房地产合同管理（房地产开发与管理专业适用） pdf mobi txt 2024 电子版 下载

暂无相关简介，正在全力查找中！

暂无相关目录，正在全力查找中！

暂无相关内容，正在全力查找中

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：房地产合同管理（房地产开发与管理专业适用）在线阅读

在线听书地址：房地产合同管理（房地产开发与管理专业适用）在线收听

在线购买地址：房地产合同管理（房地产开发与管理专业适用）在线购买

暂无原文赏析，正在全力查找中！

暂无其它内容！

• 作者：水草女 发布时间：2023-06-10 17:17:55

  记录和孩子一起的亲子阅读

• 作者：momo 发布时间：2021-01-05 10:36:05

  考试最后一道题考了这本书的最后一章，我爱

• 作者：半糖原味奶茶 发布时间：2020-04-26 16:38:52

  知道胡是大二实习的时候，写稿找资料搜到一篇她公众号的文章，觉得文末的名片实在可爱，于是关注，一直至今。

  四十四天，一场恋爱的幻想到覆灭，某些时候觉得和胡很像，“迷信”第六感，喜欢聊天，热衷交换，对那个他有很多很多的幻想……不知道是不是我们想的太多，还是太过期待，以至于每次以为是那个人的时候，却还是发现差一点，差一点自己也说不清道不明的东西。

  真的太喜欢这本书的设计了，无论是封面排版字体还是插画！

  这本书给我的感觉，就像前段时间刷的小短剧《我的前任日记》，普通平实到就像是我自己的经历一样。

• 作者：败走恶犬 发布时间：2014-04-08 19:32:43

  David Crystal还真高产。。

• 作者：momo 发布时间：2021-09-05 19:52:31

  薄薄小小的一本，正适合周末动车上乘车时间的消遣。

  虽然没揭示出什么大道理，但很有故事性可读性蛮强的。有点让人想起了以前小时候看的故事会，还蛮有意思的。

• 作者：Ashely星石 发布时间：2022-03-05 14:21:46

  不看之前只是觉得蹊跷，看了之后豁然开朗 。翻译有点烂。很轻松读一本书

• 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.

• 与子同行且补课 ——谈《汤普森心理童话药书》

  作者：爱与自由 发布时间：2013-05-27 14:58:14

  周作人曾无奈地谈道中国缺乏儿童读物。他指的是，我们既缺乏给儿童读的作品，也缺乏愿意给儿童写读物的作者。时间过去近百年，其实这个状况并没有得到改善。

  家父去世之后，我急忙带着母亲走了几个地方，其中一个香港的迪斯尼公园。对母亲来说，那是一个傻乐的地方，是的，傻乐，就是又傻又欢乐。我带她去那里就是为了感受一下，确实有一种人生是傻乐状态的，而且不仅仅是儿童傻乐，成人也可以。迪斯尼是成人仿制的儿童世界，模仿的儿童心理世界，最符合儿童的天真狂野的幻想。如果你去过迪斯尼，你便会了解那个天真狂野，确实是儿童式的，虽然是幻想，但是特别简单，单纯，那种简单的思维和逻辑固然让成人发笑，但是成人也会随着孩童的脚步，把自己简单化，分享一下幼稚的欢乐。

  回家后，母亲感慨，美国人竟然那样过生活，貌似“没意思”，但是简单，快乐，太不可思议了。在餐桌上，我建议先生也去一趟。我的父亲，母亲，先生，和我，都是没有童年的人。出生于八十年代之前的中国人都没有童年。

  周作人的时代是一个旧时代，以老为尊，社会和家庭都没有儿童的地位，更何况专门为取乐和发展儿童服务的迪斯尼。儿童读物少少，更是理所必然。我成长的时代，正在提倡艰苦朴素，社会上没有富人，“穷人孩子早当家”，人们早早老成懂事，进入柴米油盐生活风雨，根本没有童年的概念。至于儿童读物，那更是寥寥，并且内容一般也都是战天斗地干革命的。

  现在这一代人终于成为社会中坚。下一代如雨后春笋，清新而势不可挡地占据了我们的生活。社会富裕了，新的家庭伦理出现了，儿童有了地位和权利。在他们身上，我们突然发现了自己失落已久的童年。同时，我们发现，没有童年的成年人，不会处理下一代的童年。我们既缺乏自己的经验，也缺乏父辈经验的帮助。中国人的孩子终于有了童年了，整个社会却都是惶恐的。“小太阳”，“小皇帝”，“独生子女”，“小公主”，这些有问题的称谓，指向的是父母在儿童生活中的无能和无助。

  《汤普森心理童话药书》可以帮助你。它保持着美国人一贯的“傻乐”的精神，不仅帮助你处理亲子关系中的基本问题，而且对于缺乏童年经验的成年人来说，将是一本很好的补课书。

  这套童话药书，将儿童生活中的基本问题归类整理，教你怎样跟孩子相处，并且帮助有需要的孩子摆脱恐惧，走向“傻乐”的人生。它巧妙地将怕黑、怕打针、怕见医生、怕孤独、怕嘲笑、怕生人等等这些常见的孩子气的心理问题，转化为简单的技术问题，并且用极简单的技术来解决。这是它的高明之处。从心理学上来说，将一切情结用技术处理，然后交给时光来沉淀和转化，是避免儿童成人后心理阴影和思维定势的最好办法。

  这本药书的作者是儿童心理学大师琳达•汤普森，她跟读者分享了三十多年与儿童相处的正面经验。其核心思想是交给儿童一套面对儿童世界的思维方式，让孩子能够主动面对儿童生活中的困扰和困难，并且能够主动地去解决。久而久之，此类思维训练就会成为孩子面对世界的第一反应，伴随他成长。于是这套正面的思维方式，会对他的人生产生持久而积极的影响。

  作为儿童心理药书，这本书的读者并非儿童，而是儿童的父母，老师，与儿童打交道的人群。积三十余年之经验，琳达向读者推荐的最好最有效的经验是“想象力催眠”，已经有确切的证据表明，自我催眠也是在向世界催眠，通过巧妙地改变主观意识心态，从而使得孩子更有勇气面对打针、生病、拔牙等具体的身体病痛，消除怕生人怕睡觉的心里困扰，孩子成人后会更积极地面对无常的人生。

  作为读者，我不免也想要分享一下自己的阅读体验。

  前面已经说过，我们都是没有童年的成年人。但是，这并不意味着我们没有童年印象。刚张开纯真的眼睛，儿童看到的世界的颜色，都是最新鲜的，最美好的。我们对于芳草鲜花的美好印象，来自于最初的童年的记忆。当我们一遍遍阅读汤普森女士的童话故事，其实过去的一切会回来，并且借助成人的知识和阅历，会自动帮我们补课。你看书中所描绘的世界：“彩虹，每一层的美丽的颜色；海滩，每一粒洁白的晶莹的沙粒；鲜花，每一朵花每一片花瓣的不同的香气……”。作为催眠的手段，海浪的描绘是不可少的，而每一次海浪的卷过来的浪花，退回去的波浪的姿势，向你远远地涌来的涨潮的声音，还有蓝天白云天光云影，其变化万千是如此迷人而让人沉醉……

  我复习了我的童年，于是，我真的感觉，我的童年完整了。

  我和母亲，对于这本药书，还有一种中国式的分享。有一天，母亲高兴地对我说：“我发现茶台上那本书很有意思，是给儿童写的，但是大人也可以看，那里面的内容很有趣。”我说，“是吗，你觉得里面催眠的方式怎样？”母亲说，“挺好的。真的能让人放松。”过了两个礼拜，母亲无意地说道，她的失眠和头痛已经有了相对彻底的缓解。先生也说，母亲的气色好多了。我们的相处，也变得简单而快乐多了。

  想必你也猜到了，那本书当然不是无意地出现在茶台上的。