编辑器的介绍

IF 0.2 Q4 ANTHROPOLOGY
M. Harkin
{"title":"编辑器的介绍","authors":"M. Harkin","doi":"10.1080/00938157.2014.966642","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Stella Souvatzi’s essay discusses recent work in archaeology on households. As Souvatzi argues, the spatial and temporal focus in archaeology has run increasingly in the direction of the micro. Less concerned with grand evolutionary sequences, processural and post-processural archaeology has more often concerned itself with small social units and has become more cognizant of the limited time frames in which sites may have been occupied: for instance, a mere half century in the case of northern Plains earthlodges. Mobility—either in the short term or long term—does not of course undermine the notion of household, or its usefulness in focusing attention on themes such as materiality, memory, and idealized models of perduring domestic units. Claude Lévi-Strauss’s concept of the house society has been influential on archaeologists’ understanding of households. Originally a way of dealing with the seeming paradox that Northwest Coast societies looked very much like corporate groups such as one expected in lineage societies, when only a few of the groups in fact possessed unilineal systems of kinship and descent, this concept was seminal in that it focused our attention away from the biological dimensions of social organization and onto the ideological ones. Household and family groups are of course always in a state of flux, due to the reality of demographic change, including birth, marriage, and death, as well as spatial mobility. In Northwest Coast societies, key symbols such as family crests, names, and stories were deployed to maintain the fiction of a permanent, indeed eternal, structure. This is nicely symbolized by an example of ‘‘mobile homes’’ found among many of the central coast groups. Houses consisted of two components: the permanent posts which remained in the ground for as long as the house was occupied, and planks, which could be removed and towed behind canoes during seasonal migrations. The posts were usually marked with the family’s crest, and so constituted, along with the accompanying title name and narrative, a permanent claim to house and property (symbolic property as well as land and resource rights). The planks—like the individuals who made up the group—were mobile. Another interesting point raised in this literature is the multigenerational project of building, adapting, and remembering the household. Again, this works at both the material and ideological levels. A structure may be built Reviews in Anthropology, 43:235–237, 2014 Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0093-8157 print=1556-3014 online DOI: 10.1080/00938157.2014.966642","PeriodicalId":43734,"journal":{"name":"Reviews in Anthropology","volume":"43 1","pages":"235 - 237"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2014-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00938157.2014.966642","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Editor's Introduction\",\"authors\":\"M. Harkin\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00938157.2014.966642\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Stella Souvatzi’s essay discusses recent work in archaeology on households. As Souvatzi argues, the spatial and temporal focus in archaeology has run increasingly in the direction of the micro. Less concerned with grand evolutionary sequences, processural and post-processural archaeology has more often concerned itself with small social units and has become more cognizant of the limited time frames in which sites may have been occupied: for instance, a mere half century in the case of northern Plains earthlodges. Mobility—either in the short term or long term—does not of course undermine the notion of household, or its usefulness in focusing attention on themes such as materiality, memory, and idealized models of perduring domestic units. Claude Lévi-Strauss’s concept of the house society has been influential on archaeologists’ understanding of households. Originally a way of dealing with the seeming paradox that Northwest Coast societies looked very much like corporate groups such as one expected in lineage societies, when only a few of the groups in fact possessed unilineal systems of kinship and descent, this concept was seminal in that it focused our attention away from the biological dimensions of social organization and onto the ideological ones. Household and family groups are of course always in a state of flux, due to the reality of demographic change, including birth, marriage, and death, as well as spatial mobility. In Northwest Coast societies, key symbols such as family crests, names, and stories were deployed to maintain the fiction of a permanent, indeed eternal, structure. This is nicely symbolized by an example of ‘‘mobile homes’’ found among many of the central coast groups. Houses consisted of two components: the permanent posts which remained in the ground for as long as the house was occupied, and planks, which could be removed and towed behind canoes during seasonal migrations. The posts were usually marked with the family’s crest, and so constituted, along with the accompanying title name and narrative, a permanent claim to house and property (symbolic property as well as land and resource rights). The planks—like the individuals who made up the group—were mobile. Another interesting point