20世纪下半期中国民族文化外来说的走向——国际学术视野下的考察
|
摘要
20世纪50年代以后,海涅·戈尔登的中国文化西来三次波动假说,列·谢·瓦西里耶夫的中国文明起源外因论和梯阶传播假说,蒲立本的汉藏、印欧语言同源说在国际学术界仍继续流行。20世纪70年代以后,中国的人种、文化、文明的独立起源和连续发展,逐渐获得越来越多的考古学、人类学证据支持,戈氏的理论基础从根本上发生动摇。20世纪80年代以后,中国学界关于中国民族文化形成发展和文明起源问题的讨论主题早已不再是本土起源说和外来说之间的论争,瓦氏的理论亦成过时的学术史话题。而蒲氏的理论,从语言比较的角度,在更为广阔的学术视野下重新考察中国民族文化起源和文明的问题,则呈现出全新的学术旨趣。但学界对泛印欧主义思潮的批判,击中了其论点的若干"证据",从而动摇了其若干立论基础。进入21世纪,国际学界对中外文化交流互动的新考察与中外文化互动论的建立,颇为清晰地表明,历经长达数世纪的中国民族文化本土起源说和外来说之争由两相对垒、各执一端,逐渐走上了兼收并蓄、相互融通的新的学术发展道路。
After the 1950 s, the theory of foreign origins of Chinese national culture, such as Heine-Geldern's hypothesis of three fluctuations of Chinese culture from the west, Vasilyev L. S.'s external causes of the origin of Chinese civilization and hypothesis of ladder propagation as well as Pulleyblank's theory of the same language origin of Sino-Tibetan and Indo-European, was still prevalent in the international academia. However, with increasing archaeological and anthropological evidence support of the independent origin and continuous development of Chinese ethnics, culture and civilization, the theoretical foundation of Heine-Geldern's cultural diffusion and three fluctuations of Chinese culture from the west had soon been shaken fundamentally since the 1970 s. After the 1980 s, the topical subject of the formation and development of Chinese national culture and the origin of Chinese civilization was no longer a debate between the theory of native origin and the theory of external origin in Chinese academia, therefore,Vasilyev L. S.'s external causes of the origin of Chinese civilization and hypothesis of ladder propagation, with little attention paid, was merely considered as a topic of long-obsolete academic history. While Pulleyblank's theory of the same language origin of Sino-Tibetan and Indo-European, from the perspective of linguistic comparison and in a broader academic perspective, re-examining the origin of Chinese national culture and the formation and development of Chinese civilization, presented a brand-new academic purport. Scholars' criticism of Pan-Indo-European thought hit several"evidences" of Pulleyblank's argument, to a certain extent, it shook some of his arguments. Since the 21 st century, with the new investigation of the interaction between Chinese and foreign cultural exchanges in international academia and the establishment of interaction theory between Chinese and foreign cultures, after centuries of fierce debate between the theory of native origin of Chinese national culture and the theory of external origin of the formation and development of Chinese national culture, it's quite clear that the debate, once from two opposing bases, each holding one end, has gradually embarked on a new road of academic development, which is inclusive and mutually integrated.
After the 1950 s, the theory of foreign origins of Chinese national culture, such as Heine-Geldern's hypothesis of three fluctuations of Chinese culture from the west, Vasilyev L. S.'s external causes of the origin of Chinese civilization and hypothesis of ladder propagation as well as Pulleyblank's theory of the same language origin of Sino-Tibetan and Indo-European, was still prevalent in the international academia. However, with increasing archaeological and anthropological evidence support of the independent origin and continuous development of Chinese ethnics, culture and civilization, the theoretical foundation of Heine-Geldern's cultural diffusion and three fluctuations of Chinese culture from the west had soon been shaken fundamentally since the 1970 s. After the 1980 s, the topical subject of the formation and development of Chinese national culture and the origin of Chinese civilization was no longer a debate between the theory of native origin and the theory of external origin in Chinese academia, therefore,Vasilyev L. S.'s external causes of the origin of Chinese civilization and hypothesis of ladder propagation, with little attention paid, was merely considered as a topic of long-obsolete academic history. While Pulleyblank's theory of the same language origin of Sino-Tibetan and Indo-European, from the perspective of linguistic comparison and in a broader academic perspective, re-examining the origin of Chinese national culture and the formation and development of Chinese civilization, presented a brand-new academic purport. Scholars' criticism of Pan-Indo-European thought hit several"evidences" of Pulleyblank's argument, to a certain extent, it shook some of his arguments. Since the 21 st century, with the new investigation of the interaction between Chinese and foreign cultural exchanges in international academia and the establishment of interaction theory between Chinese and foreign cultures, after centuries of fierce debate between the theory of native origin of Chinese national culture and the theory of external origin of the formation and development of Chinese national culture, it's quite clear that the debate, once from two opposing bases, each holding one end, has gradually embarked on a new road of academic development, which is inclusive and mutually integrated.
