本文从历史背景,学科发展,个人魅力和具体贡献比较了20世纪两位最伟大的考古学家柴尔德和宾福德的影响力。文章对名气和影响力做了区分,认为要成为具有影响力的学者要比有名气困难得多。显然,这种影响力是学者本人洞察力和所作贡献的体现,表现为不满足于现状和传统,勇于探索的创新精神。而且,这种影响力往往要在这些学者过世后才会显现,而他们身前往往因为与传统或现状有所冲突而备受争议,饱受批评和压制。柴尔德因为欣赏当时苏联考古学的马克思主义方法而丢掉饭碗,二战后被美国政府拒绝入境。宾福德因挑战传统而遭遇被推迟授予博士学位、被美国顶尖大学解雇和到69岁才入选美国科学院院士的坎坷。他的遭遇几乎是沃尔特·泰勒的翻版,但是与泰勒只能离开考古学界相比,宾福德因影响了新一代年轻学者而名满天下,最后扭转乾坤,使过程考古学最终成为20世纪下半叶的范式。柴尔德和宾福德难分伯仲,他们都是20世纪考古学范式的奠基人,前者在20世纪初建立了文化历史考古学的范式,而宾福德在20世纪中叶建立了过程考古学的范式。范式的变化是科学的革命,他们两位为考古学带来的变革,从学科发展和科学史上的影响力而言,怎么评价也不会过分。柴尔德与宾福德身上所具备的特质,可能正是我们所欠缺的。中国的文化传统过于强调传承,削弱了创新和探索的能力。如果中国考古学要对世界考古学界产生影响,那么造就像柴尔德与宾福德这样的变革者也至关重要。 This article compares the influence of the two greatest archaeologists of the 20th century, Childe and Binford, with historical background, subject development, personal charisma and concrete contributions. The article makes a distinction between fame and influence and considers it much more difficult to become an influential scholar than famous. Obviously, this kind of influence is the reflection of the scholars’ own insight and contribution, which is manifested in an innovative spirit that is not satisfied with the status quo and tradition and is brave enough to explore. Moreover, such influences often appear only after the scholars have passed away, and they are often subject to controversy, criticism and suppression by themselves because of their conflicts with traditions or the status quo. Childe lost his job because he admired the Marxist method of Soviet archeology at that time and was refused entry by the U.S. government after World War II. Binford suffered a delay from being awarded a doctorate due to his challenging tradition, being dismissed by the top universities in the United States and being a 69-year-old member of the American Academy of Sciences. His encounter was almost a replica of Walt Taylor, but compared to Taylor’s departure from archeology, Binford became famous worldwide for influencing a new generation of young scholars and finally turning things around to make process archeology eventually become the 20th century Half-leaf paradigm. Both Childe and Binford were inextricably linked, all of whom were the founders of the 20th century archeology paradigm that established the paradigm of cultural and historical archeology in the early 20th century, and Binford set up process archeology in the mid-20th century Paradigm. The paradigm shift is a scientific revolution. The two revolutions they brought about for archeology will not be overestimated in terms of the influence of discipline development and history of science. The qualities of Childe and Binford may be exactly what we lack. China’s cultural tradition places too much emphasis on heritage and undermines its ability to innovate and explore. If Chinese archeology is to have an impact on the world’s archaeological community, it is also crucial to create changers like Childe and Binford.