What do you think?
Rate this book
夏商周：从神话到史实
该书运用不同的史料，从各种角度观察夏商周神话所隐藏及不予刊载的史实。作者着重于中国青铜时代的历史，将出土资料和传世史料相互对照，重新思考早期国家形成的历程。上编“多元文明与集权之滥觞”，由考古事实贪求中国集权政体的形成，包括殷商之前的中国记忆殷商建国的情形，并分析殷商王族的属性以及他们的生活方式和信仰；中编“政权承前启后：殷周王室的关系”，从考古与传世文献探讨商周王室和两国历史阶段之间的关系；下编“商周文献中历史观念形成脉络考”，着重讨论古代历史观念的形成脉络。
Kindle Edition
First published November 1, 2013
2 people are currently reading
14 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
May 29, 2014
Way Out of the Maze of History
Olga Gorodetskaya. Xia Shang Zhou: Cong Shenhua Dao Shishi [Xia, Shang, Zhou Dynasties: from Myths to Historical Facts]. 537 pages, 150 b&w illustrations. 2013. Shanghai: Shanghai Ancient Books Press; 978-7-5325-6759-1 hardback ¥148.
A few months ago, I learnt that Professor Olga Gorodetskaya is going to publish her new book, Xia Shang Zhou: Cong Shenhua Dao Shishi (literally Xia, Shang, Zhou Dynasties: from Myths to Historical Facts). Now the long waiting has come to an end and a 1-inch thick book is sitting on my desk. It is affecting when I look back at the research history of the formation of Chinese civilization and the exploration of the early historical era, a few generations of scholars has spent their entire career lives in solving the puzzle. I have been luckily to take part in this challenging quest, and I truly understand that it has never been an easy task. The history of the Three Dynasties has been hiding in the fog. As our understanding to the topic accumulate, so do our misunderstandings, bias and assumptions grow. But after reading this book, I feel relieved, just like walked through the maze, solved the puzzle, and the truth revealed in front of me.
This book is based on a large amount of research materials. It comes with 70-page of bibliography, which included references from ancient to recent; and considered the rise of Chinese civilization in a macroscopic perspective. The author has taken a multi-disciplinary and question-oriented approach in conducting this research. Relevant evidences and theories from historical texts, Archaeology, Anthropology and Natural Science have all been employed to solve the historical puzzle. Her insight leads her away from the disciplinary bias, historical preconceptions and social prepossession, and helps her focuses on the basic questions by following the most fundamental development pattern of civilizations in human history. The answer she gave in the book is extraordinary; nonetheless it is persuasive.
At the very beginning, this book is motivated by the author’s observations the cultural continuity of Erlitou, Zhengzhou Sheng City and Yanshi Sheng City (hereafter refer these two cities as Zheng-Yan); and the differences between them and Yinxu. During her research and writing of this book, the greatest difficulty and challenge come from academic paradigm and “common senses” formed long time ago. In 1917, Wang Guowei has confirmed that the king list of Yin written in the Records of the Grand Historian is mostly agree with the study of oracle bones excavated from Xiaotun. His study has two important influences: (1) it increased the Chinese scholars’ confidence that the written history of the Three Dynasties is accurate; and (2) made the “double-evidence methodology” popular in the studies of History and Archaeology in China. In the later study of Xia-Shang Dynasty, the written records have become the primary evidence and the archaeological materials become secondary. Based on the believe that if the king list of Yin in the Records of the Grand Historian is believable, the king list of Xia in it would also believable; people has started to look for archaeological remains of Xia Dynasty in the China Central Plain according to their understanding and faith to the written records. When the archaeological site of Erlitou was discovered, many scholars have believed that the site belongs to “Xia Culture”, as the geographical location and the archaeological dating of the site match with the written records describing Xia Dynasty. And the archaeological site of Yanshi is believed to be a city of Early to Mid-Shang Dynasty with the similar reasoning. Nowadays, these believed conclusions have written in school textbooks, and formed a rigid paradigm and “common sense” among people.
