{"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}
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.
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.