【2016-04-01】 @whigzhou: 我评价历史小说/电影的指标之一，是对历史感的把握，在我看来，三流的历史感是一种同态谬论，总是将他试图表现的历史趋势、几种相互竞争的可能走向、关键转折点……之类，擅自植入当事人的自觉意识中，甚至通过他们的嘴巴喋喋不休的说出来，仿佛当事人个个都偷窥过上帝的账本，有着后见之明的便利， @whigzhou: 二流作品要好一点，能够表现出历史洪流中当事者被浪涛推拉撕扯的无力感，但真正的好作品，既能表现个体的理想、野心、阴谋、奋斗、挣扎，又能把握历史大线索、大节点，同时又不陷入同态谬论，大概只有那些真正领会“非意图后果”的作家才写得出来， @肮脏的哈利:辉总推几部好的 @whigzhou: 还真想不出哪部历史片符合我的一流标准，Deadwood有点这意思，但不知道算不算历史片  

Cereals, appropriability, and hierarchy 谷物、可收夺性和等级制 作者：Joram Mayshar, Omer Moav, Zvika Neeman, Luigi Pascali @2015-9-11 译者：Luis Rightcon（@Rightcon） 校对：沈沉（@你在何地-sxy） 来源：VoxEU，http://www.voxeu.org/article/neolithic-roots-economic-institutions Conventional theory suggests that hierarchy and state institutions emerged due to increased productivity following the Neolithic transition to farming. This column argues that these social developments were a result of an increase in the ability of both robbers and the emergent elite to appropriate crops. Hierarchy and state institutions developed, therefore, only in regions where appropriable cereal crops had sufficient productivity advantage over non-appropriable roots and tubers. 传统理论认为，等级制和国家产生的缘由在于：人类在新石器时代农业转向时出现了生产率增长。而本专栏则指出，上述社会发展是掠夺者和新生的精英分子收夺谷物的能力上升的结果。因此，仅仅是在那些易于收夺的谷物比其他不易收夺的块根和块茎作物在产量上拥有充分优势的地区，才会产生等级制和国家。 What explains underdevelopment? 欠发达的原因是什么？ One of the most pressing problems of our age is the underdevelopment of countries in which government malfunction seems endemic. Many of these countries are located close to the Equator. Acemoglu et al. (2001) point to extractive institutions as the root cause for underdevelopment. Besley and Persson (2014) emphasise the persistent effects of low fiscal capacity in underdeveloped countries. 我们这个时代最为紧迫的问题之一就是存在许多欠发达国家，而政府失灵在这些国家极为常见。它们大多数都位于赤道附近。Acemoglu等（2001年）认为，榨取型制度是欠发达的根本原因。Besley和Persson（2014年）强调，欠发达国家财政能力的低弱具有持久影响。 On the other hand, Diamond (1997) argues that it is geographical factors that explain why some regions of the world remain underdeveloped. In particular, he argues that the east-west orientation of Eurasia resulted in greater variety and productivity of cultivable crops, and in larger economic surplus, which facilitated the development of state institutions in this major landmass. Less fortunate regions, including New Guinea and sub-Saharan Africa, were left underdeveloped due to low land productivity. 而另一方面，Diamond（1997年）则提出，地理因素能够解释为什么世界某些地区会停留在欠发达状态。具体来说，他指出，欧亚大陆的东西走向使得适合驯化的谷物产量更大、种类更多，也使其经济剩余更多，后者为这块大陆上的国家制度的发展提供了便利。至于那些不那么幸运的地域，诸如新几内亚、撒哈拉以南非洲等，就因为土地生产率低下而停留在了欠发达状态。 In a recent paper (Mayshar et al. 2015), we contend that fiscal capacity and viable state institutions are conditioned to a major extent by geography. Thus, like Diamond, we argue that geography matters a great deal. But in contrast to Diamond, and against conventional opinion, we contend that it is not high farming productivity and the availability of food surplus that accounts for the economic success of Eurasia. 在最近的一篇论文（Mayshar等，2015年）中，我们主张：财政能力和国家机构的维系，很大程度上受地理条件限制。因此和Diamond一样，我们认为地理条件异常重要。不过与Diamond和其他传统观点不同的是，我们认为欧亚大陆的经济成功并非源于高农业生产率和获得粮食盈余的可能性。

• We propose an alternative mechanism by which environmental factors imply the appropriability of crops and thereby the emergence of complex social institutions.
• 我们提出了一个（用于解释国家起源的）替代机制：环境因素决定谷物的可收夺性，从而决定了复杂社会制度的产生。

To understand why surplus is neither necessary nor sufficient for the emergence of hierarchy, consider a hypothetical community of farmers who cultivate cassava (a major source of calories in sub-Saharan Africa, and the main crop cultivated in Nigeria), and assume that the annual output is well above subsistence. 为了理解为什么粮食盈余既不是等级制产生的必要条件，也不是充分条件，让我们假设：有这么一个种植木薯（撒哈拉以南非洲的一种主要热量来源，尼日利亚的主要农作物）的农民群体，并且假设每年的产量远远超过生存所需。 Cassava is a perennial root that is highly perishable upon harvest. Since this crop rots shortly after harvest, it isn't stored and it is thus difficult to steal or confiscate. As a result, the assumed available surplus would not facilitate the emergence of a non-food producing elite, and may be expected to lead to a population increase. 木薯是多年生宿根植物，收获以后很容易腐烂。既然这种作物在收获后不久就会腐烂，它就不会被贮藏，因此很难被盗取或征用。结果就是，这种假定可以获得的粮食盈余将不会促成那些不事农业生产的统治精英的产生，而且可能会导致人口增长。 Consider now another hypothetical farming community that grows a cereal grain – such as wheat, rice or maize – yet with an annual produce that just meets each family's subsistence needs, without any surplus. Since the grain has to be harvested within a short period and then stored until the next harvest, a visiting robber or tax collector could readily confiscate part of the stored produce. Such ongoing confiscation may be expected to lead to a downward adjustment in population density, but it will nevertheless facilitate the emergence of non-producing elite, even though there was no surplus. 现在设想另外一个种植谷类作物的农民群体——比如小麦、稻米或者玉米，且假定这些作物的年产量只能刚好满足每个家庭的生存需求，没有任何盈余。因为粮食作物要在很短时间内收割完毕，并需要一直贮藏到下次收获，所以袭击而来的盗贼或者税吏可以很容易地拿走储藏量的一部分。这种不断出现的损失，可能会导致人口密度下降，但是它却会促进不事生产的统治精英的产生，尽管完全没有粮食盈余。 Emergence of fiscal capacity and hierarchy and the cultivation of cereals 财政能力及等级制的产生与谷物栽培的关系 This simple scenario shows that surplus isn't a precondition for taxation. It also illustrates our alternative theory that the transition to agriculture enabled hierarchy to emerge only where the cultivated crops were vulnerable to appropriation. 这个简单的设想表明，粮食盈余并不是税收的前提条件。同时，它也说明了我们所提出的新理论——农业转向促成了等级制的萌生，但这一过程只会发生在所培植的作物很容易被掠夺的地方。

• In particular, we contend that the Neolithic emergence of fiscal capacity andhierarchy was conditioned on the cultivation of appropriable cereals as the staple crops, in contrast to less appropriable staples such as roots and tubers.
• 具体来说，我们认为，财政能力与等级制在新石器时代出现，需要一个前提条件：以易于收夺的谷类为主要作物，而不是以不易收夺的块根和块茎作物等为主要作物。

According to this theory, complex hierarchy did not emerge among hunter-gatherers because hunter-gatherers essentially live from hand-to-mouth, with little that can be expropriated from them to feed a would-be elite. 根据这一理论，狩猎采集者群体中间没能产生复杂的等级制，是因为他们本质上是现挣现吃的，在他们身上很难征用到足够的资源来供养潜在的统治精英。

• Thus, rather than surplus facilitating the emergence of the elite, we argue that the elite only emerged when and where it was possible to expropriate crops.
• 因此，并非粮食盈余促进了统治精英的出现。我们认为，只有在粮食收成容易被征用的地方和时期，才会产生统治精英。

Due to increasing returns to scale in the provision of protection from theft, early farmers had to aggregate and to cooperate to defend their stored grains. Food storage and the demand for protection thus led to population agglomeration in villages and to the creation of a non-food producing elite that oversaw the provision of protection. 鉴于防备盗窃所带来的收益是随规模递增的，远古时代的农民们必须聚集在一起共同合作来守护他们的储粮。因此，食物贮藏和保护的需要使得人口集聚成村落，并且创造了负责提供保护而不事农业生产的精英。 Once a group became larger than a few dozen immediate kin, it is unlikely that those who sought protection services were as forthcoming in financing the security they desired. This public-good nature of protection was resolved by the ability of those in charge of protecting the stored food to appropriate the necessary means. 而一旦某个群体的数量超过了几十个直系亲属的规模的话，那么这些寻求保护性服务的人们就不太可能心甘情愿地支付维持众人渴望的安全所需的费用。解决安全保卫的这种公共物品性质，要求那些负责保护储粮的人提高自身对于必要财产的征用能力。

• That is, we argue that it was this transformation of the appropriation technology, due to the transition to cereals, which created both the demand for protection and the means for its provision.
• 也就是说，我们认为，是由于征用技术随着谷物种植出现而发生转变，才既创造了对于安全保卫的需求，也创造了提供安全保卫的手段。

This is how we explain the emergence of complex and hereditary social hierarchy, and eventually the state. 这就是我们解释复杂的、世袭性的社会等级制乃至国家最终形成的方法。 Applied to Diamond's prototypic contrast between Eurasia and New Guinea, our theory suggests that the crucial distinction between these two regions is that farming in Eurasia relied on the cultivation of cereals, while in New Guinea it relied mostly on the cultivation of tubers (yam and taro, and, more recently, sweet potato) and bananas, where long-term storage is neither feasible (due to perishability) nor necessary (because harvesting is essentially non-seasonal). 应用于Diamond对比欧亚大陆和新几内亚的原型理论，我们的理论表明：这两个地域之间最关键的差别是欧亚大陆的农业依赖于谷物栽培，而新几内亚依赖的主要是块茎作物（白薯，芋头，最近也有甘薯）和香蕉，这些作物既不可能长期保存（因为易腐性），又没有必要长期保存（因为收获时节基本上是非季节性的）。 This provided farmers in New Guinea with sufficient immunity against bandits and potential tax collectors. More generally, we contend that the underdevelopment of tropical areas is not due to low land fertility but rather the reverse. Farmers in the tropics can choose to cultivate highly productive, non-appropriable tuber crops. This inhibits both the demand for socially provided protection and the emergence of a protection-providing elite. It is a curse of plenty. 这使得新几内亚的农民们对抢匪和潜在的税吏有足够的免疫力。更一般地说，我们认为，热带地区的欠发达原因并不是土壤产出低，而是恰好相反。热带地区的农民可以选择种植高产量而不易收夺的块茎作物。这样就既抑制了对于作为社会公共品提供的保护的需求，也妨碍了负责提供保护的统治精英的出现。这是一种资源诅咒。 In the empirical section of our paper we demonstrate that, contrary to the standard productivity-and-surplus theory, land productivity per se has no direct effect on hierarchy. We also show that, consistent with our theory, the cultivation of roots or tubers is indeed detrimental to hierarchy. 在论文的实证部分，我们证明了，与标准的生产率—盈余理论不同，土地生产率本身对于等级制形成没有直接影响。我们同时也表明，种植块根和块茎作物确实是不利于等级制的形成，这与我们的理论一致。 Empirical finding 实证结果 These results are established by employing two datasets with information on social hierarchy: a cross section and a panel of countries. For our cross-sectional analysis we use Murdock's (1967) Ethnographic Atlas, which contains information on cultural, institutional, and economic features of 1,267 societies from around the world at an idealised time period of first contact with Europeans. Our main outcome variable is ‘jurisdictional hierarchy beyond the local community’. The Ethnographic Atlas also provides information on the major crop type grown by societies that practice agriculture. 上述结果是基于应用两个包含社会等级制信息的数据集而得出的：一组是截面数据，一组则是面板数据。在截面分析中，我们使用了Murdock的“民族志图集”（1967年），其中包含了世界各地1267个社群在刚刚接触欧洲人的理想化时间段内的文化、制度和经济特征方面的信息。我们主要的结果变量是“超越地方性社群的管辖层级”。“民族志地图”里面也提供了各个从事农业的社群所种植的主要作物种类的信息。 Since the cultivated crop is a decision variable, we instrument for the crop type by using data on land suitability for different crops from the Food and Agriculture Organisation. We first show that the decision whether to cultivate cereals as a main crop depends positively on the productivity advantage of cereals over roots and tubers (in terms of potential caloric yields per hectare). 因为农作物是我们模型中的决策变量【编注：指模型中可加以控制或先于其他参数而改变的主动变量】，我们利用联合国粮农组织有关土地对不同作物之适宜性的数据，来推测各社群的农作物类型。首先我们分析表明，是否将谷物作为主要作物，实际上依赖于谷物对于块根和块茎作物的生产率优势（以每公顷的潜在热量产出计算）。 We then find that societies tend to have a more complex hierarchal organisation where the productivity advantage of cereals over roots and tubers is higher, as predicted by our theory. Furthermore, we find that societies that practice agriculture are more hierarchical only where they cultivate cereals. This means that societies that cultivate roots and tubers have similar levels of hierarchy to those of pastoral or foraging societies. 而后我们发现，那些谷物比根块茎作物拥有更高生产率优势的社群，往往会拥有更复杂的层级机构，这与我们所提理论的预期相符。此外，我们发现，在从事农业生产的社群中，只有种植谷物的那些才具有更多的等级性质。这意味着，种植根块茎的社群与游牧社群或采集社群具有相似的社会分层水平。 We also show that land productivity, measured by the potential yield of calories per acre of the most productive crop in each area, does not affect hierarchy once we control for the productivity advantage of cereals. Thus, our empirical findings challenge the conventional argument that it is increased land productivity that leads to more hierarchical societies. 我们还展示了，一旦控制了谷物的生产率优势，土地生产率（以每个地方最适应生产的作物的每英亩潜在热量产出计算）就不会影响社会等级性。因此，我们的实证结果质疑了土地生产率提高导致社会等级性增强的传统理论。 Although this cross-sectional analysis accounts for a wide range of confounding factors, we cannot rule out completely that omitted variables may bias the estimates. To overcome this concern, we employ another dataset compiled by Borcan et al. (2014). This is a panel, based on present-day boundaries of 159 countries, with institutional information every five decades over the last millennium. 虽然这个截面分析考虑到了很多干扰因子，但我们依然不能完全排除遗漏某些变量造成推算偏差的可能性。为了解除这一疑虑，我们应用了另外一个由Borcan等人（2014年）编制的数据集。这是一项历时性数据，以159个国家的现代边界为基础，包含有过去一千年中每隔五十年的制度信息。 This panel enables us to exploit the ‘Columbian exchange’ of crops across continents as a natural experiment. The new crops that became available after 1492 in the New and the Old World changed both the productivity of land and the productivity advantage of cereals over roots and tubers in the majority of the countries in the sample. 这项历时性数据使得我们可以把农作物跨越各大陆的“哥伦布交换”当作一个自然实验来利用。对于样本国家中的大多数而言，新旧两个大陆在1492年之后所得到的新型农作物都既改变了他们的土地生产率，也改变了谷物相对块根块茎作物的生产率优势。 Consistent with our theory, the panel regressions confirm that an increase in the productivity advantage of cereals over roots and tubers has a positive impact on hierarchical complexity, while an increase in land productivity does not. 与我们的理论一致的是，基于历时性数据的回归分析证实：如果谷物作物相对于块根块茎作物的生产率优势增加，那就会对社会分层的复杂性产生正面影响，而土地生产率的增加则不会引发这种正面影响。 Concluding remarks 结论 These findings support our theory that it is not agricultural productivity and surplus per se that explains more complex hierarchical societies, but rather the productivity advantage of cereals over roots and tubers, the type of crop that is cultivated as a result, and the appropriability of the crop type. Given that the productivity of roots and tubers is typically high in the tropics, these results also support the claim that deep-rooted geographical factors may explain the current weakness of state institutions in these regions. 这些发现支持了我们的理论：农业生产率和粮食盈余本身并不能解释更为复杂的等级制社会的出现，毋宁说，它们之出现，原因在于谷物作物相对于块根块茎作物的生产率优势，也就是由此导致的栽培农作物的种类选择以及此种农作物的可收夺性。鉴于块根块茎作物在热带地区产量一般来说更高，上述结论也支持这样一种说法：这些地域的国家机构的孱弱现状，可能从深层次的地理原因方面可以得到解释。 （编辑：辉格@whigzhou） *注：本译文未经原作者授权，本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利，如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容，请私信联系，我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组，致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

