中国经典动画：金猴降妖（全新图文版） 下载 pdf 电子版 epub 免费 txt 2025

暂无相关简介，正在全力查找中！

暂无相关目录，正在全力查找中！

暂无相关内容，正在全力查找中

暂无出版社相关信息，正在全力查找中！

暂无相关书籍摘录，正在全力查找中！

在线阅读地址：中国经典动画：金猴降妖（全新图文版）在线阅读

在线听书地址：中国经典动画：金猴降妖（全新图文版）在线收听

在线购买地址：中国经典动画：金猴降妖（全新图文版）在线购买

暂无原文赏析，正在全力查找中！

暂无其它内容！

• 作者：蓝槿安 发布时间：2021-06-11 11:17:07

  感觉不是特别精细，是泥塑的特色么？有几个人物的脸，感觉有点诡异，比较喜欢游春图那个泥塑～

• 作者：R. Mutt 发布时间：2007-03-23 23:46:30

  台版

• 作者：婺州海东青 发布时间：2012-09-10 10:25:55

  读过的最好版本！

• 作者：SZ 发布时间：2024-01-28 01:24:41

  什么东东 最不好看的一本 全程老婆抖小三

• 作者：折耳大猫 发布时间：2022-12-11 14:00:49

  感觉不错，贝基这样的人现在肯定也有的是，幸好多宾最后有个好结局

• 作者：暮玦明 发布时间：2011-08-23 21:01:04

  这书好可爱~~~~

  可就是看了，这些乱七八糟的拟声词、拟态词还是记不住啊……T。T

• Review of Jian Xu, A Material Culture Study of Bronze Weapons before the Eastern Zhou Dynasty

  作者：鵬鵬 James 发布时间：2016-10-01 05:20:44

  Published in Frontiers of History in China, vol. 11, no. 3 (September, 2016)

  http://journal.hep.com.cn/fhc/EN/10.3868/s020-005-016-0027-3#1

        Like elsewhere in the world, weaponry in China has long been regarded as the symbol of warfare and violence. Hitherto much scholarly attention has been given to the Shang (ca. 1,600-1,046 BCE) and Zhou bronze eating and drinking vessels, as well as to musical instruments, without an equivalent understanding the significance of the contemporary bronze weapons, which are extent in a surprising quantity. To fill the gap, in this groundbreaking book revised from chapters of his Ph. D. dissertation at Peking University, Jian Xu brings together the much-overlooked ritual implication embedded in the bronze weapons of early China, covering the span from the Erlitou culture (ca. 1,800-1,500 BCE) to the Western Zhou period (1,046-771 BCE).

         As the title reveals, Xu has sought to re-examine bronze weapons within the theoretical framework of material culture. Despite the fact that material culture as an interdisciplinary arena of inquiry has been widely acknowledged within Anglo-American academia, the introduction of this Western invention into Chinese scholarship is still in its infancy. According to Anke Hein, Chinese archeology has a strong typology-oriented tradition “that is based both on local traditions of historiography and antiquarianism and the nature of early Western archaeological endeavors in China, and has strongly political determinants as well.” [1] Following this parameter, in the Introduction, when Xu discusses the complex scholarship on bronze weapons of early China, two major approaches are apparent. The antiquarian approach embraces a tradition, tracing back to the Northern Song period (960-1,127 CE) when important scholarly writing took up found and collected objects under the rubric of “studies of metal and stone” (jinshi xue金石學), that is, more liberally, “studies of bronzes and stone inscriptions.” Celebrated by antiquarians for their textual and historiographic values, bronze objects’ archaeological information has been downplayed or edited out when being collected and catalogued. By contrast, the other approach focuses on archeological discoveries in situ, which marked the beginning of modern Chinese archaeology basically surrounding the 1928 excavation of the sites at Anyang Yinxu, Henan, which were led by Li Ji 李濟 (or Li Chi, 1896-1979) (p. 9). From Xu’s view, except for few like Max Loehr (1903-1988), most scholars who adopted either of these two approaches─which are confined to incomplete materials─have innate defects in their formalistic analyses. Divergent and even conflicting naming and classifying systems of bronzes weapons based on previous approaches also impede further understanding (p. 17). Departing from past scholarship, therefore, Xu adapts the American archeologist Lewis R. Binford’s (1931-2011) theory of three archaeological systematics─technological, social organizational, and ideological—modified by Binford based on the cultural anthropologist Leslie A. White’s (1900-1975) categorization of cultural systems.[2] Such a framework, as it is argued, focuses on investigating material objects as cultural products and “lies in the shared frame of thought that culture is defined by human behavior.” [3] With this multi-dimensional conceptual tool, as thoroughly analyzed by the following four chapters based on a comprehensive and systematic database, Xu treats bronze weapons as material agents through which a broader and more complex cultural system can be peeked into.

