宾福德的周口店埋藏学研究与旧石器考古学理论建构

doi:10.16359/j.cnki.cn11-1963/q.2019.0066

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

本文回顾了1985年美国考古学家路易斯·宾福德访华的背景和产生的影响,认为这次中美旧石器考古合作的失败原因是两国学者之间在认识论和范式上的巨大差异。宾福德对周口店的埋藏学思考是立足于过程考古学中程理论和他自己的埋藏学探索的基础之上,并体现在他的《纽纳缪特民族考古学》和《骨骼：古代人类与现代之谜》两本著作中。宾福德中程理论和参考框架建设为我们提供了一种启示和借鉴,有助于中国旧石器考古学努力构建和完善自己的考古学理论框架。这种框架需要重视材料的分析和归纳,提出研究的问题和解决的办法,然后根据埋藏学和动物考古学排除遗址形成过程中的自然改造因素,提炼人类行为的信息。最后从民族考古学类比的参考框架来达到重建文化历史、人类生存方式和文化变迁的三大目标。

关键词: 埋藏学, 周口店遗址, 宾福德, 旧石器考古学, 理论建构

Abstract:

Based on the review of Lewis Binford’s visiting of China in 1985, it is argued that failure of this visit and proposed coordination between American and Chinese Paleolithic archaeologists were caused by epistemological and paradigmatic discrepancy between the two countries. The questioning of the Cave Home of Peking Man based on his taphonomic considerations represented new advance developed by processual archaeology and was characterized by his landmark works of Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology and Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. After introducing the endeavor of the Middle Range Theory and Frames of Reference Construction built by Binford, it is appealing to Chinese community of Paleolithic archaeology that we should shift our paradigm from classification and description to interpretation and reconstruction of human behavior. We should emphasize the analysis and inductive approach of archaeological data, put forward questions of research and methods to solve them, and then effectively eliminate natural transformation factors by using taphonomy and zooarchaeology to extract productive information of human behavior. With the help of combination of induction and deduction and of comprehensive frames of reference based on ethnoarchaeology and comparative studies, we can finally reconstruct cultural history, human lifeways and cultural process.

Key words: Taphonomy, the Zhoukoudian site, Lewis Binford, Paleolithic archaeology, Theory building

中图分类号:

K871.11

张萌, 陈淳. 宾福德的周口店埋藏学研究与旧石器考古学理论建构[J]. 人类学学报, 2019, 38(04): 536-546.

ZHANG Meng, CHEN Chun. LR Binford’s taphonomic research on the Zhoukoudian site and theory building of Paleolithic archaeology[J]. Acta Anthropologica Sinica, 2019, 38(04): 536-546.

