人文科学最新文献

The discovery of green-fractured mammoth bone in Owl Cave in the 1970s inspired the original investigators to focus primarily on the possible association between these remains and Folsom points recovered from the same stratum. With the Museum of Idaho's recent acquisition of the complete Owl Cave collection, we have gained a better understanding of the periglacial processes that appear to have displaced and mixed mammoth remains with a younger Folsom component. New efforts to date bison bone also recovered from the lowest levels of the cave have produced radiocarbon dates that fall within the accepted age range of Folsom technology. These results have prompted efforts to investigate the potential for an association between the lithic assemblage and bison, a scenario that is much more plausible given our current understanding of the Folsom archaeological record.

This article focuses on the intellectual efforts made by a South African activist named Alice Kinloch, one of the first people to openly criticize the violence perpetrated against black mineworkers in Kimberley's compound system, at the end of nineteenth century. In the first section, we focus on Alice Kinloch's early life, her involvement in early Pan-Africanism in Britain, and the beginning of her efforts to denounce the compound system. In section two, we shift our analysis to the interaction between missionaries working in the compounds, and the colonialist discourse on “civilizing the natives”. As representatives of the Christian faith, in which Alice Kinloch also was brought up, missionaries play a central role in her critique, which takes aim at their collaboration, as Christians, with a system of racist violence that, in Kinloch's eyes, had nothing to do with the “civilization” it claimed to bring. The conclusions Alice Kinloch drew on observing the compound system were published in Manchester in 1897. In the third section we dive into her pamphlet Are South African Diamonds Worth Their Cost?, in which she condemned the hypocrisy inherent in the compound system and laments its effects on the black mineworkers subjected to a horrible regime.

For over a century, scholars have debated the merits of two competing theories for the origins of money. The commodity theory of money has traditionally held that money developed as a medium of exchange in order to increase the economic efficiency of barter economies. Alternatively, chartalist explanations have given causal primacy to the role of state taxation in standardizing money as a unit of account. Recently, skepticism over the existence of barter economies in either contemporary societies or ancient history has led to the increased popularity of the state-centric chartalist approach. Evidence from many pre-state societies around the world, however, shows that commodity money was often used in long-distance trade networks where systems of debt and reciprocity would have been impractical. This paper draws on evidence from two such exchange systems, the “interior world” of pre-Columbian western North America and the Bronze Age of western Europe, to argue that money can come about to facilitate exchange between strangers and across borders. As such, I suggest that the commodity theory of money is more accurately explained by the importance of exchange in external rather than internal economic systems. I propose that a trade theory of money can explain the origins of money in pre-state societies without relying on the “myth of barter”.

Social power establishes and legitimizes actions for individuals within a society who accept the structures that create that power. Differences in power can develop without strict hierarchies, however. Here, we explore the power differences among groups living in the Mimbres Mogollon region of southwestern New Mexico using bioarchaeological data and a case study from the Harris site, a Late Pithouse period village occupied circa AD 550–1000. Aspects of mortuary practices and supporting archaeological data offer nuanced interpretations of individuals with situational power linked to social practices that both solidified and maintained power by particular households. The power differences documented here are not based on coercion; instead, they are tied to cooperation and engagement with the community. For small-scale communities such as Harris, situational power is interpreted for individuals with access to prime agricultural land and/or ritual, or by association with certain land-holding lineages. This system is consistent with a heterarchical structure that embraced flexibility in the use of power.