A New Investigation of the Origins of Chinese Civilization Su Bingqi Trans.by Wang Tao Helen Wang

A New Investigation of the Origins of Chinese Civilization Su Bingqi Trans.by Wang Tao Helen Wang

Opening Words

In my exploration of the origins of Chinese culture and civilization from the archaeological perspective，I started with painted pottery and pottery li-vessel （tripods used for cooking）.My article ‘A Study of Potteryli’（1941） was the first specialist publication of the Peking Academy.Its first printing was by the Commercial Press，Hong Kong.Over fifty years later，this same article，together with another of my early papers‘Questions relating to the Yangshao culture’was published in the volumeSelected Works on the Discourse of Archaeology bySu Bingqi（Cultural Relics Publishing House，1983）.This volume won one of thefirst National Book Awards in 1994，which was also the year in which a collection of my articles and lectures from the decade 1984-1994 were published in the volumeDescendants of the Dragon–Tracing the Roots of the Chinese People through Archaeology（Liaoning University Press，1994）.As soon as this book was published，the Commercial Press announced that it wished to celebrate our relationship of almost sixty years by promoting the book overseas，and to work together on a new book.The Commercial Press is renowned for publishing academic works of a very high standard.Since the time of the May 4thMovement，it has published several influential series of books.In those days universities would print out copies of lectures year after year，but these were not for general distribution.A regular forum for exchange of views was lacking，and in those stifled times，the ‘University Series （Daxue congshu）’and the ‘Encyclopedic Library （Wanyou wenku）’were a truly wonderful initiative.The Commercial Press hoped that my book would reflect a new period in archaeology，and allows more people to appreciate the developments that have taken place.The Commercial Press’s requirements were high，but they were consistent with the direction in which our discipline is developing，and with the goals we are seeking to reach.So，early in 1996 I made a month-long trip to Shenzen，specifically to reflect from a personal point of view on the extraordinary path of archaeology in the exploration of Chinese culture，Chinese civilization and Chinese tradition.

Two Vicious Circles

For decades now，Chinese students have been taught history either from the very deep-rooted concept of Chinese unity，or take for granted that Marxist theory of the law of social development is history itself.These are two vicious circles in our historical education.

When we think of the concept of Chinese unity，we tend to think of the history of the Han people （Hanzu漢族） as the standard version of history，and to leave out the non-Han peoples.This has the effect of stringing together the different dynasties — the Xia，Shang，Zhou，Qin and Han —in a linear consecutive order，like beads on a necklace；in other words，historical development becomes simply some dynastic changes.The historical picture of ethnic minorities and border regions is dotted about in and amongst.This approach blurs the relationship between the history of China，as well as the history of the world.

But Chinese history should not be monolithic.When Confucius（551-479 BC）said，‘Of all the grand civilizations，I follow the Zhou，’he was comparing the three dynasties of Xia，Shang and Zhou on their merits，rather than following a consecutive chronological order.When Cheng Tang（founder of the Shang dynasty）and King Wu （the Zhou king who led the conquest of the Shang dynasty） altered the course of history，it was not a question of direct historical succession，but of revolution.The three dynasties all had their advantages and shortcomings，and were complemented one another.

But it was the Zhou dynasty that was the most distinguished in terms of its cultural accomplishment.TheZhou li（‘The Rites of Zhou’）was the state code，and the systematic theory of how the Zhou people established and governed their state.It aimed to install a system of decrees and regulations and an institutionalized cultural code，and manifested a mature level of state formation.The Shang people had not yet reached this stage，hence Confucius’preference was for the Zhou dynasty.

The situation at that time was reflected in the ancient saying，‘If you go to the Yi，you become a Yi person;if you go to the Xia，you become a Xia person.’The Xia people lived in the Central Plains，and the Yi were the peoples in the lands around them.The ‘Xia’and the ‘Yi’had their own roots.When people from the border areas cameto the Central Plains，they adopted the ways of the Central Plains people;and when people from the Central Plains went to the outlying regions，they adopted the ways of the people there.It is a real issue of cultural identity.

Assimilation could take place quickly，within just a generation or two.Exchange between the Central Plains culture and the outlying cultures continued in both directions，over and over again，until the differences were no longer so clear cut.That well-known quote from Confucius— ‘Education for all without discrimination’—was an acknowledgement that his disciples came from different regions and from different cultural backgrounds.There were differences，sometimes very big differences，between the various ethnic groups.

