时惟礼崇 pdf mobi txt 2024 电子版 下载

《时惟礼崇：东周之前青铜兵器的物质文化研究》以考古学文化系统理论为主要框架，从技术－经济、社会和意识形态三个层面重新阐释东周之前的青铜兵器。在技术层面上，规避了蒙特柳斯式类型学的社会化大生产和渐进演化等预设观念，采纳兼具通则观念和历史特定性考量的物质文化分析方法，提出了青铜兵器形式风格的功能化和美术化两个倾向。在社会层面上，《时惟礼崇：东周之前青铜兵器的物质文化研究》提出物质性、空间性和学术史三种情境概念，提炼出戈－矛组合和钺－刀组合等社会等级表达方式，揭示了作为社会区分标识的物质的内部多元和复杂程度。在意识形态层面上，尝试以认知考古学和情境考古学思路局部复原青铜兵器的文化归属、性别认知和信仰与禁忌。对与铜兵长期并存、相互影响的另一条线索——玉兵的讨论表明早期中国礼制体系的多元和互动本质。

因此，《时惟礼崇：东周之前青铜兵器的物质文化研究》提出，青铜兵器就是青铜礼器，单纯依靠唯一材质甚至唯一器类复原早期中围礼制制度是危险而误导的。针对宾福德的经典理论，《时惟礼崇：东周之前青铜兵器的物质文化研究》在方法组合、系统的界定、考古学观察的适用范围等方面也做出相应调整和完善。

序（李伯谦）

致谢

引论

考古学文化系统观念下的青铜兵器

0.1 超越物质形态的青铜兵器：从作为物证的物质走向超越文本的物质

0.2 重新观察青铜兵器的体系：宾福德的考古学系统观念

0.3 研究范式的转型：学术史的观察

0.4 青铜兵器的定名与分类

0.5 东周之前青铜兵器的考古学文化系统观：结构与方法

第一章 青铜兵器的形式分析：从蒙特柳斯式类型学到物质文化分析方法

1.1 形式风格分析的适用性和方法选择

1.2 东周之前的青铜兵器的形式谱系

1.3 东周之前青铜兵器的纹样分析

1.4 青铜兵器形态的功能化和美术化倾向

第二章 青铜兵器的社会层面意义：情境分析方法

2.1 界定考古学情境

2.2 作为学术史情境的商和西周考古学

2.3 东周之前青铜兵器个案的情境分析

2.4 作为社会标识的青铜兵器

第三章 青铜兵器的精神层面意义：认知考古学或者情境考古学取向

3.1 认知过程主义考古学和情境主义考古学

3.2 青铜兵器的文化归属表达

3.3 青铜兵器的性别认知和建构

3.4 青铜兵器的禁忌和信仰

第四章 早期中国的玉质兵器：从辅助线索到多元景象

4.1 早期中国玉质兵器的发现和研究

4.2 玉质兵器的形态分析

4.3 玉兵的多元特征：以玉戈为中心

4.4 金石之缘

参考文献要目

插图目录

继续前行（代跋）

徐坚

毕业于北京大学考古文博学院，现任中山大学历史学系教授。曾任美国巴德学院访问助教授、法国人文研究基金会爱马仕学人、中山大学高等人文研究院驻院学人和日本创价大学访问教授。曾主持英国大英图书馆、美国温纳一格兰人类学研究基金会、美国国家地理学会和日本住友财团等资助的多项研究计划。专业领域包括考古学、艺术史、早期文明研究、物质文化和文化遗产研究。近期研究兴趣包括中国考古学史和博物馆史、以器类和工艺为中心的物质文化研究、南中国和东南亚大陆地区的青铜时代考古、区域研究和濒危文化研究。

