{"title":"将中世纪早期的学术研究带给更广泛的受众","authors":"Patricia Buckley Ebrey","doi":"10.1080/15299104.2023.2240141","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Disclosure StatementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 Eventually, the set included fifteen “volumes,” but sixteen physical books, as volume 5 came out as two books.2 See Arthur Wright, Buddhism in Chinese History (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press) and Erik Zürcher, The Chinese Conquest of Buddhism (Leiden: Brill), both published in 1959.3 Albert E. Dien, “Yen Chih-t’ui (531-591+): A Buddho-Confucian,” in Confucian Personalities, ed. Arthur F. Wright and Denis Twitchett (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1962), 44–64; Hisayuki Miyakawa, “The Confucianization of South China,” in The Confucian Persuasion, ed. Arthur F. Wright (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1960), 21–46.4 Two notable conference volumes are State and Society in Early Medieval China, ed. Albert E. Dien (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1990), and Culture and Power in the Reconstitution of the Chinese Realm, 200–600, ed. Scott Pearce, Audrey Spiro, and Patricia Ebrey (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 2001).5 One could even go back earlier, to the Nan-Pei Ch’ao Studies group, which issued a newsletter beginning in 1977. Its first issue was a directory of scholars who responded to its query in the Association of Asian Studies newsletter asking for their addresses, research interests, and publications, and thus offers a time capsule on the field at that time.6 This is true even of recent volumes, such as CHC 5.2 (2015), which has chapters by Robert Hymes, Charles Hartman, and Joseph McDermott and Shiba Yoshinobu that ranged from 116 to 139 pages in length.7 Readers who would prefer to read a survey of the period in which a single scholar attempts to bring all the strands together can turn to Mark Lewis, China Between Empires: The Northern and Southern Dynasties (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009).8 Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 78.2 (2018): 477–90.9 Journal of Asian Studies 47.2 (1988): 344.10 Journal of Asian Studies 55 (1996): 146–49.11 Journal of Song-Yuan Studies 46 (2016): 225–37.12 Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 77.1 (2017): 175–83.13 To give an example, I was confused by the differences in the discussion of Chen Yinke’s analysis of the relative contribution of the Western Wei/Northern Zhou versus the Eastern Wei/Northern Qi to the Tang on pages 11–12 and 235, so checked the index for Chen Yinke. It lists pages 11–12, 13, and 76, but there is no reference to Chen Yinke on page 76, and the passage on page 235 is not listed in the index. So I did a search of the Cambridge Histories online via my university library. Searching “Yinke,” if the box “search within full text” was checked, I got only two hits, to the introduction and chapter 10. To see the passages required opening the chapter and doing a search of it. By contrast, one could easily search through the e-book and get forty references, almost all in footnotes, but also turning up a passage in the main text on p. 217.14 They also end on this note: pp. 23–24.15 On recent Chinese scholarship, one can also turn to Luo Xin, “Chinese and Inner Asian Perspectives on the History of the Northern Dynasties (386–589) in Chinese Historiography,” in Empires and Exchanges in Eurasian Late Antiquity: Rome, China, Iran, and the Steppe, ca. 250–750, ed. Nicola Di Cosmo and Michael Maas, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 166–75.16 Pearce, when discussing Emperor Xiaowen’s move to Luoyang and new requirements that Chinese dress and language be used at court, scrupulously avoids using the terms “sinification” or “sinicization.” Other authors do occasionally use it to refer to individuals, art styles, and the like. See pp. 128, 146, 154, 278, 301, 409, 445, 456, 654, 679, 689.17 I am thinking of works like those by Barfield, Di Cosmo, Allsen, Beckwith, Elliott, and Crossley. See Thomas J. Barfield, The Perilous Frontier: Nomadic Empires and China, 221 BC to AD 1757 (Cambridge, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 1989); Nicola Di Cosmo, “State Formation and Periodization in Inner Asian History,” Journal of World History 10.1 (1999): 1–40; Nicola Di Cosmo, “The Relations Between China and the Steppe: From the Xiongnu to the Türk Empire,” in Empires and Exchanges in Eurasian Late Antiquity: Rome, China, Iran, and the Steppe, ca. 250–750, ed. Nicola Di Cosmo and Michael Maas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 35–53; Thomas T. Allsen, The Royal Hunt in Eurasian History (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006); Christopher