Making Americans 造就美国人 作者：Will Morrisey @ 2015-11-25 译者：Veidt（@Veidt) 校对：沈沉（@你在何地-sxy） 来源：Online Library of Law and Liberty， http://www.libertylawsite.org/2015/11/25/making-americans/ English settlers in America might have intended to transmit the traditions of the mother country to subsequent generations. This didn’t exactly happen—partly because the settlers disagreed amongst themselves about which of those traditions deserved preservation, and partly because the experience of life in North America challenged many of the traditions they did want to preserve. The disagreement and the adaptation together led, eventually, to a political revolution. 来到美洲的殖民者们也许曾经试图让来自祖国的传统在他们的后代身上延续下去，但这最终未能实现——部分是因为这些殖民者无法就哪些传统值得被保留达成一致，部分是因为在北美的生活经历让许多他们曾希望保留的传统受到了挑战。他们的这些分歧和适应行为最终导致了一场政治革命。 Malcolm Gaskill puts it bluntly: “Migrants did have one thing in common: they were no longer in England, and they had to get used to it.” Malcolm Gaskill直言不讳地写道：“这些移民的确有一个共同点：他们不再生活在英格兰了，而他们必须去适应这种新生活。” His new book tracks what happened to the English in their three (very different) principal areas of settlement: Virginia, New England, and the Caribbean. He also keeps an eye on what the English who stayed at home—financing these expeditions and attempting to rule them from afar—thought and did, especially in competition with the Spanish, who had settled large swaths of the New World a long time before their geopolitical rivals in London really got started. 他的新书追踪了弗吉尼亚、新英格兰和加勒比这三个（差别非常大的）主要殖民区域中发生在这些英国殖民者身上的历史。在书中，他同样关注了那些为这些殖民者的远征提供财力支持，并试图在遥远的英国统治他们的英国人的所想所为，尤其是他们与西班牙人之间的竞争——西班牙人早在他们伦敦的地缘政治对手开始向“新大陆”进军之前很久就已经在那里占据了大片土地。 This gives Between Two Worlds: How the English Became Americans a lot to do, but the author, a professor of early modern history at the University of East Anglia, manages his unruly topic by considering each of the first three settler generations in turn. 这些内容让写作《两个世界之间：英国人是如何成为美国人的》这本书成了一项繁重的任务，但本书作者，一位在东安格利亚大学研究早期现代史的教授，通过分别研究最初的三代殖民者，成功地处理了他所面对的这一难以驾驭的课题。 Gaskill deals in his prologue with the inauspicious 16th century beginnings of the project, remarking that the English understandably modeled their efforts on the recent conquest of Ireland, the wild tribes of which reminded them of their own pre-Roman-conquest ancestors and of the North American peoples. Gaskill在本书序言中讨论了16世纪初英国人开拓北美殖民地时所遇到的不顺利的开端，并提到英国人当时的殖民行为仿照的是他们最近对爱尔兰的征服，这并不稀奇，那里的蛮族部落让他们想起了自己的祖先在“罗马征服”之前的样子和现在的这些北美原住民。 The first settlement, at Roanoke, “Virginia” in 1585—named for Elizabeth, the Virgin Queen, of course—vanished from the earth like Prospero’s insubstantial pageant. To this day, we don’t know what happened to its more than 100 inhabitants. 他们1585年在以“童贞女王”伊丽莎白命名的“弗吉尼亚”的罗阿诺克建立了第一个殖民地，后来就像莎翁笔下普罗斯彼罗的虚幻盛宴一样从地球上消失了。直到今天，我们还是不知道那一百多位居民身上发生了什么。 The years 1607 to 1640 mark Gaskill’s first generation of permanent settlers. Of the four million English in 1600, thousands would journey to the New World during this period. Half of them went to the West Indies, slightly more than a third to the Virginia/Chesapeake area, only 15 percent to New England. 从1607年到1640年，Gaskill所定义的第一代永久殖民者来到了北美。1600年生活在英国的四百万人口中，有数千人将在这一时期踏上前往“新大陆”的旅途。他们中的一半去了西印度群岛，略多于三分之一去了弗吉尼亚/切萨皮克地区，仅有15%去了新英格兰。 Motives varied, but as the “southerly” movement of the new arrivals  suggests, the prospect of a mild climate fit for rich plantations and an interest in “resisting Spanish Catholics—the dark lords of an American empire”—figured prominently in English ambitions. 虽然动机各不相同，但这些新来者们向南方的迁移说明，对适宜大型种植园的温和气候和“抵抗美洲帝国的黑暗领主——西班牙天主教徒们”的兴趣是英国人的主要野心所在。 To wrest land from the infidels of Spain and from pagan indigenes—better still, while converting the latter to Protestant Christianity—reconciled, at least to the satisfaction of the English, desires for both liberty and empire. (Two centuries later, Thomas Jefferson’s formula, “the empire of liberty,” would address the same paradox, albeit in very different terms.) 至少对于英国人来说，从西班牙异端以及异教的土著人手中夺取土地——要是能同时将后者转变为新教基督徒就更好，这恰好将英国人既追求自由又寻求建立帝国统治的两个目标统一了起来。（两个世纪之后，托马斯·杰弗逊提出的“自由帝国”一词也回应了同一悖论，虽然是以一种非常不同的形式。） Upon ascending the throne in 1603, James I followed a two-track strategy with Spain. He made peace while endorsing some New World plantations. King James’ restraint in New World settlement bespoke not only diplomatic caution but also the worry (prescient, as it would happen) that large English settlements in the New World might upset England’s place “in the hierarchy of nations.” 自从1603年登上王位，詹姆士一世就以一种“双轨策略”来对付西班牙。在向“新大陆”的一些种植园提供支持的同时，他也维持着与西班牙之间的和平关系。詹姆士国王在“新大陆”殖民事业上的克制不仅仅显示出他在外交上的谨慎，同时也表现出他的一种担忧：英国在“新大陆”的大规模殖民活动可能会打乱本国在“国家的层级体系”中所处位置（之后发生的事情也证明了这一担忧的确很有先见之明）。 The New World tail might someday wag the Old World dog. He took care not to use the Crown’s money for investment, leaving colonization to private speculators who nonetheless remained under royal control. Hence the Virginia Company and the Plymouth Adventurers, both established in 1606. “新大陆”的发展终有一天会对“旧大陆”构成尾大不掉之势。他小心翼翼地避免使用皇室的钱进行投资，将殖民活动留给那些仍然处于皇室控制之下的私人投机客们。正是在这种背景下，弗吉尼亚公司和普利茅斯探险者公司同时在1606年成立了。 The former reached the Chesapeake Bay under the command of Captain John Smith the following year, founding Jamestown and meeting resistance above all from the Indian chiefs or Paw-Paws, who recognized a rival form of worship when they saw one. As Gaskill puts it, “Indian suspicion on one side, and a haughty sense of entitlement on the other, guaranteed an Anglo-Indian future steeped in misery and bloodshed.” 弗吉尼亚公司的船队在John Smith船长的指挥下于次年来到了切萨皮克湾，他们建立了詹姆斯敦，并且遇到了一些印第安首领（也称Paw-Paw）【校注：根据原书，此处应为paw-waw，印第安人中的神职人员】的抵抗，他们把任何与他们有着不同崇拜的人都视为敌人。正如Gaskill所写道的，“一边是多疑的印第安人，而另一边则是英国人傲慢的特权感，这为之后盎格鲁-印第安人之间血腥而悲惨的历史埋下了伏笔。” And this notwithstanding the marriage of the entrepreneur John Rolfe to “Pocahantas” (her real name, Mataoka, concealed from the English), optimistically renamed “Rebecca,” after the Biblical mother of two nations. She died less than a decade later, after a publicity tour of England, taking the rather faint hope of peaceful intermarriage and Christian conversion of the Indians with her. 尽管来自英国的企业家John Rolfe娶了土著公主“宝嘉康蒂”（她的真名Mataoka却不为英国人所知），并且她还起了一个富有乐观精神的新名字“Rebecca”——圣经中两个民族的母亲【编注：据《旧约·创世纪》，利百加（Rebecca）为以撒（Issac）之妻，生孪生子雅各（Jacob）和以扫（Esau），分别为以色列人和以东人（Edomites）的始祖，有些说法认为阿拉伯人是以东人后裔。】，但仅仅过了不到十年，她在一次宣传性质的英国之旅后就去世了，同时也带走了本就十分渺茫的和平联姻以及将印第安人转变为基督徒的希望。 The real answer to lasting English settlement in America was political thought. “Adventurers had to learn that merely installing English settlements in America was not enough,” Gaskill writes. “They had to identify things that made England work socially, politically, and economically and reproduce them. Peopling the land was the key.” 英国人在美洲维持长期殖民的真正答案在于政治思想。“探险者们必须懂得，仅仅在美洲建立英国殖民地是不够的，”Gaskill写道。“他们必须找出那些让英国在社会层面、政治层面和经济层面得以运转下去的东西，并将这套东西移植到新大陆上，让其生根发芽。在这片土地上繁衍生息才是关键。” If ever a people were, in Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s famous phrase, forced to be free, it was the English in North America. More specifically, they were forced to think, and to think politically. It was a habit that would eventuate in independence and republicanism, nearly two centuries later. 如果历史上确有一群人——用卢梭的名言来说——是被迫成为自由人的，那说的就是北美洲的英国人了。更准确的说，他们是被逼着去思考政治问题。这个习惯最终在大约两个世纪之后孕育出了美国的独立和共和主义。 The Indian nations and tribes, who had been engaged in fierce geopolitical struggles amongst themselves for centuries, quickly saw the danger of any substantial territorial encroachments by the newcomers. At best, the white strangers might be deployed against traditional enemies. 那些已经陷入彼此之间的地缘政治斗争长达几个世纪的印第安民族和部落们，很快就发现了新来者们带来的巨大的领土入侵威胁。对他们来说，在最好的设想之下，可以利用这些白种陌生人攻击自己的宿敌。 Incidentally, one of the merits of Between Two Worlds is its treatment of the Indians—a treatment free of the American triumphalism of the old accounts, and also of the condescending sympathy for “Native Americans” fashionable in the past half-century. 顺便提一下，《两个世界之间》这本书的优点之一就是其中对印第安人的处理——它摆脱了陈腐的美国必胜心理，同时也摆脱了过去半个世纪中流行的那种带有优越感的对“美洲原住民”的同情心态。 Gaskill describes but makes no attempt to justify the sudden attack on Jamestown masterminded by the apparently friendly Powhatan chief, Opechancanough, whose men murdered 387 unsuspecting settlers in March 1622, then mangled the carcasses. Gaskill仅仅是描述了由那位之前表现得明显很友好的Powhatan部落酋长Opechancanough所策划的对詹姆斯敦的突袭，而完全没有试图为其辩护，在这场发生于1622年3月的突袭中，Opechancanough酋长的部下们杀死了387名毫无戒心的殖民者，之后还将他们的尸体砍得支离破碎。 After that, “Throughout the Atlantic world, men decided that Indians could not be trusted.” Settler eminences now began to speak not of intermarriage, peaceful trade, and conversion but of the right of war and the law of nations exercised against savages. 在那之后，“在整个大西洋世界中，人们决定不再信任印第安人。”殖民地的精英们不再谈论与印第安人通婚、和平贸易或者说服他们皈依基督教，而开始谈论战争权利以及针对野蛮人的国际公法。 As for the Plymouth Adventurers and their descendants, the New Englanders faced analogous circumstances but with a different set of Indian nations, in a harsher climate; and they arrived with more intense religious aspirations. A band of Protestant dissidents landed at “New Plymouth” in 1620, settling in territory where the local tribe had been eradicated by disease. 而对于普利茅斯探险者公司及其后继者们，这些新英格兰人所面临的处境与弗吉尼亚公司非常类似，只是他们所面对的是一些不同的印第安民族，和更加严酷的气候，而他们在到达时也怀揣着更加强烈的宗教愿望。一群持异见的新教徒在1620年到达了“新普利茅斯”，并在一个被疾病所消灭的当地部落所在地建立了殖民地。 Interestingly, Gaskill notes that the Mayflower Compact was no “democratic constitution but a company contract to bind the strangers to order upon landing, a quick fix before formal authority was established.” (Many of the Pilgrims were Dutch.) 有趣的是，Gaskill提到，“五月花号公约”实际上并不是什么“民主宪法，而是一份为了让那群陌生人上岸之后能够服从命令的公司合同，是在正式权力机构建立之前的一条权宜之计”。（这些最初的移民中很多都是荷兰人。） In the same vein, he points out that this and similar settlements in New England didn’t establish beachheads for political liberty; John Winthrop’s 1630 Salem founding was a theocracy supervised by God’s vicegerent, Mr. Winthrop. 同样地，他还指出，该殖民地和新英格兰地区的其他殖民地所建立的，并非是政治自由的桥头堡；John Winthrop于1630年在塞勒姆建立的殖民地是一个在上帝的代理人——也就是Winthrop先生本人——监督之下的神权政体。 The settlements were democratic only in Tocqueville’s social sense: No titled aristocrats made the trip. By “liberty” the settlers meant, in the frank words of one, a world free of bishops. 这些殖民地仅仅在托克维尔所说的社会意义上，才有些民主的样子：越洋而来的人群中不存在拥有头衔的贵族。对于这些殖民者而言，借用他们中某人的坦率说法，“自由”仅仅意味着一个没有主教的世界。 As for the West Indies, settlers worried less about Indians than about the heat, the hurricanes, and the disease-carrying mosquitoes. There, a new aristocracy began to take shape, based on slaves who were imported from Africa to work in a climate Europeans could not bear to work in. By the 1630s the Virginia settlers were beginning to do the same thing. The portentous social distinction between South and North had begun to take shape. 对于那些来到西印度群岛的殖民者们，相比印第安人，更加困扰他们的是炎热的天气，狂暴的飓风，还有蚊虫带来的疾病。在那里，一种新的贵族政治开始成型，而它的基础则是从非洲引入的黑奴，只有他们才能在欧洲人无法忍受的气候里劳作。而到了1630年代，弗吉尼亚的殖民者们也开始做同样的事情。北美大陆的南部和北部之间令人不安的社会差异开始逐步成型。 Having made his peace with Spain, James I faced increasingly sharp resistance to his rule from Protestants at home, their suspicions roused especially by the king’s attempts to marry his eldest son to one Catholic princess after another (success came in 1625, when the future Charles I wedded Henrietta Maria of France). By the time the second generation of English Americans took charge, relations with Indians had become foreign relations, slavery was giving rise to a set of New World aristocrats, and civil war loomed in England itself. 在与西班牙握手言和之后，詹姆士一世国王面临着来自国内新教徒日益锐利的抵抗。国王不断地试图让自己的长子迎娶一位又一位天主教公主的行为（最终在1625年，未来的查理一世成功地迎娶了法国的Henrietta Maria公主）特别激起了他们强烈的质疑。第二代英裔美洲殖民者登上历史舞台之后，他们与印第安人之间的关系已经成为了一种外交关系，而奴隶制则成就了一批新大陆的新贵，与此同时，内战的阴霾开始笼罩在英国上空。 With the war, second-generation colonists, writes Gaskill, “were forced to examine their consciences and allegiances to decide what being English meant and what it meant to belong physically and spiritually to America.” Gaskill写道，随着英国内战的进行，第二代殖民者“被迫去审视他们的良知和忠诚，以确定英国人的身份究竟意味着什么，以及在肉体和精神上都归属于美洲又意味着什么。” The First English Civil War— which pitted a new and more absolutist monarch, Charles I, against Oliver Cromwell and his Puritan “Roundheads”—stirred existing factions in North America, engaging them not only in the political thought forced upon the first generation but in regime-changing political thought. These passions mixed with passions aroused by the already worsening settler-Indian relations. 第一次英国内战——这次内战让一位更加崇尚专制的新国王查理一世陷入了与奥利弗·克伦威尔和他的清教徒“圆颅党”们的斗争——搅浑了北美英国殖民者之间本已存在的分歧，这让他们不仅仅需要面对上一代殖民者们被迫进行的政治思考，还需要作出与政权更替有关的新政治思考。而更糟的是，这些感情还与被已经持续恶化的殖民者和印第安人之间的关系所激起的感情杂糅在了一起。 Puritan victory in England meant that it became, briefly, more like New England. A new Reformation was imposed, this one described as a “Reformation of manners,” including capital punishment for adultery and what Gaskill calls “a united front against popery.” (The draconian law against adultery never saw rigorous enforcement—probably a good thing for the sake of continued English population growth. One emigrant to Virginia wrote that the deer in his new country were as numerous as cuckolds in England.) 简单地说，清教徒的胜利意味着英国变得更像新英格兰了。清教徒们实施了一次新的宗教改革运动，这次叫做“礼俗改革”，包括对通奸行为实施死刑以及Gaskill所说的“对罗马天主教的联合抵制。”（惩罚通奸行为的严厉法律从来没有被严格执行过——也许对于人口的持续增长来说，这反而是件好事。一位来到弗吉尼亚的移民曾写道，在他的新国家里，鹿的数量几乎和英国戴绿帽子的男人一样多。） Puritan victory did not bring dismantlement of the king’s wartime bureaucracy, which the Puritans simply took over, continuing extralegal absolutism but in clerical garb. The new republic saw the abolition of the House of Lords, the established church, and the monarchy, but the empowered Cromwell and Parliament had no more intention to frame a liberal republic than had the Puritan fathers of New England. 清教徒们的胜利并没有清除掉服务于国王的战时官僚体系，他们直接接管了这个体系，并继续维持着凌驾于法律之上的专制主义，只是站在它背后的换成了一群穿着牧师衣服的人。新的共和政府废除了议会上院，废黜了国教和君主，但是大权在握的克伦威尔和议会并不比那些建立了新英格兰殖民地的清教徒们更希望建立一个自由的共和国。 Although a bit lax in enforcing the adultery laws, both England and New England went after suspected witches, with England initiating the attacks and (surprisingly, given subsequent accounts) surpassing the New England courts in handing down convictions. At least New England magistrates “insisted on proof of a satanic pact,” unlike their more ardent English-Puritan counterparts. 虽然在执行惩罚通奸的法律上有些松懈，但在英国国内和新英格兰都掀起了搜捕女巫的运动，这事情最初在英国发起，且英国法庭判定的有罪女巫多于新英格兰的法庭（与后世的记录相对照，这一点很令人吃惊）。至少新英格兰的地方法官们会“坚持要求拿出女巫与魔鬼订过契约的证据”才会定罪，而不像他们更加富有激情的英国清教徒同僚们那样随意。 Fleeing in defeat, Royalists went to the West Indies, sometimes to Virginia. When Parliament threatened to pursue them across the water, they allied themselves with local champions of self-government as putative advocates of—what else, if not the tradition of the English common law (for which the Stuarts and their allies had previously shown little regard). 在经历了失败之后，英国的保皇党们逃向了西印度群岛，也有一些去了弗吉尼亚。当议会威胁要跨过大西洋追捕他们时，他们与当地的自治拥护者们结成了同盟，并把他们假想为——除了英国普通法的传统之外，还能是别的什么呢——的拥护者（但斯图亚特王室及其同盟者在之前可并没有对这一传统表现出多少尊重）。 Cromwell’s designation as “Emperor of the West Indies” put English republicanism, such as it was, on the side of statist centralization. Because the monarchy had sold off most of its lands under the Tudors, the new statists had no choice but to obtain revenues through taxation. 克伦威尔的“西印度群岛皇帝”头衔将英国本已破败不堪的共和主义完全变成了中央集权。由于王室已经在都铎时期卖掉了大部分土地，新来的中央集权者们别无选择，只能通过征税来获得收入。 Back along the Chesapeake, Catholics and Protestants fought each other in Maryland, with Protestants from as far away as Massachusetts joining the fight, which the Protestants eventually won at the Battle of Severn (near Annapolis) in 1655. 再看切萨皮克湾沿岸，天主教徒和新教徒们此时正在马里兰打得不可开交。新教徒一边的参战者甚至有从马萨诸塞远道而来的，最终于1655年在赛汶河（靠近安纳波利斯）战役后获得了最终的胜利。 By the time of Cromwell’s assassination in 1658, New England and Virginia had established themselves economically. Trade began to eclipse religiosity in both places. As it did in England: Charles II, crowned in 1660, proved considerably more latitudinarian in doctrine and in morals than were the Puritans. 到1658年克伦威尔被刺杀时，新英格兰和弗吉尼亚已经能够在经济上自食其力了。在这两个地区，贸易的影响力都已大大超过宗教。在英国也是如此：1660年登上王位的查理二世表明自己在宗教和道德方面比之前的清教徒们要开明得多。 Increased trade also brought greater demand for slaves, especially in the West Indies; not only Africans but English prisoners, Scottish rebels, and the ever-beleaguered Irish were “barbadosed.” Charles II did prove disappointing to merchants in one important respect: Needing revenues as much as his father and as much as Cromwell, he renewed the stiff regulation of trade. 贸易的繁荣同样刺激了对奴隶的更大需求，在西印度群岛尤其如此。不但是非洲人，甚至连英国犯人、苏格兰反叛者和那些一直处于英格兰围困下的爱尔兰人都被放逐到了巴巴多斯充当奴隶。查理二世的确在一个重要的方面让商人们大失所望：他和他的父王还有克伦威尔一样，需要大量的收入，所以他恢复了之前对贸易的严厉管制。 As Gaskill observes, the English civil/revolutionary wars proved to Americans that their difficulties with the mother country arose not simply as a result of defective regimes—monarchs and parliaments alike exacted revenues and demanded obedience—but as a result of the empowerment of the modern state, quite apart from its regime form. A century later, their descendants’ Declaration of Independence excoriated not only the monarch/tyrant but also the Parliament for, among other things, sending tax collectors to eat out their substance. 正如Gaskill所观察到的，英国的革命和内战向美国人证明：他们与祖国之间的问题不仅仅出于有缺陷的政权——不论是君主还是议会，都向他们榨取大量的收入，并且要求他们的绝对服从——而更是肇源于现代国家的权力，不仅仅是政体形态的问题。一个世纪之后，他们的后人发表的“独立宣言”中不仅仅严厉地声讨了暴虐的君主，也同样声讨了英国议会派遣税务官来剥削他们财富的行为。 Increased trade also spelled trouble for the Indians. The more prosperous the American English became, the more numerous they were; the more numerous they were, the more land they wanted. In Virginia, especially, where plantation owners had locked up the best land, new settlers pressed westward. 贸易的繁荣同样给印第安人带来了麻烦。北美的英国人越是兴旺，他们的人数就会变得越多；而他们的人数越多，就会想要越多的土地。特别是在弗吉尼亚，那里的种植园主们已经圈定了最好的土地，而新来的殖民者则不得不向西去开拓新的土地。 Meanwhile the British Empire set down its own, grander, imperial policy. In the words of diarist John Evelyn: 与此同时，大英帝国则确定下了它自己更加宏大的帝国政策。用日记作者John Evelyn的话来说就是：

Whoever Commands the Ocean Commands the Trade of the World, and whoever Commands the Trade of the World Commands the Riches of the World, and whoever is Master of that Commands the World it self. 谁控制了海洋，谁就能控制全世界的贸易，而谁控制了全世界的贸易，也就控制了全世界的财富，而他也就成为了整个世界的主宰。