暂无出版社相关信息，正在全力查找中！

暂无相关书籍摘录，正在全力查找中！

在线阅读地址：时惟礼崇在线阅读

在线听书地址：时惟礼崇在线收听

在线购买地址：时惟礼崇在线购买

暂无原文赏析，正在全力查找中！

书籍介绍

《时惟礼崇：东周之前青铜兵器的物质文化研究》以考古学文化系统理论为主要框架，从技术－经济、社会和意识形态三个层面重新阐释东周之前的青铜兵器。在技术层面上，规避了蒙特柳斯式类型学的社会化大生产和渐进演化等预设观念，采纳兼具通则观念和历史特定性考量的物质文化分析方法，提出了青铜兵器形式风格的功能化和美术化两个倾向。在社会层面上，《时惟礼崇：东周之前青铜兵器的物质文化研究》提出物质性、空间性和学术史三种情境概念，提炼出戈－矛组合和钺－刀组合等社会等级表达方式，揭示了作为社会区分标识的物质的内部多元和复杂程度。在意识形态层面上，尝试以认知考古学和情境考古学思路局部复原青铜兵器的文化归属、性别认知和信仰与禁忌。对与铜兵长期并存、相互影响的另一条线索——玉兵的讨论表明早期中国礼制体系的多元和互动本质。

因此，《时惟礼崇：东周之前青铜兵器的物质文化研究》提出，青铜兵器就是青铜礼器，单纯依靠唯一材质甚至唯一器类复原早期中围礼制制度是危险而误导的。针对宾福德的经典理论，《时惟礼崇：东周之前青铜兵器的物质文化研究》在方法组合、系统的界定、考古学观察的适用范围等方面也做出相应调整和完善。

• 作者：韧勉 发布时间：2015-05-05 16:59:04

  试图梳理从兵器到礼器的过度因素，以西方考古学体系、与后现代哲学、艺术学的理念来梳理中国古代青铜兵器的发展体系，受罗樾影响过深，强调义理性的诠释，不过关于墓地青铜兵器性质的探讨，虽然是东周前，但大多选取春秋诸国之墓地，是否有前提预设来探讨地域差异之嫌。

• 作者：鵬鵬 James 发布时间：2014-12-24 11:21:13

  理論之提煉與材料之互動，都達到爐火純青程度。但是最後沒有提綱挈領的總結總覺得缺點兒什麼。值得反覆細讀。

• 作者：迟枣 发布时间：2015-02-09 15:11:48

  很喜欢其中几段，主要是看这种书，信息量很大却不会觉得累，笔直的思维直线非常清楚，作者也能讲清楚想传达的。大神！

• 作者：8号机 发布时间：2016-12-20 13:23:51

  结合了宾福德新考古学和后过程情境考古等理论，在研究方法和开拓视野上给予我很大的启发，比如首章对考古学史的梳理是层次丰富的，随后在大量材料对比之后分析金石之间存在此消彼长的角色转换关系，强调了从器物研究社会复杂化进程的过程中不能聚焦在单一器物上，而要考虑多元线索等等。对我本人的毕业论文有很大的帮助呢。不愧是男神！

• 作者：欧阳十三大人 发布时间：2022-11-22 08:57:17

  我一直认为，好的故事是带着使命感的，这本书就是关于中国近现代的医疗故事，公众对这块的了解实在太少了。当年那些波澜壮阔的事迹，只停留在学术专著和一些回忆录里，乏人问津。马伯庸在一次无意的参观中迸发灵感，带着责任感完成了它，结合当下现实看，可能会有更多感悟，“你不关心时局，时局也会来关心你”。

• 作者：JX 发布时间：2014-10-16 15:31:11

  一个耗时漫长的路标

• 作为现象学的考古学

  作者：辄馨 发布时间：2014-12-28 10:55:46

      中山大学历史系的徐坚教授最近出版了《时惟礼崇——— 东周之前青铜兵器的物质文化研究》，恰好我也研究“三代”，研究青铜器的制作原料，还关心先秦时期铜矿原料的获取手段，唯独对兵器疏于认识，正好就用这本著作取长补短。

      我们知道，东周以前基本上流行青铜器，再往后铁器开始流行，铜器在当时生活和考古发掘中的比例显著下降。青铜是一种铜、锡、铅的合金，这几种矿石主要都分布在中国的南方，具体是长江以南。商、周时期的人们都热衷获取这些矿石原料，从而引发物质、人口和文化的流动，比如说商、周远征淮夷的战争，就与江南的铜矿石有着密切关系。

