西南地區(qū)考古文獻外文翻譯

1、Recent Developments in the Archaeology of Southwestern ChinaAliceYao ( Department of Anthropology,University of Toronto, Mississauga, Room 212 North Building,3359 Mississauga Road North, Mississauga, Ontario L5L 1C6,Canada e-mail: HYPERLINK mailto:alice.yaoutoronto.ca alice.yaoutoronto.ca )Archaeolo

2、gical Research,2010,Volume 18,number3,Pages 203-239Published on line:5 February 2010SpringerScience+BusinessMedia,LLC2010中國西南地區(qū)考古的近期成就考古學研究，2010,第18冊，第3期，203239頁AliceYao (人類學系，多倫多大學，米西索加市，北樓212房，3359米西索加市北路 e-mail: HYPERLINK mailto:alice.yaoutoronto.ca alice.yaoutoronto.ca )Abstract :Archaeology of

3、ancient China s peripheryhas traditionally been examined through the historiographic lens of Chinese textual sources.Social developments in the periphery are often explained in relation to accounts of migration from core regions of China.Setting conventional paradigms and textual sources aside,this

4、article examines prehistoric developments in southwestern China in conjunction with broader trends in Southeast Asia.This comparative approach reveals that the development of bronze metallurgy in southwestern China parallels trends observed among Neolithic communities in Southeast Asia.Using recent

5、data and a reassessment of radiocarbon dates for the Bronze Age,I propose that sociopolitical complexity emerged in southwestern China as part of a multiregional phenomenon that had its beginning with the formalization of trade networksduring the Neolithic period.Keywords: China Neolithic BronzeAge

6、Dianculture SoutheastAsiaDong Son culture摘要：傳統(tǒng)地，關于古代中國偏遠地區(qū)的考古學研究是透過中國文本資源的史學鏡 頭來審視的。在邊遠地區(qū)的社會發(fā)展經常被解釋在一些與從中國“核心”地區(qū)的遷移狀況有關的描述中。拋開傳統(tǒng)范式和文本來源，這篇文章結合在東南亞更廣 泛的趨勢來調查中國西南地區(qū)的始前發(fā)展情況。這個比較的方法表明中國西南地區(qū)青銅冶鑄的發(fā)展情況，在與新石器時代東南亞的平行趨勢觀察中。運用對青銅器時代最新數(shù)據(jù)和放射性碳的重新評估，我認為社會政治復雜性出現(xiàn)在中國西南 地區(qū)，作為在新石器時代與貿易網絡的形式相伴而生的跨地區(qū)現(xiàn)象的一部分。關鍵詞：中國新時期時代

7、青銅時代 滇文化 東南亞 侗族文化Introduction 簡介In the last 20years,a wealth of archaeological discoveries and research inChina has demonstrated the relevance of Chinese materials to thecomparative study of ancient civilizations.Northern China,in particular theCentral Plains,has played an increasingly prominent rol

8、e in this internationalforum due to its traditional consideration as the heartland of Chinesecivilization.Scholars in regions outside Chinas core also have tried to takeadvantage of this momentum,unfortunately often following a regionalist paradigm that prioritizes their own region s contributions t

9、o the grand narrative of Chinese national culture over research(Falkenha1995,p.211).在過去20年，在中國考古發(fā)現(xiàn)和研究中的一個巨大財富，與古代文明的比較研究證明了中國材料的相關性。出于對傳統(tǒng)的考慮，中國北方，尤其是中原地區(qū)，作為中國傳統(tǒng)文明的中心地帶 在這次的國際論壇中起到了與日俱增的重要 作用。中國核心地區(qū)以外的學者也試圖利用這一勢頭，不幸的是，經常跟隨一地方主義范式一一對于中國的“民族文化”的過度研究的宏大敘事優(yōu)先作為他們自 己的地區(qū)貢獻 (Falkenha1995,p.211)。For areas cul

10、turally and geographically far removed from central China,participation in this national and global discourse is not tenable(Shelach 1999,p.53).Nowhere is this more apparent than along Chinas periphery,especially in regions ocupied primarily by non-Han ethnic groups:InnerMongolia,Xinjiang,Qinghai,Ni

