Subordinate Societies, Local Archaeologies<\/p>\n
Dr Paul Lane and Dr Andrew Reid<\/p>\n
One outcome of culture contact, particularly regarding complex societies, is the generation of subordinate societies: communities who have little or no formal power within the broader polity (but possibly a hidden or subaltern voice). Whilst subordinate societies are a global phenomenon, the developing world offers a considerable variety of potential case studies, as do contexts where indigenous peoples live within modern nation states in the West.<\/p>\n
Clearly, from an archaeological perspective, a distinction can be made between archaeological attempts to investigate subordinate societies, and societies in the present day seeking to present their own constructions of the past (local or alternative archaeologies). In some cases both elements coincide. This Symposium aims to address both of these aspects. For the sake of convenience, however, papers in the first session will focus on the archaeological recognition of ‘subordinate’ societies, while those in the second session will examine issues relating to the local production of archaeological knowledge.<\/p>\n
A notable example from southern Africa emerges from the Kalahari debate, which has revolved around the issue of whether San\/Bushman\/Basarwa populations investigated by anthropologists and ethnoarchaeologists in the 1960s-80s, were relatively pristine hunter gatherers (as many of these studies implied), or the product of centuries of encapsulation. While recent research has shown that some San\/Bushman societies were definitely subordinate, and others retained their autonomy, little is yet know about the effect subordination had on material culture and behaviour. Is it really possible to distinguish the archaeological traces of a subordinated ‘Bushman’ society from one which was not? Following on from this is the issue of how contemporary, local\/indigenous interpretations of the archaeological past can inform both (a) disciplinary concepts and understandings of the experience or context of encapsulation, and (b) offer an alternative, parallel perspective on the substantive details of the past.<\/p>\n
Encapsulation is by no means the only mechanism of subordination, and various contributions to the Symposium will also examine alternative circumstances, while others critique the notion of subordination, or the value of distinguishing ‘indigenous archaeologies’ from ‘global, disciplinary archaeology’. Whatever the preferred perspective, in investigating subordinate societies four themes immediately present themselves for analysis, and all of the papers in this Symposium address one or other of these.<\/p>\n
These themes are:<\/p>\n
How can subordinate societies be distinguished from subordinating societies,
\nand how can archaeologists tell when subordination begins?
\nHow can archaeologists assess the nature of subordination?
\nHow can history be re-written from the perspective of the subaltern?
\nShould it be re-written in this way?, and what implications, if any, do such local archaeologies have for the broader, mainstream discipline?
\nWhere is the locus of power within subaltern\/subordinate communities and what role, if any, does material culture play in the negotiation of these power structues?<\/p>\n
papers: Subordinate Societies, Local Archaeologies Dr Paul Lane and Dr Andrew Reid One outcome of culture contact, particularly regarding complex societies, is the generation of subordinate societies: communities who have little or no formal power within the broader polity (but possibly a hidden or subaltern voice). Whilst subordinate societies are a global phenomenon, the developing world … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-78","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac4\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/78","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac4\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac4\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac4\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac4\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=78"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac4\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/78\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":80,"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac4\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/78\/revisions\/80"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac4\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=78"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac4\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=78"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac4\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=78"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nAuthor 1 Author 2 Title
\nBaglo Always the same Saami? Changing conceptions of the Saami other in archaeological discourse
\nBurstrom Cultural variability in the home ground: how archaeology can make the world a better place
\nCrossland The Archaeology of Absence: Reappearing Argentina’s Disappeared
\nDamm Another time another history?: or how to write the history of the Bugakhwe in Botswana
\nLane Global Information, local knowledge and archaeological interpretation
\nReid Subordination in Great Lakes Africa
\nSadr Subordinate Hunters at the Edge of the Kalahari
\nSmith et al Appropriating places and subordinating people: rock shelters as points of power in forager-farmer interactions in the Northern Province, South Africa.
\nSmith encapsulation or Not? The Ju\/’hoansi Example S047SMt1<\/a>
\nWebb Philosophical Perspectives on Representation: Possibilitirs for Exploring Multiple Interpretations of the Past.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"