      当这些远方的铜料流入王朝的核心地带，相当大规模的铜器作坊就开始工作，矿石被加工成各种样式的青铜器皿。其中的样式非常繁多，有鼎、簋、罍、卣、爵、尊等等种类，分给与王室有关的重要人士，通常是在战争中立功，或者是新任诸侯即位得到王室的认可，有的可能是因为诸侯去世。许多器物上往往还撰有赠予这些器物的原因，因此我们才有机会了解它们的用途和意义。这些青铜器在主人去世之后，大部分还会随着一同下葬，等待上千年之后被后人挖出，重见天日。由于在《仪礼》等文献中会提到器物的具体搭配和数目，对应不同的社会等级，因此，在考古发掘中出土的用来体现墓主具体身份、地位的随葬品，又被称为礼器。

      礼器其实是一个非常宽泛的分类。我曾经开玩笑地和人说过，凡是考古展览中，标明“礼器”的物品，通常暗示，今天包括研究者在内，都没搞清这件器物的具体用途，这个庞大的分类中，我们可以举出：玉璧、玉琮、玉璋，其实都不知道原来是怎么用的。当然，礼器不仅是随葬品，按照《论语》“天下无道，则礼乐征伐自诸侯出”这句的讲法，礼器在诸侯活着的时候就已经在用了，只是诸侯死后与其一起下葬。所以礼器很可能包括诸侯生前的大部分物品，比如青铜制成的食器、酒器，乐器，还有竹木漆器。鉴于青铜食器、酒器或是乐器体量巨大，通常还有重要的铭文留下，所以一直被视作礼器类别的最主要构成。然而，我们很可能忽视了在墓葬中还占据非常大比例的“兵器”，徐坚认为，兵器也是礼器的一部分，不提兵器，礼器就不完整了。这就是《时惟礼崇》这本书说的第一个意思。

      研究礼器有什么意思呢？一方面可以证明古代中国是个等级严密的礼仪之邦，另一方面可以显示研究者的博大精深。因为光是这些器物的名字，比如，在食器这个大类下面，就有鼎、鬲、甗、簋、簠、盨、敦这几种，对于一般非研究者认全这几个字儿也挺有难度大，我有时也要看着说明牌的拼音才不会念错。再拿鼎来说，虽然许慎的《说文》里讲了，“鼎，三足两耳，和五味之宝器也”，我们头脑中能想到的比如有“后母戊方鼎”或者“大克鼎”，但这就有两类了，一种是四足方鼎(商代)，一种是三足圆鼎。再按照鼎的足来分，就可以分为锥足、扁足、柱足还有蹄足。这有什么讲究呢，锥足和扁足基本出自商代且锥足更早，柱足和蹄足则是周代才出现的，再加上鼎耳的变化，种类就更多了。由于不同年代不同地区生产的铜鼎具有一定的稳定性，那么对于没有明确出土情况，或者没有铭文或其他断代材料一同出土的器物，也可以按照其基本形状或纹饰判断大致情况，这就是一种考古类型学，也可以说是现象学在考古中的应用。这意味着，对于普通观众而言基本差不多的一大类青铜器，在考古学者眼中，其实存在非常众多的差异，并能提取相当丰富的信息。比如说，考古研究者根据山西临汾陶寺遗址“礼器组合种类齐全……看不出‘重酒好酒’的倾向。这也大大不同于后来二里头至殷墟王朝以酒器为主的‘酒文化’礼器组合”判断，该遗址与河南偃师二里头遗址缺乏直接联系的判断，在逻辑上是可以接受的。

      如徐坚所言，“从二里头时期开始，青铜兵器就已经成为墓葬器物组合的重要成分，并一直持续到秦汉时期，其丰富程度仅次于青铜容器”，说明青铜兵器其实很应该研究。前人把食器、酒器、乐器这些“青铜容器”研究得很透彻了，但对于兵器除了分为戈、矛、铍、戟、斧钺、短剑、铜刀、矢镞和盾这几类外，就没有深入的讨论了。一方面原因可能在于，除了少数有铭文外，如越王勾践剑等，基本没有文献价值，即使有字在数量上也远不如铜盘、铜鼎的表面积巨大，所以在以往难免被人忽略。

