Abstract: Anderson's excavation of the yangshao village site in 1921 is a landmark event in the birth of Chinese archaeology. Liang Siyong presided over the excavation of the Hougang site in 1931, which for the first time realized the scientificization of Chinese archaeology. Su Bingqi's "Archaeological and Cultural Fauna Type Theory" published in 1981 and the "Ancient Culture, Ancient City, and Ancient Country Theory" proposed in 1985 changed the research orientation of Chinese archaeology and created a new situation in the prosperity and development of Chinese archaeology. These mainstream events that directly affect the development and progress of Chinese archaeology are all brewed from the northeast, started from the northeast, and went from the northeast to the central plains and to the whole country. Northeast China is the "test field", "military training ground" and "incubator" of Chinese archaeology, and northeast archaeology is the same age and synchronization as Chinese archaeology. Summarizing the century-old Chinese archaeology, great progress has been made in many aspects such as materials, methods, theories, status, roles, and protection. Looking forward to the next hundred years of Chinese archaeology can continue to make new breakthroughs and constantly step up to a new level.
Keywords: Chinese archaeology; northeast china; century of progress; future vision
On the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the birth of Chinese archaeology, I would like to talk about the relationship between several epoch-making events in the development of Chinese archaeology and the archaeology of Northeast China from the perspective of Northeast Archaeology, and then talk about the progress of the past century and the vision of the next hundred years from the perspective of Chinese archaeological harvest and expectations.
First, the beginning of Chinese archaeology
When exactly did Chinese archaeology begin? Although the academic community has different opinions, the more unanimous opinion is to regard 1921 as the birth year of Chinese archaeology, or the year of the beginning of Chinese archaeology. Why? This year, the Swedish scholar Anderson conducted the first field archaeological excavation of the site of Yangshao Village in Shichi County, Henan Province.[1] Why is it important to see field excavations as a sign of the beginning of archaeology? Because field archaeological excavations are the most important means of obtaining research materials in archaeology, they are fundamentally different from the epigraphy that existed in the past. The materials obtained through field archaeological excavations have a relationship between morning and evening in time, a coexistence relationship and a location relationship in space, and a very clear vertical and horizontal relationship that are the scientific data of archaeological research. Prior to this, foreigners in the northeast and northwest of China have done many archaeological surveys, but these works cannot be regarded as the beginning of Chinese archaeology, on the grounds that archaeological survey data lack a clear hierarchical relationship and coexistence relationship, and cannot provide an accurate spatio-temporal basis for interpreting historical problems. Therefore, the vast majority of scholars advocate the emergence of field archaeological excavations as a sign of the birth of Chinese archaeology. It is worth noting, however, that Anderson excavated Yangshao Village in the autumn of 1921, and in the summer of the same year he also conducted a formal archaeological excavation at the Shaguotun site in Jinxi, Liaoning (present-day Nanpiao District, Huludao City) in the northeast region, and published an archaeological report[2], and the excavated materials were mainly the remnants of the Hongshan culture and the Xiaoheyan culture. In terms of time, the work of Liaoning Jinxisha Pot Tun is the first field archaeological excavation, earlier than the excavation of Yangshao Village, from the perspective of academic history, the birth of Chinese archaeology is directly related to northeast archaeology, and it can even be said that archaeology began in the northeast as early as possible. However, the excavation of Yangshao Village in Henan Province has a relatively large impact, and the first Neolithic archaeological culture (Yangshao culture) is named according to this, which is also the first archaeological culture of Chinese archaeology, so most scholars believe that the excavation of Yangshao Village is the beginning of Chinese Neolithic archaeology and the beginning of Chinese archaeology. In 2011, in order to commemorate the 90th anniversary of Anderson's excavation of yangshao village site and Yangshao culture naming in Henan Shichi, China Post also issued a set of commemorative stamps, which shows that Yangshao village, as the birthplace of Chinese archaeology, has been recognized by the archaeological community and society. Here, we have no intention of changing this mainstream understanding, but what we need to know is that the excavation of Shaguotun predates the excavation of Yangshao Village, after all, this is a fact.
