics of the state form in both past and present—help address how the state as a social, economic, and territorial construct became dominant. Utilizing the categories of politics, violence, literacy, and borders, this article examines how individuals and households are mutually implicated in negotiations of power and expressions of everyday life that have been present from before the inception of the state through to the modern day. The state is constituted and expressed through nested exploitative engagements predicated on actual and perceived benefits; the outcomes of the existence of the state range from collaborative platforms for integration to the realities of inequality, environmental degradation through future discounting, and institutionalized power dynamics. As a container for human interactions, the state may be situationally unwanted but also seems inescapable once initialized.","PeriodicalId":48296,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Anthropology","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2022-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"63951124","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-24DOI: 10.1146/annurev-anthro-041420-013930
A. Khan
This article reviews key works in the anthropology of mass incarceration, generated by anthropologists and their interlocutors whose research is directed outside physical sites of imprisonment. My geographical focus is on the United States during the last decade's political and economic Zeitgeist, shaped by the manifestations and consequences of the carceral state and the prison industrial complex. My discussion is also guided by research invigorated by anthropology's decolonizing drive and growing concern about racism within and outside the academy. Along the way, and emphasized in the final section, I make the case that anthropology's abiding interest in kinship is a productive approach for configuring our understanding of the American carceral state and the racial landscapes of carcerality. The research reviewed shows how deeply carcerality is embedded in race, illuminating its destructiveness in Black and brown communities, yet also revealing the creation of regenerative spaces of kinship.
{"title":"The Carceral State: An American Story","authors":"A. Khan","doi":"10.1146/annurev-anthro-041420-013930","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-041420-013930","url":null,"abstract":"This article reviews key works in the anthropology of mass incarceration, generated by anthropologists and their interlocutors whose research is directed outside physical sites of imprisonment. My geographical focus is on the United States during the last decade's political and economic Zeitgeist, shaped by the manifestations and consequences of the carceral state and the prison industrial complex. My discussion is also guided by research invigorated by anthropology's decolonizing drive and growing concern about racism within and outside the academy. Along the way, and emphasized in the final section, I make the case that anthropology's abiding interest in kinship is a productive approach for configuring our understanding of the American carceral state and the racial landscapes of carcerality. The research reviewed shows how deeply carcerality is embedded in race, illuminating its destructiveness in Black and brown communities, yet also revealing the creation of regenerative spaces of kinship.","PeriodicalId":48296,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Anthropology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2022-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46194978","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-24DOI: 10.1146/annurev-anthro-012121-012127
S. Perry, A. Carter, J. Foster, Sabine Nöbel, M. Smolla
Although anthropology was the first academic discipline to investigate cultural change, many other disciplines have made noteworthy contributions to understanding what influences the adoption of new behaviors. Drawing on a broad, interdisciplinary literature covering both humans and nonhumans, we examine ( a) which features of behavioral traits make them more transmissible, ( b) which individual characteristics of inventors promote copying of their inventions, ( c) which characteristics of individuals make them more prone to adopting new behaviors, ( d) which characteristics of dyadic relationships promote cultural transmission, ( e) which properties of groups (e.g., network structures) promote transmission of traits, and ( f) which characteristics of groups promote retention, rather than extinction, of cultural traits. One of anthropology's strengths is its readiness to adopt and improve theories and methods from other disciplines, integrating them into a more holistic approach; hence, we identify approaches that might be particularly useful to biological and cultural anthropologists, and knowledge gaps that should be filled.
