Although Ed Wilmsen has made crucial contributions to ethoarchaeology, he does not identify himself as an ethnoarchaeologist, and so his important work in this field is often overlooked. He is not mentioned, for example, in the monumental history of ethnoarchaeology by David and Kramer (2000). When I recorded an on-camera interview with him in 2015, he described himself as a four-field anthropologist. The traditional “four fields” of Anthropology in the USA and Canada are Cultural (or Social) Anthropology, Archaeology, Biological Anthropology and Linguistic Anthropology. In the mid1960s Ed Wilmsen and his fellow PhD students in the University of Arizona’s Anthropology Department were required to take rigorous qualifying examinations in all four of these fields. His work on hunter-gatherers in the Kalahari made good use of all of this training and ranged far beyond it into colonial archives, and into the translation and editing of the journals of nineteenth-century European travelers through the Kalahari. As he notes in this essay, when he traveled in 1973 to CaeCae (/Khae/Khae in other publications) for a six-month field season, he shared the then-widespread view that Kalahari hunter-gatherers were among the last living representatives of that evolutionary stage, and that ethnoarchaeological studies of them might be used to infer behavior and social structures of prehistoric hunter-gatherers far distant in time and space from the Kalahari. He anticipated that this would be his only trip to Africa and that he would thereafter be applying the insights gathered from this field season to interpretation of Paleoindian archaeology back in the USA. He never did return to Paleoindian archaeology and has spent the last forty-five years working in Botswana. Between 1973 and 1980 he spent more than three years in the field with Zhu foragers, employing all aspects of his training in four-field anthropology. He learned their language, he studied their subsistence strategies and kinship system, nutrition and fertility, he drew blood for nutritional, endocrine and mt-DNA studies, and he undertook archaeological excavations at CaeCae (Wilmsen 1978). Some of the leading linguists studying Khoisan languages are German, and Ed’s fluency in that language enabled him to delve more deeply into Khoisan historical linguistics than most other anthropologists working with Kalahari hunter-gatherers. All of these lines of inquiry were also being pursued by various members of Lee and DeVore’s research group, but Wilmsen was able to spend more time in the field during the 1970s than any one of them, thanks to three large grants from the US National Science Foundation. He was also commissioned by the government of Botswana, which had become an independent nation only in 1966, to write a lengthy summary of the current status of foraging peoples within its borders.

中文翻译：

---

Edwin Wilmsen 对民族考古学的贡献

尽管 Ed Wilmsen 对民族考古学做出了重要贡献，但他并不认为自己是民族考古学家，因此他在该领域的重要工作经常被忽视。例如，大卫和克莱默 (2000) 在民族考古学的巨大历史中没有提到他。当我在 2015 年对他进行摄像采访时，他将自己描述为四领域人类学家。美国和加拿大人类学的传统“四大领域”是文化（或社会）人类学、考古学、生物人类学和语言人类学。在 20 世纪 60 年代中期，亚利桑那大学人类学系的 Ed Wilmsen 和他的博士生同学被要求参加所有四个领域的严格资格考试。他对喀拉哈里狩猎采集者的研究充分利用了所有这些训练，并远远超出了殖民档案，以及翻译和编辑了 19 世纪欧洲旅行者穿越喀拉哈里的日志。正如他在这篇文章中指出的那样，当他于 1973 年前往 CaeCae（其他出版物中的 /Khae/Khae）进行为期六个月的野外季节时，他同意当时广泛的观点，即喀拉哈里狩猎采集者是最后的在世代表之一。那个进化阶段，以及对它们的民族考古学研究可能被用来推断在时间和空间上远离喀拉哈里的史前狩猎采集者的行为和社会结构。他预计这将是他唯一的非洲之旅，此后他将把从这个野外季节收集到的见解应用到美国古印度考古学的解释中。他再也没有回到古印度考古学，过去 45 年一直在博茨瓦纳工作。1973 年至 1980 年间，他与朱觅食者一起在该领域工作了三年多，充分利用了他在四领域人类学方面的训练。他学习了他们的语言，研究了他们的生存策略和亲属制度、营养和生育能力，他为营养、内分泌和 mt-DNA 研究抽血，并在 CaeCae 进行了考古发掘（Wilmsen 1978）。一些研究科伊桑语的主要语言学家是德语，与大多数与喀拉哈里狩猎采集者合作的人类学家相比，埃德流利的那门语言使他能够更深入地研究科伊桑历史语言学。Lee 和 DeVore 研究小组的各个成员也都在进行所有这些调查，但由于美国国家科学局的三笔巨额资助，Wilmsen 在 1970 年代在该领域花费的时间比他们中的任何一个都多。基础。他还受博茨瓦纳政府委托，博茨瓦纳政府于 1966 年才成为一个独立国家，他撰写了一篇关于在其境内觅食人民的现状的长篇摘要。但多亏了美国国家科学基金会的三笔巨额资助，威尔姆森在 1970 年代在该领域花费的时间比任何人都多。他还受博茨瓦纳政府委托，博茨瓦纳政府于 1966 年才成为一个独立国家，他撰写了一篇关于在其境内觅食人民的现状的长篇摘要。但多亏了美国国家科学基金会的三笔巨额资助，威尔姆森在 1970 年代在该领域花费的时间比任何人都多。他还受博茨瓦纳政府委托，博茨瓦纳政府于 1966 年才成为一个独立国家，他撰写了一篇关于在其境内觅食人民的现状的长篇摘要。