WHAT I BELIEVE ABOUT THE USEFUL DIVERSITY OF THEORY IN SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY

Theory is crucial but has become boring and unintelligible; it is often ignored by most professionals. Archaeology must include a foundation of culture history, processual science, and postprocessual imagination and counteraction of bias. Further, all archaeology should aim for public aspects and practical applications. Theoretical writing must be clear and avoid pretension. Gender bias in Southeastern archaeology is one of the worst distortions of the prehistoric record for what were probably matrilineal societies. Diverse humanistic approaches from many (including non-archaeological) viewpoints can provide worthwhile avenues for investigation with new scientific tools. Narrow interpretive frameworks should be avoided in favor of the delightful banquet of multiple simultaneous or blended approaches.     

Electoral Behavior in the Russian Far East, 1995-2000: Contextual and Compositional Effects

A group of political scientists specializing in Russia's post-Soviet electoral behavior explores the question of whether genuinely regional effects of voting behavior can be discerned (and at what scale) by controlling for variations in compositional characteristics measured by aggregate social and economic data. The paper seeks to identify situations in which contextual effects may be operating, using a scale of analysis that is intermediate between regional (oblast)-level case studies and nationwide surveys—that of the Russian Far East macroregion. Journal of Economic Literature, Classification Numbers: H10, O50, Z10. 4 tables, 40 references, 1 appendix.     

Citizens and soldiers: party competition and the debate in Pennsylvania over permitting soldiers to vote, 1861–64

Political historians of the Civil War era frequently downplay the role of the Democratic Party. Studies of the Democrats in wartime often describe the loyal opposition as able to do little more than react to the policies of the Republicans in power. This has been particularly true regarding the debate over whether or not soldiers should be allowed to vote. Most historians assume that Republicans supported permitting soldiers to vote because it was the patriotic, ‘right’ thing to do, and that Democrats then opposed soldier voting because soldier suffrage bills were Republican war measures and because the Democrats believed the Union army would vote overwhelmingly Republican. In point of fact, the Democrats developed their arguments against soldier voting before the Republicans developed their position in favor of it. Moreover, the Democratic position was rooted in deeply held beliefs, dating back to seventeenth‐century England. Democrats opposed permitting soldiers to vote because they believed soldier voting would destroy the republican liberty of American citizens.