個(gè)人簡(jiǎn)介
先后提出“新石器革命”（食物生產(chǎn)的革命）和“城市革命”概念，為日后農(nóng)耕、家畜飼養(yǎng)和文明起源問(wèn)題的研究奠定理論基礎(chǔ)。被公認(rèn)為20世紀(jì)前期最有成就的史前考古學(xué)家。個(gè)人成就
對(duì)農(nóng)業(yè)的研究
柴爾德的考古名氣來(lái)自他對(duì)諸如農(nóng)業(yè)的起源、城市與文明的興起等重大問(wèn)題的迷戀。他分別給這些過(guò)程起名為“新石器革命”和“城市革命”。他認(rèn)為在三個(gè)地區(qū)，即美索不達(dá)米亞、尼羅河流域和印度河流域，剩余財(cái)富比人口增長(zhǎng)得快。在這里的城市中，人口的增長(zhǎng)造成以階級(jí)為基礎(chǔ)的政治制度的出現(xiàn)，貴族的地位因他們控制著剩余財(cái)富以及已存在的農(nóng)業(yè)灌溉體系而得到鞏固，這些地區(qū)的農(nóng)業(yè)灌溉體系本身使農(nóng)業(yè)能夠供養(yǎng)起日益增長(zhǎng)的城市人口。考古學(xué)的文化概念
也正是柴爾德發(fā)展并大眾化了考古學(xué)的“文化”概念，把它定義為特定時(shí)間和地點(diǎn)范圍內(nèi)的一組人工制品，看上去是一個(gè)獨(dú)特的民族或種族集團(tuán)存在的考古證明。這個(gè)概念在歐洲雖已存在了20多年，但是是柴爾德系統(tǒng)地定義并使用了這個(gè)概念，他的《歐洲文明的開端》（1925）一書充分說(shuō)明了這一點(diǎn)。他相信不同時(shí)代和不同地區(qū)的文化構(gòu)成多樣化的原因在于同其他文化的接觸，即擴(kuò)散或人們向新的地區(qū)的遷徙。柴爾德對(duì)這種文化觀點(diǎn)的堅(jiān)定態(tài)度反映在他堅(jiān)持認(rèn)為史前歐洲的社會(huì)變化基本上是由于擴(kuò)散引起的這一點(diǎn)上。在他看來(lái)，擴(kuò)散的源頭來(lái)自東地中海文明，后來(lái)該文明經(jīng)多瑙河地區(qū)向歐洲傳播。但隨著時(shí)間的推移，他的關(guān)于擴(kuò)散是文化變革動(dòng)力的看法得到進(jìn)一步完善，他日益認(rèn)識(shí)到各社會(huì)內(nèi)部經(jīng)濟(jì)力量的重要性。這一看法是他于1935 年首次訪問(wèn)蘇聯(lián)之后得出的，這使他成為比較堅(jiān)定的馬克思主義者。紅色教授
柴爾德不喜歡人們稱他為馬克思主義史前學(xué)家，關(guān)于他在多大程度上接受了馬克思主義這一點(diǎn)，是他的傳記作家們熱烈爭(zhēng)辯的問(wèn)題。在許多人看來(lái)，他并沒(méi)有一味地照搬馬克思主義的唯物主義和單線分階段進(jìn)化的思想，他強(qiáng)調(diào)擴(kuò)散是史前社會(huì)變化的動(dòng)力。有一點(diǎn)很清楚，這就是柴爾德不接受一成不變的馬克思主義模式，他寧愿把它作為他的某些著述的前導(dǎo)，如在《人類創(chuàng)造自己》（1936）和《歷史上發(fā)生了什么》（1942）所做的那樣。而在其他著作中，他則把馬克思主義作為背景。在他最后20年的著述中，人們則幾乎看不到馬克思主義的任何影響了。正像保守的考古學(xué)家們所指出的，盡管柴爾德傾向于左翼政治，但他卻是非常真摯的，他沒(méi)有完全超脫肉體感官的享受。他是科學(xué)協(xié)會(huì)的會(huì)員，而又似乎很欣賞人們稱他為“紅色教授”。有一個(gè)故事大概是偽造的，故事是柴在大庭廣眾下，如在考古學(xué)大會(huì)的早餐時(shí)，手里拿著一份《 工人日?qǐng)?bào) 》，但在那份報(bào)紙的里面藏著的卻是他真正要看的，即一份右翼組織的機(jī)關(guān)報(bào) 《每日電訊報(bào)》。對(duì)歐洲之外考古的輕視
柴爾德著作中的一個(gè)嚴(yán)重缺陷是他對(duì)歐洲之外某些地區(qū)史前史和考古成果的輕視，特別明顯的是對(duì)于美洲，他不相信美洲文化屬于人類文化史的主流。對(duì)于其他地區(qū)，由于他周圍世界的不斷變化也必然引起一些觀點(diǎn)的修正。他的早期著作對(duì)印歐人起源的理解（如在 《雅利安人》一書中他的一些結(jié)論）顯然是種族主義的。所幸在后來(lái)的著作中，他成功地拋棄了這一立場(chǎng)。對(duì)歐洲考古的研究活動(dòng)
柴爾德始終不是一位碩果累累或心甘情愿的田野發(fā)掘工作者，他從事的最有名的一次發(fā)掘是在奧克尼群島對(duì)斯卡拉·布萊的新石器時(shí)代石建村落的挖掘。他的名聲主要來(lái)自于對(duì)歐洲考古所進(jìn)行的廣泛的綜合研究活動(dòng)，以及寫的一些生動(dòng)的考古通俗書籍。從他在第一次世界大戰(zhàn)前所寫的早期著作中可以看到他對(duì)東歐的興趣他于年首次到多瑙河流域旅行，參觀了奧地利、匈牙利和捷克斯洛伐克的遺址和博物館。在準(zhǔn)備撰寫 《歐洲文明的開端》和《史前時(shí)代的多瑙河》的一些年里，他曾多次到訪這些地區(qū)。他的后幾本書貫穿著他的文化從近東經(jīng)巴爾干傳播到西北歐的觀點(diǎn)．當(dāng)時(shí)，東歐還是一個(gè)未知的領(lǐng)域。對(duì)于西方有教養(yǎng)的考古學(xué)家來(lái)說(shuō)，語(yǔ)言不通是個(gè)問(wèn)題，旅游條件也難以令人滿意。