The word ‘discrimination’ in the quote is conventionally understood in the context of social class.It was however the archaeological evidence at Yinxu （from the 13th to 11th c.BC，the site of the capital of the Shang dynasty，near the modernday city of Anyang，Henan） that prompted us to comprehend it in the context of ethnicity.During his analysis of a large group of human skulls found at Yinxu，the archaeologist Li Chi （Li Ji 1896-1979）observed that there were huge anthropological variations among the people who were active at the heart of the Shang territory;he wrote：‘From the human bones unearthed at the famous site at Anyang，it is clear that these people were far from being a single homogenous race.Researching the skulls from this site does not produce a standard that can be indexed；the evidence is way beyond the range we would consider normal，and confirms that the people here had different origins.’（Li Chi，‘Another discussion on ethnology in China’）

The differences between the ethnic groups may have become less noticeable over the centuries.But in Confucius’day，6th century BC，there were still huge differences of ethnicity on the Central Plains.It seems more appropriate，therefore，to understand ‘Education for all without discrimination’in terms of differences of ethnicity rather than differences of social wealth and ranks.In this light，Confucius’ advocation of equality for all peoples and opposition to racial prejudice is an early example of progressive thinking.

If we consider that Confucius was addressing a traditional society that was multi-cultural and complex，we can see how socially inclusive his teaching was，and how he strove for equality.The Zhou li lists the ‘Six Arts （liuyi六藝）’ as the rites，music，archery，chariot-driving，calligraphy and mathematics，which combined different cultural elements.Indeed，it was not until the time of Emperor Wu Di （reign 141-86 BC） of the Han dynasty that the policy of ‘Abandon all other schools of thought，and respectfully follow only the Confucian teaching’was put into play.It was not until the Song dynasty （960-1279） that the earnest following of Confucius and his disciple Mencius （372-289）began，with the Neo-Confucianists taking Zhu Xi’s （1130-1200） annotations as the standard interpretation of the master’s words （in effect，it is not Zhu Xi himself，but his followers）.

Sima Qian’sShiji（‘Records of the Grand Historian’） was also all-encompassing.He wrote about all the schools of thought，and introduced their many different aspects without discrimination.In fact，he was quite objective，and his historical record extended beyond the borders of the Chinese empire，to include the Western Regions（modern-day Xinjiang）and people and lands beyond：the Wusun，Kangju，Dayuezhi （Kushans），and Anxi （Parthia）.In this respect，Sima Qian’sShijiwas closer to a history of the world than a history of China.

The other vicious concept concerns social development.The Marxist view of history is custumal taken as the law of social development.But history itself is varied and colourful.To see the history of social development as one model，and to regard it as the whole of history oversimplifies thevibrant history of China.We have seen this quite clearly in several influential publications on Chinese history：for example in the booklets accompanying the displays at the National Museum of Chinese History，c.1958;and in the teaching materials on archaeology co-authored by staff and students at Peking University.These were the products of that particular way of thinking.

Following this approach，the rich array of archaeological material had to be ‘pigeon-holed’accordingly.The general law of social development was a kind of dogma，and it was a case of finding the right way of fitting in the archaeological data.This rigid approach even affected ethnographic surveys of ethnic minorities.A vivid example concerns Wuzhi Shan （Wuzhi mountain）on Hainan Island，where it was said （erroneously）that the Li people（Lizu）could be seen as a living example of the social transformation from a matriarchal to a patriarchal society.The fact of the matter is that the name Wuzhi（literally ‘five fingers’）refers to the five social groups，or ‘five branches’ of the Li people.Each branch has its own traditions and its own cultural marks/symbols.In other words，there is internal differentiation among the Li.The investigators misunderstood this，and erroneously described the five social groups as being at five different stages of social development.To simplify this to a question of ownership，to analyse it solely from the point of view of class，diminishes the ethnicity of the Li people and their internal characteristics.