{"title":"What Makes Inventions Become Traditions?","authors":"S. Perry, A. Carter, J. Foster, Sabine Nöbel, M. Smolla","doi":"10.1146/annurev-anthro-012121-012127","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-012121-012127","url":null,"abstract":"Although anthropology was the first academic discipline to investigate cultural change, many other disciplines have made noteworthy contributions to understanding what influences the adoption of new behaviors. Drawing on a broad, interdisciplinary literature covering both humans and nonhumans, we examine ( a) which features of behavioral traits make them more transmissible, ( b) which individual characteristics of inventors promote copying of their inventions, ( c) which characteristics of individuals make them more prone to adopting new behaviors, ( d) which characteristics of dyadic relationships promote cultural transmission, ( e) which properties of groups (e.g., network structures) promote transmission of traits, and ( f) which characteristics of groups promote retention, rather than extinction, of cultural traits. One of anthropology's strengths is its readiness to adopt and improve theories and methods from other disciplines, integrating them into a more holistic approach; hence, we identify approaches that might be particularly useful to biological and cultural anthropologists, and knowledge gaps that should be filled.","PeriodicalId":48296,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Anthropology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2022-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47656052","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-24DOI: 10.1146/annurev-anthro-041520-102305
Sonja van Wichelen, Marc de Leeuw
As an empirical concept, biolegality emerged at the height of biotechnological advances in Euro-American societies when rapid changes in the life sciences (including molecular biology, immunology, and the neurosciences) and their attendant techniques (including reproductive technologies and gene editing) started to challenge ethical norms, legal decisions, and legal forms. As a theoretical concept, biolegality deepens the Foucauldian notion of biopolitics with an operation of legality that emphasizes how biology and its attendant technologies alter legal form, knowledge, practice, and experience. These empirical and theoretical developments affect how we understand sociality. While public discourse remains preoccupied with the call for more regulation—thereby underscoring law's lag in its dealings with technology—the social science scholarship describes instead how bioscience and biotechnology are fragmenting and rearranging legal knowledge about property, personhood, parenthood, and collective identity. As it opens broader anthropological debates around exchange, self, kinship, and community, the study of biolegality brings a novel currency to the discipline, addressing how biology and law inform new ways of relating and knowing.
{"title":"Biolegality: How Biology and Law Redefine Sociality","authors":"Sonja van Wichelen, Marc de Leeuw","doi":"10.1146/annurev-anthro-041520-102305","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-041520-102305","url":null,"abstract":"As an empirical concept, biolegality emerged at the height of biotechnological advances in Euro-American societies when rapid changes in the life sciences (including molecular biology, immunology, and the neurosciences) and their attendant techniques (including reproductive technologies and gene editing) started to challenge ethical norms, legal decisions, and legal forms. As a theoretical concept, biolegality deepens the Foucauldian notion of biopolitics with an operation of legality that emphasizes how biology and its attendant technologies alter legal form, knowledge, practice, and experience. These empirical and theoretical developments affect how we understand sociality. While public discourse remains preoccupied with the call for more regulation—thereby underscoring law's lag in its dealings with technology—the social science scholarship describes instead how bioscience and biotechnology are fragmenting and rearranging legal knowledge about property, personhood, parenthood, and collective identity. As it opens broader anthropological debates around exchange, self, kinship, and community, the study of biolegality brings a novel currency to the discipline, addressing how biology and law inform new ways of relating and knowing.","PeriodicalId":48296,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Anthropology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2022-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42064100","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-29DOI: 10.1146/annurev-anthro-101819-110339
Jessica R. Cattelino, Audra Simpson
The twenty-first century has witnessed a surge of scholarship at the sometimes-perilously sharp edge of anthropology and Native American and Indigenous studies. This review sets forth from a disciplinary conjuncture of the early 2000s, when anthropology newly engaged with the topic of sovereignty, which had long been the focus of American Indian studies, and when the long-standing anthropological interest in colonialism was reshaped by Indigenous studies attention to the distinctive form labeled settler colonialism. Scholars working at this edge address political relationality as both concept and methodology. Anthropologists, in turn, have contributed to Indigenous studies a commitment to territorially grounded and community-based research and theory building. After outlining the conjuncture and its methodological entailments, the review turns to two directions in scholarship: reinvigorated ethnographic research on environment and on culture and economy. It concludes with reflection on the implications of this conjuncture for anthropological epistemology and disciplinary formation. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Anthropology Volume 51 is October 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
