时惟礼崇：东周之前青铜兵器的物质文化研究徐坚上海古籍出版社【现货实拍 可开发票 下单速发 正版图书】 在线下载 pdf mobi 2025 epub 电子版

《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：东周之前青铜兵器的物质文化研究徐坚上海古籍出版社【现货实拍 可开发票 下单速发 正版图书】在线阅读

在线听书地址：时惟礼崇：东周之前青铜兵器的物质文化研究徐坚上海古籍出版社【现货实拍 可开发票 下单速发 正版图书】在线收听

在线购买地址：时惟礼崇：东周之前青铜兵器的物质文化研究徐坚上海古籍出版社【现货实拍 可开发票 下单速发 正版图书】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：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：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：JX 发布时间：2014-10-16 15:31:11

  一个耗时漫长的路标

• 作者：Elact 发布时间：2014-04-21 20:41:20

  开山宗师的书籍，有点晦涩和结构不清，不是普通人能轻易看懂的。需要一个能理解大师同时用简单语言向大众解释大师精要的中介人作家。

• 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。

• 考古学器物研究的革命

  作者：巴郎少年 发布时间：2018-10-26 10:42:53

  和作者的其他两本书相比，这本书的读者可能会少一些，因为作者也曾经提到，这是专门提供给研究者的，但是对于考古学乃至器物研究来说，这本书的革命价值一点都不逊色。

  长期以来，考古学和艺术史的器物研究都采用了简单的不严谨的模式，实际上是无法做到“透物见人”的，而这本书给学生们展示了如何实现透物见人，见物知世的途径。

  而且，作者也没有盲从宾福德，难能可贵地表现出反思过程主义考古学，走向具有历史关怀的考古学的勇气和审慎。

• 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.