Archaeologies of empire and environment

Rosenzweig, Melissa; Marston, John M.

doi:10.1016/j.jaa.2018.08.004

Cited by 14 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 128 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other characteristics of a core can include centralized and specialized production of both elite and quotidian goods and shifts in the production processes of these items as political control changes. In regions where states and empires developed, previous work has documented pre-/post-changes in raw material procurement (Darras 2008; Hayashida 1999; Rebnegger 2010), the standardization of production (Blackman et al 1993; Costin and Hagstrum 1995; Fragnoli and Frangipane 2022; Roux 2003), and the organization of labor forces for agricultural and other extractive activities (Rosenzweig and Marston 2018; Sinopoli 2003).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Local Production and Developing Core Regions: Ceramic Characterization in the Lake Pátzcuaro Basin, Western Mexico

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A core region is the first place for expected shifts in archaeological materials before, during, and after political changes like state emergence and imperial consolidation. Yet, studies of ceramic production have shown that there are sometimes limited or more subtle changes in the ceramic economy throughout such political fluctuations. This article synthesizes recent efforts to address political economic changes via geochemical characterization (neutron activation analysis; NAA) in the Lake Pátzcuaro Basin in western Mexico. This region was home to the Purépecha state and then empire (Tarascan; ca. AD 1350–1530), one of the most powerful kingdoms in the Americas before European arrival. The combined ceramic dataset from four sites in the region result in eight geochemical groups. Our analysis indicates that the region experienced long-term and relatively stable ceramic production that was not substantially altered by the emergence of the state and empire. In addition, we find evidence for (1) dispersed, localized production; (2) long-lived compositional ceramic recipes; and (3) a complex ceramic economy with differential community participation. We discuss why documenting local ceramic production and craft production more generally is important for the study of past political economies.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Local Production and Developing Core Regions: Ceramic Characterization in the Lake Pátzcuaro Basin, Western Mexico

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Though a bit clunky, the term “socionature” does well to describe how many archaeologists are seeing the environment as a dynamic process that both reflects past human projects and affords future human actions (Morrison a). Archaeological studies of socionatural histories are shedding light on the long‐term legacies of human land‐modification projects, such as terrace construction or reservoir excavation (Morehart ; Rosenzweig and Marston ; see also Håkansson and Widgren ). For instance, Morehart () details the landscapes that Aztec and then Spanish empires inherited from antecedent peoples in central Mexico, in part to argue against facile representations of traditional premodern and extractive European political ecologies.…”

Section: Socionature and Political Ecologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Contrasting niche construction theory's focus on subsistence and adaptation (see critiques in Hodder ; Morrison a), research oriented toward political ecology examines the practices and discourses by which the environment can become the stakes of social struggle (Rosenzweig and Marston ). Such scholarship often explicitly recognizes that agricultural production and land modification can be political tactics to defend autonomy, declare rights to locality, or realize social objectives (Comstock and Cook ; Kosiba ; Kosiba and Hunter ; Langlie ; Morrison ).…”

Section: Socionature and Political Ecologymentioning

confidence: 99%

New Digs: Networks, Assemblages, and the Dissolution of Binary Categories in Anthropological Archaeology

