A Levantine Archaeological Response: Thinking with Bourdieu though Limited Data and Explicit Assumptions

Helen Dixon

doi:10.1515/jah-2024-0021

Article

A Levantine Archaeological Response: Thinking with Bourdieu though Limited Data and Explicit Assumptions

Published/Copyright: December 3, 2024

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal Journal of Ancient History Volume 12 Issue 2

Abstract

This article is part of a special issue of the Journal of Ancient History, “Social Biographies of the Ancient World.” It serves as response paper whose purpose is to identify a core question underlying the three case studies in this special issue: does Bourdieu’s field theory help us to understand how people made decisions in the ancient world, given that its predictive capabilities will necessarily be limited by the information we have? To explore this question, the idea of “using theory” as a method is engaged, comparing premodern applications of Bourdieu’s core concepts to the limits of the scientific “theory of evolution.” A brief assessment of the strengths of the case studies in this special issue is followed by an articulation of several resulting take-aways: (i) the value of the concepts of field, capital, and habitus in focusing on our data and its limits, rather than academic ideologies; (ii) the importance of articulating each scholarly assumption explicitly as we apply these concepts; (iii) the recognition that we can use Bourdieu to reveal new interpretive possibilities but not to fill in missing data; and (iv) the productive assumption that each text from the ancient world was the result of an actor(s) leveraging their capital in order to negotiate their perceived optimal position within a field. Together these points illustrate the utility of this issue’s systematic approach to the application of Bourdieu’s field theory in the study of the ancient world.

Keywords: Bourdieu; theory; habitus ; Levant; Near East

Bibliography

Avneri Meir, R., J. Jokiranta and A. Spunaugle. “Functional differentiation in 1 Maccabees: exploring second century BCE Judean society through the character of Jonathan Apphus.” Journal of Ancient History 12 (2024): 281–299.Search in Google Scholar

Benz, F. Personal Names in the Phoenician and Punic Inscriptions. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1972. Search in Google Scholar

Binford, L. “General introduction.” In For Theory Building in Archaeology, edited L. Binford, 1–10. New York: Academic, 1977.Search in Google Scholar

Binford, L. “Mortuary practices: their study and their potential.” Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology 25 (1971): 6–29.10.1017/S0081130000002525Search in Google Scholar

Brubaker, R. “Rethinking classical theory: the sociological vision of Pierre Bourdieu.” In After Bourdieu, edited by D. Swartz and V. Zolberg, 25–64. Dordrecht: Springer, 2004.10.1007/1-4020-2589-0_3Search in Google Scholar

Darby, E. “Can the subaltern’s artifacts speak? Excavating gender in the material culture of ancient Israel.” Unpublished conference paper, Society of Biblical Literature, 2019.Search in Google Scholar

Dianteill, E. “Pierre Bourdieu and the sociology of religion: a central and peripheral concern.” In After Bourdieu, edited by D. Swartz and V. Zolberg, 65–85. Dordrecht: Springer, 2004.10.1007/1-4020-2589-0_4Search in Google Scholar

Egan, M. and P. Tabar. “Bourdieu in Beirut: wasta, the state and social reproduction in Lebanon.” Middle East Critique 25 (2016): 249–270.10.1080/19436149.2016.1168662Search in Google Scholar

Frede, S. Die Phönizischen anthropoiden Sarkophage. 2 vols. Mainz: von Zabern, 2000.Search in Google Scholar

Hammer, D. “Bourdieu, ideology, and the ancient world.” American Journal of Semiotics 22 (2006): 87–108.10.5840/ajs2006221/45Search in Google Scholar

Kletter, R. “In the footsteps of Bagira: ethnicity, archaeology, and ‘Iron Age I ethnic Israel.” Approaching Religion 4 (2014): 2–15.10.30664/ar.67545Search in Google Scholar

Martin, S. The Art of Contact. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2017.Search in Google Scholar

Pfoh, E. “Ancient individuals and Bourdieu in context: a historical anthropological response.” Journal of Ancient History 12 (2024): 326–332.Search in Google Scholar

Puech, É. “Un cratère phénicien inscrit: rites et croyances.” Transeuphratene 8 (1994): 47-73.Search in Google Scholar

Saxe, A. Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices. PhD Dissertation, University of Michigan, 1970.Search in Google Scholar

Silverman, J., J.Töyräänvuori and M. Wasmuth. “Ahatabu and her stela (ÄM 7707): funerary habitus in Achaemenid Egypt.” Journal of Ancient History 12 (2024): 222–280.Search in Google Scholar

Spunaugle, A. “Ancient Near Eastern field theory: adapting Bourdieu for social biographies of the ancient world.” Journal of Ancient History 12 (2024): 204–221.Search in Google Scholar

Wallis, C., A. Aissaoui and N. Nikki. “Falling out with the in-laws. Understanding the Babatha archive with Pierre Bourdieu's field theory and theory of practice.” Journal of Ancient History 12 (2024): 300–325.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2024-12-03

Published in Print: 2024-12-02

You are currently not able to access this content.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/jah-2024-0021

Keywords for this article

Bourdieu; theory; habitus; Levant; Near East