       

        Dealing specifically with Binford’s first dimension, Chapter One probes bronze weapons’ stylistic developments, ornaments, and metallurgic information. It begins with Xu’s methodological reflection on Gustav O. Montelius (1843-1921)’s typological paradigm, which has long remained dominant, and seems continue to be so, in the field of Chinese archaeology. Covering archaeologically excavated burials, public and private collections, the bronze weapons concerned are classified as the dagger-axe (戈 ge), spear (矛 mao), halberd (戟 ji), axe (斧鉞 fu yue), sword/dagger (短劍 duan jian), knife (刀 dao), arrowhead (矢鏃shi zu), helmet (胄 zhou), and armour (甲 jia). According to Xu’s formal analysis, stylistic changes of weapons serve to differentiate whether a specimen was intended as a utilitarian instrument, or as a “sign” which is highly decorated. Xu argues that the interaction of two elements─functional and non-functional─played a crucial role in dynamic changes of bronze weapons before the Easter Zhou. While the functional element features utilitarian designs intended for military use and killing, and the non-functional element features superfluous ornamentation such as graphic carvings and inlaid turquoise, one can find that neither of the dual natures of weapons can completely rule out the other.

        In order to reveal the role of bronze weapons in social stratification, Chapter Two reconstructs the burial contexts of excavated specimens. With emphasis on their material contents and spatial distribution, the burials include such well-known sites as the pre-Shang Yanshi Erlitou (Henan), the Shang cemeteries at Panlongcheng in Wuhan (Hubei), Xin’gan Dayangzhou in Jiangxi; also Western Zhou cemeteries at Zhangjiapo near Xi’an city (Shaanxi), Mapo and Beiyao in Luoyang, to name only a few. Although all of these burials’ occupants were aristocrats, some were even kingly elites, but the variety of combinations of bronze weapons with other excavated objects within burial space has yet to be intensely studied. Take the burials of Panlongcheng (M1, M2, M11) as an example, although scattered in separated places, bronze ritual vessels and weapons were mostly found outside the coffin on the second tier of the tombs, thus suggesting that they share the intended value for the deceased. In general, when compared with the widespread combination of dagger-axes and spears, the rare combination of axes and knives from late Shang tombs indicates the occupants’ higher ranking (p. 146). On the other hand, bronze specimens’ variations in type, quantity and combination also indicate chronological, cultural, and regional differences.

        Under the influence of White’s cultural neo-evolutionism, Binford tends to view material tools’ dynamic mechanics as a focal part of humans’ technological means in his treatment of social processes. Therefore, Binford’s technological-cultural orientation, as Xu rightly puts it, fails to recognize objects’ religious/ritual expression and cultural relativism (pp. 149-150). Building on his criticism regarding Binford’s defect, Xu’s three case studies presented in Chapter Three follow the perspective of cognitive and contextual archaeology [4]─two theoretical syntheses of New Archaeology readily available to his interpretation for bridging the material and symbolic aspects of archaeological finds. (1) With the focus on willow-leaf shaped swords, he shows the ways in which the roles that bronze weapons played in different cultural zones—signifier of cultural identity, valuable items, or prestigious goods—express diverse social values. (2) Inspired by Katheryn Linduff’s studies of gender in Chinese archeology, particularly the case of Fu Hao from late Shang Anyang, Xu points out that, except for those from the tombs at Tianma-Qucun, bronze weapons were also buried with female occupants, suggesting that weapons did not necessarily express masculinity in the Shang and Zhou cultures (pp. 160-161). (3) The Chinese archaeologist Guo Baojun 郭寶鈞 (1893-1971) has keenly proposed the “beaten tomb (毆墓 ou’mu)” hypothesis, according to the Rites of the Zhou (Zhouli), to explain why many bronze dagger-axes’ and halberds’ blades were found broken during his excavation of the Western Zhou cemetery at Xincun, located in Xunxian, Henan (p. 162). Based on Guo’s widely-acknowledged interpretation, Xu further argues that, compared with the late Shang period, the deliberate destruction of dagger-axes and halberds became more evident and widespread among Western Zhou burials, and probably thereby developed into a regular worship practice.

