The final phase of the editorial process that culminated in this issue of African Archaeological Review (Volume 36, 2) took place in the atmosphere of panic and uncertainties unleashed by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. I must first thank our authors, reviewers, editorial team, and the Springer staff for keeping the clock of production moving despite the strains imposed by the pandemic on our working environment and mindset. Five of the pervasive concepts in archaeology (and anthropology broadly) during the past 20 years are vulnerability, collapse, resilience, regeneration, and sustainability (e.g., Chase and Scarborough 2014; Lane 2010; Logan et al. 2019; McAnany and Yoffee 2009; Redman 2005). These concepts—for which I will use the acronym, VCRRS—are often invoked in discussions about how past societies have coped with (or failed to manage) climate change, natural disaster, conflict, ecological degradation, resource scarcity, and social inequality and the implications for the present and future. Infectious diseases are always in the background of our archaeological thinking, but these are not usually given as prominent a space as these other sources of perturbations. Unlike epidemical outbreaks, those other perturbations are easier to observe in the archaeological record. For example, natural disasters such as tsunami, earthquakes, hurricanes, and tornadoes are similar to contagions in terms of their sudden and unpredictable occurrences. However, natural disasters often leave much more detectable signs than epidemics, although the latter can last much longer. In some instances, we can receive forewarnings of impending natural disasters and therefore be proactive (e.g., through evacuation). It is not so with microbes. They do not give warnings of their arrival, and they cannot be seen with the naked eye. As a result, we are limited to a gradualist reactive approach to pathogens as they wreak havoc on our corporeal and social fabric. As it has been with COVID-19, past societies had to rely more on their political institutions and social systems than their medical know-how in breaking the chains of pathogenic spread. The coronavirus pandemic is relevant to the VCRRS concepts that have animated our scientific inquiry about social and cultural formation for several years. This ongoing pandemic is a stark reminder, on a grand scale, of human vulnerability. It is also a great test of societal resilience, and it presents us with the question of what to let go and what to keep. Although, in some instances, the virus has not given us the choice. In the long run, the COVID-19 crisis might force on us new ways of being, especially as we develop strategies of recovery and regeneration. But one thing is clear: epidemics will always be part of the human journey. Exactly a hundred years ago, the world was just recovering from the Influenza Pandemic of 1918–1919 that took about 50 million lives worldwide. As many as two million people in sub-Saharan Africa possibly died from the pandemic (Patterson 1983, p. 501). Since then, we have developed the most connected, urbanized, and scientifically advanced global system in human history. Afr Archaeol Rev https://doi.org/10.1007/s10437-020-09390-x

