非常高兴YY终于不甘情愿地抛出了争论这样的字眼，在他争论之前，他不过是“避免"了这样的争论， 当然他并不是自以为是，No, not at all. 他不过是说主流思想。
现在的问题时，既然某某在争论之前有意避过了容易引起争议的观点，看来他是知道这些争议的喽。
然而他在争论中似乎从来没有提到过，当然也许他不自以为是的认为所谓的主流就是不容争议？等到别人出示证据了，他开始说爱因斯坦的相对论了。爱因斯坦的相对论在当初是有争议，但是这并不等于所有有争议的东西全是相对论。
同样，相对论在被争议的时候绝对不是主流，而它所引起的争议也正是因为它的假释有它的出奇之处。无论如何，爱因斯坦在争论的时候不会说：“这些假释是主流，你们自己去查吧”这样不自以为是的话。
芮传明、刘迎胜当然是写过不少文章，其中有提到《胡马和中国文化生活》，《中国古代外来文化和宗教》， 但是这个古到底是怎么个古法，我们是应该问问的，所以我还是希望YY提供原文。在读到他们的文章之前，我并不质疑这些教授，但是我显然有理由质疑YY, 因为他非常肯定的东西总是最后变得不了了之。
接下来转一篇有关描述：
中国北方游牧起源问题初探
邵 方
(西南政法大学法学研究所，重庆400031）
与朱开沟晚期文化面貌类似的考古遗存还有陕北清涧李家崖古城遗址，此外，在山西柳林高红、陕西绥德薛家渠，以及延川、洛川等地也都发现了该文化的遗址。有些考古学家称这种广泛分布于陕北与晋西北的商周时期的青铜文化为“李家崖文化”或者“鬼方文化”。L18)李家崖文化在经济类型上可能是以农业与畜牧业为主的混合经济。生产工具中有铜制的斧、锛，石器有刀、斧，玉器有铲、刀、斧，骨器有铲，皆显示出农业生产的重要性。另一方面，在李家崖古城遗址中还发现有马、牛、羊、猪、犬、鹿的骨骼。属于李家崖文化的陕西绥德薛家渠遗址，出土的兽骨据称是以牛、羊骨最多。“
评论说，这里明显提到马的考古化石，虽然牛羊为多。
其次，马的驯化和传播是欧亚草原游牧兴起的关键。早期游牧人群是以马、牛、羊为主的专业化游牧人群。因此，马、牛、羊的驯养史与游牧的出现密切相关。在新石器时代晚期发展出的农牧业兼营的混合经济为游牧的产生奠定了基础。在夏家店上层文化中，从动物遗存以及出土器物上的动物形象来看，除了当地原有的家畜猪、狗、牛、羊外，也出现了驯养的马。李家崖古城遗址中的动物遗骸有马、牛、羊、猪、狗、鹿。因为有车马器的出土，无疑在李家崖文化中已有驯养的马了。
已有学者指出，马被认为是草原游牧的象征，马的驯化和传播是欧亚草原游牧兴起的关键。已知最早驯养的马出现在东欧。[20]在乌克兰南部 Dereivka村Sredni stog文化遗址中发现了大量马骨和六个鹿角式嚼子。研究表明，马正处于被驯化的过程中，主要是食用，也开始用于骑乘和牵引，其时代是公元前3500—前3000年。1956年，古姆巴特斯(Gimbutas)曾提出“库尔干文化”的概念，用来描述灵活机动、骑马好战的父系氏族部落文化，以区别欧洲古老的定居、和平的母系氏族文化传统。库尔干文化是印欧语的源泉，是原始印欧人或雅利安人的创造。1985年，安东尼完成了一篇以马的驯化为主题的博士论文。他将马的驯化和印欧语的起源看做是库尔干文化的两个组成部分，并且指出马是导致印欧语广泛传播的关键因素。在马被驯化的同时，适应马拉的车也应运而生。一辆牛车一天行程不过25公里，而马车可以轻易超过50公里，使人类在其历史上第一次能够以超过自己的速度进行长途运输，从而导致了陆上运输的革命。
评论说，这是关于马的论文的引用，阅读原文，我们知道那是一种假释，在近来受到的质疑越来越多。
这里明显提出马在李家崖文化中已经存在了。
第三，外来游牧文化的传人是我国北方游牧兴起的原因之一。
马在草原游牧中具有决定性的地位。关于马驯养的起源问题，大多数学者认为东欧、南俄及乌克兰一带的欧亚草原是驯养马的原生地。在中国，驯养马较为可靠的考古学证据所显示的年代约在公元前1300年左右或略早，因此，从驯养发生的时间顺序上看，似乎也支持游牧文化是从西北方传人中国的看法。当然，已有的考古学证据并不排除中国北方马在本土驯养的可能。考古资料显示，野生马在新石器时代曾生存在华北及北方草原地带。《史记》中也记载着匈奴人的畜产中有捕获的野马。直到近代，蒙古野马还是世界上惟一的野生马种。
但是，目前在长城以北的中国北方地区发现的最早马具如马衔、马镳来看，均表现出其来自北方的文化因素，到了春秋时期，中国长城以北的北方地区的马具仍接近南西伯利亚马具的风格。中国北方地区的“北方青铜器文化”或“鄂尔多斯式青铜器文化”与流行于欧亚草原上的同类器物在风格和工艺上是一致的。由于地理上的接近，以及有南俄草原特色的动物纹饰主题早已出现在中国的北方青铜器文化中，因此，草原游牧的技术与观念很可能在此时(公元前六世纪或略晚)影响中国北方地区游牧的产生。[11](P410—412)
评论说，这里提到原因之一的说法，最后说这是公元前六世纪的事情， 商朝至少是公元前11世纪了，商朝的文字已经是信史了，怎么可能会反而受到匈奴的影响？
马的继续
两只黄鹂 发表评论于
