《时惟礼崇》书评

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

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.

青铜礼器等同于青铜兵器

《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。

考古研究上“中层理论”的推土机

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。

作为现象学的考古学

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