geology. Strang highlights the significance of Gulf Coast enslavers and their networks for naturalists in Philadelphia, and by extension, the central role violence – and especially plantation slavery – played in American intellectual life. We see how the collection of geologic specimens relied on the labor of enslaved people, and how theoretical arguments at the vanguard of geology were being used by some to argue for the expansion of slavery. The final chapter of the book focuses upon the Seminole War, which, as Strang frames it, was “fought over and against the bodies of the dead” (p. 287). Strang traces how war shaped the practice of American science, but also how violence toward the dead, especially through rituals accompanying scalp collecting, contributed to the formation of a shared identity that has helped Florida Seminoles “resist subjugation through the nineteenth century and beyond” (p. 322). This final chapter illustrates the broad thrust of the book – that knowledge was generated and circulated by more diverse individuals and communities than our current narratives seem to acknowledge or incorporate, and that all of this occurred within a social world structured by imperialism and violence. Given the multicentury reach of Strang’s project, readers of this journal might be particularly interested in Frontiers of Science because of the context it provides for transformations often placed later in the century. In particular, it suggests that historians should look earlier, and further east, for the features and roots of the imperial expansion that defined much of the latter part of nineteenth-century U.S. history. Strang concludes by articulating the stakes for expanding who is part of American intellectual history in the past and in our present. He writes, “If America’s intellectual history continues to be told essentially as a story about Anglos working in isolation from the rest of the continent... it will also remain easy for huge portions of the population to rally behind a narrow version of America’s cultural past and use this vision to justify ongoing exclusion and inequality” (p. 344). In Frontiers of Science, Cameron Strang makes a compelling case for revisiting – and recentering – howwe think about the sites, vectors, and contexts for knowledge production in early America. Putting U.S. imperialism at the center opens up new throughlines to follow and new questions to pursue, and fits well with recent scholarship focused on U.S. empire in the long Progressive Era.

中文翻译：

---

流动景观：早期美国边缘的地理和定居点

地质学。斯特朗强调了墨西哥湾沿岸奴隶制及其对费城博物学家网络的重要性，进而强调了暴力——尤其是种植园奴隶制——在美国知识分子生活中发挥的核心作用。我们看到地质标本的收集如何依赖于被奴役者的劳动，以及一些人如何利用地质学先锋的理论论点来论证奴隶制的扩张。这本书的最后一章聚焦于塞米诺尔战争，正如斯特朗所描述的那样，这场战争是“与死者的尸体进行斗争和对抗”（第 287 页）。Strang 追溯了战争如何塑造了美国科学的实践，以及如何对死者施加暴力，特别是通过伴随头皮收集的仪式，促成了共同身份的形成，帮助佛罗里达塞米诺尔人“在 19 世纪及以后抵抗征服”（第 322 页）。最后一章阐述了本书的主旨——知识是由更多不同的个人和社区产生和传播的，而不是我们目前的叙述似乎承认或纳入，所有这一切都发生在一个由帝国主义和暴力构成的社会世界中。鉴于 Strang 项目的跨世纪影响，该期刊的读者可能对《科学前沿》特别感兴趣，因为它为通常在本世纪后期进行的转型提供了背景。特别是，它表明历史学家应该更早地向东看，因为帝国扩张的特征和根源定义了 19 世纪美国历史的后半部分。斯特朗最后阐明了扩大谁是美国过去和现在的思想史一部分的利害关系。他写道：“如果美国的思想史基本上继续被讲述为一个关于盎格鲁人与非洲大陆其他地区隔离工作的故事……很大一部分人口也将很容易团结在狭隘的美国文化背后。过去并利用这一愿景来证明持续的排斥和不平等”（第 344 页）。在《科学前沿》中，卡梅伦·斯特朗（Cameron Strang）提出了一个令人信服的案例，让我们重新审视和重新审视我们对美国早期知识生产的地点、载体和背景的看法。把美国