史前社会复杂化理论与陶寺文化研究

【作者】 苏家寅；

【导师】 王震中；

【作者基本信息】 中国社会科学院研究生院 ， 中国古代史， 2014， 博士

【摘要】 晋南地区的陶寺文化属于龙山时代晚期的一支具备鲜明特征的考古学文化，无论是就目前已经掌握了的考古发现还是遍见于古史传说材料中的各类记述来看，这支文化在中国文明起源的过程中都极有可能扮演着非常重要的，甚至是关键性的角色，因此如果我们希望探究中国早期复杂社会兴起的历史，那么无可置疑地，陶寺文化应该成为首选的研究对象。在篇章安排方面，我们首先探讨的是理论问题。具体而言，对于现有理论认识的辨析分作前后紧密联系着的两大部分来进行：其一，我们向读者解释了相关概念本身的含义，即学术界当前对于“社会复杂化”或“复杂社会”的基本认识，这一部分见于绪论；其二，我们系统地回顾了学术界以往对于早期社会复杂化进程的各类解释模式，为保证论述内容尽量丰满完密，对于学术史的回顾我们选择同时从两个维度入手，也就是说，既历时性地考察了从19世纪的古典进化论到20世纪的新进化论学派对于社会复杂化运动过程的解释，同时又共时性地辨析了同辈学者之间的异同。古典进化论与新进化论两者相较，论述的重点在于新进化论，而在新进化论中，酋邦问题又当仁不让地成为了写作过程中的重中之重，对于酋邦问题，我们也从两个角度入手来组织讨论，既关注概念层面上的代际传承，譬如从奥博格与斯图尔德到塞维斯再到卡内罗与厄尔等人，又对隶属于这一概念之下的各个子命题做了较为充分的探讨，诸如经济制度与等级体制的关系，继承制度与亲族结构所经历的变化，前国家时代的权力性质与运行模式，简单酋邦与复杂酋邦，集体取向的酋邦与个人取向的酋邦，早期复杂社会中不同种类的财政制度，战争与政体规模的发展，以及那个时代的意识形态体系及其常见的表达方式等，还特别反驳了所谓“古代国家产生的两种途径”一类的说法。对于上述这些问题，我们都有着比较深入的论述，详情可参阅敝文第一至第三章，其中第三章是专论酋邦的。在辨明理论问题之后，我们转入了对于陶寺的案例研究，目的是为了将一般理论与具体材料结合起来，进而建立具备自身特色的对于当地早期社会复杂化进程的解释。首先，敝文对于关涉到陶寺的现有研究成果做了一次细致的回顾与梳理。通过这样的梳理，我们认为，迄今为止的陶寺研究，如果依照时间顺序可以分作前后互有联系的三个阶段，其发展历程深受田野发掘进度的影响，总体表现为以聚落考古与天文考古等为代表的新技术与新理论对于史学界惯用的二重证据法等传统研究模式的渐替与修正。在此基础上，我们相继探讨了公共工程所具备的社会政治指示意义，早期礼制的多元性，个人经济成就与政治地位之间的关系，大同社会、尧舜时代与陶寺文化三者各自代表着怎样的社会发展阶段以及彼此之间的关系如何，世界体系与区域等级政体发展的时序性，聚落发育模式与社会从酋邦向国家的演进等一系列与陶寺研究密切相关的重要的原则性问题。有关于这一部分内容，可参阅敝文第四章。陈述我们自己对于陶寺社会复杂化问题的理解，这也是敝文继一般理论辨析、陶寺研究历程回顾之后的第三个相对完整的组成部分。在这里，我们正力图恢复的恰是古典进化论以及新进化论的一贯主张，即从经济领域内的变动，也就是首先从生产专业化这个角度入手来解释政治结构所经历的复杂化过程，在我们看来，发生于后者内部的各种改革究其实质主要仍是对于变化了的经济现实的一种反映，目的则是为了重新安排关于已经增多了的社会剩余产品的分配策略，这正是政治等级制度必须予以实现的基本目标，而意识形态体系又是对于政治结构的进一步说明，因此也可以被看作是对于经济现实的反映的反映，这才是社会生活中这三大领域之间的主要的合理的关系。用我们这种视野来重新审视现有材料，就可以看出，陶寺自始至终都是一个高度复杂化的社会，目前尚无法就陶寺文化的最终去向问题给出确切的说明，至于促成这支文化勃兴的主要原因，我们以为，除了人口增长之外不可能有其他更合理的解释，且对于这种增长过程做出最大贡献的应是外来人口的挹注，有鉴于当时能源开发技术的发展水平，只有在投入更多劳动力的情况下才有可能获得更多的产出，也只有在拥有更多产出的情况下，陶寺人才会面对政治结构进一步复杂化的问题。以上所述就是我们对于陶寺文化社会复杂化过程的基本解释，至于此中详情，敬请参阅敝文第五章的具体论述。更多还原