Benefit from the author’s rich experience in the study of formation of Chinese classic texts and cross-cultural comparing study, she has an insight that those written records describing the “history” before Qin Dynasty could be recognized as “myth”. She has emphasized that myths create and comprehend “historical facts”, these are patterns found in historical studies of many places of the world, and there is no exception in China - Yellow Emperor, Zhuanxu, Yao, Shun and Yu – are some stories of this kind. The stories of Chengtang defending Xia, and Wuwang defending Shang described by those transmitted texts (opposite to written texts discovered or unearthed archaeologically), are very similar, this is clearly a kind of mythologized historical structure. Historical myths have a key difference when compared to myths without historical meaning; historical myths demonstrate a civilization/state’s ideology, and interpretations of its formation, growth, failure-and-victory and hero-and-enemy. Many myths of Shang and Zhou Dynasties in surviving texts were not written in texts until Eastern Zhou Dynasty. And based on those oral and fragmented written records, scholars in Warring States Period, Qin and Han Dynasties have tried to understand the development of earlier history, and to write historical works. The writers of the time would have written down the stories in a form that, inevitably, based on their backgrounds and understandings. Although, transmitted texts are not wholly fabricated, they have their own special internal values and political purposes; there are difference between them and objective historical facts. In other words, transmitted texts cannot represent objective facts, and they only show political dogmas, which originated from Zhou Dynasty and matured in Han Dynasty. This unitary historical view of the Three Dynasties was the most appropriate view under the ideology of “a unified state” for the Han Empire.
Therefore, the study of the Three Dynasties must overcome and break through the gap of knowledge and thought generated by ideological unification made during Qin and Han Dynasties, and try our best to reconstruct some key components of history and culture of the Three Dynasties. In this kind of study, especially historical research before Yin Shang, we should consider those written records as metaphoric description, and avoid trapped by ideological bias of the time. Instead of struggling on the literal meanings of the words, we shall focus on the structural relationship behind all those descriptions. In comparing transmitted texts with archaeological materials, texts are second-hand data while archaeological one is first-hand. Thus, we shall remember to use archaeological materials as primary evidences and use texts as supporting evidences.
In some transmitted texts dominated Xia-Shang Dynasty Studies, the spatial concept of the texts are adopted, and used as the key reference in forming corresponding relationship between archaeological cultures and ethnic groups represented in texts. However, in spatial analysis, the concepts of center and peripheral are relative; and as the time changes, center can drifted and/or reversed. If we look into transmitted texts, especially those trying to interpret the spatial concept of early myths, we will found that all texts are placed in the spatial background and setting of empires established since Zhou Dynasty, centered itself at Zhengzhou-Luoyang area, and identify Shandong area as Eastern Yi District; Hubei and Hunan area as Nanman District. Two thousand years of “Zheng-Luo Centrism” (the tradition of viewing Zhengzhou-Luoyang as the center of China in history) has led to misunderstanding in researches of ancient cultures and history. In response to the situation, the author suggests that the concept of “Central Plain” shall take its geographical meaning – plain area in the center. It is a board plain reaching Yellow River at the north; Daba Mountain at the east; Dabie Mountains at the west; and the southern edge of Dongting Plain. This vast plain is ideal for agriculture, and the lower reaches of Han River would be the geographical center of the Plain.
In the last decade, many archaeological discovery in the Yangtze River basin and Yan Mountains area, especially a large number of prehistoric large settlements, walled settlements and burials, have questioned the traditional presumption of “Zheng-Luo Centrism”. Because of this, different scholars, such as Su Bingqi, Yan Wenming, and Fei Xiaotong, have proposed different models, but all of them agree that the Chinese civilization rises from multi-origin. The only question left here is “how they unified to from a major civilization in China?”
In order to answer this question, the author approaches from a wider perspective of world history, the geographical locations of all other early civilizations in Asia and Africa were born in the humid subtropical climate zone, and located between 26° to 32° north latitude. Area further north started the civilization process only in later period of time. Moreover, the origins of agriculture can also be found in the same area where early civilizations were formed.
Based on the above observations, the Yellow River basin is less likely to be the area forming early civilization, but more likely to be a major route of transportation for different groups of people during the expansion of civilizations. In considering the development of archaeological cultures, only those archaeological cultures located in the middle reaches of Yangtze River basin have formed a continuous cultural lineage. People in this area has devoted in rice agriculture as their major subsistence strategy from the very beginning. They have entered the Copper Age and Bronze Age in the Qujialing period and Shijiahe period respectively. Multi-state and trade networks were formed in the area along the swamps and rivers, which demonstrated the beginning of the earliest civilization process in the East Asia, that similar to the development of Sumer.