From the birth of Chinese archaeology in 1921 to the excavation of the Hougang site in Anyang, Henan Province in 1931 by Liang Siyong,[3] there was a total of 10 years, and these 10 years are often regarded by the academic community as the early stage of the development of Chinese archaeology. At this stage, as far as the excavation method is concerned, it mainly adopts the method of geological stratigraphy and excavates according to the depth of the layers, so it is not scientific field archaeological work. It was not until 1931, the year after Liang Siyong returned from study in the United States, that he presided over the excavation of the Hougang site in Anyang, Henan, that the famous Hougang "triassic" was identified for the first time, that is, the top-down stacking order of the three cultural relics of Xiaotun, Longshan and Yangshao. Prior to this, because there was no scientific stratigraphy as a guide, people could not understand the chronological relationship between Yangshao, Longshan and Xiaotun, so the discussion of which of the three came first and which was the last was a matter of opinion. After the discovery of the "trimacle", this problem was solved, and the credit was naturally attributed to Liang Siyong. So, why was Liang Siyong able to discover the "triassic layer"? The key is that when he excavated Hougang in Anyang, he changed the previous method of excavation according to the depth of layering according to Theronophyrgological geological stratigraphy to the method of excavating according to the archaeological stratigraphy according to the soil color and dividing the different accumulation relationships. This is an important leap and change in methodology, which has led archaeology to a scientific track. As a result, Liang Siyong is also known as the father of "archaeological stratigraphy" and has become an epoch-making figure in the history of the development of Chinese archaeology. But do you know what Liang Siyong did in the first year of his return to China, that is, in 1930 before he presided over the excavation of the Hougang site? He first went to the northeast to do an archaeological excavation at the site of Ang Ang Xi in Qiqihar, Heilongjiang Province. Through this excavation, Liang Siyong named a new culture that is different from the Yangshao culture, called the Ang Ang Xi culture, which has a history of more than 90 years. Now re-reading the excavation report of the Ang Ang Xi site written by Liang Siyong, it is not difficult to find that when he excavated the Ang Ang Xi site, he already had a preliminary operation concept of distinguishing the accumulation according to the soil color, but it was not as obvious and mature as the Hougang site. Therefore, in the excavation of the Ang Ang Xi site, Liang Siyong only tried the cattle knife, limited to the conditions of the site itself, and failed to show his skills, and the Hougang site excavated the following year made him a great success. On the other hand, the excavation of the Hougang site in Henan can be seen as an upgraded version of the excavation of the Ang'angxi site in Heilongjiang. The discovery of the "Triassic" of Hougang depended on the scientific method of distinguishing the accumulation according to the soil color of the soil, and the scientific method of distinguishing the soil color was first conceived by the first excavation of the Aung Ang Creek site. It can be seen that the formation of Liang Siyong's archaeological stratigraphy is a practical process or a test shovel process, and this test shovel site is in the northeast. Therefore, as the second major event and important figure of landmark significance in the history of the development of Chinese archaeology, it is also related to the archaeology of Northeast China. Unfortunately, Liang Siyong's life is short, only 50 years old, if he can live longer, the development of Chinese archaeology may also be faster and better.
