The ‘gate’ has been a recurring metaphor for moments of access and denial in ethnographic fieldwork. However, access challenges during fieldwork represent not only ‘gates’ opening up or foreclosing scientific opportunity: rather, they tell us something about fieldwork as a collection of scientific practices, and, more precisely, how practices of power mark the process of anthropological knowledge production and anthropology as a social science. Based on fieldwork in Luanshya from 2015 to 2016, the study of metatexts from ethnographies on Zambia’s copper mines, archival research and personal communication with Copperbelt scholars, I argue that ethnographic fieldwork has been able to challenge persisting power structures and social hierarchies in colonial and post-colonial Zambia. Similarly, as I will explain, ethnographic fieldwork made the anthropologist a social scientist who was being ‘chased’ by the practices of power that structured his or her prime work place – that is, the field. I set out as a historian of social anthropology, retracing how anthropologists on the Copperbelt gained or were denied access to their field sites from the studies of the Rhodes–Livingstone Institute (RLI), founded in 1937, to my own ethnographic research project up to 2017. Moments of fieldwork access and denial have occurred in this region in an especially clear form. I seek to contribute to the historiography of the Copperbelt as an anthropological field site and the understanding of anthropology as a social science. It is a science that is capable of illustrating power hierarchies through passing moments of gaining fieldwork access, continuous negotiations to maintain it, and prolonged efforts, ending in denial. These instances are not mere embellishments to be relegated to the introductions, appendices and postscripts of ethnographies or retrospective assessments of academic careers. Fieldwork access should be central within every reflection on the production of anthropological knowledge and the nature of anthropology as a social science.

中文翻译：

---

说话，交友和输入？铜带上的野外工作访问和人类学知识生产

在民族志田野调查中，“门”一直是反复出现的隐喻，用于获取和拒绝的时刻。但是，实地考察过程中的访问挑战不仅代表“门”的开放或丧失科学机会：相反，它们告诉我们有关实地考察的一些科学实践知识，更准确地讲，权力实践是如何标记人类学知识生产过程的人类学作为社会科学。基于2015年至2016年在卢安夏进行的实地考察，对赞比亚铜矿的人种志图元文字的研究，档案研究以及与Copperbelt学者的个人交流，我认为人种志的实地考察能够挑战殖民地和后期持久存在的权力结构和社会等级制度-殖民地的赞比亚。同样，正如我将要解释的那样，人种学田野调查使人类学家成为社会科学家，他被构成他或她的主要工作场所（即田地）的权力实践“追赶”。我以社会人类学的历史学家身份出发，回顾了铜带上的人类学家如何从1937年成立的罗德·利文斯通研究所（RLI）的研究到我自己的民族志研究项目，直到获得或拒绝进入他们的野外场所。 2017年。该地区以特别清晰的形式出现了实地工作访问和拒绝的时刻。我致力于为铜带的人类学领域的史学和对人类学作为社会科学的理解做出贡献。这是一门科学，可以通过获得野外工作机会的瞬间来说明权力等级，为了维持该协议而进行的持续谈判，以及长时间的努力，最终都遭到了拒绝。这些实例不仅仅只是装饰物，而仅限于民族志的简介，附录和附言或对学术职业的回顾性评估。在对人类学知识的产生和人类学作为社会科学的本质的每一次思考中，实地考察都应成为中心。