I. Beckwith, Empires of the Silk Road: A History of Central Eurasia from the Bronze Age to the Present (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009); Mark Elliott, “Hushuo: The Northern Other and the Naming of the Han Chinese,” in Critical Han Studies: The History, Representation, and Identity of China’s Majority, ed. Thomas Mullaney, et al. (Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 2012), 173–90; Pamela Kyle Crossley, Hammer and Anvil: Nomad Rulers at the Forge of the Modern World (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2019).18 Those looking to update their classroom assignments should also check out Early Medieval China: A Sourcebook, ed. Wendy Swartz, Robert Ford Campany, Yang Lu, and Jessey J. C. Choo (New York: Columbia University Press, 2014), which is full of lively primary sources placed in historical and literary context. See, for instance, Jessey Choo’s translation of a debate on whether to move back to Luoyang after it had been recovered by Huan Wen (pp. 17–31) and David Knechtges’s translation of a poem on the joy of foods made from wheat flour such as dumplings and noodles (pp. 447–57).19 For lengthier analysis of the literature of the period, divided chronologically rather than by genre, see Chapter 2, “From the Eastern Han through the Western Jin (AD 25–317),” by David Knechtges, and Chapter 3, “From the Eastern Jin through the Early Tang (317–649),” by Xiaofei Tian, in The Cambridge History of Chinese Literature, Vol. 1, To 1375, ed. Stephen Owen (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 116–285.20 Those who find these analyses of archaeological evidence intriguing can turn to Dien’s Six Dynasties Civilization (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2007) to learn more.21 Those who want to learn more after reading the religion chapters can turn to the considerably fuller coverage in the two-volume set edited by John Lagerwey and Lü Pengzhi, Early Chinese Religion, Part Two: The Period of Division (220–589 AD) (Leiden: Brill, 2010), which has chapters by this set of authors as well as several others.22 On muzhiming, see Timothy Davis, Entombed Epigraphy and Commemorative Culture in Early Medieval China: A Brief History of Early Muzhiming (Leiden: Brill, 2015). Dien did write a chapter on the dynastic histories for the Oxford History of Historical Writing (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011) and has a substantial article on the historiography of Wei shu in Paul W. Kroll and David R. Knechtges, eds., Studies in Early Medieval Chinese Literature and Cultural History: In Honor of Richard B. Mather and Donald Holzman (T’ang Studies Society, 2003), 399–466.23 These include books that give significant coverage to this period, such as Valerie Hansen’s Silk Road: A New History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), Dorothy Wong and Gustave Heldt’s China and Beyond in the Mediaeval Period: Cultural Crossings and Inter-Regional Connections (Amherst, NY: Cambria, 2014), and Nicola Di Cosmo and Michael Maas’s Empires and Exchanges in Eurasian Late Antiquity: Rome, China, Iran, and the Steppe, ca. 250–750 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018).24 “A Forum on Migration in Early Medieval China,” ed. and with an introduction by Wen-Yi Huang and Xiaofei Tian, in Journal of Asian Studies 80.1 (2021): 95–165.25 See, for instance, pp. 49, 179, 447, 603, 641. The longest section is in Holcombe’s chapter on the Eastern Jin, which includes three pages on “Great-Family Politics,” 106–9. He states that in the subsequent Southern Dynasties they had only “social and cultural prestige,” without explaining what that entailed. The only recent attempts to reopen these questions that I have come across are by scholars of literature: Cynthia L. Chennault, “Lofty Gates or Solitary Impoverishment? Xie Family Members of the Southern Dynasties,” T’oung Pao 85.4–5 (1999): 249–327; and Xiaofei Tian, in Beacon Fire and Shooting Star: The Literary Culture of the Liang (502–557) (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 2007), 26–52.26 See also the special issue of the Journal of Chinese History 4.2 (2020), guest edited by Peter Bol, on digital tools for the study of Chinese history. It introduces many tools and has several research articles, including one by Tackett.27 To put this in personal terms, I remember how much work it took when I was working on the Aristocratic Families of Early Imperial China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978) to make note cards for each Boling Cui mentioned in the Northern Dynasties’ dynastic histories. I had to check the rank of each post they held, estimate when they held them, trace their kinship connections to each other, and manually sort them as I tried to