        Made with precious material that was strictly control by the ruling elites, jade weapons in early China, given their scarcity and ritual significance in burials, are taken up in a comparative study of contemporary bronze weapons in Chapter Four. Archeological data demonstrate that several types of stone or jade weapons dating to the late Neolithic period, such as the axe, dagger-axe and knife, predate the bronze counterparts and had an impact upon their early designs. Most distinctive are jade axes featured in ritual practices of the Liangzhu culture, developed in the Lower Yangzi region around 3,400-2,300 BCE. Jade weapons, particularly the dagger-axe, had gradually declined in quantity and size by the Eastern Zhou (ca. 770-255 BCE), along with their shifting role from the ritual emblem to ornament-oriented accessory (p. 205). The stylistic and symbolic interaction between jade and bronze weapons, as Xu suggests, constitutes a parallel development to understanding the diversity of social and ritual symbolism in the Chinese Bronze Age.

        Even without a concluding chapter, Xu has convincingly shown us that bronze weapons before the Eastern Zhou as a whole deserve being equally perceived and treated as ritual artifacts in their own right. By challenging the preoccupied dichotomy between ritual artifact and utilitarian instrument, this book also offers a close study of objects driven by a shared academic agenda in fields of Early China in particular and Chinese archaeology in general. Although why the Eastern Zhou has been excluded from his discussion remains to be specified, and a critical reader may raise questions of how and why the end of the Western Zhou, alongside political turmoil and ritual reform, marks a radical impact on bronze weapons, Xu is fully aware of the potential bias brought by archaeological evidence. Theoretically and practically, this book incorporates pioneering Western conceptual tools into Chinese scholarship and its local contextual analyses, thus making a welcomed attempt in the rising Chinese New Archaeology.

  Footnotes:

  [1] Anke Hein, “The Problems of Typology in Chinese Archeology,” Early China 2015.18, 3.

  [2] Lewis R. Binford, “Archaeology as Anthropology,” American Antiquity 28.2 (Oct., 1962): 217-225. White divides culture as a whole into three categories: technology, social system, and philosophies, see Leslie A. White, The Science of Culture: A Study of Man and Society (New York: Grove Press; London: Evergreen Books Ltd, 1949): 392.

  [3] Lewis R. Binford, “Archaeological Systematic and the Study of Cultural Process,” American Antiquity 31.2 (Oct. 1965): 203.

  [4] For theoretical developments and practices of these two archaeological syntheses within the wave of New Archaeology, see Ian Hodder and Hudson Scott, Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), especially chapter 2 “Processual and system approach” and chapter 8 “Contextual archaeology”; Colin Renfrew and Chris Scarre eds., Cognition and Material Culture: The Archaeology of Symbolic Storage (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1998); Colin Renfrew, “Towards A Cognitive Archaeology: Material Engagement and the Early Development of Society,” in Ian Hodder ed., Archaeological Theory Today (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2012): 124-145; Colin Renfrew and Paul Bahn, Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice (London: Thames & Hudson, 2012): 381-420.

