記者帶你看良渚

鄭嘉勵(lì)

我最早讀馬黎的文字，在七八年前，她當(dāng)時(shí)是《錢江晚報(bào)》入職不久的文化記者——關(guān)于考古發(fā)現(xiàn)的新聞報(bào)道文字，受許多讀者歡迎，大家都說好看。好看的秘訣，無他，就是距離考古工地近些、更近一些。馬黎勤奮，能吃苦，每有考古新發(fā)現(xiàn)，她總能第一時(shí)間趕赴現(xiàn)場(chǎng)。馬黎低調(diào)、謙遜，待人接物，不卑不亢，有很好的“分寸感”，每有新發(fā)現(xiàn)，考古人也樂意告訴她。而她也總能在考古人客觀、冷靜甚至無喜無悲的講述中，抓住一二個(gè)“新聞點(diǎn)”，將遠(yuǎn)古時(shí)代的物事，與現(xiàn)代的生活連接起來，穿越古今，透物見人。

“透物見人”是一種技能，也是境界，說來容易，踐行實(shí)難。人文學(xué)科，必須見“人”，這是平常的道理。然而，不同學(xué)科的“人”，其實(shí)大不相同。文學(xué)關(guān)注的“人”，是“具體人”的生存狀態(tài)和命運(yùn);歷史學(xué)的“人”，既有司馬光、岳飛等有名有姓的具體人，更有士農(nóng)工商等“群體人”——畢竟都是人的政治、經(jīng)濟(jì)、文化或日?；顒?dòng)，轉(zhuǎn)化為好故事，相對(duì)容易，大凡市面上稍暢銷的人文書籍，十之七八，必為文史類讀物。而考古學(xué)不同，面對(duì)古人的遺跡和遺物，并不直接見“人”，額外多出一道“透物見人”的攔路虎，尤其在未有文字以前的史前考古領(lǐng)域，既無具體人和具體事件，也無歷史學(xué)范疇的“群體人”，所指之“人”通常是文化人類學(xué)等社會(huì)學(xué)科范疇的“抽象人”。如何將遠(yuǎn)古時(shí)代的片段遺跡、壇壇罐罐的碎片，拼接出有頭有尾的故事，繼而與現(xiàn)代人的情感、趣味、思想建立連接，那就格外艱難。當(dāng)然，我們也大可以說，只有艱難的事情，才值得今天有志氣的年輕人去做、去開拓。在我看來，馬黎寫作的意義，正在于此——她的新書《看見5000年——良渚王國記事》，以良渚文化考古歷程、良渚古城格局、建筑、陵墓、良渚人的生業(yè)和日常生活以及良渚古城“申遺”始末為具體的描述對(duì)象，為我們提供了一個(gè)關(guān)于“良渚故事”的長時(shí)段的可靠記錄和有效傳播的樣本。換言之，這本書為史前考古學(xué)術(shù)成果轉(zhuǎn)化和公共傳播領(lǐng)域的寫作，提供了多種可能性，走出了一條新道路。

