For a long time, history has provided people with a kind of experience to learn from. But historiography is not so reliable, nor is it all thoroughly studied. Even now, the dilemma of historiography still exists, and it has always left people helpless.
Many historical theories are built on archaeology, and even many theories do not have archaeology as a basis, and are formed by direct logical deduction, which is not actually a fact, nor is it a real historical restoration. Archaeological excavations are not comprehensive, there are many ancient tombs have not been excavated, and the excavated cultural relics are not very rich, but according to the excavated cultural relics to infer, it is inevitable that there will be many errors, if you add historical records, it seems that you can restore a certain historical original appearance. However, the so-called historical materials are often unreliable, and after being disseminated through the generations, there have been many errors and falsifications, and they are not the original historical documents. Conducting research on the basis of such erroneous literature will inevitably lead to difficulties. As long as some new cultural relics and classics are unearthed, it will form a certain blow to the existing historical research, or it will be able to overturn the chapter conclusions of some existing historical materials. The Yi excavated from the Mawangdui Han Tomb is very different from the present I Ching, and the same excavated book Lao Tzu and the existing popular version of Lao Tzu also have some differences. Zhangjiashan Hanjian "Quotation Book" has a certain origin with "Laozi", and there is also a relationship between the same excavated Hanjian "Gailu" and the extant "Yue Jie Shu" and the old "Wu Zixu". According to the study of many newly unearthed cultural relics and historical materials, it will be found that the historical theories that have previously become conclusive will be rewritten or even overturned. The Zhou Li seems to have been written earlier than the time of judgment, the I Ching should have been written in the middle of the Warring States period rather than the late Warring States period or the early Western Han Dynasty, and the Wuyue Chunqiu and the Rishu may contain earlier content. That is, new discoveries in archaeology can put history in an awkward position. But historiography is not just a stagnant system, but an open system, constantly evolving, constantly evolving, and if it is stuck, it will only be in trouble.
For a long time, history has been so influenced by philosophy and economics that it has become a vassal of philosophy and economics. The theory of the unity of opposites was applied to historiography, turning historiography into philosophical speculation rather than purely objective facts. The theories of history established on the basis of inference are often unreliable, and the principle of the unity of opposites is so invulnerable that one can only establish a historical framework on the basis of this theory, and to use this framework to summarize new theories and give birth to many new studies. In fact, from the perspective of the overall historical development, philosophical speculation is not harmful, but from the perspective of the study of small historical events, the theory of philosophical opposition and unity seems to be somewhat stretched. Small historical events are not all so rational, some are influenced by personal emotions, and of course they cannot be deduced by philosophical concepts. The development of human nature is not all rational, but full of emotional possibilities, and those random historical events are not predictable. If you follow the judgment of "hindsight", you are likely to fall into a misunderstanding. That is to say, historical conclusions are not necessarily reliable, after all, history judged according to philosophy is not pure history, but a variant of philosophy and history, which is full of some logical sophistry, which makes people invincible. The same is true of economics, which has long dominated the development of history. People may be influenced by too much philosophy and economics, believing that the economy is the foundation and history is the superstructure. As a result, when people study history, they always study economics first, thinking that if they study the economics of that time thoroughly, they will know the law of the occurrence of historical events, and of course, they will start from economics to study the relationship between historical events and economy. Of course, it cannot be said that historical events have nothing to do with the economy, but have a large-scale relationship, and when it comes to the historical events themselves, they are not very much related to economics. Imagine, does an emperor's decision-making take economics into account everywhere? Was there economics back then? Even if the emperor decides to consider the treasury finances, not everything has to be considered. If that were the case, there would be no treasury deficit during the Song Huizong period, and there would be no treasury deficit during the Qianlong period. Economics and history are linked, but not history itself. History must rely on excavated cultural relics as evidence, literature as evidence to study, if any historical event must first consider the economic development of the time, but also artificially linked to the economy at that time, there will be a deviation in research, into a predicament and can not extricate themselves.
There is also the influence of evolutionary theory. Historians are always under the influence of the theory of evolution, thinking that the modern must be better than the ancient, and that the present must be better than the ancients. In fact, evolution is only a biological evolutionary hypothesis, not necessarily a fact. In other words, evolution conformed to the idea of the unity of opposites and was introduced. The theory of evolution itself has many flaws, it is not perfect, and of course it is impossible to guide the study of history, or even to use it as a reference for the study of history. Today's people must be more powerful than the ancients, and many people in many ancient dynasties did not know the theory of evolution, and even there will be a phenomenon of historical regression, and after how many generations of emperors have evolved, they still do not have much success, basically maintaining the feudal system, the cycle is endless. Civilization has developed, and history does not necessarily develop rapidly, and it will even stagnate. Most of the historical research is only an illustration of evolutionary regularity, and there is no rich historical phenomenon, so there is a lack of new ideas that can really cover the overall situation, and there is a lack of truly breakthrough literature discoveries.
Of course, history can not only study the emperor and general, should study the economy, politics, culture, agriculture, handicrafts, people's livelihood, etc. at that time, but can not be swayed by these things, but has its own open cognitive system, constantly enriched and perfect research system, not easy to make conclusions, not always hovering between the ancient and the ancient, should be based on the facts, find the way to solve the doubt, at the same time there is no lack of imagination and logical deduction, attach importance to archaeological discoveries, even if the new archaeological discoveries correct the previous historical research, but also boldly admit, Moving forward. After all, history is a process of constant proof and constant falsification. Historians today have overturned the conclusions of many previous generations of historians, and future generations of historians are likely to overturn the conclusions of current historians, and it is in this constant development of innovation that historiography will gain a new life. Attached to other disciplines, or dominated by some ideology, will always go astray and struggle in difficulties.