狩猎采集者的大陆?

IF 1.1 3区 历史学 Q2 ANTHROPOLOGY
B. Barker
{"title":"狩猎采集者的大陆?","authors":"B. Barker","doi":"10.1080/03122417.2021.1991385","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the popular Western imagination the nineteenth century unilineal social evolutionary theories of Tylor, Morgan and Spencer are often still commonly held in which ‘hunter-gatherer’ is essentially a metaphor for primitive in which – to quote Hobbes – life was ‘... nasty brutish and short’. The idea that hunters and gatherers lived a perilous existence – eking out a living, teetering on the brink of existence, desperately seeking the next meal – is a powerful trope in the Western imagination with the idea that it is only when we became farmers that we truly ‘progressed.’ That ‘cultivation’ was seen as one of the colonial benchmarks for ‘civilised’ is recorded from the very earliest contact between Aboriginal people and Europeans. Joseph Banks recorded in his journal: ‘Since we have been on the coast we have not observed those large fires which we so frequently saw in the Islands and New Zealand made by the Natives in order to clear the ground for cultivation: we thence concluded not much in favour of our future friends’ (Joseph Banks 28 April 1770, cited in Mundle 2013:188). Even today, many world ‘pre’-history textbooks continue to be organised in a unilineal – ‘simple’ to ‘complex’– hierarchy from hominid evolution, hunter-gatherer societies, early farmers culminating in civilisations. In academia, famous ethnographic studies such as those carried out by anthropologists Richard Lee and Lorna Marshall with Kung San foragers of southern Africa became the template for ‘classic’ hunter-gatherer lifeways in which hunter-gatherers were portrayed as egalitarian and highly mobile, with low density populations – contrasting a ‘simple’ indigenous foraging system with our own complex food producing/technological society. It is not surprising, then, that this idea of a ‘primitive’ hunter-gatherer lifeway so deeply permeates the thinking of non-Indigenous and in some cases First Nation Australians and how they might view traditional Aboriginal society in what is essentially a colonial trope. Pascoe does not explicitly state that he thinks hunting and gathering is ‘primitive’; indeed he states that it is ‘[A]rchaeologists and prehistorians who have constructed the archaeological record to scientifically vindicate the colonialist notions of savagery and staged progressivism to leave little doubt that Indigenous peoples, particularly ‘hunter-gatherers,’ represented primordial man.’ He thus invokes a long defunct, nineteenth century version of Australian archaeology and it seems that implicit in his attempts to make pre-European Aboriginal Australians ‘farmers’ is the idea, that hunters and gatherers were indeed ‘primitive’ effectively buying into a colonial narrative. Whether this was his intention or not, it seems – based on the popularity of his book and subsequent media coverage – that this view has been embraced by a certain section of society, as if middle Australia has finally, to its great relief, found someone who has ‘shown’ that Aboriginal people were indeed ‘farmers’ after all, and therefore just like us: ‘civilised.’ However, for those of us who have spent whole careers researching, recording, and documenting Indigenous cultural heritage, nearly always in collaboration with communities themselves, the archaeology of Indigenous Australians shows hunting and gathering lifeways as part of a clinal continuum which encompasses highly mobile foraging to sedentary foraging/horticultural societies. It has long been acknowledged – at least in archaeology that Aboriginal Australians were not just passive entities reactive to external environmental forces but sophisticated and active managers of their country and in this context could be included in a definition of manager/cultivators at one end of the hunter-gatherer spectrum (cf. Lourandos 1997). What form this took, and the degree of complexity involved, very much depended on a range of factors including what the environment would allow, exchanges of ideas, population size and a myriad range of different cultural practices. What we do know through oral tradition and the archaeological record is that hunting and gathering as a way of life was","PeriodicalId":8648,"journal":{"name":"Australian Archaeology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A continent of hunter-gatherers?\",\"authors\":\"B. Barker\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/03122417.2021.1991385\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the popular Western imagination the nineteenth century unilineal social evolutionary theories of Tylor, Morgan and Spencer are often still commonly held in which ‘hunter-gatherer’ is essentially a metaphor for primitive in which – to quote Hobbes – life was ‘... nasty brutish and short’. The idea that hunters and gatherers lived a perilous existence – eking out a living, teetering on the brink of existence, desperately seeking the next meal – is a powerful trope in the Western imagination with the idea that it is only when we became farmers that we truly ‘progressed.’ That ‘cultivation’ was seen as one of the colonial benchmarks for ‘civilised’ is recorded from the very earliest contact between Aboriginal people and Europeans. Joseph Banks recorded in his journal: ‘Since we have been on the coast we have not observed those large fires which we so frequently saw in the Islands and New Zealand made by the Natives in order to clear the ground for cultivation: we thence concluded not much in favour of our future friends’ (Joseph Banks 28 April 1770, cited in Mundle 2013:188). Even today, many world ‘pre’-history textbooks continue to be organised in a unilineal – ‘simple’ to ‘complex’– hierarchy from hominid evolution, hunter-gatherer societies, early farmers culminating in civilisations. In academia, famous ethnographic studies such as those carried out by anthropologists Richard Lee and Lorna Marshall with Kung San foragers of southern Africa became the template for ‘classic’ hunter-gatherer lifeways in which hunter-gatherers were portrayed as egalitarian and highly mobile, with low density populations – contrasting a ‘simple’ indigenous foraging system with our own complex food producing/technological society. It is not surprising, then, that this idea of a ‘primitive’ hunter-gatherer lifeway so deeply permeates the thinking of non-Indigenous and in some cases First Nation Australians and how they might view traditional Aboriginal society in what is essentially a colonial trope. Pascoe does not explicitly state that he thinks hunting and gathering is ‘primitive’; indeed he states that it is ‘[A]rchaeologists and prehistorians who have constructed the archaeological record to scientifically vindicate the colonialist notions of savagery and staged progressivism to leave little doubt that Indigenous peoples, particularly ‘hunter-gatherers,’ represented primordial man.’ He thus invokes a long defunct, nineteenth century version of Australian archaeology and it seems that implicit in his attempts to make pre-European Aboriginal Australians ‘farmers’ is the idea, that hunters and gatherers were indeed ‘primitive’ effectively buying into a colonial narrative. Whether this was his intention or not, it seems – based on the popularity of his book and subsequent media coverage – that this view has been embraced by a certain section of society, as if middle Australia has finally, to its great relief, found someone who has ‘shown’ that Aboriginal people were indeed ‘farmers’ after all, and therefore just like us: ‘civilised.’ However, for those of us who have spent whole careers researching, recording, and documenting Indigenous cultural heritage, nearly always in collaboration with communities themselves, the archaeology of Indigenous Australians shows hunting and gathering lifeways as part of a clinal continuum which encompasses highly mobile foraging to sedentary foraging/horticultural societies. It has long been acknowledged – at least in archaeology that Aboriginal Australians were not just passive entities reactive to external environmental forces but sophisticated and active managers of their country and in this context could be included in a definition of manager/cultivators at one end of the hunter-gatherer spectrum (cf. Lourandos 1997). What form this took, and the degree of complexity involved, very much depended on a range of factors including what the environment would allow, exchanges of ideas, population size and a myriad range of different cultural practices. What we do know through oral tradition and the archaeological record is that hunting and gathering as a way of life was\",\"PeriodicalId\":8648,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian Archaeology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian Archaeology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/03122417.2021.1991385\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Archaeology","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03122417.2021.1991385","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

在流行的西方想象中,泰勒、摩根和斯宾塞的19世纪单线社会进化理论仍然普遍认为,“狩猎-采集者”本质上是对原始人的隐喻,引用霍布斯的话,生活是“。。。肮脏的野蛮和矮小。猎人和采集者过着危险的生活——勉强糊口,在生存的边缘摇摇欲坠,拼命寻找下一顿饭——这在西方的想象中是一个强有力的比喻,认为只有当我们成为农民时,我们才能真正“进步”这种“耕种”被视为“文明”的殖民基准之一,这是从原住民和欧洲人最早的接触开始记录的。Joseph Banks在他的日记中写道:“由于我们一直在海岸上,我们没有观察到那些我们经常在群岛和新西兰看到的由原住民为开垦土地而引发的大火:因此,我们得出的结论对我们未来的朋友没有多大好处”(Joseph Bank斯,1770年4月28日,引用于Mundle 2013:188)。即使在今天,许多世界“前”历史教科书仍然按照从原始人进化、狩猎采集社会、早期农民到文明的单一层次——从“简单”到“复杂”。在学术界,著名的人种学研究,如人类学家Richard Lee和Lorna Marshall与南部非洲的Kung San觅食者进行的研究,成为“经典”狩猎采集者生活方式的模板,在这种生活方式中,狩猎采集者被描绘成平等主义者和高度流动的人,低密度种群——将“简单”的本土觅食系统与我们自己复杂的粮食生产/技术社会进行对比。因此,这种“原始”狩猎采集生活方式的想法如此深刻地渗透到非土著人(在某些情况下是第一民族澳大利亚人)的思想中,以及他们如何看待传统的土著社会,这本质上是一种殖民主义的比喻,也就不足为奇了。帕斯科没有明确表示他认为狩猎和采集是“原始的”;事实上,他指出,正是“考古学家和史前学家构建了考古记录,以科学地证明殖民主义的野蛮观念和阶段性的进步主义,使土著人民,特别是“狩猎采集者”,毫无疑问地代表了原始人。”,19世纪版本的澳大利亚考古学,在他试图让前欧洲的澳大利亚原住民成为“农民”的过程中,似乎隐含着这样一种想法,即猎人和采集者确实是“原始的”,有效地接受了殖民叙事。无论这是否是他的意图,基于他的书和随后媒体报道的受欢迎程度,这一观点似乎已经被社会的某一部分所接受,就好像澳大利亚中部终于找到了一个“证明”原住民毕竟是“农民”的人,因此和我们一样:“文明的”然而,对于我们这些在整个职业生涯中都在研究、记录和记录土著文化遗产的人来说,几乎总是与社区本身合作,澳大利亚土著考古表明,狩猎和采集生活方式是一个临床连续体的一部分,包括高度流动的觅食到久坐的觅食/园艺社会。人们早就认识到——至少在考古学中是这样,澳大利亚原住民不仅是对外部环境力量做出反应的被动实体,而且是国家的老练和积极的管理者,在这种情况下,可以被纳入狩猎-采集光谱一端的管理者/耕种者的定义中(参见Lourandos 1997)。这在很大程度上取决于一系列因素,包括环境允许、思想交流、人口规模和各种不同的文化习俗。通过口头传统和考古记录,我们所知道的是,狩猎和采集作为一种生活方式
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A continent of hunter-gatherers?