• 1本无字漫画，1个塞满冒险、荒诞和爱的“沙丁鱼罐头”

  作者：贰宏 发布时间：2020-05-06 15:47:23

  漫画推动情节发展的方式主要有两种，一是对话旁白等文字，二是画面。当一本漫画，没有了文字，就如同默片电影一般，只能通过更为细腻生动的画面去讲述完整的故事，这非常考验漫画编者和绘者的能力。而这也是《沙丁鱼罐头之味》最开始吸引我的地方。

  

  这是两位大叔带来的一本有趣而温暖的漫画，这从书封底的介绍里就能窥见一二。

  

  配料:大海(水、盐、垃圾)、爱(玫瑰香水、亲吻、婚礼)、沙丁鱼、海鸥、可丽饼、龙虾、布列塔尼的忧郁女人、酱汁(历险、悬念、潜台词、情感戏、荒诞的转折、爆笑的幽默)、不靠谱的香料。

  在这本无字漫画里，用两条交织在一起的故事线，讲述了一个“相濡以沫”的爱情故事，又隐藏了了多个让人或爆笑或反思的彩蛋。

  1. 一本无字漫画里的爱情

  他们是一对平凡的老夫妻，一个靠出海捕鱼为生的小老头和他的胖厨娘，他们居住在布列塔尼的海滨小镇。一次出海，小老头遇险，无奈在海上漂流，日常只能与海鸥为伴；他历尽千辛万苦想要回家。而此时在家的胖厨娘，左等右盼也不见小老头回家，鼓起勇气第一次离开故土，踏上寻夫之旅。

  

  在海上漂流的小老头，想起了他与胖厨娘在舞会上相遇，他战战兢兢的求婚，之后便是“热热闹闹”又相濡以沫的生活。而让他回忆起这一切的，是一块美味的可丽饼。

  

  

  张静雯在诗歌《味道》这样写道：“而也许我最喜欢的是 用明火、用蔬菜、水果 用肉禽蛋、面包咖啡茶 用一切食物 炮制出我喜欢的一种 有你存在的味道”。

  有种食物，之所以美味，是因为与你有关，是因为藏着我们的美好记忆。

  2. 两条交织在一起的故事线

  小老头的冒险充满危险和悬念，他在海上经历翻船落水、寻船漂流、暴风雨、海盗等一系列“事故”。最终，他靠着强烈的生存欲望和想回家的心，吃着胖厨娘给他准备的沙丁鱼罐头，挺过了一次次的“灾难”，回到海边小屋。

  

  

  胖厨娘的冒险则是荒诞和爆笑的。她听信了“巫师”算出的小老头位置，拿出不多的积蓄买了船票，踏上寻夫之旅。在邮轮上，因为厨艺和编织意外“走红”，不仅在异乡免受了牢狱之苦，还坐着私人飞机“荣归故里”。

  

  

  《沙丁鱼罐头之味》里，两个关系亲密的人，各自经历冒险，可以说是两条独立的故事线。但编者和绘者，把两个人物的故事线交织在一起，让读者在历险、悬念、情感、荒诞、爆笑中不停的转换着，感受两个人物的不同心情和阅读的乐趣。

  3. 多个藏匿其中的故事彩蛋

  编者和绘者，两位有趣的大叔，怎么会只满足于讲一个爱情故事呢？他们还藏了很多彩蛋在故事里。

  比如环保主题——因为人类垃圾而受伤的海鸥，海洋垃圾场。

  

  比如网红主题——社交媒体让“平凡人”成为时尚焦点。

  

  彩蛋点到为止，给读者留下思考空间；更多的隐藏等你去发现。

  

  当一切冒险尘埃落定，当一切闪光灯熄灭，他们还是回到属于两个人的海边小屋。他还是她的小老头，她还是他的胖厨娘，沙丁鱼罐头还是美味之选。

  这是图像小说《沙丁鱼罐头之味》的故事，全书没有一句旁白，用一幅幅漫画向我们描述了一个温馨的爱情故事。

  

  也许他们外形并不般配，也许他们生活并不富裕，也许他们也会有吵吵闹闹。但不管遇到多少危险和困难，小老头心中不灭的是要回到胖厨娘身边的信念，胖厨娘执着的是一定要找到小老头的心。

  我们“上下求索”，为一份“相濡以沫”的爱情