Biological continuity between the A- and C-groups in lower Nubia: Evidence from cranial non-metric traits

Data are presented on 45 cranial non-metric traits in skeletal samples of the Lower Nubian A-Group (ca. 3100–2500 BC) and C-Group (ca. 2000–1500 BC) cultural periods. Results, based on the mean measure of divergence statistic, reveal biological continuity, consistent with interpretations of in situ evolution as opposed to models of discontinuity resulting from gene flow. Any differences between the A-and C-Group cultural phases that may be evident in the archaeological record are therefore more likely the result of local cultural evolution, rather than the introduction of new ideas, customs, and materials through the migration of a new population into this area. The problem of small samples necessitates that our results be accepted cautiously.     

Dental morphological evidence for biological continuity between the A-group and C-group periods in lower Nubia

Data are presented on non-metric dental morphological traits in skeletal samples from the Lower Nubian A-Group (ca. 3100–2500 BC) and C-Group (ca. 2000–1500 BC) cultural periods. In order to examine possible biological differentiation between these two periods, their trait frequencies were analysed using the mean measure of divergence statistic. Results indicate biological continuity, consistent with in situ evolution, although the problem of small samples requires that these results be accepted with caution. Although the diffusion of ideas or material culture into the area through military and trade contacts is likely, any archaeologically observable cultural differences between these two phases are more consistent with local cultural evolution than with the importation of a new cultural system through the migration of a foreign population into the area. The timing of a population replacement in ancient Nubia that has been identified by other scholars should now be sought either before the A-Group period or after the C-Group.     

Who Counts? Dilemmas of Justice in a Postwestphalian World

Abstract: Who counts as a subject of justice? Not so long ago, it was widely assumed that those “who counted” were simply the citizens of a bounded territorial state. Today, however, as activists target injustices that cut across borders, that “Westphalian” view is contested and the “who” of justice is an object of hot dispute. This new situation calls for a new kind of justice theorizing, whose contours I sketch in this essay. Arguing, first, for a reflexive mode of theorizing, I introduce the concept of “misframing”, which can subject the Westphalian “who” to critical scrutiny. Arguing, second, for the necessity of a substantive normative principle to evaluate competing “who’s”, I introduce the “all‐subjected principle” as superior to three better known alternatives: namely, membership, humanism, and the all‐affected principle.     

Immigrant "Illegality" as Neoliberal Governmentality in Leadville, Colorado

Abstract:  In this paper, I frame immigrant "illegality" as a local-scale technique of neoliberal governmentality. Drawing on recent work of anthropologists, I present illegality as a racialized, spatialized social condition which operates as governmentality by marginalizing and criminalizing immigrants, loosening the US border and forcing it into local spaces, and impacting immigrants' everyday lives and mobility. The paper then draws on a case study of Leadville, Colorado, to illustrate the utility of this framework. In Leadville, we see how through illegality neoliberalism seeps through scales. Illegality disciplines immigrant labor in service of the neoliberal order, turns all residents into surveillers of immigrants' subordinate sociospatial position, and masks contradictions within neoliberalism that arise particularly at the local scale. I argue that conceptualizing illegality as a governmentality technique provides a powerful tool for understanding changing state spatiality, especially ways in which neoliberalism is diffused and embedded into local economic, political, and social processes.     

Rubber Erasures,Rubber Producing Rights: Making Racialized Territories in West Kalimantan,Indonesia

This article makes connections between often‐disparate literatures on property, violence and identity, using the politics of rubber growing in West Kalimantan, Indonesia, as an example. It shows how rubber production gave rise to territorialities associated with and productive of ethnic identities, depending on both the political economies and cultural politics at play in different moments. What it meant to be Chinese and Dayak in colonial and post‐colonial Indonesia, as well as how categories of subjects and citizens were configured in the two respective periods, differentially affected both the formal property rights and the means of access to rubber and land in different parts of West Kalimantan. However, incremental changes in shifting rubber production practices were not the only means of producing territory and ethnicity. The author argues that violence ultimately played a more significant role in erasing prior identity‐based claims and establishing the controls of new actors over trees and land and their claims to legitimate access or ‘rightfulness’. Changing rubber production practices and reconfigurations of racialized territories and identity‐based property rights are all implicated in hiding the violence.