罗泰中国早期文明中城市的发展阶段 ENGLISHWord文档格式.docx

罗泰中国早期文明中城市的发展阶段 ENGLISHWord文档格式.docx

《罗泰中国早期文明中城市的发展阶段 ENGLISHWord文档格式.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《罗泰中国早期文明中城市的发展阶段 ENGLISHWord文档格式.docx（13页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

DepartmentofAnthropology,StonyBrookUniversity,NewYork

BruceG.Trigger

DepartmentofAnthropology,McGillUniversity

克雷格·

莫里斯

美国自然历史博物馆人类学部，

K.安妮Pyburn

美国印第安纳大学人类学系，

科林·

伦弗鲁

麦当劳研究所的考古研究，剑桥大学

杰里米·

A.Sabloff

宾夕法尼亚大学博物馆的考古和人类学

伊丽莎白C.石

纽约州立大学石溪分校人类学系，

布鲁斯G.触发

麦吉尔大学（McGillUniversity）人类学系，

TheAncientCity

NewPerspectivesonUrbanism

intheoldandNewWorld

EditedbyJoyceMarcusandJeremyA.Sabloff

ThispublicationresultsfromanArthurM.SacklerCo11oquitium

oftheNationalAcademyofSciences,“EarlyCities:

NewPerspectivesonPre-industrial

Urbanism,”heldMay18-20,2005,attheNationalAcademyofSciencesinWashington,DC.

Publicationofthisvolumeismadepossibleinpartbygeneroussupport

fromtheNationalAcademyofSciencesandtheUniversityofPennsylvania.

ASchoolforAdvancedResearchResidentScholarBook

SantoFe,NewMexico

古城

旧的和新的世界城市化的新视角

编辑乔伊斯马库斯和JeremyA.Sabloff

本出版物结果阿瑟·

赛克勒Co11oquitium的，美国国家科学院，“早期的城市：

前工业化城市化的新视角”，2005年5月18日至20日举行，在华盛顿特区的美国国家科学院。

该卷的出版成为可能，部分由美国国家科学院和美国宾夕法尼亚大学的慷慨支持。

一所学校为高级科研居民学术书

圣菲，新墨西哥

208

K.C.Nauriyal,forallowingmetovisitDholaviratoseetheongoingexcavationsanddiscusstheirrecentfindings.SpecialthankstoallthecolleagueswhohaveparticipatedintheresearchatHarappaandhavehelpedtocollectandanalyzedata:

thelateDr.G.F.Dales,Dr.RichardMeadow,Dr.RitaWright,Dr.M.RafiqueMugbal,Mrs.BarbaraDales,Dr.HeatherM-L.Miller,Dr.WilliamBetcher,Dr.QassidMallab,Dr.LauraMiller,SharriClark,AasiinDogar,NadeemGhouri,RandyLaw,BradChase,andalltheotherteammembers.Finally,Iwouldliketothanktheanonymousreviewersfortheircomments,whichhavehelpedtomakethischaptermorecoherent.

KCNauriyal，让我去参观Dholavira看到了正在发掘和讨论他们最近的发现。

特别感谢所有的同事都参加的研究在哈拉帕和帮助收集和分析数据的：

已故的博士GF山谷，博士理查德草甸，博士丽塔·

赖特，博士M.拉菲克Mugbal，夫人芭芭拉山谷，博士希瑟ML。

米勒，威廉·

贝彻博士，博士Qassid20期MATLAB，劳拉·

米勒博士，Sharri克拉克，AasiinDogar，纳迪姆Ghouri，兰迪法“，布拉德·

大通，和所有其他的团队成员。

最后，我想感谢匿名审稿人的意见，这有助于使这一章更连贯。

MyongoingresearchatHarappaandontheIndusValleyCivilizationhasbeensupportedbynumecousorganizations:

theNationalScienceFoundation,theNationalEndowmentfortheHumanities,theNationalGeographicSociety,theSmithsonianInstitution,theAmericanSchoolofPrehistoricResearch（PeabodyMuseumofArchaeologyandEthnology,HarvardUniversity）,theUniversityofWisconsin,

www.HARAPPA.com,andprivatedonors.

