（文章翻译）拜占庭安纳托利亚的气候和环境：整合科学、历史和考古学（第一部分）
Author(s): John Haldon, Neil Roberts, Adam Izdebski, Dominik Fleitmann, Michael McCormick, Marica Cassis, Owen Doonan, Warren Eastwood, Hugh Elton, Sabine Ladstätter, Sturt Manning, James Newhard, Kathleen Nicoll, Ioannes Telelis and Elena Xoplaki
Published by: The MIT Press
翻译；神尾智代
This article, which is part of a larger project, examines cases in which high-resolution archaeological, textual, and environmental data can be integrated with longer-term, low-resolution data to afford greater precision in identifying some of the causal relationships underlying societal change. The issue of how environmental, especially climatic, disruptions affect human societies and political systems has begun to attract a great deal of attention from the scientific community and the general public. Recent studies suggest that one possible result of certain climatic events is an increase in violence over contested resources - a conclusion that has significant consequences for, at least, policymakers, investment bankers, insurance companies, and the military.
这篇文章是一个更大项目的一部分，研究了高分辨率考古、文本和环境数据可以与长期、低分辨率数据相结合的案例，以便更准确地识别一些潜在的社会因果关系。改变 环境，尤其是气候的破坏如何影响人类社会和政治系统的问题已开始引起科学界和公众的极大关注。最近的研究表明，某些气候事件的一个可能结果是对有争议的资源的暴力行为增加——这一结论至少对决策者、投资银行家、保险公司和军队产生了重大影响。
The series of important articles about the climate and environment of the Roman Empire and early medieval Europe that this journal has recently published makes a significant, and accessible, contribution to the debate about the influence of environmental factors on human society. This article focuses on the Byzantine world - in particular, Anatolia, which for several centuries was the heart of that world - through regional and microregional case studies, addresses some of the challenges raised in those discussions, and promotes further collaboration between historians, archaeologists, and climate scientists.
该杂志最近发表的关于罗马帝国和中世纪早期欧洲气候和环境的系列重要文章，为关于环境因素对人类社会影响的辩论做出了重要且易于理解的贡献。本文重点关注拜占庭世界——特别是几个世纪以来一直是那个世界中心的安纳托利亚——通过区域和微观区域案例研究，解决了这些讨论中提出的一些挑战，并促进了历史学家、考古学家、 和气候科学家的研究。
HISTORIOGRAPHY, METHOD, AND INTERDISCIPLINARITY
历史学、方法和跨学科
More and more historians are trying to integrate environmental explanations into the established explanatory models, sometimes with consider able differences in interpretive outcomes. Witness, for example, Ellenblum's account of the collapse of certain eastern Mediterranean political systems in the eleventh through twelfth centuries, and Raphael's discussion of extreme weather events in the later medieval and early modern periods. Bulliet's discussion of the decline of Iranian cotton production during the eleventh century draws a causal association between the rise of cotton production and the spread of Islam and a declining Iranian agriculture triggered by a significant cooling of the climate that lasted for over a century. This development was associated with the arrival of Turkish nomadic groups in Iran, establishing a political dominance that lasted for centuries, as well as with the lucrative, but temperature-sensitive, cross-breeding of different types of camel. White's work on climate and crisis in the Ottoman Empire also goes be yond the traditional textual sources of most historians. He observes that historians pay far too little attention to the ways in which social and economic structures respond to climatic change and state systems deal with short-term crises.