The third stage of the development of Chinese archaeology should be very familiar to everyone, and the representative figures and representative events are estimated to be very unfamiliar. The character is Su Bingqi, and the time and event are the "two opinions" put forward in 1979 when he spoke at the Xi'an National Conference on Cultural Relics and Archaeology.[5] Su Bingqi's "First Opinion" was published in the journal "Cultural Relics" in 1981 under the title "On the Fauna Type of Archaeological Culture". This article has attracted great attention from the national archaeological community, and is considered to be a programmatic document of epoch-making significance, and the "archaeological cultural fauna type theory" contained in it has once become an important theory to guide the academic community to carry out archaeological and cultural research later and even today. So, what is fauna type theory? To put it simply, this theory fundamentally rejects the mainstream theory that has long regarded the Central Plains and the Yellow River Basin as the birthplace of Chinese culture or the cradle of Chinese civilization, and believes that different regions in the country should establish their own archaeological and cultural chronicle system, up to the Paleolithic Age, down to the Song, Yuan, and Ming dynasties, each region should have its own cultural development clues and context. He called on everyone to establish a cultural chronicle in each province based on its own region. After the sequence is built, let's do a horizontal comparison to see the vertical and horizontal relationship between cultures. To put it simply, fauna type theory is to abandon monism and engage in archaeological excavations throughout the country, to engage in chronological sequences, to establish a cultural temporal and spatial framework, and to explore the genealogical pattern of culture. From the 1980s to today, forty years have passed, and with the guidance of cultural fauna type theory, Chinese archaeology has achieved such a prosperous development and achieved such remarkable results. Otherwise, we may still be discussing problems around "Great Yangshao", "Great Dragon Mountain", and "Xiaotun", and using a one-line thinking mode to explain the origin of Chinese culture and the origin of Chinese civilization. At present, the country's archaeological culture has been divided into nearly a hundred, and all provinces and regions in the country can tell a general cultural development context and clues from prehistory to historical periods. This is actually the result of practice under the guidance of Su Bingqi's cultural fauna type thinking. However, it is worth mentioning that the formation process of this archaeological "cultural fauna theory" with Chinese characteristics also has a certain relationship with northeast archaeology. Because before this theory was officially published, Su Bingqi gave two academic lectures for teachers and students of archaeology at Jilin University in 1975 and 1976, and the content was the fauna type of archaeological culture. It can be seen that before his theory was formally proposed and published in 1979 and 1981, he had exchanged and discussed with teachers and students of archaeology majors at Jilin University. In other words, the proposal and publication of Su Bingqi's "cultural fauna theory" [7] is a landmark event in the history of the development of Chinese archaeology, and the archaeology teachers and students of Jilin University, represented by Mr. Zhang Zhongpei, have participated in or witnessed the incubation and brewing process of this theory to a certain extent.
Su Bingqi's "second opinion" is about how to explore the disintegration of primitive society and private ownership, the origin and formation and development of the state, although it was formally put forward in 1979, but the main content is in 1985 after looking at the excavation materials of Hongshan cultural sites such as Kazuo Dongshanzui and Jianping Niuheliang in Liaoning Province, based on the new discoveries of these two important sites and the neolithic to Bronze Age archaeological materials and understanding accumulated in western Liaoning in the past. At that time, it only put forward the "social development theory" represented by "ancient culture, ancient city, and ancient country"[8], and later further proposed the "theory of national evolution" represented by "ancient country, Fang country, and empire" [9] and the "civilization model theory" represented by "primary, secondary, and continual type" [10]. These three theories ("social development theory", "state evolution theory", and "civilization model theory")[11] were once collectively referred to as Su Bingqi's "theory of the origin, formation and development path of civilization", which played a crucial guiding significance and leading role in how to explore and answer the key and major topics of archaeological work such as the origin of Chinese culture, the origin of the Chinese nation, the origin of the Chinese state and its formation and development, and to realize the historical transformation of the research task of Chinese archaeology. However, it should be emphasized that the main reason why this theory can be put forward is that the discoveries of Dongshanzui [12] and Niuheliang [13] in Liaoning have attracted the attention of the national archaeological community, and it is precisely because of such archaeological practice and major discoveries that Su Bingqi began to think newly, and began to talk about the problem of urban and rural differentiation, the problem of the division of the rich and the poor, the problem of class differentiation, and the origin of civilization and the formation of a development path. Of course, there have been some historians and sociologists who have talked about these issues before this, but never before has it aroused such strong concern from the community as it has raised and discussed on the basis of archaeological excavation materials. From the 1980s to the present, the origin, formation and development of Chinese civilization have always been the main theme and key issues of Chinese archaeological research, and to some extent, the right to speak on this issue is mastered by archaeologists. As the guiding theory of this research, its proposal is related to the archaeology of Northeast China, and it can even be said that it is based on the archaeological practice and materials of Northeast China.