raised in this literature is the multigenerational project of building, adapting, and remembering the household. Again, this works at both the material and ideological levels. A structure may be built Reviews in Anthropology, 43:235–237, 2014 Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0093-8157 print=1556-3014 online DOI: 10.1080/00938157.2014.966642\",\"PeriodicalId\":43734,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Reviews in Anthropology\",\"volume\":\"43 1\",\"pages\":\"235 - 237\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-10-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00938157.2014.966642\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Reviews in Anthropology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00938157.2014.966642\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reviews in Anthropology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00938157.2014.966642","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

斯特拉·苏瓦齐(Stella Souvatzi)的文章讨论了最近在家庭考古方面的工作。正如Souvatzi所说,考古学的时空焦点越来越趋向于微观的方向。过程和后过程考古学不太关注大的进化序列,而是更多地关注小的社会单位,并且更加认识到遗址可能被占用的有限时间框架:例如,北部平原的土丘仅仅半个世纪。流动性——无论是短期的还是长期的——当然不会削弱家庭的概念,也不会削弱它在关注物质性、记忆性和长期家庭单位的理想化模型等主题方面的作用。克劳德·劳斯特劳斯的家庭社会概念影响了考古学家对家庭的理解。最初,这是一种处理看似矛盾的方法西北海岸社会看起来很像团体团体,就像人们在世系社会中所期望的那样,当只有少数群体实际上拥有血缘和血统的单系系统时,这个概念是开创性的,因为它把我们的注意力从社会组织的生物层面转移到了意识形态层面。由于人口变化的现实,包括出生、婚姻和死亡,以及空间流动性,家庭和家庭群体当然总是处于不断变化的状态。在西北海岸的社会中,关键的符号,如家族徽章、名字和故事,被用来维持一个永久的、实际上是永恒的结构。在许多中部海岸群体中发现的“移动房屋”的例子很好地象征了这一点。房屋由两部分组成:一是永久的柱子,只要房子有人住,柱子就会留在地上;二是木板,在季节性迁徙时,木板可以移走,拖在独木舟后面。这些柱子上通常标有家族的徽章,因此连同伴随的头衔名称和叙述构成了对房屋和财产(象征性财产以及土地和资源权利)的永久要求。浮游生物——就像组成这个群体的个体一样——是可以移动的。这篇文献中提出的另一个有趣的观点是,几代人共同建设、适应和记忆家庭。同样,这在物质和意识形态层面都有效。《人类学评论》,43(3):235 - 237,2014版权# Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0093-8157 print=1556-3014 online DOI: 10.1080/00938157.2014.966642
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Editor's Introduction
Stella Souvatzi’s essay discusses recent work in archaeology on households. As Souvatzi argues, the spatial and temporal focus in archaeology has run increasingly in the direction of the micro. Less concerned with grand evolutionary sequences, processural and post-processural archaeology has more often concerned itself with small social units and has become more cognizant of the limited time frames in which sites may have been occupied: for instance, a mere half century in the case of northern Plains earthlodges. Mobility—either in the short term or long term—does not of course undermine the notion of household, or its usefulness in focusing attention on themes such as materiality, memory, and idealized models of perduring domestic units. Claude Lévi-Strauss’s concept of the house society has been influential on archaeologists’ understanding of households. Originally a way of dealing with the seeming paradox that Northwest Coast societies looked very much like corporate groups such as one expected in lineage societies, when only a few of the groups in fact possessed unilineal systems of kinship and descent, this concept was seminal in that it focused our attention away from the biological dimensions of social organization and onto the ideological ones. Household and family groups are of course always in a state of flux, due to the reality of demographic change, including birth, marriage, and death, as well as spatial mobility. In Northwest Coast societies, key symbols such as family crests, names, and stories were deployed to maintain the fiction of a permanent, indeed eternal, structure. This is nicely symbolized by an example of ‘‘mobile homes’’ found among many of the central coast groups. Houses consisted of two components: the permanent posts which remained in the ground for as long as the house was occupied, and planks, which could be removed and towed behind canoes during seasonal migrations. The posts were usually marked with the family’s crest, and so constituted, along with the accompanying title name and narrative, a permanent claim to house and property (symbolic property as well as land and resource rights). The planks—like the individuals who made up the group—were mobile. Another interesting point raised in this literature is the multigenerational project of building, adapting, and remembering the household. Again, this works at both the material and ideological levels. A structure may be built Reviews in Anthropology, 43:235–237, 2014 Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0093-8157 print=1556-3014 online DOI: 10.1080/00938157.2014.966642
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
Reviews in Anthropology
Reviews in Anthropology ANTHROPOLOGY-
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
期刊介绍: Reviews in Anthropology is the only anthropological journal devoted to lengthy, in-depth review commentary on recently published books. Titles are largely drawn from the professional literature of anthropology, covering the entire range of work inclusive of all sub-disciplines, including biological, cultural, archaeological, and linguistic anthropology; a smaller number of books is selected from related disciplines. Articles evaluate the place of new books in their theoretical and topical literatures, assess their contributions to anthropology as a whole, and appraise the current state of knowledge in the field. The highly diverse subject matter sustains both specialized research and the generalist tradition of holistic anthropology.
×
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