仪式场域中女性元素的人类学考察——以广西宁明县海渊茶场瑶寨的度戒仪式为例

度戒是瑶族地区最为重要的宗教仪式之一.在过往有关瑶族度戒仪式的研究中,学者们都将研究视角集中在仪式中的男性身上,而对于仪式中的女性关注少之又少.此种研究盲区不仅使我们难以窥探度戒仪式的全貌,同时也是对在仪式中扮演一定角色的瑶族女性的不重视.基于此原因,本文以广西宁明县海渊茶场一个瑶族村寨的度戒仪式为研究对象,通过对度戒仪式的过程展现,从中探讨仪式中不同年龄层的女性角色,从而达到真实、全面展示仪式及客观评价仪式中女性观的目的.     

瑶族“度戒”仪式的文化传承及教育意义

度戒是瑶族同胞男子一生最重要、最隆重的成人传统礼,同时也是瑶族祖先流传下来对族人进行道德、族规、族史、礼仪教育的传统方法。因此,度戒蕴含着深厚的民族文化内涵。本文试图从教育学的角度分析该仪式的教育意义。     

瑶族“度戒”非物质文化遗产保护的路径探析——以广西贺州市平桂区吴村平地瑶“度戒”为例

“度戒”是瑶族传统民间信仰,也是活态的生活方式.其中蕴含着丰富的瑶族民众关于自然界和宇宙的知识和实践.在社会转型的时代背景下,“度戒”正在发生着剧烈的变化,也出现了许多亟须解决的问题.制定度戒“非遗”保护的措施必须以其具体情况为依据,从传承场的拓展、度戒文化内涵的重新诠释、竞争机制的设立与合理的文化重构等方面入手进行统筹,方能实现有效的保护和传承.     

宗教仪式与财富消费——以公母山瑶族为例

宗教仪式与财富消费密不可分,它们是一种互动的关系。瑶族宗教色彩浓郁,宗教仪式贯穿生活,仪式中的财富消费也就愈来愈受关注。为了探究瑶人对这二者关系的态度,文章将立足于公母山瑶族社会中的各类宗教仪式,将仪式中的消费情况作为关注重点,试图去了解瑶族人的消费观,尤其是与宗教密切相关的消费观,并试图去分析瑶族社会宗教仪式与财富消费的社会与文化意义。     

瑶族招郎仪式中族群文化认同的建构——以南岭走廊中段西岭山FMP瑶族村为例

在经济社会迅速发展、族群互动日益频繁的当今世界,生存在同一区域的不同族群,既要维持族内的文化认同,又要接纳强势的外族文化,才能确保本族的正常生存与发展。如何抉择并保证两种甚至多种认同互不冲突,招郎仪式对此做出了明确回答。仪式中展示的建构族内、族际文化认同的方式方法,体现出瑶族群众充分利用各种场所和可能建构族群文化认同。它是瑶族在主动适应社会变迁的同时,又灵活保存本族文化的重要手段之一。     

人类学视阈下的瑶族服饰文化——以广西贺州瑶族为例

瑶族服饰是在长期的生产生活中形成的物质与精神的产物,是瑶族传统文化的表现形式,也是识别其族群的最直观的符号标志;瑶族服饰刺绣挑花,花纹多彩,图案丰富,不仅蕴涵着朴素的生态意识,而且意蕴着丰富的人文景观;作为一个特有的文化事象,发掘其服饰表征的文化内涵,以期在当下力主文化多样化的审美语境中,使其服饰文化得到阐扬和赓延。     

瑶族归侨的社会记忆与认同建构——以广西十万山华侨林场为例

本文以田野调查资料为基础,探讨了广西十万山华侨林场瑶族归侨的社会记忆与认同建构。本文认为,社会记忆以史实为依据。这些史实包含了一系列曾经为社会所认可的价值观。此外,社会记忆的更新过程同时也是群体试图使传统的价值观适应社会变化的过程。对过去的社会记忆可以使个人或社会群体通过对过去的回忆满足其在现实中的认同和相互之间的需要。     

瑶族居所的历史叙事意象分析——以贺州瑶族为例

居所作为凝固的历史,就是一个历史叙事意象;贺州瑶族分布广泛,居地差异大,居所可以多层面地表征历史叙事;作为一个迁徙不定的民族,瑶族居所不仅体现出迁徙意象,而且还体现了逃生意象,它真实地展现了该族曾经的历史;也正因为如此,瑶族渴望人口的增长,于是在居所建造中赋予其以生殖意象.     

布努瑶民间法及其和谐社区秩序的构筑——以广西都安瑶族自治县下坳乡加文村为例

本文通过对一个典型布努瑶村寨--加文村--的田野调查,描述、探究布努瑶民间法的表现形式、调解方式及在社区秩序构筑中的和谐运作.文章认为民间法作为一种与村民生活十分贴近的"准法规范"在乡村生活中发挥着不可或缺的作用,是基层社会稳定与繁荣的润滑剂,延续着国家权力对社区的控制.因此,重视来自民间法在农村社区稳定和法治建设中的建构力量,对构筑平安新农村的法治秩序无疑有重要的现实意义.     