Charles II resumed the strategy that had been set down decades earlier by the disgraced Francis Bacon, that of “merg[ing] politics, profit, and natural philosophy”—the conquest of nature for the relief of man’s estate, and particularly the British estate. 查理二世重新采用了由失势的弗朗西斯·培根【译注：培根于1621年被控贪污受贿，被判罚金和监禁，后来虽被豁免，但政治生涯却因此终结】在几十年前所定下的策略，也就是“将政治、利益和自然哲学合而为一”——通过征服自然来解放人的状况，特别是英国人的状况。 By now, about 60,000 English settlers lived in New England. Metacom, or “King Philip” of the Wampanoags, began a major war against them. “This was for the second generation what sea crossings and scratch-building had been for the first: a hardening, defining experience.” 此时已有大约6万名英国殖民者生活在新英格兰。Metacom，即万帕诺亚格部落的“菲利普王”发动了一场针对这些英国人的大规模战争。“对于第二代殖民者们来说，这场战争的意义就像是乘船渡海和白手起家对于第一代殖民者的意义一样：这是一次定义并强化他们身份的经历。” Using what we now call guerrilla tactics, the coalition of Indian tribes fought through the bitter winter of 1675-76, taunting their captives with the question, “Where is your God now?” Gaskill describes the “extravagant cruelty” of Indian and Englishman alike: “Indians tortured because martial ritual required it, the English to obtain intelligence.” 通过使用今天被称为游击战的战术，印第安部落联军在1675-76年的寒冬里奋勇作战，并讥讽他们的俘虏，问他们“现在你的上帝去哪儿了？”Gaskill在描述印第安人和英国人时都使用了“过分残忍”这个相同的字眼：“印第安人折磨俘虏，因为这是他们尚武仪式的要求，而英国人折磨俘虏则是为了获得情报。” Two thousand settlers died before the Indian coalition surrendered in July 1677. Sporadic Indian raids continued, and the colonists duly noted that their British brethren had offered no protective aid aside from parish collections, “which were mere gestures.” Nor did the British prove any more helpful in Maryland, where settlers put down a similar uprising. 在1677年7月印第安联军投降之前，有两千名殖民者死于这场战争。此后，印第安人零星的袭击仍在持续，而这些殖民者们也很好地意识到：他们的英国同胞除了搞一些教堂募捐之外，并没有为他们提供什么别的保护，“而这完全是一些象征性的帮助。”而在马里兰，英国人也并没有证明自己能够提供更多的帮助，那里的殖民者们也镇压了一场类似的印第安人起义。 By the third generation, writes Gaskill, “experience set the colonists apart, creating opposition internally and with England.” Struggles with Indians continued; in the north the tribes began to ally with the French, another Catholic enemy. Catholic James II ascended the throne in 1685, after Charles II died, intensifying the worries of Anglo-American Protestants. 到第三代殖民者的时候，“在北美不同地区的经历将这些殖民者们分隔开来，在他们内部和他们与英国之间造成了对立。”Gaskill写道。与印第安人的斗争仍在继续；在北部，印第安部落开始与英国殖民者的另一个天主教敌人法国结盟。信奉天主教的詹姆士二世于1685年查理二世死后登上英国王位，而这进一步加剧了盎格鲁-美利坚新教徒们的担忧。 West Indian and Virginian settlers added to their slave populations and simultaneously to their worries about slave rebellions. Along the Chesapeake, in the 1680s alone the slave population rose from 4,500 to 12,000. This increase also decreased incidences of manumission; a people engaged in demographically-based dominance of the Indians had no intention of being overwhelmed by emancipated African slaves. 西印度群岛和弗吉尼亚的殖民者增加了他们的奴隶数量，而这也同时加剧了他们对奴隶叛乱的担忧。在切萨皮克湾沿岸，仅仅在1680年代奴隶数量就从4500人上升到了12000人。而这种数量增加也降低了奴隶解放运动事件的几率；一群忙于在人口数量上对印第安人形成优势的殖民者绝不希望自己在数量上被那些被解放的非洲奴隶们超过。 No solution—even in theory—to any of these ethno-political or religio-political dilemmas was available to Americans until a writer of the time, John Locke, began publishing. A political regime founded upon the principle of equal natural rights could form the basis of racial and religious peace in a political community that actually framed laws to conform to that principle. 即使从理论上说，当时也没有任何办法能够帮助美国人解决这些民族政治和宗教政治难题，直到那个时代的一位作家开始著书立说，他就是约翰·洛克。如果一个政治共同体的法律确实能遵从平等的自然权利原则，那么它那建立在此原则之上的政权就能够为种族间和宗教间的和平提供基础。 Gaskill mentions Locke in passing but mistakes his natural rights philosophy for “pragmatism.” What made the third generation of Americans react against the excesses of the last witch-hunting spasm, in 1690s Salem, was not pragmatism but an understanding of Christianity that Americans in New England were the first to begin to integrate into their laws. Gaskill在书中顺带提到了洛克，但却将他的自然权利哲学误认为是“实用主义”。面对1790年代塞勒姆掀起的最后一场追捕女巫的过分风潮，第三代美国人奋起反对，而促使他们这么做的并不是什么“实用主义”，而是基于对基督教义的理解，新英格兰的美国人也率先将这种理解整合到了他们的法律中。 Writes Gaskill: “Boston’s Brattle Street Church was founded in 1698 not upon scriptural literalism, the ‘New England way,’ or a covenant, but upon nature, reason, and inclusiveness”—in other words, upon a combination of Christianity and Lockean philosophy. What remained of the older generations, he concludes, was a legacy of “extraordinary courage.” Gaskill写道：“波士顿Brattle街教堂建立于1698年，它的建立并非基于‘新英格兰式’的圣经字面主义，或基于一个宗教誓约，它的基础是自然、理性与包容。”——换句话说，它建立在基督教和洛克哲学的结合之上。他总结道，老一代人为新的殖民者们所留下的遗产仅仅是他们“非凡的勇气”。 The commercial republic of the future would prove battle-ready, to the dismay of its enemies for centuries to come. 这个未来的商业共和国将会证明它已经做好了战斗的准备，而这将让它此后数个世纪的敌人们都感到沮丧。 （编辑：辉格@whigzhou） *注：本译文未经原作者授权，本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利，如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容，请私信联系，我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组，致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

Tom Holland: We must not deny the religious roots of Islamic State Tom Holland: 我们不能否认伊斯兰国的宗教根基 作者：Tom Holland @ 2015-3-17 译者：Horace Rae 校对：沈沉（@你在何地-sxy） 来源：News Statesman，http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/03/tom-holland-we-must-not-deny-relgious-roots-islamic-state Its jihadis call for a global caliphate. So why deny religion drives Isis? 伊斯兰圣战者呼吁建立一个全球哈里发帝国。所以，我们何以否认伊斯兰国乃由宗教所驱动？ in 1545, a general council of the Western Church was convened by Pope Paul III in the Tyrolean city of Trent. The ambition of the various bishops and theologians in attendance was to affirm Catholic doctrine in the face of the Protestant Reformation. Accordingly, when the council issued its first significant decree on 8 April 1546, it was targeted very precisely at what the delegates saw as most noxious about Luther and his followers. 1545年，教皇保禄三世主持的天主教会大公会议在提洛尔地区的塔兰托召开。与会的主教和神学家们想要在新教改革如火如荼之际巩固天主教信条的地位。于是，1546年4月8日，当会议发布第一条重要教令时，其对象很明确，就是被代表们视为罪大恶极的路德及其追随者。 Whereas Protestants, following Luther’s lead, aspired to strip away the cladding of tradition and learn the will of God from scripture alone, the Council of Trent condemned this ambition as a pernicious heresy. Divine revelation, it declared firmly, was not confined to the Bible. Tradition, too, “preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession”, expressed the essence of Christ’s teachings. To doubt this was no longer to rank as Christian. 跟随路德指引的新教徒们决意打破传统，只从经文中领悟上帝的意志。塔兰托大公会议谴责这种想法，称其为罪大恶极的异端邪说。会议坚持，神圣启示并非只存在于《圣经》之中。传统——“经由连续传承而被保存在天主教会中”——也同样能传达上帝教导的实质。质疑这一说法的人将被剥夺基督徒身份。 It is in a kindred spirit that Mehdi Hasan, in his article in last week’s issue of the New Statesman, would deny the title of Islamic to Islamic State, also known as Isis. That Isis militants, in justifying their actions, can quote the Quran, or the example or sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, does not necessarily make them orthodox Muslims. 在上周New Statesman 杂志刊登的一篇文章中，Mehdi Hasan也表达了类似的想法：否认伊斯兰国的“伊斯兰”特性。尽管伊斯兰国的战士们在为其行为辩解时大可引用《古兰经》或先知穆罕默德的行迹或言论，但这并不能令他们成为正统的穆斯林。 Islam, like Christianity, is more than the sum of its scriptures. Over the course of its near 1,500 years of existence, an immense corpus of commentary and interpretation has accrued. “. . . the religion’s teachings in every age are determined by scholarly consensus on the meaning of the complex scriptural texts.” So declares Timothy Winter, the director of the Cambridge Muslim College, as quoted by Hasan. It is an assertion that would not have looked out of place in the decrees of the Council of Trent. 就像基督教一样，伊斯兰教的内涵远比经文总和丰富得多。在它1500余年历史中，无数人对它做过解释和评论，“……在每个时代，教义都是由关于复杂经文之内涵的学术共识决定的。” Hasan 引用剑桥穆斯林学院院长Timothy Winter如此说到。这种主张如果插到塔兰托会议的纲领中去，也不会令人觉得格格不入。 The problem faced by the orthodox religious authorities in the Muslim world, however, is very similar to that which confronted the Catholic Church in the 16th century: escaped genies are tricky things to get back into bottles. The same impulse that prompted Luther to affirm the primacy of scripture over Catholic doctrine has also long been at work in Islam. 然而，正统穆斯林权威现在面对的问题与16世纪困扰天主教会的问题很相似：逃脱的精灵很难回到瓶子里。促使路德把经文置于天主教信条之上的念头在伊斯兰教中也是由来已久。 As far back as the 13th century, a scholar based in Damascus by the name of Ibn Taymiyya proposed that the surest way to know God’s purpose was to study the practices of the first three generations of Muslims: the “forebears”, or “Salafs”. Reports of what Muhammad and his earliest followers had done, so he argued, should always trump subsequent tradition. Like Luther, Ibn Taymiyya was condemned as a heretic; but he also, again like Luther, blazed a momentous trail. 早在13世纪，大马士革一位名叫Ibn Taymiyya的学者就认为，领悟真主意图最稳妥的方法就是研习最早三代穆斯林（“先贤”，或称“萨拉菲”）的事迹。他宣称，关于穆罕默德及其最早期追随者所作所为的记载，永远比后来形成的传统更为权威。正如路德一样，Ibn Taymiyya也曾被斥为异端；但是，还是跟路德一样，他同样开辟了一条重要道路。 Salafism today is probably the fastest-growing Islamic movement in the world. The interpretation that Isis applies to Muslim scripture may be exceptional for its savagery – but not for its literalism. Islamic State, in its conceit that it has trampled down the weeds and briars of tradition and penetrated to the truth of God’s dictates, is recognisably Salafist. 萨拉菲主义可能是当今世界扩散最迅速的伊斯兰教运动。伊斯兰国对伊斯兰经文的解释，在其野蛮性上或许颇为罕见，但是在字面主义上却绝对正宗。伊斯兰国幻想自己消灭了宗教传统中的毒草，洞悉上帝的旨意，这很明显是萨拉菲主义的特质。 When Islamic State fighters smash the statues of pagan gods, they are following the example of the Prophet; when they proclaim themselves the shock troops of a would-be global empire, they are following the example of the warriors of the original caliphate; when they execute enemy combatants, and impose discriminatory taxes on Christians, and take the women of defeated opponents as slaves, they are doing nothing that the first Muslims did not glory in. 当伊斯兰国战士毁坏异教神祗的雕像时，他们效仿的是先知的先例；当他们宣称自己是未来统治世界的帝国的骁勇之师时，他们效仿的是最早的哈里发国的军队。当他们处决敌军战士，对基督徒征收歧视性的税目，以及把被打败对手的女人当作奴隶时，没有一件不是初代穆斯林引以为豪的。 Such behaviour is certainly not synonymous with Islam; but if not Islamic, then it is hard to know what else it is. 这种行为与伊斯兰教肯定不是百分之百相符的；但要是说这种行为不是伊斯兰的，那就很难说它到底是什么了。 Admittedly the actions of those signed up to Islamic State are unlikely to have been inspired exclusively by religious teachings. Many of those fighting for Isis may indeed, as Hasan points out, be varnishing their taste for violence or power with a sheen of piety. But the same was true of those inspired by Luther’s teachings – not to mention the early Muslims themselves. 诚然，伊斯兰国的这些行为不可能仅仅由宗教教义驱动。Hasan指出，isis的许多斗士，可能仅仅是将他们对权力和暴力的欲望粉饰为了对神的虔诚。但是，被路德的教导所鼓舞的人也是如此呀——更不要提那些早期的穆斯林们了。 Back in the time of the Salafs, avarice and religiosity frequently coincided. When a slave revolt erupted in Syria and Iraq less than 50 years after the death of Muhammad, the Arab conquerors were outraged. “These slaves are our booty,” one of them exclaimed. “They were granted us by God!” 在萨拉菲们的时代，虔诚与贪婪往往同时发生。穆罕默德去世不到50年，叙利亚和伊拉克爆发了奴隶起义，阿拉伯征服者们大发雷霆，其中一人宣称“这些奴隶是我们的战利品，他们是真主赐予我们的！” Jihadis in Raqqa have tweeted in similar tones about uppity Yazidi slaves. To imagine that religious motivation can somehow be isolated from the complex swirl of ambitions, fears and desires that constitute human nature is to fall for an illusion: that religions, contingent as they are, and as subject to evolution as any other manifestation of culture, exist as abstract ideals. 在推特上，拉卡的圣战者对不易控制的雅兹迪奴隶也有相同的论调。如果我们假想宗教驱动力可以从构成人类本性的野心、恐惧、欲望所组成的复杂漩涡中独立出来，我们就会陷入一种幻觉：宗教飘忽不定，并且如同其他文化表现形式一样总在持续演变，只是作为抽象理念而存在。 The truth is that in Islam today, as in Christianity during the Reformation, the spectrum of those who practise the faith is widening to convulsive effect. Hasan’s dismissal of two Isis recruits from Birmingham as “religious novices” echoes the horror of Catholic scholars such as Thomas More at the pretensions of Protestant tailors and tinkers. 真相是，今日的伊斯兰教就如同宗教改革期间的基督教一样，信徒们的思想差异极大，造成了令人震惊的后果。Hasan对Isis从伯明翰招募的两名成员不屑一顾，称之为“宗教菜鸟”，这种反感与Thomas More等天主教学者面对新教裁缝和修补匠的主张时的感觉一样。 Just as in the early 16th century the printing press and the efforts of translators such as Luther and Tyndale served to democratise knowledge of the Bible, so in the 21st century has the ready availability on the internet of the Quran and the hadiths in the vernacular enabled rappers, security guards and schoolgirls all to bandy scripture. 正如16世纪时出版印刷业以及路德和廷代尔等翻译者曾对《圣经》知识平民化作出过贡献一样，在21世纪，网络上译成本地语言的《古兰经》及《穆罕默德言行录》唾手可得，这也使得说唱艺人、保安和女学生们都能把经文挂在嘴边。 To complain that quranic verses which mandate crucifixion or beheading are being cited without reference to the traditions of Islamic jurisprudence is to miss the point. It is precisely because Isis militants imagine themselves the equivalent of Muhammad’s companions, blessed with an unadorned understanding of God’s commands, that they feel qualified to establish a caliphate. 指责他们不参考伊斯兰教法传统就直接引用那些鼓励刑罚和砍头的《古兰经》经文，这种批评没有抓住要点。正是因为Isis战士认为他们自己等同于穆罕默德的同伴，被赐予了对真主旨意的准确理解，他们才认为自己有资格建立哈里发国。 “My people,” so Muhammad is once said to have warned, “are destined to split into 73 factions – all of which, except one, will end up in hell.” Who, then, Muslims have often wondered, will gain paradise? Isis, like so many of the various other sects that have emerged in the course of Islamic history, appears confident of the answer. 据说穆罕默德曾经警告过：“我的人民注定要分裂成73个派别，除了一个，其他的都要下地狱。”穆斯林们一直在疑惑：究竟是谁会上天堂？正如历史上涌现出的其他伊斯兰教派别一样，Isis对这个问题的答案似乎很自信。 It is not merely coincidence that IS currently boasts a caliph, imposes quranically mandated taxes, topples idols, chops the hands off thieves, stones adulterers, executes homosexuals and carries a flag that bears the Muslim declaration of faith. If Islamic State is indeed to be categorised as a phenomenon distinct from Islam, it urgently needs a manifest and impermeable firewall raised between them. At the moment, though, I fail to see it. 现在，IS夸口自居为哈里发，征收《古兰经》要求的税目、推倒偶像、砍掉盗贼的手、把通奸者石刑处死、处死同性恋者，并且采用穆斯林的见证言作为旗帜，所有这些都并非巧合。如果伊斯兰国一定要被定义成与伊斯兰教毫无关系的现象，那么两者之间就需要树立一堵明白无误、密不透风的防火墙。现在，我还没有看到这堵墙。 （编辑：辉格@whigzhou） *注：本译文未经原作者授权，本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利，如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容，请私信联系，我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组，致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

