AsiaYouthMedia亚青传媒sinazen.com  

  

................................
sinazen.com
equitylogs.com
varsitylog.com

ph: enblocsale.com
alt: yuenco.com

Chinese History

Chinese Pyramids

Pymamids of grand styles and obvious religious significances have been found in Egypt and South America. They are not so well known in China, but have been located in both the Northern and Southern parts of the eastern seaboard. The five diagrams above show three found in southwest Manchuria, two in the Hangzhou region. They are man-made mounds, the northern ones mainly piles of rocks, the southern ones of soil. The rock piling somewhat reminds us of the practice of ancient Hebrews and Tibetans, who are however a thousand years or more later than the Chinese pyramids, which were even earlier than the Egyptian pyramids, though lacking their sophstication and engineering precision.

The two maps below show the locations of important sites:

What are in those pyramids? The following pictures show tombs and altars found on top:

and examples of artifacts discovered in or near the tombs

As can be noted in the right diagram, the coffins were made by assembling stone plates. It is the human remains and other biological material that allow the tombs to be carbon dated. The northern tombs were more than 5000 years old, while the southern ones were somewhat later.

 In particular, the Manchurian sites include a temple complex with several wings that have fragments of bird, bear-dragon and other statutes, including a well preserved goddess head

the relationship between the temple/statues and the jade objects found in nearby and contempoerary sites is unclear: the manchurian jade objects, the most important burial artifacts with obvious shamanistic significance, were various versions of the dragon, with some birds and turtles as well, whereas the goddess figures found in the temple and other sites were clearly related to fertility worship.

compare later jade dragons:-

but neither bears an obvious relationship to the jades of the southern tombs: (note the bronzes are from Shang tombs)

While the jade objects clearly indicate the form of the dragon, the relationship between the different dragon versions and to more "conventionally dragon like" artifacts, comtemporary or later, is also unclear

The relationship between the eastern china sites and roughly contemporary sites in western china

where the prominent artifacts are pottery rather than jade, is again unclear.

The pyramid tomb tradition was followed by Qin and Han emperors; a Shanxi aerial photo shows a number of them

1

2
3

 

............. 
古史三谈

谈谈史记

新加坡国立大学 阮宗光

秦焚各国史书,又令民间不得私藏经史,引至史料缺乏,但诸子百家书籍得以保存。汉令民间献书,堆积宫中。司马迁用宫中藏书作材料编写史记,去除三皇和更早神怪故事,由五帝起头。但常把讲人的故事当作历史。其中很多故事,是纵横家用来做辩论或娱乐君王的材料,或哲学家的寓言,以内容刺激纵听为上,多不可靠。

比如烽火戏诸侯,幽王死平王东迁故事有很多漏洞;烽火跟长城都是战国时代秦赵燕三国对抗匈奴开始有的,到秦汉才大规模应用。再看

“杀幽王骊山下。虏襃姒,尽取周赂而去”

如果犬戎攻占镐京,为什么幽王死在离京这么远的地方?犬戎是游牧民族,对占领土地,并无多大兴趣。虽然打垮周兵后攻镐,并不想认真攻城,拿了财宝就离开了。所以平王东迁,并不是因为镐京给犬戎占据。再看

《 左传 ?? 昭公二十六年 》:「至於幽王,天不吊周,王昏不若,用愆厥位,携王奸命]
《竹书纪年> 幽王死后,申侯、鲁侯、许文公等共立原太子宜臼于申,虢公翰又另立王子余
臣于携...二十一年,晋文侯杀王子余臣于携

就是说,平王东迁。是因为镐京由余臣及支持者占据,过了二十年才靠晋出兵解决了二王并立的问题;周无携地,携王之称,大概是因为登基时年幼要人抱携,不是因地名;携王应是在镐京的,即幽王同伯服战死后,镐京的幽王襃姒派拥立襃姒幼子,阻止太子派回京。杀幽王骊山下,是因为太子投奔外公申侯,幽王带兵征申,申侯联合犬戎半路袭击幽王。

尚书 .[ 平王锡晋文侯秬鬯、圭瓒,作《文侯之命》],即褒奖文侯替平王“正名”之大功。史记又说,平王东迁时,秦襄公率兵护送。平王封襄公为诸侯,并将岐山以西之地赐秦。平王有外公申侯支持,为什么还要在西边很远的秦国出兵护送?再说护送小功,值得赏大片土地的奖励吗?正确的情形是二十一年秦晋联合出兵消灭携王一派;晋秦两国瓜分了西周土地,东周变成一小国。晋占领的地在渭河北黄河西,即西河之地,晋惠公战败割让与秦,战国初期魏吴起占领,商鞅时秦才夺回。