仪式及其象征的发生学研究:以酒神祭祀仪式为例

以田野调查为主要研究方法的人类学仪式研究硕果累累,但也日益显示出缺陷与不足,这一缺陷与不足表现为:现象与细节的描述过多,对现象与细节的解释不够;对当前的静态描述过多,对历史的动态分析不够。有鉴于此,笔者提倡对仪式进行发生学研究,从而清晰地梳理层出不穷的仪式概念,为仪式的发生及其历史演变正本清源。本文试以古希腊酒神祭祀仪式为例,分析仪式的发生及历史演变,从真正的人类学意义上把握仪式的形态、结构及功能。     

现代化进程中的瑶族"做社"活动——以广西金秀郎庞为例

瑶族崇拜社王,有较悠久的"做社"(祭社)历史."做社"是一种民间宗教仪式,同时也是宣讲习惯法的一种方式.广西金秀郎庞瑶族在20世纪50年代停止举行"做社",至80年代末恢复.本文以田野调查为基础,通过对"做社"活动的描述,讨论现代化进程中瑶族习惯法的保留与变迁,分析现代化对瑶族习惯法的具体影响,探讨现代化变迁中瑶族习惯法的历史命运.     

卓仓藏人的骨系等级婚制及其渊源初探

生活在青海东北部的卓仓藏人 ,根据每个家族有无狐臭体味遗传及其程度 ,把整个社会划分成三个骨系阶层 ,每个阶层就是一个内婚群体。由于经济等方面的原因 ,跨阶层婚姻在卓仓藏人中也是允许的。其中 ,以较高阶层的女性嫁给较低阶层的男性为表现形式的下嫁婚 ,因其社会意义明显而更为常见。这种跨阶层婚姻使社会保持了一定的流动性。本文还对卓仓藏人骨系等级婚制的渊源做了初步探讨 ,认为这一制度源自卓仓藏人的迁出地卫藏地区 ,并进而可追溯到古代印度社会 ,但后来又受到安多藏区地域文化及其他民族文化的影响     

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.     

彝族的疾病观念与传统疗法——对云南赫查莫村及其周边的个案研究

作者对云南哀牢山区赫查莫村及其周边彝族尼苏人的疾病观念和传统疗法做了人类学田野调查,认为尼苏人在传统上倾向于把疾病分为两类:一类是需要通过宗教仪式加以治疗的,另一类是需要通过服药加以治疗的。作者认为,在社区医疗事业不断发展和农村医疗保险制度逐渐完善的今天,尼苏人的疾病观念和传统治疗法仍发挥着较大的作用,彝族社区中的常见病和多发病多是靠传统方法治疗的。彝族人对于传统方法的认同不能被简单地归因于经济困难,它是与彝族的传统信仰和知识体系密切联系在一起的。     

疾疫的救治、防控与乡村社会的变迁——青海省黄南藏族自治州牧区个案研究

历史上,现今青海省黄南藏族自治州的牧区存在鼠疫、性病、伤寒、天花等疾疫流行的情况,那里的藏族和蒙古族主要依靠社会力量(其中包括民间藏医、寺院以及人们在日常生活方面的行为规范和约束)对疾疫进行救治,国家和地方政府对当地疾疫的防控干预不多。中华人民共和国成立后,当地医疗卫生事业得到很大的发展,疾疫状况有了明显的改善。调查研究表明,近几十年黄南牧区疾疫救治与防控的进步,不仅表现为由民间自发防控向国家政府行为的转化,还表现为由治疗向预防的发展以及疾疫防控的法制化。它在某些方面改变了民众对传统社会组织与宗教的依赖程度,反映出国家力量对边远民族地区基层社会的管理在不断深入和强化。     

再论北魏道武帝早年经历——答安介生先生

本文是对安介生《北魏道武帝早年经历考辨--与李凭先生商榷》一文的回答.道武帝早年曾有被迫内徙长安和流徙蜀地的经历,这个观点由周一良提出,李凭对此作了考证.周一良"部分观点前后有较大的转变"的说法并不确实.另外,安文将羌俗、儒家文化、汉文化三者混为一谈是不符合逻辑的.至于道武帝厌恶羌俗的事例,非但不是他不曾迁居长安的明证,反而说明他了解长安附近的风俗,因而有利于李凭原先的论证.     

文成帝《南巡碑》所见北魏前期禁卫武官制度

文成帝《南巡碑》可进一步充实对北魏前期以幢将郎卫制度为主体的禁卫武官制度的认识。《南巡碑》所见幢将有内都幢将、三郎幢将、雅乐真幢将、内小幢将等 ,内都幢将当为负责殿中宿卫的禁卫长官。《南巡碑》所见斛洛真即胡洛真 ,意即“带仗人”(宿卫者 ) ,斛洛真军将或即宿卫军将。雅乐真、胡洛真可能就是史书中常见之羽林、虎贲 (郎 )。《南巡碑》可见大量郎官———内行内三郎、内三郎、三郎 ,内三郎多兼将军号。北魏前期亦有左右卫、武卫、四军、骁游等将军 ,似亦为禁卫武官。左卫将军所兼之南部折纥真即南部下大夫 (尚书南部侍郎 )。文成帝时禁卫武官出身于五六十个家族 ,归附拓跋鲜卑的各部族几乎都有代表人物任职于北魏禁卫武官系统 ,主要以帝室十姓、勋臣八姓及素和氏、斛律氏等约十余个家族为主。高车 (敕勒 )族的乙旃 (叔孙 )、斛律氏与北魏禁卫军权的关系极为密切。禁卫武官的出身和来源从一个侧面反映了北魏前期政权浓厚的民族特色及广泛的代表性     

魏晋"杂胡"释义问题探析

胡是匈奴的专称,但匈奴帝国部族构成复杂,为示区别,把匈奴单于部族之外的别部称作"杂胡".故魏晋时所谓"杂胡",其本义是指匈奴帝国解体后,曾经与匈奴部族有过政治统属或血缘关系的有关部族."杂胡"是指其种类繁多而言,并非指其小弱.至唐代,匈奴杂胡均已消失,惟西域昭武九姓胡依然保留有种类繁多的特征,故在隋唐以后昭武九姓逐渐独擅杂胡之称.