长江中游新石器时代的显著成就和特色文化现象

本将长江中游的新石器化置于全国新石器时代的总体背景下,侧重于比较研究的视角,选取了五个方面的问题——聚落与建筑,栽培稻起源和史前稻作农业,白陶和彩陶,普用的巫物陶偶,高一级的灵物玉雕人首和动物,列举实证,以阐述长江中游新石器时代若干较显的成就和特色鲜明的化现象。     

湖北荆门市后港城河城址调查报告

荆门后港城河城址位于江汉平原西北部,地处平原向荆山余脉过渡的丘陵岗地地带,是长江中游地区发现的又一处新石器时代的古城址,也是汉水流域荆门境内继马家垸城址后发现的第二座新石器时代古城址。该城址的发现不仅丰富了长江中游早期古城址的内容,同时对研究长江中游地区这些早期城址之间的关系、探讨长江中游史前聚落考古文化提供了重要的资料。     

长江中游与黄河中游史前城址的比较

本文从城址及其所处聚落群变迁的角度对黄河中游和长江中游地区的史前城址进行比较研究,认为在新石器时代晚期,长江中游率先出现城;铜石并用时代早期,长江中游出现城址群,而黄河中游始有单个城的出现;铜石并用时代晚期,长江中游出现中心城址与非中心城址的差别而黄河中游城址群始涌现,到了青铜时代早期,长江中游的城址衰落,而黄河中游都城兴起。     

从新石器考古学文化看长江中游地区的原始宗教

本文在梳理长江中游地区新石器时代主要考古学文化相关遗存的基础上,认为该地区的原始宗教具有较为完整的发展谱系,呈现出宗教活动规模逐渐扩大、地域范围逐渐拓展、宗教信仰逐渐深化的发展趋势,从而可把长江中游地区新石器时代原始宗教的发展分为萌芽期、发展期和成熟期三个阶段。     

中国原始工艺文化区域性特征初探

在距今10 000年左右我国进入了新石器时代,目前在中国大地上发现的新石器时代文化遗址达7 000多处,按其分布的地域和工艺文化特征.可划分为6个大的区域.即辽河流域的燕辽工艺文化区、黄河上游的甘青工艺文化区、黄河中游的中原工艺文化区、黄河下游的山东工艺文化区、长江中游的长江中游工艺文化区和长江下游的江浙工艺文化区.     

长江中游新石器时代晚期的聚落级差及城市萌芽

本文通过对长江中游即两湖地区新石器时代晚期诸多聚落的观察和分析,揭示出聚落间两级大梯次和三级亚梯次。同时将石家河遗址群与国际现有的城市萌芽理论进行论证,以期探讨长江中游地区城市的起源问题。     

试论城背溪文化

为配合长江三峡水利枢纽工程和探讨楚文化渊源,考古界从80年代初开始在鄂西长江两岸发掘了一系列的古文化遗址.获得了许多重要的考古资料.其中城背溪等新石器时代早期文化遗存的发现对长江中游地区新石器时代考古具有深远的影响.俞伟超先生在《中国早期的“模制法”制陶术》一文中,举例说明中国早期制陶术时,曾多次提到这类遗存.严文明先生已提出“城背溪文化”的概念,这种文化的相对年代与黄河流域的老官台、磁山、北辛等诸文化相当.根据城背溪遗存的分布及其基本特征,以及它与后来长江中游地区新石器时代文化的联系,笔者也认为可以提出一个新的文化名称对它进行称呼.本文就称之为“城背溪文化”.     

大溪文化之最

大溪文化是长江中游地区具有代表性的新石器时代文化之一,出土的遗迹和遗物都很丰富,其中有一些在本地区或长江流域,甚至在全国同时期的新石器时代文化中居于首位,这些遗迹和遗物就是本文所要讲的大溪文化之最,约略计之有以下三个方面。     

长江中游地区新石器时代遗址分布规律、文化中心的转移与环境变迁的关系

近年来，河南、湖北、湖南的考古工作者，分别对境内的新石器时代遗址进行了普查，发现近千处不同文化的新石器时代遗址。依据这批材料，可以粗略地总结出长江中游地区新石器时代遗址分布的地理规律。目前长江中游地k发现的较早的新石器时代遗址，即彭头山文化早、中期遗存，多分布于治水中下游北岸的斤险或平原岗地上，这些岗地现在的海拔高程约在33～45米之间，与周阳地血的高并，多为I～2米l’l：举头山遗址高程不足45米，高并为5米】川。彭头山文化晚期，遗址出现往海拔较高的东南和两北方向江徙的故势。如某家同遗址位于海拔较高的价…     