ask questions about their political activity and how it changed over time. Not only would this have been much easier to do today with CBDB, but it would not have been difficult to compare them to the families with which they intermarried. The same would be true of the studies Jennifer Holmgren did of non-Han families in the 1980s, such as her “The Lu Clan of Tai Commandery and Its Contribution to the T’o-pa State of Northern Wei in the Fifth Century,” T’oung Pao 64 (1983): 272–312.28 CHC 5.1, published just a few years earlier, has thirty-two maps, many produced by using Chinese Historical GIS, so it is unlikely that the decision to include only seven maps in this volume was made by the press.29 Robert Campany has already shown what can be done in this regard. After many years in which he published almost exclusively on the early medieval period, in 2020 he published The Chinese Dreamscape: 300 BCE–800 CE (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center), covering a much longer period. It won the Association for Asian Studies’ Joseph Levenson Prize for the best book that year on pre-1900 China.Additional informationNotes on contributorsPatricia Buckley EbreyPatricia Buckley Ebrey is Professor of History Emerita at University of Washington. She is the author of many books, including Aristocratic Families of Early Imperial China: A Case Study of the Po-ling Ts'ui Family (1978), Kinship Organization in Late Imperial China: 1000–1940 (1986), Inner Quarters: Marriage and the Lives of Chinese Women in the Sung Period (1993), Emperor Huizong (2014), among others.","PeriodicalId":41624,"journal":{"name":"Early Medieval China","volume":"35 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bringing Scholarship on The Early Medieval Period to a Broader Audience\",\"authors\":\"Patricia Buckley Ebrey\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/15299104.2023.2240141\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Disclosure StatementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 Eventually, the set included fifteen “volumes,” but sixteen physical books, as volume 5 came out as two books.2 See Arthur Wright, Buddhism in Chinese History (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press) and Erik Zürcher, The Chinese Conquest of Buddhism (Leiden: Brill), both published in 1959.3 Albert E. Dien, “Yen Chih-t’ui (531-591+): A Buddho-Confucian,” in Confucian Personalities, ed. Arthur F. Wright and Denis Twitchett (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1962), 44–64; Hisayuki Miyakawa, “The Confucianization of South China,” in The Confucian Persuasion, ed. Arthur F. Wright (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1960), 21–46.4 Two notable conference volumes are State and Society in Early Medieval China, ed. Albert E. Dien (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1990), and Culture and Power in the Reconstitution of the Chinese Realm, 200–600, ed. Scott Pearce, Audrey Spiro, and Patricia Ebrey (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 2001).5 One could even go back earlier, to the Nan-Pei Ch’ao Studies group, which issued a newsletter beginning in 1977. Its first issue was a directory of scholars who responded to its query in the Association of Asian Studies newsletter asking for their addresses, research interests, and publications, and thus offers a time capsule on the field at that time.6 This is true even of recent volumes, such as CHC 5.2 (2015), which has chapters by Robert Hymes, Charles Hartman, and Joseph McDermott and Shiba Yoshinobu that ranged from 116 to 139 pages in length.7 Readers who would prefer to read a survey of the period in which a single scholar attempts to bring all the strands together can turn to Mark Lewis, China Between Empires: The Northern and Southern Dynasties (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009).8 Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 78.2 (2018): 477–90.9 Journal of Asian Studies 47.2 (1988): 344.10 Journal of Asian Studies 55 (1996): 146–49.11 Journal of Song-Yuan Studies 46 (2016): 225–37.12 Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 77.1 (2017): 175–83.13 To give an example, I was confused by the differences in the discussion of Chen Yinke’s analysis of the relative contribution of the Western Wei/Northern Zhou versus the Eastern Wei/Northern Qi to the Tang on pages 11–12 and 235, so checked the index for Chen Yinke. It lists pages 11–12, 13, and 76, but there is no reference to Chen Yinke on page 76, and the passage on page 235 is not listed in the index. So I did a search of the Cambridge Histories online via my university library. Searching “Yinke,” if the box “search within full text” was checked, I got only two hits, to the introduction and chapter 10. To see