In the popular Western imagination the nineteenth century unilineal social evolutionary theories of Tylor, Morgan and Spencer are often still commonly held in which ‘hunter-gatherer’ is essentially a metaphor for primitive in which – to quote Hobbes – life was ‘... nasty brutish and short’. The idea that hunters and gatherers lived a perilous existence – eking out a living, teetering on the brink of existence, desperately seeking the next meal – is a powerful trope in the Western imagination with the idea that it is only when we became farmers that we truly ‘progressed.’ That ‘cultivation’ was seen as one of the colonial benchmarks for ‘civilised’ is recorded from the very earliest contact between Aboriginal people and Europeans. Joseph Banks recorded in his journal: ‘Since we have been on the coast we have not observed those large fires which we so frequently saw in the Islands and New Zealand made by the Natives in order to clear the ground for cultivation: we thence concluded not much in favour of our future friends’ (Joseph Banks 28 April 1770, cited in Mundle 2013:188). Even today, many world ‘pre’-history textbooks continue to be organised in a unilineal – ‘simple’ to ‘complex’– hierarchy from hominid evolution, hunter-gatherer societies, early farmers culminating in civilisations. In academia, famous ethnographic studies such as those carried out by anthropologists Richard Lee and Lorna Marshall with Kung San foragers of southern Africa became the template for ‘classic’ hunter-gatherer lifeways in which hunter-gatherers were portrayed as egalitarian and highly mobile, with low density populations – contrasting a ‘simple’ indigenous foraging system with our own complex food producing/technological society. It is not surprising, then, that this idea of a ‘primitive’ hunter-gatherer lifeway so deeply permeates the thinking of non-Indigenous and in some cases First Nation Australians and how they might view traditional Aboriginal society in what is essentially a colonial trope. Pascoe does not explicitly state that he thinks hunting and gathering is ‘primitive’; indeed he states that it is ‘[A]rchaeologists and prehistorians who have constructed the archaeological record to scientifically vindicate the colonialist notions of savagery and staged progressivism to leave little doubt that Indigenous peoples, particularly ‘hunter-gatherers,’ represented primordial man.’ He thus invokes a long defunct, nineteenth century version of Australian archaeology and it seems that implicit in his attempts to make pre-European Aboriginal Australians ‘farmers’ is the idea, that hunters and gatherers were indeed ‘primitive’ effectively buying into a colonial narrative. Whether this was his intention or not, it seems – based on the popularity of his book and subsequent media coverage – that this view has been embraced by a certain section of society, as if middle Australia has finally, to its great relief, found someone who has ‘shown’ that Aboriginal people were indeed ‘farmers’ after all, and therefore just like us: ‘civilised.’ However, for those of us who have spent whole careers researching, recording, and documenting Indigenous cultural heritage, nearly always in collaboration with communities themselves, the archaeology of Indigenous Australians shows hunting and gathering lifeways as part of a clinal continuum which encompasses highly mobile foraging to sedentary foraging/horticultural societies. It has long been acknowledged – at least in archaeology that Aboriginal Australians were not just passive entities reactive to external environmental forces but sophisticated and active managers of their country and in this context could be included in a definition of manager/cultivators at one end of the hunter-gatherer spectrum (cf. Lourandos 1997). What form this took, and the degree of complexity involved, very much depended on a range of factors including what the environment would allow, exchanges of ideas, population size and a myriad range of different cultural practices. What we do know through oral tradition and the archaeological record is that hunting and gathering as a way of life was
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
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
9.10%
发文量
20
×
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