武汉市黄陂区张西湾新石器时代城址发掘简报

2008年,湖北省文物考古研究所等单位对张西湾遗址进行了发掘,这是长江中游地区已知时代最晚、位置最偏东的一处新石器时代城址。城垣大致兴建于石家河文化早期,至石家河文化中、晚期可能已被废弃。此项发现为认识史前城址的发展过程、兴废动因及长江中游史前文明化进程等提供了重要资料。     

The Origin and Early Development of Chinese Civilization: From an Archaeological Perspective

This paper reviews the process of exploring the origin of Chinese civilization from the centurial history of Chinese archaeology. Based on the academic research results obtained over the years, combined with major archaeological discoveries, and leveraging the author’s knowledge, it discusses the cultural and social evolution process and achievements in different regions of China during the early, middle, late Neolithic Age and the Bronze Age, as well as how different regional civilizations took shape one after another and developed from diversity to unity. It also highlights the characteristics of Chinese civilization; particularly, from a geographical perspective and by comparing the Chinese and Western civilizations, it briefly demonstrates the historical background and reasons for the continuity, openness, and inclusiveness of Chinese civilization.     

Center and periphery: The expansion and metamorphosis of Han culture—A case study of stone carvings in No. 1 Mahao cave tomb,Leshan, Sichuan Province,China

The cave reliefs of Mahao in Leshan City, Sichuan Province, have been world-famous for containing an early Buddhist statue. Yet, little attention has been paid to the co-existent stone reliefs sharing the tomb cave and the cultural significance thereof. Through the Qin and Han dynasties (221 BC–220 AD), the ancient Ba and Shu civilizations in what is Sichuan today gradually merged into the Chinese civilization, of which the Han civilization is the main body, on the one hand, the Han civilization exerted a strong influence on its south-western counterparts, as is revealed by the stone reliefs in the tomb cave; on the other hand, the south-western region was apparently assimilated into the Chinese civilization while concurrently absorbing elements of even farther civilizations (e.g., those in Central and South Asia). The early image of Buddha appeared against a wide cultural background.     

犬儒派与庄子学派处世观辨析

During the fourth and third centuries B.C., both the ancient Greek and Chinese civilizations evolved into key periods of social transformation. The Cynics and the School of Zhuangzi responded most acutely to these great social changes. Both of them denied the legitimacy of the existing political systems, denounced the upper rulers and felt disappointed at the comprehensive reality of societies, and were indifferent to fame and gain, and willing to live simply and smile at death. But compared with the Zhuangzi School, the Cynics were more extreme and defiant. Viewed from both macro and micro perspectives, the differences in civilizations, geographical conditions, and historical traditions determined the difference in behavior and attitudes of the two schools in terms of their behavior in the world. Nevertheless, their similarities outweigh their differences because of the similar development stages of their civilizations, similar socio-historical periods and similar social and living problems confronted. Translated by Feng Jinpeng from Nankai Xuebao 南开学报 (Nankai Journal), 2006, (3): 85–91     

Center and periphery: The expansion and metamorphosis of Han culture

The cave reliefs of Mahao in Leshan City, Sichuan Province, have been world-famous for containing an early Buddhist statue. Yet, little attention has been paid to the co-existent stone reliefs sharing the tomb cave and the cultural significance thereof. Through the Qin and Han dynasties (221 BC-220 AD), the ancient Ba and Shu civilizations in what is Sichuan today gradually merged into the Chinese civilization, of which the Han civilization is the main body, on the one hand, the Han civilization exerted a strong influence on its south-western counterparts, as is revealed by the stone reliefs in the tomb cave; on the other hand, the south-western region was apparently assimilated into the Chinese civilization while concurrently absorbing elements of even farther civilizations (e.g., those in Central and South Asia). The early image of Buddha appeared against a wide cultural background.     