犹太人为何那么聪明 ——两种选择力量如何塑造少数族群的独特禀赋 辉格 2016年2月27日 “犹太人特别聪明”——这恐怕是最难反驳的一句种族主义言论了。 自诺贝尔奖设立以来，犹太人共拿走了19%的化学奖、26%的物理奖、28%的生理与医学奖、41%的经济学奖；在其它顶级科学奖项中，这个比例甚至更高，综合类：38%的美国国家科学奖、25%的京都奖，数学：25%的菲尔兹奖、38%的沃尔夫奖，信息科学：25%的图灵奖、37%的香农奖、42%的诺依曼奖；在非科学领域，犹太人还拿走13%的诺贝尔文学奖，1/3以上的普利策奖，1/3以上的奥斯卡奖，近1/3的国际象棋冠军。 犹太人在科学和艺术上的成就着实令人惊叹，他们以世界千分之二的人口，在几乎所有科学领域都拥有1/5到1/3的顶级学者；究竟是什么原因让他们取得了如此惊人的成就？ 考虑犹太民族的独特性，就难免想到他们在大流散（The Diaspora）之后所面临的特殊文化处境；丧失故国、散居各地的犹太人，无论最初在罗马帝国境内，还是后来在西方基督教世界和东方伊斯兰世界，皆处于少数族地位，而且因为拒绝改宗，长期被排斥在主流社会之外，不仅文化上受歧视，法律上也被剥夺了许多权利，屡屡遭受迫害、驱逐、甚至屠杀。 在中世纪欧洲，经济活动、财产权利和法律地位都与宗教有着难分难解的关系，作为异教徒，犹太人不可能与基督徒君主建立领主-附庸关系从而承租土地，无法组织手工业行会（因为行会也须以附庸身份向领主获取特许状），也无法与贵族通婚以提升社会地位，甚至无法由教会法庭来保障自己的遗嘱得到执行……总之，作为封建体系之基础的封建契约关系和教会法，皆与之无缘。 这样一来，他们就被排斥在几乎所有重要的经济部门之外，留给他们的只有少数被封建关系所遗漏的边缘行业，比如教会禁止基督徒从事（或至少道德上加以贬责）的放贷业，替贵族征收租税的包税/包租人，与放贷和收租有关的私人理财业，以及少数未被行会垄断的商业。 这些行当的共同特点是：缺乏垄断权保护因而极富竞争性，需要一颗精明的头脑，读写和计算能力很重要；这些特点提示了，犹太父母可能更愿意投资于孩子的教育，提升其读写计算能力，以及一般意义上运用理性解决问题的能力。 这一投资策略迥异于传统社会的主流策略，在传统农业社会，人们为改善家族长期状况而进行的投资与积累活动，主要集中于土地、上层姻亲关系、社会地位和政治权力，但犹太人没有机会这么做，因而只能集中投资于人力资本，而且在随时有着被没收和驱逐风险的情况下，投资人力资本大概也是最安全的。 正如一些学者指出，按古代标准，犹太人确实有着良好的教育传统，比如其宗教传统要求每位父亲都应向儿子传授妥拉（[[Torah]]）和塔木德（[[Talmud]]）等经典，在识字率很低的古代，仅从经文学习中获得的基本读写能力也相当有价值。 然而这一解释有个问题，假如犹太人的智力优势仅仅来自其教育和文化传统，那就无法说明，为何近代以来，当这一文化差异已不复存在（或不再重要），他们的智力优势却依然显著？实际上，现代杰出犹太科学家的教育和成长经历中，犹太背景已无多大影响，甚至犹太认同本身也已十分淡薄了。 为解开犹太智力之谜，犹他大学的两位学者格里高列·科克伦（[[Gregory Cochran]]）和亨利·哈本丁（[[Henry Harpending]]）在2005年的一篇论文中提出了一个颇为惊人的观点：犹太智力优势是近一千多年中犹太民族在严酷选择压力之下的进化结果，因而有着可遗传的生物学基础；在2009年出版的《万年大爆炸》（[[The 10,000 Year Explosion]]）一书中，他们专门用一章介绍了这一理论。 他们认为，犹太人中表现出显著智力优势的，是其中被称为阿什肯纳兹人（[[Ashkenazi]]）的一个分支，其祖先是9-11世纪间陆续从南欧和中东翻越阿尔卑斯山进入中欧的犹太移民，和留在地中海世界的族人相比，他们遭受的排挤和限制更加严厉，职业选择更狭窄，而由于前面所说的原因，这些限制对族群的智力水平构成了强大的选择压力。 如此特殊的社会处境，使得聪明好学、头脑精明的个体有着高得多的机会生存下去，并留下更多后代，经过近千年三四十代的高强度选择，与高智商有关的遗传特性在种群中的频率显著提高；据乔恩·昂蒂纳（Jon Entine）和查尔斯·穆瑞（[[Charles Murray]]）等学者综合多种来源的数据估算，阿什肯纳兹人的平均智商约110（科克伦的估算值更高，为112-115)，比美国同期平均水平高出10个点，相当于2/3个标准差。 对个体来说，10个点的智商优势或许不算很大，但对于一个上千万人的大群体，这一差距有着非常惊人的含义，假如智商确如查尔斯·穆瑞的研究所显示，在群体内呈正态分布，那么均值高出2/3个标准差便意味着该群体内智商高于140的个体的比例，大约是基准群体（此处是美国总人口）的6倍。 科克伦和哈本丁的假说还得到了一些遗传学证据的支持，有多种与神经系统相关的遗传病在阿什肯纳兹人中比例奇高，这些疾病涉及一些与神经突触形成有关的基因变异，它们倾向于增加神经元之间的突触连接，据两位作者推测，这些变异在恰当组合下会导致高智商，而在不恰当组合下则带来神经疾病。 这意味着，在偏爱高智商的高强度选择作用下，阿什肯纳兹人一方面提升了获得高智商的机会，同时也承担了罹患若干神经疾病的高风险，就像在疟疾肆虐的西非，一些族群获得了一种与血红蛋白相关的变异，在杂合子组合下，该变异将提高疟疾存活率，而不幸的纯合子组合则带来致命的镰刀型细胞贫血症。 不过，这一假说尚未得到广泛认可，主要的障碍是，将这样一个重大优势归因于短短一千年内的进化过程，很难让人接受，因为通常生物学家在谈论进化改变时，涉及的时间尺度至少几十万年，虽然在理论上，只要选择压力足够大，并且种群基因池里有足够多可供自然选择起作用的遗传多样性，几十代时间足以将一些原本罕见的变异的分布频率成倍提高，从而产生显著的族群间差异。 俄国遗传学家德米特里·别列耶夫（[[Dmitry Konstantinovich Belyaev]]）从一群野生银狐开始，只用了二十多年时间，便选育得到了非常温顺驯服的品种，它们在性情、毛色、耳朵、颅形等方面表现出一系列鲜明的驯化特征；原则上，没有什么可以阻止类似事情发生在人类身上。 实际上，正如两位作者在《万年大爆炸》的其他章节中列举的,以及尼古拉斯·韦德（[[Nicholas Wade]]）在2014年出版的《棘手遗产》（[[A Troublesome Inheritance]]）中讨论的更多例子所显示，人类在走出非洲后的几万年里，尤其是农业起源后的一万多年里，已经发生了许多显著且有重大意义的进化改变，其中有涉及乳糖消化，抵抗疟疾或饥荒，抵御寒冷，维生素D代谢，黑色素合成，骨密度等等与生态条件和生活方式有关的改变。 但阿什肯纳兹的分化历史毕竟只有千年，而现有的遗传证据也是间接的，尚没有直接证据可以说明究竟何种变异如何提高了智力；所以，一些学者便尝试考虑其他可能性，罗格斯大学人类学家布莱恩·弗格森（[[R. B. Ferguson]]）认为，阿什肯纳兹的独特性源自族群形成之初的奠基人效应（[[founder effect]]）。 奠基人效应的意思是，基因池毕竟不像充分搅匀的理想溶液，随便舀一勺，其成分构成都和整体一样；最初翻越阿尔卑斯的阿什肯纳兹祖先或许恰好携带了一些与神经系统有关的罕见变异，由于构成奠基人的最初移民人数很少，所以即便只有一个家族携带这些变异，它在未来壮大后的种群里也可能占很高比例。 这是一种诉诸偶然性的解释，假如涉及阿什肯纳兹智力优势的只有一个变异，那么奠基人效应便足以解释，问题是，科克伦列举的阿什肯纳兹中比例奇高的神经系统遗传病有四五种，涉及许多变异，而这些变异恰恰都与神经元突触形成有关，把它们都归之于奠基人效应，就很难让人信服了。 两位经济学家马里斯泰拉·波第西尼（Maristella Botticini）和兹维·埃克斯坦（Zvi Eckstein）在2012年出版的著作《蒙择之民》（The Chosen Few）中为我们开辟了另一条思路；他们首先注意到一个重要事实：从公元1世纪大流散时期到15世纪末，犹太人口在其所在社会总人口中的比例，始终在快速下降，从公元65年的10%降至1490年的1.1%。 但同时，并没有证据显示他们的生育率低于其他族群，很明显，不断有大批犹太人改宗为基督徒或穆斯林；考虑到他们作为少数教派面临着极为不利的社会处境，大批改宗也在意料之中；重要的是，哪些犹太人更可能选择改宗，并非随机，据一些早期基督徒作家观察，多数改宗基督教的犹太人都是穷人和文盲。 于是两位作者对犹太人的改宗决定进行了成本收益分析，发现这样的选择倾向是完全合理的；因为作为宗教少数派，流散的犹太人若要维持自己的宗教和文化传统，保持身份独特性，就需要花大量精力阅读和向孩子教授宗教经典，然而，对于那些从事农耕等体力劳动的家庭，这些投入没有额外价值，相反，对于那些从事精细手工业、商业、金融和管理类职业的家庭，由读经而获得的读写能力可以带来额外回报。 所以，坚持不改宗的，大多是从事城市的、需要读写能力和精明头脑的非体力职业者，而这些职业都是偏于高端和精英的，这一逻辑反过来也成立：那些天资聪颖，发现自己在读写学习上表现出众，因而有望由读经而获得上述职业机会的孩子，更有可能坚持读经而不改宗，总之，保留犹太身份的，要么是祖上智力较高因而有能力从事精英职业的，要么自己智力较高因而有望并希望从事精英职业的。 这样，个体对是否改宗的权衡，实际上对族群的智力构成了一种选择压力，但这一选择不像自然选择那样，是以影响个体生存机会和繁殖数量而起作用，被“淘汰”的个体并未死亡或绝后，只是离开了群体，但是就塑造族群的遗传特性而言，两种选择机制的效果是等价的。 而且，这一基于自我选择的解释，和科克伦与哈本丁的自然选择解释并不排斥，可以共同起作用；在分工和贸易不发达的中世纪，能够让犹太人发挥智力优势并抵消因社会地位低下而造成的生存劣势的职业机会十分有限，只有优势最显著者才能生存下来并保持犹太身份，而改宗的可能性加速了这一选择过程——这可以部分消除质疑者对“一千年是否足够长”的疑虑。 不过，和科克伦与哈本丁的理论一样，波第西尼与埃克斯坦的理论也仅仅是一种假说，正如一些历史学家所指出，他们对改宗与职业选择行为的经济学分析只是推测性的，尚缺乏经验证据的支持；然而，无论它是否能解释犹太智力优势，改宗权衡（或其他自我选择机制）在塑造少数族群文化特性上的作用却是毋庸置疑的，有众多同类例子可以佐证。 经济史学家格列高利·克拉克（Gregory Clark）便采纳了波第西尼与埃克斯坦的核心论点，并援引穆罕默德·萨利赫（Mohamed Saleh）2013年发表的一项研究指出，残存于伊斯兰世界的各种非伊斯兰小教派，包括犹太人，祆教徒（Zoroastrian），希腊正教徒，亚述基督徒，亚美尼亚基督徒，其精英化程度全都远高于穆斯林，表现为他们在医生、工程师、机械师、外语教师等精英职业中的比例奇高，而且这些族群的1/2到2/3都居住在汇集着富人和精英的大城市。 萨利赫认为，这一状况是伊斯兰政权统治政策的结果，他们一方面不强迫被征服者改宗，同时又对非穆斯林征收歧视性的人头税（[[jizya]]），于是这些群体中付不起人头税的下层成员就只好改宗，只有那些从其宗教与文化传统中获益最多且足以抵偿人头税和其他少数派特有成本的成员，才愿意坚守其传统身份，这样，统治者的歧视性政策实际上是在替这些少数族群不断清除资质禀赋较差，因而难以在精英职业中取得成就的成员。 虽然萨利赫没有提到，但人头税只是少数派生活在多数派中间所需负担的诸多成本中的一项，除了社会地位低下，法定权利缺失，他们还要遭受多数派邻居的歧视、排斥和攻击，这项成本在农村比在城市高得多，和城市流动性社会相比，农村熟人小社会的文化更单一和封闭，更排他，更难以容忍少数派的存在。 从阿什肯纳兹人在基督教欧洲和众多小教派在伊斯兰世界的经历中，都可以看到，基于个人禀赋在特定社会条件下给个体带来的比较优势而做出的自我选择，在塑造少数族群的文化和遗传特质上扮演了关键角色，这一选择机制也可通过另一条途径——跨国移民——表现出来，它在美国这个移民国家产生了两种对比鲜明的结果。 在2015年出版的《儿子照样升起》（[[The Son Also Rises]]）第13章里，格列高利·克拉克分析了美国社会一些少数族群的精英化程度；克拉克使用各族群在医生律师等精英职业中的相对代表率来度量这一指标，所谓相对代表率，是指某群体在某职业中的出现频率与它在总人口中所占比例的比值，基准值为1。（这一度量方法的有效性，在该书其他章节中已得到验证，克拉克用来衡量社会地位的数据来源包括收入与财产水平，遗嘱档案中的出现频率，顶级大学入学率，在大学教授、政府高官和国会议员中的代表率，获得科举功名的比例，等等，结果显示，基于不同来源的衡量结果有着很强的相关性。） 【图1】若干精英度偏高的美国少数族群在医生中的相对代表率 上图列出了在医生职业中的相对代表率高于1的16个少数族群，其中有些可能出乎许多人的意料，高居榜首的埃及科普特基督徒尤为惹眼，科普特人血缘上属于埃及土著，在罗马帝国后期皈依了基督教，并且直到阿拉伯征服之前，始终构成埃及人口的多数，在罗马和拜占庭帝国统治下，科普特人长期处于社会底层，与“精英”二字完全无缘，正是在阿拉伯人统治下，前述选择机制将它从一个底层多数群体改造成了少数精英族群。 然后，向美国的移民过程又发生了二次筛选，科普特人尽管在埃及有着较高精英度，但相对于发达国家仍是贫穷者，只有其中条件最优越、禀赋最优秀者，才能跨越移民门槛而进入美国，可以说，他们是精英中的精英。 但不是所有移民群体都有着较高的精英化程度，如下图所示，拉美人、柬埔寨人、赫蒙人（[[Hmong]]，即越南苗族），在医生中的代表率皆远低于基准水平。 【图2】若干精英度偏低的美国族群在医生中的相对代表率 比较两组族群不难看出，造成这一差别的关键在于移民机会从何而来，不同性质的移民通道有着不同的选择偏向；拉丁裔移民大多利用靠近美国的地理优势，从陆地或海上穿越国境而来，柬埔寨人和赫蒙人则大多是1970年代的战争难民，这两类移民通道，对移民的个人禀赋都不构成正向选择；相比之下，其他移民通道——上大学、工作签证、投资移民、政治避难、杰出人士签证，都有着强烈的选择偏向。 观察这一差别的最佳案例是非洲裔美国人，在上面两张图表中都有他们的身影，图2中的黑人是指其祖先在南北战争前便已生活在美国的黑人，他们在医生中的代表率仅高于美洲原住民，图1中的非洲黑人是指南北战争后来自撒哈拉以南非洲的黑人移民，医生代表率4倍于基准水平，5倍于德裔和英裔美国人。 这一差别显然源自不同移民通道的选择偏向，老黑人的祖先是被贩奴船运到美洲的，而新黑人的祖先则是凭借自身优势或个人努力来到美国，往往来自母国的精英阶层，奥巴马便属于后一类，他来自肯尼亚的一个富裕家族，其曾祖父娶了5位妻子，祖父曾为英国军队服役，精通英语和读写，娶了至少3位妻子，父亲6岁便进入教会学校，后来又在夏威夷大学和哈佛大学取得学位，回国后先后在肯尼亚交通部和财政部担任经济学家，虽然只活了46岁，却娶过4位妻子，生了8个孩子。  

America’s first fisherman bagged Alaskan salmon 11,500 years ago 11500年前，阿拉斯加渔民的鲑鱼 作者：Zach Zorich @ 2015-9-21 译者：沈沉（@你在何地-sxy） 校对：龟海海 来源：AAAS，http://news.sciencemag.org/plants-animals/2015/09/america-s-first-fisherman-bagged-alaskan-salmon-11500-years-ago If you think most fish stinks after 3 days, try 11,500 years: That’s the age of salmon bones that archaeologists have uncovered at the Upward Sun River site, one of Alaska’s oldest human settlements. 如果你觉得大部分鱼放三天就会发臭，试试放11500年，考古学家在在向阳河遗址中发掘出的鲑鱼骨头就有这么古老，那里是阿拉斯加最早的人类聚居点之一。 They say the cooked bones provide the first clear evidence of salmon fishing among the earliest Americans, Paleoindians, who crossed from Siberia into Alaska over the Bering Land Bridge more than 13,000 years ago. 他们说，这些经过烹制的骨头首次明确证实了早期美洲人的鲑鱼捕捞活动；这些古印第安人于13000多年前跨过白令陆桥，由西伯利亚进入阿拉斯加。 The finding, published online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, helps debunk the idea that America’s first fishermen relied primarily on big game for food. It also explains how they managed to survive in an ice age Arctic environment and adapt to life on a new continent. 这一发现已于今日【译注：9月21日】在线发表于《美国国家科学院院刊》，有助于驳倒认为美洲最早的渔民主要以大型猎物为捕食对象的观点。它也解释了这些人如何在冰河时期的北极世界中维持生存，并使自己适应一个全新大陆上的生活。 These days, salmon is a staple for native Alaskans, but evidence for the origins of salmon fishing has been hard to come by. Wood and rope fishing tools decompose quickly, as do salmon bones. And until recently, most researchers hadn’t been doing the kind of careful excavation necessary for discovering fragile fish skeletons. 目前，鲑鱼是阿拉斯加原住民的一种主食，不过有关鲑鱼捕捞起源的证据一直难以找到。木与绳制成的捕捞工具极易腐化，鲑鱼骨也是如此。并且，要发现易于破碎的鱼类骨骸，必须进行小心细致的发掘，而直至近期，大多数研究者都不曾做过此类发掘。 But building on recent work that suggests big-game hunting was just one part of a “broad-spectrum” strategy among America’s first people, researchers have begun searching for other remains. These include creatures like migratory waterfowl, small mammals, and salmon that would have been part of a more seasonally based diet. 但近期的研究提出，捕杀大型猎物可能只是早期美洲人“宽谱”策略【编注：指将较多种类的食物来源纳入食谱的取食策略，生物学的最优取食理论以一组条件因子来解释或推测动物在特定约束条件下如何选择最优食谱宽度，参见wikipadia词条：optimal foraging theory。】的一部分，有鉴于此，研究者近来已开始搜寻其它残骸。其中包括迁徙性的水禽，小型哺乳动物及鲑鱼等生物，它们都可能构成一个更为季节性的食谱的一部分。 Archaeological sites across the Bering Strait region—including Siberia—support this idea, says John Hoffecker, a University of Colorado, Boulder, archaeologist who specializes in the region. 科罗拉多大学波德分校专门研究这一区域的考古学家John Hoffecker说，遍及白令海峡地区——包括西伯利亚——的考古遗址为上述看法提供了依据。 But finding ancient salmon leftovers has been a challenge. “It’s difficult to capture ancient fishing because of the nature of fish bones—they’re small, fragile bones,” says Carrin Halffman, a biological anthropologist at the University of Alaska (UA), Fairbanks, and the lead author of the new study. And if archaeologists do turn up any fishy remains, she says, it’s hard to know just what kind of fish it was. 不过，寻找古代鲑鱼残留物一直是个挑战。“古代渔猎活动的发现之难源于鱼骨的特性——这种骨头小而脆”，阿拉斯加大学费尔班克斯分校的生物人类学家Carrin Halffman如是说，她是上述研究的发起人。她还说，即便考古学家确实发现了一丁点鱼类残骸，也很难知道那到底是何种鱼类。 As the team tried to find out how the people at Upward Sun River used the resources of the nearby Tanana River, they carefully excavated parts of the site, sifting soil through fine-meshed screens. In the same fire pit where they found the buried remains of two infants, they discovered the salmon bones. 在尝试查明向阳河的人们如何利用附近的塔纳纳河资源时，这个团队小心地发掘了这一遗址的部分区域，用网眼细小的筛子翻检泥巴。在同一个火坑中，他们找到了两具婴儿遗骨，还发现了这些鲑鱼骨头。 Analyzing DNA in a piece of uncooked fish bone, Halffman and her team found that it was chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta), a hefty fish that weighs 5 to 10 kilograms and grows roughly 60 centimeters long. Thousands of chum salmon still swim up the Tanana River every summer to spawn, and the run remains a central cultural event for the indigenous Athabascan people who live there today. 通过对一份未经烹制的鱼骨进行DNA分析，Halffman及其团队发现它是大马哈鱼（学名Oncorhynchus keta），这是一种重达5-10公斤、长约60公分的大型鱼类。直至今日，每年夏天仍有成千上万大马哈鱼沿塔纳纳河溯游产卵，而且这种洄游至今仍是当地原住民阿萨巴斯卡人的一项核心文化活动。 But could the find be evidence for the beginnings of this annual ritual? It was possible that the salmon were not part of the annual saltwater-to-freshwater migration, but instead were freshwater fish that lived in the river their entire lives. To find out, Halffman analyzed carbon and nitrogen isotopes in the fish bones. Because different versions of the two elements—both with different weights—are found in varying concentrations in seawater and fresh water, that compositions is reflected in the fish bones. 但这一发现是否就是这种年度仪式的起源证据呢？另有一种可能性存在：鲑鱼过去并非每年定期从咸水洄游到淡水，而是终生存活于河流中的淡水鱼。为了查明这一点，Halffman分析了鱼骨中的碳、氮同位素。因为这两种元素的不同同位素——其重量各不相同——在海水和淡水中分别有着不同的富集度，而这一成分差异会体现在鱼骨中。 The bones that Halffman analyzed had higher ratios of heavier carbon and nitrogen isotopes, meaning the fish had lived in the ocean and must have been caught during a spawning run. “What we’re looking at is probably the beginnings of the utilization of salmon,” says Ben Potter, an archaeologist at UA Fairbanks, and a co-author of the study. 在Halffman所分析的鱼骨中，较重的碳、氮同位素占比更大，这意味着这些鱼曾经生活于海洋，必定是在产卵洄游时被人捕捞的。阿拉斯加大学费尔班克斯分校的考古学家、本研究的共同作者Ben Potter说：“我们看到的可能是鲑鱼被人利用的开端。” The discovery boosts the view of Paleoindians as generalists who ate a variety of foods, Hoffecker says. “I don’t think it was possible for people to occupy these environments without this broad-based diet and without this kind of high-tech economy,” he says. Hoffecker说，这一发现为古印第安人是饮食种类繁多的多面手这一观点提供了支撑。“如果没有这种宽泛的食谱，没有这种高技术的经济，我不认为这些人有可能占领这样的自然环境”。 Herb Maschner, an Arctic archaeologist at the University of South Florida in Tampa, agrees and says the careful excavation methods and analysis serve as a good example of what archaeologists need to do to answer questions about ancient people living in central Alaska where the conditions for preserving bones and artifacts are “notoriously” bad. 坦帕市南佛罗里达大学的北极考古学家Herb Maschner对此表示赞同并说，骨头和人工制品在阿拉斯加中部地区的保存环境之恶劣“臭名昭著”，为了回答与生活于此地的古代人有关的问题，考古学家要怎么做？这种细心的发掘方法和分析为此树立了一个良好典范。 Potter and the other researchers are already busy answering other questions. Eventually, they say, the abundance of salmon and the ability to store fish allowed the indigenous people of the Pacific Northwest to settle in large permanent villages, a lifestyle that typically requires agriculture. Potter及其他研究者已经开始忙于回答其它问题。他们说，鲑鱼数量之丰富以及储存鱼类的能力，最终让太平洋西北地区的原住民得以定居于大型永久性村落，而这种生活方式通常要求农业的出现。 The team suspects that salmon fishing became more important over time as big game became scarcer in central Alaska, an idea they hope to test with further excavations. For now, little is known about salmon fishing in the period between 11,500 and 1000 years ago, but Upward Sun River gives the research team a start. Potter says: “You need that beginning to see how the end came about.” 该团队推测，随着阿拉斯加中部地区大型猎物日益稀少，鲑鱼捕捞的重要性可能也日益增加，团队并希望能通过进一步的发掘来验证这一想法。目前而言，人们对于从11500年前到1000年前这一时期的鲑鱼捕捞活动所知甚少，但向阳河给了这个研究团队一个起点。Potter说：“欲知晓终点如何而来，你需要这个开端。” （编辑：辉格@whigzhou） *注：本译文未经原作者授权，本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利，如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容，请私信联系，我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组，致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