這條新道路，絕非一蹴而就，《看見5000年》正是作者長期摸索、反復(fù)試驗(yàn)后，逐漸形成的文本。

七八年前馬黎的文字，并非如此，古人說“悔其少作”，事實(shí)上，一個(gè)有自我要求的作者，隨著知識(shí)、趣味、價(jià)值觀的改變或提升，恐怕連自己四五年前的文字都不能接受。馬黎經(jīng)常表達(dá)對(duì)早前文字的不滿，正說明她是有追求的作者。她早年的新聞報(bào)道，有個(gè)特點(diǎn)，大量使用網(wǎng)絡(luò)語言，或者采用“以今例古”“蹭熱點(diǎn)”的敘述技巧，多以打比方的手法溝通古今，幫助讀者理解古物。這是新聞和通俗寫作的常用手法。網(wǎng)絡(luò)語言、蹭熱點(diǎn)的好處，顯而易見，容易貼近讀者，讓今人對(duì)古人迅速產(chǎn)生“共情”;壞處也明顯，因?yàn)闊嵩~、熱點(diǎn)易冷，時(shí)過境遷，文章必然呈現(xiàn)出追求時(shí)效性的“速朽”特征。很多記者，坦然接受這一事實(shí)，新聞本就為讀者提供快捷短期的資訊服務(wù)，沒有人會(huì)把“新聞紙”當(dāng)成藏之名山的專著來看待。然而，對(duì)有自我要求的作者而言，這種說法，只是皮相之談。網(wǎng)絡(luò)用語的過分使用，最大的問題，不在于時(shí)效性，而是它與作者的書寫誠意、寫作態(tài)度直接有關(guān)。

一個(gè)寫作者，最難處理的關(guān)系，就是如何把握他與讀者之間的距離感，即“分寸感”。一般而言，新聞?dòng)浾?，因?yàn)閷懽饔忻鞔_的目標(biāo)或定位，與讀者的距離較近;獨(dú)立作者、學(xué)者，與受眾的距離稍遠(yuǎn)，為追求文本的嚴(yán)肅性和獨(dú)立性，甚至?xí)室馀c公眾保持一定的距離。

考古學(xué)如果是一門嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)?shù)膶W(xué)術(shù)，新聞?dòng)浾呷绻且环N嚴(yán)肅的事業(yè)，那么，從業(yè)者就應(yīng)該是大家心目中定位的“學(xué)者”或“作家”。學(xué)者和作家，最可貴的品質(zhì)，是“自由”與“獨(dú)立”，有公信力的作者，其思考與表達(dá)應(yīng)該是獨(dú)立而嚴(yán)肅的，盡管誰都無法做到百分百的“獨(dú)立”，但是文章的獨(dú)立姿態(tài)，哪怕只是形式上的獨(dú)立，其實(shí)也很重要。作者與讀者之間的分寸感，如何拿捏？故作高冷，固然不好;刻意迎合，則尤不見佳。過分使用熱詞的作者，會(huì)讓讀者認(rèn)為他是個(gè)“趨時(shí)”的人，甚至?xí)橛喜糠肿非髪蕵坊喿x的讀者，輕易放棄自己的獨(dú)立姿態(tài)。使用網(wǎng)絡(luò)用語和蹭熱點(diǎn)，也許確實(shí)會(huì)贏得更多的讀者，但不足以補(bǔ)償對(duì)文本公信力、對(duì)作者獨(dú)立形象造成的傷害。

子曰“今之學(xué)者為人，古之學(xué)者為己”，我們也不妨說“記者之文為人，作者之文為己”?！坝浾摺备酁樽x者考慮，“作者”在服務(wù)讀者的同時(shí)更看重自我境界的提升。誰也無法明確說明，作者與讀者之間的距離，究竟多遠(yuǎn)算遠(yuǎn)、多近算近。這種微妙的平衡感，決定于不同人的天賦和價(jià)值觀，取決于優(yōu)秀作者與一般作者的分別，不在文辭，而在于講述的“分寸感”。

一個(gè)真正的寫作者，誰又不是在“為人”和“為己”之間反思、搖擺和掙扎呢？

《看見5000年》最讓我欣喜的，正是作者在“分寸感”上的進(jìn)步，對(duì)一個(gè)認(rèn)真的記者或作者——以文字為職業(yè)的人而言，沒有比這更重要的了。她依然會(huì)用網(wǎng)絡(luò)熱詞，偶爾也會(huì)打幾個(gè)“以今例古”的比方，但點(diǎn)到為止，恰到好處，在內(nèi)容的時(shí)效性和嚴(yán)肅性之間尋求平衡;在重大考古成果呼之欲出之際，她欣喜;在尋找良渚文化發(fā)現(xiàn)者施昕更先生墳?zāi)刮垂畷r(shí)，她傷感;在良渚古城申遺成功之后，抒情之余，又有大段的議論。無論如何，這一切都建立在扎實(shí)的敘述之上，這些文本又在抒情、議論和記錄之間尋求平衡。讀過《尋找施昕更》一章的讀者，大概都對(duì)馬黎扎實(shí)的采訪和記錄印象深刻，同時(shí)也會(huì)為一個(gè)生活在亂世的普通“愛國者”的人生而動(dòng)容，說到底，都是理性與情感的平衡。