越来越多的历史学家试图将环境解释整合到已建立的解释模型中，有时在解释结果上存在明显差异。例如，Ellenblum 对 11 世纪到 12 世纪某些东地中海政治体系崩溃的描述，以及拉斐尔对中世纪晚期和现代早期极端天气事件的讨论。 Bulliet 对 11 世纪伊朗棉花产量下降的讨论将棉花产量的增加与伊斯兰教的传播与持续一个多世纪的气候显着降温引发的伊朗农业衰退之间的因果关系联系起来。这一发展与土耳其游牧民族到达伊朗有关，建立了持续几个世纪的政治主导地位，以及利润丰厚但对温度敏感的不同类型骆驼的杂交。怀特关于奥斯曼帝国气候和危机的著作也超越了大多数历史学家的传统文本来源。他观察到，历史学家对社会和经济结构如何应对气候变化以及国家体系应对短期危机的方式关注得太少。
The problematical relationship between environmental and social history has been noted before in critiques of reductionist models. Rosen is particularly clear on this matter, pointing to the many different strategies that societies might use to overcome significant environmental challenges or shifts in their circumstances. Historians understand causal relationships from the point of view of multiple interrelated social, economic, and political factors, whereas climate scientists think in terms of environmental impacts on agriculture, warfare, demographics, and long-term stability. Those who study ancient climates have a range of tools at their disposal - proxy data deriving from such biological and geological climate archives as tree rings, stalagmites, and marine and continental sediment sequences. Historians can misconstrue or misuse these environmental data, generalizing from limited datasets or misappropriating low-resolution data: Insensitivity to both limitations in data and limitations in interpretation are pitfalls for everyone.
环境史和社会史之间的问题关系之前已经在对还原论模型的批评中提到过。罗森在这个问题上特别清楚，指出社会可能会使用许多不同的策略来克服重大的环境挑战或环境的变化。历史学家从多个相互关联的社会、经济和政治因素的角度来理解因果关系，而气候科学家则从环境对农业、战争、人口统计和长期稳定的影响方面考虑。研究古代气候的人可以使用一系列工具——来自树木年轮、石笋以及海洋和大陆沉积物序列等生物和地质气候档案的代理数据。历史学家可能会误解或滥用这些环境数据，从有限的数据集进行概括或滥用低分辨率数据：对数据限制和解释限制不敏感是每个人的陷阱。
By contrast, the higher-resolution evidence deployed by historians and archaeologists, though sometimes facilitating detailed narrative accounts of events or indirectly reflecting adjustments in economic activity, the nature of warfare, or the quality and quantity of harvests and crops, can nevertheless suffer from a consider able degree of uncertainty and subjectivity. In some cases, scholars have only recently begun to study the data sources - such as the archaeobotanical evidence and the stable-isotope records from archaeological materials - that are relevant to a particular climate. Apart from the methodological issues involved and the difficulties associated with reconciling qualitative with quantitative data, the best way around these problems is for the different specialists to work together with a common project in mind.
相比之下，历史学家和考古学家部署的更高分辨率的证据，虽然有时有助于对事件的详细叙述，或间接反映经济活动、战争性质或收成和作物的质量和数量的调整，但仍可能受到 考虑到一定程度的不确定性和主观性。在某些情况下，学者们最近才开始研究与特定气候相关的数据来源——例如考古植物学证据和考古材料的稳定同位素记录。 除了所涉及的方法问题和协调定性数据与定量数据相关的困难之外，解决这些问题的最佳方法是让不同的专家一起工作，同时考虑一个共同的项目。
Until recently, archaeologists who investigate the earliest hu man societies have tended to be far more familiar with these matters than have those who study historical periods with written re cords. Current debates about a major period of aridity in the Mediterranean between c. 2300 and 2000 B.C.E. (the so-called 4.2 ka event), for example, depend largely upon archaeological data to infer societal adaptations to drought (although the phenomenon appears also to be evident in a range of palaeoclimatic records). They are usually based on a different approach to the subject than historians normally adopt. Questions of chronological resolution and scale remain a major challenge for prehistoric studies (though increasingly refined, as shown by the 4.2 ka event), but the techniques developed in fields outside the traditional scope of historians can offer new insights about the Roman and medieval worlds.