11、ngxia,Tibet,Yunnan,Guizhou,and Guangxi.Though archaeological materials in these regions have previously been used to buttress a rhetoric of multicultural unity(Fiskesjo2006;Leibold 2006),current work is gradually attempting more anthropologically oriented programs focused on local trajectories.對于那些在

12、文化和地理上遠離中國中心的地區(qū)，參加這個民族和全球化的討論是不會沒有立足之地的(Shelach 1999,p.53)。沒有什么地區(qū)比中國的邊遠地 區(qū)更加突出，尤其是在那些主要被非漢族占據(jù)的地區(qū)：內蒙古、新疆、青海、寧 夏、西藏、云南、貴州和廣西。盡管這些地區(qū)的考古材料先前已經被用來支持一 個多元文化統(tǒng)一的言論(Fiskesjo2006;Leibold 2006),目前的工作是逐漸地嘗 試更多地從社會學的角度研究以當?shù)剀壽E為焦點的方案計劃。在中國西南地區(qū)， 在政治日益開放的背景下，這個有關考古學的轉換的方法正在形成。In southwestern China,this transformativ

13、e approach to archaeology is occurring in a context of increasing political openness.Here I aim to integrate archaeological research in the region from the1960s to 2007 into a study of sociopolitical formations that occur in nonpristine contexts and under the influence of expanding states as well as

14、 competing neighbors.By examining how prehistoric communities in southwestern China came to adopt bronze metallurgy and technology into the regional political economy,! address the economic and social dynamics that led to thegenesis of polit(ies)across the wider region.In so doing,! initiate a gener

15、aldeparture from the main narrative by proposing alternative research agendas and orientations for border regions of China.在這里，我的目標是將這個地區(qū)的考古學研究 (從20世紀60年代到2007 年)融合在社會政治形成的研究中，這種社會政治形成是在“ nonpristine ”背景 和與鄰國競爭一樣的國家擴張的背景下。通過研究中國西南地區(qū)史前社會是怎樣形成的，我開始將青銅冶鑄技術與地區(qū)性政治經濟結合起來，我關注經濟和社會動態(tài)，為了在更廣闊的地區(qū)進行政體成因的研究。這樣做，

16、我開始了一個從宏大敘事中進行籠統(tǒng)的研究起步，通過提議對中國更廣闊地區(qū)的選擇性研究計劃和取 向Geography 地理Southwestern China encompasses the present day provinces ofYunnan,Sichuan,and Guizhou(Fig. 1).The region is a southward extensionof the Tibetan Plateau,on the border with Myanmar and Laos,that descendsfrom ove r5000m above sea level(asl) in t

17、he north to100m in the south.Thegreat topographic relief of southwestern China is aptly described by the name Yunnan, which translates as south of the clouds. Natural features demarcating this region include the Jinsha River,the headwaters of the Yangzi River,which forms the northern extent,the Nu R

18、iver(upperSalweenRiver),which forms the western extent,and karst formations,which define the region s eastern boundary.Nestled between mainland Southeast Asia and the Chinese heartland,theYunnan-GuizhouPlateau has historically Provided an important communication node linkingthese two major cultural

19、areas(Yang 2005).Modern national boundariesdividing China,Tibet,and its Southeast Asian neighbors obfuscate what wasin actuality a coextensive cultural sphere shared by many societies in antiquity.地理中國西南地區(qū)包括今天的云南、四川、貴州(圖 1) O給地區(qū)是青藏高原在 西南方向上的延伸，與緬甸和老撾接壤，海拔從北部5000米以上下降到南部的100米。中國西南地區(qū)巨大的地勢起伏被恰當?shù)爻蔀椤霸颇稀保?/p>

