An Archaeologist's View: Knowing the Data. A Commentary on Keigley (2019) and Beschta and Ripple (2019)
An Archaeologist's View: Knowing the Data. A Commentary on Keigley (2019) and Beschta and Ripple (2019)
复制标题
考古学家的观点：了解数据。
DOI：
10.1016/j.rala.2020.04.006
复制
发表时间：
2020
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
H. Martin
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kenneth P. Cannon;M. Cannon;H. Martin
在最近的一篇文章中，Keigley 1讨论了黄石国家公园（YNP）和周边地区（统称为大黄石地区（GYA））的一个长期问题：野牛（野牛野牛）的管理。[2] Beschta和涟漪[3]后来的评注也谈到了这个问题。我们写这篇评论是因为在将考古记录应用于当代野生动物和牧场管理方面仍然存在误解，特别是记录如何被考古学家看到，以及影响我们不仅从自然背景而且从研究背景理解记录的无数因素。深受宾福德著作的影响，我们认真对待他的主张，即考古学家"不应在单一的解释性参考框架内寻求对观察到的"物质文化"的差异和相似之处的解释"（第218页）。[4]依赖考古记录的研究人员应该理解考古记录的复杂性。换句话说，从描述性科学转向解释性科学。通过引用《剑桥哲学词典》，凯格利1暗示考古学家参与了考古记录的合理化，以解释"为什么现有条件与预期条件不相符"（第7页）。这是对考古学方法和理论的误解。考古学从纯粹的描述性科学转变为理论科学（宾福德4称之为“新考古学”，后来称为“过程考古学”）始于泰勒5的《考古学研究》，随后是宾福德6在20世纪60年代发表的一系列论文。宾福德的“关于过去知识的准确性可以被检验的想法是对传统考古学最根本的背离”（第10页）。[8] 20世纪70年代以后，考古学家开始应用中间地带理论，[9]将现在的考古静态学与过去的行为动态学联系起来（第12页），[8]和埋藏学（即埋藏过程）研究，以了解考古记录是如何形成的，以及为什么它在挖掘和随后的分析中看起来像这样。
In a recent article Keigley 1 discusses a perennial issue in Yellowstone National Park (YNP) and the surrounding area known collectively as the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA): the management of bison (Bison bison). 2 A later commentary by Beschta and Ripple 3 also addressed this issue. We are writing this commentary because there remains a misunderstanding in the application of the archaeological record to contemporary wildlife and range management, i specifically how the record comes to be visible to archaeologists and a myriad of factors that influence our understanding of the record not only from a natural context but also from a research context. Heavily influenced by the writings of Binford we take his insistence seriously that archaeologists “should not seek explanations for observed differences and similarities in ‘material culture’within a single interpretive frame of reference”(p. 218). 4 Researchers who rely on the archaeological record should understand the complexities of that record. In other words, move from a descriptive science to an explanatory one.By quoting the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Keigley 1 suggests archaeologists are involved in a rationalization of the archaeological record in order to explain,“why existing conditions do not comport with expected conditions”(p. 7). This is a misunderstanding of archaeological method and theory. The transformation of archaeology from the merely descriptive to a theoretical science (Binford 4 termed it “New Archaeology” and later “Processual Archaeology”) began with the publication of A Study of Archaeology by Taylor 5 followed by a series of papers by Binford 6 in the 1960s. Binford's 7 “idea that the accuracy of knowledge about the past could be tested was the most radical departure from traditional archaeology”(p. 10). 8 Archaeologists in the 1970s onward began to apply middlerange theory, 9 linking present archaeological statics to past behavioral dynamics (p. 12), 8 and taphonomic (ie, process of fossilization) studies in order to understand how the archaeological record was formed and why it looked as it did upon excavation and subsequent analysis.
黄石公园的史前野牛：对基格利的评论 (2019)
DOI：
10.1016/j.rala.2019.03.002
发表时间：
2019
期刊：
Rangelands
影响因子：
--
作者：
Beschta, Robert L.;Ripple, William J.
通讯作者：
Ripple, William J.