直到最近，研究最早人类社会的考古学家往往比研究有文字记录的历史时期的考古学家更熟悉这些问题。目前关于公元前 2300 年和 2000 年（所谓的 4.2 ka 事件） 之间的地中海主要干旱时期的争论。例如，在很大程度上取决于考古数据来推断社会对干旱的适应（尽管这种现象在一系列古气候记录中似乎也很明显）。 它们通常基于与历史学家通常采用的不同的主题方法。年代分辨率和规模问题仍然是史前研究的主要挑战（尽管越来越精细，如 4.2 ka 事件所示），但在历史学家传统范围之外的领域开发的技术可以提供关于罗马和中世纪世界的新见解。
Historians of more recent periods, especially those who focus on cultural or socio-economic history, are often resistant to thinking about climate as a causal element. This reluctance frequently carries the (not always unreasonable) excuse that such explanations reduce human history to climate history, thus ignoring both social complexity and multi-causality, but it just as frequently reflects a disinclination to deal with the bewildering complexity of scientific evidence and methodologies. What is more, due to differences in the quantity and scope of the available evidence, climate study of the late-antique and medieval Middle East is considerably different from that of early modern Europe. Although valuable written evidence is available, in many cases it is insufficient to infer specific reactions to the extreme weather events associated with climate fluctuations. Wherever there is also a lack of high-quality palaeo-climatic data, attempts to establish firm links between climate and society become complicated.
最近时期的历史学家，尤其是那些关注文化或社会经济历史的历史学家，往往拒绝将气候视为因果因素。这种不情愿经常带有（并非总是不合理的）借口，即这种解释将人类历史简化为气候历史，从而忽略了社会复杂性和多重因果关系，但它同样经常反映出不愿意处理科学证据和方法的令人眼花缭乱的复杂性.更重要的是，由于现有证据的数量和范围的差异，对古代和中世纪中东的气候研究与早期现代欧洲的气候研究有很大不同。尽管可以获得有价值的书面证据，但在许多情况下，不足以推断对与气候波动相关的极端天气事件的具体反应。只要缺乏高质量的古气候数据，在气候和社会之间建立牢固联系的尝试就会变得复杂。
The interest of historians and archaeologists in merging palaeoclimatic data with traditional historical sources has been growing since the 1980s, when the now-classic volume edited by Rotberg and Rabb appeared. Virtually every period and region has been drawn into the discussion, and a number of individual studies, as well as larger projects, have brought specialists from different fields and disciplines together with a view toward analyzing particular pre-modern historical periods in specific regions of the world.
自 1980 年代以来，历史学家和考古学家对将古气候数据与传统历史资料相结合的兴趣与日俱增，当时由 Rotberg 和 Rabb 编辑的经典著作出现。几乎每个时期和地区都被卷入了讨论中，一些单独的研究以及更大的项目将来自不同领域和学科的专家聚集在一起，以分析世界特定地区的特定前现代历史时期。
During the last few years, historians and archaeologists of the Roman world have begun to focus on the relationship between climate/environment and the Empire's ascendance, thereby raising a series of broader questions about the causal connections between political and social-cultural evolution and climate. In Rome's case, they have demonstrated a distinct parallel between a period of stable climatic conditions and the Empire's rise and consolidation, and between a subsequent period of climatic instability - the prevalence of highly variable climatic conditions on a decadal scale and the breakdown of the imperial economy and the state that it supported. Although the climatic effects are distinct regionally between the eastern and western parts of the Empire and among sub-regions - the precise nature of the causal relationships between environmental, political, social-economic, and cultural developments remains to be elucidated. Historians of the Byzantine world have followed suit, although they have a great deal more work to do.