引文
[1]汤因比.历史研究:上卷[M].曹未风,译.上海:上海人民出版社,1959.
[2]R.Heine-Geldern.Derursprung der alten Hochkulturen und die Theorien Toynbees,Diogenes,No,13.1956.
[3]R.Heine-Geldern.Vorgeschichtliche Grundlagen der konlonialindischen Kunst,Wiener Beitr?ge Zur Kunst-und Kulturgeschichte(Ⅷ),1934,5-40;R.Heine Geldern.Lart Prébvuddhique de la Chine et de L Asie du Sud-Est et son influence en océanie,RAA,vol,Ⅺ,1937,No4.
[4]R.Heine-Geldern.Prehistoric Research in the Netherlands Indies,1945.
[5]R.Heine-Geldern.China,die ostkasipsche Kultur und die Herkunft de Schrift,Paideuma,BdⅣ,1950.
[6]列·谢·瓦西里耶夫.中国文明的起源问题[M].郝镇华,张书生,杨德明,等译.莫润先,校.北京:文物出版社,1989.
[7]黄盛璋.何炳棣院士九十华诞祝寿纪念专集亚洲文明:第四集[M].西安:三秦出版社,2008.
[8]张光直.中国新石器时代文化断代[M]//中国考古学论文集.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1999.
[9]列·谢·瓦西里耶夫.关于外因影响在中国文明发生中的作用[J].亚非人民,1964(2):123-135.
[10]列·谢·瓦西里耶夫.古代中国文明的起源[J].历史问题,1974年12月号:86-102.
[11]邵望平,莫润先.评瓦西里耶夫《中国文明的起源问题》[J].考古,1989(12):1132-1140.
[12]А·И·佩尔希茨,А·Л·蒙盖特,В·П·阿列克谢耶夫.世界原始社会史[M].贺国安,王培英,汪连兴,译.昆明:云南人民出版社,1987.
[13]夏鼐.中国文明的起源[M].北京:文物出版社,1985.
[14]孙景涛.汉学巨擘蒲立本[J].读书,2013(11):132-139.
[15]Pulleyblank E.G.Chinese and Indo-Europeans,Journal of Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland,No.1/2,Apr,1966.
[16]蒲立本.史前贯穿欧亚大陆的东西方交流[J].伍安东,译.王小盾,校.传统文化与现代化,1997(5):91-95.
[17]Pulleyblank E.G.The Chinese Cyclical Signs as Phonograms,Journal of the American Oriental Society,Vol.99,No.1,1979.
[18]Pulleyblank E.G.Early Chinese Contacts between Indo-European and Chinese,International Review of Chinese Linguistics,volumeⅠ,NumberⅠ,1996.
[19]蒲立本.上古时代的华夏人和邻族[M]//扬州大学中国文化研究所集刊:第一辑.游汝杰,译.王小盾,校.南京:江苏古籍出版社,1998.
[20]Watson W.Chian before the Han Dynasty,London,1961.
[21]Eberhard W.The Formaition of Chinese Civilization According to Socio-Anthropological Analysis,-Sociolougus,vol.,1957,No.7;Eberhard W.Settlement and Social Change in China,Hong kong,1967.
[22]霍尔瓦特·伊莎贝拉.新疆古代居民和欧洲有关吗?--兼评一种学术思潮[J].新疆师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),1998(4):36-39.
[23]韩康信.丝绸之路古代居民种族人类学研究[M].乌鲁木齐:新疆人民出版社,1993.
[24]陈星灿.中国史前考古学史研究(1895-1949)[M].北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1997.