其实周申秦戎四角关系由来已久;史记有

非子居犬丘,好马及畜,善养息之。犬丘人言之周孝王,孝王召使主马于汧渭之闲,马大蕃息。孝王欲以为大骆适嗣。申侯之女为大骆妻,生子成为适。申侯乃言孝王曰:「昔我先郦山之女,为戎胥轩妻,生中潏,以亲故归周,保西垂,西垂以其故和睦。今我复与大骆妻,生适子成。申骆重婚,西戎皆服,所以为王。王其图之。」於是孝王曰:「昔伯翳为舜主,畜多息,故有土,赐姓嬴。今其后世亦为朕息马,朕其分土为附庸。」邑之秦,使复续嬴氏祀,号曰秦嬴。亦不废申侯之女子为骆适者,以和西戎。

《诗经·大雅·崧高》云:“维申及甫,维周之翰,……王命申伯,式是南邦。……往迹王舅,南土是保。”

纪念周宣王封舅父申侯在南阳事。厉王出奔后宣王复位,应得到舅父帮助。周申世为姻亲,孝王时申侯同外孙(大骆子)和西戎亲善,维持边境和平,伺此有些不卖周王帐的趋向;而周孝王则有意培植秦非子一派作为平衡。所以周申关系多少有一些紧张因素。等幽王废申后太子,就不可收拾了。

也有些故事产生,是儒家作者有意无意把某些人说得太崇高;比方泰伯让位

长子太伯、虞仲知古公欲立季历以传昌,乃二人亡如荆蛮,文身断发,以让季历

真的有先见之明,文王刚出世就看到他有天命吗?但具体看来,太王古公带周族由西北来到渭河下游,向商臣服,季历娶商贵族女大任,地位提高,商王可能还用了些说服,要自己的亲族女婿继位,太伯、虞仲并无选择,谈不上高德谦让

季历起初得商王信任,得到方伯征讨职权,子文王还做了商王女婿(公主无子;武王出自有莘氏妃子)但功高震主,被文丁借故处死;又有武乙射天,被雷震死故事,但正好发生在渭河一带,令人怀疑是征周兵败战死;又有纣杀伯邑考,文王被囚得释故事,但武王征商载文王神主,又有“父死不葬“之讥,似乎文王死于非命,武王出兵报仇。

另外多人知道的是和氏璧同赵氏孤儿故事

楚国人卞和,在荆山得到一块玉璞,拿去献给楚历王,被楚历王和大臣、治玉匠人们误认为石头。为此,卞和被判欺诳君王之罪砍掉左脚。武王接位后卞和再次献玉又同样被砍掉右脚。文王接位后,卞和抱璞在荆山下痛哭三天三夜,文王问其原由,命玉匠凿去石皮,获得一块晶莹可爱的稀世珍品,把它列为国宝,称之为“和氏之璧”。赵国时期,和氏璧落到了文王越惠的手里,武力雄厚的秦昭襄王以十五座城的国土为诱饵,欲巧取宝璧。在万般无奈的情况下,门客蔺相如自荐出使秦国,并负责“完璧归赵”。蔺相如与秦王几经周旋、斗智,最后差人携宝归赵。

这《史记??蔺相如传》中的故事也是由头到尾都不可靠:卞和有什么特技能肯定看到石皮里的玉? 今天最有经验的玉商买翡翠原石也只是“赌石”,三分经验七分运气;蔺相如完璧归赵,只是一种 侠客故事,国之间外交这么儿戏就可以了?又据传秦始皇统一六国后得和氏,用其制玉玺。此说也不对头,壁乃扁薄之物如何制玺?

赵氏孤儿的原状在左传可见:

晋赵婴通于赵庄姬。。。晋赵庄姬为赵婴之亡故,谮之于晋侯,曰:「原、屏将为乱。」栾、郤为徵。六月,晋讨赵同、赵括。武从姬氏畜于公宫。以其田与祁奚。韩厥言於晋侯曰:「成季之勋,宣孟之忠,而无后,为善者其惧矣。三代之令王皆数百年保天之禄。夫岂无辟王?赖前哲以免也。周书曰: 『不敢侮鳏寡』,所以明德也。」乃立武,而反其田焉

可见赵氏灭门,赵武在宫中受到庄姬保护,并无程婴用自己的儿子替死,保存上司继承人之事;但这件事倒不完全假,不过是周厉王的事:

国人愤而起义,攻袭厉王,厉王逃奔到彘(今山西霍县)。太子静藏在召穆公家,被国人包围,召公以自己之子代替,太子才得免难。

公元前842年周人驱逐厉王,有14年号称共和;史记对此年号解释为周公召公共同执政,但竹书纪年有不同说法,是因为由共伯和执政,而共伯和这样一个重要人物来自何方,有什么生平事迹,几乎全无史料.这是一件相当奇怪的事;共伯和能得到大家拥护,应该是他在驱逐厉王之前已经有些功绩,功成身退十分萧洒应该得到后世敬佩,多多少少在诗歌,文字里受到一些赞赏,宣王登基后也应该有些封赠记录,至少有几句可能言不由衷的褒奖.比如诗经·大雅·崧高》云:“亹亹申伯,王缵之事”、“王命申伯,式是南邦”,记录周宣王封舅父申侯 在南阳的事.申侯有什么功劳我们不清楚,大概是在拥立宣王复位方面起了些作用吧,怎么共伯和反而毫无痕迹?

