《任何未来古代世界土著历史的预言》

IF 1.9 1区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY American Historical Review Pub Date : 2023-09-01 DOI:10.1093/ahr/rhad239
Jeremy LaBuff
{"title":"《任何未来古代世界土著历史的预言》","authors":"Jeremy LaBuff","doi":"10.1093/ahr/rhad239","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The usual way of talking about indigenous peoples in antiquity is to assume analogies between any peoples who were not hegemonic or imperial and the modern victims of European settler colonialism. The merits of such comparison are less often considered, and almost never from the perspective of the population described as “indigenous.” The aim of this article is to define and apply the term more carefully as a concept for premodern historians. A series of case studies from Hellenistic Anatolia illustrate how a casual use of “indigenous” leads to serious misunderstandings of imperial and colonial dynamics and indigenous self-understandings that can be rectified only by a theoretically grounded and transhistorical understanding of indigeneity. Such an approach forces us to examine the logic behind power relations and imbalances, leading to more fruitful comparison with the more familiar colonialism of the modern period.","PeriodicalId":48016,"journal":{"name":"American Historical Review","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prolegomena to Any Future Indigenous History of the Ancient World\",\"authors\":\"Jeremy LaBuff\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ahr/rhad239\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The usual way of talking about indigenous peoples in antiquity is to assume analogies between any peoples who were not hegemonic or imperial and the modern victims of European settler colonialism. The merits of such comparison are less often considered, and almost never from the perspective of the population described as “indigenous.” The aim of this article is to define and apply the term more carefully as a concept for premodern historians. A series of case studies from Hellenistic Anatolia illustrate how a casual use of “indigenous” leads to serious misunderstandings of imperial and colonial dynamics and indigenous self-understandings that can be rectified only by a theoretically grounded and transhistorical understanding of indigeneity. Such an approach forces us to examine the logic behind power relations and imbalances, leading to more fruitful comparison with the more familiar colonialism of the modern period.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48016,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Historical Review\",\"volume\":\"43 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Historical Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ahr/rhad239\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Historical Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ahr/rhad239","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在谈论古代土著民族时,通常的方式是将任何非霸权或帝国的民族与现代欧洲殖民者殖民主义的受害者进行类比。这种比较的优点很少被考虑,而且几乎从来没有从被称为“土著”的人口的角度考虑过。本文的目的是为前现代历史学家更仔细地定义和应用这个术语。来自希腊化的安纳托利亚的一系列案例研究表明,“土著”一词的随意使用如何导致对帝国和殖民动态以及土著自我理解的严重误解,而这种误解只能通过对土著的理论基础和超历史理解来纠正。这种方法迫使我们审视权力关系和不平衡背后的逻辑,从而与我们更熟悉的现代殖民主义进行更富有成效的比较。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Prolegomena to Any Future Indigenous History of the Ancient World
Abstract The usual way of talking about indigenous peoples in antiquity is to assume analogies between any peoples who were not hegemonic or imperial and the modern victims of European settler colonialism. The merits of such comparison are less often considered, and almost never from the perspective of the population described as “indigenous.” The aim of this article is to define and apply the term more carefully as a concept for premodern historians. A series of case studies from Hellenistic Anatolia illustrate how a casual use of “indigenous” leads to serious misunderstandings of imperial and colonial dynamics and indigenous self-understandings that can be rectified only by a theoretically grounded and transhistorical understanding of indigeneity. Such an approach forces us to examine the logic behind power relations and imbalances, leading to more fruitful comparison with the more familiar colonialism of the modern period.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
6.70%
发文量
236
期刊介绍: The American Historical Review (AHR) is the official publication of the American Historical Association (AHA). The AHA was founded in 1884 and chartered by Congress in 1889 to serve the interests of the entire discipline of history. Aligning with the AHA’s mission, the AHR has been the journal of record for the historical profession in the United States since 1895—the only journal that brings together scholarship from every major field of historical study. The AHR is unparalleled in its efforts to choose articles that are new in content and interpretation and that make a contribution to historical knowledge.
期刊最新文献
Knowing by Sensing Artificial Intelligence and the Practice of History Włodzimierz Borodziej and Maciej Górny. Forgotten Wars: Central and Eastern Europe, 1912–1916. Natalie R. Davidson. American Transitional Justice: Writing Cold War History in Human Rights Litigation. Kristy Nabhan-Warren. Meatpacking America: How Migration, Work, and Faith Unite and Divide the Heartland.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1