This book also argues that Qujialing Culture and Shijiahe Culture have already reached the southern bank of Yellow River middle reaches, this situation last until the end of Erlitou-Panlongcheng period.
Panlongcheng is generally considered as “the southern city of Shang people”. However, the author, after studying the latest archaeological findings, suggests that Panlongcheng was the biggest and richest city-state controlled many different kinds of important resources of the area. The material culture of Panlongcheng had a lot of characteristics developed from Shijiahe Culture, it shall not be considered as a result of cultural diffusion from Erligang. Panlongcheng was possibly the largest center of centralized multi-state civilization. This civilization may called “Shang”, or other name they would call themselves, but it matches with the “Shang civilization” before Yinxu was built as a capital at north. The person named “Tang” written in Chuci and Yue Jueshu maybe a hero of the south. Based on the archaeological findings that Shijiahe declined while Panlongcheng rose, the story of Chengtang defending Xia may just telling this hidden fact. “Shang” or “Tang” maybe one of the dynasty in this Chu Civilization, or it could be referred as “South Shang” (different from the royal house of Yin Shang), with influence reaching Zheng-Luo area. This does not mean that Panlongcheng and Yanshi were cities of the same state, they might be different individual states but belonged to one larger civilization. This civilization had a center at the Jianghan Plain, and Zheng-Luo was under the influence of this center.
In about 3,500BP, ethnic groups from the north came down to south and established Yinxu. After about another hundred years, they defeated Panlongcheng and claimed themselves as “Shang”. Slowly, they adsorbed the stories of “South Shang” for their own, in order to justify their legitimacy and to claim as the inheritor of the previous local political power. Since then, the original earliest civilization of Jianghan Plain was buried in written texts of later time.
The author believes that there were many examples in world history. The hagiography of a loser often becomes the glorified history of a victor. In Western Asia, the Amorites borrowed the history of the Sumerian, made the Sumerian’s ancestral kings to be their own holy king; the Hittites, in turn, borrowed history of Babylon, and merged the histories of these two groups of people again, and complicated biographies of their ancestral kings. The complication had not solved well, until recent archaeological findings and researches cleaned it up. The victory of ethnic groups from the north in China not only allowed them to control the land and resources of the south, but also owned their achievements and stories of heroes.
The Great Wall has witnessed the history of cultural exchanges and invasions of southern agricultural civilizations and nomadic-warlike civilizations. As the author suggests, the invasions from the north, would have started in about 2,000BC, when the climate became cooler. At this time nomadic-warlike parties from Asian Steppe invaded the south frequently. The middle reaches of Yellow River were the north-south dividing line; Erlitou and Zheng-Yan were the northern strongholds of the agricultural civilization of the south. However, the defense was finally broke by Yin Shang royal house, with their horse chariots and military power. After established their capital Yinxu, they occupited the Central Plain, and adopted a sedentary lifestyle. They merged their culture with the southern cultures; borrowed their written characters and created bone script. Yin Shang was actually the earliest empire of East Asia; it built upon the successes of the preceding cultures of East Asia, but also started a new chapter of East Asia civilization.
The author has avoided bias and paradigm formed in the tradition historical studies of the Three Dynasties and the ideology of a unified empire, appeared since Qin Dynasty. She approached the question critically, focuses on archaeological findings, and play attention to all other relevant theories, discipline and data. It is an excellent attempt and a new perspective to the study of early civilization of China. The view of this book is macroscopic, an argument of this scale has to build upon many smaller arguments with some details yet to be polished. Nevertheless, the academic discussions put forward by this book; and future historical and archaeological researches and findings concerning the topic, would certainly benefit our understandings of the Three Dynasties and the early civilization of China.
Guo Lixin
professor
Department of Anthropology, Sun Yat-Sen University, CHINA
Email: guolxnj@163.com
Olga Gorodetskaya. Xia Shang Zhou: Cong Shenhua Dao Shishi [Xia, Shang, Zhou Dynasties: from Myths to Historical Facts]. 537 pages, 150 b&w illustrations. 2013. Shanghai: Shanghai Ancient Books Press; 978-7-5325-6759-1 hardback ¥148.