In fact，I have been unable to find any theoretical basis in the Marxist canon for regarding the history of social development as the whole of history.In the great works by Marx and Engels，it is clear that their research and the summary of the law of social development are based on their studies of specific historical facts.Engels certainly did not believe that there was only one route for human society to evolve from barbarism to civilization and to state formation.Before writing The Origin of the Family，Private Property and the State （1884），he read all the historical material that was available to him at that time.He noted that there were at least three models of state formation — Athens，Rome and Germany—all three of which had very different features and had taken different routes to meet the laws of human social development and to complete the transition from barbarism to civilization to the formation of a state.

It is important to say a few words about the current relationship between archaeology and history.The primary goal of modern archaeology in China has been to assist the writing of national history.This aim has been crystal clear since modern field archaeology and its methods were first brought to China by the Europeans in the early 20th century，and China’s first two archaeological research institutions–the Academia Sinica and the Peking Academy–were established in 1928.

How are we to write our ancient history? I like to recall of Fu Sinian’s（1896-1950）words：‘Go up to the sky，go down to the yellow springs.Use your hands，use yourfeet，and look for things.’They tell us that to understand the history of China，we must break the limitation of historical documents，and we must not simply stick to the literary sources.The purpose of archaeology is not to prove history nor to add to history，but to find materials in the ground，as an important evidence for understanding our history.Archaeology must become independent of history;it must become a discipline in its own right.These words are the cornerstones of archaeology’s ‘Declaration of Independence.’With the writing of China’s ancient history as the goal，when the archaeology team was first formed at the Institute of History and Philology，Academia Sinica，Nanjing，they went straight to Anyang，because oracle bones had been found there and the aim was to study Shang history.When the archaeology team at the Institute of History，Peking Academy，was established，its first assignment was to collect stele rubbings from the architecture of old Peking;it then went to the Yan Xi－adu site （the capital of the Yan state，Eastern Zhou period），and then to Shaanxi province.While in Shaanxi they did not try to excavate the tombs of the Zhou，Qin，Han and Tang periods in the suburb of Xi’an，but instead they went to Baoji where early on an important assemblage of bronze vessels had been found.For archaeologists from the both academic institutions，their primary aims were to research the history of the pre-Zhou and pre-Qin times，and to trace back the roots of the Zhou and Qin cultures.

To employ archaeology to assist the writing of our national history and to explore the origins of Chinese culture and civilization--it is easier said than done.It is not uncommon to find oneself stuck inside one of the two vicious circles，unable to pull free.How can we try to bypass those two circles?The route is difficult and full of twists and turns.The great scholar Wang Guowei（1877-1927）did not find the traditional concepts such as China was always a unity and followed a liner continuation wholly convincing.So，when discussing about the relationship between the Shang and Zhou dynasties，he not only stressed their dynastic histories，but also the history of these two cultures，and thus was able to determine that they derived from different sources.

However，when Fu Sinian proposed the theory of the ‘Yi from the east and Xia from the west，’he was trying to argue the concept of orthodox （Xia）and non-orthodox （Yi） in Chinese history.The scholar Xu Xusheng （1888-1976） devised the‘Three Groups theory’①Xu Xusheng wrote a book Zhongguo gushi de chuanshuo niandai（The Legendary times in ancient Chinese history）（Beijing，1960）in which he proposes that there were three groups that were active in prehistoric China：the Huaxia group on the Central Plains，the Dong Yi in the East，and Miao-Man in the south between the Changjiang and Hanshui rivers.without referring to the archaeological data.Given this kind of pre-consumption，it is even more important for us that archaeology seeks to become independent of history.If archaeology is to enable us to explore the origins of Chinese culture and civilization it needs to establish itself as an independent discipline with its own methodology.If historians and archaeologists can acknowledge this，then our starting point would be so much higher.As for the question of construction of an archaeological methodology，this will be addressed in the next chapter，which looks at the special archaeological remains and artifacts of early Chinese culture：the pottery li-vessel and Yangshao culture.

蘇秉琦 （一九〇九-一九九七），原中國(guó)社會(huì)科學(xué)院考古研究所研究員、北京大學(xué)歷史系教授、中國(guó)考古學(xué)會(huì)理事長(zhǎng)。

【譯者簡(jiǎn)介】汪濤，倫敦大學(xué)亞非學(xué)院、考古學(xué)院高級(jí)講師。Helen Wang，大英博物館研究人員。

雙語(yǔ)經(jīng)典