Maisons Tropicales/Maisons Coloniales: contesting technologies of authenticity and value in Niamey,Brazzaville, Paris,New York and Venice

This article draws on multi-sited anthropological fieldwork to analyse institutional practices of producing cultural authenticity and value under conditions of globalization. It focuses on the ‘re-discovery’ of three so-called Maisons Tropicales as modern architectural heritage in Niamey and Brazzaville. These prototypes of a colonial building project were subsequently translocated, commoditized and displayed as modern works of art in Paris and New York. The article describes the global connections and disconnections between the actors involved, claiming that the alternative practices of appropriating the Maisons Tropicales rely on competing and conflicting technologies of authenticity and value. Adding to scholarship on exchanges of material culture, as well as on the production of cultural authenticity and value, the article reframes debates in heritage studies pertaining to the ethics of site-specificity, material integrity, and integrity of place; preservation, conservation, and restoration; restitution and repatriation; as well as questions of cultural identity and the notion of a ‘shared’ colonial heritage. Ultimately, the article re-contextualizes the Maisons Tropicales in their (post-)colonial legacies. It concludes that critical interjections by artists and ethnographers suggest potential to reassemble the dominant technologies of authenticity and value in the fields of art and heritage preservation.     

The Gibeonite Deception: Reflections on the Interplay between Law and Narrative in Josh 9

The paper relates the redaction history of Josh 9 to the development of legal concepts in Deuteronomy and beyond. It shows that the earliest version of the text provided an impartial portrayal of a peace treaty between Gibeon and Israel, which prepared for the events recounted in Josh 10. After the emergence of the law of ?ērem (Deut 20,15-18), this original version of Josh 9 implied an open contradiction to Deuteronomy’s warfare legislation. As a result, a first Deuteronomistic editor (D 1) introduced the idea that the Gibeonites had tricked the Israelites into making a covenant and thus saved their lives with deceit. At this stage of the literary development, the prohibition of making a covenant with the inhabitants of the land (e.g. Deut 7,2) was not in view yet. Compared to the ?ērem, the respective prohibition represents a later stage in the development of the legal material (perhaps triggered by the D 1 version of Josh 9). It is only reflected in a second Deuteronomistic layer (D 2) of the chapter, which should afterwards receive one more major editorial reworking by a priestly hand.