20世纪二三十年代中国人类学的学术分野——基于史禄国“云南调查事件”的分析

The Academic Dividing Line of Chinese Anthropology in the 1920s and 1930s--Research Based on the“Yunnan Survey”by Sergei Mikhailovich Shirokogorov

20世纪二三十年代的中国人类学尚处于起步阶段,对于人类学的各个分支学科尚未达成真正一致的理解。在中国人类学史上,1928年史禄国主持的云南调查是一次极为重要的学术活动和历史事件。当下之学界对史禄国的认识尚模糊,对其“云南调查事件”的判断亦属苛刻有余、难称公允,且没有根据史禄国本人研究脉络和当时国内对于人类学学科的认识来加以“理解式的同情”。其背后反映了学人之间学术纷争以及学科理解上的分野,由此也可一探当时人类学范式的多重叠加。对于史禄国在滇之成绩的不同评价,体现了傅斯年与顾颉刚和其他学人对于人类学的不同理解:傅斯年重在人类学,而顾颉刚偏重民俗学;在评价标准上,傅斯年是明白体质测量的意义的,而顾颉刚等依然坚持文字式的研究报告。史禄国、杨成志的云南调查已成为中国人类学百余年历程中一个具有里程碑意义的学术范例,更为我们提供了一个理解近代中国学术转型的极佳窗口。

In the 1920s to 1930s,Chinese anthropology was still in its infancy,and there was no truly consensus on the various branches of anthropology.In the academic history of Chinese anthropology,the Yunnan Survey led by Sergei Mikhailovich Shirokogorov in 1928 was an extremely important academic activity and historical event.Due to the vague understanding of Sergei Mikhailovich Shirokogorov,scholars still have harsh and unfair judgments on his“Yunnan survey incident”,and have not provided“empathic understanding”based on the research context of Sergei Mikhailovich Shirokogorov himself and the domestic understanding of anthropology at that time.It reflects the academic disputes among scholars and their disagreements of disciplinary understanding,through which the multiple overlaps in the anthropological paradigm at that time can also be explored.The different evaluations of S.M.Shirokogorov’s achievements in Yunnan reflect the different understandings of anthropology between Fu Sinian and Gu Jiegang and other scholars:Fu Sinian focused on anthropology,while Gu Jiegang focused on folklore studies;in terms of evaluation criteria,Fu Sinian understood the significance of physique measurement,while Gu Jiegang and others still insisted on literal research reports.The Yunnan survey conducted by Sergei Mikhailovich Shirokogorov and Yang Chengzhi has not only become an academic example of milestone proportion in the more than 100-year history of Chinese anthropology,but also provided an excellent window for us to understand the modern academic transformation.