Twenty. An Ecological Model for the Emergence of Institutionalized Social Hierarchies on California’s Northern Channel Islands
Twenty. An Ecological Model for the Emergence of Institutionalized Social Hierarchies on California’s Northern Channel Islands
复制标题
二十、加州北部海峡群岛制度化社会等级制度出现的生态模型
DOI：
10.1525/9780520943360-021
复制
发表时间：
2009
期刊：
影响因子：
56.9
通讯作者：
J. Erlandson
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
D. Kennett;B. Winterhalder;J. Bartruff;J. Erlandson
[TL\X/ENTY：加州北方海峡群岛道格拉斯制度化社会等级出现的生态模型]。布鲁斯Winterhaldergjacob Bartru Bartrett和_/关于A/I。Erlandson 0 N E O F T H E人类学考古学的中心问题是，在等级社会和酋长中明显的直觉化社会等级制度是如何以及为什么在全新世期间在世界各地的多个地点独立发展的（Feinman和Manzanjlla zooo; Flannery I998）。地位竞争和社会不平等存在于所有的人类群体中，无论规模大小或生产方式如何（Fried I967; Boehm zooo; Diehl 2.000）。然而，关于群体内在地位和财富方面存在显著和不可解释的差异的考古学证据被证实是在过去的13000年里，远远晚于解剖学上现代人类在非洲的第一个证据。150，000年前）和他们随后出现在大部分的旧世界和新世界（克莱因2.004）。大量考古学证据表明，在人类历史的大部分时间里，各个群体的规模都很小，在低水平上占据着相对较大的领土。密度，并定期移动，以适应空间和时间的波动IR 1资源。记录还表明，群体分裂、环境填充和迁移到不同的栖息地通常比群体规模和密度的局部增加或其他形式的集约化更受欢迎。在这种情况下，制度化的世袭领导权以及地位和财富的巨大差异很少出现或持续存在。等级社会的考古证据通常与当地人口聚集、经济集约化和领土界限的明确迹象相结合（Blake and Clark 1999; Cameiro 1970; Clark and Blalce 1994; Hayden 198 I）。在某些情况下，排名遵循对农业的高度重视（Price和Gebauer，1995年），但在野生资源集中的地区，如海洋和其他水生栖息地，狩猎采集者也发生了类似的情况（Erlandson 2.001;肯内特2 oo 5; Palsson，1988年; Yesner，1980年）。在这些背景下，某些群体成员能够通过以下方式获得更大的财富和地位：（1）操纵经济，社会和政治关系以实现自己的贝内（Earle 1987）;（2）控制“用来表明地位的外来商品的流动”（Flannery 1972），（3）垄断其他群体成员的劳动（Earle 1987; Arnold 2.ooI）;（4）创造意识形态397
Tl\X/ENTY An Ecological Model for the Emergence of Institutionalized Social Hierarchies qon California’s Northern Channel Islands Douglas]. Kennett, Bruce Winterhaldergjacob Bartruflf - and_/on A/I. Erlandson 0 N E O F T H E central questions in anthro- pological archaeology is how and why insti- tutionalized social hierarchies evident in ranked societies and chiefdoms developed indepen- dently i.n multiple locations around the world during the Holocene (Feinman and Manzanjlla zooo; Flannery I998)._ Status competition and social inequality exist in all human groups, re- gardless of size or mode of production (Fried I967; Boehm zooo; Diehl 2.000). However, ar- chaeological evidence for significant and institu- tionalized intragroup differences in status and wealth are confined to the last I3,ooo years, well after the first evidence for anatomically modern humans in Afiica (ca. 150,000 years ago) and their subsequent appearance throughout much of the Old and New Worlds (Klein 2.004). The preponderance of archaeological evidence sug- gests that for the majority of human history groups remained small, occupied relatively large territories at low. densities, and moved periodi- cally to adapt to spatial and temporal fluctuations ir1 resources. The record also indicates that group fissioning, environmental infilling, and emigra- tion to diverse habitats were generally favored over localized increases in group size and density or other forms of intensification. Under these conditions, institutionalized hereditary leader- ship and significant differences in status and wealth rarely emerged or persisted. Archaeological evidence for ranked societies is often found in conjunction with clear indications of localized population aggregation, economic intensification, and territorial circumscription (Blake and Clark 1999; Cameiro 1970; Clark and Blalce I994; Hayden I98I). In some instances, ranking follows heightened commitrnent to agri- culture (Price and Gebauer 1995), but similar de- velopments occurred among hunter-gatherers in areas where wild resources are concentrated, such as in marine and other aquatic habitats (Erlandson 2.001; Kennett 2oo5; Palsson I988; Yesner 1980). ‘In these contexts, certain group members were able to acquire greater wealth and status by (I) manipulating economic, social, and political relationships to their own benefit (Earle 1987); (2.) controlling the flow'of exotic goods used to signal status (Flannery I972) ,' (3) monop- olizing the labor of other group members (Earle I987; Arnold 2.ooI); and (4) creating ideologies 397