In summary, Anderson's excavation of the site of Yangshao Village in 1921 was a landmark event in the birth of Chinese archaeology. Liang Siyong presided over the excavation of the Hougang site in 1931, which for the first time realized the scientificization of Chinese archaeology. Su Bingqi's "Archaeological and Cultural Fauna Type Theory" published in 1981 and the "Ancient Culture, Ancient City, and Ancient Country Theory" proposed in 1985 changed the research orientation of Chinese archaeology and created a new situation in the prosperity and development of Chinese archaeology. These epoch-making time, events and representative figures occupy a very important position in the centennial development process of Chinese archaeology, like milestones and beacons, marking the past and illuminating the future. It should be noted that the four mainstream events that directly affect the development and progress of Chinese archaeology made by these three representative figures are all related to the archaeology of northeast China, or they are all brewed from the northeast, started from the northeast, and went from the northeast to the central plains and to the whole country. According to this, the northeast is the "test field", "military training field" and "incubation ground" of Chinese archaeology, and the northeast archaeology is the same age and synchronization as Chinese archaeology.
Second, the progress of Chinese archaeology
Looking back at the development path traveled in the past hundred years, all archaeologists will be pleased and proud of the impressive achievements of Chinese archaeology. On September 28, 2020, General Secretary Xi Jinping stressed when presiding over the 23rd collective study of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee: "The archaeological work on the mainland has made great achievements, extending the historical axis, enhancing historical credibility, enriching historical connotation, and activating historical scenes. [14] This is a high evaluation and full affirmation given by the party and the government to China's archaeological work. On August 10, 2009, Zhang Zhongpei, then chairman of the Chinese Archaeological Society, said in his speech at the opening ceremony of the 12th annual meeting of the Chinese Archaeological Society held in Harbin that "Chinese archaeology has made great progress and has undergone earth-shaking changes. [15] This is the first time that Chinese archaeologists have examined and highly summarized the development status and main achievements of Chinese archaeology from a professional and disciplinary perspective. Today, re-reading the content of this short outline speech, I still feel that the positioning is accurate and in line with the actual development of Chinese archaeology. Based on the content of the speech and combined with our own research experience, we can further expand the understanding of the great progress made in Chinese archaeology in the past hundred years and briefly summarize it into the following aspects.
One is the progress of archaeological materials. "The speed and scale of the accumulation of new archaeological discoveries has far exceeded the speed and scale of archaeological research. This kind of archaeological research energy lags behind the accumulation and scale of archaeological materials and new archaeological discoveries, indicating that archaeological materials and new archaeological discoveries have shown a trend of explosive growth. [16] It is well known that the materials of archaeological research are not the same as those of narrow history. Archaeology studies underground remains, which are "physical materials". In the narrow sense, history studies historical documents such as the "Twenty-Four Histories" and the "Subset of The History of the Classics", which are "written materials". "Written materials" are limited, it is difficult to add, even if there are new discoveries, it is often through archaeological excavations and obtained underground excavated documents, such as oracle bones, inscriptions, pottery, Jian Mu, Shu Shu and so on. "Physical materials" are not available, and can only be searched for by archaeologists themselves, which can be described as "the poor and the poor fall into the Yellow Spring, and use their hands and feet to find things." A hundred years have passed, and Chinese archaeology has found many "things" and many archaeological reports written based on "things". If the former is called "archaeological remains" and the latter is called "archaeological documents", then the archaeological research materials composed of these two parts can be described as rich in accumulation, amazing speed, geometric or explosive growth. This is the great progress made in Chinese archaeology, and it is also the main basis for the scientific research of Chinese archaeology. However, from the perspective of the speed and scale of material growth and the speed and scale of archaeological research, there is a significant inversion phenomenon, that is, research and understanding lag significantly behind excavation and discovery. Therefore, while affirming that Chinese archaeology has made great progress in the discovery and accumulation of materials in the past one hundred years, we should also soberly realize that the two tasks of "discovering new archaeological materials" and "new discoveries of archaeological materials" are of equal importance. In the short term, we must attach great importance to and deal with the imbalance between the two to ensure that Chinese archaeology can continue to develop in a healthy and stable direction. In the long run, it is more important to attach importance to the "new discoveries of archaeological materials", because the study of historical issues based on excavated archaeological materials will eventually become a "normalized" archaeological research work.