[25]易华.夷夏先后说[M].北京:民族出版社,2012.
[26]Jettmar K,Cultures and Ethnic Groups West of China in the Second and the First Millennia B.C,Asian,Perspective,24(2),1981.
[27]Katheryn M.Linduff ed.Metallurgy in Asian Eastern From the Urals to the Yellow River,the Edwin Mellen Press,2004.
[28]Victor H.Mair,Kinesis versus Stasis.Interaction versus Independent Invention,in Contact and Exchange in the Ancient World.University of Hawaii Press,2006.
(1)20世纪40年代后期,夏鼐先生将齐家文化和仰韶文化区分为两个不同的系统,并论定甘肃仰韶文化应该较齐家文化为早,在铁的事实面前,安特生的仰韶文化西来说不攻自破。参见夏鼐:《齐家期墓葬的新发现及其年代的改订》,《中国考古学报》第3册,1948年。在此背景下,安特生也放弃旧说,承认仰韶文化可能起源于中国本土,参见J.G.Andersson:Researches into the Prehuistory of the Chinese,BMFEA,No.15,1943,第288-297页。
(2)参见易华:《夷夏先后说》,民族出版社2012年版,第16页。易华先生此论断引自邵望平、莫润先:《评瓦西里耶夫〈中国文明的起源问题〉》,《考古》1989年第12期,但遍检邵、莫全文,并未找到该句话,或为易先生对邵、莫文章开篇“三百多年来,中国文明西源论发生了各种各样的变化,而其最新的提法,则以列·谢·瓦西里耶夫的《中国文明的起源问题》一书为代表”的另一表达。
(3)当时发表的部分论文,如岳涛:《陈旧的货色,险恶的用心--评苏修在中国古代文明起源问题上的谬论》,《考古》1975年第5期;杨建芳的《“仰韶文化西来说”旧调的重弹--评瓦西里耶夫的两篇反华文章》,《四川大学学报》(哲学社会科学版)1977年第1期,仅从文章标题,就可以看得颇为清楚。此外,已发表的文章中,充斥极强政治色彩的表述随处可见。参见甘肃省博物馆连城考古发掘队,北京大学历史系考古专业连城考古发掘队:《从马家窑类型驳瓦西里耶夫的“中国文化西来说”》,《文物》1976年第3期;杨育彬:《评瓦西里耶夫〈古代中国文明的起源〉》,《文物》1976年第7期;许顺湛:《关于中国远古文化的源流问题——评瓦西里耶夫中国文化西来说》,《郑州大学学报》(社会科学版)1980年第2期等。
[2]R.Heine-Geldern.Derursprung der alten Hochkulturen und die Theorien Toynbees,Diogenes,No,13.1956.
[3]R.Heine-Geldern.Vorgeschichtliche Grundlagen der konlonialindischen Kunst,Wiener Beitr?ge Zur Kunst-und Kulturgeschichte(Ⅷ),1934,5-40;R.Heine Geldern.Lart Prébvuddhique de la Chine et de L Asie du Sud-Est et son influence en océanie,RAA,vol,Ⅺ,1937,No4.
[4]R.Heine-Geldern.Prehistoric Research in the Netherlands Indies,1945.
[5]R.Heine-Geldern.China,die ostkasipsche Kultur und die Herkunft de Schrift,Paideuma,BdⅣ,1950.
[6]列·谢·瓦西里耶夫.中国文明的起源问题[M].郝镇华,张书生,杨德明,等译.莫润先,校.北京:文物出版社,1989.
[7]黄盛璋.何炳棣院士九十华诞祝寿纪念专集亚洲文明:第四集[M].西安:三秦出版社,2008.
[8]张光直.中国新石器时代文化断代[M]//中国考古学论文集.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1999.
[9]列·谢·瓦西里耶夫.关于外因影响在中国文明发生中的作用[J].亚非人民,1964(2):123-135.
[10]列·谢·瓦西里耶夫.古代中国文明的起源[J].历史问题,1974年12月号:86-102.
[11]邵望平,莫润先.评瓦西里耶夫《中国文明的起源问题》[J].考古,1989(12):1132-1140.
[12]А·И·佩尔希茨,А·Л·蒙盖特,В·П·阿列克谢耶夫.世界原始社会史[M].贺国安,王培英,汪连兴,译.昆明:云南人民出版社,1987.
