时惟礼崇
出版日期:2014-10
ISBN:9787532572722
作者:徐坚
页数:250页
内容概要
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。
书籍目录
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）
作者简介
《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。
发布书评
精彩书评 (总计4条)
-
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#1Like 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. -
《时惟礼崇》一书是徐坚教授在其2000年写成的博士论文《战争与礼仪：中国早期的青铜兵器》的基础上，结合十来年的考古最新成果凝结而成。本书旨在打破固有的理论模式，运用宾福德的文化系统和层次理论为指导，结合罗樾对中国古代青铜器研究的传统范式，从青铜兵器的形制分析、社会价值和精神价值三个角度，尝试探讨新形势下的青铜兵器文化研究模式。本书的导论部分，旨在梳理关于青铜兵器的传统研究方法。在徐坚看来，研究青铜兵器的传统方法有两种，一种是中国自宋代以来的金石学传统，考察的样本基本都是考古埋藏学情境遗失之后孤立出现的器物。另一种是依托于西方考古学理论，自1928年李济先生主持挖掘安阳开始的考古学传统，用田野考古学来揭示有准确的层位和组合关系等情境的考古挖掘品（第9页）。这两类方法所考察的青铜器虽然在形制上有些类似，但是分别探究的物品数量有限且都片面孤立，如果可以用统一客观的第三种研究方法，完整研究所有的器物，可以获得更深层次的阐发。而在徐坚看来，宾福德的文化系统和层次理论是能够合理嫁接“传统金石学”与“现代考古学”的桥梁。宾福德在其1968年出版的著作《考古学新视野》的导言中指出，考古学的三个基本目标分别是复原文化史、生活方式和描述文化过程，而传统考古学在第三个目标上是毫无意识的，而新考古学采用了“新方法”，即基于观察的假设通则化总结和检验过程的方法论 。这一理论构架是继承了海登•怀特的“系统”观念。 怀特将文化区分成技术—经济、社会和意识形态三个层面，而宾福德的“系统”是由不同部件构成的相互关联、功能完整的文化系统。（第7页），而他眼中的考古学文化系统被划分为技术、社会组织和意识形态三个子系统，任何特定的器物都是由着三个子系统的统一体组成，而非仅限于其中之一 。在徐坚先生看来，这样基于文化性质的系统研究可以打破金石学与考古学的固有模式，对于重新将青铜兵器的定名与分类可以做整体性的考察。（第15页）而最基础的技术和经济层面的研究是本书理论观察的出发点，以及建构青铜兵器社会意义和意识形态作用的基础。作者在本书的第一章中试图通过分析如铜戈、铜剑、甲、胄、钺等古往今来的典型青铜兵器而梳理出这些典型器物从二里头文化时期到西周末期的形制发展脉络，发现青铜兵器在早期形制简朴注重杀伤性，而越往历史后期其外沿的纹饰越丰富，且混有部分金银成分，其身份价值、礼仪价值更为彰显，此类等量齐观的功能化和美术化倾向标明，贯穿青铜兵器的生产、流通和使用环节都兼具“符号”和“器具”属性（第85页）。在本书的第二章，作者试图通过分析青铜兵器所出土的具体情境来分析青铜兵器的社会价值和精神价值。作者仍是以历史发生时间由远及近的模式分别探讨了河南偃师二里头、湖北黄陂盘龙城、江西新干大洋洲、山东益都苏埠屯、安阳殷墟、陕西长安张家坡、洛阳马坡北窑、山西曲沃晋国墓地、琉璃河燕国墓地、浚县卫国墓地、平顶山应国墓地、上村岭虢国墓地、曲阜鲁故城等重要历史遗址为根本来探讨典型的青铜文明情境下的青铜兵器的个性特点。这一部分的举例虽然详实，但是后半部分分列各地诸侯国的墓地，大多同时存有两周时代的墓地遗址，这种分析是否客观，还是有先入为主的地方特色的分析之嫌。在第三章，作者试图通过探讨青铜兵器的意识形态意义而诠释青铜兵器的历史意义。在社会意义层面，青铜兵器随着时代发展，其表面的形制与纹样日趋复杂，从单纯的战争武器到代表高贵身份属性的贵族墓葬陪葬品。在意识形态层面，从商代直至东周前期，一方面，当时的人类并没有产生男尊女卑的思想，尤其像安阳殷墟出土的妇好墓此类奢华的女性墓地，也引起了作者关于性别考古学，或者说是女权考古学的思考。