Halls of Mirrors: Reflections on the Social Meanings of Early Medieval Rulers' Residences
Halls of Mirrors: Reflections on the Social Meanings of Early Medieval Rulers' Residences
复制标题
镜厅：对中世纪早期统治者官邸社会意义的思考
DOI：
10.1080/00293652.2021.1955413
复制
发表时间：
2021
影响因子：
0.6
通讯作者：
Thomas G
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Thomas G
评论家认为统治者的住所是社会政治复杂性发展的表现，这提出了一些需要澄清的问题。在我们讨论英国南部大会堂建筑群的时间性时，我们指出，这些遗址的前期阶段体现了早期社会和经济复杂性的证据，尽管是以其他非纪念性的形式表达的。因此，在我们看来，安德鲁·霍洛尔德的观察“较低层次的定居似乎先于精英的存在”似乎过于简单的概括，我们觉得山姆·特纳可能低估了对第五和第六个问题的理解，鉴于社会等级制度和政治权威在这些方面的演变已经提出了详细的模型，因此，我们将世纪的社会背景与大厅建筑群和王子墓葬所体现的纪念性的视野联系起来个世纪(eg Bassett 1989，Scull 1993，2011，Arnold 1997）。总的来说，我们认为考古学证据表明，6世纪末和8世纪初是统治地位变化的关键门槛。尽管约翰·永奎斯特对斯堪的纳维亚半岛和后罗马时代的英格兰的权力结构的不同时间尺度和发展轨迹提出了一个有效的观点，但我们会质疑，将6世纪后期和7世纪英格兰的社区描述为“年轻”的社区是否准确，以及他们在某种程度上是否植根于他们所生活的景观。这些都不是无根的移民社区（如果这是暗示），正如下文进一步讨论的那样，社会复杂性的条件可以在没有纪念性文化的情况下存在。没有人会认真质疑特纳的观点，即基督教意识形态的各个方面提供了社会技术，使强大的行动者能够巩固和加速变革，也没有基督教意识形态有助于塑造中世纪早期的新景观。但这里的问题是，是否像布莱尔（2018）有力地论证的那样，大厅建筑群的消亡主要应被理解为基督教和修道主义胜利的结果。我们认为不是：如果这些是复杂的多模态现象，那么它们的开始和消亡只能通过以下方式来理解：
The commentators’ reflections on rulers’ residences as a manifestation of developing socio-political complexity raise some issues that require clarification. In our discussion of the temporality of southern British great hall complexes we point out that the antecedent phases of these sites embody evidence for earlier social and economic complexity, albeit expressed in other, non-monumental, forms. Andrew Reynold’s observation that ‘lower order settlement seems to come before an elite presence’thus seems to us too simple a generalization, and we feel that Sam Turner perhaps underplays understandings of the fifth-and sixth-century social background to the horizon of monumentality embodied by great hall complexes and princely burials given that detailed models have been proposed for the evolution of social hierarchy and political authority over these centuries.(eg Bassett 1989, Scull 1993, 2011, Arnold 1997). Overall, we would argue that the archaeological evidence points towards the late sixth and the early eighth centuries as key thresholds of change in the articulation of rulership. And while JohnLjungkvist makes a valid point about the differing time-scales and trajectories over which configurations of power developed in Scandinavia and post-Roman England, we would question whether it is accurate to characterize communities in later sixth-and seventh-century England as ‘young’and somehow not rooted in the landscapes in which they lived. These were not rootless immigrant communities (if that is what is implied) and, as discussed further below, conditions of social complexity can exist without a culture of monumentality. Nobody would seriously question Turner’s view that aspects of Christian ideology provided social technologies which enabled powerful actors to consolidate and accelerate change, nor that Christian ideology contributed to shaping new landscapes in the early Middle Ages. But the question here is whether, as has been forcefully argued by Blair (2018), the demise of great hall complexes is to be understood primarily as a consequence of the triumph of Christianity and monasticism. We think not: if these were complex multi-modal phenomena then both their inception and demise can only be understood by