Gardens and fields: the intensity and scale of food production
Gardens and fields: the intensity and scale of food production
复制标题
花园和田野：粮食生产的强度和规模
DOI：
10.1080/004382405000130731
复制
发表时间：
2005
影响因子：
1.3
通讯作者：
M. Veen
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Veen
这一期的标题《花园农业》可能会被认为是不同寻常的，甚至是有争议的；毕竟，这个词往往被用来指在田地里更大规模地种植种子作物，而‘园艺’或‘园艺’指的是在花园里小规模地种植一系列粮食作物。在世界上的一些地方，这种对立似乎是成立的，同时指的是耕种的规模和强度以及所种植的作物的类型或范围。然而，在热带的部分地区，园艺或园艺已经被用作农业的同义词(Harris 1989：19；Denham的论文)；在这里，园艺是主要的实践，花园可能包含野生和驯养的物种。这突出表明，在描述过去的农业系统时，需要明确使用的术语(LEACH，1997)。在试图定义古代农业的背景、性质和规模时，几个相互独立但相互关联的方面发挥了作用：耕作的强度和规模、所种植的植物物种的范围和类型、对不同耕作形式的考古认识以及这些习俗发展和繁荣的社会背景。大多数人会同意，花园比田地更密集地耕种，但自从博塞鲁普关于农业生长条件的开创性工作(1965)以来，考古学家一直在与农业集约化的概念作斗争，错误地将耕作强度的差异等同于农业发展的进化阶段。在人种学研究的基础上，博塞鲁普认为，人口密度的增加导致了耕作强度的增加，随着休耕长度(森林、休耕、灌木休耕、短休耕、一年生作物、复种)的减少，广泛形式的懒散或刀耕火种的农业逐渐变得更加集约化。她提出，随着时间的推移，农业系统从粗放型向集约型转变，一些人认为这意味着农业是沿着单向的进化序列发展的，从广泛的轮作开始。这不是审查博塞鲁普的理论或随后的修改或批评的地方(参见Johnston 2003；LEACH 1999；Morison 1994,1996；Netting 1993)，但重要的是简要指出一些常见的误解。首先，必须指出，轮作农业是一种适应特定生态环境的农业系统，主要分布在潮湿的热带腹地，以确保保持土壤肥力。因此，它不能被视为代表所有农业发展的起点。从生态学上讲，在欧洲和近东等地区尝试和应用这种系统是没有意义的，因为在这些地区，不同的土壤类型和家畜的存在允许不同形式的营养恢复(Rowley-Conwy 1981；Sherratt 1981)。在这个地区，轮作不是一个合适的策略。此外，考古证据表明
The title of this issue, Garden Agriculture, may be regarded as unusual or even contentious; after all, the term 'agriculture' tends to be used to refer to larger-scale cultivation of seed crops in fields, while 'horticulture' or 'gardening' refers to small-scale cultivation of a range of food plants in gardens. In some parts of the world this opposition seems valid, referring simultaneously to the scale and intensity of cultivation and the type or range of crops cultivated. In parts of the tropics, however, the term horticulture, or gardening, has come to be used as a synonym for agriculture (Harris 1989: 19; paper by Denham); here garden cultivation is the dominant practice and gardens may contain both wild and domesticated species. What this highlights is the need for clarity in the terminology used when describing past agricultural systems (Leach 1997). Several separate though interrelated aspects come into play when trying to define the context, nature, and scale of ancient farming: intensity and scale of cultivation, range and type of plant species cultivated, archaeological recognition of different forms of cultivation and the social context in which these practices develop and thrive. Most would agree that gardens are more intensively cultivated than fields, but ever since Boserup's seminal work on The Conditions of Agricultural Growth (1965) archaeologists have struggled with the concept of agricultural intensification, wrongly equating differences in the intensity of cultivation with evolutionary stages of agricultural development. Based on ethnographic work, Boserup argued that an increase in population density was responsible for an increase in the intensity of cultivation, with extensive forms of swidden or slash-and-burn agriculture gradually becoming more intensive by a reduction of the fallow length (forest, fallow, bush fallow, short fallow, annual cropping, multi-cropping). Her suggestion that farming systems moved from extensive to intensive systems over time has been taken by some to mean that agriculture developed along a unidirectional evolutionary sequence starting with an extensive form of shifting cultivation. This is not the place to review Boserup's theory or the subsequent modifications or critiques (see Johnston 2003; Leach 1999; Morrison 1994, 1996; Netting 1993), but it is important to point out briefly some common misunderstandings. First, it is important to point out that shifting cultivation or swidden agriculture is an agricultural system adapted to a specific set of ecological circumstances, found primarily in the humid inner tropics, to ensure maintenance of soil fertility. It cannot, therefore, be seen to represent the starting point of all agricultural development. Ecologically, it does not make sense to try and apply such a system to areas like Europe and the Near East, where different soil types and the presence of domestic animals allowed different forms of nutrient restoration (Rowley-Conwy 1981; Sherratt 1981). In this region shifting cultivation is not an appropriate strategy. Moreover, archaeological evidence points to