我不懂甲骨文，但是要说马是匈奴词，我觉得该打。
在这点上，起码得跟小茶叶学学，好好搜索一下。
虽然说凡是不要太认真，但是这样没有水平的文章弄得一群人在高喊“好文章”，恐怕走廊的声誉会因此下降，如果含蓄，1111肯定拔腿就走，省得惹到我身上，受无妄之灾。
但是对于有些脸皮比脚掌还厚的人来说，我觉得还是实话实说。
我倾向恶狠狠的说法，马作为偏胖得字在古文里很多，稍微翻翻书就得了，难道还有疑问？这些字还都跟马的用途有关，所以马必定早就出现。
有无数文献传说说到马的故事，譬如穆天子传里面各种各样的骏马，譬如孟子提到的马车夫的故事，无一不提到马。再说了，秦兵马俑还是实物证据呢，怎么能视而不见？
我猜测一下，YY大概搜索了一下，从某篇文章得到了一些信息，所以就得出了这样的结论。准确地说，现在我国确实只有蒙古马和新疆马， 但是必须注意我们古代肯定不是这样。
举个例子， 中国现在只有东北虎和华南虎，但是不能说老虎这样的动物还是舶来品， 至少武松打得虎不是从东北华南运过来的。
YY你如果看不懂古文，最好少提历史，只是建议，听不听由你。
顺便说一下，据我所知，中学课本的牛顿力学跟他的故事没有关系，如果你不是研究牛顿只是研究牛顿力学，这些故事应该对你没有影响才是。
在这点上，起码得跟小茶叶学学，好好搜索一下。
虽然说凡是不要太认真，但是这样没有水平的文章弄得一群人在高喊“好文章”，恐怕走廊的声誉会因此下降，如果含蓄，1111肯定拔腿就走，省得惹到我身上，受无妄之灾。
但是对于有些脸皮比脚掌还厚的人来说，我觉得还是实话实说。
我倾向恶狠狠的说法，马作为偏胖得字在古文里很多，稍微翻翻书就得了，难道还有疑问？这些字还都跟马的用途有关，所以马必定早就出现。
有无数文献传说说到马的故事，譬如穆天子传里面各种各样的骏马，譬如孟子提到的马车夫的故事，无一不提到马。再说了，秦兵马俑还是实物证据呢，怎么能视而不见？
我猜测一下，YY大概搜索了一下，从某篇文章得到了一些信息，所以就得出了这样的结论。准确地说，现在我国确实只有蒙古马和新疆马， 但是必须注意我们古代肯定不是这样。
举个例子， 中国现在只有东北虎和华南虎，但是不能说老虎这样的动物还是舶来品， 至少武松打得虎不是从东北华南运过来的。
YY你如果看不懂古文，最好少提历史，只是建议，听不听由你。
顺便说一下，据我所知，中学课本的牛顿力学跟他的故事没有关系，如果你不是研究牛顿只是研究牛顿力学，这些故事应该对你没有影响才是。
两只黄鹂 发表评论于
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.
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.
两只黄鹂 发表评论于
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. ...
从这里已经看到，即使写这些文章的人都承认这个说法存在太多的主观观点，随人而异，所以最好别再引申
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. ...
从这里已经看到，即使写这些文章的人都承认这个说法存在太多的主观观点，随人而异，所以最好别再引申
两只黄鹂 发表评论于
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.
这大概是原文，英文是译文，后来那些人写得中文大概是二次以后的译文， 嘿嘿。
YY大概是N道贩子，其中以讹传讹，大概尼姑也变成了和尚。
"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.
这大概是原文，英文是译文，后来那些人写得中文大概是二次以后的译文， 嘿嘿。
YY大概是N道贩子，其中以讹传讹，大概尼姑也变成了和尚。
两只黄鹂 发表评论于
在这之前，希望YY出示刘迎生教授的文章。
1994年出版的中国民族，关于匈奴的介绍：
匈奴为我国北方古代民族。又称胡。其名始显于战果。自西汉以来，中国古代文籍记述其先民即殷周鬼房，俨狁。 当今学术界，仍多宗古籍；也有西来北来等说。
匈奴无文字，以语言为约束。。。
再者，现在关于“马蹄下的王国”的说法是关于史前文明的一种猜测，还算不上是历史，更不用说信史了。
匈奴的战马比汉朝多并不等于马的培养技术来自于匈奴，为什么不能他们学去了然后大量繁殖？ 难道说现在中国人最多说明外国人都市跟中国人学的生殖技术？
1994年出版的中国民族，关于匈奴的介绍：
匈奴为我国北方古代民族。又称胡。其名始显于战果。自西汉以来，中国古代文籍记述其先民即殷周鬼房，俨狁。 当今学术界，仍多宗古籍；也有西来北来等说。
匈奴无文字，以语言为约束。。。
再者，现在关于“马蹄下的王国”的说法是关于史前文明的一种猜测，还算不上是历史，更不用说信史了。
匈奴的战马比汉朝多并不等于马的培养技术来自于匈奴，为什么不能他们学去了然后大量繁殖？ 难道说现在中国人最多说明外国人都市跟中国人学的生殖技术？
登录后才可评论.
