读书笔记: Humphrey, 蒙古葬禮, 私人財產（2） (转载)# Translation - 译林
b*n
1 楼
【 以下文字转载自 AnthroLing 讨论区 】
发信人: banzimian (板子面), 信区: AnthroLing
标 题: 读书笔记: Humphrey, 蒙古葬禮, 私人財產（2）
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Wed Aug 17 08:48:51 2011, 美东)
In the long history of Mongolia, funeral rites have changed, especially with the
advent of Buddhism from the seventeenth century and its brutal, though incomplete,
suppression under Russian Soviet influence (see B...).
[在蒙古的長期歷史中，特別是17世紀佛教以降，在社會主義俄國的影響下雖不徹底但殘暴的
壓制下，葬禮儀式已經發生了變化。]
Practices regarding property have also changed over the centuries, in somewhat the
same rhythm, the main transformation occurring between the 1920s and 1950s, with
the elimination of feudal relations and the drastic limitation of familial
property as Soviet-style collectivism was imposed.
[以同樣的節奏，幾個世紀以來有關財產的實踐也發生了一些變化，主要的變化發生在1920到
1950年代，由於強加的蘇聯形式的集體制，消滅了封建關係，激烈地限制了家庭財產。]
If Buddhism deprecated the individual accumulation of property, the socialist
regime (for different reasons) more or less forbade it, and it is not surprising
therefore that the standard binary distinction between private and collective
property is not very informative for Mongolia.
[如果佛教藐視財產的個人積累，社會主義政權則（因不同的理由）或多或少對之加以禁止，
而且這樣一來，不足爲奇的是，標準的私有和集體所有的財產的二分法對蒙古並不特別有益。
]
Private property as a legal category could be said hardly to have existed during
socialist times, while collective property comprised a vast, diversified, and
multi-stranded sphere. Yet relatively little is known about actual behaviour in
relation to broad brush-stroke characterizations of state, public, or socialist
property in this region, as Mongolian ethnographers had small interest in such a
topic and the country was more or less closed to foreign anthropologists.
[可以說，私有財產作爲一個法律範疇在社會主義時期幾乎沒有存在過，而集體財產則包括了
廣闊、多樣、多股的領域。但是關於粗綫條界定的這一地區的國家的、公有或者社會主義的財
產的實際行爲，相對來説我們知道的很少。這是因爲蒙古民族志者對這個話題興趣不大，而這
個國家的門對於外國人類學者或多或少是關閉的。]
It is in this context that I advance my study of death rituals and personal
property in the late socialist period of the mid-1980s. That historical context
has now vanished, for Mongolia in the 1990s abandoned Communism, promoted
privatization, and encouraged revivals of both Buddhism and shamanism.
[正是在這樣的背景下，我進一步展開了1980中社會主義晚期的葬禮和私人/自用財產的研究。
當時的歷史背景如今已經消失了，因爲蒙古在1990年代抛棄了共產主義，推進了私有化，鼓勵
了佛教和薩滿教的復興。]
But I hope that my investigation of how people in those days dealt with
significant 'things' at the time of death may be of more general import by helping
us to re-think our 'common sense metaphors' of property and possession (S) and
hence to imagine alternative epistemology of people-object relations.
[但是我希望，我對當時人們在死亡時如何處理重要的‘物品’的研究，能夠在幫助我們重新
思考我們的財產和所有物的‘常識性的隱喻’（S）方面，以及因此想象人-物關係的另一種知
識論方面，有更一般的重要性。]
----
发信人: banzimian (板子面), 信区: AnthroLing
标 题: 读书笔记: Humphrey, 蒙古葬禮, 私人財產（2）
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Wed Aug 17 08:48:51 2011, 美东)
In the long history of Mongolia, funeral rites have changed, especially with the
advent of Buddhism from the seventeenth century and its brutal, though incomplete,
suppression under Russian Soviet influence (see B...).
[在蒙古的長期歷史中，特別是17世紀佛教以降，在社會主義俄國的影響下雖不徹底但殘暴的
壓制下，葬禮儀式已經發生了變化。]
Practices regarding property have also changed over the centuries, in somewhat the
same rhythm, the main transformation occurring between the 1920s and 1950s, with
the elimination of feudal relations and the drastic limitation of familial
property as Soviet-style collectivism was imposed.
[以同樣的節奏，幾個世紀以來有關財產的實踐也發生了一些變化，主要的變化發生在1920到
1950年代，由於強加的蘇聯形式的集體制，消滅了封建關係，激烈地限制了家庭財產。]
If Buddhism deprecated the individual accumulation of property, the socialist
regime (for different reasons) more or less forbade it, and it is not surprising
therefore that the standard binary distinction between private and collective
property is not very informative for Mongolia.
[如果佛教藐視財產的個人積累，社會主義政權則（因不同的理由）或多或少對之加以禁止，
而且這樣一來，不足爲奇的是，標準的私有和集體所有的財產的二分法對蒙古並不特別有益。
]
Private property as a legal category could be said hardly to have existed during
socialist times, while collective property comprised a vast, diversified, and
multi-stranded sphere. Yet relatively little is known about actual behaviour in
relation to broad brush-stroke characterizations of state, public, or socialist
property in this region, as Mongolian ethnographers had small interest in such a
topic and the country was more or less closed to foreign anthropologists.
[可以說，私有財產作爲一個法律範疇在社會主義時期幾乎沒有存在過，而集體財產則包括了
廣闊、多樣、多股的領域。但是關於粗綫條界定的這一地區的國家的、公有或者社會主義的財
產的實際行爲，相對來説我們知道的很少。這是因爲蒙古民族志者對這個話題興趣不大，而這
個國家的門對於外國人類學者或多或少是關閉的。]
It is in this context that I advance my study of death rituals and personal
property in the late socialist period of the mid-1980s. That historical context
has now vanished, for Mongolia in the 1990s abandoned Communism, promoted
privatization, and encouraged revivals of both Buddhism and shamanism.
[正是在這樣的背景下，我進一步展開了1980中社會主義晚期的葬禮和私人/自用財產的研究。
當時的歷史背景如今已經消失了，因爲蒙古在1990年代抛棄了共產主義，推進了私有化，鼓勵
了佛教和薩滿教的復興。]
But I hope that my investigation of how people in those days dealt with
significant 'things' at the time of death may be of more general import by helping
us to re-think our 'common sense metaphors' of property and possession (S) and
hence to imagine alternative epistemology of people-object relations.
[但是我希望，我對當時人們在死亡時如何處理重要的‘物品’的研究，能夠在幫助我們重新
思考我們的財產和所有物的‘常識性的隱喻’（S）方面，以及因此想象人-物關係的另一種知
識論方面，有更一般的重要性。]
----