Henry ‘the Navigator’

Infante Dom Henrique of Portugal, better known as Henry the Navigator, has enjoyed much attention from historians and public alike. Past writers have elevated him to an icon of chivalry and Portuguese national spirit, or, because of his impact on the early overseas expansion, ascribed to him a Promethean role in the rise of modernity. The works of Sir Peter E. Russell, including his new biography Henry ‘the Navigator’: a life (New Haven, 2000), have made a great contribution to separating the historical Dom Henrique from his ‘culture hero’ counterpart, Henry the Navigator. They represent a key point of departure for new research, which will need to focus on placing Dom Henrique in the context of his times and his contemporaries. Thanks to the dramatic advances that have taken place over the last twenty years in the historiography of late medieval Portugal and of the early European overseas expansion, as well as in the prosopography of the Iberian nobility, it is now possible to aspire to an in-depth contextualization of Dom Henrique's life and career. It is likewise possible to exploit much more fully the existing primary sources, both published and unpublished. The foundation now exists for an histoire totale approach to Dom Henrique, an undertaking called for by Vitorino Magalhães Godinho in his comprehensive 1990 program of research on the Portuguese overseas expansion.     

华翰维(Henry T.Wright)教授访谈录

华翰维(Henry Tutwiler Wright III)为美国著名考古学家,现任美国密西根大学人类学系教授。早在1962年,华翰维已成为美国考古学会会员。1964年,他本科毕业于密西根大学人类学系,随后在芝加哥大学获人类学硕士学位(1965年)和博士学位(1967年)。毕业后,华翰维先后任密西根大学人类学系助理教授(1967年-1971年)、副教授(1971年-1976年)、教授(1976年-),密西根大学人类学系Albert C.Spaulding学院教授(2001年-2007年)、Albert C.Spaulding学院杰出教授(2007年-),圣达菲研究所教授(2002年-),密西根大学人类学博物馆馆员(1967年-)、博物馆馆长(1988年-1991年)。华翰维教授现兼任马达加斯加塔那那利佛大学考古艺术博物馆研究员(1975年-今)、西非不列颠研究所会员(1980年-今)、美国麦克阿瑟协会会员(1993年-1998年)、圣达菲研究所科学指导委员会委员(1995年-今)、圣达菲研究所成员(1998年-今)、英国东非学会会员、英国剑桥大学麦克唐纳考古研究所讲师(2009年)、山东大学立青考古访问教授(2011年-今)等。华翰维教授所获荣誉和奖励有:麦克阿瑟天才奖(1993年-1998年);美国国家科学院院士(1994年-);美国考古学会(A.I.A.)杰出成就金奖(2009年);美国考古学会终身成就奖(2013年)。华翰维教授有丰富的田野考古经验。20世纪60年代以来,他先后在美国密西根、阿帕拉契亚、切萨皮克、安纳波利斯、俄亥俄河谷,法国多尔多涅,伊拉克乌尔,伊朗德鲁让平原、扎格罗斯山、苏萨,土耳其安纳托利亚,墨西哥奥哈卡,马达加斯加,肯尼亚,埃及,叙利亚,中国河南、云南,山东,蒙古国阿尔泰等国家主持或参与考古调查发掘。1975年以来,长期致力于非洲马达加斯加的考古和研究。华翰维教授对当代考古学的理论建树有重要贡献。他是社会复杂化研究的奠基者,率先提出社会复杂化、三级聚落、四级聚落等关键概念和理论模式。在酋邦理论的研究领域有重要影响。华翰维教授研究成果丰硕,其代表作有:《马达加斯加中部早期国家形成:塔那那利佛西部考古调查》(Early State Formation in Central Madagascar:An Archaeological Survey of Western Avaradrano);密西根大学人类学博物馆,2007;《美索不达米亚早期城镇的农业生产管理》(The Administration of Rural Production in an Early Mesopotamian Town),密西根大学人类学博物馆人类学论文,38:162p.1969;《国家起源新探》(Recent Reserach on the Origin of the State),《人类学年度综述》(Annual Review of Anthropology),6:379-397,1977;《科摩罗群岛的早期航海者》(Early Seafarers of the Comoro Islands),《阿扎尼亚》(Azania),19:13-59,1984;《叙利亚东部前陶新石器遗址》(Prepottery Neolithic sites in Eastern Syria),《上古东方》(Paleorient),31/2:167-172.,2006;《伊朗西南部的人口、交换和早期国家的形成》(Population,Exchange and Early State Formation in Southwestern Iran),(with G.A.Johnson),《美国人类学家》(American Anthropologist),77:267-289,1975;《肯尼亚巴林戈地区罗博伊平原初步调查》(Preliminary Investigation on the Loboi Plain,Baringo District,Kenya),(with W.Farrand,R.Redding and M.H.Wolpoff),《密西根大学人类学博物馆科技报告No.4》,安纳堡,1976;《盖内遗址:大湖地区古印地安器物群的变化》(The Gainey Site:Variability in a Great Lakes Paleo-Indian Assemblage),(with D.B.Simons and M.Shott),《东北美考古》(Archaeology of Eastern North America),12:266-279,1984;《德鲁让平原的早期聚落和灌溉:伊朗西南部村落和早期国家社会》(Early Settlement and Irrigation on the Deh Luran Plain:Village and Early State Societies in Southwestern Iran),(with J.Neely),《密西根大学人类学博物馆科技报告No.26》,1994,等数百篇学术论文。     