I love the Victorian era. So I decided to live in it. 我热爱维多利亚时代，所以决定生活于其中。 作者：Sarah A. Chrisman @ 2015-9-09 译者：沈沉（@你在何地-sxy） 校对：龟海海 来源：Vox，http://www.vox.com/2015/9/9/9275611/victorian-era-life My husband and I study history, specifically the late Victorian era of the 1880s and '90s. Our methods are quite different from those of academics. Everything in our daily life is connected to our period of study, from the technologies we use to the ways we interact with the world. 我丈夫和我都研究历史，具体说是维多利亚时代晚期，即1880至1890年代。我们跟学院派的方法极为不同。我们日常生活中的所有事物，从我们所用的技术到我们与世界沟通的方式，都跟我们所研究的时代有关联。 Five years ago we bought a house built in 1888 in Port Townsend, Washington State — a town that prides itself on being a Victorian seaport. When we moved in, there was an electric fridge in the kitchen: We sold that as soon as we could. Now we have a period-appropriate icebox that we stock with block ice. Every evening, and sometimes twice a day during summer, I empty the melt water from the drip tray beneath its base. 五年前，我们买了栋建于1888年的宅子，位于华盛顿州的汤森港——一座以曾为维多利亚时期海港自傲的城镇。当我们搬进去时，厨房里还有台电冰箱。我们立马把它给卖了。现在我们使用一个跟时代相吻合的冰盒，里面储藏冰块。每天傍晚，我都要清空冰盒底下滴水盘中的融水，如果是夏天，有可能每天要清两次。 Every morning I wind the mechanical clock in our parlor. Each day I write in my diary with an antique fountain pen that I fill with liquid ink using an eyedropper. My inkwell and the blotter I use to dry the ink on each page before I turn it are antiques from the 1890s; I buy my ink from a company founded in 1670. My sealing wax for personal letters comes from the same company, and my letter opener was made sometime in the late Victorian era from a taxidermied deer foot. 每天早上我要给客厅里的机械钟上发条。每天写日记，我用的都是一支古董自来水笔，并用点眼药水的滴管给它灌墨水。我的墨水池和我翻页之前用于吸干墨水的吸墨纸都是1890年代的古董；我从一家成立于1670年的公司购买墨水。我在私人信件上所用的封蜡也是同一家公司所产，开信刀则制造于维多利亚时代晚期的某个时候，原料是一只经标本剥制术处理的鹿脚。 There are no modern lightbulbs in our house. When Gabriel and I have company we use early electric lightbulbs, based on the first patents of Tesla and Edison. When it's just the two of us, we use oil lamps. When we started using period illumination every day, we were amazed by how much brighter the light is from antique oil lamps than from modern reproductions. 我们家没有现代灯泡。我和Gabriel之外另有客人在时，我们就用早期的白炽灯，这种灯还是基于特斯拉和爱迪生最早的专利。如果只有我们两个，我们就用油灯。当初，我们开始每天都使用时代照明时，我们都感到很惊讶，来自古董油灯的光线可比来自其现代复制品的亮得多。 Our heat comes from 19th-century gas heaters and from an antique kerosene space heater. In the winter we tuck hot water bottles into bed with us, and even the cotton covers that I sewed for those bottles are made from period-appropriate fabric (its designs are copies of fabric patterns from the late 19th century). 我们用19世纪的煤气炉和一个古董煤油小暖炉取暖。冬天，我们把热水瓶子塞到我们的被子里，连我为这些瓶子缝棉套子时所用的布料都与时代吻合（其设计复制自19世纪末的织物图案）。 Our bed itself is an antique from our period of study, and since it didn't have a mattress when we bought it, I sewed one by hand and stuffed it with feathers. 我们用的床本身就是我们所研究的那个时代的古董，而因为买来的时候没有床垫，我手缝了一个，里面填充的是羽毛。 I bake all our bread from scratch, using a sourdough culture I keep constantly bubbling in the back corner of our kitchen in a bowl that belonged to my grandmother. When I want whipped cream or an omelet, I use an antique rotary eggbeater; when we want to grind something, we have a Victorian food chopper as well as mortars and pestles. 烤面包时，我都是从最初的原料开始准备，要用到的酵种被我装在一个我祖母用过的碗里，放在厨房的墙角养着，不停冒泡。需要打奶油或者煎蛋饼时，我用的是一个古董旋转打蛋器；要研磨东西时，我们有维多利亚时代的食品搅拌机、研钵和研槌。 Whenever I'm inside my house I have an antique chatelaine hanging from my waist — a marvelous 19th-century accessory that combines elements that would remind a modern person of a charm bracelet, multi-tool, and organizer all in one. Mine usually holds a notebook, pincushion, and scissors, but I also have attachments for it ranging from a thimble holder to a matchbox, a coin box, or a pair of tweezers. 任何时候只要我呆在屋子里，腰上总是系着一根古董腰链——一种神奇的19世纪饰品，其组成元素可让现代人感觉它是漂亮手镯、多功能器具和整理器的多合一。我这根腰链通常挂着笔记本、针插和剪刀，不过也有其它坠物，从顶针夹到火柴盒、硬币盒或小镊子不等。 I bathe with a bowl and pitcher every morning, and for a nice long soak I use our cast-iron clawfoot bathtub. I wash my hair using Castile bar soap from a company established in 1839. (Shampooing with Castile soap is a piece of beauty advice I found in a Victorian magazine from about the time our house was built.) My hairbrush is a 130-year-old design, and my toothbrush has natural boar bristles. 我每天早上洗澡用的是盆和水罐，要泡个舒服的长澡时就用我们那个带铸铁爪足的浴缸。洗头发用的是卡斯提尔橄榄条皂，生产公司始建于1839年。（用卡斯提尔橄榄条皂洗发是我从一本维多利亚时期的杂志上得到的美容建议，这本杂志的发行大概与我们房子的建立同期）。我用的梳子是个已有130年历史的工艺品，牙刷则含有天然猪鬃。 Neither my husband nor I have ever had a cellphone; I've never even had a driver's license. On special outings when Gabriel and I go cycling together, I ride a copy of a high-wheel tricycle from the 1880s. Gabriel has three high-wheel bicycles, and he has ridden them hundreds of miles. 我和我丈夫都从没用过手机；我连驾照都没有拿过。某些特别的日子，我和Gabriel会一起骑车出游，我骑的是一辆仿自1880年代的高轮三轮车。Gabriel有三辆高轮双轮车，他已经骑了有好几百英里。 On our vacation just last week, we rode our high-wheel cycles more than 75 miles along a historic railroad route between abandoned silver mines. I kept thinking of an article we had read in an 1883 cycling magazine about wheelmen riding bikes just like Gabriel's when they took a trip out to a mine. 就在上周的假期，我们就曾沿着几个废弃银矿之间的一条历史铁路线骑行，用我们的高轮自行车跑了75英里多。那时我就一直在想我们从一本1883年的骑行杂志上读过的一篇文章，讲的正是骑行者们蹬着与Gabriel那部一样的自行车，去往一个矿地远游。

******

The process didn't happen all at once.  It's not as though someone suddenly dropped us into a ready-furnished Victorian existence one day— that sort of thing only happens in fairy tales and Hollywood. We had to work hard for our dreams. The life we now enjoy came bit by bit, through gifts we gave each other. The greatest gift we give each other is mutual support in moving forward with our dreams. 这一转变并非一蹴而就。并不是说某人某天突然就将我们拉入了一个配备齐全的维多利亚式生活——这种事只会发生于童话故事或好莱坞中。我们得为我们的梦想辛苦奔忙。我们现在所享受的生活是通过我们送给彼此的礼物而一点一点得来的。我们所赠与彼此的最美好礼物就是伴着梦想相濡以沫的走下去。 Even before I met Gabriel, we both saw value in older ways of looking at the world. He had been homeschooled as a child, and he never espoused the strict segregation that now seems to exist between life and learning. As adults, we both wanted to learn more about a time that fascinated each of us. But it took mutual support to challenge society's dogmas of how we should live, how we should learn. We came into it gradually — and together. 早在我与Gabriel相识之前，我们就都已看到了老式世界观的价值所在。他小时候接受过家庭式教育，从不赞成生活与学习之间如今看似存在的那种严格分离。长大以后，我们都渴望更多地了解那个让我们都无比着迷的时代。但要挑战社会关于我们应该如何生活、应该如何学习的成见，这需要共同渡过。我们是逐渐——也是共同——步入这一点的。 It's hard to say who started it. I was the first to start wearing Victorian clothes, but Gabriel, who knew how I'd always admired Victorian ideals and aesthetics, gave them to me as presents, a way for both of us to research a culture we found fascinating. I was so intrigued by those clothes that I hand-sewed copies I could wear every day. 很难说我们之间是谁最先开始这么做的。其实是始于我穿维多利亚式的服装，不过Gabriel知道我素来崇尚维多利亚式的理念和审美，是他把那些服饰送给我作礼物的，这也是我们研究这种令我俩都着迷的文化的一种方式。我被这些衣物深深地迷住，以至于我手缝了许多件类似的，可以每日做伴。 Soon after, I gave Gabriel an antique suit of his own, but tailoring men's clothes is a separate skill set, and it took him a while to find a seamstress who could make Victorian men's clothing with the same painstaking attention to historic detail that I was putting into my own garments. 随后不久，我又送了Gabriel一套古董西装，不过缝制男士服装需要另一种技能，所以他花了段时间才找到一位女裁缝。这位裁缝能为他缝制维多利亚式的男装，并像我对待我的衣物一样，为其历史细节煞费苦心。 Wearing 19th-century clothes on a daily basis gave us insights into intimate life of the past, things so private and yet so commonplace they were never written down. Features of posture, movement, balance; things as subtle as the way my ankle-length skirts started to act like a cat's whiskers when I wore them every single day. 在日常生活中穿着19世纪的服装，为我们提供了有关过往私密生活的洞见，这类事物如此隐私却又如此日常，以至于从未被人书写过。姿势、动作与平衡的特征；一些无比微妙的事物，比如当我每天都穿着及踝长裙时，它们开始像猫须一样飘逸。 I became so accustomed to the presence and movements of my skirts, they started to send me little signals about my proximity to the objects around myself, and about the winds that rustled their fabric — even the faint wind caused by the passage of a person or animal close by. 对于裙子的存在和运动，我变得无比熟稔，以至于当我接近身边的事物时，当风与布面摩擦作响时——即便是临近的人或动物穿过时导致的那种微弱的风，它们都会给我传递小小的信号。 I never had to analyze these signals, and after a while I stopped even thinking about them much; they became a peripheral sense, a natural part of myself. Gabriel said watching me grow accustomed to Victorian clothes was like seeing me blossom into my true self. 我从不需要去分析这些信号，而且一段时间以后技艺已熟练于心；它们成为了一种外围感官，我自己的自然的一部分。Gabriel曾说，看着我逐渐适应维多利亚式衣服，就像是看到我那个绽放的真实自我。 When we realized how much we were learning just from the clothes, we started wondering what other everyday items could teach us. 当我们意识到仅仅从衣服上我们学到的就何其之多时，我们开始琢磨其它的日常用品能够教给我们什么。 When cheap modern things in our lives inevitably broke, we replaced them with sturdy historic equivalents instead of more disposable modern trash. Every birthday and anniversary became an excuse to hunt down physical artifacts from our favorite time period, which we could then study and use together. 当我们生活中便宜的现代物品不可避免地破损时，我们就代之以结实耐用的历史对应物，而不再用那种不能重复使用的现代垃圾。每个生日和纪念日都变成了搜罗我们最钟爱时代的人工制品的理由，然后它们就可以供我们一起研究和使用。 Everything escalated organically from there, and now our whole life revolves around this ongoing research project. No one pays us for it, but we take it more seriously than many people take their paying jobs. 一切都从那里开始有机的成长了起来，如今我们整个生活都围绕着这个持续进行的研究项目打转。没人为此向我们提供资金，但我们对待它，可比许多人对待他们的有偿工作更为严肃。

******

The artifacts in our home represent what historians call "primary source materials," items directly from the period of study.  Anything can be a primary source, although the term usually refers to texts. The books and magazines the Victorians themselves wrote and read constitute the vast bulk of our reading materials — and since reading is our favorite pastime, they fill a large percentage of our days. 我们家中的人工制品代表的是历史学家所谓“一手材料”，都是直接来自所研究时代的物品。任何事物都可以是一手的，尽管这个词汇通常指涉文本。维多利亚时代的人们自身所写作和阅读的书籍和杂志构成了我们的阅读材料的主要部分——并且由于阅读是我们最爱的消遣，它们也占据了我们一天中的很大一部分时间。 There is a universe of difference between a book or magazine article about the Victorian era and one actually written in the period. Modern commentaries on the past can get appallingly like the game "telephone": One person misinterprets something, the next exaggerates it, a third twists it to serve an agenda, and so on. Going back to the original sources is the only way to learn the truth. 关于维多利亚时代的书籍或杂志，和写于这一时期的书籍或杂志，两者之间有着天壤之别。对于过往的现代评论有可能像“打电话”游戏一样令人吃惊：某人曲解了某事，另一人进一步夸大，第三个人出于某个目的对其加以扭曲，如此持续。回顾原始材料是了解真相的唯一办法。 We're devoted to getting our own insights and perspectives on the era, not just parroting stereotypes that "everyone knows." The late Victorian era was an incredibly dynamic time, with so many new and extraordinary inventions it seemed anything was possible. 我们矢志于获得我们自己对这一时代的见解和观点，而不是仅仅人云亦云“众所周知”的刻板印象。晚期维多利亚时代是个充满活力的时期，有许多全新而非凡的发明，看起来似乎无所不能。 Interacting with tangible items from that time helps us connect with and share that optimism. They help us understand the culture that created them — a culture that believed in engineering durable, beautiful items that could be repaired by their users. 与源于这一时期的实物接触，能帮助我们了解并分享这种乐观主义。它们有助于我们理解那一创造了它们的文化——一种对制造耐用、美观且能由使用者修理的物品存有信念的文化。 Constantly using them helps us comprehend their context.  Absorbing the lessons our artifacts teach us shapes our worldview. They are our teachers.  Seeing their beauty every day elevates and inspires us, as it did their original owners. 在不断使用它们的过程中，我们领悟其内涵。吸收由我们的物品教给我们的教训，也塑造了我们的世界观。它们是我们的老师。欣赏它们的美，也提升并鼓舞了我们，就像它们曾提升鼓舞了其最初的主人一样。 It's a life that keeps us far more in touch with the natural seasons, too. Much of modern technology has become a collection of magic black boxes: Push a button and light happens, push another button and heat happens, and so on. The systems that dominate people's lives have become so opaque that few Americans have even the foggiest notion what makes most of the items they touch every day work — and trying to repair them would nullify the warranty. 这也让我们能无比贴近天然的四季轮替。多数现代技术都已然变成了一堆魔法黑箱子：按这个按钮就有光，按另一个按钮就有热，如此等等。主导人们生活的种种系统已变得如此晦涩，以至极少有美国人对他们每天碰到的物品都是如何运作的具有哪怕是模糊的概念——试着去修理它们还会使质保单作废。 The resources that went into making those items are treated as nothing more than a price tag to grumble about when the bills come due. Very few people actually watch those resources decreasing as they use them. It's impossible to watch fuel disappearing when it's burned in a power plant hundreds of miles away, and convenient to forget there's a connection. 用于制造这些物品的资源，仅仅是被当做一个价签来对待，在账单到期时供人们抱怨几句。极少有人在使用这些资源时真的看到它们在减少。当燃料是在几百英里以外的发电站里烧掉的时候，我们不可能看到它们消失；自然而然也就忘记这之间存在关联了。 When we use resources through technology that has to be tended, we're far more careful about how we use them. To use our antique space heater in the winter, I have to fill its reservoir with kerosene and keep its wick and flame spreader clean; when we want to use it, I have to open and light it. It's not a burdensome process, but it's certainly a more mindful one than flicking a switch. 当我们通过那些需要照看的技术来使用资源时，我们对于如何使用它们会更加仔细。冬天里，要用我们那件古董小暖炉的时候，我得往它的储液器里添煤油，保持灯芯和扩焰器干净；要用它时，我得打开它，然后点燃。这并非一件繁琐的事，但它确实比弹开一个开关要更费心思一些。 Not everyone necessarily wants to live the same lifestyle we have chosen, of course. But anyone can benefit from choices that increase their awareness of their surroundings and the way things they use every day affect them. 当然，未必所有人都想要过和我们选择的这般生活方式。但任何人都可以从这样一种选择中受益：这些选择将让他们更清晰的意识到周遭事物以及他们每日所用之物如何影响着他们。 Watching the level of kerosene diminish in the reservoir heightens our awareness of how much we're using, and makes us ask ourselves what we truly need. Learning to use all these technologies gives us confidence to exist in the world on our own terms. 看着储液器里煤油油位的下降，会提高我们对自己用了多少煤油的意识，促使我们追问自己，我们的真实需求是什么。学着使用所有这些技术，能让我们依照自己的方式充满自信地存在于这个世界。