The second is the progress of basic methods. "The concept of 'stratigraphy' borrowed from geology has evolved into stratigraphy, while perfecting stratigraphy and typology, and expanding and deepening methods of observing archaeological remains in the natural sciences and their technical means. Thus, as far as the equivalent amount of homogeneous remains is concerned, compared with the past, the amount of information obtained by archaeologists from the remains has not only increased, but also improved in quality. In short, this is a time of rapid expansion of information on archaeological remains. Archaeology from the perspective of studying the four-dimensional relationship between man, relic, time and space or the three-dimensional relationship between time and space, time and space, has not only been expanded unprecedentedly, but at the same time, the level or level has deepened and the quality has also improved. [17] Materials are the basis of disciplinary research, without which or without sufficient materials, disciplines cannot exist or develop. Similarly, without the scientific method of collecting, collating, and analyzing materials, the tasks and goals of the discipline cannot be completed. As early as the first decade, there was almost no scientific method in Chinese archaeology. Scientific archaeological stratigraphic methods have only existed since 1931, and scientific archaeological typological methods have only existed since 1948. The transformation from geological stratigraphy to archaeological stratigraphy was completed by Liang Siyong, and the transformation from biomorphology to archaeological typology was completed by Su Bingqi. The scientific and localization of archaeological stratigraphy and archaeological typology marks that Chinese archaeology has made great progress in the construction of methodology. The reason why archaeological stratigraphy and archaeological typology can become the two basic methods of Chinese archaeology is fundamentally determined by the burial and tangible nature of archaeological materials. As the "father of archaeological stratigraphy", Liang Siyong and Su Bingqi, the "father of archaeological typology", can become epoch-making leaders in the history of the development of Chinese archaeology because their work and methods have changed the face and quality of the original archaeology. In addition to the two most basic methods of archaeological stratigraphy and archaeological typology, there have been many other disciplines of methods and technologies added to archaeology in the past 100 years, and their sources are mainly from two major categories, one from the natural sciences and the other from the humanities and social sciences. Compared with the two, the methods and techniques of natural science are more, from the sky to the ground to the water, they can be seen everywhere, from detection to measurement to inspection and analysis, all of which show their great usefulness in the field of archaeology. The emergence of "scientific and technological archaeology" has not only changed the face of archaeology, but also marked the progress and level of archaeology. Although the breadth and depth of humanities and social sciences involved in archaeology are far less than the application of science and technology in archaeology, in the long run they will eventually become the main force of archaeological cooperation, because without cooperation and intersection with humanities and social sciences, archaeology itself cannot fully interpret and restore the all-round information contained in ancient relics and complex and diverse social features. The materiality and cultural nature of archaeological materials determine the inevitability and extensiveness of the extensive participation of natural sciences and humanities and social sciences in archaeology, and also determine the diversity and complexity of archaeological methods and technologies. Archaeology can intersect with any discipline, or archaeology itself is one of the largest interdisciplinary disciplines, a fact that has been proven by practice for 100 years or will be proven in practice in the next 100 years. In this regard, there has been great progress in the past, and there will be even greater progress in the future.