郭 沫若先生做过考证,指出金文有记载师马共,伯和父事迹,就是共伯和,但师马共应该名共,是个人独有的名,而共伯的共是传子传孙的爵号,  不会用来做记录称呼因为会混淆.伯和父确是名和,但这并不是什么偏僻少用的名字,是否同共伯和同一人,也是很难确定.卫世家记载武公名和,攻兄夺位,兄自杀后赠缢共伯.武公是否同时继承卫候和共伯两个爵号,他是否就是共伯和还是另有其人,也是不清楚,照史记年表,卫武公比周宣王晚,但年表是否准确也难说.只是武公如果有这样大的功劳,生平应有些记载才合理.

共这个地方,即卫都朴阳上游河南辉县,倒是早就有历史的:共工推倒不周山的故事就是在共水(洪),祝融(即火正重黎)攻共族,共氏用洪水反击,引起天下大乱.周朝卫是个地位高的大国,它的封地较大,可以包括附近的共.共伯用作卫君某庶子的称缢,而其中一位周厉王时在京城任职,宣王年幼时参加执政,确是可能的,地位是否竹书,吕览,鲁连子等书中说得那么高,就难说了,后人因共和一词附会,也是可能的.战国时代的竹书,记录了游说谋士的故事,也是完全可能的.很多年前吕振羽先生有个两全其美的提议:共伯是叛军的领导,得不到贵族诸侯认可,所以周公召公另外拥立太子静,后来共伯被弟弟杀死,但还是有问题弟弟卫武公才是名和,他哥哥是共伯但不是共伯和,而且周召不可能用共和这个叛乱名字做年号

又如说吕不韦是秦始皇的爸爸,12月产子合不合理,是个简单的医学问题,无需多谈,值得问的是为什么有这个故事;我觉得同皇弟成蟜谋反有关。

《史记·秦始皇本纪》八年,王弟长安君成蟜将军击赵,反,死屯留

成蟜是始皇异母弟,似对自己没能继位有所不服;他是父亲子楚由赵回秦以后出生的,母亲应该是秦贵族,而始皇的母亲是赵国人,所以成蟜有自己比始皇更适合继位的想法是很自然的,而谋反的时候制造些谣言煽动人心是很常见的事;甚至可能是成蟜原有反心,手下为了鼓励他行动,用这类道听途说的故事激动他;荆轲拿樊于期的头去刺秦王,樊于期就是成蟜的手下,当时不满赵妃儿子继位,赵人吕不韦专政的秦人应该不少,愿意相信谣言;造反不成,但故事流传了下来;司马迁没有仔细考证内容,比方吕不韦故事
一处说赵妃是吕的歌女,一处说她是赵豪门女,自相矛盾

又如吴起杀妻求官故事,鲁君自己常娶齐女为妻,一位将官有齐女老婆应该不是问题;真相韩非子中有讲

三术之不行,有故。不杀其狗则酒酸。夫国也有狗,且左右皆社鼠也。人主无尧之再诛,与庄王之应太子,而皆有薄媪之决蔡妪也。知贵不能以教歌之法先揆之。吴起之出爱妻,文公之斩颠颉,皆违其情者也。故能使人弹疽者,秘其忍痛者也。

吴起,卫左氏中人也,使其妻织组,而幅狭于度。吴子使更之。其妻曰:“诺。“及成,复度之,果不中度,吴子大怒。其妻对曰:“吾始经之而不可更也。“吴子出之,其妻请其兄而索入,其兄曰:“吴子,为法者也。其为法也,且欲以与万乘致功,必先践之妻妾,然后行之,子毋几索入矣。“其妻之弟又重于卫君,乃因以卫君之重请吴子。吴子不听,遂去卫
一曰:吴起示其妻以组,曰:“子为我织组,令之如是。“组已就而效之,其组异善。起曰:“使子为组,令之如是,而今也异善,何也?“其妻曰:“用财若一也,加务善之。“吴起曰:“非语也。“使之衣而归。其父往请之,吴起曰:“起家无虚言。“

伊尹放逐太甲三年的故事,南北朝换朝代时还常说“行伊霍之事”,但又有殷高宗三年不言的故事;为什么不多不少都是三年?孔子主张三年守孝,宰我当众反对,似乎不是周制是孔子祖先殷制。由此推测,太甲同武丁都是守孝三年不管政事;所谓伊霍之事,又是把古代理想化的结果。楚庄王有三年不理政事,也应是同类

以上可见,史实并不是完全找不到,但史记过份注重好听的故事,或夸张人的品格,因而忽略了可 以找到的历史真相与足够的资料分析。我国社会上对历史的认识,多从史记,三国同武侠小说的故事得到,通常史实同思想都十分混乱,也多少影响了群众的政治觉悟