参考文献 41

[1]	布鲁斯·特里格（著）, 陈淳（译）. 考古学思想史(第二版)[M]. 北京: 中国人民大学出版社, 2010: 9-10
[2]	Trigger BG. Beyond History: the Methods of Prehistory[M]. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968: 91-92
[3]	托马斯·库恩（著）, 金吾伦, 胡新和（译）. 科学革命的结构[M]. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 2016
[4]	Hasson NR. Patterns of Discovery: An Inquiry into the Conceptual Foundations of Science[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958
[5]	战世佳, 董哲, 陈胜前. 宾福德与北京猿人遗址之争[J]. 边疆考古研究, 2016(2):141-153
[6]	战世佳. 宾福德的学术思想研究:中国考古学的视角[D]. 吉林大学博士学位论文, 2018
[7]	Efremov JA. Taphonomy: new branch of paleontology[J]. Pan-American Geologist, 1940,74:81-93
[8]	Martin RE. Taphonomy: A Process Approach[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999
[9]	Nicholson RA, Taphonomic Investigation[A]. In: Brothwell DR, Pollard AM. Handbook of Archaeological Science[M]. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2001: 179-190
[10]	Lyman RL. Vertebrate Taphonomy[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994
[11]	Dart RA. The Makapansgat Australopithecus culture[A]. In: Clark JD. Proceedings of the 3rd Pan-African Congress on Prehistory[C]. London: Chatto and Windus, 1957: 161-171
[12]	Dart RA. A note on Taungs skull[J]. South African Journal of Science, 1929,26:648-658
[13]	Brain CK. The Hunters or the Hunted? An Introduction to African Cave Taphonomy[M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1981
[14]	Binford LR, Bertram JB. Bone frequencies and attritional process[A]. In: Binford LR. For Theory Building in Archaeology: Essays on Faunal Remains, Aquatic Resources, Spatial analysis and Systemic Modeling[C]. New York: Academic Press, 1977: 77-153
[15]	Koch CP. Taphonomy: A Bibliographic Guide to the Literature. Center for the Study of the First Americans[M]. Orono: University of Maine, Peopling of the Americas Publications, 1989: 1-5
[16]	Raab LM, Goodyear AC. Middle-range theory in archaeology: A critical review of origins and applications[J]. American Antiquity 1984,49(2):255-268 doi: 10.2307/280018 URL
[17]	Binford LR. Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths[M]. New York: Academic Press, 1981
[18]	Binford LR. Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology[M]. New York: Academic Press, 1978: 1-14
[19]	Blanc A. Was Neanderthal man a ritual cannibal? Evidence from the Cave of Circeo which points to a grim practice common to the head-hunters of today and the cave-men of prehistory[N]. In Illustrated London News, 1950,216(5784):292
[20]	Binford LR, Ho CK. Taphonomy at a distance: Zhoukoudian, “the Cave Home of Beijing Man”?[J]. Current Anthropology, 1985,26(4):413-442 doi: 10.1086/203303 URL
[21]	贾兰坡. 关于周口店北京人遗址的若干问题[J]. 考古, 1988 (1):77-84, 62
[22]	Binford LR, Stone N. Zhoukoudian: A close look[J]. Current Anthropology, 1986,27(5):453-475 doi: 10.1086/203469 URL
[23]	宾福德, 巴克尔（著）, 刘景芝（译）, 裴树文（校）. 外国学者看中国旧石器时代考古[J]. 文物春秋, 2001(5):75-78, 61
[24]	尤玉柱. 史前考古埋藏学概论[M]. 北京: 文物出版社, 1989: 176
[25]	宾福德, 巴克尔（著）, 刘景芝（译）, 裴树文（校）. 外国学者看中国旧石器时代考古[J]. 文物春秋, 2001(5):75-78, 61
[26]	陈胜前, 战世佳. 宾福德的学术遗产——当代中国考古学的视角. 东南文化, 2014 (4):6-14
[27]	Watson PJ, Leblanc SA, Redman CL. Explanation in Archaeology: An Explicitly Scientific Approach[C]. New York: Columbia University Press, 1971
[28]	宾福德（著）．陈胜前（译）. 追寻人类的过去——解释考古材料[M]. 上海,三联书店, 2009
[29]	Binford LR. The “New Archaeology” then and now[C]. In: Lamberg-Karlovsky CC(ed). Archaeological Thought in America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1989: 50-62
[30]	Binford LR. Strategies of Archaeology (Transcription of Lecture 1982) [Z], Nancy Stone’s transcription, unpublished
[31]	Binford LR. Archaeological Theory (Anthropology 7313 syllabus, Southern Methodist University 1999) [Z], unpublished
[32]	Binford LR. General Introduction[C]. In For Theory Building in Archaeology: Essays on Faunal Remains, Aquatic Resources, Spatial Analysis, and Systemic Modeling, edited by LR Binford. Academic Press, New York, 1-13
[33]	Binford LR. Constructing Frames of Reference: An Analytical Method for Archaeological Theory Building Using Hunter-Gatherer and Environmental Data Sets[M]. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2001
[34]	陈胜前. 史前的现代化:中国农业起源过程的文化生态考察[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2013
[35]	Zhang M. Explaining Variation and Change among Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene Microblade-Based Societies in Northeastern Asia[D]. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, 2019
[36]	Binford SR, Binford LR. Archaeological Perspectives[A]. In: New Perspectives in Archaeology[C]. Chicago: Aldine Publ. Co., 1968: 5-32
[37]	Binford LR. Working at Archaeology[M]. New York: Academic Press, 1983
[38]	Binford LR. Some comments on historical versus processual archaeology[J]. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 1968,24(3):267-275 doi: 10.1086/soutjanth.24.3.3629348 URL
[39]	Scarre C. Introduction: The study of the human past[A]. In: Scarre C ed. The Human Past: World Prehistory and the Development of Human Societies[C]. London: Thames & Hudson Ltd, 2018: 24-43
[40]	Schiffer MB. Archaeological context and systemic context[J]. American Antiquity, 1972,37(2):156-165
[41]	Schiffer MB. Toward the identification of formation processes[J]. American Antiquity, 1983,48(4):675-706