20、意為“云之南”。 這一地區(qū)的自然分界包括：金沙江，長江的支流，形成北部的延伸；怒江(薩爾 溫江的上游)，形成南部的延伸；喀斯特地貌，它界定了這個地區(qū)的東部邊境。 介于東南亞大陸和中國中心地帶之間，云貴高原在歷史上對于這兩個主要文化圈 起到了很重要的聯(lián)系紐帶的作用(Yang 2005)。現(xiàn)在劃分中國、西藏和東南亞鄰 居的國界是模糊不清的，實際上，從遺存的古物上看，它是在一個被多個社會分 享的共存文化領域。Past orientations and new directions過去的方向和新的方向As interlocutor between ancient China and Southeast

21、 Asia,southwestern China is caught between paradoxical research agendas.The archaeology of the region is moored to national history but also has charted a distinctive intellectual course. Although the primary objective of Chinese archaeology has been to document the origins of Chinese civilization,p

22、rehistoric societies of southwestern China share undeniable cultural linkages with theirSoutheast Asian counterparts.Assuch, southwesternChinas uniquegeographic and cultural position has complicated it historicalrole(inChinese national history)and its relevance as intellectual object(from minority h

23、istory and ethnoarchaeology to Southeast Asian prehistory)(Sun2006).In effect,the discord between historical(and national)relevancy and Research agendas has contributed to the absence of the kind of central focus seen in other parts of China.Restrictions placed on the circulation of primary regional

24、 archaeology journals,Yunnan Wenwu and Guizhou Wenwu,contribute to a lack of visibility on the international front.在古代中國和東南亞間的“對話者”，中國西南地區(qū)被陷在自相矛盾的研究議程 中。這個地區(qū)的考古學掛靠在民族歷史中，但也制定了一個獨特的知識課程。 圖1、研究領域的地圖顯示了下文提到的在這個地區(qū)新石器時代與青銅、鐵器時 代的考古遺跡。滇池和撫仙湖用白色勾出。氣候的變化從1區(qū)域的大陸性氣候到 2區(qū)域的溫帶氣候，到3區(qū)域的亞溫帶和4區(qū)域的熱帶。雖然中國考古學的主要 目標一直是中

25、國文化源起的文獻整理，中國西南地區(qū)的始前社會分享不可否認的 與東南亞同行的文化聯(lián)系。因此，中國西南地區(qū)獨特的地理和文化位置使它的歷 史作用復雜化(在中國民族歷史中)，和作為知識載體的相關性(從少數(shù)民族歷史和對東南亞始前歷史的民族考古中)(Sun2006) o實際上，在歷史(和民族) 的相關性和研究計劃間的異意對于在中國其它地區(qū)看到的中心焦點的缺席做出 了貢獻。對主要區(qū)域考古學期刊發(fā)行量的限制，云南文物和貴州文物，彌補了知名度在國際上的不足。Despite this lack of national and international presence,the prehistoric past

26、of theYunnan-Guizhou Plateau has drawn considerable interest due to the spectacular archaeological finds associated with the Bronze Age tradition commonly referred to as the Dian culture or Diankingdom(c.500-C109BC).Excavations of major cemetery sites around the Lake Dian Basin have yielded a wealth

27、 of bronze materials that showcase an unprecedented scale of production and craftsmanship.Themost iconic of Dian bronze paraphernaliainclude large drums weighingupwards of70kg and cowrie shell containers that depict detailed scenes of warfare,Communalfeasts, agriculturalproduction,and weaving.Thedis

28、covery of a gold seal Bearing the Han inscription “ KingofDian in a tomb at Shizhaishan solidified the existence of this prehistoric polity,which Han textual sources referred to as one of the most powerful barbarian entities in the southwest( 1987).Higham(2004, p. 58) marveled that these finds 川ustr

29、ate a luminous chiefdom which on its own accord stands out asone of the best documented from the prehistoric world. In the last 50years, archaeological fieldwork has uncovered hundreds of royal Dian tombs and the cemeteries of other presumed Bronze Age polities documented in Han texts. While the spl

30、endor of the Dian discoveries has certainly attracted wide interest, the emergence and expansion of BronzeAge societies in the region remain poorly understood (Allard 1998).盡管缺少在國家和國際上的影響力，由于與青銅時代傳統(tǒng)相關的被稱作滇文化或 滇王朝(公元前500109年)的壯觀的考古學發(fā)現(xiàn)，使云貴高原始前歷史已 經引起了學界相當大的興趣。圍繞滇池流域主要的墓地發(fā)掘已經取得了豐富的青 銅材料，展示了空前規(guī)模的產品和手工藝。

