藝術、死亡與關於墓葬遺存之詮釋

Art, Death and Interpretation of Mortuary Remains

就其內在本質而言，無論宗教性或世俗性的禮儀都異常令人嚮往。禮儀作為一種社會活動，一旦被隔離於社會情境之外便不可能被充分理解。它被執行它的社會所界定，也因而必須被置於適合它的社會和物質情境中進行研究。但是當禮儀主要是透過古代社會的墓葬遺存來進行研究時，我們又該如何回復前述各種情境呢？以中國為例，葬儀中的各種陳設便是史前時代晚期到歷史時代早期物質遺存的主要內容。由於墓葬的禮儀化情境可以（也一直被）視為形塑信仰、意識型態與身份認同的重要機制，或者被視為相關禮儀活動參與者及其操控或創造者社會力的主要根源，因此可以相當程度地反映一個特定的社會及其內在動能。此外，它們也可以被視為社會網絡的核心，或是呈現一個特定社會之希望和慾求的手段。這篇論文將思考墓葬中（尤其是位於中國者）的物質內容，並且為這些被置於禮儀化情境的遺存提出數種理解和闡釋方式。有些學者雖然也曾對這些遺物在墓葬中的擺放位置、佈局以及它們的視覺表現進行研究，卻又同時徵引非考古性證據（如民族史材料和歷史文獻），即使它們在被當作和歷史事件或信仰連結的直接依據時往往缺乏足夠的信度。此外，有關「延續性」（例如一個母題）的觀點經常被使用到相當誇張的境地，以致於任何在新石器時代文化層中觀察所得的圖案即使與王朝時期所見的某個母題僅有極其微小的類似性，依舊會被認為不足以論證它在後一時期存在某種相異的禮儀或意義。我們在此呼籲應針對迄今討論古代社會遺存的方式重新進行評估，並希望藉此認清並提出可以比較完整理解死者被安置時所牽涉之複雜性的種種方法。

Whether religious or secular, ritual is intrinsically fascinating. Ritual is an activity which when isolated from its context cannot be studied fully. It is defined by the society that practices it, and as such, needs to be studied in its proper social and material contexts.1 But how does one do so when the rituals being studied are known primarily in burial remains of ancient societies? In China, for example, mortuary settings are the primary locus of findings for remains from the late prehistoric and early dynastic periods. The ritualized context of burial can and has been seen as a mechanism for the shaping of beliefs, ideologies, and identities; or as a source of social power for those who participate in, control, or create them, thus revealing of a great deal about the given society and its dynamics.2 They can also be seen as a focal node of social networks, or as a means of illuminating the hopes and desires of a given society. Ritual and the materialization of belief has more recently been seen as an important and informative class of social action, or even as a social construction of the sacred.3 This paper will consider the material contents of tombs, especially in China, and propose ways to understand and explain them within this sort of ritualized context. Others have studied their placement and distribution in tombs as well as their visual countenance, and also have brought to bear non-archaeological evidence such as ethno-historical accounts and historical texts, although they are not straightforward accounts of historical events or beliefs. Moreover, the notion of continuity (of a motif, for instance) which has often been used to such an exaggerated extent that any pattern observed in the Neolithic layers that has even the slightest similarity to a motif from the dynastic periods will be questioned as insufficient to argue for the existence of a certain ritual or meaning in a later period.4 With this appeal for the assessment of how we have dealt with the remains of ancient societies, I hope to recognize and propose ways to understand more fully the complexity of the treatment of the dead.