A few months ago, I learnt that Professor Olga Gorodetskaya is going to publish her new book, Xia Shang Zhou: Cong Shenhua Dao Shishi (literally Xia, Shang, Zhou Dynasties: from Myths to Historical Facts). Now the long waiting has come to an end and a 1-inch thick book is sitting on my desk. It is affecting when I look back at the research history of the formation of Chinese civilization and the exploration of the early historical era, a few generations of scholars has spent their entire career lives in solving the puzzle. I have been luckily to take part in this challenging quest, and I truly understand that it has never been an easy task. The history of the Three Dynasties has been hiding in the fog. As our understanding to the topic accumulate, so do our misunderstandings, bias and assumptions grow. But after reading this book, I feel relieved, just like walked through the maze, solved the puzzle, and the truth revealed in front of me.
This book is based on a large amount of research materials. It comes with 70-page of bibliography, which included references from ancient to recent; and considered the rise of Chinese civilization in a macroscopic perspective. The author has taken a multi-disciplinary and question-oriented approach in conducting this research. Relevant evidences and theories from historical texts, Archaeology, Anthropology and Natural Science have all been employed to solve the historical puzzle. Her insight leads her away from the disciplinary bias, historical preconceptions and social prepossession, and helps her focuses on the basic questions by following the most fundamental development pattern of civilizations in human history. The answer she gave in the book is extraordinary; nonetheless it is persuasive.
At the very beginning, this book is motivated by the author’s observations the cultural continuity of Erlitou, Zhengzhou Sheng City and Yanshi Sheng City (hereafter refer these two cities as Zheng-Yan); and the differences between them and Yinxu. During her research and writing of this book, the greatest difficulty and challenge come from academic paradigm and “common senses” formed long time ago. In 1917, Wang Guowei has confirmed that the king list of Yin written in the Records of the Grand Historian is mostly agree with the study of oracle bones excavated from Xiaotun. His study has two important influences: (1) it increased the Chinese scholars’ confidence that the written history of the Three Dynasties is accurate; and (2) made the “double-evidence methodology” popular in the studies of History and Archaeology in China. In the later study of Xia-Shang Dynasty, the written records have become the primary evidence and the archaeological materials become secondary. Based on the believe that if the king list of Yin in the Records of the Grand Historian is believable, the king list of Xia in it would also believable; people has started to look for archaeological remains of Xia Dynasty in the China Central Plain according to their understanding and faith to the written records. When the archaeological site of Erlitou was discovered, many scholars have believed that the site belongs to “Xia Culture”, as the geographical location and the archaeological dating of the site match with the written records describing Xia Dynasty. And the archaeological site of Yanshi is believed to be a city of Early to Mid-Shang Dynasty with the similar reasoning. Nowadays, these believed conclusions have written in school textbooks, and formed a rigid paradigm and “common sense” among people.
Benefit from the author’s rich experience in the study of formation of Chinese classic texts and cross-cultural comparing study, she has an insight that those written records describing the “history” before Qin Dynasty could be recognized as “myth”. She has emphasized that myths create and comprehend “historical facts”, these are patterns found in historical studies of many places of the world, and there is no exception in China - Yellow Emperor, Zhuanxu, Yao, Shun and Yu – are some stories of this kind. The stories of Chengtang defending Xia, and Wuwang defending Shang described by those transmitted texts (opposite to written texts discovered or unearthed archaeologically), are very similar, this is clearly a kind of mythologized historical structure. Historical myths have a key difference when compared to myths without historical meaning; historical myths demonstrate a civilization/state’s ideology, and interpretations of its formation, growth, failure-and-victory and hero-and-enemy. Many myths of Shang and Zhou Dynasties in surviving texts were not written in texts until Eastern Zhou Dynasty. And based on those oral and fragmented written records, scholars in Warring States Period, Qin and Han Dynasties have tried to understand the development of earlier history, and to write historical works. The writers of the time would have written down the stories in a form that, inevitably, based on their backgrounds and understandings. Although, transmitted texts are not wholly fabricated, they have their own special internal values and political purposes; there are difference between them and objective historical facts. In other words, transmitted texts cannot represent objective facts, and they only show political dogmas, which originated from Zhou Dynasty and matured in Han Dynasty. This unitary historical view of the Three Dynasties was the most appropriate view under the ideology of “a unified state” for the Han Empire.
