广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版） ›› 2015, Vol. 51 ›› Issue (5): 33-41.doi: 10.16088/j.issn.1001-6597.2015.05.005

• 人类学研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

原住民文化物品遣返原居地的人类学反思

罗易扉   

  1. 浙江财经大学艺术学院, 浙江杭州310018
  • 出版日期:2015-09-10 发布日期:2018-12-19
  • 作者简介:罗易扉(1970-),女,江西九江人,浙江财经大学副教授,英国杜伦大学人类学系高级访问学者,艺术学博士,研究方向:艺术人类学与视觉艺术史论。
  • 基金资助:
    浙江省社科课题“当代欧美艺术人类学思潮研究”(15NDJC130YB)

Anthropological Introspection on Returning the Cultural Articles to the Original Residents’ Place

LUO Yi-fei   

  1. Academy of Arts, Zhejiang University of Finance and Economics, Hangzhou 310018, China
  • Online:2015-09-10 Published:2018-12-19

PDF (PC)

450

摘要： 文化物品对于民族精神的凝聚以及维护民族文化的尊严具有重要意义,理解原住民文化物品的社会意义需要通过其社会本土语境知识阐释来实现。这些物品携带着非西方社会特殊人群及社会的信仰体系,有其内在固有的精神价值体系。如果将原住民物品从原住民社会挪动而置于一种“脱境”的语境之中,其所携带的知识意义就会发生变迁乃至失去其原本真实的意义。非西方社会原住民人工制品是物还是艺术？是文化抑或是“非文化”？西方社会是否应将非西方社会的物品遣返其故土？相关论争成为当今人类学界一场经典论争。许多人类学家将原住民人工制品置于一种遭遇、缠结、敞开的语境中,展开了深刻的对话和反思。

关键词: 文化物品, 原居地, 原住民, 遣返, 反遣返, 物权

Abstract: Cultural articles are of great importance in cohering national spirit and safeguarding national cultural dignity. As for understanding the social meaning of the original residents’ cultural articles, it can be realized by explaining the social local context. These articles are in a belief system that differs from the special groups in western society, inside which there is an inherent spirit value system. The knowledge meaning these articles have will change and even lose, if we move them away to a context “far from the right circumstance”. Are the artifacts of the non-western original residents stuff or art? Culture or “non-culture”? Should western society return the non-western articles to their original place? These related issues became classic in anthropological field. Lots of anthropologists made the original residents’ artifacts in a context of encounter, entanglement and openness, and make dialogue and introspection toward this.

Key words: cultural article, original place of residence, original residents, return

中图分类号: 

  • C958
[1] Aldona Jonaiti. Issues in the Repatriation of Museum Collections[J].Current Anthropology, Vol. 32., No. 1, 1991.
[2] Jeanette Greenfield. The Return of Cultural Treasures[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
[3] Phyllis Mauch Messenger.The Ethics of Collecting Cultural Property: Whose Culture? Whose Property? [M].Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1989.
[4] Clifford James. The predicament of culture: Twentieth-century ethnography literature and art[M]. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988.
[5] Frisbie Charlotte. Navajo medicine bundles or jish: Acquisition transmission and disposition in the past and present[M]. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press,1987.
[6] Ubelaker Douglas H.. Lauryn G. Grant.Human skeletal remains: Preservation or reburial? [M].Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 1989(32).
[7] Echo-Hawk. Walter Museum rights vs. Indian rights: Guidelines for assessing competing legal interests in native cultural resources Review of Law and Social Change 1986(14).
[8] Layton. R. Introduction. In Conflict. In the archaeology of living traditions[M]. R. Layton ed. London: Unwin Hyman. 1989.
[9] Cushing Frank Hamilton.Outlines of Zuni creation myths.In 13th annual report of the Bureau of American Ethnology[M]. 1891-1892.
[10] Hustito Charles. Why Zuni war gods need to be returned. In Zuni history: Victories in the 1990s[M]. E. Richard Hart and T. J. Ferguson ed. section 2:12. Seattle: Institute of the North American West 1991.
[11] Merrill et al. Return of the Ahayu:da. lessons for repatriation[J]. Current Anthropology 34,1993.
[12] Fenton Willian N. Return of eleven wampum belts to the Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy on Grand River[J]. Canada. Ethnohistory, 1989(36).
[13] Moore S. Federal Indian burial policy: Historical anachronism or contemporary reality? In Conflict in the archaeology of living traditions[M]. R. Layton ed. London: Unwin Hyman, 1989:201-210.
[14] Boyd Thomas H. Jonathan Haas. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act: Prospects for new partnerships between museums and Native American groups[J].Arizona State Law Journal, 1992(24).
[15] Kearney W.J. Cox River Alawa/ Ngandji land claim: Report by the Aboriginal Land Commissioner 32[J]. Canberra: Australian Government Printing Service, 1985.
[16] Bromilow G..Finders keepers?[J]. Museums Journal, 1993(3).
[17] Layton R. Anthropology and Aboriginal land rights in northern Australia.In Social anthropology and development policy [M]. R. Grillo and A. Rew ed. London:Tavistock, 1985.
[18] Moore S. Federal Indian burial policy: Historical anachronism or contemporary reality? In Conflict in the archaeology of living traditions[M]. R. Layton ed. London: Unwin Hyman, 1989.
[1] 吴代红, 范亚刚. 基于程式传承的侗族款词诠释[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2017, 53(4): 61-66.
[2] 罗宗志,潘用学. 瑶族的拟制亲属关系研究——以广西贺州市黄洞村认契习俗为例[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2015, 51(5): 18-25.
[3] 赵巧艳. 侗族传统民居上梁仪式的田野民族志[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2015, 51(2): 101-109.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] 陈延斌, 王伟. 传统家礼文献整理、研究的学术史梳理与评析[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2018, 54(3): 1 -10 .
[2] 李冰, 陈姝瑾. 《郑氏家仪》研究[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2018, 54(3): 11 -17 .
[3] 朱莉涛. 《茗洲吴氏家典》研究[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2018, 54(3): 18 -24 .
[4] 周良书, 郭文杰. 中共开展党内政治生活的历史与经验[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2018, 54(3): 25 -30 .
[5] 张乾元, 朱倩倩. 习近平新时代中国特色社会主义思想的核心要旨[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2018, 54(3): 31 -36 .
[6] 潘瑾菁. 习近平新时代网络意识形态工作思想研究[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2018, 54(3): 37 -41 .
[7] 瞿久淞, 靳书君. 习近平新时代中国特色社会主义话语研究[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2018, 54(3): 42 -47 .
[8] 邓世平. 乡村振兴:习近平对毛泽东农村发展思想的继承与发展[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2018, 54(3): 48 -54 .
[9] 李潇. 完善我国人格权立法的再思考[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2018, 54(3): 55 -60 .
[10] 赛铮. 论保险公司破产是偏颇性清偿行为撤销之例外[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2018, 54(3): 61 -66 .
版权所有 © 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）编辑部
地址：广西桂林市三里店育才路15号　邮编：541004
电话：0773-5857325　E-mail: xbgj@mailbox.gxnu.edu.cn
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发