31、最標志性的滇青銅工具，包括重達 70公斤的大鼓和貝克紋的容器，上面描繪了戰(zhàn)爭場面、公共節(jié)日、農業(yè)生產和 制造。一個刻著“滇王之印”的金印在石寨山石墓的發(fā)現(xiàn)，更加鞏固了這個始前 政權的存在，這漢文字被稱為是西南地區(qū)最強大的“野蠻”政體之一。在過去的五十年中，考古田野調查工作已發(fā)現(xiàn)數(shù)百座滇國皇家陵墓和其他在漢文獻 記載中的墳墓推斷出青銅時代政體。雖然華麗的滇文化的發(fā)現(xiàn)確實引起了廣泛的 興趣，但是人們對這個地區(qū)青銅器時代社會的出現(xiàn)和擴張仍然知之甚少(Allard1998)。Conventional archaeological research in southwestern China has a

32、imed to reconstruct the historical narrative of ethnic minority groups mentioned inthe ancient textual sources. These include the Dian, Laojin, Mimo, Yelang, and Kunming peoples recounted in the Account of the Grand Historian (109 -91 BC) (Fang 1987). Interpretations of the meanings of thesepeoples

33、in historical usage are a challenging problem because the texts fail to distinguish between tribal and ethnic, social and cultural, or political groups.The conventional approach holds that the Dian, Laojin, and Mimo were likely part of the Hundred Yue, defined by Brindley (2003, p. 11) as a composit

34、e and proliferation of non-Han peoples extending from the southeast coast of China to Vietnam. This generic cultural complex also is identified with rice agriculture, pile-dwelling architecture, and the use of frog motifs (Zhang 2001, p. 16). A more recent assessment proposes that these groups were

35、a synthetic mixture of Pu and Di ethnic peoples, who were pushed southward from their respective homelands by expanding Central Plains states in the sixth to fourth century BC (Yang 2002, p. 93).Whether Yue or Pu/Di, traditional archaeological research has sought to document the development of textu

36、ally known ethnic groups, relying on causes such as migration and diffusion from core regions to explain historical developments from the prehistoric to the Bronze Age in the periphery.在中國西南地區(qū)的傳統(tǒng)考古學研究目的是要重建在古代文獻資源中提到的少數(shù) 民族群體的歷史敘事。這些包括滇、老金、夜郎和昆明人載史記的描述中(公元 10991年)。這些“人民”含義的解釋在歷史使用中是一個具有挑戰(zhàn)性的問 題，因為史料不記

37、載部落和民族，社會和文化，或者政治團體的區(qū)分。傳統(tǒng)方法認為，滇、老金和MIMOL乎是百越的一部分，根據(jù)布林德利的定義(2003, p. 11) 作為一個非漢族人群從中國東南沿海延伸到越南的復合和擴撒。這種通用的文化討論和結論情結也是伴隨著農業(yè)、干欄式建筑和青蛙紋的使用而被確定的。最后的一次評估 認為，這些群體是PU和氐少數(shù)民族是合成混合物，他們是在公元前六到四世紀， 因為中原政權擴張而被迫從各自的家園遷到南部的 (Yang 2002, p. 93)。無論是 越或PU氐族，傳統(tǒng)的考古研究一直尋求已知是少數(shù)民族群體的發(fā)展狀況，依 靠移民和“核心”地區(qū)的擴散來解釋周邊地區(qū)從史前到青銅時代的歷史發(fā)展。

38、Discussion and conclusionsThe dimensions of interregional interaction are critical to understanding social developments from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age. In the Neolithic, the outlines of interregional communication networks began to take shape by the mid-second millennium BC, as evidenced by th

39、e circulation of cowrie shells and bird effigy pitchers. These routes linked southwestern China with southern China via the Nanpan (Pearl) River course and with central China via Sichuan through the lower Jinsha corridor. Neolithic communities consisted of geographically localized groups with a vari