[13]夏鼐.中国文明的起源[M].北京:文物出版社,1985.
[14]孙景涛.汉学巨擘蒲立本[J].读书,2013(11):132-139.
[15]Pulleyblank E.G.Chinese and Indo-Europeans,Journal of Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland,No.1/2,Apr,1966.
[16]蒲立本.史前贯穿欧亚大陆的东西方交流[J].伍安东,译.王小盾,校.传统文化与现代化,1997(5):91-95.
[17]Pulleyblank E.G.The Chinese Cyclical Signs as Phonograms,Journal of the American Oriental Society,Vol.99,No.1,1979.
[18]Pulleyblank E.G.Early Chinese Contacts between Indo-European and Chinese,International Review of Chinese Linguistics,volumeⅠ,NumberⅠ,1996.
[19]蒲立本.上古时代的华夏人和邻族[M]//扬州大学中国文化研究所集刊:第一辑.游汝杰,译.王小盾,校.南京:江苏古籍出版社,1998.
[20]Watson W.Chian before the Han Dynasty,London,1961.
[21]Eberhard W.The Formaition of Chinese Civilization According to Socio-Anthropological Analysis,-Sociolougus,vol.,1957,No.7;Eberhard W.Settlement and Social Change in China,Hong kong,1967.
[22]霍尔瓦特·伊莎贝拉.新疆古代居民和欧洲有关吗?--兼评一种学术思潮[J].新疆师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),1998(4):36-39.
[23]韩康信.丝绸之路古代居民种族人类学研究[M].乌鲁木齐:新疆人民出版社,1993.
[24]陈星灿.中国史前考古学史研究(1895-1949)[M].北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1997.
[25]易华.夷夏先后说[M].北京:民族出版社,2012.
[26]Jettmar K,Cultures and Ethnic Groups West of China in the Second and the First Millennia B.C,Asian,Perspective,24(2),1981.
[27]Katheryn M.Linduff ed.Metallurgy in Asian Eastern From the Urals to the Yellow River,the Edwin Mellen Press,2004.
[28]Victor H.Mair,Kinesis versus Stasis.Interaction versus Independent Invention,in Contact and Exchange in the Ancient World.University of Hawaii Press,2006.
(1)20世纪40年代后期,夏鼐先生将齐家文化和仰韶文化区分为两个不同的系统,并论定甘肃仰韶文化应该较齐家文化为早,在铁的事实面前,安特生的仰韶文化西来说不攻自破。参见夏鼐:《齐家期墓葬的新发现及其年代的改订》,《中国考古学报》第3册,1948年。在此背景下,安特生也放弃旧说,承认仰韶文化可能起源于中国本土,参见J.G.Andersson:Researches into the Prehuistory of the Chinese,BMFEA,No.15,1943,第288-297页。
(2)参见易华:《夷夏先后说》,民族出版社2012年版,第16页。易华先生此论断引自邵望平、莫润先:《评瓦西里耶夫〈中国文明的起源问题〉》,《考古》1989年第12期,但遍检邵、莫全文,并未找到该句话,或为易先生对邵、莫文章开篇“三百多年来,中国文明西源论发生了各种各样的变化,而其最新的提法,则以列·谢·瓦西里耶夫的《中国文明的起源问题》一书为代表”的另一表达。
(3)当时发表的部分论文,如岳涛:《陈旧的货色,险恶的用心--评苏修在中国古代文明起源问题上的谬论》,《考古》1975年第5期;杨建芳的《“仰韶文化西来说”旧调的重弹--评瓦西里耶夫的两篇反华文章》,《四川大学学报》(哲学社会科学版)1977年第1期,仅从文章标题,就可以看得颇为清楚。此外,已发表的文章中,充斥极强政治色彩的表述随处可见。参见甘肃省博物馆连城考古发掘队,北京大学历史系考古专业连城考古发掘队:《从马家窑类型驳瓦西里耶夫的“中国文化西来说”》,《文物》1976年第3期;杨育彬:《评瓦西里耶夫〈古代中国文明的起源〉》,《文物》1976年第7期;许顺湛:《关于中国远古文化的源流问题——评瓦西里耶夫中国文化西来说》,《郑州大学学报》(社会科学版)1980年第2期等。