the passages required opening the chapter and doing a search of it. By contrast, one could easily search through the e-book and get forty references, almost all in footnotes, but also turning up a passage in the main text on p. 217.14 They also end on this note: pp. 23–24.15 On recent Chinese scholarship, one can also turn to Luo Xin, “Chinese and Inner Asian Perspectives on the History of the Northern Dynasties (386–589) in Chinese Historiography,” in Empires and Exchanges in Eurasian Late Antiquity: Rome, China, Iran, and the Steppe, ca. 250–750, ed. Nicola Di Cosmo and Michael Maas, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 166–75.16 Pearce, when discussing Emperor Xiaowen’s move to Luoyang and new requirements that Chinese dress and language be used at court, scrupulously avoids using the terms “sinification” or “sinicization.” Other authors do occasionally use it to refer to individuals, art styles, and the like. See pp. 128, 146, 154, 278, 301, 409, 445, 456, 654, 679, 689.17 I am thinking of works like those by Barfield, Di Cosmo, Allsen, Beckwith, Elliott, and Crossley. See Thomas J. Barfield, The Perilous Frontier: Nomadic Empires and China, 221 BC to AD 1757 (Cambridge, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 1989); Nicola Di Cosmo, “State Formation and Periodization in Inner Asian History,” Journal of World History 10.1 (1999): 1–40; Nicola Di Cosmo, “The Relations Between China and the Steppe: From the Xiongnu to the Türk Empire,” in Empires and Exchanges in Eurasian Late Antiquity: Rome, China, Iran, and the Steppe, ca. 250–750, ed. Nicola Di Cosmo and Michael Maas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 35–53; Thomas T. Allsen, The Royal Hunt in Eurasian History (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006); Christopher I. Beckwith, Empires of the Silk Road: A History of Central Eurasia from the Bronze Age to the Present (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009); Mark Elliott, “Hushuo: The Northern Other and the Naming of the Han Chinese,” in Critical Han Studies: The History, Representation, and Identity of China’s Majority, ed. Thomas Mullaney, et al. (Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 2012), 173–90; Pamela Kyle Crossley, Hammer and Anvil: Nomad Rulers at the Forge of the Modern World (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2019).18 Those looking to update their classroom assignments should also check out Early Medieval China: A Sourcebook, ed. Wendy Swartz, Robert Ford Campany, Yang Lu, and Jessey J. C. Choo (New York: Columbia University Press, 2014), which is full of lively primary sources placed in historical and literary context. See, for instance, Jessey Choo’s translation of a debate on whether to move back to Luoyang after it had been recovered by Huan Wen (pp. 17–31) and David Knechtges’s translation of a poem on the joy of foods made from wheat flour such as dumplings and noodles (pp. 447–57).19 For lengthier analysis of the literature of the period, divided chronologically rather than by genre, see Chapter 2, “From the Eastern Han through the Western Jin (AD 25–317),” by David Knechtges, and Chapter 3, “From the Eastern Jin through the Early Tang (317–649),” by Xiaofei Tian, in The Cambridge History of Chinese Literature, Vol. 1, To 1375, ed. Stephen Owen (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 116–285.20 Those who find these analyses of archaeological evidence intriguing can turn to Dien’s Six Dynasties Civilization (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2007) to learn more.21 Those who want to learn more after reading the religion chapters can turn to the considerably fuller coverage in the two-volume set edited by John Lagerwey and Lü Pengzhi, Early Chinese Religion, Part Two: The Period of Division (220–589 AD) (Leiden: Brill, 2010), which has chapters by this set of authors as well as several others.22 On muzhiming, see Timothy Davis, Entombed Epigraphy and Commemorative Culture in Early Medieval China: A Brief History of Early Muzhiming (Leiden: Brill, 2015). Dien did write a chapter on the dynastic histories for the Oxford History of Historical Writing (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011) and has a substantial article on the historiography of Wei shu in Paul W. Kroll and David R. Knechtges, eds., Studies in Early Medieval Chinese Literature and Cultural History: In Honor of Richard B. Mather and Donald Holzman (T’ang Studies Society, 2003), 399–466.23 These include books that give significant coverage to this period, such as Valerie Hansen’s Silk Road: A New History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), Dorothy Wong and Gustave Heldt’s China and Beyond in the Mediaeval Period: Cultural Crossings and Inter-Regional Connections (Amherst, NY: Cambria, 2014), and Nicola Di Cosmo and Michael Maas’s Empires and Exchanges in Eurasian Late Antiquity: Rome, China, Iran, and the Steppe, ca. 250–750 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018).24 “A Forum on Migration in Early Medieval China,” ed. and with an introduction by Wen-Yi Huang and Xiaofei Tian, in Journal of Asian Studies 80.1 (2021): 95–165.25 See, for instance, pp. 49, 179, 447, 603, 641. The longest section is in Holcombe’s chapter on the Eastern Jin, which includes three pages on “Great-Family Politics,” 106–9. He states that in the subsequent Southern Dynasties they had only “social and cultural prestige,” without explaining what that entailed. The only recent attempts to reopen these questions that I have come across are by scholars of literature: Cynthia L. Chennault, “Lofty Gates or Solitary Impoverishment? Xie Family Members of the Southern Dynasties,” T’oung Pao 85.4–5 (1999): 249–327; and Xiaofei Tian, in Beacon Fire and Shooting Star: The Literary Culture of the Liang (502–557) (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 2007), 26–52.26 See also the special issue of the Journal of Chinese History 4.2 (2020), guest edited by Peter Bol, on digital tools for the study of Chinese history. It introduces many tools and has several research articles, including one by Tackett.27 To put this in personal terms, I remember how much work it took when I was working on the Aristocratic Families of Early Imperial China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978) to make note cards for each Boling Cui mentioned in the Northern Dynasties’ dynastic histories. I had to check the rank of each post they held, estimate when they held them, trace their kinship connections to each other, and manually sort them as I tried to ask questions about their political activity and how it changed over time. Not only would this have been much easier to do today with CBDB, but it would not have been difficult to compare them to the families with which they intermarried. The same would be true of the studies Jennifer Holmgren did of non-Han families in the 1980s, such as her “The Lu Clan of Tai Commandery and Its Contribution to the T’o-pa State of Northern Wei in the Fifth Century,” T’oung Pao 64 (1983): 272–312.28 CHC 5.1, published just a few years earlier, has thirty-two maps, many produced by using Chinese Historical GIS, so it is unlikely that the decision to include only seven maps in this volume was made by the press.29 Robert Campany has already shown what can be done in this regard. After many years in which he published almost exclusively on the early medieval period, in 2020 he published The Chinese Dreamscape: 300 BCE–800 CE (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center), covering a much longer period. It won the Association for Asian Studies’ Joseph Levenson Prize for the best book that year on pre-1900 China.Additional informationNotes on contributorsPatricia Buckley EbreyPatricia Buckley Ebrey is Professor of History Emerita at University of Washington. She is the author of many books, including Aristocratic Families of Early Imperial China: A Case Study of the Po-ling Ts'ui Family (1978), Kinship Organization in Late Imperial China: 1000–1940 (1986), Inner Quarters: Marriage and the Lives of Chinese Women in the Sung Period (1993), Emperor Huizong (2014), among others.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41624,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Early Medieval China\",\"volume\":\"35 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Early Medieval China\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/15299104.2023.2240141\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ASIAN STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Early Medieval China","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15299104.2023.2240141","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ASIAN STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
点击放大图片点击缩小图片披露声明作者未报告潜在的利益冲突。注1最终,这套丛书包括15卷,但16卷是实体书,因为第五卷是分成两卷出版的见阿瑟·赖特,中国历史上的佛教(斯坦福,加州:斯坦福大学出版社)和埃里克·泽尔切尔,中国征服佛教(莱顿:布瑞尔),两者都在1959年出版。阿尔伯特·e·迪恩,“颜志德(531-591+):一个佛教儒家”,在儒家人格,编辑阿瑟·f·赖特和丹尼斯·特威切特(斯坦福,加州:斯坦福大学出版社,1962),44-64;5 .宫川久之,《华南儒学化》,载于《儒家劝化》,阿瑟·f·赖特主编(加州斯坦福:斯坦福大学出版社,1960年),第21-46.4页。两本著名的会议文集是《中世纪早期中国的国家与社会》,阿尔伯特·e·迪恩主编(加州斯坦福:斯坦福大学出版社,1990年),以及《中国王国重构中的文化与权力》,200-600页,斯科特·皮尔斯、奥德丽·斯皮罗和帕特里夏·埃布雷主编(马萨诸塞州剑桥:哈佛大学亚洲中心,2001年)我们甚至可以追溯到更早的南裴潮研究小组,他们从1977年开始出版一份通讯。它的第一期是一份学者名录,这些学者在亚洲研究协会通讯中询问他们的地址、研究兴趣和出版物,从而提供了当时该领域的一个时间囊即使在最近的几卷书中也是如此,例如CHC 5.2(2015),其中有罗伯特·海姆斯、查尔斯·哈特曼、约瑟夫·麦克德莫特和柴吉信撰写的章节,篇幅从116页到139页不等7 .如果读者更愿意阅读一个学者试图将所有线索结合在一起的时期概览,可以转向马克·刘易斯的《帝国之间的中国:南北朝》(剑桥,马萨诸塞州:哈佛大学出版社,2009)哈佛亚洲研究学报78.2(2018):477-90.9亚洲研究学报47.2(1988):344.10亚洲研究学报55(1996):146-49.11宋元研究学报46(2016):225-37.12哈佛亚洲研究学报77.1 (2017):举个例子,我对陈寅恪对西魏/北周与东魏/北齐对唐朝的相对贡献的分析在11-12页和235页上的差异感到困惑,所以检查了陈寅恪的索引。