馬的繼續

非常高興YY終於不甘情願地拋出了爭論這樣的字眼，在他爭論之前，他不過是“避免"了這樣的爭論， 當然他並不是自以為是，No, not at all. 他不過是說主流思想。

現在的問題時，既然某某在爭論之前有意避過了容易引起爭議的觀點，看來他是知道這些爭議的嘍。

然而他在爭論中似乎從來沒有提到過，當然也許他不自以為是的認為所謂的主流就是不容爭議？等到別人出示證據了，他開始說愛因斯坦的相對論了。愛因斯坦的相對論在當初是有爭議，但是這並不等於所有有爭議的東西全是相對論。

同樣，相對論在被爭議的時候絕對不是主流，而它所引起的爭議也正是因為它的假釋有它的出奇之處。無論如何，愛因斯坦在爭論的時候不會說：“這些假釋是主流，你們自己去查吧”這樣不自以為是的話。

芮傳明、劉迎勝當然是寫過不少文章，其中有提到《胡馬和中國文化生活》，《中國古代外來文化和宗教》， 但是這個古到底是怎麽個古法，我們是應該問問的，所以我還是希望YY提供原文。在讀到他們的文章之前，我並不質疑這些教授，但是我顯然有理由質疑YY, 因為他非常肯定的東西總是最後變得不了了之。

接下來轉一篇有關描述：

中國北方遊牧起源問題初探
邵 方
(西南政法大學法學研究所，重慶400031）


與朱開溝晚期文化麵貌類似的考古遺存還有陝北清澗李家崖古城遺址，此外，在山西柳林高紅、陝西綏德薛家渠，以及延川、洛川等地也都發現了該文化的遺址。有些考古學家稱這種廣泛分布於陝北與晉西北的商周時期的青銅文化為“李家崖文化”或者“鬼方文化”。L18)李家崖文化在經濟類型上可能是以農業與畜牧業為主的混合經濟。生產工具中有銅製的斧、锛，石器有刀、斧，玉器有鏟、刀、斧，骨器有鏟，皆顯示出農業生產的重要性。另一方麵，在李家崖古城遺址中還發現有馬、牛、羊、豬、犬、鹿的骨骼。屬於李家崖文化的陝西綏德薛家渠遺址，出土的獸骨據稱是以牛、羊骨最多。“

評論說，這裏明顯提到馬的考古化石，雖然牛羊為多。

其次，馬的馴化和傳播是歐亞草原遊牧興起的關鍵。早期遊牧人群是以馬、牛、羊為主的專業化遊牧人群。因此，馬、牛、羊的馴養史與遊牧的出現密切相關。在新石器時代晚期發展出的農牧業兼營的混合經濟為遊牧的產生奠定了基礎。在夏家店上層文化中，從動物遺存以及出土器物上的動物形象來看，除了當地原有的家畜豬、狗、牛、羊外，也出現了馴養的馬。李家崖古城遺址中的動物遺骸有馬、牛、羊、豬、狗、鹿。因為有車馬器的出土，無疑在李家崖文化中已有馴養的馬了。

已有學者指出，馬被認為是草原遊牧的象征，馬的馴化和傳播是歐亞草原遊牧興起的關鍵。已知最早馴養的馬出現在東歐。[20]在烏克蘭南部 Dereivka村Sredni stog文化遺址中發現了大量馬骨和六個鹿角式嚼子。研究表明，馬正處於被馴化的過程中，主要是食用，也開始用於騎乘和牽引，其時代是公元前3500—前3000年。1956年，古姆巴特斯(Gimbutas)曾提出“庫爾幹文化”的概念，用來描述靈活機動、騎馬好戰的父係氏族部落文化，以區別歐洲古老的定居、和平的母係氏族文化傳統。庫爾幹文化是印歐語的源泉，是原始印歐人或雅利安人的創造。1985年，安東尼完成了一篇以馬的馴化為主題的博士論文。他將馬的馴化和印歐語的起源看做是庫爾幹文化的兩個組成部分，並且指出馬是導致印歐語廣泛傳播的關鍵因素。在馬被馴化的同時，適應馬拉的車也應運而生。一輛牛車一天行程不過25公裏，而馬車可以輕易超過50公裏，使人類在其曆史上第一次能夠以超過自己的速度進行長途運輸，從而導致了陸上運輸的革命。