Therefore, the study of the Three Dynasties must overcome and break through the gap of knowledge and thought generated by ideological unification made during Qin and Han Dynasties, and try our best to reconstruct some key components of history and culture of the Three Dynasties. In this kind of study, especially historical research before Yin Shang, we should consider those written records as metaphoric description, and avoid trapped by ideological bias of the time. Instead of struggling on the literal meanings of the words, we shall focus on the structural relationship behind all those descriptions. In comparing transmitted texts with archaeological materials, texts are second-hand data while archaeological one is first-hand. Thus, we shall remember to use archaeological materials as primary evidences and use texts as supporting evidences.
In some transmitted texts dominated Xia-Shang Dynasty Studies, the spatial concept of the texts are adopted, and used as the key reference in forming corresponding relationship between archaeological cultures and ethnic groups represented in texts. However, in spatial analysis, the concepts of center and peripheral are relative; and as the time changes, center can drifted and/or reversed. If we look into transmitted texts, especially those trying to interpret the spatial concept of early myths, we will found that all texts are placed in the spatial background and setting of empires established since Zhou Dynasty, centered itself at Zhengzhou-Luoyang area, and identify Shandong area as Eastern Yi District; Hubei and Hunan area as Nanman District. Two thousand years of “Zheng-Luo Centrism” (the tradition of viewing Zhengzhou-Luoyang as the center of China in history) has led to misunderstanding in researches of ancient cultures and history. In response to the situation, the author suggests that the concept of “Central Plain” shall take its geographical meaning – plain area in the center. It is a board plain reaching Yellow River at the north; Daba Mountain at the east; Dabie Mountains at the west; and the southern edge of Dongting Plain. This vast plain is ideal for agriculture, and the lower reaches of Han River would be the geographical center of the Plain.
In the last decade, many archaeological discovery in the Yangtze River basin and Yan Mountains area, especially a large number of prehistoric large settlements, walled settlements and burials, have questioned the traditional presumption of “Zheng-Luo Centrism”. Because of this, different scholars, such as Su Bingqi, Yan Wenming, and Fei Xiaotong, have proposed different models, but all of them agree that the Chinese civilization rises from multi-origin. The only question left here is “how they unified to from a major civilization in China?”
In order to answer this question, the author approaches from a wider perspective of world history, the geographical locations of all other early civilizations in Asia and Africa were born in the humid subtropical climate zone, and located between 26° to 32° north latitude. Area further north started the civilization process only in later period of time. Moreover, the origins of agriculture can also be found in the same area where early civilizations were formed.
Based on the above observations, the Yellow River basin is less likely to be the area forming early civilization, but more likely to be a major route of transportation for different groups of people during the expansion of civilizations. In considering the development of archaeological cultures, only those archaeological cultures located in the middle reaches of Yangtze River basin have formed a continuous cultural lineage. People in this area has devoted in rice agriculture as their major subsistence strategy from the very beginning. They have entered the Copper Age and Bronze Age in the Qujialing period and Shijiahe period respectively. Multi-state and trade networks were formed in the area along the swamps and rivers, which demonstrated the beginning of the earliest civilization process in the East Asia, that similar to the development of Sumer.
This book also argues that Qujialing Culture and Shijiahe Culture have already reached the southern bank of Yellow River middle reaches, this situation last until the end of Erlitou-Panlongcheng period.
