考满分 toefl

1 .Listen to part of a lecture in an anthropology class.

听一段人类学课程的讲座。

1 .P: Okay, welcome to Anthropology 101. Now, anthropologists have traditionally classified human societies into groups, according to certain shared features or characteristics. So before we even open our textbooks, what might be some ways of classifying societies?

教授：好的，欢迎来到人类学 101 课程。传统上，人类学家会根据某些共同特征将人类社会划分为不同的群体。那么在翻开课本之前，大家想想有哪些划分社会的方式呢？

1 .S: Well, maybe their form of government, whether it's a democracy or something else like a society where all members have equal standing, an egalitarian society.

学生：嗯，也许可以依据政府形式，比如是民主制，还是其他形式，像是所有成员地位平等的平等主义社会。

1 .P: Good, anybody else? S: Maybe whether it's nomadic or not, whether the group moves around or just stays put all year? P: Sure, those are good suggestions and anthropologists do categorize societies along those lines.

教授：很好，还有其他人想说吗？ 学生：也许可以看是否是游牧社会，也就是这个群体是四处迁徙，还是一整年都定居在一个地方？ 教授：当然，这些都是不错的建议，人类学家确实会从这些角度对社会进行分类。

1 .P: But there's another system of categorization I want to mention that's traditionally been very popular. That's looking at a society's mode of subsistence. How does it survive? Particularly how does it acquire food?

教授：但我想介绍另一种传统上非常流行的分类系统，那就是考察一个社会的生存方式，也就是它如何生存，尤其是如何获取食物。

1 .S: Oh, like hunter-gatherers, right?

学生：哦，比如狩猎采集社会，对吧？

1 .P: Precisely! There are actually four separate categories, hunting and gathering pastoralism, horticulture, and intensive agriculture.

教授：没错！实际上有四个不同的类别：狩猎采集、畜牧、园艺和集约农业。

1 .S: Okay, I understand hunting and gathering, but what's the difference between the others?

学生：好的，我理解狩猎采集，但是其他几个类别有什么区别呢？

1 .P: Good question. Pastoralism generally refers to domesticating animals, say, raising chickens or goats, horticulturalists, plant seeds, and harvest the resulting crops. And the last classification, intensive agriculture, that's like pastoralism or horticulture on a large scale. But I said that's a good question for a reason, because on closer examination, the difference between, say, hunting and pastoralism, it really isn't that clear.

教授：问得好。畜牧通常是指驯化动物，比如养鸡、养羊；园艺是指播种并收获作物；最后一种分类，集约农业，就像是大规模的畜牧或园艺活动。我之所以说这个问题问得好，是因为仔细研究后会发现，比如说狩猎和畜牧之间的界限其实并不那么清晰。

1 .But then if we added new categories, we'd need too many for it to be practical. Um, what I is this, according to the definition, hunters and gatherers subsist by hunting wild animals, gathering wild plants. But how exactly do we define wild? If people capture and raise the young of an animal they've hunted, you couldn't call them domesticated, but are they still wild? And merely by gathering certain plants on a regular basis, you affect their growth, which eventually leads to domestication.

但如果我们增加新的类别，类别就会太多，不太实用。我是这么想的，根据定义，狩猎采集者通过猎捕野生动物、采集野生植物来维持生计。但我们究竟该如何定义 “野生” 呢？如果人们捕获并饲养猎到的动物幼崽，这些幼崽不能算是被驯化的，但它们还算野生的吗？而且，如果人们经常采集某些植物，就会影响它们的生长，最终可能导致这些植物被驯化。

1 .P: So the question you're left with is, when does gathering become horticulture? Okay, so another question is, do we pay attention to how people get their food or to what food they actually eat?

教授：所以问题来了，采集到什么程度就变成园艺了呢？还有一个问题，我们是应该关注人们获取食物的方式，还是他们实际吃的食物呢？

1 .S: But wouldn't people eat the food they get?

学生：但是人们难道会不吃他们获取的食物吗？

1 .P: Not necessarily! Imagine a group that hunts, but then trades the meat for domesticated crops. Do we classify them as hunter-gatherers, because they hunt wild animals? Or as horticulturalists, because they eat intentionally cultivated food? And It's not just what people eat. It's a matter of how much.

教授：不一定！想象一下，有一个群体以狩猎为生，但他们用猎到的肉去交换驯化作物。我们应该把他们归类为狩猎采集者，因为他们猎捕野生动物吗？还是应该归类为园艺者，因为他们吃的是人工种植的食物呢？而且这不仅仅关乎人们吃什么，还关乎吃多少。

1 .P: Let me explain, what if a group gets its food, partly through hunting and gathering, and partly through raising animals and growing crops? Does a society have to depend exclusively on one mode of subsistence in order to be classified that way? S: Um, well, I don't know.

教授：我来解释一下，如果一个群体获取食物的方式，一部分是通过狩猎采集，另一部分是通过饲养动物和种植作物，那么一个社会必须完全依赖一种生存方式才能被这样归类吗？ 学生：嗯，我不太清楚。

1 .P: And neither do I. I'm not really asking the question. I'm suggesting that the traditional system doesn't have an answer to that question. I mean, the classification system isn't completely useless. It's just a bit too broad to give us much useful information about a society.

教授：我也不清楚。我不是真的在问这个问题，而是想说传统的分类系统无法回答这个问题。我的意思是，这个分类系统并非完全没用，只是它过于宽泛，无法为我们提供关于一个社会的太多有用信息。

1 .There's another concern, though, on a different level, which involves certain assumptions that anthropologists have traditionally made about societies based on how their mode of subsistence is classified. Basically, it's been taken for granted that these categories correlate with societal complexity. That is hunter-gatherer societies tend to be organized along the simplest lines, small settlements, nomadic lifestyles, a relatively egalitarian political structure. And as you move from hunting and gathering to intensive agriculture, societies get more complex in their organization.

不过，还有另一个层面的问题，涉及到人类学家传统上根据生存方式对社会进行分类时所做的某些假设。基本上，人们一直认为这些类别与社会的复杂程度相关。也就是说，狩猎采集社会的组织形式往往最为简单，通常是小型聚居点、游牧生活方式，政治结构也相对平等。从狩猎采集到集约农业，社会的组织形式会越来越复杂。

1 .But a recent study in New Guinea suggests that this doesn't really hold true. That is not so much whether a group source of food is wild or cultivated, but rather what kind of stability they're able to achieve. So maybe a hunter-gatherer society that's nomadic will tend to be more simply organized.

但最近在新几内亚的一项研究表明，这种观点并不完全正确。重要的并非一个群体的食物来源是野生的还是人工种植的，而是他们能够实现何种程度的稳定性。所以，一个游牧的狩猎采集社会的组织形式可能比较简单。

1 .But then let's consider one that relies on, say, fish chain, or any use of aquatic resources which are available year round. They can stay in one place, expand in size, spend less time searching for food. So even though they're also hunter-gatherers, because they hunt for wild fish, they're able to develop organizational structures that are just as complex, socially, and culturally, as many horticultural or intensive agricultural societies.

但我们再想想另一个以捕鱼或利用其他常年可得的水产资源为生的狩猎采集社会，他们可以定居在一个地方，群体规模得以扩大，花在寻找食物上的时间也更少。所以，尽管他们也是狩猎采集者，因为他们捕捞野生鱼类，但他们能够发展出在社会和文化层面与许多园艺或集约农业社会一样复杂的组织结构。