{"title":"Rethinking Indigeneity: Scholarship at the Intersection of Native American Studies and Anthropology","authors":"Jessica R. Cattelino, Audra Simpson","doi":"10.1146/annurev-anthro-101819-110339","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-101819-110339","url":null,"abstract":"The twenty-first century has witnessed a surge of scholarship at the sometimes-perilously sharp edge of anthropology and Native American and Indigenous studies. This review sets forth from a disciplinary conjuncture of the early 2000s, when anthropology newly engaged with the topic of sovereignty, which had long been the focus of American Indian studies, and when the long-standing anthropological interest in colonialism was reshaped by Indigenous studies attention to the distinctive form labeled settler colonialism. Scholars working at this edge address political relationality as both concept and methodology. Anthropologists, in turn, have contributed to Indigenous studies a commitment to territorially grounded and community-based research and theory building. After outlining the conjuncture and its methodological entailments, the review turns to two directions in scholarship: reinvigorated ethnographic research on environment and on culture and economy. It concludes with reflection on the implications of this conjuncture for anthropological epistemology and disciplinary formation. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Anthropology Volume 51 is October 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.","PeriodicalId":48296,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Anthropology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2022-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47080698","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-29DOI: 10.1146/annurev-anthro-101819-110141
Mark W. Hauser
Discussions of boundaries have enjoyed a renaissance in anthropological archaeology of recent years, especially as conversations surrounding forced migration and border walls look toward the material record for clarification about what borders are and what they do. Since 1995, when the Annual Review of Anthropology last addressed a similar issue, numerous methodological and conceptual changes in the field have led to a large proliferation in the literature. A brief Google Scholar search of the words “archaeology,” “boundaries,” and “work” between 1995 and the present produces 365,000 results and makes one point clear: Archaeologists have had a lot to say about the topic. By framing this review around the work of boundaries, I signal two trends in the field of archaeology with conceptual and methodological implications. The first trend is the increased centrality of materiality as a theoretical register as new questions relating to object agency, human/nonhuman boundaries, and new models of environmental archaeology have populated the literature. In such climates it is important to focus on boundaries as a kind of assemblage of actants that takes on agencies beyond notions of territory. Associated border, crossing, transnational, and refuge assemblages are discussed. The second trend is the increased attention to boundary work in archaeology. Whether it is in the form of postcolonial/decolonizing archaeologies, new materialities/symmetrical archaeologies, or contemporary archaeologies, there has been increased pushback against attempts to define anthropological archaeology along processual lines. In this article I review one thread of that literature, critical cartographies, and how they have used the archaeological record to develop radical renditions of political space where boundaries are involved. I focus on scholarship surrounding the relatively recent past (ca. 1200 CE to the present). Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Anthropology Volume 51 is October 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
近年来，关于边界的讨论在人类学考古学中得到了复兴，特别是在围绕强迫移民和边界墙的讨论中，人们寻求通过材料记录来澄清边界是什么以及它们的作用。自1995年《人类学年度评论》(Annual Review of Anthropology)上次讨论类似问题以来，该领域的许多方法和概念变化导致了文献的大量扩散。从1995年到现在，谷歌学者对“考古学”、“边界”和“工作”等词进行了简短的搜索，得到了36.5万个结果，并明确了一点:考古学家对这个话题有很多话要说。通过围绕边界工作构建这一综述，我表明了考古学领域的两种趋势，具有概念和方法上的含义。第一个趋势是物质性作为一种理论记录的中心地位的增加，因为与对象代理、人类/非人类边界和环境考古学的新模型有关的新问题已经充斥了文献。在这样的气候下，把边界作为一种行为者的集合来关注是很重要的，这种行为者承担着超越领土概念的代理。相关的边界，过境，跨国，和避难组合进行了讨论。第二个趋势是越来越重视考古学的边界工作。无论是后殖民/去殖民化考古学，新材料/对称考古学，还是当代考古学，越来越多的人反对沿着过程线定义人类学考古学。在这篇文章中，我回顾了这些文献的一个线索，即批判性地图学，以及他们如何利用考古记录来发展涉及边界的政治空间的激进再现。我关注的是相对较近的过去(大约公元1200年到现在)的学术研究。预计《人类学年度评论》第51卷的最终在线出版日期是2022年10月。修订后的估计数请参阅http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates。