      那么青铜兵器是否并无研究价值呢，答案是否定的。和青铜鼎的样式多变一样，青铜兵器也有非常丰富的变化。而且研究方法和青铜容器一样，同样适用现象学。这是《时惟礼崇》这本书说的第二个意思。以铜戈为例，徐坚延续李济的构想，将其分为两大类，分别是夹柲戈和銎式戈，又各有两个亚型，一共四种。实际上就按照装柄的方式进行分类，夹柲戈就是把像匕首一样的戈绑在木柄上，而銎式戈就像锄头一样，后面有个孔直接把柄插在里面就可以了。接下去，还可以从商周之间的时段和流行地域上进一步衡量。这种基于具体兵器比如矛、戟的类型学研究可以延伸到所有达到一定出土数量的兵器。

      此外，从“情景分析”的角度，在一个遗址中，兵器与礼器的数量对比，放置位置、种类，以及是否在埋藏前有过认为折断的痕迹，都可以成为观察和提取信息的一部分。比如，提出了“戈-矛组合和钺-刀组合等社会等级表达方式”。当然，在作者多次强调下，我需要突出一下这项“物质文化”研究，通过现象学分析，我们可以从青铜容器之外的铜兵器、玉器之外获得很多以往没有注意到的信息。

      但不得不承认的一点是，其实我们现在还很难非常有效地利用这部分信息。考古类型学的确能给某个较大的理论范式提供可靠的证据，但始终无法独立支撑一种准确的推断。因为我们始终难以评估，所掌握的出土材料，占当时生活的比重和程度。同时，中国考古学传统中，注重“礼制”的研究范式，或许也难以概括生活的全貌。“礼”并非一个当代学术语言中的词汇，当我们将其“翻译”过来的时候会发现，这个宽泛的拥有“社会等级、行为规范”等多重含义的术语，其实缺乏一个更具体明确的指代对象。那么，今天的考古者，究竟要通过被称作“礼器”的物质文化遗存，揭示一种颇为模糊的社会范畴，还是回答另一些我们更关心、也更易于给出思考空间的问题。比如，这些物品的生产，原料的运输和交换，以及背后的再分配体系，都是一个值得探索的问题。

  来源：南方都市报 2014年12月28日 星期日 编辑：南都 版次：GB15 版名： 社科

  http://epaper.nandu.com/epaper/C/html/2014-12/28/content_3368375.htm?div=-1

• Review of Jian Xu, A Material Culture Study of Bronze Weapons before the Eastern Zhou Dynasty

  作者：鵬鵬 James 发布时间：2016-10-01 05:20:44

  Published in Frontiers of History in China, vol. 11, no. 3 (September, 2016)

  http://journal.hep.com.cn/fhc/EN/10.3868/s020-005-016-0027-3#1

        Like elsewhere in the world, weaponry in China has long been regarded as the symbol of warfare and violence. Hitherto much scholarly attention has been given to the Shang (ca. 1,600-1,046 BCE) and Zhou bronze eating and drinking vessels, as well as to musical instruments, without an equivalent understanding the significance of the contemporary bronze weapons, which are extent in a surprising quantity. To fill the gap, in this groundbreaking book revised from chapters of his Ph. D. dissertation at Peking University, Jian Xu brings together the much-overlooked ritual implication embedded in the bronze weapons of early China, covering the span from the Erlitou culture (ca. 1,800-1,500 BCE) to the Western Zhou period (1,046-771 BCE).