由于柴爾德很快掌握了大多數(shù)中歐語(yǔ)言的閱讀能力，這使他有可能廣泛地閱覽考古文獻(xiàn)。他獲得的這一技能是令人羨慕的，已經(jīng)達(dá)到嫻熟的狀態(tài)，但他在地名方面的語(yǔ)法錯(cuò)誤又表明他還遠(yuǎn)不夠火候，他的發(fā)音聽(tīng)起來(lái)簡(jiǎn)直可怕。他堅(jiān)持同外國(guó)考古學(xué)家說(shuō)他們本國(guó)的語(yǔ)言，結(jié)果常常鬧出笑話。
訪問(wèn)蘇聯(lián)
柴爾德第一次訪問(wèn)蘇聯(lián)時(shí)在那里待了12天，當(dāng)時(shí)蘇聯(lián)考古學(xué)剛好從馬爾分子于20世紀(jì)30年代早期進(jìn)行的清洗中開始復(fù)蘇。與此同時(shí)，芬蘭考古學(xué)家阿爾尼·塔爾格蘭也訪問(wèn)了蘇聯(lián)，因他記述了這些清洗，于是被永遠(yuǎn)禁止邁進(jìn)蘇聯(lián)的大門。柴爾德則持比較通融的觀點(diǎn)，所以在第二次世界大戰(zhàn)后能夠三次到蘇聯(lián)訪問(wèn)，并在 20 世紀(jì)50年代參加了“與蘇聯(lián)發(fā)展文化關(guān)系協(xié)會(huì)”，這是蘇聯(lián)的一個(gè)“前沿”組織。這樣做的部分原因似乎是一種姿態(tài)。柴爾德是一個(gè)喜歡顯示自己熟識(shí)東歐事務(wù)的人，他的書信中有時(shí)會(huì)直截了當(dāng)?shù)赜霉潘估蜃帜笗鴮懚砦拿郑駹柕驴脊艑W(xué)家對(duì)中歐和東歐考古的興趣出長(zhǎng)。自隨著冷戰(zhàn)的終結(jié)而迅速增他的擴(kuò)散觀念已被新的證據(jù)（史前歐洲的農(nóng)業(yè)、貿(mào)易和社會(huì)分化均有獨(dú)立的起源）所推翻。但他在 20 世紀(jì) 20 年代的兩部主要著作，即我們熟知的《歐洲文明的開端》和《史前時(shí)代的多瑙河》，仍然是世界考古學(xué)的經(jīng)典著作，經(jīng)受住了近幾十年如潮水般的新發(fā)現(xiàn)的考驗(yàn)。Childe, Vere Gordon 1892u20131957
vere gordon childe, the most celebrated archaeological synthesizer and theorist of his generation, was born in North Sydney, Australia, 14 April 1892. He graduated from Sydney University in 1913 with first-class honors in Latin, Greek, and philosophy. At Oxford University in England, his interest in European prehistory was aroused by a desire to locate the homeland of the Indo-Europeans. He returned to Australia in 1916 and became involved in anticonscription and Labour politics, serving from 1919 to 1921 as private secretary to John Storey, the Labour premier of New South Wales.
After the defeat of the Labour government of New South Wales in 1921, Childe returned to the study of European prehistory, paying special attention to the Balkans. In 1925, he published The Dawn of European Civilization, a milestone in the development of culture-historical archaeology. Childe combined the concept of “the archaeological culture,” refined by the German archaeologist gustaf kossinna to try to trace the histories of specific peoples in the archaeological record, with the diffusionism of the Swedish archaeologist oscar montelius. Montelius believed that in prehistoric times technological skills had spread to Europe from their place of origin in the Middle East. Like his Oxford mentors, arthur evans and john myres, Childe stressed the creativity with which Europeans had utilized this knowledge.