評論說，這是關於馬的論文的引用，閱讀原文，我們知道那是一種假釋，在近來受到的質疑越來越多。

這裏明顯提出馬在李家崖文化中已經存在了。

第三，外來遊牧文化的傳人是我國北方遊牧興起的原因之一。

馬在草原遊牧中具有決定性的地位。關於馬馴養的起源問題，大多數學者認為東歐、南俄及烏克蘭一帶的歐亞草原是馴養馬的原生地。在中國，馴養馬較為可靠的考古學證據所顯示的年代約在公元前1300年左右或略早，因此，從馴養發生的時間順序上看，似乎也支持遊牧文化是從西北方傳人中國的看法。當然，已有的考古學證據並不排除中國北方馬在本土馴養的可能。考古資料顯示，野生馬在新石器時代曾生存在華北及北方草原地帶。《史記》中也記載著匈奴人的畜產中有捕獲的野馬。直到近代，蒙古野馬還是世界上惟一的野生馬種。

但是，目前在長城以北的中國北方地區發現的最早馬具如馬銜、馬鑣來看，均表現出其來自北方的文化因素，到了春秋時期，中國長城以北的北方地區的馬具仍接近南西伯利亞馬具的風格。中國北方地區的“北方青銅器文化”或“鄂爾多斯式青銅器文化”與流行於歐亞草原上的同類器物在風格和工藝上是一致的。由於地理上的接近，以及有南俄草原特色的動物紋飾主題早已出現在中國的北方青銅器文化中，因此，草原遊牧的技術與觀念很可能在此時(公元前六世紀或略晚)影響中國北方地區遊牧的產生。[11](P410—412)

評論說，這裏提到原因之一的說法，最後說這是公元前六世紀的事情， 商朝至少是公元前11世紀了，商朝的文字已經是信史了，怎麽可能會反而受到匈奴的影響？

[兩隻黃鸝]

我不懂甲骨文，但是要說馬是匈奴詞，我覺得該打。

在這點上，起碼得跟小茶葉學學，好好搜索一下。

雖然說凡是不要太認真，但是這樣沒有水平的文章弄得一群人在高喊“好文章”，恐怕走廊的聲譽會因此下降，如果含蓄，1111肯定拔腿就走，省得惹到我身上，受無妄之災。

但是對於有些臉皮比腳掌還厚的人來說，我覺得還是實話實說。


我傾向惡狠狠的說法，馬作為偏胖得字在古文裏很多，稍微翻翻書就得了，難道還有疑問？這些字還都跟馬的用途有關，所以馬必定早就出現。

有無數文獻傳說說到馬的故事，譬如穆天子傳裏麵各種各樣的駿馬，譬如孟子提到的馬車夫的故事，無一不提到馬。再說了，秦兵馬俑還是實物證據呢，怎麽能視而不見？

我猜測一下，YY大概搜索了一下，從某篇文章得到了一些信息，所以就得出了這樣的結論。準確地說，現在我國確實隻有蒙古馬和新疆馬， 但是必須注意我們古代肯定不是這樣。

舉個例子， 中國現在隻有東北虎和華南虎，但是不能說老虎這樣的動物還是舶來品， 至少武鬆打得虎不是從東北華南運過來的。

YY你如果看不懂古文，最好少提曆史，隻是建議，聽不聽由你。

順便說一下，據我所知，中學課本的牛頓力學跟他的故事沒有關係，如果你不是研究牛頓隻是研究牛頓力學，這些故事應該對你沒有影響才是。

[兩隻黃鸝]

Search for the Indo-Europeans
Michael Balter


Around 6500 years ago, a group of seminomadic warriors arose on the treeless steppes north of the Black Sea. They herded sheep and goats, and they tamed the wild horse. Their language was rich with words reflecting their pastoral way of life. When one of their warrior-chiefs died, he was buried with great ceremony under a large earth mound called a kurgan. After about 1000 years of restless existence on the barren steppes, the story goes, these nomads went in search of new grazing land, riding out of their homeland between the Dnieper and Volga rivers armed with bows and arrows, spears, and bronze daggers. Over the next 2 millennia, the horsemen swept into eastern and central Europe, Anatolia, and much of western Asia, bringing their culture and colorful language with them. Before long, the hills of Europe and Asia echoed with the gallop of horses' hooves and the strongly enunciated vowels and consonants of a new language, which linguists today call Proto-Indo-European (PIE).

The "Kurgan hypothesis," as this dramatic account of the spread of the Indo- European language family during the Early Bronze Age is known, was the dominant paradigm among linguists and archaeologists during much of the 20th century. It is most closely associated with the late Marija Gimbutas, an archaeologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, whose visions of prehistory were often filled with romantic pageantry. She argued that the Kurgans overrode existing matriarchal, Mother Goddess- worshipping societies, imposing their warrior religion as well as their patriarchal culture throughout Europe and western Asia. But the theory caught on for much more pragmatic reasons: It seemed to solve the long-standing mystery of the origins of Indo-European, a closely related group of 144 tongues that today are spoken on every continent. The family includes English as well as all of the Germanic, Romance, Slavic, Indian, and Iranian languages.
In 1973, however, Cambridge University archaeologist Colin Renfrew proposed that the driving force behind the propagation of the Indo-European languages was not the fast gallop of horses' hooves but the slow adoption of farming. Renfrew argued that the gradual expansion of the agricultural way of life, which originated in the Near East some 10,000 years ago, carried the language family into new territories together with the seeds of wheat and barley. Because archaeologists widely agreed that farming had spread from Turkey to Greece and southeast Europe, Renfrew's "farming-dispersal hypothesis" pointed to the Anatolian plateau, which makes up most of modern Turkey, as a better candidate for the original Indo-European homeland (see sidebar p.1324 and Book Review, p. 1298).