谈谈老子


新加坡国立大学 阮宗光

  
易经中记述,“无极生太极, 太极生两仪, 两仪生四象, 四象生八卦” 考古队在甘肃西坪找到陶瓶上有尾交首人面鱼,西亚有uroboros自吞尾蛇,已见有无(头尾)相生循环不息之意,可见这些思想早于老子;他的贡献是把这些思想系统地用在政治上:政府拿了太多资源,人民就会贫困;某些人地位提高,其他人相对或绝对地会降低,所以多同少,有同无,是相连相生的

有无相生,所以有可由无产生,所以世界自动产生,无所谓来源,始终;无既然是一切的基础,我们做人做事应以无为做原则;刻意求功,会因加得减;民心朴实,容易世界太平
  
老子是什么时代的人?道德经中某些思想,像是战国后期乱世才有的,但自从银雀战国墓出土更早的木简后,很明显看到道德经在战国早期或更早已经成书,但后人有改动。所以史记说老子是春秋人,与孔子同时略早,是可信的;庄子等书内不但多次谈到老子,而且用了不少道德经的文字,也可以做旁证;战国的太史儋,极可能是老子后人,把他的思想纪录整理成书,因而有老子即太史儋的说法
  
老子是不是孔子的老师?孔子要编历史,跑去中央政府档案部看文件,向管理人请教,是完全合理的
  
老子的思想有利用价值,所以会给人提高到大宗师,神仙的地位,但因此也会给人改得面目全非;政府有很多事情管不了的时候,就喜欢说说老子;各朝代兴起的各种道教,用的其实是更古老的巫术加些后来的大众传播技术,偏喜欢用老子的玄思维名义;庄子思想其实跟老子社会政治目标大有不同,偏要拉他做出世同路人;韩非子也来解解老,因为统治者需要一种深不可测的态度,让手下不敢离开法律而以讨好上司为目标

有出于无在当时是非常先进的抽象思想,西亚犹太人差不多同时产生同类的抽象概念用在宗教上:别族拜树石金牛,犹太族却说神无形无名但无所不在无所不能,同老子有异曲同工之妙;因为吞尾蛇在西亚流传甚广, 汉人同犹太人的抽象思维应是同源的。  基督教的失乐园思想,即人吃了知识树的果子后必须离开天堂,即是老子人之初混混沌沌美好社会想法。
  
为什么说上帝无名?耶和华源自iaoue,是祭司祈祷的呼声;文字发明先有子音当时还未有母音,iaoue无法写,所以神无名 (和,华两声中h子音是由长声呼叫中吸一口气而来;古犹太人有文字后用YHWH写上帝名,后来才有Yahweh和Jahoveh的写法)

 

Cell Phones
count

海啸--网格纹--精卫--神龙 http 易水 - 天火 http 奔月 - 治水 http Mystery of Ancient Chinese History http 天圆地方 Round Heaven - Square Earth http 简化篇 http 神话不荒唐 http 黄老,八卦,河图 http 中华远古史大纲 http 古史三谈 http 七夕,睡美人 - 中国情人节,西洋织女 http谈谈史记 http 谈谈孔子 http Confucius http 孟姜女不姓孟 http 谈谈老子 http 孔子不封建 http Mysteries of Alexander http Where is the Templars Treasure? http 通天 going through to heaven http The Liangzhu Monster Face 良渚神徽 http Mysterious C Dragon http 红山c龙 http The Stone Axe http Hongshan Jade 红山 http Ancient Chinese Jade 古玉 http the jade suit 金缕玉衣 http jade pigs and cicadas http aging by jade http the taotie 饕餮 monster face http Swastika 万字纹 http The Holy Grail 圣杯 http Da Vinci Code http YHWH http chinese valentine http

.

.

 

Please also go to individual blogs I set up:

Confucius 孔子: konfuzi.com

Chinese dragon: sinadragon.com

Chinese-Hebrew mythology: sinabible.com

天圆地方: asiatao.com

Alexander Great alexandergrt.com

The above picture shows three mysterious jade objects found in ancient tombs that are carbon dated to 5000 years ago, before there was any written history. Ancient books, mostly finished in the Han Dynasty but some already in existence in Zhou times and containing fragmentary legends that would have been orally transmitted before the invention of writing, obscurely mention jade objects used in some heaven and earth worship rituals. It is hard to make sense, first because the descriptions are so obscure, second because we are not sure which actual objects the mentioned names correspond to. After working through various possibilities, it is now commonly agreed that the cong 琮described in the books correspond to the rectangular block with round hole in the middle. The other two have so far not been identified with objects mentioned in the books, and are referred to by the modern names invented from their shape: the Horse Hoof Object and the Cylinder Shaped Object. They have the common feature that all have a hole in the middle, and at least for the cong, there is the idea that it "goes through to heaven", thus allowing us to imagine that the other two also have the same function.

A seemingly unrelated obscure detail in history books was that in Zhou times, the state of Chu had the duty to provide the Zhou court with "holy reeds" for the purpose of "absorbing wine". It is vaguely known that some ancient rituals involve a divine statue made from a bundle of reed; when wine is poured on the statue, it gets absorbed, as if the god has drunk it. Some believe this came from west asia: during the harvest, the last bunch of wheat from the field is bundled up and worshiped as the corn god.