40、ety of subsistence practices.區(qū)域間相互作用的維度，對于從新石器時代到青銅時代的理解是至關重要 的。在新石器時代，區(qū)域間通訊網絡開始初具規(guī)模，直到公元前二千年中葉，在 貝殼和鳥類的肖像樽的流通中體現(xiàn)出來。這些路線，通過南盤江(珠江)河道， 將中國西南部和西部聯(lián)系起來，通過四川的金沙江下游走廊將西南部與中原聯(lián)系 起來。新石器時代社會組織由在地理上居住在一起的群體構成，他們有著多種多樣的生活實踐。In the middle Jinsha region, Neolithic villages were clustered along the valleys of majo

41、r tributaries. These communities cultivated rice on steep valley slopes but remained heavily dependent on hunting. These settlements were occupied over a long period of time and invested in the communal storage of rice. Patterns of social discord and differentiation emerged in the late Neolithic as

42、individuals show signs of violent injury and residences began to be distinguished by size differences. In contrast, Neolithic communities in the middle reaches of the Lancang and Nu River valleys occupied caves and terraces of the steep river valleys, showing seasonal patterns of occupation. In the

43、fertile lacustrine basins, villages contained substantial pile dwelling structures. These communities cultivated rice but appeared to be heavily dependent on local aquatic resources like fish and freshwater snails of lake marshes.在金沙地區(qū)的中部，新石器時代的村落集群在主要河流支流的河谷地帶。這些部落在陡峭的山谷斜坡種植水稻，但仍然很大程度上依賴狩獵。這些定居點被占用

44、了相當長的時間，用來儲存公用水稻。社會不和諧和分化的格局出現(xiàn)在新石 器時代晚期，由于私有制呈現(xiàn)出暴力傷害的跡象和住宅開始按照大小的不同而被 區(qū)分開來。與此相反，新石器時代的群落組織在瀾滄江和怒江河谷中游被占領的 洞穴和陡峭的河谷梯田，呈現(xiàn)季節(jié)性的占領。在肥沃的河谷盆地，村落是大量的 樁柱式結構。這些群體種植水稻，但是呈現(xiàn)出很大程度上依賴當?shù)厮a資源，像 魚和湖泊濕地中淡水螺類。It is within the context of these late Neolithic villages and semimobile groups that we find the expansion of

45、exchange networks and the emergence of bronze metallurgy by 1000 BC. This recent finding reiterates the importance of separating bronze metallurgy from social complexity while drawing attention to the parallels shared with Southeast Asia. As Vietnamese archaeologists have demonstrated, in northern V

46、ietnam bronze metallurgy emerged following the Neolithic period Phung Nguyen culture and gradually developed from incipient metalworking in the Dong Dau phase to theaddition and control over tin alloys in the Go Mun phase. Similarly, bronzeproduction in southwestern China appears to have begun on a

47、small scaleoriented toward the manufacture of utilitarian items with equivalentfunctional counterparts from the Neolithic period. Early bronze implementswere cast almost entirely from copper, and associated stone molds for casting axes were stylistically modeled after Neolithic shapes. Based on the

48、recovery of bivalve ax molds, bronze metallurgy appears to have been adopted along the Jinsha River course, as well as the lower Nu and RedRiver region in subtropical environments. The present evidence suggests acomplex pattern of received transmission from Southeast Asia and steppegroups in Sichuan

49、. The pattern is better conceived according to serial patterns of dissemination as opposed to centrifugal or unidirectional diffusion.在新石器時代晚期村落和半移居群體，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)交換網絡的擴張和青銅冶煉 技術的出現(xiàn)在公元前1000年。這項最新發(fā)現(xiàn)重申從社會的復雜性來區(qū)分青銅冶 煉技術的重要性，而不是把注意力放在與東南亞相似的地方。由于越南考古學家 已經證明，越南北部青銅冶煉技術出現(xiàn)在新石器時代文化Phung Nguyen文化之后，并逐漸地從Dong Dau時期的金