         As the title reveals, Xu has sought to re-examine bronze weapons within the theoretical framework of material culture. Despite the fact that material culture as an interdisciplinary arena of inquiry has been widely acknowledged within Anglo-American academia, the introduction of this Western invention into Chinese scholarship is still in its infancy. According to Anke Hein, Chinese archeology has a strong typology-oriented tradition “that is based both on local traditions of historiography and antiquarianism and the nature of early Western archaeological endeavors in China, and has strongly political determinants as well.” [1] Following this parameter, in the Introduction, when Xu discusses the complex scholarship on bronze weapons of early China, two major approaches are apparent. The antiquarian approach embraces a tradition, tracing back to the Northern Song period (960-1,127 CE) when important scholarly writing took up found and collected objects under the rubric of “studies of metal and stone” (jinshi xue金石學), that is, more liberally, “studies of bronzes and stone inscriptions.” Celebrated by antiquarians for their textual and historiographic values, bronze objects’ archaeological information has been downplayed or edited out when being collected and catalogued. By contrast, the other approach focuses on archeological discoveries in situ, which marked the beginning of modern Chinese archaeology basically surrounding the 1928 excavation of the sites at Anyang Yinxu, Henan, which were led by Li Ji 李濟 (or Li Chi, 1896-1979) (p. 9). From Xu’s view, except for few like Max Loehr (1903-1988), most scholars who adopted either of these two approaches─which are confined to incomplete materials─have innate defects in their formalistic analyses. Divergent and even conflicting naming and classifying systems of bronzes weapons based on previous approaches also impede further understanding (p. 17). Departing from past scholarship, therefore, Xu adapts the American archeologist Lewis R. Binford’s (1931-2011) theory of three archaeological systematics─technological, social organizational, and ideological—modified by Binford based on the cultural anthropologist Leslie A. White’s (1900-1975) categorization of cultural systems.[2] Such a framework, as it is argued, focuses on investigating material objects as cultural products and “lies in the shared frame of thought that culture is defined by human behavior.” [3] With this multi-dimensional conceptual tool, as thoroughly analyzed by the following four chapters based on a comprehensive and systematic database, Xu treats bronze weapons as material agents through which a broader and more complex cultural system can be peeked into.

       

        Dealing specifically with Binford’s first dimension, Chapter One probes bronze weapons’ stylistic developments, ornaments, and metallurgic information. It begins with Xu’s methodological reflection on Gustav O. Montelius (1843-1921)’s typological paradigm, which has long remained dominant, and seems continue to be so, in the field of Chinese archaeology. Covering archaeologically excavated burials, public and private collections, the bronze weapons concerned are classified as the dagger-axe (戈 ge), spear (矛 mao), halberd (戟 ji), axe (斧鉞 fu yue), sword/dagger (短劍 duan jian), knife (刀 dao), arrowhead (矢鏃shi zu), helmet (胄 zhou), and armour (甲 jia). According to Xu’s formal analysis, stylistic changes of weapons serve to differentiate whether a specimen was intended as a utilitarian instrument, or as a “sign” which is highly decorated. Xu argues that the interaction of two elements─functional and non-functional─played a crucial role in dynamic changes of bronze weapons before the Easter Zhou. While the functional element features utilitarian designs intended for military use and killing, and the non-functional element features superfluous ornamentation such as graphic carvings and inlaid turquoise, one can find that neither of the dual natures of weapons can completely rule out the other.

        In order to reveal the role of bronze weapons in social stratification, Chapter Two reconstructs the burial contexts of excavated specimens. With emphasis on their material contents and spatial distribution, the burials include such well-known sites as the pre-Shang Yanshi Erlitou (Henan), the Shang cemeteries at Panlongcheng in Wuhan (Hubei), Xin’gan Dayangzhou in Jiangxi; also Western Zhou cemeteries at Zhangjiapo near Xi’an city (Shaanxi), Mapo and Beiyao in Luoyang, to name only a few. Although all of these burials’ occupants were aristocrats, some were even kingly elites, but the variety of combinations of bronze weapons with other excavated objects within burial space has yet to be intensely studied. Take the burials of Panlongcheng (M1, M2, M11) as an example, although scattered in separated places, bronze ritual vessels and weapons were mostly found outside the coffin on the second tier of the tombs, thus suggesting that they share the intended value for the deceased. In general, when compared with the widespread combination of dagger-axes and spears, the rare combination of axes and knives from late Shang tombs indicates the occupants’ higher ranking (p. 146). On the other hand, bronze specimens’ variations in type, quantity and combination also indicate chronological, cultural, and regional differences.

