禹是先秦文献记载最多的人物之一。从《诗经》《尚书》到《左传》《国语》和诸子文献，禹一直被文献关注和书写，学界也格外重视禹的相关问题，分析禹治水、分九州等记载内容，力图辩证史实。从文献学的角度来看，今日所见早期记述禹的文献皆出自周人之手，与周人基于现实背景进行历史建构的活动密切相关。

检诸先秦文献，《诗经》《尚书》以及《遂公盨铭文》中关于禹治水、敷土的记载，为后世传说提供最早的可信材料。后世学者多关注禹治水的过程及成果，而忽略大洪水冲毁既有文明的前提。陶寺遗址的考古证据一定程度上证明了尧舜时期大洪水的存在，禹具体的治水措施也包含着重整社会秩序的政治含义。禹对洪水的驱散并不具备创世的意义，而是对生存空间的再造以及对文明的重建。

重建文明意味着历史地位的重新洗牌与政治秩序的重新确立。周人书写禹的目的集中在两方面。第一，周的先祖后稷是禹重建文明的参与者，文献对禹稷同廷为官的记载体现出周人有意识地将祖先历史和尧舜禹时代勾连，在族群内部延伸历史长度，加强历史共识。同时，周人还融合殷商等不同族群的记忆，诉诸历史化的叙述，将禹塑造为共同生存空间的奠基者，进而为自身的统治确立法理基础。第二，周人需要解释自己生存和统治的世界，夺取话语解释的权力，在历史叙述中确认自己的时空坐标，以正本清源，维护正统地位。从甲骨文“四方”到《禹贡》“九州”，周人对地理空间的认识范围扩大，认识水平也不断提高，西周中期的征战背景也令周人对地理疆域有了更加明确、具体、理性的认识。周人建立起禹和“九州”的联系，“九州”秩序呈现明显的向心性特征，围绕冀州这个中心展开，“九州”之“中”成为周人书写禹的时空坐标。

从宏观的历史维度认识先秦文献对禹的记述，春秋战国时期文献对禹的记载内容更为复杂，禹的形象更加丰富。文献延续了禹治水的叙事和禹德的精神内核，同时将禹放置在古史圣王系统中进行书写。尽管在谱系化的论述中，禹的独特性下降，但是仍在书写中担当重要角色。

Yu is one of the most documented figures in pre-Qin literature. From the book of songs and the Book of Documents to Zuo Zhuan, Guo Yu, and Various Schools' Literature, Yu has been the subject of much attention and writing. The academia also  pays particular attention to issues related to Yu, analyzing the accounts of Yu's taming flood and the division of Jiuzhou in an attempt to prove historical facts. From a philology perspective, all of the early documents on Yu that we see today were written by people in Zhou Dynasty, and were closely related to their activities in constructing history based on realistic contexts. According to the literature of the pre-Qin period, the records of Yu's water treatment and land reclamation in the book of songs, the Book of Documents and inscriptions of the Duke Sui Xu provide the earliest credible materials for later literature. Later scholars mostly focused on the process and result of Yu's water treatment, ignoring the premise that the Great Flood destroyed established civilizations. The archaeological evidence from the Taosi site proves to some extent the existence of the Great Flood during the Yao-Shun period, and Yu's specific water management measures also contained political implications of reorganizing the social order. Yu's dispersal of the flood did not have the significance of creation, but rather the reconstruction of living space and civilization. The rebuilding of civilization implies a reshuffling of historical status and a re-establishment of political order. People in Zhou Dynasty's purpose in writing about Yu focused on two aspects. First, the ancestor of Zhou, Houji, was a participant in the reconstruction of the civilization of Yu, and the documentary account of Yu and Houji as officials in the same court shows that people in Zhou Dynasty consciously linked their ancestral history to the era of Yao-Shun-Yu, extending the length of history within the community and strengthening historical consensus. At the same time, people in Zhou Dynasty also fused the memories of different communities, such as Yin and resorted to historical narratives to portray Yu as the founder of a common living space, thus establishing a juridical basis for their own rule. Second, people in Zhou Dynasty needed to explain the world in which they lived and ruled, to seize the power of discourse interpretation, and to confirm their own spatio-temporal coordinates in the historical narrative in order to correct their origins and maintain their central orthodoxy. From the "Sifang" in the inscriptions on oracle bones to the "Jiuzhou" in Yu Gong, people in Zhou Dynasty's knowledge of geography and space expanded and improved, and the background of conquests in the middle of the Western Zhou Dynasty also gave people a clearer, more specific and rational understanding of geographic boundaries. People in Zhou Dynasty established the connection between Yu and "Jiuzhou". The order of "Jiuzhou" showed a clear centrality, revolving around Jizhou. The "center" of "Jiuzhou" became the spatial and temporal coordinates for people in Zhou Dynasty to write about Yu. From a macro-historical perspective to study on narrative about Yu in pre-Qin literature, the literature of the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods contains more complex accounts of Yu and enriches Yu’s features. The literature continues the narrative of Yu's water governance and the spiritual core of Yu's virtue, while placing Yu within the system of ancient sage king. Although the uniqueness of Yu declines in the genealogical discourse, Yu still plays an important role in the writing.