Panlongcheng is generally considered as “the southern city of Shang people”. However, the author, after studying the latest archaeological findings, suggests that Panlongcheng was the biggest and richest city-state controlled many different kinds of important resources of the area. The material culture of Panlongcheng had a lot of characteristics developed from Shijiahe Culture, it shall not be considered as a result of cultural diffusion from Erligang. Panlongcheng was possibly the largest center of centralized multi-state civilization. This civilization may called “Shang”, or other name they would call themselves, but it matches with the “Shang civilization” before Yinxu was built as a capital at north. The person named “Tang” written in Chuci and Yue Jueshu maybe a hero of the south. Based on the archaeological findings that Shijiahe declined while Panlongcheng rose, the story of Chengtang defending Xia may just telling this hidden fact. “Shang” or “Tang” maybe one of the dynasty in this Chu Civilization, or it could be referred as “South Shang” (different from the royal house of Yin Shang), with influence reaching Zheng-Luo area. This does not mean that Panlongcheng and Yanshi were cities of the same state, they might be different individual states but belonged to one larger civilization. This civilization had a center at the Jianghan Plain, and Zheng-Luo was under the influence of this center.
In about 3,500BP, ethnic groups from the north came down to south and established Yinxu. After about another hundred years, they defeated Panlongcheng and claimed themselves as “Shang”. Slowly, they adsorbed the stories of “South Shang” for their own, in order to justify their legitimacy and to claim as the inheritor of the previous local political power. Since then, the original earliest civilization of Jianghan Plain was buried in written texts of later time.
The author believes that there were many examples in world history. The hagiography of a loser often becomes the glorified history of a victor. In Western Asia, the Amorites borrowed the history of the Sumerian, made the Sumerian’s ancestral kings to be their own holy king; the Hittites, in turn, borrowed history of Babylon, and merged the histories of these two groups of people again, and complicated biographies of their ancestral kings. The complication had not solved well, until recent archaeological findings and researches cleaned it up. The victory of ethnic groups from the north in China not only allowed them to control the land and resources of the south, but also owned their achievements and stories of heroes.
The Great Wall has witnessed the history of cultural exchanges and invasions of southern agricultural civilizations and nomadic-warlike civilizations. As the author suggests, the invasions from the north, would have started in about 2,000BC, when the climate became cooler. At this time nomadic-warlike parties from Asian Steppe invaded the south frequently. The middle reaches of Yellow River were the north-south dividing line; Erlitou and Zheng-Yan were the northern strongholds of the agricultural civilization of the south. However, the defense was finally broke by Yin Shang royal house, with their horse chariots and military power. After established their capital Yinxu, they occupited the Central Plain, and adopted a sedentary lifestyle. They merged their culture with the southern cultures; borrowed their written characters and created bone script. Yin Shang was actually the earliest empire of East Asia; it built upon the successes of the preceding cultures of East Asia, but also started a new chapter of East Asia civilization.
The author has avoided bias and paradigm formed in the tradition historical studies of the Three Dynasties and the ideology of a unified empire, appeared since Qin Dynasty. She approached the question critically, focuses on archaeological findings, and play attention to all other relevant theories, discipline and data. It is an excellent attempt and a new perspective to the study of early civilization of China. The view of this book is macroscopic, an argument of this scale has to build upon many smaller arguments with some details yet to be polished. Nevertheless, the academic discussions put forward by this book; and future historical and archaeological researches and findings concerning the topic, would certainly benefit our understandings of the Three Dynasties and the early civilization of China.
