Global Biopiracy in the Age of Empire: Indigeneity, Decolonisation, and the Politics of Botanical Knowledge in the British World, c.1600-1800

该项目考察了1600年至1800年大英帝国植物学知识生产中的政治、不平等和权力谈判，为帝国和植物材料知识的早期近代史提供了独特的跨学科全球方法。这将是第一本专著长度的研究早期现代生物剽窃及其与殖民主义和“科学革命”的纠缠，包括其对土著社区和博物馆收藏的影响。该项目将全球历史和物质文化研究与环境人文、科学史、非殖民化和土著研究进行了开创性的对话，恢复了英国殖民主义在现代早期世界各地产生的植物收藏的变化性质。这一时期被认为是科学知识生产和全球环境资源开发的时代（Richards; Sivasundaram）。推进这类研究，本项目的主要研究问题是：新文化的科学和英国的全球殖民主义在多大程度上重塑了植物学知识的生产？-英国生物剽窃对土著社区的长期影响是什么？这个项目对早期现代生物剽窃的全球研究方法，从英国的全球扩张开始，填补了研究中紧迫的时间和方法上的空白，主要集中在18和19世纪，没有考虑到物质文化研究、土著研究和非殖民化研究的方法创新（Batsaki; Bleichmar）。

Examining the politics, inequalities, and power negotiations in the production of botanical knowledge in the British Empire from 1600 to 1800, this project presents a unique interdisciplinary, global approach to the early modern history of imperial and material knowledge about plants. It will be the first monograph-length study of early modern biopiracy and its entanglement with colonialism and the 'scientific revolution', including its consequences forIndigenous communities and museum collections. Bringing global history and material culture studies into a pathbreaking conversation with environmental humanities, the history of science, and decolonial and Indigenous studies, this project recovers the shifting nature of botanical collections as engendered by British colonialism around the early modern world. This period has been characterised as an era of scientific knowledge production and global exploitation of environmental resources(Richards; Sivasundaram). Advancing such studies, this project's main research questions are:-To what extent did a new culture of science and British global colonialism reshape the production of botanical knowledge?-What were the long-lasting consequences of British biopiracy for Indigenous source communities? This project's global approach to early modern biopiracy, as negotiated from the outset of Britain's global expansion, fills a pressing chronological and methodological gap in research that has mainly focused on the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and has not taken the methodological innovations of material culture studies, Indigenous studies, and decolonial studies into account (Batsaki; Bleichmar).