A Japanese author connected the two obcure details together: he suggested that the sacred reeds are plugged into the hole in a cong to symbolize humans getting through to heaven with the help of the divinity represented by the reeds. I myself have suggested that the Horse Hoof Object was the original version, and later evolved into the more formal, artistically crafted cong and Cylinder Shape Object versions. Someone else suggested that the Horse Hoof Object symbolized the vagina, through which humans are born, arriving into the material world from another world that ancient humans imagined to be existing on the other side. Of course this is all just guessing, since we have nothing more concrete to work with.

The more concrete question is how long it took the ancient humans to learn the jade carving skills while at the same time working out the religious ideas. Before such fine objects could be produced with the necessary skills, they first had to produce more crude objects using easier materials and simpler tools. It is impossible to jump from pottery to fine jade; possibly the intermediary steps were wood and bone; while carved wood objects from over 5000 years ago would have rotted away, some bone objects ought to have survived.

上面图中三种玉礼器, 中间都有孔,应该同“通天”有关。有一位日本作者提议孔是用来插包茅的。周朝时楚国有进贡包茅的责任,用以“缩酒”,似乎源自捆茅做神像,倒酒在神像上被 吸收好像神饮酒。(这又好像同西亚习俗有关:收割麦时留下最后一束麦作伸像崇拜)。把神茅插在孔里,象征人通过神通天。

如果这个想法对的话,左边的红山马蹄器应该是原始的,后来正规化演变成良渚琮和筒形器。有人提议马蹄器象征阴道,人由另一世界来,通过阴道进入人间;也就是说,阴道是天地之间的通路。

雕玉需要时间发展工具技术,而宗教思想也要时间形成。古人在还不会雕玉的时代,应该有用过简单工具容易用的材料做过更原始的礼器,不过如果是用木或骨,已经烂掉了我们看不到。陶器能留到今天,不过制陶和雕玉技术相差太大不能由陶进化去玉。

The the taotie 饕餮

Shang bronze utensils are noted for a gross scariness that somehow suited their culture, which is known, from inscriptions on oracle bones, to require almost nonstop divinations about whether the gods approved even the smallest actions the king wished to undertake, including, for example whether it is OK to make sacrifices to the gods with 3 cows, 5 cows or 7 cows. Mangled skeletons from graves show that human sacrifice was carried out regularly, often on a very large scale. (Reminder of Cambodia under Pol Pot.) Otherwise we have no information, first hand or even second hand, about what life was like in Shang times, unlike the Greeks who left us wall paintings, pottery pictures and legendary epics that at least allow partial glimpses into life 3000 years ago.

A prominent feature of the bronze utensils is the taotie monster face, of which a number of examples are shown in the above diagram together with several related objects. Two are >4000 year old jade objects with the Liangzhu monster face, one a detail on a jade knife from the Longshan era several hundred years later than Liangzhu, with a clear derivation relation to the taotie. Also shown are two other Shang objects, one a bronze utensil showing a tiger swallowing a human and the other a jade carving showing an eagle holding two human heads. The latter two have been differently interpreted, that the tiger/eagle is some kind of guardian demon embracing/protecting the humans, or destroying harmful ghosts. This interpretation fits in with the frequently appearing taotie - it ought to be a "good guy" not a "bad guy" if the Shangs wanted to see it so often.

The demon is probably related to the ghost eating Zhongkui that appear in stories and rituals of much later times. Even today jade carvings representing Zhongkui's head, and paintings depicting him giving his sister away as bride (with some mythological meaning which we no longer know), can be found in arts and crafts shops. Some Japanese pictures of Zhongkui show him with four eyes, apparently related to the two-faced Liangzhu monster, and an annual Zhou ritual has a ghost-exorcist mask with four eyes; today some parts of China still have these masked rituals but now presented as festival drama acts; the masked Noh plays of Japan appear to be another residual practice. The door demons used by the traditional Chinese mansions are another residual practice involving this ghost eater.

A Zhou book mentions the taotie as a greedy monster that self destructed from over indulgence. This is most probably a misinterpretation by someone writing in a later era when ritualistic practices of past dynasties were only vaguely known. Today taotie is mainly used in restaurant advertisements of grand banquets.