Guo Lixin
professor
Department of Anthropology, Sun Yat-Sen University, CHINA
Email: guolxnj@163.com
April 26, 2023
接下來要討論的這本書，其實是有點心虛，筆者先承認自己對於中國上古史這塊是近乎白板，還記得大一中國史的那場噩夢(喂).....但是這本書不跟大家介紹，又對不起自己。XD
不過，我在想郭靜云老師在國內應該也有不少學生子弟，這本書雖然單價頗高(它可是簡體書啊)，但依然很多人慕名買來拜讀，價值非一般。最初筆者是在豆瓣的書評觀察到，然後估狗一下，震驚的發現到作者是位猶太人漢學家，但本書顯然是用中文寫作，著實不簡單。要看這本書，對筆者來說也需要點準備，裡面提到���一堆專有名詞，對上古史沒點概念的應該都暈了，而且郭老師明顯的就是寫給專家看的，自己要先做好功課，所以我又跑去翻了一下差不多時間出的那套《講談社中國史》的第一冊，建議跟筆者相同的朋友要看本書前，要自己預備。
承如前述，筆者這個大外行，只能對於郭靜云老師的論點做個簡單的介紹，盼能引起更多人的興趣與關注，因為這真的太有趣跟太令人震驚了，我有一種“這會顛覆現在中國上古史研究”的預感。
首先，郭靜云老師提出了目前研究上古史的一個癥結點，那就是中國的傳統的“一元史觀”框架。誠如日本學者岡田英弘指出的，自司馬遷的《史記》以降，我們一直在他或他彙整出的歷史觀中，對於夏商周甚至更之前的也都立基於此，用“司馬遷的史實去找考古的證據”，所以如今在考古上陷入了一些爭執跟僵局，因為大家都沒考慮到：如果《史記》等上古文獻的“史實”是一種“再編寫”的產物呢？我們都知道，科學要“大膽假設，小心求證”，但如果前提一開始就錯了呢？所以郭靜云老師在書中呼籲，應該要先拋開《史記》等文獻建立的框架，反過來以考古證據來“還原現場”，最後再比較對證才是。以此，她提出了自己對於夏商周三代考據出的推論。
首先，郭靜云老師主張，長江中游、漢水流域的屈家嶺、石家河、盤龍城等古城邦在青銅時代就已建構出“先楚文明”，在多方面都優於黃河中下游、渭水一帶的文明，偃師商城等地不但不是當時的政治中央，反而可能是先楚的“北境”而已。此外，我們熟悉的堯舜禹湯傳說，也是經過“編輯”後的，其來源應該是“先楚文明”，只是後來被挪用了。
在後人所知道的中國境內，存在著三大文明：長江流域的先楚、黃河流域的早商跟遼東的夏家店，三雄並立。而吾人所知的殷人，郭靜云老師推論他們是來自黑龍江一帶的游戰(Nomads)民族，經由北亞草原跟高加索一帶的Kassites等交流，學會用馬的技術後，先征服了東北，然後介入早商與先楚的戰爭，最後控制了長江流域，建立起上古的第一個大帝國。當然，先不要把這個王朝想像如同後人建立的那樣，事實上它仍處於一種，如我所理解的，羅馬人征服拉丁民族模式，透過半聯合半殖民的高控制力方法統治。但這樣子剛好就成為了西周的榜樣，它是第一個統一中原各古國的帝國，也是之後各王朝中央集權的濫觴。
郭靜云老師的這番推論當然十分的大膽，她除此之外，還指出了殷商王室的多元化，跟西亞的高加索人通婚，引進馬匹入中原，融合各地文字成為甲骨文奠定漢字基礎等，都是殷人對於華夏文明的影響。
此外，郭靜云老師認為，西周王室其實也是殷商王室的分支，長期內部通婚，殷周革命不如說是一場政變。而西周也一直到昭、穆時代才因為意識形態改變，才開始篡改史實，把兩者切割(順便重整上古史實變成今天我們所能見的樣貌)。
坦白說，讀完郭靜云老師的推論之後，真的是有一種當頭棒喝的感覺。姑且不論包括她自己也承認，一切都尚未成定案，但光是這樣的論點提出，就足以讓世人震驚跟反思。上古史的考據之難，全世界都一樣，西方對於歐洲古典的經濟也是一場大論戰至今未停歇。但不管怎樣，筆者認為郭靜云老師的假設雖然大膽，但考慮到華夏歷史兩三千年的演變，契丹、女真、蒙古、滿人，再回頭看殷人，似乎就那樣的合情合理了。M‧I‧Finley對於西方古典經濟的論點雖然沒有終結爭執，但從此之後都是圍繞在這個模式下轉著。筆者猜想除非有什麼重大的考古證據突破，否則，不論贊成反對，未來上古史的許多討論，應該都無法忽略郭靜云老師的論述才是。
