Archaeology as Ethnobiology
Archaeology as Ethnobiology
复制标题
作为民族生物学的考古学
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2016
影响因子：
2.9
通讯作者：
Steve Wolverton
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lisa Nagaoka;Steve Wolverton
对于那些对环境考古学、人类生态学、地理学和其他过去有助于研究人与环境相互作用的领域交叉感兴趣的人来说，民族生物学提供了一个有趣的学术家园。民族生物学与考古学有关的一个重要特征是，它欢迎研究过去的人类-环境关系或古民族生物学。从一开始，《民族生物学杂志》就发表了关于古环境、狩猎采集生态学、动物考古学、孢粉学、生物分类和分类学等不同主题的论文。古民族生物学的研究提供了哲学家阿尔伯特·博格曼(Albert Borgmann)(2000)所说的揭示视角，这意味着对人与环境相互作用的感知的时间维度远远超出了人的一生。这种知觉的伸展很可能对构成人们环境伦理的价值观产生重要影响，环境伦理被定义为一种价值体系，用于选择如何与世界相联系地生活(例如，Rolston 1988；见Wolverton and Lyman 2012)。民族生物学对动物考古学家、考古植物学家、考古化学家和其他环境考古学家来说是一个受欢迎的学术社区，原因有两个。首先，该领域的定义侧重于主题：人、生物群和环境。因此，在从个体到景观的研究中，民族生物学家可以很容易地接受一些与生物和文化多样性有关的时间和地理尺度以及主题。其次，没有单一的方法来研究民族生物学；相反，学者们认识到民族生物学研究的类型是多样的，并且已经演变(Clement 1998；Hunn 2007；Wyndham等人)。2011年)。相比之下，在过去的半个世纪里，考古学中关于方法和理论的争论一直很激烈。美国主义考古学有一个主导范式的历史，导致它目前的不同状态，包括过程和后过程方法(见O‘Brien等人对这一历史的总结)。2005)。考古学一直在修改自己的定义，以考古研究应该如何进行为中心。这一趋势最明显的表现是菲利普·菲利普斯(1955：246-247)著名的法令，即“考古学要么是人类学，要么什么都不是。”在此之前，沃尔特·泰勒(Walter Taylor)(1948)对描述性文化史进行了拆解，随后刘易斯·宾福德(Lewis Binford)(1962)强烈表示考古学是人类学。人类学人类学的观点继续主导着这一领域，围绕着描述成为考古学家的适当方式的考古学定义。关于它意味着什么的争论大大减少了
For those who are interested in the intersections of environmental archaeology, human ecology, geography, and other fields that contribute to the study of human-environment interactions in the past, ethnobiology provides an intriguing scholarly home. An important feature of ethnobiology that relates to archaeology is that it welcomes the study of past human-environment relationships or paleoethnobiology. From its very beginning, the Journal of Ethnobiology has published papers on paleoenvironments, hunter-gatherer ecology, zooarchaeology, palynology, biological classification and taxonomy, and other diverse topics. Studies in paleoethnobiology offer what philosopher Albert Borgmann (2000) calls a disclosive perspective, meaning that the temporal dimension of perception of human-environmental interactions is stretched well beyond that of a person’s lifetime. This perceptual stretching likely has an important influence on the values that frame people’s environmental ethic, defined as a system of values for making choices about how to live in relation to the world (e.g., Rolston 1988; see Wolverton and Lyman 2012). There are two reasons why ethnobiology is a welcoming scholarly community for zooarchaeologists, archaeobotanists, archaeological chemists, and other environmental archaeologists. First, the field’s definition focuses on subject matter: people, biota, and environments. Thus, the ethnobiologist can easily embrace a number of temporal and geographic scales and subjects related to biological and cultural diversity, in studies ranging from individuals to landscapes. Second, there is no single way to do ethnobiology; rather, scholars recognize that types of ethnobiological research are diverse and have evolved (Clement 1998; Hunn 2007; Wyndham et al. 2011). By contrast, debates on method and theory have raged for the last half century in archaeology. Americanist archaeology has a history of dominant paradigms leading up to its current diverse state including processual and postprocessual approaches (see summary of this history in O’Brien et al. 2005). Archaeology has consistently revised its definitions to center on how archaeological research ought to be done. The clearest expression of this tendency was Philip Phillips (1955:246–247) famous edict that ‘‘archaeology is anthropology or it is nothing,’’ preceded by Walter Taylor’s (1948) dismantling of descriptive cultural history and followed by Lewis Binford’s (1962) strong statement that archaeology is anthropology. The perspective of anthropological anthropology continues to dominate the field, centering on definitions of archaeology that describe the proper way to be an archaeologist. There is considerably less debate about what it means to