上 图有几张商青铜器上常见的饕餮面,同良渚神徽显然有关。又有关的是商玉鹰攫人首玉佩和虎食人卣,给我们的感觉是恐怖吓人;这也是商青铜器通常给人的感觉。 但有些作者认为虎/鹰是保护神拥抱人/带人升天,或是在毁灭恶鬼。饕餮出现这么多,好象应该是正面角色,也是一种保护神。但我们对狂热拜神,残酷牺牲的商 文化了解有限,这些都只是猜测而以。周朝有书提到饕餮,是一因贪食伤身的怪物,但这恐怕又是后代不知道乱猜而以。今天有提到饕餮,几乎一定是什么豪华大餐 的广告。钟馗,门神都是这食鬼神演化出来的,周朝的除夕傩礼有个黄金四目的方相似乎就是由双面的良渚神徽衍出的,而中国后来的傩戏和日本的能戏也是源出于 此;日本有些钟馗图中他有四只眼,应该就是由方相出来的。

The Liangzhu Monster Face 良渚神徽

Archaeologists found in China two neolithical centres of jade worship: the Hongshan sites in northern china yielded a relatively small number of objects, but with highly imaginative designs and polished execution (considering the primitive tools available at the time) that challenged our modern, patronizing view about the ancient state of mind; the southern Liangzhu sites are even more impressive: there are great numbers of them spread over much of middle part of eastern china, and they are of a large scale, with each tomb situated on a soil platform that would have required thousands of people to pile up, and many yielding hundreds of jade items per tomb. While the majority of these lacked the artistic refinement of Hongshan jade, the more complex objects pose their own challenges to our understanding of the ancient people.

The picture of a two-faced demon, with numerous variations, appears frequently on Liangzhu jade objects, mostly on the ritual "cong", but occasionally also on axes and discs.I myself have an unusually shaped, flattened cong with two faces instead of the standard four, and a circular tube with three demon faces. The former type, as far as I could discover, has not before been seen either in archaeological sites nor in private collections, while only a small number of the latter type are known. Whereas the four faced congs usually have the demon face on each corner, one large cong has demon faces in the corners as well as in the middle of each side, with a pair of bird signs separating the frontal and corner faces. A similar arrangement is used on each side of my two-faced cong, with two corner demons, two centre demons, and four bird signs separating them. The tube has three different types of demon faces, each of a familiar design from unearthed jade.

The figure as a whole is a man wearing a large feather hat with perched legs and spread-out upper arms, but sharply bent elbows so that the lower arms and hands point back at his own chest, while the lower face appears to consist of eyes that are also the breasts of the man, a nose that might be the man's genitals, and a mouth that might be considered to be the navel though it is situated rather low, or possibly the vagina. The strokes that draw out the eyes, arms and legs, however, seem to bear the skin pattern of a python. In short, the picture contains a variety of ideas of some divine ancestral figures that have been amalgamated.

Given the large scale of the Liangzhu tombs and the complex ritualistic thinking presented by the variety and elaboration of jade objects, the Liangzhu people had a highly organized social system, which somehow left no trace in historical records. We have no idea what happened to the Liangzhu people, other than that around 2000BC they disappeared from their original locations, but some subsequent sites showing Liangzhu influence were found in the surrounding regions such as Shandong, Guangdong and Taiwan. A simpler version of the demon face, usually embedded into a figure with more prominent bird features, appears on jade "blade objects" in Shandong, and this probably developed into the Shang taotie figure that appears on bronze vessels.

We also do not know what the Liangzhu people used the cong for. It has been suggested that the round hole is used to hold sacred reeds/feathers that represent ancestral gods, and ritual wine is poured down the reeds during ceremonies to represent gods accepting the gift by soaking up the wine. Some contemporary sites in northwest china also have jade congs, but plainly polished with no demon faces, and this type of cong also occasionally appears in Shang and Zhou sites. However, the few mentions of the cong in Zhou ritual books are too obscure for us to definitively interpret whether congs were used in this way, in contrast to the quite frequent mentions of the jade disc being used as gift to honour visitors and jade rings being worn as indications of status in Zhou historical records. Zhou books' few mentions of taotie are also nonsensical so it appears that one thousand years after the Liangzhu people's disappearance, the Chinese world had already lost all knowledge of them.

Hongshan dragons 

Manchurian pig dragon (Yu-Zhu-Long); this rather mysterious object may have a connection to the Sumerian Uroboros, the serpent that swallows its own tail, symbolizing infinity and eternity. Why it has a what looks like a pig's head is not clear - some Manchurian and other ancient graves were found to have multiple pig jaw bones, so some form of pig worship was indicated. You can see how the pig-dragon evolved towards something closer to the modern form of the dragon - the C-type dragon shown in the lower left corner is less pig and more snake than the other three; these pictured figurings have been authendicated by archaelogists as ancient (i.e., over 5000 years old); as no metal tools were available at the time, the sculpting of these figurines depended on the use of strings, leather strips, bone pieces and stone instruments, grinding jade down with quartz and silicon carbide sand; modern imitations using electric drills and carving tools leave quite different marks, mainly because they work much faster so leave contrast of "too much" with "too little" depending on where the cutting occurred; the older jades show the work to be generally rather slow but even; pig dragon fakes usually also fail to capture the particular "feel" of the originals - dignified yet approachable, a divine animal that is the friend of your tribe and object of worship

the ancient jade buried in graves for 5000 years would come into contact with different minerals from the soil and coffin material, as well as body fluids, which penetrate the jade in various ways depending on its own texture and events in its surrounding such as rain, flooding, drought, even earthquakes; hence the many different tinges and stains. Whereas the original jade may be dark green, light green, green-yellow, sometimes beige white, it often turns chalky in combination with lime put into coffins, especially in the southern regions, to slow decay; ceremonial burning of the jade objects also occurred leaving smoky burn marks. Other stains may be due to mercury (usually in small but deep patches of very dark blue close to black), iron oxide (reddish brown), copper (green), crude oil (drippy dark brown - other impurities spread in patches while the highly viscous oil and some tree resins leave streaky stains). Faked ancient jade use various methods to bake colours into a newly carved piece, but it is difficult to get the same colour spread. With some experience gained from looking at authenticated museum pieces, one could detect signs of faking except for the really skilfully done ones, which however is not usually worthwhile for inexpensive pieces.