（第156页）另一方面，青铜兵器越来越呈现出青铜礼器的特质，这不由得让作者想到与青铜礼器更为相似的玉制兵器。在中国古代的先秦时代玉制品的发展脉络与青铜制品的发展脉络相对独立，但也有所关联。本书最后一章，试图探究青铜兵器、玉制兵器与青铜礼器三类不同性质的青铜器物的发展脉络，勾勒出东周时代青铜礼器形成的背景因素。在第一章探讨典型青铜兵器器型由来时，作者指出像是戈、矛等武器是中原地区最初原创的，甚至从二里头文化开始就出现，但如勾、钺这一类代有“弯钩”面的青铜兵器大多来源于北方游牧文明，而类似甲、胄等彰显防御作用的青铜兵器出现的时代较晚，至少是西周中后期的产物。通过分析器型性质及其历史而因此说明中华文明是多源头的，多支文化汇聚到了中原地区，最终形成了我们现在为世人熟知的中华文化圈，这一点极具启发意义。作者论及东周之前的脉络时间线上仍然有些许问题，在笔者看来。本书的探讨有一个前提预设，既是探讨为何东周时期四分五裂的中原大地诸国都产生了极具自己地方特色的青铜器。但本书探讨了青铜兵器的商周变化，但并没有仔细探讨到底是从什么时代开始西周各地诸侯国的青铜兵器的形制与西周首都京畿地区的青铜文化出现了分途。在本书的第二、三章中都有相当的篇幅讨论春秋时期各地诸侯国典型墓葬当中的西周时期的墓葬的地方特色，这种从历史后期的定型结构中去挖掘前期成因的方法，是否影响了客观系统的梳理脉络过程，还需更加妥帖的加以论证。长久以来，中国古代考古学总是致力于考古挖掘的记录，少有理论性的探索研究，徐坚的这部著作给了我们更多义理层面的诠释与阐发，功不可没。 -
在近代传统的唯物主义之下，“理论”被认定是一种“主观”而在实践上遭到拒斥。我们需要在哲学与社会科学的理论上深化理解“考古学理论”，消除这一种偏见。理论奠基在我们的经验与理性思辨之上，构建起来的结构体系，本身就是一种可能性，有待于新经验的试错。宏大抽象的和琐碎经验的都不足以我们去作为一种范式。徐坚老师的《时惟礼崇》就是“中层理论”实践的典范之一。
精彩短评 (总计17条)
-
并不是科普读物，适合专业学者论文参考使用或兵器鉴定研究使用。第一章是考古学史，第二章、第三章是考古发掘报告，第四张最后青铜器与玉器此消彼长观点非常独到！ -
視界與衆不同，非常受益，考古學的新時代會否因此到來？ -
要，出土陪葬青铜兵器——礼器。肯定受巫鸿影响了。十年前的博士论文完善~最近写了不少网络随笔~ -
不如想象中好 -
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！ -
这大概会是最后一次购买坚爷的书了，你的风格已经不是我的菜啦！ -
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。 -
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！ -
有理论，有实例，有继承，有追求，佳作。 -
此书在某些方面并未完成作者的自我期许，但已经是一本优秀考古学著作；对中国考古学方法论的反思以及对西方考古学方法论的引入、实践，无疑为后来者提供了一个良好的模型。 -
基础扎实，角度新颖，还真的挺好看的。 -
徐坚的书，是能读懂的带有理论性质的书；方法很重要。 -
理论分析的实践。虽然很有意思但是似乎没有达到作者的预期目的。 -
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。 -
一个耗时漫长的路标 -
以物质文化研究方法，摆脱传统考古学就物论物，由物质回溯技术经济、社会组织、精神意识三个层面，分离出青铜兵器作为器具、标识和象征的体现。然而，考古发掘是采样过程，所获资料并非完整，难以准确反映历史全貌；物质是观念的转型形式，两者非一一对应，且其转型极具文化特殊性，难以跨文化理解；形态演化不一定反映社会群体性的变迁，更像艺术史分析中局部、个性化的变迁；中国出土的青铜器是等级化特征表现强烈的墓葬器，难以得出普遍性推论。作为辅助性线索的玉兵，其被替过程是早期中国礼制转型的重要物化侧面，但绝非全部，还包括不可见或被消耗的物质，仅以铜器复原青铜时代中国是片面甚至是误导。另，新石器到青铜器不一定是生产力的线性增长，但必然以国家崛起和社会生产再分配变革为特征，是社会复杂化达到要求建立区域性集权统治形式的结果 -
男性主义考古学的典范～～～