考古發(fā)掘的對(duì)象，本是古人日常生活、生產(chǎn)中的尋常物事，本質(zhì)上，并無神秘可言。今人之所以感覺茫然或神秘，主要因?yàn)檫@些文物，脫離了歷史的時(shí)空和脈絡(luò)，游離于具體的人物和故事以外，變成了一顆顆不知來自何處、去向何方的流星。講好考古故事，最大的困難，大多在于此——將殘缺的、無序的遺物，盡可能準(zhǔn)確地還原到具體的歷史時(shí)空和背景中去，猶如天文學(xué)家通過演算，將脫軌的流星還原到它最初出現(xiàn)的地方。這也是我們判斷一個(gè)學(xué)者學(xué)術(shù)能力和作者講述能力的主要標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。漢唐以后的歷史時(shí)期考古，有文獻(xiàn)的輔助，將文物還原到具體歷史場(chǎng)景的工作可能相對(duì)容易，而史前考古的挑戰(zhàn)性顯然大很多，它對(duì)講述者敘述、抒情、議論的“分寸感”的要求高了不止一點(diǎn)點(diǎn)。我們對(duì)講述者的能力評(píng)判，除了歷史還原能力，另一個(gè)重要的維度，依然還是“分寸感”的拿捏，在記錄、議論、抒情中的“分寸感”，無所不在。一流講述者與二流講述者的區(qū)別，不在于知識(shí)，而在于前者有更好的分寸感。《看見5000年——良渚王國記事》，在科學(xué)與人文、實(shí)證與推測(cè)、學(xué)術(shù)與生活，甚至在獨(dú)立姿態(tài)與市場(chǎng)需求、象牙塔與大眾口味之間平衡的“分寸感”，令人刮目相看，而這正是一流文化記者的標(biāo)志。

良渚古城的發(fā)現(xiàn)和“申遺”成功，是數(shù)十年如一日的長期事業(yè)。馬黎幾乎跟蹤采訪了與良渚古城相關(guān)的所有重大考古發(fā)現(xiàn)，采訪了與良渚考古、保護(hù)、利用領(lǐng)域相關(guān)的所有重要人物。她是良渚考古長期的旁觀者、參與者、講述者和傳播者。作為記者，長期堅(jiān)持，投身其中，為讀者提供更好的文字;作為作者，努力寫作，不停反思，可以做成一件事，也能變化氣質(zhì)，讓自己成為一個(gè)更好的人?！坝浾咧臑槿耍髡咧臑榧骸?，《看見5000年——良渚王國記者》正是一個(gè)記者和作者獻(xiàn)給讀者和自己的最好禮物。

（作者系浙江省文物考古研究所副所長。）

It was about seven or eight years ago that I first came across Ma Lis writings. Back then， she just joined the Qianjiang Evening News and was assigned the culture beat.

Mas archeological reporting has been quite popular with readers， the secret of which is none other than her closeness to archeological sites： whenever new archeological findings are excavated， she is always among the first on the scene. Invariably humble and with a sense of propriety， Ma is one of those journalists that archeologists are willing to talk to. In each of her stories， Ma is able to dig out one or two “news nuggets” without fail from the archeologists impartial and even unemotional account， weave the ancient items into contemporary life and see the real people behind.

