人體遺骸類考古遺產的收藏保護倫理芻論—以肯納威克人遺骨為例

Preliminary Study on the Ethical Dilemmas Related to Collection and Preservation of Archaeological Human Remains: A Case Study of Kennewick Man

10.6686/MuseQ.202107_35(3).0006

代雪晶(Xuejing Dai)

人體遺骸 ； 考古遺產 ； 收藏保護倫理 ； 商談倫理 ； 肯納威克人遺骨 ； human remains ； archaeological heritage ； ethics of collection and preservation ； discourse ethics ； Kennewick Man

博物館學季刊

35卷3期（2021 / 07 / 01）

99 - 109+111

繁體中文

在現代考古學的發展歷程中，以墓葬為主的考古遺產混雜著「挑戰後裔社群對先祖的精神寄託」、「剝奪後裔社群對先祖物質和精神遺產的繼承」與「私人財產轉化為國家財產」、「私人專享轉為公眾共用」等多維面向，尤其突顯為「族裔物質財富和精神寄託」與「國家的社會共用科學資源」之兩維面向。外顯為「歸葬」與「科學研究」之爭的肯納威克人遺骨案例，實為原住民的現生利益與科學發現及研究權間的較量。全面考察這一典型案例，本文認為商談倫理的「可普遍化原則」和「話語倫理學原則」對破解人體遺骸等考古遺產的收藏保護倫理困境，具有以下3個思考面向：一則明確產權，理順合法收藏者和保護者，兼顧相關後裔社群之利益；二則秉承「古為今用」的遺產保護利用方針，明晰遺產收藏和保護的終極目的，為「科學研究」營造適宜的社會氛圍；三則搭建開放、開明、對話、共商的合作平臺，邀請後裔社群的參與，以促進公共領域增進知識，促進人類社會發展與進步。

In the development process of modern archaeology, tomb-related archaeological heritage possesses multiple dimensions, such as the challenge to spiritual blessings from ancestors to decedents, deprivation of decedents' inheritance to the material and spiritual heritage of ancestors, transfer of personal property to the nation state, and public sharing of privately owned property. In the case of Kennewick Man, there is a notable two-sided dimension, namely a community's material fortune and spiritual sustenance and scientific resources shared by the public. On the surface, the conflict in the Kennewick Man case was between reburial and scientific study. On a deeper level, it was a debate between the present interests of indigenous peoples and the right to scientific study. From the perspective of discourse ethics, the principles of universalism and discourse ethics can be applied to resolve the ethical dilemmas of this case. Firstly, ownership, legitimate collector, and conservator must be defined with consideration given to the interests of the decedent community. Secondly, while abiding by heritage protection policy of making the past serve the present, the ultimate goal of collecting and preserving heritage must be made clear to create the proper social atmosphere for scientific study. Thirdly, platforms for cooperation should be established, based on openness and dialogue, to invite the participation of decedent community and to promote the advancement of knowledge in the public sphere.

1. 第十二屆全國人民代表大會常務委員會第十三次會議，2017。中華人民共和國文物保護法（2017 年修正本），http://www.scio.gov.cn/xwfbh/xwbfbh/wqfbh/37601/38374/xgzc38380/Document/1630060/1630060.htm（瀏覽日期：2021/ 04/25）。
2. Boyle, A., 2017. Tribes lay 9,000-year-old remains of ‘Ancient One,’ a.k.a Kennewick Man, to rest, https://www.geekwire.com/2017/tribes-ancient-one-kennewick-man-rest/（瀏覽日期：2017/11/03）。
3. Bruce, B.(2015).DAN resolves Kennewick Man debate.Science News,188(2),6.
4. Chatters, J. C.(2002).Ancient Encounters: Kennewick Man and the First Americans.New York:Simon & Schuster.
5. Chatters, J. C.(2017).Making archaeological sense of Kennewick Man.Quaternary International,444,83-97.
6. Coleman, Cyntbia-Lou(2013).The extermination of Kennewick Man’s authenticity through discourse.Wicazo Sa Review,28(1),65-76.
7. Editorial, 2015. It’s time to let tribe reclaim Kennewick Man remainsYakima Herald-Republic (WA). 30 August.
8. Goldstein, L.,Kintigh, K.(1990).Ethics and the reburial controversy.American antiquity,55(3),585-591.
9. Klesert, A. L.,Powell, S.(1993).A perspective on ethics and the reburial controversy.American Antiquity,58(2),348-354.
10. Powell, D., 2017. 肯納威克人的起源之謎，http://www.ngchina.com.cn/science/archaeology/3665.html（瀏覽日期：2017/11/03）。
11. Powell, S.,Garza, C. E.,Hendricks, A.(1993).Ethics and ownership of the past the reburial and repatriation controversy.Archaeological Method and Theory,5,1-42.
12. Scarre, C.(Ed.),Scarre G.(Ed.)(2006).The Ethics of Archaeology: Philosophical Perspectives on Archaeological Practice.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
13. Smith, C.(Ed.)(2014).Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology.New York:Springer.
14. Timothy, E., 1996. Tribe stops study of bones that challenge history. New York Times, September 30, 1996, Section A, p. 12.
15. Zimmerman, L. J.(1998).When data become people: Archaeological ethics, reburial, and the past as public heritage.International Journal of Cultural Property,7(1),69-86.
16. 大衛．赫斯特．湯瑪斯(2015)。發現者、持有者與深度美國史：爭端解決之道。帝國主義、藝術與文物返還，南京:
17. 何懷宏(2002).倫理學是什麼.北京:北京大學出版社.
18. 宋希仁(2000).當代外國倫理思想.北京:中國人民大學出版社.
19. 唐曉燕(2008)。哈貝馬斯商談倫理理論的立場和應用。湖州師範學院學報，30(5)，46-50。
20. 郝鑠(2015)。新美洲原住民之謎。科學新聞，16，76-78。
21. 國家文物局博物館司（編）(2007).博物館工作手冊.北京:華齡出版社.
22. 陳星燦(1997).中國史前考古學史研究 1985-1949.北京:生活．讀書．心知三聯書店.
23. 陳國慶,鄒小婷(2013)。哈貝馬斯的商談倫理及其合理性維度。理論導刊，8，48-51。
24. 陳淳（譯）,Renfrew, C.,Bahn, P.(2015).考古學：理論、方法與實踐.上海:上海古籍出版社.
25. 錢益匯（譯）,朱學峰（譯）,鄧晨鈺（譯）,Fagan, B. M.(2018).考古學入門.北京:北京聯合出版公司.
26. 羅宏才(1998)。戴季陶挑起的一場考古學大論戰。文博，5，72-77。