Affiliation:
1. ISAW , New York University , 15 East 84th St. , New York , 10028 NY , USA
2. Dept. of Humanities , University of Pavia , P.za del Lino 2, 27100 Pavia , Italy
Abstract
Abstract
Over the last twenty years, due to the growing concern with the human-environment relationship in the contemporary world as well as in the study of the ancient world, Resilience Theory (RT) has been adopted and adapted from the study of ecosystems to the study of stress dynamics within socio-political systems. The adaptation is indebted to the seminal work of Holling and Gunderson (2002. “Resilience and Adaptive Cycles.” In Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems, edited by L. H. Gunderson, and C. S. Holling, 25–62. Washington, DC: Island Press), reviewed recently for application in archaeology in a volume edited by Faulseit (2016b. “Collapse, Resilience, and Transformation in Complex Societies: Modeling Trends and Understanding Diversity.” In Beyond Collapse: Archaeological Perspectives on Resilience, Revitalization, and Transformation in Complex Societies, edited by R. K. Faulseit, 3–26. Visiting Scholar Conference Volumes. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press). While social scientists, anthropologists and archaeologists interested in system theories have welcomed this new interpretative tool for the study of rapid change in socio-political systems, RT has been considered unsatisfactory and substantially rejected by several scholars in the humanities because of the lack of freedom and intention assigned to human actors. After a short presentation of these premises, the paper seeks to affirm a different model for a social cycle of formation-growth-maturity-release, in which resilience is only one among a number of possible outcomes of the release phase, depending on the collective/political choice/orientation of a society. Put simply, the new model suggests reorganization and transformation as two alternative outcomes alternative to resilience. The model is applied to the case study of the Late Bronze Age (LBA) – Early Iron Age (EIA) transition in Anatolia and north Syria, corresponding to the time of the fall and aftermath of the Hittite empire. It will be shown that the adoption of the model offers a productive interpretive key to understand different outcomes in the new fragmented reality.
Reference108 articles.
1. Adams, R. M. 1978. “Strategies of Maximization, Stability, and Resilience in Mesopotamian Society, Settlement, and Agriculture.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 122 (5): 329–35.
2. Adcock, S. E. 2022. “Collapse, Complexity, and Caprines: Zooarchaeological Investigations of the Hittite State and Its Afters.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 68: 101465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2022.101465.
3. Allcock, S. L. 2013. “Living with a Changing Landscape: Holocene Climate Variability and Socio-Evolutionary Trajectories, Central Anatolia.” PhD thesis. Plymouth, UK: Pkymouth University.
4. Anderson, D. G. 1994. The Savannah River Chiefdoms: Political Change in the Late Prehistoric Southeast. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
5. Asad, T. (2003). Formations of the Secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity. Cultural Memory in the Present. Stanford University Press, Stanford, Calif.
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献