A related jade object, which were found in smaller numbers and in nearby Inner Mongolian locations, is the C dragon whose head and tail are further apart and the body more slender. An intriguing point about the C dragons: two raised patches are found, one on the forehead and one under the chin, made up of a diagonal grid of XXX; the same diagonal patches have been found on some Hongshan insect figure jade, eastern zhou jade dragons, and jade human figures dug up in central Hebei, not far from Inner Mongolia/Manchuria, dated to Eastern Zhou (Zhongshan State); on a human figure in the Hotung collection of British Museum (J Rawson, Chinese Jade, p. 283, fig 19.2), on various northern and western china ancient pottery, in particular on the Zaobaogou pottery urn with the pig/bird/deer headed snakes, and on Gansu pottery human faced fishes as well as some abstract figures probably representing frogs; such a grid is seen on the dancing girl and on the seated woman in the figure below, showing that the pattern was widely used and had some important significance, probably derived from fishing nets and fish scales as symbol of worship by fishing tribes, with particular connection to Fuxi who supposedly invented the fishing net. Note that while there are numerous Warring States and Han jade dancing girls with the same posture, they do not have the same skirt, indicating that after Zhongshan State's demise, the meaning of the grid got lost. (There was however one dancing girl with the mesh pattern on her cuff! instead of skirt. Some west asian archaeological reports note the same pattern on ancient potteries, and consider it to represent the fertility goddess Astarte, which provides some explanation for the presence of the pattern on chinese dancing girls, who were presumably performing rituals honouring gods that take care of people interested in fertility. In a Tibetan story about a king at the time of arrival of buddhism, he was said to have build a temple with both the swatika and the mesh pattern "to please both buddhists and tibetans", meaning that the swatika was a less traditional symbol for the tibetans, and they were less closely related to the indo-europeans and more agricultural than the nomadic Qiangs - the tibetans and qiangs traditionally did not eat fish so the mesh pattern could not represent nets and scales. Going more modern the dragon on the Qing imperial robes is covered in the mesh pattern, hinting that the grid's meaningfulness was broadly traditional.)

The diagrams also illustrate the graduate transformation of the socalled "curvy clouds object" found in Hongshan tombs. I believe the original, simple form with four arms is related to the swatika, with two entangle snakes; combining two of them, either face to face or one upside down, produces the more complex forms, which then get simplified, ending in almost unrecognizable new shapes

the Hongshan C dragon

The C dragon was one of the most significant archaeological finds from the neolithic Hongshan area. Its precise meaning is even today unclear, and there is even some mystery about how it was found. It is believed that in 1971 a young peasant planting trees on a slope in a borderline area between Inner Mogolia and Liaoning Province noticed a hole in the ground, and putting his hand in he found what looked liked a big cast-iron hook. After taking it home, he realized it was made of dark green jade and could be an ancient artefact, and took it to the county archaeological office, which merely treated it as a ordinary find. A few years later in a routine visit, a team from the Liaoning Museum inspected it and thought it was from the Shang era (i.e., about 3500 years old), though realizing that it looked different from other artefacts from Shang sites in the area. However, in 1986 a major Hongshan era site was unearthed in a nearby location, yielding a pair of jade pig-dragons which bore noticeable similarities to the C dragon, thus allowing it to be more confidently placed into the late neolithic era.

Both the pig dragon and the C dragon bore a relationship to Uroboros, the snake swallowing its own tail, which also relates to the human-faced fish painted on a pottery jar from the Gansu province, on the opposite side of ancient China. The similarty between these artefacts reveal a connection between ancient China and West Asia, in particular with ancient Hebrews. (Further discussion of this can be found in another article Round Heaven - Square Earth.)

It is highly likely that the C dragon was the tribal emblem of a branch of the Hongshan people. It is probably meant to be placed at the top of a wooden pole, which has a groove on top into which the sharp blade on the lower side of the "horn" would snugly fit, so that the back of the body, where the hole is located, fits along the pole, and a string is passed through the hole to bind the dragon securly to the pole. The combination might be held in hand by a tribal chief, or set up on an altar. (The object seems too small to be part of a building or flagpole.)

The C dragon in the above picture is my own, found in a Singapore flea market stall. The stall keeper told me that it was taken out of China during the Cultural Revolution era, when old things were not regarded as valuable and could even lead to political trouble, by a collector who later emigrated to Canada. This story may or may not be true, but if a copy, it is an extremely well made one judging by its appearance (most copies fail to capture the dynamic toughness of the genuine article; this one does), tool marks, surface impurities and jade material quality).