順便一提，看完本書之後，我也開始忍不住去買幾本史前史跟上古文明的書回來惡補了....XD
這真是太有趣了，在此跟大家推薦！
不過，我在想郭靜云老師在國內應該也有不少學生子弟，這本書雖然單價頗高(它可是簡體書啊)，但依然很多人慕名買來拜讀，價值非一般。最初筆者是在豆瓣的書評觀察到，然後估狗一下，震驚的發現到作者是位猶太人漢學家，但本書顯然是用中文寫作，著實不簡單。要看這本書，對筆者來說也需要點準備，裡面提到���一堆專有名詞，對上古史沒點概念的應該都暈了，而且郭老師明顯的就是寫給專家看的，自己要先做好功課，所以我又跑去翻了一下差不多時間出的那套《講談社中國史》的第一冊，建議跟筆者相同的朋友要看本書前，要自己預備。
承如前述，筆者這個大外行，只能對於郭靜云老師的論點做個簡單的介紹，盼能引起更多人的興趣與關注，因為這真的太有趣跟太令人震驚了，我有一種“這會顛覆現在中國上古史研究”的預感。
首先，郭靜云老師提出了目前研究上古史的一個癥結點，那就是中國的傳統的“一元史觀”框架。誠如日本學者岡田英弘指出的，自司馬遷的《史記》以降，我們一直在他或他彙整出的歷史觀中，對於夏商周甚至更之前的也都立基於此，用“司馬遷的史實去找考古的證據”，所以如今在考古上陷入了一些爭執跟僵局，因為大家都沒考慮到：如果《史記》等上古文獻的“史實”是一種“再編寫”的產物呢？我們都知道，科學要“大膽假設，小心求證”，但如果前提一開始就錯了呢？所以郭靜云老師在書中呼籲，應該要先拋開《史記》等文獻建立的框架，反過來以考古證據來“還原現場”，最後再比較對證才是。以此，她提出了自己對於夏商周三代考據出的推論。
首先，郭靜云老師主張，長江中游、漢水流域的屈家嶺、石家河、盤龍城等古城邦在青銅時代就已建構出“先楚文明”，在多方面都優於黃河中下游、渭水一帶的文明，偃師商城等地不但不是當時的政治中央，反而可能是先楚的“北境”而已。此外，我們熟悉的堯舜禹湯傳說，也是經過“編輯”後的，其來源應該是“先楚文明”，只是後來被挪用了。
在後人所知道的中國境內，存在著三大文明：長江流域的先楚、黃河流域的早商跟遼東的夏家店，三雄並立。而吾人所知的殷人，郭靜云老師推論他們是來自黑龍江一帶的游戰(Nomads)民族，經由北亞草原跟高加索一帶的Kassites等交流，學會用馬的技術後，先征服了東北，然後介入早商與先楚的戰爭，最後控制了長江流域，建立起上古的第一個大帝國。當然，先不要把這個王朝想像如同後人建立的那樣，事實上它仍處於一種，如我所理解的，羅馬人征服拉丁民族模式，透過半聯合半殖民的高控制力方法統治。但這樣子剛好就成為了西周的榜樣，它是第一個統一中原各古國的帝國，也是之後各王朝中央集權的濫觴。
郭靜云老師的這番推論當然十分的大膽，她除此之外，還指出了殷商王室的多元化，跟西亞的高加索人通婚，引進馬匹入中原，融合各地文字成為甲骨文奠定漢字基礎等，都是殷人對於華夏文明的影響。
此外，郭靜云老師認為，西周王室其實也是殷商王室的分支，長期內部通婚，殷周革命不如說是一場政變。而西周也一直到昭、穆時代才因為意識形態改變，才開始篡改史實，把兩者切割(順便重整上古史實變成今天我們所能見的樣貌)。
坦白說，讀完郭靜云老師的推論之後，真的是有一種當頭棒喝的感覺。姑且不論包括她自己也承認，一切都尚未成定案，但光是這樣的論點提出，就足以讓世人震驚跟反思。上古史的考據之難，全世界都一樣，西方對於歐洲古典的經濟也是一場大論戰至今未停歇。但不管怎樣，筆者認為郭靜云老師的假設雖然大膽，但考慮到華夏歷史兩三千年的演變，契丹、女真、蒙古、滿人，再回頭看殷人，似乎就那樣的合情合理了。M‧I‧Finley對於西方古典經濟的論點雖然沒有終結爭執，但從此之後都是圍繞在這個模式下轉著。筆者猜想除非有什麼重大的考古證據突破，否則，不論贊成反對，未來上古史的許多討論，應該都無法忽略郭靜云老師的論述才是。
順便一提，看完本書之後，我也開始忍不住去買幾本史前史跟上古文明的書回來惡補了....XD
這真是太有趣了，在此跟大家推薦！
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews