制造“太阳王”的光辉——从《制造路易十四》看神圣王权与民族国家的塑造

通过考察法国国王路易十四在位时的公众形象的制造、传播和接受的历史,英国文化史学家彼得·伯克的《制造路易十四》一书详细分析了见诸于绘画、雕塑、文学、戏剧以及建筑等艺术形式中的路易十四形象,指出法国在现代民族－国家形成的初期所形成的一个专门宣扬制造国王路易十四的公众形象的体制是如何展开王权的神圣性塑造与民族国家认同的,这一卓越的文化史研究为我们厘清民族－国家建构的路径提供了一种全新的视角。     

以辉度对抗等级衰降——从《尼加拉：十九世纪巴厘剧场国家》看古代巴厘的印式王权

格尔兹在《尼加拉》一书中呈现了“剧场国家”这一政治类型和国家形态,实际上这是深受印度文明影响的古代巴厘印式王权.作为神圣王权的一种地方形态,尼加拉的核心问题无非是19世纪巴厘岛的国王们是如何以仪式所产生的辉度来对抗继嗣关系中不断衰降的等级.格尔兹虽然发现了等级衰降与国王辉度源于至上神的神圣性这一问题,却忽略了婆罗门祭司作为知识群体在巴厘社会中的作用.王权理论视角下,巴特与兰星分别以知识生成和二元宇宙论回应了巴厘的知识分子和社会等级问题.因此,从神圣王权、等级制度和知识形成的理论入手来重新考察“尼加拉”,或能帮助我们找到理解巴厘剧场国家的不同路径.     

《众神飞飏——希腊诸神的起源》中的战争故事

一个研究希腊的学者,当然对希腊神话了如指掌.不过不是让他以研究者的身份去分析研究希腊神话,而是让他作为一个说故事者来讲述希腊神话,那情况又会怎样呢?     

太阳王与社会的神圣来源——霍卡的王权研究及其理论启发

霍卡是20世纪早期人类学的杰出代表性人物,基于扎实的东方古典学素养和长期的田野实地考察,他的王权研究不仅推动了传统东方学的现代人类学转向,更引领了原始文化与古典文明之比较研究范式.霍卡的王权理论强调,人类社会最初的神圣性和整体性是由王权来建构和表达的,特别是王的加冕典礼和献祭仪式彰显了一种独特的社会有机结构与运作机制,贯穿了自然与社会秩序,不仅突显了社会整体性的永恒动力,也触发了社会的分化.对于现代社会科学的社会理论建构和比较研究而言,霍卡的王权研究极富启发性.     

《十八相送》与《送表妹》叙事形态比较

《十八相送》和《送表妹》拥有相同叙事结构、相似叙事场景。两段戏曲中主角的身份地位略有不同、处理矛盾的方式有所差别,二者结局并不相同,呈现出不同的主题审美意蕴。     

试论《格萨尔王传》中古代藏族先民的自然保护意识

自古以来,藏族与大自然和谐相处,以独特的方式保护着大自然,进而产生了独特的自然保护意识和生态意识,深心地影响着世世代代的藏族人民。通过藏族英雄史诗《格萨尔王传》可窥探古代藏族先民对自己生活的环境——大自然的朦胧认识、崇拜到竭力保护这一过程,本文阐述了人类不是大自然的主宰者,人类与自然和谐相处,均衡互利,人与自然和谐发展才是永恒的主题与朴素观念。     

历史中的“游”——读江绍原《中国古代旅行之研究》

对于现代人来讲,旅游不过是一类寻常的消费,一种对"自然"的征服,一个能够暂时解放个体心灵与身体的有效方法.而这样的思维与行为之所以可能,一个关键条件就在于现代式空间观的出现.     

傣族寨神勐神祭祀之宗教解读——以涂尔干《宗教生活的基本形式》为分析框架

寨神勐神崇拜是傣族原始宗教的重要形式,虽然这种祖先崇拜已经脱离了图腾崇拜的原初形式,但是图腾制度的痕迹还是无可争辩地存在着,具备了涂尔干对图腾崇拜阐述的各种特征.寨神勐神崇拜作为傣族传统文化的重要部分,从其诞生起,就承载着一种道德功能,具有规范人们行为的作用.而作为一种道德资源,傣族寨神勐神崇拜的意义不只是外在的,而且也具有了某种程度的内在特征,以伦理价值的方式渗透于人们的生活之中.     

古代中国与近代老、越山地泰族土地神祭祀的比较研究

作者从诸多古代文献中抽取出中国先秦土地神“社”的崇拜,并将之与近代老挝、越南未受佛教影响的泰族土地神勐神的祭祀进行比较研究.他通过文本分析和田野考察、汉学与人类学交叉的视角,认为中国古代文明和泰、倮倮以及苗族文明之间有诸多的关联点和令人吃惊的相似性,通过比较研究,有助于人们更好地理解中国古代的社会与宗教.同理,文章也揭示了关于少数民族宗教与社会研究的另一个视角.文章还说明了近代白泰和黑泰的勐神祭祀,其实是这个族群得以维系数百年的重要纽带,现代西方制度的介入亦不能从根本上将其改变.     

蒙古族史诗《江格尔》与古希腊《荷马史诗》英雄形象比较——以江格尔与阿基琉斯为例

蒙古族史诗《江格尔》和古希腊《荷马史诗》在英雄形象的描绘上,显示出相似的塑造模式及人生理想。江格尔和阿基琉斯身上表现出的神性和人性的统一,在超凡离俗的神圣色彩下,呈现着普通人的情感和行为方式。史诗描绘了英雄身份解构与重建的过程,要求对个人行为进行规范与反思,突出英雄的重要性。两部史诗中的英雄形象启示我们进一步思考东西方民族在社会观念、文化信仰等方面的相似和差异,从而加深我们对东西方文化的理解。     

拱心石与神王——施鲁克人的nyikang神与神圣王权的研究

In his famous book The Golden Bough,James Frazer mentioned one special custom found along the shores of Lake Nemi in Italy. The forest king who lived beside Lake Nemi, was not only once a prisoner, but also the murderer of his predecessor. Why did the King have to be killed? How could he be killed? This was the very starting point of James Frazer’s divine kingship study. This was in contrast to the common idea held in many cultures, that kings, or even gods, would die. However, in the most primitive societies, kings and gods also had a symbolic duty. People be-lieved that their king took the responsibility to maintain the order of society and the natural world. In that case, it was obvious that if the king became old and weak, the society and order would be in danger. The way used by primitive people to solve this problem was to kill the king when he became weak, and to rebuild this symbol of order through the accession of a new king. This worry about the loss of order and fertility, Frazer explained, was the reason why they choose to kill their king, who was also a god to them. To prove his theory, Fra-zer used many examples. Among them, the exam-ple of the Shilluk of Nilotic Sudan was the only real case of a people killing their king. All the kings were possessed by the spirit of Nyikang, who was not only a hero and king in their history, but also the god who created the universe of the Shilluk people. In Shilluk, it was not the king who ruled the country, but the spirit who possessed him. For that reason, once the king showed his weakness and age, he had to be killed or commit a suicide so as to keep Nyikang in a healthy body. This case was mentioned by James Frazer, re-examined by Evans-Pritchard, and discussed by Henri Frank-fort and David Graeber. The Shilluk people lived in Sudan, in the Ni-lotic area alongside the Nile River. Their kingdom consisted of y many hamlets and occupied by linea-ges. But all these hamlets and lineages shared the same king, who was believed to be the descendant of their semi-divine hero and first king, Nyikang. Nyikang was believed to bring the fertility of men, of cattle, and of the crops. He lived among his people and blessed them. He was a mythological figure who represented a changeless moral order and the stable structure of the state. The Shilluk people believed that the king was the embodiment of Nyikang, and, thus, shared his divinity. All the Kings were believed to be descended from Nyi-kang. The king could be killed for two reasons:when he could no longer satisfy his wives, it was time for him to die and make room for a more vig-orous successor; or he would be killed by one of the prince who coveted the shrine at night. There were many graves of kings and of Nyikang all a-round the kingdom, but all the Shilluk people knew that Nyikang was not buried in any of them, he would never die. The king, however, was the container of the Nyikang’s spirit. Thus, after his death, he was no longer divine, so his funeral would be a clan affair rather than a national affair. In Frazer’s opinion, Shilluk kings confirmed their rule and power by maintaining their connec-tion with the god, Nyikang. And, he gained divin-ity from this connection. However, this divinity was not permanent. In the same way, the stability of the Shilluk social order was also not permanent, so the complete failure of that power would cause the danger to the entire society. When the new king ascended the throne, the social order would be re-established. So, to kill the old king when he could no longer take responsibility for the whole of society was the way for the Shilluk to release the tension and handle the danger which resulted from their king’s death and to keep the social order. Several decades after the publication of The Golden Bough, Evans - Pritchard gave a talk at The Frazer Lecture ( 1948 ) . He looked at the Shilluk custom of killing their king together with the social structure of the Shilluk kingdom, and pointed out some of the unreasonable explanations made by James Frazer. He believed that this cus-tom, which Frazer explained as the way the Shilluk maintained the divinity of kingship, had political reasons and social functions. Based on his field-work, Evans - Pritchard described the political structure of Shilluk as follows: Shilluk hamlets consisted of one to fifty different families. Each hamlet was occupied by members of an extended family or a small lineage. The headman of a hamlet was also the head of a lineage in the settlement. All the Shilluk settlements composed a common polity, i. e. the land belonging to the Kingdom of Shillukland. There were two chiefs in the hierarchy between the king and the settlements. These were the Ger, who represented northern Shillukland, and the Luak, who represented the southern shil-lukland. Those two chiefs each ritually represented half of the kingdom, and they played a very impor-tant role in the election of the new king. Evans-Prichard discovered that there were very close con-nections between the kings, the princes and their villages where they were born. The pregnant wives of the kings would be sent back to their natal villa-ges to bear their children, and the princes were brought up by the headmen of their natal villages. Except them, all of the princes had their royal cli-ents ( Ororo) in the villages. These were the com-panions of the prince, so they would live in the capital with the prince if he was chosen to be the king, and would return to their village to guard the king’s tomb. This information will help us to see and understand the social structure of Shilluk soci-ety. The dual balanced structure of Shilluk society was represented by the southern-northern opposi-tion. We find that the Shilluk kingdom had a double configuration—one that was politically re-flected in its territorial division, which was divided into northern and southern parts, and the other one was ritually reflected in the rituals related to the cult of Nyikang. The king and the capital specific-ally stayed in the center. As Evans - Pritchard said, Northern Shillukland and Southern Shil-lukland were the arches of the kingdom of Shilluk, and kingship was the keystone. This duality was clearly represented in the election system and in-vestiture. The investiture of the new king would take place about a year after his election. Since this ceremony was meant to rebuild the social or-der, all the hamlets would participate in it. After the old king’s death, the spirit of Nyikang would no longer stay in his body. Instead, it would move to an effigy of a hamlet which was in a far north dis-trict of Shillukland. The effigy would be sent by the army of north to the outskirts of the capital, where there would be a ceremonial war with the king’s army. Since Nyikang was in the northern army, it was obvious that the king would fail. Then, the ef-figy of Nyikang would be put on the king’s chair. Then, the king would sit on the chair, and, as a result, the spirit of Nyikang entered into the body of the new king. Now, there would be another war— because Nyikang had entered into the body of the new king, the northern army failed, and, they would then take the effigy back to the shrine. This ceremony not only illustrated the tension be-tween the north and the south of Shillukland, but also the tension between the god Nyikang and the human king. And all these tensions were resolved through a unified kingship. We find that Shilluk society, no matter whether within the vertical and horizontal structure of the southern -northern op-position, or among the different hamlets, they all had different objects to show their loyalty. Howev-er, all these differences would be reduced when they faced a unified national symbol— Nyikang or divine kingship. The king did not belong to any single tribe or hamlet after the ceremony. He be-came the symbol of the happiness and continuity of all the Shilluk people. From this ceremony, Evans -Pritchard re -explained the reason for the special custom of the Shilluk. He asserted that in Shilluk society, the king’s death would cause chaos and many dangers. The king had died in the way they described be-cause they were afraid of exposing the tensions hid-den within the social structure. So, this tradition was only a political myth hidden under the facts. The second kind of death of the king was that he was killed by a prince. Evans-Pritchard believed that all Shilluk princes received support from their natal villages. If all the tribes had their own king, the Shilluk kingdom would definitely be torn apart. So, they still needed a center from which to build the whole kingdom, i. e. the kingship. In a king-dom of this kind, if the king attached himself to one hamlet, other hamlets would fight for their own rights. So, because the kingship was permanent and ensured the unity of the whole kingdom, it should be emphasized. In contrast to Evans-Pritchard’ s structural-functionist explanation, the American archaeolo-gist, Henri Frankfort, made his analysis of the customs of the Shilluk based upon the methodology of mythology. He compared the divine kingship of Egypt and Shilluk in his book Kingship and the Gods. And, based upon the process of the combi-nation and separation of the king and the gods, he discussed the function of divine kingship. In E-gypt, the pharaoh was called “the Lord of Two Lands”. This title involved two gods who were en-emies:Horus and Seth. They were respectively the Kings of Upper and Lower Egypt. Even when Seth had been defeated by Horus, it did not mean that he totally disappeared. This is because he had his own function within the existing order. Horus was not only a mythological figure, but also was one which reflected on the pharaoh. The pharaoh was always regarded as Horus or his embodiment. This idea is quite similar to the connection of Nyikang with the Shilluk king. However, in Egypt, there was another god who had a close connection with the kingship, that is, Osiris. In Egypt, the dead king was believed to change into Osiris, and the king on the throne, just as Horus, was regarded as the son of Osiris. Beside this connection, in the myths, Osiris was said to be the “Ka ” of Horus, which was something like energy, and for the king, it was somewhat like a kind of ruling power. This kind of father-son relationship also ex-isted among the Shilluk people. When Evans -Pritchard described the ceremony, he mentioned that Dak, the son of Nyikang, was also honored. However, in Shilluk, Nyikang meant all the kings, no matter whether dead or alive. What was more important is that Shilluk kings themselves were not gods, they were just processed by Nyikang, and it was Nyikang who was the real ruler. That was the reason why the accession ceremony of the king was so important. However, in the Egyptian view, the concept of kingship itself was more complicated than that of the Shilluk. All the Egyptian kings themselves were gods, and their orders, as god’s order, must be obeyed. So, although there was a stable kingship in the two societies, the roles played by the king were totally different. However, we can still find some basic elements of the divine kingship from these two cases. Because the king himself was a human being, he would definitely turn old and die. In order to resolve the social stress caused by the succession of the kingship, the kingship had to be stable. So, the king must have a relationship with the gods. It was the god and the kingship that maintained the unity of this structure. In 2011 , David Graeber published his paper titled The Divine Kingship of the Shilluk in which he used theories from political science to discuss the relationship between Nyikang and the Shilluk king . He tried to use this case to understand the e-mergence of the state and power. He compared the political status of Shilluk with their myth and cos-mology. He proposed three very important con-cepts:i) divine kingship which was absolutely dic-tatorial and had god-like authority—and was one in which this divine god went beyond the morality;ii) the sacred kingship which was ritualized and exemplary—this was a kind of prophetic and legis-lative king ; iii) violence and antagonism with no reason - the subject of the violence was the sover-eign and the people. All of these three concepts, David Graeber said, could be found in the Shilluk Kingdom. That was not because they were so -called primitive ethnic groups, but because this kingdom was a “Utopian State”. In other words, this kingdom, or the construction of its main cit-ies, was an imitation to the cosmic order, and, therefore, did not need a management institution to rule it. However, because this could never exist in the real world, violence appeared. David Graeber divided the kingship into two types: the divine and the sacred. In the former, the king was believed to be the god itself. And, in the latter, the kings were those who brought and created order. However, if order was set up by a king, it was asked whether or not the king himself still stayed within the order? So, the extreme type of sacred kingship would be the denial of the limi-tation of the king’s life. David Graeber suggested that the King of Shilluk did not have real power. The responsibility the Shilluk king undetook was the order of the whole cosmos. When he became weak, he could no longer judge and rule based on the cosmology. This is the reason why he had to be killed. We can see that the king who ruled the state according to the cosmology was more like a divine king, so his fate was that he must be killed by people. However, after he was killed, the for-mer “scapegoat” became the god and was wor-shiped by the people. The social order was rebuilt because of the king’s death, and in doing so he be-came the embodiment of the strength needed to re-build the social order. So, we can note that in Shilluk society, although people expect stability and order, they cannot allow the rule to become a central control and monopoly. The king should be in the center of order, but because the king would definitely become old, people tried to reduce the disorder through killing him. Due to the limitations of the king, he was trapped in the absolute authori-ty of the divine kingship, and the infinite order of the order. Hence, he was killed again and again. The appearance of the king was to resolve the dilemma within this society. He tried to build a U-topia, but was trapped in it because of his own limitations. Just like the kings were killed con-stantly, the conflict between sovereignty and the people would never stop. David Greaber pointed out that this constant opposition was the origin of state. This opinion totally refuted existing political theories, o matter whether they were that of Max Weber or of those who believe that it was through making law and rules to solve the conflict or the so-cial tensions in Africa, for their opinions were based on the perspective of nation state. However, in Africa, at least in Nilotic Sudan, they were u-sing this conflict to build their state. Graeber’s ar-ticle indicated that in the war between the sover-eign and the people, the sovereign is limited, and can never win truly. It reveals a new possibility for the construction of a nation state and political sys-tem. To sum up the discussions above, we have found that in those societies with divine kingship, the reason for the king’s divinity was because he undertook the people’s expectation of a stable soci-ety, and the fertility of crops, and livestock. Be-cause these expectations were not stable in them-selves, people either believed that their king him-self was a god, or tried to ensure that their king was in a healthy state. The similarity between them was that people had to keep the kingship stable and reduce the tension and chaos caused by the king’s death. From their fear of disorder and the fear of powerful order, we can even find a variety of ways of thinking about a perfect and eternal order, as well as on an imperfect and limited life. Thus the King always connected with a stone, for people al-ways expect a stable and changeless eternity.     

A Discussion on the Eighteen Kingdoms of Ancient Zhang Zhung and Their Destruction

While combing through the threads of the history of the Zhang Zhung kingdom,one of the first things that we cannot avoid is its position in historical time. As we know,from the perspec-tive of literary...     

论远古象雄十八王国及其覆灭

从文献学的角度讲,象雄十八王中最有名的当属赤威拉杰(),赤威拉杰曾是本教鼻祖幸饶弥沃的施主。象雄末代王李弥夏灭于赤松德赞时期。换句话说,象雄王朝的历史传说史可以上溯到本教鼻祖幸饶弥沃时代,象雄王朝的历史下限至少可以明确断代至赤松德赞时期。综上,象雄历史最终融化于吐蕃末代赞普残余势力的避难历史之中。     

试论元朝对畏兀儿地区的军政管理形式及变化

关于元朝政府对归附后的畏兀儿地区的军政管理形式 ,本文认为大体经历了畏兀儿亦都护自主国事以及过渡到元朝政府直接管辖两个阶段。此外 ,蒙古统治者对西域诸地的二重管理体制同样对畏兀儿地区政局的变化产生了一定影响。在蒙古大汗与西北藩王之间错综复杂的政治关系中 ,畏兀儿亦都护政权从自身利益出发所采取的两面都应付的态度致使元朝统治者改变了以往的政策 ,至元年间畏兀儿亦都护王室受命东迁应是其直接后果。     

《国际馆藏东巴经典编目举要》的编纂背景及其价值意义

2012年度国家社会科学基金重大项目“世界记忆遗产-东巴经典传承体系数字化国际共享平台建设研究”对进一步抢救、保护、传承、利用东巴经典及其纳西族文化具有极其重要的政治、经济、社会、文化价值,尤其具有人文与科技相结合、创造性转化与创新性发展优秀传统文化的探索性、学术性意义。其中的科学采集、释读、编目,当是实现建立东巴经典传承体系数字化国际共享平台课题目标的基础性、基本性工作。没有它,便没有中后期的东巴经典数字化加工、检索与网络传播,东巴经典数字化国际共享平台的建设运行,以及东巴经典数据库与知识库的建库、管理及利用。《国际馆藏东巴经典举要》作为该课题重要的基础性研究成果之一,对其编撰背景的回顾和价值意义的阐释,对进一步推进纳西学研究具有深远的意义。     

肃慎起源及迁徙地域略考

本文通过对有关肃慎的历史记载、考古发现以及前人研究成果的综合考查,从发展的角度探讨肃慎民族的历史进程。作者认为:由于特殊的地理环境和周边民族关系的影响,肃慎族从辽西地区到吉长地区再到牡丹江、黑龙江流域,在一个不断迁徙的过程中推演着本民族的历史。同时,这一历史进程也深刻影响了整个东北地区的历史面貌。廓清肃慎民族的发展脉络,是研究东北地区历史的关键。     

桂南"跳岭头"与"跳大排"初探

桂南“跳岭头”与“跳大排”在本质上都是一种驱逐鬼疫的巫术,在其历史延续过程中不断杂糅了当地民俗与道教等因素,与民间节庆融为一体,成为上古驱傩活动的变异形态,既娱神又娱人。二者都在农历八、九月间举行,流行地域毗邻,可相互观照进行对比研究。     

从唐初的史料记载看"附国"与"吐蕃"

自1946年岑仲勉先生提出"附国即吐蕃"的观点以来,学术界对"附国是否为吐蕃"的问题始终存在争议.本文放弃以往主要从附国的地理人文特征与吐蕃相比较的讨论范式,着重从"附国印吐蕃"观点缘起之依据及唐初关于附国和吐蕃的史料记载之背景来加以审视,印着重从观点、史料的发生学角度对此问题进行梳理和探讨.结论是,附国即吐蕃的观点在唐人和宋人那里找不到任何依据,相反,史料记载的背景可充分证明附国不是吐蕃.     

神明崇拜与传统社区意识--对闽西武北客家社区的田野调查研究

神明崇拜与社区意识具有互为因果、互为表里的关系 ,是客家社会研究中的一个重要问题 ,但相关的研究迄今尚不多见。作者在长期田野调查的基础上 ,结合历史文献 ,试图对闽西武北传统客家社区的神明崇拜做一较为全面的考察。文章分析了武北社区神明崇拜的寺庙层次、组织结构、祭祀活动与仪式 ,以及与此相关的社区意义 ,特别是神明崇拜与宗族、村落、乡镇等多方面的关系。     

中国黄土地区古村落(人类家园)环境解说系统研究之展望

本文研究典型古村落筛选、历史地理考察、人类家园环境解说内容与EROT环境解说传播模式。学术贡献主要体现于:在理论层次上可逐步探索适合于中国历史地理背景的环境解说理论,在应用层次上实现静物遗迹的活化与显现。对此需遵循“发现问题→创建模式→实例验证→解决问题→实现目标”的技术路线。