{"title":"The Work of Boundaries: Critical Cartographies and the Archaeological Record of the Relatively Recent Past","authors":"Mark W. Hauser","doi":"10.1146/annurev-anthro-101819-110141","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-101819-110141","url":null,"abstract":"Discussions of boundaries have enjoyed a renaissance in anthropological archaeology of recent years, especially as conversations surrounding forced migration and border walls look toward the material record for clarification about what borders are and what they do. Since 1995, when the Annual Review of Anthropology last addressed a similar issue, numerous methodological and conceptual changes in the field have led to a large proliferation in the literature. A brief Google Scholar search of the words “archaeology,” “boundaries,” and “work” between 1995 and the present produces 365,000 results and makes one point clear: Archaeologists have had a lot to say about the topic. By framing this review around the work of boundaries, I signal two trends in the field of archaeology with conceptual and methodological implications. The first trend is the increased centrality of materiality as a theoretical register as new questions relating to object agency, human/nonhuman boundaries, and new models of environmental archaeology have populated the literature. In such climates it is important to focus on boundaries as a kind of assemblage of actants that takes on agencies beyond notions of territory. Associated border, crossing, transnational, and refuge assemblages are discussed. The second trend is the increased attention to boundary work in archaeology. Whether it is in the form of postcolonial/decolonizing archaeologies, new materialities/symmetrical archaeologies, or contemporary archaeologies, there has been increased pushback against attempts to define anthropological archaeology along processual lines. In this article I review one thread of that literature, critical cartographies, and how they have used the archaeological record to develop radical renditions of political space where boundaries are involved. I focus on scholarship surrounding the relatively recent past (ca. 1200 CE to the present). Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Anthropology Volume 51 is October 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.","PeriodicalId":48296,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Anthropology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2022-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43854936","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-29DOI: 10.1146/annurev-anthro-041420-100047
Jessica F. Brinkworth, Rachel Rusen
The COVID-19 pandemic is extraordinary, but many ordinary events have contributed to its becoming and persistence. Here, we argue that the emergence of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus, which has radically altered day-to-day life for people across the globe, was an inevitability of contemporary human ecology, presaged by spillovers past. We show the ways in which the emergence of this virus reiterates other infectious disease crises, from its origin via habitat encroachment and animal use by humans to its evolution of troublesome features, and we spotlight a long-running crisis of inequitable infectious disease incidence and death. We conclude by describing aspects of SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 pandemic that present opportunities for disease control: spaces for intervention in infection and recovery that reduce transmission and impact. There are no more “before times”; therefore, we encourage embracing a future using old mitigation tactics and government support for ongoing disease control. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Anthropology Volume 51 is October 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
{"title":"SARS-CoV-2 Is Not Special, but the Pandemic Is: The Ecology, Evolution, Policy, and Future of the Deadliest Pandemic in Living Memory","authors":"Jessica F. Brinkworth, Rachel Rusen","doi":"10.1146/annurev-anthro-041420-100047","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-041420-100047","url":null,"abstract":"The COVID-19 pandemic is extraordinary, but many ordinary events have contributed to its becoming and persistence. Here, we argue that the emergence of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus, which has radically altered day-to-day life for people across the globe, was an inevitability of contemporary human ecology, presaged by spillovers past. We show the ways in which the emergence of this virus reiterates other infectious disease crises, from its origin via habitat encroachment and animal use by humans to its evolution of troublesome features, and we spotlight a long-running crisis of inequitable infectious disease incidence and death. We conclude by describing aspects of SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 pandemic that present opportunities for disease control: spaces for intervention in infection and recovery that reduce transmission and impact. There are no more “before times”; therefore, we encourage embracing a future using old mitigation tactics and government support for ongoing disease control. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Anthropology Volume 51 is October 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.","PeriodicalId":48296,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Anthropology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2022-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45269959","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","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：