State Formation in Italy and Greece: Questioning the Neoevolutionist Paradigm
State Formation in Italy and Greece: Questioning the Neoevolutionist Paradigm
复制标题
意大利和希腊的国家形成：质疑新进化论范式
DOI：
10.1179/146195713x13636881434916
复制
发表时间：
2013
影响因子：
1.5
通讯作者：
Anthony Russell
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Anthony Russell
本书中的章节主要由考古学家撰写;数据集主要由墓葬遗址、定居点和人类改变景观的其他痕迹的挖掘遗迹组成。但要解决的中心话题是国家的形成，这与证据不符。墓葬遗迹、陶器和其他人类手工艺品的表面散落物以及建筑物的地基（甚至是保存较好的建筑物遗迹）都不能告诉我们一个复杂的、非物质的、本质上是概念性的社会过程，比如国家的形成。最好的情况是，某些类型的大型建筑物的证据--例如，防御墙和/或宫殿建筑群--或者有组织的定居点和道路模式，可能暗示着某种可能被合法地称为国家的东西，这取决于一个人对“国家”的概念。但是，要确定一个国家确实存在，并对它的形成说任何有用的话，需要正确的书面原始材料。数据和方法与目标或宗旨之间的这种基本不协调使这一收集黯然失色。这本书的幸存美德在于，一些章节提出并分析了有趣的考古数据集。在这方面最好的是第三章-“社会反对国家？”《青铜时代克里特岛的不平等和权力》，作者：Kendi Damilaki和Giorgos Vavouranaki;第五章：《迈锡尼国家的纪念性建筑和建设》，作者：Rodney D。菲茨西蒙斯;第10章--“通过城市建构权威：将城市空间的转变视为铁器时代伊特鲁里亚的社会重建”，作者Carrie Murray;第13章--“种子与城市：早期罗马的植物学与国家形成”，作者Laura Motta;第14章--“中心的重新定位：一项比较研究”，作者Albert J. Ammerman。然而，太多的其他章节试图通过求助于在学术研究的象牙塔中太常见的方法论和/或组成上的愚蠢来掩盖证据和分析之间的不匹配：其中之一是试图通过引入从另一个领域或学科得出的“模型”来弥补数据不足，从而弥补数据方面的空白，否则就不可能进行有用的分析和得出意义深远的结论。作为一个恰当的例子，J.西奥多·培尼亚（J. Theodore Peña）在《南部沿海伊特鲁里亚的国家形成》（第9章）中，采用了一种被称为“基普-肖特曼模型”（Kipp-Schortman model）的东西作为他的主要启发式工具。[1]这种人类学模式假定，“当国家社会的商人在贸易中断的背景下与酋长发展交换关系时，
The chapters in this volume are predominantly by archaeologists; the data set is comprised mostly of the excavated remains of burial sites, settlements, and other traces of human alteration of the landscape. But the central topic to be addressed is state formation, which is a mismatch with the evidence. Mortuary remains, surface scatters of pottery and other human artifacts, and foundations of buildings (or even better-preserved remnants of buildings) cannot inform us about a complex, nonmaterial, and essentially ideational social process like state formation. At best, evidence of certain kinds of large-scale buildings—fortiacation walls and/ or palace complexes, for example—or of organized patterns of settlements and roads, may be suggestive of something that might legitimately be called a state, depending upon one’s deanition of “state.” But to be certain that a state actually existed, and to say anything useful about its formation, requires the right sort of written source material. This basic incongruity between, on the one hand, data and methodology and, on the other, goal or purpose overshadows this collection. The book’s surviving virtue lies in the fact that some of the chapters present and analyze interesting sets of archaeological data. Among the best in this regard are Chapter 3—“‘Society against the State?’ Contextualizing Inequality and Power in Bronze Age Crete,” by Krysti Damilaki and Giorgos Vavouranaki; Chapter 5—“Monumental Architecture and the Construction of the Mycenaean State,” by Rodney D. Fitzsimmons; Chapter 10—“Constructions of Authority through Ritual: Considering Transformations in Ritual Space as Reoecting Society in Iron Age Etruria,” by Carrie Murray; Chapter 13—“Seeds and the City: Archaeobotany and State Formation in Early Rome,” by Laura Motta; and Chapter 14—“Relocating the Center: A Comparative Study,” by Albert J. Ammerman. Too many of the other chapters, however, seek to cover the mismatch between evidence and analysis through a recourse to methodological and/or compositional follies that are all-too-common in the ivory tower of academic research: One of these is the attempt to compensate for inadequate data by importing a “model” drawn from another aeld or discipline, thereby covering the gaps in data that would otherwise make useful analysis and far-reaching conclusions impossible. As a case in point, J. Theodore Peña, purporting to illustrate “State Formation in Southern Coastal Etruria” (Chapter 9), employs as his prime heuristic tool something called the “Kipp-Schortman model.”1 This anthropological model posits that “when traders from state societies develop exchange relations with chiefdoms in the context of a trade diReviews