Only two C dragons were unearthed, both from the same county though in two different villages. However, whereas objects unearthed in tombs or dwellings can be pinned down in age by carbon dating bones or other organic material located in the same sites, both C dragons were single finds not allowing such precise dating. Their age was therefore a matter of archaelogical guesswork from similarity to other objects that do have a known age. A third, larger C dragon is located in the Beijing Palace museum, with an unclear place of origin; its high quality material and workmanship makes one suspect that it was a copy made by palace craftsmen for royal enjoyment, but we are at a loss to say where is the original object the craftsmen might have copied.

红山c龙

红山c龙只有两件是出土品,都是在内蒙古翁牛特旗找到的,但不是经过科学步骤正式挖锯,既没有明确的底层年代,也没有一起出土能用碳14方法定年代的物件,所以无法确定年龄,1971年第一条在三星他拉村出土后,1975年辽宁博物馆专家拜访时见到还以为是商朝的东西;83-86年红山一带挖据了几座古墓后, 看到其工艺造型都同正式出土的红山玉器有些类似,因此定为红山文物。

故宫博物院有一条c龙,原来是傅忠谟家族收集的,虽然1989年有在“古玉精英”一书内发表,但没说清来源和收藏年代。这条玉料很精美,看皮壳虽有些年纪但好象比傅家其他的红山玉件嫩了点,形制也跟两条出土品有点不同,背稍微太弯,尺寸也大了,可能是高贵人家的旧仿品,比方有一条真品是传家宝,由长子承受,但另做一条仿品给幼子;问题是真品现在去了哪里。另有周南泉先生收藏一条断了尾的,看上去似乎是真品。

c龙在市面上有很多仿品,但绝大多数不像样。这是因为c龙有一种独特的威势和动态,现在的玉匠很不容易琢磨到。“古玉精英”还有登一条c龙,看上去就不大对。这条好像记得是高价拍卖有人买去了。 因为翁旗二龙并非科学出土,有人还怀疑过是否某某人自己制造了埋在土里等人去发现(日本有位名教授就这样做过,目的是证明本国历史悠久),但这造型有这种威势动态的效果,不是凭空臆想的人能知道的,要累积经验才行,还要练雕刻功夫到家才能表现在难度很高的玉料上,只有长期生长在这文化中的古人才能做到。

c龙的孔在中部,如果挂起来会是横向(见上面图),很不对头,我一直不明白。不久前看到郭大顺先生“红山文化”一书中谈勾云器才恍然大悟:勾云器出 土通常是竖的不是横的,所以它的孔不是用来挂在身上,而是绑在木柄上做成一种权杖。红山有一墓出土一勾云器,同一件玉钺一起放在腹部,似乎是左右手各持一 支交叉放在下胸部。以此类推,c龙也是竖的装在一根木棍上,木棍顶部有一条细沟把鬃部嵌入,再用细绳穿过孔把龙身绑在棍上。

红山勾云器 the Hongshan "curved cloud object"

this evolved from a looped dragon, as the above diagram clearly shows; later shape evolvement made this less clear; it is believed by some including myself that the cloud/dragon object was meant to be tied to a stick, with the prongs fitting into a groove and the hole used to pass a string used to secure the object,producing a kind of "flag" or "orb" to be held by tribal chiefs to denote their status, hence the frequent discovery of the object in Hongshan tombs.

红山勾云器原始形制是蟠龙;这由上面图可看到;后来经过各种演变;请看图View Slideshow 有推测勾云器是用细绳穿过小孔绑在木柄上的,后面突出两片插进柄上一条槽中以保稳固。这样做成一种权杖以代表族长身份,所以在红山墓葬中经常发现

Partial indexes:     Singapore               Social社会               Life文化              历史History   

  

content search - click here http://www.google.com.sg/webhp?hl=en&tab=iw&q=site:sinazen.com?  then add search words to google window

 

 

Contact: yuenchungkwong@yahoo.com

 

观音能救世,佛祖多慈悲,割肉饲饿虎,化雨洒晶泪

 

万字半日写,千丝一手挥,独怜杜秋娘,曲尽人憔悴

    

Favorite quotes:
"History repeats, first time as tragedy, second time as farce" - Marx
历史重复,一次悲剧,一次闹剧 - 马克思
"Those who forget their history are condemned to repeat it" - Santayana 忘记历史注定重复历史 - 山塔亚那
"Those who remember their history are also condemned to repeat it" - Yuen 记得历史也注定重复历史 - 阮宗光
"Oscar Wilde was wrong about cynics knowing price not value; cynics know value is always less than price" - Yuen

         foundation new-ybsampler.blogspot.com     王尔德说错了;愤世的人不是知价不知值,而是知道价高值低 - 阮宗光

................................
sinazen.com
equitylogs.com
varsitylog.com

ph: enblocsale.com
alt: yuenco.com