******

And that, really, is the resource we find ourselves more and more in need of. My husband and I have slowly, gradually worked to base our lives around historical artifacts and ideals because — quite frankly — we love living this way. 而这，我们发现，确实是我们日益需要的东西。我丈夫和我已经慢慢地、逐步地将我们的生活建基于历史物品和历史理念之上，因为——坦率地说——我们忠爱这种生活方式。 People assume the hard part of our lifestyle comes from the life itself, but using Victorian items every day brings us great joy and fulfillment. The truly hard part is dealing with other people's reactions. 人们以为我们生活方式的难处会在于这种生活本身，但是每天使用维多利亚时代的物品给我们带来的是极大的愉悦和满足。然而真正的困难却在于应付别人对此的反应。 We live in a world that can be terribly hostile to difference of any sort. Societies are rife with bullies who attack nonconformists of any stripe. 我们所生活的世界，对于任何差异都可能极为敌视。社会上充斥着欺凌，攻击任何形式的不循常规者。 Gabriel's workout clothes were copied from the racing outfit of a Victorian cyclist, and when he goes swimming, his hand-knit wool swim trunks raise more than a few eyebrows — but this is just the least of the abuse we've taken. Gabriel的运动服是某位维多利亚骑行者所用竞赛服的复制品，而当他去游泳时，他的手织羊毛制泳裤所得到的可不止是一点点异样眼光——这还只是我们所受伤害中最轻微的一类。 We have been called "freaks," "bizarre," and an endless slew of far worse insults. We've received hate mail telling us to get out of town and repeating the word "kill ... kill ... kill." Every time I leave home I have to constantly be on guard against people who try to paw at and grope me. 我们曾被称为“变态”、“怪异”，以及无穷尽的一堆更为不堪的辱骂。我们还收到过恐吓信，让我们离开镇子，并重复写有“杀……杀……杀”这个词。每次出门，我都得时刻保持警惕，防止人们抓我或者摸我。 Dealing with all these things and not being ground down by them, not letting other people's hostile ignorance rob us of the joy we find in this life — that is the hard part. By comparison, wearing a Victorian corset is the easiest thing in the world. 应付所有这类事情，不被它们打翻，不让其他人充满敌意的无知剥夺我们在这种生活中找到的快乐——这才是难点。与之相比，穿件维多利亚式的紧身胸衣就是世上最容易的事了。 This is why more people don't follow their dreams: They know the world is a cruel place for anyone who doesn't fit into the dominant culture. Most people fear the bullies so much that they knuckle under simply to be left alone. In the process, they crush their own dreams. 这就是为什么更多的人没有追随自己的梦想：他们知道，对于任何不一致遵从主导文化的人来说，世界是个残忍的地方。多数人如此恐惧欺凌，以至于轻言放弃，以便免受干扰。在此过程中，他们碾碎了自己的梦想。 （编辑：辉格@whigzhou） *注：本译文未经原作者授权，本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利，如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容，请私信联系，我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组，致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

The Boston Tea Party Myth 波士顿倾茶事件的迷思 作者：The debunker @ 2013-1-18 译者：Yuncong Yang（@kingsmill） 校对: 小册子(@昵称被抢的小册子) 来源：UnpopularTruth.com，http://www.unpopulartruth.com/2009/04/boston-tea-party.html The Boston Tea Party was not a protest against high taxes, but a protest of several things. Mostly it was an anti-monopoly protest. And it demonstrated colonial resistance to British interference in the American economy. 波士顿倾茶事件的目的并非抗议高额茶税，而是抗议其他一些东西，其中主要是反垄断。同时它也反映了当时美洲殖民地对英国插手殖民地经济的抵制。 A popular understanding of the Boston Tea Party is that the colonial Americans were protesting against high taxes on imported British tea. However, this is not the truth. This is a popular myth that this article clearly debunks. The truth is that the price of tea was actually lowered by the British. The lowering of the price was an attempt to give a monopoly to the East India Trading company. There were many reasons for the colonists to be angered by British manipulation and interference. 对波士顿倾茶事件的一种流行解读是：美洲殖民地的人民是要借倾茶抗议英国对进口的英国茶叶课以重税。然而这并非事实。本文就是要彻底打破这一广为流传的神话。实际上，英国人当时降低了茶叶价格，而压低茶叶价格是为了给予东印度公司垄断地位。英国的经济操纵与干涉之所以激怒了殖民者，是有多种原因的。 The Boston Tea Party, of course wasn't an actual party, but was a famous incident in American history in which some American colonists in Boston disguised themselves as Indians and dumped chests of tea into Boston Harbor as a protest. This protest by American colonists arose from two issues confronting the British Empire in 1773: the financial problems of the British East India Company, and an ongoing dispute about the extent of Parliament's sovereignty over the British American colonies. “波士顿茶会”当然不是真正的茶会，它是美国历史上的一起重要事件。波士顿的一些美洲殖民者在事件中化装成印第安人登上了英国货船，把一箱箱的茶叶倒进波士顿港来表示抗议。美洲殖民者的反抗源于当时英帝国面临的两个问题：一是东印度公司的严重财政问题，二是有关议会对英属美洲殖民地管辖权限的争议。

******

American colonists resented this favored treatment of a major company, (East India Company) which employed lobbyists and wielded great influence in Parliament. At this stage in American history rebellion was brewing beneath the surface of society. Colonial protests resulted in both Philadelphia and New York, but it was those at the Boston Tea Party that made their mark on American history. 美洲殖民者反对英国当局给予一家大公司(东印度公司)特别优待，该公司雇佣了大量说客，在议会里影响很大。在美洲历史的这一时期，反抗的种子已经在土壤下悄悄萌芽了。在费城和纽约都出现了殖民者的抗议活动，但在美国历史上留下了印迹的，是波士顿的倾茶者们。 John Hancock organized a boycott of tea from China sold by the British East India Company, whose sales in the colonies then fell dramatically. By 1773, the company had large debts, huge stocks of tea in its warehouses and no prospect of selling it because smugglers, such as Hancock, were importing tea from Holland without paying import taxes. 约翰·汉考克组织了一场针对东印度公司销售的中国茶叶的抵制运动，结果东印度公司在殖民地的营业额一落千丈。到1773年，东印度公司已是债台高筑，货仓里积压了大批卖不出去的茶叶——也没有卖掉的指望，因为汉考克等走私贩子正在从荷兰走私大量茶叶到殖民地，这些茶叶是不用交关税的。 The British government passed the Tea Act, which allowed the East India Company to sell tea to the colonies directly and without "payment of any customs or duties whatsoever" in Britain, instead paying the much lower American duty. This tax break allowed the East India Company to sell tea for half the old price and cheaper than the price of tea in England, enabling them to undercut the prices offered by the colonial merchants and smugglers. 英国政府为此通过了《茶叶法案》，允许东印度公司直接向殖民地销售茶叶，不需要在英国国内“缴纳任何关税或其他税收”，而只需缴纳低得多的殖民地赋税。这一税收优惠使得东印度公司可以把它的茶叶价格削减一半，甚至比它在英国卖得还要便宜。现在东印度公司能以低于殖民地商人和走私贩的价格销售茶叶了。 Bostonians suspected the removal of the Tea Tax was simply another attempt by the British parliament to squash American freedom. Samuel Adams, wealthy smugglers, and others who had profited from the smuggled tea called for agents and consignees of the East India Company tea to abandon their positions; consignees who hesitated were terrorized through attacks on their warehouses and even their homes. 波士顿人怀疑，取消东印度公司的茶税，纯粹是英国议会压制美洲殖民地自由的又一次努力。塞缪尔·亚当斯，富有的走私贩子和其他从走私茶叶中获利的人们呼吁东印度公司在殖民地的代理商和经销商不要再和东印度公司合作。那些犹豫不决的经销商受到了恐吓，他们的货仓，有时甚至是住宅，都遭到攻击。 The Truth Behind the Boston Tea Party: The Tea Act Actually Lowered Taxes 倾茶事件背后的真相是：《茶叶法案》实际上降低了茶叶的税负。 Many people today think the Tea Act—which led to the Boston Tea Party—was simply an increase in the taxes on tea paid by American colonists. Instead, the purpose of the Tea Act was to give the East India Company full and unlimited access to the American tea trade, and exempt the company from having to pay taxes to Britain on tea exported to the American colonies. It even gave the company a tax refund on millions of pounds of tea they were unable to sell and holding in inventory. 如今很多人认为最终导致波士顿倾茶事件的《茶叶法案》提高了美洲殖民地人民负担的茶叶税额。但事实正相反。茶叶法案的目的是要让东印度公司能够完全不受限制的参与美洲茶叶贸易，并免除东印度公司向美洲出口茶叶时应在英国支付的税收。法案甚至为东印度公司卖不出去而积压在手里的数百万磅茶叶提供了退税。 One purpose of the Tea Act was to increase the profitability of the East India Company to its stockholders (which included the King), and to help the company drive its colonial small business competitors out of business. Because the company no longer had to pay high taxes to England and held a monopoly on the tea it sold in the American colonies, it was able to lower its tea prices to undercut the prices of the local importers and the mom-and-pop tea merchants and tea houses, not only in Boston, but in every town in America. 《茶叶法案》的目的之一是提高东印度公司的股东回报率（英王本人也是股东之一），并帮助东印度公司把在殖民地与它竞争的小公司赶出市场。因为东印度公司不必再付高昂的英国关税，并在殖民地市场出售茶叶方面享有专营权，所以它就可以通过价格竞争打败本地的进口商以及那些家庭式的茶商茶店。不仅在波士顿是如此，在每一个美洲城镇都是如此。 This meddling infuriated the independence-minded colonists, who were, by and large, unappreciative of their colonies being used as a profit center for the multinational East India Company corporation. One historical interpretation is that the truth of the Boston Tea Party is that it was a protest against this meddling. The American colonists resented their small businesses still having to pay the higher, pre-Tea Act taxes without having any say or vote in the matter. (Thus, the cry of "no taxation without representation!") 英国议会对茶叶市场的干涉激怒了当时已经有意独立的殖民者。总体来说，他们对英国议会拿他们的殖民地来为东印度公司这家跨国企业创造利润非常不满。对波士顿倾茶事件的历史解读之一是，倾茶事件表达了殖民者对这种干涉的抗议。美洲殖民者愤恨于他们的小茶行依然要支付《茶叶法案》出台之前的高税率，而且在这件事上他们一点发言权都没有（因此才有“无代表，不纳税！”的口号）。 Even in the official British version of the history, the 1773 Tea Act was a "legislative maneuver by the British ministry of Lord North to make English tea marketable in America," with a goal of helping the East India Company quickly "sell 17 million pounds of tea stored in England ..." 即使在英国官方版本的历史里，1773年《茶叶法案》也被描述为“诺思勋爵内阁为使英国茶叶在美国打开销路而采取的立法计谋”，其目的是帮助东印度公司迅速“卖掉积压在英国国内的一千七百万磅茶叶……” "Taxation Without Representation" had a Populist Context which plays a large role in the Boston Tea Party “无代表，强征税” 这一抗议有着民粹主义背景，这种背景在波士顿倾茶事件中影响很大。 "Taxation without representation" also meant hitting the average person and small business with taxes while letting the richest and most powerful corporation in the world off the hook for its taxes. It was government sponsorship of one corporation over all competitors. “无代表，强征税”这句话的另一层意思是，政府以税收打击普通百姓和小企业，却让世界上最大最富有的公司免于税收之累。实质上，这就是政府扶持一家公司而打击所有竞争对手。 The Boston Tea Party Was Similar to Modern Day Anti-globalization Protests 波士顿倾茶事件很像今天的反全球化示威 The Boston Tea Party resembled in many ways the growing modern-day protests against transnational corporations and small-town efforts to protect themselves from chain-store retailers or agricultural corporations. With few exceptions, the Tea Party's participants thought of themselves as protesters against the actions of the multinational East India Company and the government that "unfairly" represented, supported, and served the company while not representing or serving the residents. 波士顿倾茶事件和今天的反跨国公司示威，以及小城镇为免受连锁零售商或农业大公司侵蚀而做出的自我保护，在许多方面都颇为相似。绝大多数倾茶事件的参与者认为他们的抗议对象是跨国运营的东印度公司及政府，英国政府“不公平的”代表着东印度公司的利益，它支持并服务于东印度公司，而非殖民地的居民们。