中文翻译：

---

关于 COVID-19 和出现的问题

在本期《非洲考古评论》（第 36 卷，第 2 期）中达到高潮的编辑过程的最后阶段是在冠状病毒 (COVID-19) 大流行引发的恐慌和不确定性气氛中进行的。我必须首先感谢我们的作者、审稿人、编辑团队和 Springer 员工，尽管大流行给我们的工作环境和心态带来了压力，但他们仍保持生产时钟的运转。在过去 20 年中，考古学（以及广义的人类学）中普遍存在的五个概念是脆弱性、崩溃、复原力、再生和可持续性（例如，Chase 和 Scarborough 2014；Lane 2010；Logan 等人 2019；McAnany 和 Yoffee 2009；雷德曼 2005）。这些概念——我将使用首字母缩略词，VCRRS——在讨论过去社会如何应对（或未能管理）气候变化、自然灾害、冲突、生态退化、资源稀缺和社会不平等以及对现在和未来的影响的讨论中经常被引用。传染病始终是我们考古思想的背景，但这些疾病通常不像这些其他干扰源那样突出。与流行病爆发不同，这些其他扰动更容易在考古记录中观察到。例如，海啸、地震、飓风和龙卷风等自然灾害的发生突然且不可预测，类似于传染病。然而，自然灾害往往比流行病留下更多可检测的迹象，尽管后者可以持续更长时间。在某些情况下，我们可以收到即将发生的自然灾害的预警，因此要积极主动（例如，通过疏散）。微生物并非如此。他们不会对他们的到来发出警告，也无法用肉眼看到他们。因此，我们仅限于对病原体采取渐进式的反应方法，因为它们对我们的身体和社会结构造成严重破坏。与 COVID-19 一样，过去的社会在打破病原体传播链时不得不更多地依赖其政治机构和社会系统，而不是其医学知识。冠状病毒大流行与多年来推动我们对社会和文化形成的科学探究的 VCRRS 概念有关。这种持续的流行病在很大程度上提醒了人类的脆弱性。也是对社会韧性的极大考验，它向我们提出了放弃什么和保留什么的问题。尽管在某些情况下，病毒并没有给我们选择的余地。从长远来看，COVID-19 危机可能会迫使我们采取新的生活方式，尤其是当我们制定恢复和再生战略时。但有一点很清楚：流行病将永远是人类旅程的一部分。整整一百年前，世界刚刚从 1918-1919 年的流感大流行中恢复过来，这场大流行在全球夺走了大约 5000 万人的生命。撒哈拉以南非洲多达 200 万人可能死于大流行病（Patterson 1983, p. 501）。从那时起，我们开发了人类历史上联系最紧密、城市化和科学最先进的全球系统。Afr Archaeol Rev https://doi.org/10.1007/s10437-020-09390-x 在某些情况下，病毒并没有给我们选择的余地。从长远来看，COVID-19 危机可能会迫使我们采取新的生活方式，尤其是当我们制定恢复和再生战略时。但有一点很清楚：流行病将永远是人类旅程的一部分。整整一百年前，世界刚刚从 1918-1919 年的流感大流行中恢复过来，这场大流行在全球夺走了大约 5000 万人的生命。撒哈拉以南非洲多达 200 万人可能死于大流行病（Patterson 1983, p. 501）。从那时起，我们开发了人类历史上联系最紧密、城市化和科学最先进的全球系统。Afr Archaeol Rev https://doi.org/10.1007/s10437-020-09390-x 在某些情况下，病毒并没有给我们选择的余地。从长远来看，COVID-19 危机可能会迫使我们采取新的生活方式，尤其是当我们制定恢复和再生战略时。但有一点很清楚：流行病将永远是人类旅程的一部分。整整一百年前，世界刚刚从 1918-1919 年的流感大流行中恢复过来，这场大流行在全球夺走了大约 5000 万人的生命。撒哈拉以南非洲多达 200 万人可能死于大流行病（Patterson 1983, p. 501）。从那时起，我们开发了人类历史上联系最紧密、城市化和科学最先进的全球系统。Afr Archaeol Rev https://doi.org/10.1007/s10437-020-09390-x 特别是当我们制定恢复和再生策略时。但有一点很清楚：流行病将永远是人类旅程的一部分。整整一百年前，世界刚刚从 1918-1919 年的流感大流行中恢复过来，这场大流行在全球夺走了大约 5000 万人的生命。撒哈拉以南非洲多达 200 万人可能死于大流行病（Patterson 1983, p. 501）。从那时起，我们开发了人类历史上联系最紧密、城市化和科学最先进的全球系统。Afr Archaeol Rev https://doi.org/10.1007/s10437-020-09390-x 特别是当我们制定恢复和再生策略时。但有一点很清楚：流行病将永远是人类旅程的一部分。整整一百年前，世界刚刚从 1918-1919 年的流感大流行中恢复过来，这场大流行在全球夺走了大约 5000 万人的生命。撒哈拉以南非洲多达 200 万人可能死于大流行病（Patterson 1983, p. 501）。从那时起，我们开发了人类历史上联系最紧密、城市化和科学最先进的全球系统。Afr Archaeol Rev https://doi.org/10.1007/s10437-020-09390-x 撒哈拉以南非洲多达 200 万人可能死于大流行病（Patterson 1983, p. 501）。从那时起，我们开发了人类历史上联系最紧密、城市化和科学最先进的全球系统。Afr Archaeol Rev https://doi.org/10.1007/s10437-020-09390-x 撒哈拉以南非洲多达 200 万人可能死于大流行病（Patterson 1983, p. 501）。从那时起，我们开发了人类历史上联系最紧密、城市化和科学最先进的全球系统。Afr Archaeol Rev https://doi.org/10.1007/s10437-020-09390-x