在过去的几年里，罗马世界的历史学家和考古学家开始关注气候/环境与帝国崛起之间的关系，从而提出了一系列关于政治和社会文化演变与气候之间因果关系的更广泛的问题。在罗马的案例中，他们证明了气候条件稳定时期与帝国崛起和巩固之间的明显相似之处，以及随后的气候不稳定时期——十年间气候条件高度变化的普遍存在与帝国的崩溃之间的明显相似之处。经济和它所支持的国家。尽管帝国东部和西部地区以及次区域之间的气候影响在区域上是不同的，但环境、政治、社会经济和文化发展之间因果关系的确切性质仍有待阐明。拜占庭世界的历史学家也纷纷效仿，尽管他们还有很多工作要做。
Historians of eastern Roman (Byzantine) Anatolia must grapple with a limited written record and rely on as wide a range of sources as possible; archaeology and environmental sciences are key. The integration of three types of archive offers significant ad vantages. The subject invites interdisciplinary cooperation, as well as the construction of relatively general models of climate/ environment/society interaction. It is precisely the bringing of cli mate and environment into the existing models of social, eco nomic, and political change in Byzantine Anatolia that promises to expand our understanding of this historical society.
东罗马（拜占庭）安纳托利亚的历史学家必须努力解决有限的书面记录，并尽可能依赖广泛的来源； 考古学和环境科学是关键。 三种存档类型的集成提供了显着的优势。 该主题邀请跨学科合作，以及构建相对通用的气候/环境/社会相互作用模型。 正是将气候和环境引入拜占庭安纳托利亚现有的社会、经济和政治变革模型，有望扩大我们对这个历史社会的理解。
Historians are just as likely to reject arguments based on cli mate and environment on reductionist grounds as they are to mis understand them and misuse their underlying data. They also need to be careful with, and critical about, temporal resolution - for ex ample, high-resolution data capable of annual to decadal association versus centennial data, which is much less causally specific. Is sues of scale can easily confuse or lead to misunderstandings. What a climate scientist might see as a "crisis" lasting a mere century, a historian might regard as a long period of change and social, political, and economic transformation. Different disciplines have different styles: Scientists seek to reduce causality to simple terms, such as temporal coincidence or statistical correlation, whereas historians deal with complex processes and are wary of oversimplification.
历史学家可能会以还原论为由拒绝基于气候和环境的论点，因为他们可能会误解并滥用其基础数据。 他们还需要谨慎对待时间分辨率并对其提出批评——例如，能够产生年度到十年关联的高分辨率数据与百年数据相比，其因果关系要少得多。 规模的诉讼很容易混淆或导致误解。 气候科学家可能将其视为持续仅仅一个世纪的“危机”，而历史学家可能将其视为长期的变化和社会、政治和经济转型。 不同的学科有不同的风格：科学家试图将因果关系简化为简单的术语，例如时间巧合或统计相关性，而历史学家则处理复杂的过程并警惕过度简化。
Neither climate scientists, historians, nor archaeologists are in a position by themselves fully to integrate the vast range of data necessary for a multicausal analysis that explains rather than simply describes. More local and regional studies are needed to test methodologies, collect multidisciplinary data, and ultimately derive holistic interpretations. This article can be understood in the context of Past Global Changes (pages) focus 4 projects (http://www.pages-igbp.org/science/foci/focus-4)," Past Human-Climate Ecosystem Interactions," rightly arguing that this interrelationship becomes clear through a comparison of regional-scale reconstructions of environmental and climatic processes with evidence of past human activity. Our study also links to IHOPN (The Integrated History and Future of People on Earth).
无论是气候科学家、历史学家还是考古学家，他们都无法完全整合进行解释而不是简单描述的多因分析所需的大量数据。 需要更多的地方和区域研究来测试方法、收集多学科数据并最终得出整体解释。本文可以在过去的全球变化（页面）焦点 4 项目（http://www.pages-igbp.org/science/foci/focus-4）的上下文中理解，“过去的人类-气候生态系统相互作用”，正确通过将环境和气候过程的区域尺度重建与过去人类活动的证据进行比较，这种相互关系变得清晰。我们的研究还与 IHOPN（地球上人类的综合历史和未来）相关联。
未完待续