Locating the “People Without History” in Histories of the Ancient Near East

Three books discussed here illustrate multidisciplinary approaches to studying ancient civilizations and a range of methodological and theoretical perspectives. They suggest that in addition to the traditional focus on elites and urban origins, we should analyze nonelites and smaller scale communities. I concur that focusing on elites gives an incomplete and inaccurate picture of life and culture in the ancient Near East. Instead, these books shed light on the “people without history” in the ancient Near East. This “social history” must be integrated into economic and political models of past cultures to fully understand ancient civilizations.     

5. INDIA,ITIHASA, AND INTER‐HISTORIOGRAPHICAL DISCOURSE

An effective and enriching discourse on comparative historiography invests itself in understanding the distinctness and identity that have created various civilizations. Very often, infected by bias, ideology, and cultural one‐upmanship, we encounter a presumptuous‐ness that is redolent of impatience with the cultural other and of an ingrained refusal to acknowledge what one's own history and culture fail to provide. This “failure” need not be the inspiration to subsume the other within one's own understanding of the world and history and, thereby, neuter the possibilities of knowledge‐sharing and cultural interface. It is a realization of the “lack” that provokes and generates encounters among civilizations. It should goad us to move away from what we have universalized and, hence, normalized into an axis of dialogue and mutuality. What Indians would claim as itihasa need not be rudely frowned upon because it does not chime perfectly with what the West or the chinese know as history. accepting the truth that our ways of understanding the past, the sense of the past, and historical sense‐generation vary with different cultures and civilizations will enable us to consider itihasa from a perspective different from the Hegelian modes of doing history and hence preclude its subsumption under the totalitarian rubric of world history. How have Indians “done” their history differently? What distinctiveness have they been able to weave into their discourses and understanding of the past? Does the fact of their proceeding differently from how the West or the Chinese conceptualize history delegitimize and render inferior the subcontinental consciousness of “encounters with past” and its ways of being “moved by the past”? This article expatiates on the distinctiveness of itihasa and argues in favor of relocating its epistemological and ideological persuasions within a comparative historiographical discourse.     

Asia First?

This paper defends the traditional argument that sometime in the medieval/early modern era Europe took a historical path that set it decisively apart from other civilizations. The claim is not that medieval/early modern Europe was already more advanced than Asia in terms of overall economic performance, technological capability, and living standards. It is that from the twelfth century onwards Europe showed itself to be a great learner, in a cumulative, self-reinforcing process of assimilation, innovation, and invention. This modern trait gave Europe a unique developmental dynamic.     

The critique of ethnocentrism in retrospect

This article opens with a review of the origins of the term ‘ethnocentrism’ as the linchpin of modern anthropology despite the discipline's background in the colonial past. The author is stimulated by Step Stuurman's The invention of humanity: Equality and cultural difference in human history (2017) to ask to what extent the critique of ethnocentrism, which gradually gathered strength in the West, has had parallels in non-Western civilizations. His conclusion is that the astonishing sophistication of a Persian and a Chinese polymath in studying cultures alien to their own does not seem, according to records available, to have influenced their respective civilizations in the same way that modern ‘anthropological intelligence’ (to borrow Gillian Tett's term) was extensively foreshadowed in Europe. Counter-ethnocentrism as a principle has now become indispensable to all the social sciences that aspire to be cosmopolitan, though it still has to compete with the baleful legacy of scientific racism.     

论东方文化对近代科学的影响

近代科学不是西方文明独有的产物,而是不同文明特别是东西方文明间相互融合、共同创造的成果。在历史上,古代希腊科学没能直接发展成近代科学,而东方文化对西方科学中过度的理性主义传统却起到了纠偏、涵化和升华的作用,对其疏离价值、缺少人文关怀的“先天不足”作了适当的“培补”和“修复”。这些不仅体现在东方科学文化所给予的大量科学思想启迪中,而且表现在西方近代科学研究方法的嬗变中。没有东方文化的这种影响,近代科学（革命）是不可能发生的。     

On the Anthropogenic Factor in Landscape Formation (Landscape and Ethnos VII)

In attempting to classify anthropogenic factors of landscape formation, Gumilev rejects Arnold Toynbee's concept of challenge and response as the factors underlying the genesis of civilizations on the ground that it ignores the factor of ethnic differentiation. Gumilev finds that the principal changes introduced by man into the landscape are associated with certain short-term periods of superhuman effort that coincide with intensive processes of ethnogenesis. This intensive activity is followed by a damping inertia that leads ultimately to a new equilibrium between the ethnos and the environment until the next upsurge of activity.