宗教、秩序与隐喻：读《中国社会中的宗教与仪式》

Western social scientists have fo-cused on the religion and ritual of China for a long time. Since modern times, a number of western si-nologists have committed themselves to conducting detailed and in-depth research on aspects of Chi-nese society and history in order to explain the be-liefs and practices of Chinese people. It is within such an academic background that Religion and Ritual in Chinese Society, edited by Arthur Wolf, an American anthropologist, compiled a series of studies on the religions and rituals of Taiwan and Hong Kong done by fifteen western scholars from the 1950s to the 1970s. The advent of this book not only characterizes the western academic study of Chinese society and culture of that era, but also causes us to reflect on current research. This book is a work of great academic value, as well as serves as a model for the study of sinology in the field of western anthropology.     

对口援藏制度研究进展

“Complementary counterpart assis-tance” to Tibet is one of the earliest ways China conducted regional “complementary counterpart”assistance. As a formal institutional arrangement, it already has had more than 20 years of history. The academic research on “assistance to Tibet”has been gradually increasing. However, there are big differences in understanding many of the is-sues. This article conducts a comprehensive analy-sis on the progress of related research on the“com-plementary counterpart” assistance to Tibet in re-cent years, focusing on the spheres of assistance, the theoretical basis, institutional nature and other issues related to “complementany counterpart” as-sistance of Tibet. It further proposes the direction of future research.     

共同体与象征母系血缘：《乡土中国》的知识、秩序与道德

From the Soil—The Foundations of Chinese Society, published in the 1940’s by Fei Xi-aotong, is considered an important work for under-standing Chinese rural society. Up until today, it is still the foundation for understanding the basic social conditions of pre-modern China . By making a comparison with the theory of Gemeinshchaft by Ferdinand T?nnies, this essay tries to analyze Fei’s main social theories and shed light on his thinking about Chinese modernity. According to the theory of Ferdinand T?nnies, Fei defined Chinese rural society as a community in his From the Soil.     

鲍德温•斯宾塞与后维多利亚时代的古典人类学

The post-Victorian anthropologist Baldwin Spencer was the first to investigate the central and northern aboriginal tribes of Australia. His ethnographic works in this area have greatly in-fluenced related disciplines and studies in fields such as kinship, totem worship, and primitive reli-gions. In the field of classics and anthropology, Spencer’s academic heritage has received wide-spread respect and recognition, and has made sub-sequent academic discussion possible. In order to present Spencer’s personal experiences and aca-demic ideas clearly and comprehensively, it is nec-essary to return to the post-Victorian context, and comb Spencer’ s life history and academic history. Taking important clues from various times an e-vents in his life, the paper introduces three peri-ods:Spencer’s early training in the discipline and his epistemic background, his medium-term eth-nographic investigations and works, and the later investigations of Tierra del Fuego. Textual study, based on Spencer’s life history and academic histo-ry, is very useful to understand his ethnographic investigations. Sir Walter Baldwin Spencer ( 1860 -1929 ) was born on 23 June, 1860 in Lancashire, Eng-land. Spencer was educated at Old Trafford School and at the Manchester School of Art. His interest in art and sketching was lifelong, and would reveal itself in his competence as a scientific draftsman and illustrator ( D. J. Mulvaney,1990 ) . Entering Owens College ( Victoria University of Manchester) in 1879, Spencer intended to study medicine. In-spired by Milnes Marshall, a disciple of Darwin disciple, he became a committed evolutionary biol-ogist, soon abandoning conventional religion. He entered the University of Oxford in 1881 to study
science under Professor H. N. Moseley, who com-bined an enthusiasm for evolutionary biology with ethnological interests. Spencer grasped Oxford ’ s diverse opportunities, which included lectures by Ruskin and E. B. Tylor. In 1887, Spencer ar-rived at Melbourne University . With his colleague Professor David Masson, Spencer helped to trans-form university standards and they co-operated as entrepreneurs of Australian science. Spencer was recruited as zoologist and photog-rapher in the 1894 Horn scientific exploration ex-pedition to central Australia. His anthropological interest was rekindled when he met F. J. Gillen, the Alice Springs postmaster, during the expedi-tion. In 1896 Spencer joined Gillen for the most intensive fieldwork then attempted in Australia. The Native Tribes of Central Australia ( 1899 ) , which resulted, was to influence contemporary theories on social evolution and interpretations of the origins of art and ceremonial practices. Spencer and Gillen drove a buggy from Oodnadatta to Borroloola in 1901-02 . Their research resulted in The Northern Tribes of Central Australia ( 1904 );Haddon had written that the names of Spencer and Gillen are familiar to every ethnologist in the world, and probably no books on ethnology have been so wide-ly noticed and criticized as have The Native Tribes of Central Australia and The Northern Tribes of Central Australia (A. C. Haddon ,1902). To assist the Government of the Common-wealth, Spencer was appointed Special Commis-sioner for Aboriginals in the Northern Territory, and also their Chief Protector. He also led three other scientists, including J. A. Gilruth, on the 1911 Preliminary Scientific Expedition. Native Tribes of the Northern Territory of Australia (1914)
described his ethnographic observations and the ex-tensive collections made on the expedition. At the government ’ s request, Spencer visited Alice Springs and Hermannsburg in 1923 . He published The Arunta: A Study of a Stone Age People ( 2 vols, 1927 ) to respond to the criticisms derived from Carl Stretlow and defend his work. A popular rewrite of previous books followed—Wanderings in Wild Australia ( 2 vols, 1928 )—this time under his sole authorship. Spencer retired as emeritus professor in 1919 . His nerves and his judgments were impaired from the strain of continuous overwork, the virtual disin-tegration of his marriage, and he was finally hospi-talized in 1921 . His health improved and within two years he resumed anthropological activities and rebuilt his art collection. He sailed to Tierra del Fuego together with Jean Hamilton to undertake anthropological studies early in 1929. Spencer, with an unrivalled record of anthropological field-work in Australia, undertook this journey to fill a gap in our knowledge, and compare very different and remote races of mankind (A. C. H. ,1931). However, his gallant attempt was prematurely frus-trated by his death from angina pectoris, at which point he had been only two months in the field. His notes were organized and published as Spencer’s Last Journey (1931). His achievements were recognized. Elected as a fellow of the Royal Society in 1900 , he was ap-pointed C. M. G. in 1904 and K. C. M. G. in 1916 . Manchester University conferred him with an honorary doctorate of science, while Melbourne a-warded him a doctorate of letters. Exeter College, Oxford, elected him to an honorary fellowship in 1907 , and stained glass in its hall commemorates his contribution. James Frazer’s letter to Spencer in 1899 was prophetic: books like mine, merely speculative, will be superseded sooner or later ( the sooner the better for the sake of truth) by bet-ter induction based on fuller knowledge;books like yours, containing records of observations, will nev-er be superseded ( John M. Cooper, 1932 ) . Therefore, the sense and value of reading and un-derstanding Spencer and his books today goes with-out saying.     

一个多民族文学融合互动的范本——《述善集》文学文献价值考述

“Tangwu” is an alternative name for the descendants of the Xixia dynasty. In 1227 AD, a number of these Xixia descendants moved inland after the destruction of the Xixia Dynasty by the Mongolians. One group of them migrated to the area near Puyang, Henan Province. Tangwu Chongxi ( Yang Chongxi ) of the Yuan Dynasty compiled the Shu San Ji, which is divided into three volumes: Shansu, Yucai and Xingshi, and appended with the biography of Boyan Zongdao. It reflects the historical origins, social class, living conditions and the relations with the Han people of the descendants of the Dangxiangqiang minority af-ter they moved to Puyang. This book attracted a lot of attention in academic circles, and it was there-fore reorganized and published in 1985 after being treasured by the people for more than 600 years. It has high academic value for its comprehensive his-torical records. We can not only acquaint ourselves with the history of the make-up of the Chinese na-tion, but also research this diversity from multiple perspectives, such as history, nationality and folk-lore . That is why it has drawn so much attention a-mong academic researchers. The book contains po-ems, prose and biographies, which belong to dif-ferent celebrated scholars from different ethnic mi-norities, all of whom had relationships with Tang-wu Chongxi. It is also a typical model of Qiang-Han literature, which is very rare. This paper gives a preliminary exploration on the book, and shows a small part of its comprehensive value. Shu San Ji is not a merely personal collec-tion, but is also different from general literature collections. The compilation of the book took a long time. Shu San Ji Xuxie ( Continuation of Shu San Ji) , written by Zhang Yining, was finished in the 18 th year of the Zhizheng Period in the Yuan Dynasty (1358), which indicates that the Shu San Ji had already been finished by that time . Zeng wuwei chushi yangxiangxian xu ( Presented to Chu Shi Yang Xingxian·Preface ) , written by Wei Su and finished in the 24 th year of Zhizheng ( 1364 ) , suggests that the Shu San Ji had been compiled in-to a book by that time, and that it was compiled with the compositions of social celebrities of the time. However, the Shu San Ji, as it has been handed down to us today, includes the Song Yang-gong Xiangxian gui Tanyuan xu ( Preface of Send-ing Yanggong Xiangxian Back to Tanyuan) by Tao Kai, written in March in the 5 th year of Hongwu in the Ming Dynasty ( 1372 ) . It indicates that Yang Xiangxian kept on collecting articles even after the book was finished. The Xu yangshi yiji ( Preface of Yang’s Last Collection) by Wang Chongqing, writ-ten in the 6th year of Jiajing (1527), indicates that the Shu San Ji was still being written after Yang Chongxi’s death. At the end of the Shu San Ji , Boyang Zongdao zhuan ( Biography of Boyang Zongdao) and Weiti shi (Poems) were collected in the 16 th year of Zhengde in the Ming Dynasty (1529) and in the 16th year of Shunzhi in the Qing Dynasty (1629), respectively. It suggests that the
Shu San Ji had been supplemented and continually recompiled since Yang Chongxi firstly finished his book in 1358. After 271 years, in 1629, the Shu San Ji, as we read it today, was finally comple-ted. Through the basic components of the Shu San Ji,readers can understand that the Tangwu family was a harmonious, multi-ethnic family. A number of multi-ethnic writers spent long periods compos-ing works collected in the Shu San Ji and Tangwu Chongxi was also influenced by China’s diverse culture and traditional Confucian culture. The work is strongly connected with his study in Guozixue. In the late Yuan Dynasty, the restora-tion of the imperial examinations promoted Confucianism’s influence further. Pan Di, as Tang-wu Chongxi’s teacher in Guozixue, wrote most arti-cles in the Shu San Ji, which shows their close re-lationship and his influences on Tangwu Chongxi’s literature and Confucian studies. Tangwu Chongxi and others’ works reflected their sense of admira-tion for and deep feelings for their Dangxiang an-cestors, but more so helped to propagate the con-cepts of Confucian edification, diligence, thrifti-ness and benevolence, and some of them did so in a very polemic way. For example, Boyan Zongdao wrote the Jiefu xu ( preface of “Jiefu”) and Tang-wu Chongxi wrote the Jiefu houxu ( epilogue of“Jiefu”) , which reflect the social reality and ide-ology of all scholars with different ethnic back-grounds at that time. His work, “Tangwu gong-bei” fushi ( Poem inscribed on Tangwu Tablet ) , was written in a plain and authentic way and showed that he always remembered his origins and his ethnic desire to inherit the family’s heritage. Meanwhile , it was also mixed with the popular ide-as of upholding the honor of their ancestors from the central plains and Han areas, which shows the
editorial purpose of the Shu San Ji and also dem-onstrates the value of Chinese multi-ethnic litera-ture and cultural integration.     

从民族志物品收集到东南海洋系文化构建——林惠祥先生收藏与展示实践（1929-1958）

Since the 1980s, critical museum studies have interpreted the‘collecting and exhibi-ting activities’ of a museum as both practical activ-ities as well as a persistent scientific and socio-cul-tural process, and have explored the natures of museum, including the logic and strategy behind these practices. Through reviewing Lin Huixiang ’s collecting and exhibiting practices ( 1929 to 1958 ) , this article aims to explore internal rela-tionships between ( i ) museum practices and ( ii ) the practitioner, all under a particular episteme. This article moreover presents the genealogy of Lin Huixiang ’s academic ideas, museum practices, and‘Southeastern-oceanic-cultural ’ research pro-jects;it covers his earlier activities of ethnographic object collecting and exhibiting practices all the way to the construction of the‘Southeastern-ocean-ic-culture-system ’ within the framework of the‘New Theory of Evolution’ . Seen from a critical perspective, a museum is not a neutral and objective institution but a space full of power and discussion. In addition, in our modern times Museums have become a controver-sial place: the museum’s nature has changed from a‘palace of knowledge’ to a representation-system composed of objects. Eilean Hooper-Greenhill uses the terms“effective history” and“episteme” to ex-amine the history of a museum, and divides it into three stages: ( i ) the irrational cabinet, ( ii ) a classical episteme, and ( iii) a modern episteme. Different epistemes directly influence the collecting and exhibiting practices. Susan Pearce points out that collecting activities express and shape the rela-tionship between the human and material worlds. She distinguishes between “gathering”, “hoard-ing”, and “collecting” and she emphasizes that the term “collecting” points to products of imagi-nation. This imagination metaphorically creates meanings by arrangement and it displays the known world. Therefore, the activity of collecting and ex-hibiting is always practiced under a particular epis-teme;in addition political standpoints, value judg-ments, and academic interests are involved when interpreting the meanings of the objects and the constructing the knowledge order. This article moreover conducts a systematic exploration of Lin Huixiang’s collecting and exhibi-ting practices as well as the genealogy of his aca-demic ideas. All is examined from three aspects:( i) ethnicity, nation, and ethnographic object col-lecting practices; ( ii ) the intellectual, display practices and Museum of Anthropology; ( iii ) the New Theory of Evolution and the establishment of the Southeastern-oceanic-culture-system. The first section of “ethnicity, nation, and ethnographic object collecting practices”focuses on Lin Huixiang’s collecting practices from 1929 until the end of the Second World War. He started to collect aboriginal human objects in Taiwan since 1929 and ethnographical objects in the South Sea since 1937 . As most anthropologists from that area and period, Lin Huixiang’s collecting activities were influenced by patriotism, the establishment of a Chinese anthropology, and by personal academic interests. Chinese anthropologists during the 1920s to 1940s, including Lin Huixiang, believed that nationalism and the ‘Great Harmony ’ would lead to Chinese independence and civilization. And his practices had real significance for China in war-time. On the one hand, these aboriginal objects from Taiwan and the South Sea were regarded as material evidence of an extant“barbarian” culture;this was helpful in understanding that the‘barbari-an’ culture was basically same as that of ours, which then would reduce our ethnic prejudice a-gainst the ‘barbarian’ . On the other hand, these objects also became a means for the public to un-derstand Taiwan, the colony of Japan; in fact, these aboriginal objects even became a symbol of anti-colonialism and aroused the people’s patriot-ism. The second part of “the intelluctual, display practices and Museum of Anthropology” turns to Lin Huixiang’s ideas about the enlightment through a museum and its exhibitions. Lin Huixiang indeed emphasized the educational function of exhibitions and the museum. He displayed his collections to the public, held several exhibitions starting in 1929 , donated all his collections to Xiamen Uni-versity in 1951 , and advocated the establishment of the Museum of Anthropology. Lin Huixiang pointed out that museums were educational institu-tions meant to spread knowledge, and he used specimens, charts, and models to educate the pub-lic. As an anthropologist, Lin Huixiang understood the meaning of an ethnographical museum as an in-strument for teaching, research, and social educa-tion. By reviewing Lin Huixiang’s ‘collecting and exhibiting practices ’ during the period 1929 -1958 , we can clearly come to understand his aca-demic ideas about the discipline of anthropology and about the Southeastern-regional culture. The exhibitions in the Museum of Anthropology of Xia-men University represent his endeavor to construct the Southeastern-oceanic-culture-system within the framework of the New Theory of Evolution. He showed archaeological specimens from the prehis-toric period to the historical period, as well as eth-nographical objects of China’s Southeastern region and Taiwan region, Indonesia, Singapore, India, and of Burma. All objects displayed in exhibitions were used to illustrate the rule of evolution, espe-cially the ethnographic objects that evidenced the primitiveness of human culture; this is helpful to us when exploring the origins of cultures. At the same time, Lin Huixiang compared the cultures of Northern China and Southeastern China, and iden-tified cultural traits specific to the Southeastern ar-ea, aiming to show cultural similarities among China’s Southeastern region and the Taiwan region, and Southeast Asia, which he called the“South-eastern-oceanic-culture-system”.