At first, most linguists and many archaeologists reacted with hostility to Renfrew's hypothesis, in part because they thought that it put the initial dispersal of Indo-European languages far too early. But in recent years, an accumulation of new evidence has considerably weakened support for the Kurgan hypothesis. Some archaeologists have challenged the notion that the Kurgans rode horses at all, and others have questioned the original linguistic analyses that put the Indo-European homeland north of the Black Sea. "Confidence in the Kurgan theory is waning," comments historian Robert Drews of Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. "But," he adds, "the alternatives are not yet very attractive."

Indeed, Renfrew's analysis has certainly not swept the field. Although new and highly controversial dating of PIE, based on the techniques of evolutionary biology, supports a very ancient origin for the first appearance of the language family--8000 or more years ago--many linguists continue to insist that such early dates cannot be right. Wherever the first Indo-Europeans came from, they argue, reconstructions of the PIE vocabulary indicate that they could not have been the early farmers of Anatolia. "PIE was the language of a society which was very familiar with wheeled vehicles" and copper metallurgy, says Lawrence Trask, a linguist at the University of Sussex, U.K. "This obliges us to date the split of PIE no earlier than about 6000 years ago"--long after Anatolian farmers had dispersed.

[兩隻黃鸝]

Fredirik Kortlandt

The publication of Mallory's book(1989) has rendered much of what I had to say in the present contribution superfluous. The author presents a carefully argued and very well written account of a balanced view on almost every aspect of the problem. Against this background, I shall limit myself to a few points which have not received sufficient attention in the discussion.

First of all, the relation between archaeology and linguistics is a precarious and asymmetrical one. ...

從這裏已經看到，即使寫這些文章的人都承認這個說法存在太多的主觀觀點，隨人而異，所以最好別再引申

[兩隻黃鸝]

By René Grousset

"Le fait capital dans l'histoire de l'humanité est la pression que ces nomades ont exercée sur les empires civilisés du sud, pression qui est allée à diverses reprises jusqu'à la conqu阾e. La descente des nomades est une loi presque physique, dictée par les conditions de l'habitat steppique." (p. 22)


My translation:


The capital fact in human history is the pressure that these nomads exercised on the empires of the south, a pressure that on various occasions ended in conquest. The descent of the nomads is a law almost physical in character, dictated by the environmental conditions of the steppe.


Commentary:


The nomads that Grousset refers to were primarily the Huns, the Turks, and the Mongols, and the "empires of the the south" were those of Byzantium, Iran, China, and other lands culturally different but close enough to nomadic societies to experience repeated invasions. It is certainly debatable whether there is any one "capital fact in human history" as Grousset assumes. Nevertheless, the French historian would probably consider himself all the more vindicated in his claim by recent archeological work done in the steppe regions of Ukraine and Russia, work suggesting that the original homeland of the Indo-Europeans was there. Speakers of Indo-European languages constitute about half of the world's people today, and many of their languages are associated with prestige and power, including English, German, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, and Hindi.


Source:

René Grousset. L'empire des steppes: Attila, Gengis Khan, Tamerlan, fourth edition. Paris: Payot, 1965.


這大概是原文，英文是譯文，後來那些人寫得中文大概是二次以後的譯文， 嘿嘿。

YY大概是N道販子，其中以訛傳訛，大概尼姑也變成了和尚。

[兩隻黃鸝]

在這之前，希望YY出示劉迎生教授的文章。


1994年出版的中國民族，關於匈奴的介紹：

匈奴為我國北方古代民族。又稱胡。其名始顯於戰果。自西漢以來，中國古代文籍記述其先民即殷周鬼房，儼狁。 當今學術界，仍多宗古籍；也有西來北來等說。

匈奴無文字，以語言為約束。。。


再者，現在關於“馬蹄下的王國”的說法是關於史前文明的一種猜測，還算不上是曆史，更不用說信史了。

匈奴的戰馬比漢朝多並不等於馬的培養技術來自於匈奴，為什麽不能他們學去了然後大量繁殖？ 難道說現在中國人最多說明外國人都市跟中國人學的生殖技術？