        Under the influence of White’s cultural neo-evolutionism, Binford tends to view material tools’ dynamic mechanics as a focal part of humans’ technological means in his treatment of social processes. Therefore, Binford’s technological-cultural orientation, as Xu rightly puts it, fails to recognize objects’ religious/ritual expression and cultural relativism (pp. 149-150). Building on his criticism regarding Binford’s defect, Xu’s three case studies presented in Chapter Three follow the perspective of cognitive and contextual archaeology [4]─two theoretical syntheses of New Archaeology readily available to his interpretation for bridging the material and symbolic aspects of archaeological finds. (1) With the focus on willow-leaf shaped swords, he shows the ways in which the roles that bronze weapons played in different cultural zones—signifier of cultural identity, valuable items, or prestigious goods—express diverse social values. (2) Inspired by Katheryn Linduff’s studies of gender in Chinese archeology, particularly the case of Fu Hao from late Shang Anyang, Xu points out that, except for those from the tombs at Tianma-Qucun, bronze weapons were also buried with female occupants, suggesting that weapons did not necessarily express masculinity in the Shang and Zhou cultures (pp. 160-161). (3) The Chinese archaeologist Guo Baojun 郭寶鈞 (1893-1971) has keenly proposed the “beaten tomb (毆墓 ou’mu)” hypothesis, according to the Rites of the Zhou (Zhouli), to explain why many bronze dagger-axes’ and halberds’ blades were found broken during his excavation of the Western Zhou cemetery at Xincun, located in Xunxian, Henan (p. 162). Based on Guo’s widely-acknowledged interpretation, Xu further argues that, compared with the late Shang period, the deliberate destruction of dagger-axes and halberds became more evident and widespread among Western Zhou burials, and probably thereby developed into a regular worship practice.

        Made with precious material that was strictly control by the ruling elites, jade weapons in early China, given their scarcity and ritual significance in burials, are taken up in a comparative study of contemporary bronze weapons in Chapter Four. Archeological data demonstrate that several types of stone or jade weapons dating to the late Neolithic period, such as the axe, dagger-axe and knife, predate the bronze counterparts and had an impact upon their early designs. Most distinctive are jade axes featured in ritual practices of the Liangzhu culture, developed in the Lower Yangzi region around 3,400-2,300 BCE. Jade weapons, particularly the dagger-axe, had gradually declined in quantity and size by the Eastern Zhou (ca. 770-255 BCE), along with their shifting role from the ritual emblem to ornament-oriented accessory (p. 205). The stylistic and symbolic interaction between jade and bronze weapons, as Xu suggests, constitutes a parallel development to understanding the diversity of social and ritual symbolism in the Chinese Bronze Age.

        Even without a concluding chapter, Xu has convincingly shown us that bronze weapons before the Eastern Zhou as a whole deserve being equally perceived and treated as ritual artifacts in their own right. By challenging the preoccupied dichotomy between ritual artifact and utilitarian instrument, this book also offers a close study of objects driven by a shared academic agenda in fields of Early China in particular and Chinese archaeology in general. Although why the Eastern Zhou has been excluded from his discussion remains to be specified, and a critical reader may raise questions of how and why the end of the Western Zhou, alongside political turmoil and ritual reform, marks a radical impact on bronze weapons, Xu is fully aware of the potential bias brought by archaeological evidence. Theoretically and practically, this book incorporates pioneering Western conceptual tools into Chinese scholarship and its local contextual analyses, thus making a welcomed attempt in the rising Chinese New Archaeology.

  Footnotes:

  [1] Anke Hein, “The Problems of Typology in Chinese Archeology,” Early China 2015.18, 3.

  [2] Lewis R. Binford, “Archaeology as Anthropology,” American Antiquity 28.2 (Oct., 1962): 217-225. White divides culture as a whole into three categories: technology, social system, and philosophies, see Leslie A. White, The Science of Culture: A Study of Man and Society (New York: Grove Press; London: Evergreen Books Ltd, 1949): 392.

  [3] Lewis R. Binford, “Archaeological Systematic and the Study of Cultural Process,” American Antiquity 31.2 (Oct. 1965): 203.

  [4] For theoretical developments and practices of these two archaeological syntheses within the wave of New Archaeology, see Ian Hodder and Hudson Scott, Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), especially chapter 2 “Processual and system approach” and chapter 8 “Contextual archaeology”; Colin Renfrew and Chris Scarre eds., Cognition and Material Culture: The Archaeology of Symbolic Storage (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1998); Colin Renfrew, “Towards A Cognitive Archaeology: Material Engagement and the Early Development of Society,” in Ian Hodder ed., Archaeological Theory Today (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2012): 124-145; Colin Renfrew and Paul Bahn, Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice (London: Thames & Hudson, 2012): 381-420.