它列出了11-12页、13页和76页,但76页没有提到陈寅恪,235页的文章也没有列在索引中。所以我通过大学图书馆在网上搜索了一下剑桥历史。搜索“银客”,如果勾选“全文搜索”,我只找到两个结果,即引言和第十章。要想看到这些段落,就需要打开这一章并进行搜索。相比之下,人们可以很容易地在电子书中搜索到40个参考文献,几乎都是脚注,但也可以在217.14页的正文中找到一段,它们也以这样的注释结束:第23-24.15页。关于最近的中国学术,人们也可以转向罗欣,“中国历史编纂中的北朝历史(386-589)的中国和亚洲内部视角”,在欧亚古代晚期的帝国和交流中:《罗马、中国、伊朗和大草原》,约250-750年,Nicola Di Cosmo和Michael Maas主编,(剑桥:剑桥大学出版社,2018年),166-75.16。皮尔斯在讨论孝文帝迁至洛阳以及在宫廷中使用中国服饰和语言的新要求时,小心翼翼地避免使用“汉化”或“汉化”等术语。其他作者偶尔也会用它来指代个人、艺术风格等。参见第128、146、154、278、301、409、445、456、654、679、689.17页。我想到的是巴菲尔德、迪·科斯莫、奥尔森、贝克威斯、埃利奥特和克罗斯利的作品。参见托马斯J.巴菲尔德,《危险的边疆:游牧帝国和中国,公元前221年至公元1757年》(剑桥,马萨诸塞州:Wiley-Blackwell, 1989);Nicola Di Cosmo,“亚洲内部历史的国家形成与分期”,《世界史》1999年第10期,第1-40页;Nicola Di Cosmo,“中国与草原的关系:从匈奴到<s:2>帝国”,载于《欧亚古代晚期的帝国与交流:罗马、中国、伊朗和草原》,约250-750年,Nicola Di Cosmo和Michael Maas主编(剑桥:剑桥大学出版社,2018),35-53;托马斯T.奥尔森,欧亚历史上的皇家狩猎(费城,宾夕法尼亚州:宾夕法尼亚大学出版社,2006年);克里斯托弗·贝克威斯:《丝绸之路的帝国:从青铜时代到现在的欧亚大陆中部历史》(普林斯顿,新泽西州:普林斯顿大学出版社,2009);马克·艾略特:《虎活:北方他者与汉人的命名》,载于《批判汉人研究:中国多数人的历史、表现与身份》,托马斯·马兰尼等主编。 (加州伯克利和洛杉矶:加州大学出版社,2012),173-90;帕梅拉·凯尔·克罗斯利,《锤子和铁砧:现代世界锻造中的游牧统治者》(马里兰州兰厄姆:罗曼和利特菲尔德出版社,2019年)那些希望更新课堂作业的人也应该看看由温迪·斯沃茨、罗伯特·福特·坎帕尼、杨路和杰西·j·c·周编辑的《中世纪早期中国:资料手册》(纽约:哥伦比亚大学出版社,2014年),这本书充满了生动的历史和文学背景下的原始资料。例如,请参阅杰西·周(jessie Choo)翻译的关于是否在洛阳被桓温收复后搬回洛阳的辩论(第17-31页)和大卫·克内切斯(David Knechtges)翻译的一首关于饺子和面条等小麦面制成的食物的快乐的诗(第447-57页)关于这一时期文学的更长的分析,按时间顺序而不是按体裁划分,见大卫·克内奇斯(David Knechtges)的第二章“从东汉到西晋(公元25-317年)”和田晓飞的第三章“从东晋到初唐(317-649年)”,《剑桥中国文学史》卷一至1375年,Stephen Owen编辑。剑桥大学出版社,2010年),116-285.20那些发现这些考古证据的分析有趣的人可以转向Dien的六朝文明(纽黑文,CT:耶鲁大学出版社,2007年)了解更多那些想在阅读宗教章节后了解更多的人可以转向由约翰·拉格威和Lü彭智编辑的两卷本《早期中国宗教,第二部分:分裂时期(公元220-589年)》(莱顿:Brill, 2010),其中有这组作者以及其他几位作者的章节关于木志明,见Timothy Davis,《中国中世纪早期墓葬铭文与纪念文化:早期木志明简史》(莱顿:Brill, 2015)。Dien确实为《牛津历史写作史》(Oxford History of Historical Writing,牛津:牛津大学出版社,2011年)写了一章关于王朝历史的文章,并在Paul W. Kroll和David R. Knechtges编辑的《魏书史学》中发表了大量关于魏书史学的文章。,《中世纪早期中国文学与文化史研究:纪念理查德·b·马瑟和唐纳德·霍尔兹曼》(唐学学会,2003),399-466.23,其中包括对这一时期进行重要报道的书籍,如瓦莱丽·汉森的《丝绸之路:一段新的历史》(牛津:牛津大学出版社,2012),多萝西·王和古斯塔夫·海尔特的《中世纪时期的中国及其以外:文化交叉和区域间联系》(纽约阿默斯特:尼古拉·迪·科斯莫和迈克尔·马斯的《欧亚古代晚期的帝国与交流:罗马、中国、伊朗和大草原》,约250-750页(剑桥:剑桥大学出版社,2018年)《中世纪早期中国移民问题研究》,黄文义、田晓飞主编,载《亚洲研究》80.1(2021):95-165.25,参见第49、179、447、603、641页。最长的部分是霍尔库姆关于东晋的那一章,其中有三页是关于“大家族政治”,106-9页。他说,在后来的南朝,他们只有“社会和文化声望”,但没有解释这意味着什么。最近,我遇到的唯一试图重新审视这些问题的人是文学学者:辛西娅·l·陈诺尔特(Cynthia L. Chennault),《崇高的大门还是孤独的贫困?》《南朝谢氏家族》,《通报》85.4 (1999):249-327;田晓飞,《烽火与流星:梁人的文学文化(502-557)》(马萨诸塞州剑桥:哈佛大学亚洲中心,2007),26-52.26。另见Peter Bol特约编辑的《中国历史杂志》第4.2期(2020)特刊,关于中国历史研究的数字工具。它介绍了许多工具,并有几篇研究文章,其中包括一篇由塔克特撰写的文章。27就个人而言,我记得我在研究《早期帝制中国的贵族家庭》(剑桥:剑桥大学出版社,1978年)时花了多少时间为北朝王朝历史中提到的每个波令崔制作笔记卡。我必须检查他们担任的每个职位的级别,估计他们担任这些职位的时间,追踪他们彼此之间的亲属关系,并在我试图询问他们的政治活动及其随时间变化的情况时,手动对他们进行分类。在今天,CBDB不仅更容易做到这一点,而且将他们与他们的通婚家庭进行比较也并不困难。Jennifer Holmgren在20世纪80年代对非汉族家庭的研究也是如此,例如她的“太尉鲁氏及其对五世纪北魏吐巴国的贡献”,《T 'oung Pao》64 (1983):272-312.28 CHC 5。 《中国历史地理信息系统》第1卷在几年前出版,有32张地图,其中许多是使用中国历史地理信息系统制作的,所以出版社不太可能决定在本卷中只包括7张地图罗伯特·坎帕尼已经表明在这方面可以做些什么。多年来,他几乎只发表中世纪早期的作品,在2020年,他出版了《中国梦境:公元前300年至公元800年》(剑桥,马萨诸塞州:哈佛大学亚洲中心),涵盖了更长的时期。这本书获得了亚洲研究协会的约瑟夫·利文森奖(Joseph Levenson Prize),该奖是当年关于1900年前中国的最佳书籍。作者简介:patricia Buckley Ebrey patricia Buckley Ebrey是华盛顿大学历史学名誉教授。著有《中国早期帝制的贵族家庭:以柏龄崔氏家族为例》(1978)、《中国帝制后期的亲属组织:1000-1940》(1986)、《内部居住区:宋代中国妇女的婚姻与生活》(1993)、《**宗》(2014)等。
Bringing Scholarship on The Early Medieval Period to a Broader Audience
Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Disclosure StatementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 Eventually, the set included fifteen “volumes,” but sixteen physical books, as volume 5 came out as two books.2 See Arthur Wright, Buddhism in Chinese History (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press) and Erik Zürcher, The Chinese Conquest of Buddhism (Leiden: Brill), both published in 1959.3 Albert E. Dien, “Yen Chih-t’ui (531-591+): A Buddho-Confucian,” in Confucian Personalities, ed. Arthur F. Wright and Denis Twitchett (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1962), 44–64; Hisayuki Miyakawa, “The Confucianization of South China,” in The Confucian Persuasion, ed. Arthur F. Wright (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1960), 21–46.4 Two notable conference volumes are State and Society in Early Medieval China, ed. Albert E. Dien (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1990), and Culture and Power in the Reconstitution of the Chinese Realm, 200–600, ed. Scott Pearce, Audrey Spiro, and Patricia Ebrey (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 2001).5 One could even go back earlier, to the Nan-Pei Ch’ao Studies group, which issued a newsletter beginning in 1977. Its first issue was a directory of scholars who responded to its query in the Association of Asian Studies newsletter asking for their addresses, research interests, and publications, and thus offers a time capsule