Childe was the Abercromby Professor of Prehistoric Archaeology at the University of Edinburgh of European archaeology and director of the Institute of Archaeology at the University of London from 1946 until he retired in 1956. Throughout these years he carried out numerous archaeological excavations and surveys in Scotland and also visited many excavations in Europe and the Middle East.
Although Childe was primarily a European prehistorian, for the rest of his life he sought a better understanding of cultural change. Beginning with The Most Ancient East (1928), he sought to delineate the revolutionary impacts that the development of agriculture and bronze working had on various parts of the Middle East and Europe. Instead of treating technological innovation as an independent variable that brought about cultural change, he sought to trace the reciprocal relations between it and specific environments, economies, and political systems. He saw changes occurring in a multilinear, not a unilinear, fashion.
In 1935, Childe visited the Soviet Union. Although he disapproved of the dogmatism imposed on Soviet archaeologists, he was impressed by the attention being paid to how ordinary people lived in prehistoric times and by Marxist interpretations of cultural evolution. In Man Makes Himself (1936) and What Happened in History (1942), Childe examined, from an evolutionary perspective, how elites and inflexible belief systems could halt economic and social progress but only at the cost of undermining a societyu2019s ability to compete with more progressive neighbors.
After World War II, disillusionment with the declining quality of Soviet archaeology led Childe to acquire a more profound understanding of Marxism as an analytical tool and to try to apply it to the interpretation of archaeological data. He attempted to reconcile the observation that all human behavior is culturally mediated with a materialist view of causality. In Prehistory of European Society (1958), he stressed that social and political organization provided the framework within which all archaeological data could most productively be understood.
Troubled by failing health and fearing that incipient senility was preventing him from devising new procedures for inferring social organization from archaeological data, Childe, jumped to his death from a cliff in the Blue Mountains of Australia on 19 October 1957.