“Printed in the seventh year of the authors oppression”: debt,imprisonment, and the radicalization of Henry Adis

ABSTRACT

This paper examines the prison writings of Henry Adis. Writing from prison in the mid-seventeenth century, Adis rejects the status quo of the changing political regimes and develops a radicalized narrative persona that evolves throughout his prison writings, evolving from that of petitioning debtor to that of aggressive polemicist. This paper considers the effects of imprisonment on Adis’ polemic and then suggests that Adis’ radicalization is a response to a conflict with what he sees as a broken criminal justice system rather than a response to the emerging political and religious tensions that accompanied the Interregnum. Adis’ prison writings illustrate how the the seventeenth-century carceral experience could be formative to the counter-political movements of the period as much as a punitive measure against dissent.     

Henry Mayhew at 200 – the ‘Other’ Victorian Bicentenary

The New Agenda introduction puts forward the case for a much-needed revision of the scholarship devoted to Henry Mayhew – journalist and wit, playwright, co-founder of Punch, educational writer, novelist for children, travel writer, hack, social explorer and author of London Labour and the London Poor. It argues for a more intertextual and contextual reading of his major and minor works, and presents the articles contained in this new agenda special issue. The complex publishing history of Henry Mayhew's work and of London Labour and the London Poor in particular are explored in part one. The second part surveys the scholarship so far devoted to Mayhew and sketches out a new agenda for research based on a wider intratextual and intertextual approach to Mayhew's corpus. It is time, the introduction urges, for Victorianists to revisit Henry Mayhew.     

The Ethnologist’s Kitchen: Lewis Henry Morgan and the Aztecs

In 1876, The North American Review published ‘Montezuma’s dinner,’ Lewis Henry Morgan’s devastating review of Hubert Howe Bancroft’s second volume of Native Races of the Pacific States. Morgan, who believed that Aztec social organization mimicked that of the tribes of the Great Lakes he had studied closely, sought to dispute the historical accounts of pre-conquest societies proposed by Romantic historians such as William H. Prescott. Morgan’s case against Bancroft and Prescott rested on the still well-entrenched notion that Spanish eyewitness accounts of the Conquest were a weak foundation on which to reconstruct Aztec political and social structures. Even as Morgan’s views on the Nahuas became discredited, ‘Montezuma’s dinner’ continued to be read and referenced, which may have prompted historian Charles Gibson to dispel its inaccuracies and preconceptions once and for all. Although Morgan’s review cannot teach us much about Nahua social organization or dining habits, it nevertheless represents a significant and overlooked chapter in the debate about historical evidence (including written sources and artifacts) that accompanied the configuration of history and ethnology as disciplines.