深入挖掘:接触前晚期mha ' ohi农业系统的地域差异,社会岛屿

IF 2.9 3区 社会学 Q1 ANTHROPOLOGY
Jennifer G. Kahn, D. Lepofsky
{"title":"深入挖掘:接触前晚期mha ' ohi农业系统的地域差异,社会岛屿","authors":"Jennifer G. Kahn, D. Lepofsky","doi":"10.2993/0278-0771-42.2.217","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. Understanding the social and ecological contexts of past agricultural systems in complex societies requires expansive and nuanced data sets that recognize the role of all players in the production system. Such data sets are not often available and thus, there is a tendency to generalize across polities and ecosystems and to homogenize place- and time-specific variation. Here, we bring together ethnohistoric, ethnographic, and archaeological data to explore Mā‘ohi commoner and elite involvement in the production systems of the Society Islands at the time of European contact (AD 1767). We focus our analysis on the archaeological records of five polities located in four different watersheds on the islands of Mo‘orea and Ra‘iātea. We divide the polities into those that are elite- vs. commoner-centric and those that are located in productive versus marginal agricultural landscapes. We find that elites have a greater presence and closer association with agricultural production in productive ecological settings than in the more marginal ones. Although the archaeological expression of the agricultural systems look superficially the same in all contexts, maintaining productivity in the marginal contexts would have required different knowledge and more effort on the part of the Mā‘ohi farmer than in the more productive settings. In contrast to previous summaries of Mā‘ohi agriculture that focus on elite control and seasonal shortages, we highlight the place-based knowledge of Mā‘ohi commoners that was foundational to the centuries-old production systems that provisioned both the elite and commoners alike.","PeriodicalId":54838,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ethnobiology","volume":"42 1","pages":"217 - 240"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Digging Deep: Place-Based Variation in Late Pre-Contact Mā‘ohi Agricultural Systems, Society Islands\",\"authors\":\"Jennifer G. Kahn, D. Lepofsky\",\"doi\":\"10.2993/0278-0771-42.2.217\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract. Understanding the social and ecological contexts of past agricultural systems in complex societies requires expansive and nuanced data sets that recognize the role of all players in the production system. Such data sets are not often available and thus, there is a tendency to generalize across polities and ecosystems and to homogenize place- and time-specific variation. Here, we bring together ethnohistoric, ethnographic, and archaeological data to explore Mā‘ohi commoner and elite involvement in the production systems of the Society Islands at the time of European contact (AD 1767). We focus our analysis on the archaeological records of five polities located in four different watersheds on the islands of Mo‘orea and Ra‘iātea. We divide the polities into those that are elite- vs. commoner-centric and those that are located in productive versus marginal agricultural landscapes. We find that elites have a greater presence and closer association with agricultural production in productive ecological settings than in the more marginal ones. Although the archaeological expression of the agricultural systems look superficially the same in all contexts, maintaining productivity in the marginal contexts would have required different knowledge and more effort on the part of the Mā‘ohi farmer than in the more productive settings. In contrast to previous summaries of Mā‘ohi agriculture that focus on elite control and seasonal shortages, we highlight the place-based knowledge of Mā‘ohi commoners that was foundational to the centuries-old production systems that provisioned both the elite and commoners alike.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54838,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Ethnobiology\",\"volume\":\"42 1\",\"pages\":\"217 - 240\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Ethnobiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-42.2.217\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Ethnobiology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-42.2.217","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

摘要要了解复杂社会中过去农业系统的社会和生态背景,需要广泛而细致的数据集,以认识到生产系统中所有参与者的作用。这样的数据集并不经常可用,因此,有一种倾向是在不同的政策和生态系统之间进行推广,并使特定地点和特定时间的变化同质化。在这里,我们汇集了民族历史、民族志和考古数据,探索在欧洲人接触时(公元1767年),mha ' ohi平民和精英参与社会群岛生产系统的情况。我们重点分析了位于Mo 'orea和Ra岛四个不同流域的五个政治的考古记录'iātea。我们将政体划分为精英和平民为中心的政体,以及位于生产性和边缘农业景观的政体。我们发现,在生产性生态环境中,精英的存在程度更高,与农业生产的联系也更紧密。虽然农业系统的考古表现表面上看在所有环境中都是一样的,但在边缘环境中保持生产力将需要不同的知识和mha ' ohi农民比在生产力更高的环境中付出更多的努力。与之前对mha ' ohi农业的总结侧重于精英控制和季节性短缺不同,我们强调了mha ' ohi平民基于地方的知识,这是数百年来为精英和平民提供服务的生产系统的基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Digging Deep: Place-Based Variation in Late Pre-Contact Mā‘ohi Agricultural Systems, Society Islands
Abstract. Understanding the social and ecological contexts of past agricultural systems in complex societies requires expansive and nuanced data sets that recognize the role of all players in the production system. Such data sets are not often available and thus, there is a tendency to generalize across polities and ecosystems and to homogenize place- and time-specific variation. Here, we bring together ethnohistoric, ethnographic, and archaeological data to explore Mā‘ohi commoner and elite involvement in the production systems of the Society Islands at the time of European contact (AD 1767). We focus our analysis on the archaeological records of five polities located in four different watersheds on the islands of Mo‘orea and Ra‘iātea. We divide the polities into those that are elite- vs. commoner-centric and those that are located in productive versus marginal agricultural landscapes. We find that elites have a greater presence and closer association with agricultural production in productive ecological settings than in the more marginal ones. Although the archaeological expression of the agricultural systems look superficially the same in all contexts, maintaining productivity in the marginal contexts would have required different knowledge and more effort on the part of the Mā‘ohi farmer than in the more productive settings. In contrast to previous summaries of Mā‘ohi agriculture that focus on elite control and seasonal shortages, we highlight the place-based knowledge of Mā‘ohi commoners that was foundational to the centuries-old production systems that provisioned both the elite and commoners alike.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Ethnobiology
Journal of Ethnobiology Social Sciences-Anthropology
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
3.40%
发文量
21
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: JoE’s readership is as wide and diverse as ethnobiology itself, with readers spanning from both the natural and social sciences. Not surprisingly, a glance at the papers published in the Journal reveals the depth and breadth of topics, extending from studies in archaeology and the origins of agriculture, to folk classification systems, to food composition, plants, birds, mammals, fungi and everything in between. Research areas published in JoE include but are not limited to neo- and paleo-ethnobiology, zooarchaeology, ethnobotany, ethnozoology, ethnopharmacology, ethnoecology, linguistic ethnobiology, human paleoecology, and many other related fields of study within anthropology and biology, such as taxonomy, conservation biology, ethnography, political ecology, and cognitive and cultural anthropology. JoE does not limit itself to a single perspective, approach or discipline, but seeks to represent the full spectrum and wide diversity of the field of ethnobiology, including cognitive, symbolic, linguistic, ecological, and economic aspects of human interactions with our living world. Articles that significantly advance ethnobiological theory and/or methodology are particularly welcome, as well as studies bridging across disciplines and knowledge systems. JoE does not publish uncontextualized data such as species lists; appropriate submissions must elaborate on the ethnobiological context of findings.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信