文字活化石——東巴文A Living Fossil of Writing: The Dongba Script
在雲南麗江,雪山腳下,流淌着由圖像、線條和古老的智慧交織而成的文字之河。定睛一看,這條河流上佈滿了東巴文。當我們習慣於用抽象的字母或筆畫進行思考和記錄時,東巴文卻將我們拉回到童年的記憶裏那個看圖説話的感性世界。At Lijiang in Yunnan, at the foot of the snow mountains, there flows a river of writing woven out of images, lines and ancient wisdom. Look closely and you will find that river covered with Dongba characters. Where we are used to thinking and recording in abstract letters or strokes, Dongba pulls us back to the world of childhood — the sensory world of telling a story from a picture.
東巴文,納西語叫「森究魯究」,意為「木石之標記」。它的每一個符號,都像一幅微縮的簡筆畫,凝固了萬物形態,其形態甚至比甲骨文更為古老和象形,被譽為文字的活化石。In the Naxi language Dongba writing is called senjiu lujiu, meaning "the marks on wood and stone". Every one of its symbols is like a miniature line drawing that freezes the shape of a thing; its forms are in fact older and more pictorial than those of the oracle bones, which is why it is celebrated as a living fossil of writing.
而令人驚異的是,在中華文明的廣袤天空中,與這顆西南「活化石」南北遙相呼應的,正是中原大地上璀璨的甲骨文。它們如同時間的雙生子,雖遠隔千里,卻訴説着相似的人類文明起源。What is striking is that, across the wide sky of Chinese civilisation, the counterpart answering this southwestern living fossil from the north is the brilliant oracle-bone script of the Central Plains. Like twins born of time, separated by a thousand miles, the two tell much the same story about how human civilisation began.
甲骨文,作為漢字的早期形式,鐫刻在龜甲與獸骨之上,主要用於商代的占卜。它已是高度成熟的文字體系,但其核心構成,與東巴文有着驚人的相似之處。Oracle-bone script, the earliest form of the Chinese character, was incised on tortoise shells and animal bones and used chiefly for divination in the Shang dynasty. It was already a highly developed writing system — yet in its underlying construction it bears a remarkable resemblance to Dongba.
東巴文與甲骨文:千年的文明迴響Dongba and Oracle Bone: An Echo Across a Thousand Years
造字邏輯的相似:象形A Shared Logic of Character Formation: The Pictograph
東巴文與甲骨文的相似,首先體現在造字邏輯的起點上——象形。兩者都是「畫成其物,隨體詰詘」的典範。The resemblance between Dongba and oracle-bone script shows first of all at the starting point of character formation: the pictograph. Both are models of the classical principle that a character "draws the object itself, its lines bending to follow the shape".
東巴文的「日」字畫一個圈,中間加點;「山」字畫山峯的輪廓。同樣,甲骨文的「日」字是一個圓圈的中間加一點(後來演變為方形);「山」字也是畫出三座山峯的形狀。這種直接摹寫客觀事物的方式,直觀而充滿生命力。In Dongba, the character for "sun" is a circle with a dot in the middle, and the character for "mountain" traces the outline of peaks. In oracle-bone script the "sun" is likewise a circle with a dot at its centre (later squared off), and "mountain" is drawn as three peaks. This way of copying the object directly is immediate and full of life.
遠古的信仰和權力Ancient Belief and Ancient Power
再者,它們都與遠古的信仰和權力緊密相連。Third, both were bound up closely with the beliefs and the power structures of remote antiquity.
甲骨文是商王與鬼神溝通的占卜記錄,掌握在巫師(貞人)手中,是王權神授的體現。東巴文則由納西族的宗教智者「東巴」用來書寫《東巴經》,是祭祀、祈福、驅鬼的法器。兩者都是「通天」的媒介,是文明早期神權與知識結合的產物。Oracle-bone script recorded the divinations through which the Shang kings communicated with spirits and ancestors. It was held in the hands of the diviner-shamans and embodied the divine sanction of royal power. Dongba script was used by the Naxi religious sages known as dongba to write the Dongba scriptures 《東巴經》, and served as a ritual instrument for sacrifice, blessing and exorcism. Both were media for reaching heaven — the product, in the early stages of civilisation, of priestly authority married to knowledge.