我在哈拉帕和印度河流域文明的正在进行的研究已经得到了numecous组织：

美国国家科学基金会，国家人文基金会，美国国家地理学会，史密森学会，美国史前研究学院（皮博迪博物馆的考古与民族学，哈佛大学），美国威斯康星大学，

www。

HARAPPA.com和私人捐助者。

209

eleven十一

StagesintheDevelopment

of“Cities”inPre-ImperialChina

LotharvonFalkenhausen

WheninquiringintothearchaeologyofanareaoftheworldinwhichEnglishisnotthescholarlylanguageofreference,suchasChina,wearewelladvisedtostartbymakingeveryefforttocomprehendtheterminologyusedinthescholarlyliteraturefromwhichwederiveourinformation.Thisisespeciallyimportantwhentheresultsofourinvestigationareintendedtoserve,asisthecaseinthisbook,forcross-culturalcomparison.Ifweare,forinstance,tofindouthowancientChinesecitiesdifferfrom,orcorrespondto,thoseofotherearlycivilizations,wemustfirstmakesurethatthesemanticrangeoftheword,orwords,conventionallyrenderedas“city”capturephenomenathatcorrespondatleastmoreorlesstothoseweareusedtodesignatingas“cities”elsewhere.

Itisrelevanttotakenote,inthisconnection,ofthepolysemyoftheChineseword（Ch）cheng城,whichismostcommonlyusedtotendersuchtermsas（English）city;

（German）Stadt;

（Russian）gorod;

（French）ville;

and（Latin）urbs.EachoftheseIndo-Europeanlexicalitems,ofcourse,hasitsowndistinctandhighlyevocativeetymology,andsodoescheng,whichmeansboth“city”and“citywall.”Theformermeaningisundoubtedlyderivedfromthelatter,viaathird,relatedmeaningof“fortress.”OftheIndo-Europeantermslisted,onlygorod（relatedtotheEnglishwordgarden,whichdesignated,originally,a“guarded”enclosure）hasasomewhatcomparablesemanticfield.Alsoofrelevanceistheetymologicalconnectionof（Ch）cheng（reconstructedarchaicpronunciation:

ijag）城citytotheexactlyhomophonouscheng成toestablish,whichmirrorsthatof（German）Stadt（aswellas[German]Staat,[English]state;

and[French]etat）to（German）steben;

（English）tostand;

[Latin]stare;

andsoon）.

Inmodernscholarship,thewordchengregularlyturnsupinconnectionwithattemptstorenderintoChinesesuchlargerconceptsas（Greek）“polis”;

（Latin）“civitas”;

（German）“Stadtstaat”;

and（English）“urbanism.”Because,undertheinfluenceofWesternanthropology,thepresenceof“cities”hascometoberegardedasaleadingindicatorfortheonsetof“civilization”inChina（Chang1962,1976:

22-46;

Okamura2000;

ShaoWangping2000;

Yang2004a;

Zhongguo2003）,Chinesearchaeologists--linguisticallyconditionedtoequate“cities”with“walls”--havefocusedtheirsearchfortheoriginsofcivilizationinChinasingle-mindedlyonwalledenclosures.

Bycomparisonwithothercivilizationsoftheancientworld,however,sizableandImportant-lookingwalledsettlementsappearrelativelylateintheChinesearchaeologicalrecord.ThishascausedsomepsychologicaldiscomfortamongscholarsintentonestablishingasearlyaspossibleanoriginforChinesecivilization,andsomehavethereforeembracedaverybroaddefinitionof“city”（ShaoWangping2000:

203-206,216-219;

Yang2004a）.Ibelieve,however,thatinordertounderstandthegenesisofurbanisminearlyChina,theequationof“cities”withwalledsettlementsshouldprobablybeabandoned.Morebasically,asIwillargue,itmightbeusefultoquestionthelinkageof“cities”and“civilization”inthecaseofChina.China,Ibelieve,presentsuswithasituationinwhichfull-fledgedandsophisticatedstate-levelsociopoliticalorganizationexistedformanycenturiesinaspatialenvironmentthatlackedmanycrucialfeaturesofurbanismseenelsewhere.Fullcities---andthecrucialdistinctionbetweentheurbanandruralspheres--emergedonlyduringthetimeoftransitionprecedingthefoundationofthefirstunifiedempirein221BC.