The last part， a highly prized skill， is hard to come by in practice. It is taken for granted that humans should be the focus of humanities. However， in different subjects， the concept of “humans” or “people”， greatly varies. In literature， they are the destinies and living conditions of concrete human beings. In historiography， they are either specific figures， such as Sima Guang and Yue Fei， or a collective， i.e.， a group of people， such as official-scholars， farmers， merchants. It is much easier to turn the experiences of these people into good stories. Thats why 70%-80% of popular books are from literature and history. On the contrary， a big obstacle stands in the way of making archeological findings compelling stories. More often than not， in ancient ruins and relics， especially for pre-historical societies with no written records， there are no “people” to speak of. What there are， are usually “abstract human beings” in the anthropological sense. How to connect the pieces and fragments of antiquity， solve the jigsaw puzzle， and more importantly， put together a story that is relatable and palatable to contemporaries is a quite difficult task.

Thats precisely what Ma Li has accomplished. In her book 5，000 Years： Chronicles of the Liangzhu Kingdom， Liangzhu Ancient Citys cultural archeological history， its layout， its architecture， its tombs， its people and the bid for it to become a “World Heritage” are all described in vivid details， a reliable record of the “Liangzhu Story” and a template for effective communication. In other words， Ma has found a new way in turning scholarly pre-historical archeological research into something that an average reader can easily understand.

But it was not achieved overnight; the book is a result of the authors many trials and tribulations.

Her writings back then were certainly unlike what they are today. Indeed， an aspiring author will most likely read his or her past writings with disdain， as their knowledge， tastes and even values change over time. Ma is no exception： she would often resent her immature early writings. One of the hallmarks of her reporting is the extensive use of internet slangs. Another is piggybacking on news events. These are common tricks in news reporting， the benefits of which are apparent： they are easily accessible to contemporary readers and can help them quickly， if superficially， understand the artefacts. The drawbacks are also obvious： internet slangs pop up as fast as they fade， and so do the news reports that rely heavily on them. Many journalists accept it with ease; after all， news is for the readers quick consumption， and no one will treat “newspapers” as classic books.

However， for Ma， and those like her， who aspires to be serious authors， writing in the conventional reporters way is far from enough. Whereas news reporters are expected to write in a much more accessible manner， in a serious field as archeology， authors are expected first and foremost to keep some distance away from the readers and write as independently， credibly and authoritatively， as possible.

It is this sense of distance that is the most difficult for an author to deal with， especially when presenting archeology to the general public. Too many internet slangs or whatever is in the vogue to pander to the current fad， the authors and their works may be perceived as too frivolous; too many jargons and too much academese， they risk turning away the readers.

What delights me most in 5，000 Years： Chronicles of the Liangzhu Kingdom is how the author has matured in handling the “distance”. Internet slangs are still used for sure， but only to the extent that they help aid the readers gain a deeper understanding of Liangzhu. When significant archeological findings were made， she was overjoyed; when the tomb of Shi Xingeng， the first archeologist who had discovered the Liangzhu ruins， was still nowhere to be found， she was dejected; when Liangzhu Ancient City became a UNESCO world heritage， her commentary， in addition to her emotional feelings， has made the part a captivating read. Indeed， in the chapter “Looking for Shi Xingeng”， Mas extensive interviews and thorough research undoubtedly impress; at the same time， her portrait of Shi， a patriot living in a period of turmoil， is destined to touch readers.

Science and humanity， empirical research and educated guesses， scholarly endeavor and daily life， in-depth investigation and plain language…the book has handled the balance deftly and Ma is now an indisputable first-class culture reporter and author.

Over the years， Ma has covered almost every major discovery of the Liangzhu ruins， and interviewed every major figure responsible for Liangzhus archeological survey， its protection and its bid to become the world heritage. She is a longtime observer， participant， narrator and communicator of the Liangzhu story. 5，000 Years： Chronicles of the Liangzhu Kingdom is the best gift that Ma the reporter and the author is now presenting to the readers.