11 Shaw,“Happy in Our Chains?” 1 – 2. For more informed critiques of, gener-
ally popular, accounts based on environmental determinism, see Steinberg,
“Down to Earth,” 798 – 820 ; Blaut,“Environmentalism and Eurocentrism,”
391 – 408.
12 Kangxichao Hanwen zhupi,KX 46 / 2 / 1 , 1 : 592 – 601.
13 Kangxichao Hanwen zhupi,KX 46 / 2 / 1 , 1 : 592 – 601. Difficulties in precisely
defining southwestern indigenous peoples, who are generally abbreviated as
“Miao”in dynastic documents, persist to this day; Lombard-Salmon,Un
exemple d’acculturation Chinoise, 110 – 17 ; Diamond,“Defining the Miao,”
92 – 116.
14 Headland,“CA Forum on Theory in Anthropology,” 610 ; Little,“Environ-
ments and Environmentalisms,” 259. For discussions evaluating adaptation
and related concepts in ecological anthropology, see Worster,“History as
Natural History,” 1 – 19 ; Balée,“The Research Program of Historical Ecol-
ogy,” 79 ; Balée,“Historical Ecology,” 13 – 14 ; Whitehead,“Ecological His-
tory and Historical Ecology,” 31.
15 Kangxichao Manwen zhupi,# 2784 , 1103.
16 For a discussion of such limits in a premodern European context, see Paul
Warde,“The Environmental History of Pre-Industrial Agriculture in Europe,”
in Sverker Sörlin and Paul Warde, eds.,Nature’s End: History and Environ-
ment, (Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009 ), 73 – 78 , 88.
17 Kangxi hanwen zhupi,KX 46 / 2 / 1 , 1 : 592 – 601.
18 Currently, the scientific notion of“animal”is influx. Mosquitoes are part of
the kingdom“Anamalia,”and the blood parasite plasmodium is a microbe of
the kingdom“Protista,”or“Protozoa.”These kingdoms, however, may fall to
“supergroups” that better reflect evolutionary relationships between all
“eukaryotic”organisms whose cells possess nuclei. Microbes would then be
retypecast as“Chomalveolata”and animals as“Opisthokonta”; Parfrey et al.,
“Evaluating Support for the Current Classification of Eukaryotic Diversity,”
2062 – 73.
19 Steward,Theory of Culture Change, 36 ; Latour,Reassembling the Social, 70.
20 Latour,Reassembling the Social, 75 ; Haraway,“The Promises of Monsters,”
297 ; Asdal,“The Problematic Nature of Nature,” 60 – 74 ; Worster,“Appen-
dix: Doing Environmental History,” 289 ; Mitchell,Rule of Experts, 22 ,
27 – 31. Works calling for greater analytical integration between“culture and
nature”include Little, “Environments and Environmentalisms,” 257 – 59 ;
Chakrabarty,“The Climate of History,” 197 – 222 ; Hughes,“Three Dimen-
sions of Environmental History,” 319 – 30 ; Sörlin and Warde,“The Problem
of Environmental History,” 107 – 30 ; Stroud,“Does Nature Always Matter?”
75 – 81 ; Soulé and Lease, eds.,Reinventing Nature?
21 Cronon,Changes in the Land; Crosby,Ecological Imperialism; Mitchell,Rule
of Experts, 52. See also Grove,“Environmental History,” 261 – 82.
22 Crosby,Ecological Imperialism, 2 , 270 ; Jeffrey A. Lockwood et al.,“Com-
parison of Grasshopper (Orthoptera: Acrididae) Ecology,” 8. Peter C. Perdue
has made some similar, if more qualified, comparative observations concern-
ing smallpox as a portmanteau biota in the South Pacific and Inner Asia;
Perdue,China Marches West,” 45 – 47.
ann
(Ann)
#1