Kosiba

2019

American Anthropologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anthropological archaeology has long been a process of categorization. The history of the subdiscipline could be rendered in terms of an ongoing project to create, critique, and then refashion the categories by which archaeologists understand and explain social and ecological processes. Despite ever-changing theoretical tides, many archaeologists have continued to adhere to a lingua franca that demarcates their object of study, whether "the past," "nature," complexity, material culture, or historical knowledge. In 2018, strong currents in archaeological scholarship have both challenged and washed out the boundaries of many of these epistemological mainstays. This was more than a postmodern exercise to question metanarratives of history or to destabilize supposed social universals. The recent scholarship develops innovative theoretical perspectives and sophisticated methodological tools to shed light on the varied human interactions, practices, and projects that were previously occluded by research too sharply focused on bounded categories such as periods, polities, adaptations, and meanings. Furthermore, archaeologists are now more than ever critically examining the colonial institutions that they perpetuate and seeking to establish new common ground with Indigenous communities. A decidedly archaeological perspective seems to be taking shape.This is a view that sees social life from the ground up in terms of complicated relationships between people, things, and other organisms that cannot be reduced to catchall categories. [year in review, archaeology, archaeological theory, current issues, Indigenous archaeology, environmental anthropology] RESUMEN La arqueología antropológica ha sido durante mucho tiempo un proceso de categorización. La historia de la subdisciplina podría ser descrita en términos de un proyecto continuo de crear, criticar y luego rehacer las categorías a través de las cuales los arqueólogos entienden y explican los procesos sociales y ecológicos. A pesar de las mareas teóricas siempre cambiantes, muchos arqueólogos han continuado adhiriéndose a una lengua franca que demarca su objeto de estudio, ya sea "el pasado", "naturaleza", complejidad, cultura material o conocimiento histórico.En 2018, corrientes fuertes en la investigación arqueológica han tanto retado como difuminado los límites de muchos de los pilares epistemológicos. Esto fue más que un ejercicio posmoderno para cuestionar metanarrativas de la historia o para desestabilizar supuestos universales sociales. La reciente investigación desarrolla perspectivas teóricas innovadoras y herramientas metodológicas sofisticadas para arrojar luz sobre las variadas interacciones humanas, prácticas y proyectos que estuvieron previamente ocluidos por investigación excesivamente enfocada en categorías delimitadas tales como períodos, unidades políticas, adaptaciones y significados. Además, los arqueólogos ahora están más que nunca examinando críticamente las instituciones coloniales que perpetúan y buscando establecer un nuevo terreno común con las c...

show abstract

“…The latter works analyse, for example, Western environmental anxieties, or how Western climate discourses were used to justify colonialism and racism, without analysing how colonialism or imperialism impacted on climate and environment (Beattie, 2003; Carey, 2012). Meanwhile, archaeologists have promoted ‘an explicit study of archaeologies of empire and environment’, advancing theories and methods that demonstrate how environmental practices articulate people's relationships to imperial authority (Rosenzweig & Marston, 2018); and analysing empires as ‘ecosystem engineers’ (Morrison, 2018a). Increasingly, the historically intersecting tales of climate and imperialism are being rigorously told or methodologically set up for future study (Endfield & Randalls, 2014; Mahony & Endfield, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global histories of empire and climate in the Anthropocene

Gattey

2021

History Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The scientific consensus on the causes of climate change has galvanised global history in the Anthropocene. Within this expanding subfield, however, many historians have afforded imperialism too little explanatory power. This reticence is partly attributable to the intellectual formation of the discipline itself, which long severed human from natural history. It is also due to the paleo‐biological scale of climate change and the related propagation of ‘species history’ by Dipesh Chakrabarty. Obscuring global asymmetries in responsibility for climate change, this approach has deflected attention from the intersections of imperialism and environmental degradation. This article surveys the historiography and methodological challenges of climate change, Chakrabarty's influence on Anthropocene scholarship, and critical responses by global historians. It also summarises recent global histories which have closely analysed the interconnections between empire and climate change, indicating a tipping point in global environmental historiography. These studies reveal intimate, necessarily longue durée linkages between the industrialisation, fossil‐fuel combustion, and exploitative socio‐political structures underpinning both imperialism and climate change.

show abstract

Archaeologies of empire and environment

Cited by 14 publications

References 128 publications

Local Production and Developing Core Regions: Ceramic Characterization in the Lake Pátzcuaro Basin, Western Mexico

Local Production and Developing Core Regions: Ceramic Characterization in the Lake Pátzcuaro Basin, Western Mexico

New Digs: Networks, Assemblages, and the Dissolution of Binary Categories in Anthropological Archaeology

Global histories of empire and climate in the Anthropocene

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About