分岔之路:為何一「活」一「古」?The Parting of Ways: Why One Lives On and One Belongs to the Past
為何兩種具有許多相似性的文字走上了截然不同的道路?Why did two scripts with so much in common take such utterly different roads?
甲骨文隨着商朝的滅亡而深埋地下,成為一段被遺忘的歷史,其後裔(金文、篆書等)在演化中逐漸抽象化、線條化,失去了原始的象形面貌。而東巴文,因其相對封閉的地理環境和納西族東巴教的持續傳承,得以在民間「活態」延續至今,成為我們窺探文字起源的稀世窗口。Oracle-bone script was buried deep in the earth with the fall of the Shang and became a forgotten chapter of history, while its descendants — bronze inscriptions, seal script and the rest — grew steadily more abstract and linear as they evolved, losing their original pictorial appearance. Dongba, by contrast, survived in living use among the people, thanks to a relatively closed geography and the unbroken transmission of the Naxi Dongba religion. It remains a rare window through which we can glimpse the origins of writing.
東巴文的生命,得益於「東巴」們的代代相傳,也得益於那號稱千年不腐的東巴紙。這種堅韌的手工紙,為脆弱的文明之火提供了堡壘。2003年,東巴古籍被列入「世界記憶遺產名錄」,正是對其無與倫比的文化價值的認可。Dongba owes its life to the dongba priests who have handed it down generation after generation — and also to Dongba paper, said to resist decay for a thousand years. This tough handmade paper has been a fortress for a fragile flame of civilisation. In 2003 the ancient Dongba manuscripts were inscribed on UNESCO's Memory of the World Register, in recognition of their incomparable cultural value.
結語In Conclusion
東巴文與甲骨文,這一南一北、一「活」一「古」的文明瑰寶,共同勾勒出人類文字童年的燦爛圖景。「守護東巴文,守護每一種瀕危的語言,就是守護人類思想的多樣性,守護我們共同未來的更多可能性。」正如學者范俊軍所言:「每一聲瀕危的母語吟唱,都是人類文明星空中,一顆不應熄滅的星辰。」Dongba and oracle-bone script — one southern and still living, one northern and long past — are treasures of civilisation that together sketch a brilliant picture of the childhood of human writing. To guard Dongba, and to guard every endangered language, is to guard the diversity of human thought and to keep open more possibilities for our shared future. As the scholar Fan Junjun puts it: "Every note sung in an endangered mother tongue is a star in the night sky of human civilisation, and not one of them should be allowed to go out."
參考文獻References
[1] 范俊軍.中國的瀕危語言保存和保護[J].暨南學報(哲學社會科學版),2018,40(10):1-18.[1] Fan Junjun, "The Preservation and Protection of Endangered Languages in China", Journal of Jinan University (Philosophy and Social Sciences), 2018, 40(10): 1–18.
[2] 肖自輝,彭婧.論瀕危語言語檔的大眾化、現代化和產品化[J].西北民族大學學報(哲學社會科學版),2016,(03):62-68.[2] Xiao Zihui and Peng Jing, "On the Popularisation, Modernisation and Productisation of Endangered-Language Archives", Journal of Northwest Minzu University (Philosophy and Social Sciences), 2016, (03): 62–68.
[3] 鄧文彬,王秀英.中國瀕危語言研究的歷史分期及其特點[J].民族學刊,2017,8(06):66-70+119-120.[3] Deng Wenbin and Wang Xiuying, "The Historical Periodisation of Endangered-Language Research in China and Its Characteristics", Journal of Ethnology, 2017, 8(06): 66–70, 119–120.