******

In England, Parliament gave the East India Company what amounted to a monopoly on the importation of tea in 1698. When tea became popular in the British colonies, Parliament sought to eliminate foreign competition by passing an act in 1721 that required colonists to import their tea only from Great Britain. But many Americans purchased the less expensive, smuggled Dutch tea. 在英国，议会在1698年给了东印度公司实质上的茶叶进口专营权。当茶叶在海外的英国殖民地也开始变得抢手时，议会为消除来自海外的竞争于1721年通过了法案，要求各殖民地只能从英国进口茶叶。但许多美洲殖民者选择购买较廉价的荷兰走私茶。 The East India Company did not export tea to the colonies; by law, the company was required to sell its tea wholesale at auctions in England. British firms bought this tea and exported it to the colonies, where they resold it to merchants in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston. 东印度公司当时并不直接向各殖民地出口茶叶。按照法律，东印度公司须将其茶叶在英国通过拍卖批发出去。英国企业将买到的这些茶叶出口到殖民地，然后再转卖给波士顿，纽约，费城和查尔斯顿的商人们。 In order to help the East India Company compete with smuggled Dutch tea, in 1767 Parliament passed the Indemnity Act, which lowered the tax on tea consumed in Great Britain, and gave the East India Company a partial refund of the duty on tea that was re-exported to the colonies. To help offset this loss of government revenue, Parliament also passed the Townshend Revenue Act of 1767, which levied new taxes, including one on tea, in the colonies. Instead of solving the smuggling problem, however, the Townshend duties renewed a controversy about Parliament's right to tax the colonies. 为了帮助东印度公司与荷兰走私茶竞争，1767年议会通过了《免责法案》，该法案降低了英国国内消费茶叶的税率，并对经中间商再出口到殖民地的那部分茶叶退还部分关税给东印度公司。为弥补因此造成的政府收入减少，议会又通过了1767年的《汤森德税收法案》。该法案对殖民地开征了一些新税种，其中之一就是针对茶叶。然而新法案并没有解决茶叶走私问题，其规定的新税种却再度引发了有关议会对殖民地征税权的争议。 To fully understand the resentment of the colonies to Great Britain and King George III, one must understand that there were a series of events in which the colonists were treated unfairly. In previous years, the 13 colonies saw a number of commercial tariffs including the Sugar Act of 1764, which taxed sugar, coffee, and wine, the Stamp Act of 1765, which put a tax on all printed matter, such as newspapers and playing cards, and the Townshend Acts of 1767 which placed taxes on items like glass, paints, paper, and tea. The Tea Act of 1773 was the last straw. 要全面理解殖民地对英国及英王乔治三世的反感，就必须要意识到当时在一系列的事件中，殖民者都已经受到了不公平的待遇。在此前十多年中，十三个殖民地被加征了一系列的新税：1764年的《糖业法案》对糖，咖啡和葡萄酒征税；1765年的《印花税法》对上至报纸下至扑克牌的所有印刷品征税；1767年的《汤森德法案》则对诸如玻璃，油漆，纸和茶叶等货品征税。1773年的《茶叶法案》不过是最后一根稻草罢了。 "If our trade be taxed, why not our lands, in short, everything we posses? They tax us without having legal representation." —Samuel Adams “如果他们能对我们的贸易征税，那为什么就不能对我们的土地，或者我们所有的一切征税？他们向我们征税，却不给我们法定代表权。”——塞缪尔·亚当斯 In an attempt to transfer part of the cost of colonial administration to the American colonies, the British Parliament had enacted the Stamp Act in 1765 and the Townshend Acts in 1767. Colonial political opposition and economic boycotts eventually forced repeal of these acts, but Parliament left the import duty on tea as a symbol of its authority. Under the Townshend Act, many goods brought into the colonies were heavily taxed by the British. To attempt to appease the disgruntled Americans, these tariffs were repealed, except for tea, and they remained upset since the tax on tea remained in effect. 为了把管理殖民地的成本部分转嫁给美洲殖民地，英国议会于1765年通过了《印花税法》，于1767年通过了《汤森德法案》。殖民地的政治反抗和经济杯葛最终迫使议会废除了这些法律，但议会保留了茶叶进口的关税，作为其对殖民地握有管辖权的标志。按照汤森德法案，英国人对殖民地进口的许多商品都征收了重税。然后，为了安抚愤怒的殖民地人，除茶税外，所有这些关税都被废除了。但是殖民者依然不满，因为英国还在征收着茶税。 In an atmosphere of continuing suspicion and distrust, the British and Americans each looked for the worst from the other. In 1772 the crown, having earlier declared its right to dismiss colonial judges at its pleasure, stated its intention to pay directly the salaries of governors and judges in Massachusetts. 在长期持续的猜疑与不信任的气氛下，英国人和殖民者都在以最大的恶意揣测着对方。在1772年，王国政府宣布它有意直接向马萨诸塞的行政长官及法官们发放薪金。而在此前不久，它已宣称有权随意罢免殖民地的法官。 The situation remained comparatively quiet until May 1773, when the faltering East India Company persuaded Parliament that the company's future and the empire's prosperity depended on the disposal of its tea surplus. At this point, the East India Company was facing bankruptcy due to corruption, mismanagement, and competition. 直到1773年5月，形势还是相对平静的。就在5月，摇摇欲坠的东印度公司终于说服议会，东印度公司的未来及帝国的福祉都取决于手中积压的茶叶能否得到处理。此时，东印度公司已经因腐败，管理不善和市场竞争而濒临破产了。 The plan was to export a half a million pounds of tea to the American colonies for the purpose of selling it without imposing upon the company the usual duties and tariffs. With these privileges, the company could undersell American merchants and monopolize the colonial tea trade. Not only did this action create unfair commerce for the merchants of the colonies but it also proved to be the spark that revived American passions about the issue of taxation without representation. 东印度公司的计划是：将五十万磅茶叶卖到美洲殖民地去，政府将不对这些茶叶征收关税和其他赋税。有了这样的优惠条件，东印度公司就可以通过价格竞争挤掉美国茶商，进而垄断殖民地的茶叶市场。这一行动不仅仅对殖民地商人不公，事实证明，它还是一根导火索，重新点燃了殖民者对“无代表，强征税”的怒火。 Because the American tea market had nearly been captured by tea smuggled from Holland, Parliament gave the company a drawback (refund) of the entire shilling-per-pound duty, enabling the company to undersell the smugglers. It was expected that the American colonists, faced with a choice between the cheaper company tea and the higher-priced smuggled tea, would buy the cheaper tea, despite the tax. The company would then be saved from bankruptcy, the smugglers would be ruined, and the principle of parliamentary taxation would be upheld. 因为当时美洲茶叶市场已经基本被荷兰走私茶占领，议会决定将每磅一先令的茶叶关税全额退还给东印度公司，使之能借价格优势击败走私商人。议会认为，尽管有茶税，殖民者在便宜的东印度公司茶和较贵的走私茶中，应该还是会选择便宜茶的。这样既可以挽救东印度公司，使之免于破产，又可以将走私商人赶入绝境，还可以继续维持议会在殖民地征税的权威。 Resisting the Tea Act 反抗茶叶法案 Due to the popularity of inexpensive tea smuggled from Holland, British tea manufacturers were accumulating a large surplus of unsold tea, about 17 million pounds. 因为较为便宜的荷兰走私茶在市场上大为走红，英国茶厂积压了大量的滞销茶叶，累计达一千七百万磅之多。 Instead of rescinding the remaining Townshend tax and exploring inoffensive methods of aiding the financially troubled British East India Company,Parliament enacted the Tea Act of 1773, designed to allow the company to bypass middlemen and sell directly to American retailers 面对这种情况，议会并没有选择废除残余的汤森德税，也没有试图寻求不损害别人的办法来拯救东印度公司。相反它颁布了1773年《茶叶法案》，允许东印度公司不经中间商直接向美洲零售商销售茶叶。 In September and October 1773, seven ships carrying East India Company tea were sent to the colonies: four were bound for Boston, and one each for New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston. Americans learned the details of the Tea Act while the ships were en route, and opposition began to mount. Whigs, sometimes calling themselves Sons of Liberty, began a campaign to raise awareness and to convince or compel the consignees to resign, in the same way that stamp distributors had been forced to resign in the 1765 Stamp Act crisis. 1773年九月和十月间，七艘满载东印度公司茶叶的货船驶向殖民地，四艘前往波士顿，剩下三艘分别前往纽约，费城和查尔斯顿。这些船还在路上时，美洲殖民者就已经得知《茶叶法案》的细节，反抗情绪在逐步酝酿。有时自称“自由之子”的北美辉格党人发起了一场旨在让公众了解《茶叶法案》并说服或迫使东印度公司的分销商们放弃分销权的运动。在1765年《印花税法案》风波里，他们正是以这种方式迫使印花税票分销商放弃销售权的。 The truth is that the protest movement that culminated with the Boston Tea Party was not a dispute about high taxes. The price of legally imported tea was actually reduced by the Tea Act of 1773. Protestors were instead concerned with a variety of other issues. 事实上，以波士顿倾茶事件为终结的抗议运动并不是针对高税率的。1773年的《茶叶法案》事实上降低了合法进口茶叶的价格。抗议者们关心的是其他一些问题。 Several myths are wrapped up in the story of the Boston Tea Party. The familiar "no taxation without representation" argument, along with the question of the extent of Parliament's authority in the colonies, remained prominent. 波士顿倾茶事件的叙述里包含了若干迷思。广为人知的“无代表不纳税”主张，和议会的殖民地管辖权范围问题，至今仍在叙事中居于突出地位。 Some regarded the purpose of the tax program—to make leading officials independent of colonial influence—as a dangerous infringement of colonial rights. This was especially true in Massachusetts, the only colony where the Townshend program had been fully implemented. 另一些人认为，英国的征税方案旨在令殖民地高级官员免受殖民地影响，这是对殖民地权利的严重侵犯。这一说法在马萨诸塞格外真确，因为马萨诸塞是唯一一个完全执行了汤森德增税计划的殖民地。 Colonial merchants, some of them smugglers, played a significant role in the protests. Because the Tea Act made legally imported tea cheaper, it threatened to put smugglers of Dutch tea out of business. Other, legal tea importers who had not been named as consignees by the East India Company were also threatened with financial ruin by the Tea Act. 殖民地商人们——其中一些是走私者——在抗议中扮演了重要角色。因为《茶叶法案》降低了合法进口茶叶的价格，走私荷兰茶的商人们可能会被挤出市场。此外，那些没有得到东印度公司授权经销资格的合法进口茶商们也面临灭顶之灾。 Another major concern for merchants was since the Tea Act gave the East India Company a monopoly on the tea trade, it was feared that this government-created monopoly might be extended in the future to include other goods. And this served to alarm the conservative colonial mercantile elements into uniting with the more radical patriots. 商人们担忧的另一重点是《茶叶法案》使东印度公司垄断了茶叶贸易市场，而未来这种政府支持的垄断行为也可能扩展到其他的商品交易上。这些威胁刺激了较为保守的殖民地商界势力，使之逐渐与更激进的反英志士群体联合起来。 South of Boston, protestors successfully compelled the tea consignees to resign. Merchants agreed not to sell the tea, and the designated tea agents in New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston canceled their orders or resigned their commissions. 在波士顿南部，抗议者们成功迫使东印度公司的授权分销商放弃了分销权。商人们同意抵制东印度公司的茶叶。在纽约，费城和查尔斯顿，取得茶叶分销权的代理商们或取消订单，或放弃分销权。 In Charleston, the consignees had been forced to resign, and the unclaimed tea was seized by customs officials. There were mass protest meetings in Philadelphia, and eventually the Philadelphia consignees had resigned and the tea ship returned to England with its cargo. The tea ship bound for New York City was delayed by bad weather; by the time it arrived, the consignees had resigned, and the ship returned to England with the tea. 在查尔斯顿，授权经销商们被迫放弃了经销权，无人售卖的茶叶最后被海关官员扣押了。费城爆发了大规模的抗议集会，最终费城的授权经销商们也退出了，运茶船带着茶叶打道回府。前往纽约的运茶船被海上的恶劣天气耽搁了，等到它到达纽约时，当地的经销商们已放弃了经销权，它只好又带着茶叶回了英国。 Revolutionary sentiment mounted . . . 革命情绪升温…… In Boston, however, the tea consignees were friends or relatives of Governor Hutchinson, who was determined to uphold the law. The opposition, led by Samuel and John Adams, Josiah Quincy, and John Hancock, was determined to resist Parliamentary supremacy over colonial legislatures. 然而在波士顿，茶叶授权经销商们都是总督哈钦森的亲友，而哈钦森决意要实施《茶叶法案》。由塞缪尔和约翰·亚当斯两兄弟，约书亚·昆西和约翰·汉考克领导的反对派则决心抵抗议会凌驾于殖民地立法机构之上的威权。 Three ships from London, the Dartmouth, the Eleanor and the Beaver, sailed into Boston Harbor from November 28th to December 8, 1773. Loaded with tea from the East India Company, they were all anchored at Griffin’s Wharf but were prevented from unloading their cargo. 从伦敦来的三艘货船——达特茅斯号，艾莉诺号和河狸号——于1773年11月28日到12月8日间驶入波士顿港。三艘船满载东印度公司的茶叶，停泊在格里芬码头，但它们无法卸货。 When the first ship, the Dartmouth, reached Boston with the cargo of tea, the Sons of Liberty prevented owner Francis Rotch from unloading the tea, but they could not force the consignees to reject it. Rotch and the captains of two newly arrived ships, the Eleanor and the Beaver, agreed to leave without unloading the tea, but they were denied clearance by Governor Hutchinson. 当达特茅斯号运载茶叶首先到达波士顿时，“自由之子”成功阻止了船主弗朗西斯·罗奇卸货，但他们无法迫使授权经销商们拒绝接受这些茶叶。罗奇和另两艘刚到达的船——艾莉诺号和河狸号——的船长们同意不卸货就离开波士顿，但总督哈钦森拒绝放行。 According to the law, if the tea was not unloaded within 20 days (by December 17), it was to be seized and sold to pay custom duties. Convinced that this procedure would still be payment of unconstitutional taxes, the radical patriots resolved to break the deadlock. On December 14, Rotch was called before a mass meeting and ordered to seek clearance again to sail from Boston. But neither the customs collector nor the governor would grant it. 按照法律，如果这些茶叶不能在20天内(也就是到12月17日)卸下船，它们将会被海关没收拍卖来偿付关税。激进的反英志士们认为这样处理茶叶无异于缴纳违宪征收的茶税，于是他们决定要打破眼前的僵局。12月14日，志士们将罗奇船长召至一次大型集会上，并命令他再次申请驶离波士顿港，但无论是海关还是总督都拒绝放行。 Fearing that the tea would be seized for failure to pay customs duties, and eventually become available for sale, something had to be done. Demanding that the tea be returned to where it came from or face retribution, the Sons of Liberty, led by Samuel Adams began to meet to determine the fate of the three cargo ships in the Boston harbor. 如果不想让茶叶因滞纳关税被扣押拍卖而最终流入市场，就必须要采取行动了。塞缪尔·亚当斯领导的“自由之子”一方面声称如果这些茶叶不运回英国，他们就将采取报复行动，另一方面开始组织会议，讨论应该如何处理波士顿港内的这三艘货船。 On the cold evening of December 16, 1773, a crowd of several thousand spectators gathered and shouted encouragement to about 60 men disguised as Mohawk Indians. The band of patriots in Boston burst from the South Meeting House with the spirit of freedom burning in their eyes. The patriots headed towards Griffin's Wharf and the three ships. Quickly, quietly, and in an orderly manner, they boarded each of the tea ships. Once on board, the patriots went to work striking the chests with axes and hatchets. 1773年12月16日，一个寒冷的夜晚，波士顿街头聚集了几千名看热闹的群众，他们高声呐喊，为约六十名乔装成印第安莫霍克族的志士助威。这一伙波士顿反英志士从南方教堂议事厅冲了出来，他们个个眼中都燃烧着自由的火焰，冲向格里芬码头的三艘货船。志士们飞速而有序的分别登上了三艘货船，没有发出一点声音。一上船，他们就开始用斧头劈砍茶叶箱子。 Only the sounds of axe blades splitting wood rang out from Boston Harbor. Once the crates were open, the patriots dumped the tea into the sea. By nine o'clock p.m., the Sons of Liberty, with the aid of the ships' crew, had emptied a total of 342 crates of tea into Boston Harbor. Fearing any connection to their treasonous deed, the patriots took off their shoes and they swept the ships' decks, and made each ship's first mate attest that only the tea was damaged. 静悄悄的波士顿港里，只听到斧刃劈开木箱的声音。劈开箱子之后，志士们就把茶叶倒入海里。到晚上九点，“自由之子”们在船员的帮助下已经把三百四十二箱茶叶倒进了波士顿港。为免事后被发现他们与这一叛逆行径有何干系，志士们脱掉鞋子，擦干净了货船的甲板，并让各船大副宣誓作证：船上受损的只有茶叶，并无他物。 The furious royal government responded to this "Boston Tea Party" by the so-called Intolerable Acts of 1774, practically eliminating self-government in Massachusetts and closing Boston's port. 愤怒的英国政府对“波士顿倾茶事件”做出了反应，它颁布了被后世称为“1774年不可容忍法案”的一系列法律。通过这些法律，英国政府实质上取消了马萨诸塞的自治，并关闭了波士顿港。 The news of the destruction of the tea raised the spirit of resistance in the colonies. On April 22, 1774, the London attempted to land tea at New York. It was boarded by a mob, and the tea was destroyed. Similar incidents occurred at Annapolis, Md., on October 19 and at Greenwich, N.J., on December 22, and the tea was boycotted throughout the colonies. 倾茶事件的消息传遍了美洲殖民地，鼓舞着殖民地人民的反抗斗志。在1774年4月22日，伦敦号货船试图在纽约卸茶，结果一伙暴民登船毁掉了所有的茶叶。同年10月19日，马里兰州安纳波利斯也发生了同样的事件。12月22日，毁茶事件在新泽西州格林威治再度发生。所有殖民地都在杯葛英国茶叶了。 （编辑：辉格@whigzhou） *注：本译文未经原作者授权，本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利，如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容，请私信联系，我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组，致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

【2016-01-19】 @大象公会 【为什么南方多江，北方多河？】为什么中国河流南方多称为“江”，北方多称为“河”？“江”、“河”又如何从长江黄河的专称泛化为一般河流通名？移民又是如何改变“江”、“河”的分布的？作者：@Serpens 、@qqflyaway_PKU @whigzhou: 好文，不过，“上古时期，黄河中上游植被条件尚好，泥沙含量较少，下游地区尚能保持比较稳定的河道。……黄河有文字记载的第一次大决口在周定王五年（公元前 602 年），此前黄河自大禹治水后一直安稳的流淌在“禹河故道”中。”——这一判断依我看不大可能成立。 @whigzhou: 更可能的情况是：上古黄河根本没有形成稳定的河道和明确的主干流，定王五年的决口之所以成为史载之首次，并不能证明此前河道稳定，更可能只是：1）此前没有主干道因而无所谓大决口，2）此前不存在将此类事件记录下来的制度/文化条件 @whigzhou: 大江河的冲积平原和三角洲，在经历长期农业开发之前，通常不会是一条主干流入海，更可能是漫流入大片大片的沼泽地，其中呈树根状分布着大量较小的入海水道，随着农业开发不断持续，入海水道才被逐渐约束到越来越少的干流中，沼泽也逐渐被排干，这一过程在珠江三角洲至今尚未完成。 @whigzhou: 上古黄河水系和华北平原处于何种状况，从古代城邑的分布也可看出端倪，华北平原的古城绝大部分沿太行山东麓、燕山南麓和山东丘陵北麓分布，在以安阳-廊坊-东营为顶点构成的三角形里，几乎没有古城邑  

权力积木#2：信息与控制 辉格 2015年12月3日 一个广域国家的统治者面临各种技术难题，比如在前文已讨论过的领地安全问题中，为了对入侵和叛乱做出及时反应，他不仅需要机动优势，还需要以5-10倍于行军的速度传送情报，而即便如此，当疆域非常广阔时，也必须在多个据点驻扎军队，而不能集中于一点；行政系统也是如此，为实现有效治理，广袤领地须划分成若干单元，分别派驻官吏。 更一般而言，当统治团队膨胀到一定程度时，由于它本身也受制于邓巴局限，因而只能建立层级组织，假设按每个上级单元控制20个下级单元（1：20已经是非常扁平的结构，只能实现较弱的控制，有关这一点我以后会展开讨论），那么，从一两百人的熟人小社会到数千万人的帝国，就至少需要四个层级。 然而，一旦建立层级组织，就会面临所有委托-代理关系中都存在的激励和控制难题，瞒上欺下，职权滥用，目标偏离，推诿责任，沟通不畅，协调失灵，以及最危险的背叛和分离；最高权力者总会想出各种办法来克服这些障碍，那些或多或少管用的办法就被延用下来，构成了我们在历史中所见到的种种政体结构、制度安排和组织工具。 防止叛乱的一种方法是多线控制，将维持下级单元运行所需职能加以分割，交给不同人掌管，并通过不同的层级系统加以控制，使得其中每个都无法单独行动，从而剥夺下级单元的独立性；例如，由将领掌握军队指挥权，由行政系统负责粮草供给，这样，叛军很快会因失去粮草而陷入瘫痪。 另一种方法是阻止上下级官员之间发展私人效忠关系，缩短任期、频繁调动、任职回避、把奖励和提拔权限保留在高层，都是出于这一目的；另外，在重臣身边安插耳目，派出巡回监察官，维持多个独立情报来源，要求同级官员分头汇报情况以便核查真伪虚实，都是常见的做法。 强化控制的终极手段，是直接发号施令，让官员忙于执行频繁下达的任务而无暇追求自己的目标，甚至让他们看不清系统的整体运营机制因而无法打自己的小算盘；爱德华·科克（[[Edward Coke]]）有句名言：（大意）“每天起床都要等着别人告诉他今天要做什么的人，肯定是农奴。”当控制强化到极致时，臣僚便成了君主的奴仆。 当然，这些做法都是有代价的，多线控制削弱了下级单元的独立应变能力，面对突发危机时，协调障碍可能是致命的；在古代的组织条件下，消除个人效忠也会削弱军队的战斗力，这一点在历史上已屡屡得到证明，较近的例子是，湘军的战斗力很大程度上依靠曾国藩等人所建立的个人效忠网络，北洋新军相对于绿营清军的一大优势也是个人效忠。 然而，更重要的是，所有这些方法都有一个共同前提：高速通信；多线控制下，军队和粮草都可囤在前线基地，但指令必须由上层发出，平时被刻意隔离的几套体系，离开中央指挥就难以协调行动；同样，有效的监视、巡察、考核、奖惩，也都依赖于快速高效的情报传递，直接遥控指挥更需要近乎于实时的通信能力；正因此，所有帝国都建立了效率远远超出同时代民用水平的通信系统。 自从定居之后，便有了入侵警报机制，发现盗贼时，人们以鸣锣呼喊等方式通知邻居，循声追捕（[[hue and cry]]）是中世纪英格兰社区对付盗贼的惯常方法，只要盗贼还没离开视线，所有目击者都有义务追呼，hue的拉丁词源可能是hutesium（号角），和铜锣一样，号角也是用于警报的通信工具。 当部落扩大到多个村寨时，功率更大的鼓就被用于远程警报，流行于百越民族的铜鼓，可将信号传出几公里乃至十几公里，经接力传递更可达上百公里，由于铜鼓的覆盖范围大，也被长老和酋长们用于召集民众，因而成为权威和共同体凝聚力的象征，类似于欧洲市镇的钟楼；钟鼓楼也是古代中国行政城市的标准配置，其象征意义毋庸置疑。 非洲人将鼓的通信功能发挥到了极致，通常，鼓只能通过节奏变化编码少量信息，带宽十分有限，但西非人凭借可调音高的沙漏状皮带鼓创造了一种能够传递丰富信息的鼓语（[[talking drum]]），用音调变化模拟语音流，效果类似于闭着嘴用鼻音说汉语。 因为班图语和汉语一样也是声调语言（[[tonal language]]），这样的模拟确实可行，当然，去掉元辅音丢失了大量信息，听者很难猜到在说什么，特别是失去当面对话中的手势体态环境等辅助信息之后，为此，鼓语者会附加大量冗余来帮助听者还原：重复、排比、修饰，把单词拉长成句子，插入固定形式的惯用短语来提示上下文，等等，长度加长到所模拟语音的五六倍。 鼓语不仅被用于在村庄之间传讯，也被大量用于私人生活，召唤家人回家，通知有客来访，谈情说爱，或只是闲聊，在20世纪上半叶鼓语还盛行时，人人都有一个鼓语名；不过，自发形成的鼓语毕竟不够精确，难以满足军事和行政需要，阿散蒂（[[Ashanti]]）和约鲁巴（[[Yoruba]]）的城邦君主们会供养一批世袭的专业鼓语者，并将短语和句型加以精确化，用于传递情报和指令。 18世纪初建立的阿散蒂帝国（[[Ashanti Empire]]），曾是下撒哈拉非洲最强盛的国家，在19世纪与英国的四次战争中表现出强大战斗力，多次挫败英军，而构成其战斗力的一大法宝，正是鼓语通信系统所带来的机动优势和指挥效率，在前电报时代，这大概是最高效的军事通信手段，它不仅传输速度快，带宽也不比电报低，而且是无线的。 欧亚帝国更流行的通信系统是烽燧链和邮驿网，烽燧传讯的速度较快，汉代边地烽燧的间距约1-3公里，假设每个烽燧的响应时间是5分钟，那么信息每小时可以走12-36公里，每天三五百公里；但烽燧的带宽太小，调节烟柱数量和火把离合也只能编码几个比特。 邮驿则是高带宽的，但速度比烽燧慢，罗马帝国的普通驿传速度是每天60-80公里，和唐代的每天160里差不多，紧急情况下，若不断更换最好的马，且不惜将马累死，可以达到每天两三百公里，公元前9年提比略（[[Tiberius]]）便是以这种方式在一昼夜内狂奔300公里，赶往日耳曼前线见他临死的弟弟德鲁苏斯（[[Nero Claudius Drusus]]）。 在古代，既高速又高带宽的远程通信工具是信鸽，可负重75克（相当于20张A4纸或0.6平米缣帛或0.14平米羊皮纸），以80公里时速一天内将消息传至千里之外；但信鸽也有其缺陷，首先是不可靠，它们经常被敌人打下来，其次，它是定点且单向的，因为信鸽通信利用的是其归巢本能，而每只信鸽只认一个巢；不过，对于最高权力者，第二个缺陷同时也是优点，它限制了属下的通信对象，防止他们用信鸽与敌人或相互间密谋串通。 通信在大型组织运营和控制上的关键作用，从教皇格列高利一世（Pope [[Gregory I the Great]]）的成就中可窥见一斑，格列高利是罗马教会事实上的缔造者，在他之前，教会是个十分松散的组织，教皇作为罗马主教也只是诸主教中最显要的一位，格列高利将它改造成了严密的层级化组织，他那非凡的组织管理活动有个著名特点：大量写信，在14年任期中，仅留存下来的信件就有854封。 通过与下属之间非常频密的信件往来，他对远在西西里、北非、不列颠的下属的工作进展了如指掌，事无巨细的作出指示，并在任务执行过程中不断给予协助和干预；为处理大量信件，他还组建了一个专门的文书团队。 格列高利能这么做，也得益于教会在读写上的优势，当时统治西欧的蛮族领主和贵族大多是文盲，因而这一优势尤为突出，国王们能够得到的文书服务也大多来自教士，结果，集权化之后的罗马教会不仅在各国拥有巨大权力，也成了近千年中唯一一个影响覆盖整个西欧的权力中心，到中世纪后期当贵族也开始掌握文字时，教廷的地位已难以撼动。 通信手段在帝权专制的发展中也扮演了重要角色，中国历史上那些权力欲特别强的帝王，总是努力绕开常规行政系统，直接从下层获取情报，武则天就特别喜欢让人向她告密，朱元璋更将密疏言事制度化了，不过，他们把告密权放得太宽，反倒容易被信息所淹没。 康熙做得更聪明，他把密折专奏的机会限于少数亲信和60多位省级大员（这里我们又看到了邓巴数），从而首度建立起了真正有效的直达皇帝的专属情报系统，康熙还在要地安插亲信作为另一套情报来源，曹雪芹祖上三代所担任的江宁织造，就兼负着为皇帝收罗江南情报的职责；雍正更将密折制度变成了主要施政工具，通过朱批奏折与臣僚直接对话成了常规，留存的朱批奏折共41600本，批语1000多万字，合每天批9本两三千字。 这一系列做法，将集权专制推向了前电报时代的极限，从{{孔飞力}}（[[Philip A. Kuhn]]）在《叫魂》中所描绘的一个案例可以看出，当皇帝对某件事情产生兴趣时，其干预可以细致和深入到何种程度，比如对一个乞丐的审讯中，刑讯逼供的尺度该怎么把握，如此程度的直接干预和全程遥控，自然离不开高效率的通信系统，在处理叫魂案的那半年里，奏批往来的频密程度，可从孔氏所援引的部分批语中得到一个直观印象。 这些通信系统成本极为高昂，汉代西北边境的居延都尉府（县级军事辖区）沿额济纳河构建的一条270公里烽燧链上，有270座烽燧，敦煌的塞垣烽燧链密度近似，长约100公里，近100座烽燧，每座烽燧少则三五名，多则十几名守卒，为管理数百座烽燧并为其供应粮草，还须建立一个四级官僚结构和三级仓储系统，人员配置近2000，而当时居延县总共才8000户人家。 邮驿网比烽燧链庞大得多，东汉修建的褒斜道，全程258里（107公里）设置了大小64个中继站（所谓邮亭驿置）；假设每县有50公里驿路，每2-3公里一个小型中继站，10-20公里一个大型服务区，就需要数百人为它服务；明清两代，全国8万多公里驿路，2000个驿（服务区），14000个铺（中继站），每驿60-70匹马，总计十几万驿卒铺兵和同等数量的马匹。 维持这样的系统需要雄厚的财政和劳役资源，在古代帝国的常设行政系统中，它占了很大比例，清代一个县级政府的书吏衙役加起来不过一两百人，和驿卒铺兵数量相当，加上马匹，后者财政负担更大，所以万历年间{{张居正}}大举裁撤精简行政官僚机构时，邮驿系统是他的裁撤重点。 道路和邮驿系统一旦建立起来，便成为帝国权力的一大支柱，并且为帝国统一提供了一种向心力，使得它容易被接管，却很难被割裂，因为这些道路网络的拓扑结构有着强烈的首都中心倾向，将其中一个局部分出来，功效便大打折扣，罗马大道（[[Roman Roads]]）被刻意设计成笔直的形状，常不顾地形条件而强行取直，甚至在翻越山岭时也直上直下，这样的道路系统有利于大跨度的战略机动和长途通信，但削弱了连接区域内城镇和局部中心的价值，因为后者的分布通常由河流山脉等自然地貌所决定。 电报的出现戏剧性的改变了通信方式，传统邮驿系统在不到一代人中即遭废弃，它从根本上改变了权力结构；南北战争首度见证了这场革命，凭借4000多英里电报线路，林肯成为首位能够直接向战地指挥官发号施令的总统，在战争部的电报室里实现了对战争近乎实时的遥控。 1879年的祖鲁战争（[[Zulu war]]）是个有趣的对照，这场冲突很大程度上是英国派往南非不久的高级专员亨利·弗里尔（[[Henry Frere]]）刚愎自用，背着其殖民部上司擅自行事的结果，在殖民部长希克斯·比奇（[[Hicks Beach]]）看来，当时弗里尔若用电报而非信件与伦敦沟通，战争完全可以避免；可惜的是，就在战争结束后不到一个月，来自亚丁（[[Aden]]）的东线海底电缆刚刚通到德班（[[Durban]]），而通往专员驻地开普敦（[[Cape Town]]）的西线海底电缆在十年后才铺通。 电报对权力结构的冲击也改变了几大帝国的命运，奥斯曼帝国（[[Ottoman Empire]]）热情拥抱这项新技术，1839年，摩尔斯的测试成功后一年多，首部电报机即已出现在伊斯坦布尔，1855年，克里米亚战争（[[Crimean War]]）尚未结束，通往欧洲的线路便已开通，到1869年，急速扩张中的帝国电报网已拥有25137公里线路。 起初，电报强化了帝国对遥远行省的控制，但因为电报线铺设成本远远低于邮驿系统，只须一路竖杆子，且完全不受地形之碍，地方政权也很容易建立起自己的通信网，同时民用电报也迅速发展并推动了新闻业繁荣，结果导致地方离心倾向和民族主义的兴起。 类似的故事也在东方上演，庚子事变后的{{东南互保}}这种前所未有的事情之所以会发生，正是因为各地督抚已能相互通电，而此事的牵头者恰恰是当时控制电报局的{{盛宣怀}}，更有意思的是，盛宣怀在1911年担任邮传大臣后，试图将各省自建的铁路和电报网收归国有，以便由中央集中控制，由此引发的{{保路运动}}导致了满清帝国的最终崩溃。  