on the field at that time.6 This is true even of recent volumes, such as CHC 5.2 (2015), which has chapters by Robert Hymes, Charles Hartman, and Joseph McDermott and Shiba Yoshinobu that ranged from 116 to 139 pages in length.7 Readers who would prefer to read a survey of the period in which a single scholar attempts to bring all the strands together can turn to Mark Lewis, China Between Empires: The Northern and Southern Dynasties (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009).8 Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 78.2 (2018): 477–90.9 Journal of Asian Studies 47.2 (1988): 344.10 Journal of Asian Studies 55 (1996): 146–49.11 Journal of Song-Yuan Studies 46 (2016): 225–37.12 Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 77.1 (2017): 175–83.13 To give an example, I was confused by the differences in the discussion of Chen Yinke’s analysis of the relative contribution of the Western Wei/Northern Zhou versus the Eastern Wei/Northern Qi to the Tang on pages 11–12 and 235, so checked the index for Chen Yinke. It lists pages 11–12, 13, and 76, but there is no reference to Chen Yinke on page 76, and the passage on page 235 is not listed in the index. So I did a search of the Cambridge Histories online via my university library. Searching “Yinke,” if the box “search within full text” was checked, I got only two hits, to the introduction and chapter 10. To see the passages required opening the chapter and doing a search of it. By contrast, one could easily search through the e-book and get forty references, almost all in footnotes, but also turning up a passage in the main text on p. 217.14 They also end on this note: pp. 23–24.15 On recent Chinese scholarship, one can also turn to Luo Xin, “Chinese and Inner Asian Perspectives on the History of the Northern Dynasties (386–589) in Chinese Historiography,” in Empires and Exchanges in Eurasian Late Antiquity: Rome, China, Iran, and the Steppe, ca. 250–750, ed. Nicola Di Cosmo and Michael Maas, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 166–75.16 Pearce, when discussing Emperor Xiaowen’s move to Luoyang and new requirements that Chinese dress and language be used at court, scrupulously avoids using the terms “sinification” or “sinicization.” Other authors do occasionally use it to refer to individuals, art styles, and the like. See pp. 128, 146, 154, 278, 301, 409, 445, 456, 654, 679, 689.17 I am thinking of works like those by Barfield, Di Cosmo, Allsen, Beckwith, Elliott, and Crossley. See Thomas J. Barfield, The Perilous Frontier: Nomadic Empires and China, 221 BC to AD 1757 (Cambridge, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 1989); Nicola Di Cosmo, “State Formation and Periodization in Inner Asian History,” Journal of World History 10.1 (1999): 1–40; Nicola Di Cosmo, “The Relations Between China and the Steppe: From the Xiongnu to the Türk Empire,” in Empires and Exchanges in Eurasian Late Antiquity: Rome, China, Iran, and the Steppe, ca. 250–750, ed. Nicola Di Cosmo and Michael Maas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 35–53; Thomas T. Allsen, The Royal Hunt in Eurasian History (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006); Christopher I. Beckwith, Empires of the Silk Road: A History of Central Eurasia from the Bronze Age to the Present (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009); Mark Elliott, “Hushuo: The Northern Other and the Naming of the Han Chinese,” in Critical Han Studies: The History, Representation, and Identity of China’s Majority, ed. Thomas Mullaney, et al. (Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 2012), 173–90; Pamela Kyle Crossley, Hammer and Anvil: Nomad Rulers at the Forge of the Modern World (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2019).18 Those looking to update their classroom assignments should also check out Early Medieval China: A Sourcebook, ed. Wendy Swartz, Robert Ford Campany, Yang Lu, and Jessey J. C. Choo (New York: Columbia University Press, 2014), which is full of lively primary sources placed in historical and literary context. See, for instance, Jessey Choo’s translation of a debate on whether to move back to Luoyang after it had been recovered by Huan Wen (pp. 17–31) and David Knechtges’s translation of a poem on the joy of foods made from wheat flour such as dumplings and noodles (pp. 447–57).19 For lengthier analysis of the literature of the period, divided chronologically rather than by genre, see Chapter 2, “From the Eastern Han through the Western Jin (AD 25–317),” by David Knechtges, and Chapter 3, “From the Eastern Jin through the Early Tang (317–649),” by Xiaofei Tian, in The Cambridge History of Chinese Literature, Vol. 1, To 1375, ed. Stephen Owen (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 