走到考古的大门前

这并不是一篇严格意义上的书评，是一篇读后小随感。

梁白泉先生在序言中引了很多例证，大概是我读不太明白，就觉得文字间有些学术界故弄玄虚的意味。但不管怎样，我还是对这个序言充满感激，因为增添了一些我对考古的兴趣与好奇。

冯友兰曾经提出“信古、疑古、释古”三阶段的历史划分，十分精辟。列宁（V. Lenin, 1870 - 1924）说过：“例子不是证据”，例子只是类似的可资比较的东西，证据是事物的全体或局部。个人觉得，考古不一定是要找到斩钉截铁的答案。与其把考古学当成一种科学，比如认证地将其当做一种好奇和兴趣，并尝试研究，努力探索。

中文版的序言看完之后，就直接跳到英文版开始看了。Paul Bahn的preface，简洁幽默，直入我心。

“You may not find employment at the end of such a course (archaeology), or even at the end of a PhD... archaeology is nothing if it is not about pleasure.” 即便如此，还是有不论专业人员或者业余爱好者前赴后继地为这个领域注入发现和思考，令人尊敬。读到preface最后的时候，我被逗乐了。“You may never become a great archaeologist, but if you can’t do something well, just learn to enjoy doing it badly. Oh, and don’t expect to get rich!” Bahn似乎很幽默地说出了一句真理。

科普类通识读本总是会将艰深的内容用浅白的话语娓娓道来。作者的语言风格、对学科的了解、以及学科自身的魅力，引发了我的些许思考。

1. Amateurs （业余爱好者们）

In fact many ‘amateurs’ can be far more knowledgeable than the ‘professionals’ and often far more dedicated than those who see archaeology as merely a career, or a way of earning a living rather than as something which fires their passions, and consumes their weekends and every scrap of spare time (3).

我惊觉到自己对那些amateurs是有刻板印象的，总觉得他们没有学术界那些专业学者自带的光环。意识到偏见的同时，我觉得我开始喜欢这群amateurs。他们对考古的行动是出于一种至纯的热爱。源于对自己爱好的责任感与使命感，和将其当成谋生或名誉的途径的责任感，总归还是不一样的。这大致是不仅限于考古学的吧。不管是大学的专业，还是未来的工作，希望读者们多少能拥有一些amateurs的自由气质。

2. Scientific Truths? Or Just Reasonable Interpretations

Hard as it is to figure out the nuts and bolts of life -- technology, subsistence, etc. -- it is infinitely harder to get inside people’s minds, and try to get an inkling of what they believed and how they thought (42).

看到考古学家们尝试用各种科学的方法，科学的仪器，科学的思维去尝试描摹古早往事的时候，我总觉得有些滑稽。考古学一定是一门科学吗？它或许也能是文学呢？作为一个考古学门外汉，我更愿意像对待残缺作品那样对待这些考古遗址和发现。事实真相或许并不重要，正如文中说到accurate dating相较于relative dating并不重要。相比知道寒武纪、侏罗纪、和白垩纪的先后，他们分别发生在几千几百万年前又是何种程度上的重要呢？

The chosen interpretations tend to reflect contemporary obsessions and prejudices -- at first prehistoric art was thought to be mindless graffiti or play activity, ‘art for art’s sake’ (46).

相较于理性地从证据出发，或者合理地进行推测，多少还是会有很多瞬间我们偏向于相信自己的偏见。正如我们更愿意相信自己相信的。但从考古学来看，留下来的这些主流学说，或许是他们被更广泛地流传，或许是他们更容易被验证和阐释。同样，科学真相和事实真相也许并不重要。但在思考过程中的收获和发现，才是真正的果实。

One can never be a hundred per cent certain of anything in the past, such as a simple equation of wealth with status (after all, today’s incredibly wealthy rulers of Saudi Arabia are buried with nothing), but by and large it seems sensible to assume that those with rich graces were comfortably off in life too (52).

3. Prejudice in Academia

Jargon was all-pervading, and treated as a substitute for thought -- excessive verbiage usually hides a basic lack of real information (70).

Bahn毫不客气的指出了“New Archeology”的弊端 ---- 拘泥于术语，毫无思想内核。若真是事实或是真理，又为何要担心用通俗易懂的言语表达呢。用术语筑起的高墙，展现的不仅是对自己流派的过度自信，也同样是充满恐惧和怀疑、摇摇欲坠的优越感。

流派之间的偏见，不可避免地发生在了基于性别的讨论上。

Male scholars either were ignorant of this fact, or chose to ignore it, and the result was a skewed version of the past. But the feminists themselves, far from shunning this practice (while justifiably complaining about it), do exactly the same by ignoring or brushing aside examples of men carrying out about ‘female’ activities. In any case, the realization that women made stone tools will hardly produce compelling insights (86).

作为一个女性，我想我更需要的是相互的尊重，而不是刻意的拔高。

以上,只是一些潦草的思考，暂且写下来，为日后的思考做个参照。