未来的历史学家可能会将刚刚过去的这一年视为美利坚治世（[[Pax Americana]]）的终点，不过就我个人而言，这是幸福的一年。 祝各位新年快乐～

权力积木#1：距离与速度 辉格 2015年11月21日 国家最初源自若干相邻酋邦中的最强者所建立的霸权，而这些酋邦则由专业武装组织发展而来；霸权当然首先来自压倒性的武力优势：霸主能够轻易击败势力范围内的任何对手，并且所有各方都十分确信这一点，因而甘愿向它纳贡称臣，也愿意在自身遭受威胁时向它求助，卷入纠纷时接受其仲裁，发生争霸挑战时站在它那一边。 然而，武力是起落消长多变的，仅凭一时之战斗力而维持的霸权难以长久，要将围绕霸权所建立的多边关系常规化和制度化，需要更多权力要素；要理解这些要素如何起源，以及它们在支撑国家权力中所履行的基础性功能，我们最好从多方博弈的角度出发，考虑其中的利害权衡。 通常，霸主最需要担心的是这样几种情况：1）在属邦遭受攻击时不能及时提供援助，丧失安全感的属邦可能转而投靠其他霸主，2）当一个属邦反叛并攻击其他属邦时，若不能及时加以制止，便可能引发连锁反应，3）当足够多属邦联合协调行动发动叛乱时，霸主的武力优势被联合力量所压过。 无论何种情况，当事方对霸主行动速度的预期都是关键所在，若遭受攻击的弱小属邦预期得不到及时救援，便可能放弃抵抗而选择投降，若邻近敌邦预期能在援兵到达之前得手并及时撤离，便更可能发动攻击，若潜在叛乱者预期自己有能力在霸主赶来镇压之前连克多个属邦并吸引到足够多追随者，便更可能发动叛乱，而当叛乱实际发生时，那些骑墙观望的属邦，若预期霸主无力及时平定叛乱，便更可能加入叛军行列，特别是当他们原本就心怀不满，或与反叛者关系亲密，或早有争霸野心时。 所以，对于维持霸权，仅有强大战斗力是不够的，还要有机动性，能够将兵力及时投送到需要的地方，速度要比对手快；设想这样一种简化的情形：霸主甲位于属邦乙的南方60英里，敌邦丙由北向南进攻乙，位于乙之北60英里的边境哨所得到敌情后向甲和乙汇报，假如所有人的行动速度都是每天10英里，那么丙就会早于甲的援军至少6天到达乙地，假如乙预期撑不过6天，就可能早早选择投降。 但是，假如报信者每天能跑60英里，而甲的行军速度是2倍于敌军的每天20英里，加上一天的集结时间，援军仍可与敌军同时到达，换句话说，上述情境中，只要通信速度6倍于敌军行军速度，己方行军速度2倍于敌方，霸主便能有效保护属邦，若机动优势降至1.5倍，也只需要属邦能抵抗一天，或者，即便机动优势只有1.2倍，霸主也完全来得及在敌军得手撤离之前追上它并实施报复，而及时报复能力是对潜在侵犯者的有力威慑。 这虽然是简化虚构，但离现实并不太远，古代军队的行军速度很慢，晴天陆地行军速度一般不超过每天10英里，雨天则几乎走不动，而无论是青铜时代的城邦霸主，还是铁器时代的大型帝国，机动优势都构成了其霸权的核心要素。 公元前15世纪的埃及战神图特摩斯三世（[[Thutmose III]]）在其成名之战米吉多战役（[[Battle of Megiddo]]）中，在9天内将2万大军投送到250英里之外的加沙，将近3倍于常规速度；从波斯、马其顿到罗马，这些辉煌帝国的一大共同点是：都有能力以2到3倍于对手的速度大规模投送兵力，同时以5至10倍于常规行军的速度传递消息。 古代行军速度慢，不是因为人跑的慢，相反，人类特别擅长超长距离奔跑，大概只有袋鼠、鸵鸟和羚羊等少数动物能与人媲美，长跑也是早期人类狩猎技能的关键，我们的脊柱、骨盆、腿骨、颈部肌肉、脚趾、足弓和汗腺，都已为适应长跑而大幅改造，运动生理学家发现，对于长距离奔跑，两足方式比四足方式更加高效节能，尽管后者能达到更高的瞬间速度。 卡拉哈里的桑族猎人经常在40度高温下连续三四小时奔跑三四十公里直至将猎物累垮，美国西南部的派尤特（[[Paiute]]）印第安人逐猎叉角羚时，澳洲土著追逐大袋鼠时，也采用类似方法；当距离超出100公里时，人的速度便可超过马；居住在墨西哥高原奇瓦瓦州的美洲土著塔拉乌马拉人（[[Tarahumara]]）很好的展示了人类的超长跑能力，在他们的一项传统赛跑活动中，参赛者可以在崎岖山路上两天内奔跑300多公里。 拖慢行军速度的，是后勤补给负担，这一负担因国家起源过程中战争形态的改变而大幅加重，原因有三个：首先，大型政治实体的出现成倍拉大了作战距离，在前国家的群体间战争中，作战者通常可以当天往返，无须携带补给品，在酋邦时代，相邻酋邦之间相距几十公里，军队也最多离家一两天，但广域国家的军队常常需要到数百上千公里外作战，短则几周，长则数月，必须随身携带大量消耗性补给品。 其次，军队的大型化使得就地补给变得不可靠，对于数十上百人的小股部队，只要拥有武力优势，沿路打劫村落便可获得补给，但数千上万人的大部队就很难依靠这种方式，而攻取拥有大量存粮的设防城镇则会大幅拖慢行程，并为任务带来不确定性，所以，尽管古代军队很大程度上利用就地补给（说难听点就是一路抢过去），但在两个可靠补给点之间，不得不携带足够粮草。 据估算，长途行军者粮食补给的最低需求约为每人每天1.5公斤谷物，若穿越水源不足的干旱地区，还需另加2.5公斤水，按携带15天粮食（这是罗马军团的标准配置）和3天饮水算，单兵负重便达30公斤，这还没算上武器装备；因为要在外吃饭过夜，还须携带燃料、灶具、铺盖和帐篷；如此负重之下，奔跑就只能改成行走。 以古代行军效率最高的罗马军团为例，其常规行军模式是，单兵负重20-30公斤，步伐每分钟120步，每步75厘米，每天可走5-6小时（夏天长一些），合计30公里左右；当然，若放弃辎重、不考虑补给，一两天内的短途轻装奔袭可以快得多，然而对于陆地长途行军，每天30公里构成了古代军队机动性的极限，那些强大帝国的优势便在于，它们能够最大程度上接近这一极限。 构成机动障碍的第三个原因是军队的重型化，从青铜时代开始，战争就始终在向重资产方向发展，随着新型武器不断出现，装备也变得越来越重，仍以罗马军团为例，罗马方盾（[[Scutum]]）重达10公斤，重标枪（[[pilum]]）每支3-5公斤，每人配备1-2支，一套锁子甲（[[lorica hamata]]）约16公斤，鳞片甲（[[lorica segmentata]]）9公斤，这样，仅单兵基本装备就占满了20-30公斤的行军负重，其他补给品只能另想办法。 对后勤构成更大压力的是消耗性材料和重型装置，由于投射型武器日益增多，且发射功率越来越大，它们使用的耗材也大幅增加；传统猎人和部落战士虽然也使用弓箭，但通常只携带很少几支箭，重量在30克左右，但在大型阵地战出现后，连续密集齐射成为一种火力压制和近身接战之前的主要杀伤手段，弓箭手在一次战斗中常携带50-100支箭，后勤储备更数倍于此，而随着弩机的使用，箭也增大变重了，出土的秦代青铜弩箭重达100多克。 另一种单兵投射武器是投石索（[[sling]]），用于抛掷鹅卵石，每颗重几百克，投掷者背囊里的几十颗弹丸将为他带来近十公斤负重；从手持式轻弩，脚踏式和腰张式重弩，重型{{床弩}}，到能够发射几十公斤重箭或石块的大型扭力绞盘投射机（[[ballista]]），投射装置和它们所抛掷的耗材都越来越重，所有这些装备和材料，都无法指望由单兵背负。 解决这一运输难题的最初办法是使用驼畜，主要是驴，后来还有骆驼，驴的问题是负重太小，走的也太慢，一头负重50公斤的驴每天能走25公里，但它每天需要消耗3公斤粮草，所以当行程超出15天时，有效负载就接近零了，而且它驼不了太重的东西，所以只适合于轻装队伍短程行军。 有了轮子后，牵畜逐渐取代了驼畜，牵引力最强的是公牛，据色诺芬（[[Xenophon]]）记载，希腊军队中一辆单牛二轮车可以拉650公斤货物，相当于13头驴，而16头公牛合力更可牵引一部6吨多重的攻城塔车；但牛的问题是速度太慢，只能以2英里时速每天走5小时，而且牛的食量很大，约为马的5倍，这就进一步减少了有效负载。 所以大部分古代军队（除了最强大的那些）行军速度难以突破每天10英里的主要原因，就是被辎重牛车拖了后腿，要突破这个瓶颈，必须用马代替牛，据计算，5匹马牵引的四轮马车，负载相当于两头公牛，而速度可提高至每小时4英里，每天走8小时，且食量只相当于一头公牛，这样，辎重车队的速度便可超过步兵。 马的问题是昂贵，特别是在那些缺乏草场的地方，中世纪西欧流行多圃轮作制，草场较充裕，但据一份中世纪后期的价格资料，一头公牛13先令，牵引马10-20先令，按同等牵引力算，马价约3倍于牛价，骑乘马则更贵，约为牵引马的5-10倍；根据公元前17世纪赫梯帝国的一份文献，公牛价7.5谢克尔（[[shekel]]），牵引马10谢克尔，比价与中世纪欧洲相仿。 长途征战的大军对役畜的需求非常大，罗马军团的每个8人小队（[[contubernium]]）共享一个帐篷、一套灶具（包括一个石磨）和一头骡子，外加专门的后勤辎重队伍所需；菲利普二世（[[Philip II of Macedon]]）在改革马其顿军队的后勤系统时，通过清理闲杂人员（家属、仆人、妓女等），并提高单兵负重，将一支5万人军队的役畜削减了6千多头，可见总数之庞大。 因为数量太多价格太贵，只有那些财力最雄厚的军队才能配备足够多马车从而消除牛车瓶颈；同时，为了尽可能避免用牛车，并节约马匹，铁器时代两位著名军事改革家马略（[[Gaius Marius]]）和菲利普二世都十分强调提高单兵负重，而且不约而同的将标准设定在30公斤左右，这差不多就是现代化步兵的标准负重，拿破仑战争期间英军步兵负重80磅，登陆诺曼底的美军步兵是82磅；将负重向单兵转移到倾向表明，机动瓶颈不在士兵行走速度，而是后勤辎重车队。 提高机动性也需要在组织训练和强化纪律上下功夫，像罗马军团那样每天数小时负重30公斤齐步行军，需要严格的训练，每天迅速及时安营和拔营，也需要完备的组织，参加过集体旅游的人都可以想象到，一群乌合之众，哪怕只有数十人，要让他们一致行动起来，有多么困难和耗时，要让五千人的军团趁天黑之前在两小时内井井有条的完成扎营、设岗、侦查、补充燃料和饮用水……，需要很强的纪律性。 克服后勤障碍的另一个手段，是利用水路便利进行快速投送，在火车出现之前，水上运输比陆地快得多，而且负载越大水路优势越明显，波斯帝国动辄在几千公里的跨度上投送数十万大军，便是充分利用了地中海的便利，能够运载如此大军的船队也非常庞大，需要雄厚实力才能供养。 然而，对于一个疆域辽阔的大型帝国，要将其军事控制覆盖境内每个角落，并且对任何要害地点皆可以接近极限的速度投送武力，终极手段是修建高速公路网，这一点只有罗马做到了，在罗马之前，各大帝国也致力于架桥修路等交通基础设施，但通常只限于开路、平整和压实等初级措施，保证道路勉强可用，但远远达不到全天候全速通行。 在公元前312年第二次萨莫奈战争（[[Second Samnite War]]）后的数百年间，罗马共修筑了40万公里道路，其中8万公里是精心铺设的硬化路面，有着土基、灰砂和石块三层铺设，以及路肩和排水系统，沿路设有大量路标、哨所、驿站和旅店，旅行者每隔20多英里便可找到休息和补给点地方，还有为通信兵换马的马栈。 正是这一高速公路网，确保了罗马军队可以在任何条件下以极限速度调往帝国任一角落，它构成了帝国权力的一大支柱，其所带来的陆地机动能力，直到美国南北战争期间才被火车所超越，同时，罗马大道也被商人和平民旅行者所利用，它将帝国疆域内的众多小社会连接成了一个大社会。  

【2015-12-10】 @baidu冷兵器吧 依靠以自豪感为目的的历史教育和许多义和团知识分子们，总是强调老欧洲粪便垃圾满地污水横流，街道如何狭窄等等，以此制造一种印象——虽然近现代我们是不行了，可是我们祖宗可比西方祖宗阔的多啦，不用去学什么鸟西方！但，中国真能嘲笑古代欧洲脏乱差吗？ http://t.cn/RUsEyYH 中国能嘲笑古代欧洲脏乱差吗？ @战争史研究WHS:汉长安城至北周时“水皆咸卤,不甚宜人”，这个水指的是地下水。八百年间城市粪尿渗入地表，影响地下水质。所以隋朝才放弃汉长安城，在其南边营建大兴城 @whigzhou: 对佛山、汉口等商业城市和都城做个比较研究可能会有点意思，我毫无根据的猜，当行会在城市管理中起较大作用时，卫生条件会更好 @whigzhou: 另外，城市面积越大，屎尿处理越难，因为古代运输条件下，屎尿的市场价格随距离递减得极快，当有效供应半径内农民对屎尿的需求量超出城市生产量时，屎尿收购价格便是正的，无需额外激励，城镇和小城市大概可以满足这一条件，而上百万人的大都市就不好说了。 @whigzhou: 所以，同等人口规模下，居住密度越高，屎尿处理越容易，这可能和一般人都直觉相反  

过感恩节，“白人屠杀印第安人”的话题又冒了出来，大伯我也说两句。 1）所谓种族灭绝当然是胡扯，极左分子新近编造的“人民历史”，不值一驳； 2）殖民者与土著确实有不少冲突，其中一个重要原因是定居者与非定居者对土地权利有着截然不同的观念； 3）殖民早期这个问题并不太严重，因为相对于北美的广阔地域，殖民者人数极少，他们与土著所偏爱的生态位也十分不同； 4）殖民者与印第安人的关系因美国独立而大幅恶化，后来的西进运动（特别是铁路开始向西延伸后）更加剧了冲突，时而发展成战争； 5）这一转折的原因之一是人口增长，第二个原因也很重要：殖民者不再受英国政府的约束，在此之前，帝国的北美政策是，保障殖民者福祉的同时，尽可能拉拢印第安人，将其视为对抗法国和西班牙的盟友，所以需要约束殖民者过度向阿巴拉契亚以西扩张，至少扩张势头不要那么猛烈； 6）独立之后，在对待土著的态度上也分成两派，大致上，越是偏向精英主义的，越倾向温和友善政策，越是平民主义的，越倾向强硬敌对扩张政策，后者的代表是民主党之父安德鲁·杰克逊，其主要名声、成就和政治资本，就是打印第安人（顺便一提，联邦政府的系统性腐败也是从他开始的）； 7）这两派的分歧让人想起罗马故事，格拉古兄弟也是民粹主义者，哥哥提比略想用土地改革（没收大地产分给失业穷人）讨好贫民，结果被打死了，十年后，弟弟想出了更好的办法：去掠夺新近归附小亚细亚属国的财富来给穷人发福利，这样既讨好了穷人，也不得罪贵族； 8）一般来说，一个强国，若民粹分子得势或上台，其邻国、友邦、属国的平民往往没好果子吃，希特勒和查韦斯就不说了，美国工会得势的年代，亚洲工人就不可能有现在这么多工作机会，美国工会的残余势力至今还在喊着要把就业机会夺回来；    

#1：规模局限的含义 #2：扩张的动力 #3：祖先的记忆 #4：婚姻粘结剂 #5：青春的躁动 #6：武人的兴起 #7：暴力的垄断