Explore the vast range of titles available.

Archaeology and anthropology, despite their commonalities, have had a rather asymmetrical relationship, and the periodic attempts at closer collaboration resulted in mutual frustration. As both disciplines have recently undergone significant changes, however, with anthropology embracing more fully materiality and historicity, and archaeology engaging in contemporary research, often involving ethnography, the time is ripe for a new rapprochement. Archaeological ethnography, an emerging transdisciplinary field, offers such an opportunity. Archaeological ethnography is defined here as a transcultural space for multiple encounters, conversations, and interventions, involving researchers from various disciplines and diverse publics, and centered around materiality and temporality. It is multitemporal rather than presentist, and although many of its concerns to date are about clashes over heritage, this article argues that its potential is far greater because it can dislodge the certainties of conventional archaeology and question its ontological principles, such as those founded on modernist, linear, and successive temporality.

Anthropology has two tasks: the scientific task of studying human beings and the instrumental task of promoting human flourishing. To date, the scientific task has been constrained by secularism, and the instrumental task by the philosophy and values of liberalism. These constraints have caused religiously based scholarship to be excluded from anthropology’s discourse, to the detriment of both tasks. The call for papers for the 2009 meetings of the American Anthropological Association (AAA) recognized the need to “push the field’s epistemological and presentational conventions” in order to reach anthropology’s various publics. Religious thought has much to say about the human condition. It can expand the discourse in ways that provide explanatory value as well as moral purpose and hope. We propose an epistemology of witness for dialogue between anthropologists and theologians, and we demonstrate the value added with an example: the problem of violence.

Social evolution can be defined as the appearance of new forms of social or sociopolitical organization. In the case of the prehistoric record, such changes are perhaps most successfully studied when archaeologists collaborate with ethnologists or ethnohistorians. Although ethnologists can provide unequaled detail on agents and institutions, many evolutionary transitions took longer than any ethnologist's lifetime. The archaeological record therefore provides an important proving ground for evolutionary theory. In this review, I synthesize some of the evidence supporting social evolution from both Old World and New World archaeology. I also argue that for the study of social evolution to advance, the field of anthropology must be willing to generalize; to compare and contrast cultures from different parts of the world; and to search for common patterns in the ways human societies responded to similar challenges.

Anthropologists' selections of topics and field sites have often been shaped by militarism, but they have been slow to make militarism, especially American militarism, an object of study. In the high Cold War years concerns about human survival were refracted into debates about innate human proclivities for violence or peace. As \"new wars\" with high civilian casualty rates emerged in Africa, Central America, the former Eastern bloc, and South Asia, beginning in the 1980s anthropologists increasingly wrote about terror, torture, death squads, ethnic cleansing, guerilla movements, and the memory work inherent in making war and peace. Anthropologists have also begun to write about nuclear weapons and American militarism. The \"war on terror\" has disturbed settled norms that anthropologists should not assist counterinsurgency campaigns, and for the first time since Vietnam, anthropologists are debating the merits of military anthropology versus critical ethnography of the military.

Linguistic anthropological theories and methods have enriched our understanding of education. Almost all education is mediated by language, and linguistic anthropologists use both precise linguistic analyses and powerful anthropological theories to describe how educational language use establishes important social relations. Because educational institutions influence processes of concern to anthropologists—including the production of differentially valued identities, the circulation and transformation of cultural models, and nation states' establishment of official peoples—linguistic anthropological research on education also contributes to cultural and linguistic anthropology more generally. This article defines linguistic anthropology through its focus on language form, use, ideology, and domain, and it reviews linguistic anthropological research that focuses on these four aspects of educational language use.

This article provides a critical review of the multiple modernities paradigm used in anthropology today. The article also indicates how the work of anthropologists intersects with social theory and historical sociology. It will be argued that by pointing to multiple or alternative modernities in attempts to liberate' modernity from its Eurocentric, modernistic connotations, anthropologists re-inject modernity itself with new value. It will be questioned whether this is ultimately a meaningful strategy. With reference to certain branches of social theory, the article develops a position from which the multiple modernities paradigm may be readdressed. This position is based upon a recognition of the particularity of European modernity, and its defining characteristic: a continuous stress on transformation and transgression, a state of ' permanent liminality'. Cet article se veut une revue critique des multiples paradigmes de la modernité employés aujourd'hui en anthropologie. Il souligne également les intersections entre le travail des anthropologues, la théorie sociale et la sociologie historique. L'auteur avance qu'en pointant les modernités multiples ou alternatives dans les tentatives de « libérer » la modernité de ses connotations eurocentriques et modernistes, les anthropologues donnent une nouvelle valeur à la modernité elle-même. On se demandera si cette stratégie peut, en définitive, avoir un sens. Faisant référence à certaines branches de la théorie sociale, l'article développe une position à partir de laquelle il serait possible de revisiter le paradigme des modernités multiples. Cette position se base sur la reconnaissance de la spécificité de la modernité européenne et sur la caractéristique qui la définit : l'accent constamment mis sur la transformation et la transgression, un état de « liminalité permanente ».

Both qualitative concepts and quantitative methods from evolutionary biology have been applied to linguistics. Many linguists have noted the similarity between biological evolution and language change, but usually have employed only selective analogies or metaphors. The development of generalized theories of evolutionary change (Dawkins and Hull) has spawned models of language change on the basis of such generalized theories. These models have led to the positing of new mechanisms of language change and new types of selection that may not have biological parallels. Quantitative methods have been applied to questions of language phylogeny in the past decade. Research has focused on widely accepted families with cognates already established by the comparative method (Indo-European, Bantu, Austronesian). Increasingly sophisticated phylogeny reconstruction models have been applied to these families to resolve questions of subgrouping, contact, and migration. Little progress has been made so far in analyzing sound correspondences in the cognates themselves.