116–285.20 Those who find these analyses of archaeological evidence intriguing can turn to Dien’s Six Dynasties Civilization (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2007) to learn more.21 Those who want to learn more after reading the religion chapters can turn to the considerably fuller coverage in the two-volume set edited by John Lagerwey and Lü Pengzhi, Early Chinese Religion, Part Two: The Period of Division (220–589 AD) (Leiden: Brill, 2010), which has chapters by this set of authors as well as several others.22 On muzhiming, see Timothy Davis, Entombed Epigraphy and Commemorative Culture in Early Medieval China: A Brief History of Early Muzhiming (Leiden: Brill, 2015). Dien did write a chapter on the dynastic histories for the Oxford History of Historical Writing (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011) and has a substantial article on the historiography of Wei shu in Paul W. Kroll and David R. Knechtges, eds., Studies in Early Medieval Chinese Literature and Cultural History: In Honor of Richard B. Mather and Donald Holzman (T’ang Studies Society, 2003), 399–466.23 These include books that give significant coverage to this period, such as Valerie Hansen’s Silk Road: A New History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), Dorothy Wong and Gustave Heldt’s China and Beyond in the Mediaeval Period: Cultural Crossings and Inter-Regional Connections (Amherst, NY: Cambria, 2014), and Nicola Di Cosmo and Michael Maas’s Empires and Exchanges in Eurasian Late Antiquity: Rome, China, Iran, and the Steppe, ca. 250–750 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018).24 “A Forum on Migration in Early Medieval China,” ed. and with an introduction by Wen-Yi Huang and Xiaofei Tian, in Journal of Asian Studies 80.1 (2021): 95–165.25 See, for instance, pp. 49, 179, 447, 603, 641. The longest section is in Holcombe’s chapter on the Eastern Jin, which includes three pages on “Great-Family Politics,” 106–9. He states that in the subsequent Southern Dynasties they had only “social and cultural prestige,” without explaining what that entailed. The only recent attempts to reopen these questions that I have come across are by scholars of literature: Cynthia L. Chennault, “Lofty Gates or Solitary Impoverishment? Xie Family Members of the Southern Dynasties,” T’oung Pao 85.4–5 (1999): 249–327; and Xiaofei Tian, in Beacon Fire and Shooting Star: The Literary Culture of the Liang (502–557) (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 2007), 26–52.26 See also the special issue of the Journal of Chinese History 4.2 (2020), guest edited by Peter Bol, on digital tools for the study of Chinese history. It introduces many tools and has several research articles, including one by Tackett.27 To put this in personal terms, I remember how much work it took when I was working on the Aristocratic Families of Early Imperial China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978) to make note cards for each Boling Cui mentioned in the Northern Dynasties’ dynastic histories. I had to check the rank of each post they held, estimate when they held them, trace their kinship connections to each other, and manually sort them as I tried to ask questions about their political activity and how it changed over time. Not only would this have been much easier to do today with CBDB, but it would not have been difficult to compare them to the families with which they intermarried. The same would be true of the studies Jennifer Holmgren did of non-Han families in the 1980s, such as her “The Lu Clan of Tai Commandery and Its Contribution to the T’o-pa State of Northern Wei in the Fifth Century,” T’oung Pao 64 (1983): 272–312.28 CHC 5.1, published just a few years earlier, has thirty-two maps, many produced by using Chinese Historical GIS, so it is unlikely that the decision to include only seven maps in this volume was made by the press.29 Robert Campany has already shown what can be done in this regard. After many years in which he published almost exclusively on the early medieval period, in 2020 he published The Chinese Dreamscape: 300 BCE–800 CE (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center), covering a much longer period. It won the Association for Asian Studies’ Joseph Levenson Prize for the best book that year on pre-1900 China.Additional informationNotes on contributorsPatricia Buckley EbreyPatricia Buckley Ebrey is Professor of History Emerita at University of Washington. She is the author of many books, including Aristocratic Families of Early Imperial China: A Case Study of the Po-ling Ts'ui Family (1978), Kinship Organization in Late Imperial China: 1000–1940 (1986), Inner Quarters: Marriage and the Lives of Chinese Women in the Sung Period (1993), Emperor Huizong (2014), among others.