《孟子•梁惠王•上》引孔子語「始作俑者，其無後乎！」趙岐的《孟子注》認為以俑為殉，會引發用真人殉葬的動機，孔子「惡其始造」，所以要嚴厲的指責。但趙說與歷史事實不符。
商代以人殉葬，或以人為犧牲的風氣很盛；西周這種風氣稍緩。但孔子所處的齊魯之地，卻一直盛行人殉的作風，從考古發掘充分證明這點。人殉極為殘酷，改以俑代人，應是人道的極大進步，何以反而被孔子嚴詞指責？因此有人認為，孔子並不知道在用俑之前已有人殉；或認為「始作俑者」應該是正面的意義。
本文從文獻和考古發掘實物分析，透過《孟子》原文、語境，指出諸家解釋的不合理；並從「孟子思想」和「孔子發言的背景」兩方面論析，指出「俑」的使用並沒有取代人殉，反而是在人殉之外又多了俑，更擴增了殉葬的內容；「歌舞伎樂」的俑作為殉葬者的陪葬品，又進一步合理化人殉的正當性，或更擴大人殉的規模。這是以仁愛為本的儒家不能容忍的，所以孔子嚴詞批判。這恐怕才是孔子說此話的歷史背景，以及這句話的真正義涵。

Mencius chapter “King Hui of Liang” quotes Confucius’s words, “The first man that makes burial figures probably has no posterity.” Zhao Qi’s annotations hold that Confucius sternly condemns the initiation of burial figures because it triggers human sacrifice, but this explanation is an incorrect opinion. Human sacrifice, which is very common in the Shang Dynasty, is gradually suspended in the Western Zhou; but according to sufficient archaeological evidences, it is still popular in Confucius’s location Qi and Lu during his time. Since burial figures are more humane than human sacrifice, Confucius’s condemnation seems unreasonable. Some scholars suggest that Confucius has not known human sacrifice before the practice of burial figures, and others propose that the “precedent of making burial figures” is actually a positive remark. This paper proves the above-mentioned explanations inadequate by analyzing context of Mencius’s words, historical documents, and archaeological findings. In fact, burial figures have not replaced human sacrifice but become increased grave goods; in particular the entertainer figures used as grave goods for human sacrifices further justify and even enlarge the scale of human sacrifice. This violation of humanity and benevolence is intolerable for Confucians, and this is the background and the real reason for Confucius’s severe criticism.