寻找古代坦帕湾(公元650-1550)的仪式专家:一种多方法的化学和岩石学方法

IF 2 1区 社会学 Q1 ANTHROPOLOGY
C. Trevor Duke , Neill J. Wallis , Lindsay Bloch , Ann S. Cordell , Michael D. Glascock
{"title":"寻找古代坦帕湾(公元650-1550)的仪式专家:一种多方法的化学和岩石学方法","authors":"C. Trevor Duke ,&nbsp;Neill J. Wallis ,&nbsp;Lindsay Bloch ,&nbsp;Ann S. Cordell ,&nbsp;Michael D. Glascock","doi":"10.1016/j.jaa.2023.101528","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Archaeologists have long relied on material proxies of labor organization to identify different social formations. Conventional wisdom holds that specialization is particularly integral in developing hierarchical states, and that hunter-gatherers are typically “generalists” provisioning their immediate household and community. However, archaeological evidence from eastern North America challenges these assumptions in showcasing evidence of specialized production among nonhierarchical societies. Because specialization is now known to exist outside the chiefdom or state, some researchers have questioned its analytical utility. Further, recent approaches to crafting discourage the use of generalizing heuristics (e.g., specialization), and instead center the historical dimensions of community and identity. In this study, we argue that archaeological research on specialization can mature by shifting focus from determinative wholes like hierarchies, to the relationships between crafters and recipients. To demonstrate this point, we present results of a multi-method chemical and petrographic study of Late Woodland (ca. AD 650–1050) and Mississippian (ca. AD 1050–1550) pottery from the Tampa Bay region of Florida. By contextualizing these data within historical relationships between communities and crafters, our study identifies two different forms of ritual specialization among nonhierarchical hunter gatherers; one predicated on religious leadership, the other on securing access to esoteric knowledge and property.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47957,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Anthropological Archaeology","volume":"71 ","pages":"Article 101528"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sourcing ritual specialists in ancient Tampa Bay (AD 650–1550): A multi-method chemical and petrographic approach\",\"authors\":\"C. Trevor Duke ,&nbsp;Neill J. Wallis ,&nbsp;Lindsay Bloch ,&nbsp;Ann S. Cordell ,&nbsp;Michael D. Glascock\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jaa.2023.101528\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Archaeologists have long relied on material proxies of labor organization to identify different social formations. Conventional wisdom holds that specialization is particularly integral in developing hierarchical states, and that hunter-gatherers are typically “generalists” provisioning their immediate household and community. However, archaeological evidence from eastern North America challenges these assumptions in showcasing evidence of specialized production among nonhierarchical societies. Because specialization is now known to exist outside the chiefdom or state, some researchers have questioned its analytical utility. Further, recent approaches to crafting discourage the use of generalizing heuristics (e.g., specialization), and instead center the historical dimensions of community and identity. In this study, we argue that archaeological research on specialization can mature by shifting focus from determinative wholes like hierarchies, to the relationships between crafters and recipients. To demonstrate this point, we present results of a multi-method chemical and petrographic study of Late Woodland (ca. AD 650–1050) and Mississippian (ca. AD 1050–1550) pottery from the Tampa Bay region of Florida. By contextualizing these data within historical relationships between communities and crafters, our study identifies two different forms of ritual specialization among nonhierarchical hunter gatherers; one predicated on religious leadership, the other on securing access to esoteric knowledge and property.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47957,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Anthropological Archaeology\",\"volume\":\"71 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101528\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Anthropological Archaeology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278416523000442\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Anthropological Archaeology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278416523000442","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

考古学家长期以来一直依靠劳工组织的物质代表来识别不同的社会形态。传统观点认为,专业化在发展等级制国家中尤为重要,狩猎采集者通常是为直系亲属和社区提供食物的“多面手”。然而,来自北美东部的考古证据在展示非等级社会专业生产的证据方面挑战了这些假设。由于现在已知专业化存在于酋长领地或州之外,一些研究人员对其分析效用提出了质疑。此外,最近的手工制作方法不鼓励使用泛化启发法(例如,专业化),而是以社区和身份的历史维度为中心。在这项研究中,我们认为,关于专业化的考古研究可以通过将重点从等级制度等决定性整体转移到工匠和接受者之间的关系上来成熟。为了证明这一点,我们介绍了对佛罗里达州坦帕湾地区晚伍德兰(约公元650–1050年)和密西西比(约公元1050–1550年)陶器的多方法化学和岩相研究结果。通过将这些数据置于社区和手工艺者之间的历史关系中,我们的研究确定了非等级狩猎采集者中两种不同形式的仪式专业化;一个是以宗教领导为前提,另一个是确保获得深奥的知识和财产。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Sourcing ritual specialists in ancient Tampa Bay (AD 650–1550): A multi-method chemical and petrographic approach

Archaeologists have long relied on material proxies of labor organization to identify different social formations. Conventional wisdom holds that specialization is particularly integral in developing hierarchical states, and that hunter-gatherers are typically “generalists” provisioning their immediate household and community. However, archaeological evidence from eastern North America challenges these assumptions in showcasing evidence of specialized production among nonhierarchical societies. Because specialization is now known to exist outside the chiefdom or state, some researchers have questioned its analytical utility. Further, recent approaches to crafting discourage the use of generalizing heuristics (e.g., specialization), and instead center the historical dimensions of community and identity. In this study, we argue that archaeological research on specialization can mature by shifting focus from determinative wholes like hierarchies, to the relationships between crafters and recipients. To demonstrate this point, we present results of a multi-method chemical and petrographic study of Late Woodland (ca. AD 650–1050) and Mississippian (ca. AD 1050–1550) pottery from the Tampa Bay region of Florida. By contextualizing these data within historical relationships between communities and crafters, our study identifies two different forms of ritual specialization among nonhierarchical hunter gatherers; one predicated on religious leadership, the other on securing access to esoteric knowledge and property.

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
4.00
自引率
11.10%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: An innovative, international publication, the Journal of Anthropological Archaeology is devoted to the development of theory and, in a broad sense, methodology for the systematic and rigorous understanding of the organization, operation, and evolution of human societies. The discipline served by the journal is characterized by its goals and approach, not by geographical or temporal bounds. The data utilized or treated range from the earliest archaeological evidence for the emergence of human culture to historically documented societies and the contemporary observations of the ethnographer, ethnoarchaeologist, sociologist, or geographer. These subjects appear in the journal as examples of cultural organization, operation, and evolution, not as specific historical phenomena.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信