50、屬冶煉發(fā)端的初級階段到增加和控制錫合金 的Go Mun時期。相類似的，中國西南地區(qū)的青銅生產似乎開始于小規(guī)模生產向 著新石器時代與相同功能的同行一起的功力項目的制造。早期青銅器幾乎全部用銅來鑄造，與鑄造斧頭相關的石頭模型在新石器時代之后成為鑄造風格?；陔p斧模具的恢復，青銅冶鑄技術似乎已經在金沙江沿岸被采用，以及在亞熱帶環(huán)境的怒江和紅河下游地區(qū)，這一技術也被采用。目前的證據(jù)顯示一個復雜的接受傳 輸模式從東南亞和四川草原群落。這個模式更利于掌握，根據(jù)傳播的系列模式而不是離心式或單項擴散。Within two to three centuries following the emergence o

51、f bronze metallurgy, complex political formations developed in central and eastern Yunnan. Recent radiocarbon determinations from Qujing suggest the establishmentof these Bronze Age polities between 900 and 700 BC. By the seventh century BC, societies in central and eastern Yunnan had developed elab

52、orate social hierarchies. The territorial reach of these political formations was, however, local. Perhaps population movements from afar did reach and impact local communities, but the vestiges of this migration currently lack evidence. Instead, the archaeological record recalls existing parallels

53、found in the Neolithic periods. The spatial division of regional entities in central and eastern Yunnan recalls Neolithic period variability in ceramic traditions (incised/impressedware versus corded ware) thatdistinguish central and western Yunnan from the lacustrine basins.隨著青銅冶煉出現(xiàn)的二到三世紀，復雜的政治形成方式

54、在云南的中部和東部 發(fā)展。從曲靖得來的最新放射性碳年代測定暗示，這些青銅時代政權的建立在公 元前900到公元前700年之間。公元前7世紀，云南中部和東部的社會已經發(fā)展 到比較復雜的社會形勢了。然而，這些政治形勢的疆域是局部的。也許從遠方來的人口遷移影響了當?shù)氐纳鐣M織結構，不過目前這個轉移的遺跡缺乏證據(jù)。相反，考古記錄喚起新石器時代的相似相發(fā)現(xiàn)。在云南中部和東部的地域空間劃分喚起新石器時代陶瓷傳統(tǒng)的可變性，從河流湖泊來劃分云南的中部和東部。Contrary to a Dian-centric or gravity model of political formation, the emerge

55、nce of complexity in southwestern China developed from a network of interacting peer polities in which northern Vietnam played an important role. The correspondence between bronze weapons and ritual vessels along the two axes of the Southwest Silk Road underscores the articulationof these networks a

56、nd the participatory dynamics in the making of this cross-cultural hub. As regional Bronze Age societies increasingly engaged in exchange networks, the demarcationof social boundaries intensifiedwhile elite culture developed standardized symbols of legitimacy and authority (Baines and Yoffee 2000).

57、As these groups became inextricably linked, they increasingly sought to secure a stake in the emerging system.In this light, the genesis of sociopolitical complexity in the southwestern periphery can only be viewed as multicentric in scope: the Shizhaishan and Co Loa phenomena represent but the apog

58、ee of social processes that had long been set in motion.和一般的滇中央或引力模型的政治形成相反，中國西南部復雜性的出現(xiàn)從一 個相互作用的同行政權發(fā)展起來，在這個過程中越南北部發(fā)揮了重要的作用。青銅兵器和儀式容器。Recent investigations in Yunnan and Guizhou have provided new archaeological data that are changing our understandings ofthe BronzeAge in southwesternChina. The curre

59、nt archaeologicalrecord directlychallenges textually based interpretations of regional social development and foregrounds the shortcomings of the regionalist paradigm that has characterized Chinese archaeology. In venturing into new and uncharted grounds, archaeology of frontier regions is in a uniq

60、ue position to examine recent discoveries using alternative conceptual frameworks. The comparative scope afforded by adopting this approach also enables a more discursive and meaningful engagement with the historiographictradition. Viewing the distribution of static assemblages of southwesternChina