【Abstract】 According to the field work and study on historical documents, the Taosi Culture(Simplified Chinese:陶寺文化) in Southern Shanxi Province is a truly important lateLongshan Period (Simplified Chinese:龙山时代) archaeological culture for the studyon the internal mechanism of the origins of ancient Chinese Civilization and earlyhistory of complex societies in East Asia.In terms of the discourse structure, the first studying object is the theory of socialcomplication, which could be observed from the two perspectives: specialization andhierarchization, and related discussion is shown in Introduction, and then thecomparative research into various interpretive schemes from Lewis H. Morgan to theNeoevolutionism School after the World War II, including Elman R. Service, Robert L.Carneiro, Timothy K. Earle, etc., constitutes Chapter One, Two and Three, and the lastone is assigned to the issue of chiefdom. Deservedly, the neoevolutionism andchiefdom are the focus questions of this paper, especially the latter. And for theintellectual history of chiefdom period, quite apart from the intergenerationaldifferences between anthropologists and archaeologists, many other integral subjectsof the chiefdom society itself have been discussed in Chapter Three, such as therelationship between economy and the early caste system, inheritance system andkinship structure, the essence of the power in prestate stage and its operating mode,simple chiefdoms and complex chiefdoms, group-oriented chiefdoms andindividualizing chiefdoms, staple finance and wealth finance, war and thedevelopment of the scale of societies under certain of polity like chiefdom, and theforms of ideology of that age, etc. In particular, the hypothesis, two ways of the stateevolution, designed by Shen Changyun (Simplified Chinese:沈长云) is refuted inthis section.The next section is empirical study and the aim is to combine the internationaltheory with Chinese archaeological materials. First, in Chapter Four, the researchcourse and progression of Taosi Culture is reviewed, and on this basis, three stages ofthe academic history are divided, which is profoundly affected by contemporary fieldwork. Generally, new technology and new theory such as settlement archaeology and archaeoastronomy are substituting and reforming the traditional interpretative schemelike the dual attestation (Simplified Chinese:二重证据法). In more concrete terms,various issues of current domestic study in this field are thoroughly discussed here,such as how to evaluate the true social and political significance of ancient publicworks, the diversity of early Li system (Simplified Chinese:礼制), the relationshipbetween personal economic success and his political status, the exact sociologicalmeanings of these words like Datong Society (Simplified Chinese:大同社会), Yaoand Shun Period (Simplified Chinese:尧舜时代) and the Taosi Culture, theapplication of world-system theory in North China archaeology, and the changingpattern of settlement development while societies evolving from chiefdom to state,etc.And then, after the theoretical discussion and review of the Taosi research, it isthe right time to express the viewpoint of this paper on the growth of the complexityof Taosi Culture, which is the third relatively independent part of the currentinterpretative system. According to the classical evolution theory and neoevolutionism,the economy, especially the form of division and cooperation in the actualmanufacturing process, is the true basis of the whole superstructure in one society,and the nature of political system is just the allocation mechanism for social products,in other words, the politics reflected by the ideological system is a reflection of theeconomic structures in principle, which is the key to understand the growth processmentioned above. From this historical materialism perspective, a new and vividtrajectory of the Taosi complex society is able to be sketched out as below: Taosi is ahighly complicated society throughout the three phases divided by archaeologists, andthe most plausible explanation for the growth of social complexity during the severalcenturies, according to the current archaeological materials, should be the increase inpopulation, especially affected by the continuing immigration from the outside ofLinfen Basin (Simplified Chinese:临汾盆地), because more products is thefoundation of the more complex political structure, and in light of the actual level ofenergy exploitation and utilization in Longshan Period, more products inevitablymean extra and stable labor input, and the details of final outcome of this society isstill unclear. And as for fully detailed account, please refer to Chapter Five.更多还原