Thesurroundingwallsofpre-ImperialChinesesettlements,wherepresent,consistofstampedeath（hangtu）,adurablebutnotparticularlyconspicuousmaterial（figure11.1）.Stampedearthisalsousedfortheplatformsonwhichimportantbuildingsstood.Thebuildingsthemselvesarehighlyimpermanent,consistingmainlyofawoodenframe,wallsmadeofwattleanddaub,stampedearth,oradobebricks,andathatchedroof.Insteadofthatch,woodenshinglesmayhavebeenusedonoccasion.RooftilesarefirstseenintheninthcenturyBC,andfiredbricksappearonlyattheveryendoftheBronzeAge.Throughoutpre-Imperialtimes,bothtilesandbricksarerestrictedtoveryprominentbuildings.Stonebouldersaresometimesusedasfillforthefoundationpitsoflargewoodencolumns,andapronsofscatteredpebblessurroundsomestamped-earthfoundations;

asidefromthis,stoneisneverusedasabuildingmaterial.

UntilthemiddleofthefirstmillenniumBC,thevastmajorityofdwellingsandotherbuildingsatearlysettlementsweresemi-subterraneanhutstoppedwithsimplethatched-roofstructures.Suchbuildings,theforerunnersofwhichcanbetracedbacktothebeginningsofsettledlifeinChina,enjoyedanevenshorteruse-lifethanthewood-framedstructuresontheirplatforms.Hence,evensettlementsthatwereoccupiedonlyforabrieftimetendtopresentthearchaeologistwithanimpenetrablemazeofintersectingpits.Someofthesepitsaretheremainsofdeliberatelyconstructeddwellingsorstoragebuildings;

manyothersaremakeshiftrubbispits.Deliberatelyconstructedbuildings,aswell,usuallydegeneratedintorubbishpitsatasecondarystageoftheiruse-life.Stamped-earthfoundationsofabovegroundbuildingsareoftenpockmarkedtothepointofneardisappearancebypitsdugintothemafterthebuildingswereabandoned.Thefoundations,inturn,oftensitontopoffilled-inpitsfromprecedingepisodesofsettlement.Postholes,whenpreserved,canindicatethealignmentofwallsandstructuralsupports,butmoreoftenthannot,suchalignmentsareobscuredbysuccessivephasesofconstruction.

Despitethetechnicalchallengesthesesitesposetotheirexcavators,sevendecadesoffieldworkhavenowgeneratedafairamountofevidencethatcanbeusedtoreconstructthedevelopmentofproto-urbanandurbansettlementsinpre-ImperialChina.Limitingmyselftothecoreareaoftheearlyroyaldynasties--theYellow,Huai,andMiddleYangziriverbasinsandtheShandongpeninsula--Ishalltracethisdevelopmentthroughthreeprincipalstages:

（1）anIncipientStageinthethirdmillenniumBC（LateNeolithic）;

（2）aFormativeStagefromca.2000toca.600BC,comprisingmostofChina’sgreatBronzeAge（includingthehistoricallydocumentedShang[ca.1600-ca.1046BC]andWesternZhou[ca.1046-771BC]periods）;

and（3）anAdvancedStage,fromCa.600BCtotheQinunificationin221Bc,whichislargely,butnotentirely,coterminouswiththeWarringStatesperiodintraditionalhistoriography（ca.450-221BC）.Thisperiodizationisforthepurposeofpresentationonlyanddoesnotimplyateleologicalviewoftheevolutionof“cities,”which,overthecourseofthislongtimespanandinthelargeter