The third is the progress of basic theory. "1959, 1975 and 1985 were three landmark years on the road to the progress of Chinese archaeology. In 1959, Xia Nai delivered a speech on the naming of archaeological culture with the fearless spirit of moving against the tide. In 1975 and 1985, Su Bingqi took Xia Nai's theory of naming archaeological culture as the premise, carried forward the courage to ride the wind and waves, and successively put forward the theory of archaeological cultural regions, departments, and types, that is, the cultural genealogy theory of archaeological culture; the theory of civilization, that is, the theory of the origin, formation and road towards the Qin and Han Empires of civilization. Su Bingqi's two theories capture the two most important genes of the community or ethnic group defined by archaeological culture, namely cultural and social structure and relationship. Therefore, it has strong vitality and is the basic theory guiding the progress of Chinese archaeology. At the same time, although Su Bingqi's two theories observe the community or ethnic group of people defined by archaeological culture or archaeological culture from different angles, the community or ethnic group defined by any archaeological culture has the two most important genes of culture and social structure and relationship, so these two theories are interrelated. In short, thanks to the contributions of Xia Nai and Su Bingqi, Chinese archaeology has formed its own theoretical system suitable for The facts of Chinese history. [18] It should be further emphasized that on the issue of Chinese archaeological theory, in the past, a small number of scholars only emphasized the Western theoretical model, but did not think that Chinese archaeology had its own theory. This is obviously unrealistic, because the century-old exploration and discipline construction of Chinese archaeology cannot be said to be blind practice without theoretical guidance in any case. According to Zhang Zhongpei's opinion, the "one theory and two theories" represented by Xia Nai's "theory of the naming of archaeological culture" and Su Bingqi's "theory of cultural genealogy" and "the theory of the road of civilization" constitute a theoretical system of archaeology with Chinese characteristics. On the issue of the relationship between "Xia Nai's One Theory" and "Su Bingqi's Two Theories", he clearly gave the academic insight that "Su Bingqi presupposes Xia Nai's archaeological and cultural naming theory". In the past, some scholars have completely opposed Xia Nai and Su Bingqi, believing that their archaeological orientations are completely different, strongly emphasizing Xia Nai's disciplinary status and leading role, and denying Su Bingqi's theoretical contributions and academic achievements from the perspective of methodology and academic history[19], which is unrealistic. Taking the theoretical achievements of the two people as an example, the correct understanding should be that the "archaeological culture naming theory" proposed by Xia Nai in 1959 is a guiding theory on how to study archaeological relics, and the "cultural genealogy theory" and "civilization path theory" proposed by Su Bingqi in 1975 and 1985 are guiding theories on how to study archaeological culture, and the relationship between the two is inheritance and development, not an antagonistic relationship. To a certain extent, without the naming theory of archaeological culture, there is no "cultural genealogy theory" and "civilization road theory" about archaeological culture. Xia Nai and Su Bingqi are both the founders and practitioners of the theoretical system of Chinese archaeology, and are the two leaders who have guided the practice of Chinese archaeology since the founding of New China. At present, the research on the source exploration of Chinese civilization carried out by the academic community, especially the revelation and interpretation of the development context and social structure of ancient countries, kingdoms and empires, is still a more in-depth and systematic work under the theoretical framework of civilization exploration put forward by Xia Nai and Su Bingqi, which is inherited, deepened rather than innovated. Therefore, the theoretical system of Chinese archaeology created by Xia Nai and Su Bingqi is a major progress and major achievement of Chinese archaeology in the construction of archaeological theories of Chinese style and style with Chinese characteristics in the past century [20]. Using the theory of archaeology with Chinese characteristics to guide the practice of archaeology with Chinese characteristics, it is natural to form an archaeological school with Chinese characteristics in the world[21], and the characteristics of this school are that everything starts from archaeological materials, everything starts from China's historical conditions, geographical conditions, people's conditions, and national conditions, takes the history of things, sees people through things, and takes answering the questions of chinese culture, the Chinese nation, and the Chinese country where and how they come from as disciplinary goals and tasks, and stands tall in the forest of world archaeology with this feature.
The fourth is the progress of academic status. "Chinese archaeology has achieved a very important position in the study of ancient Chinese history in a broad sense. At the same time, from the Eastern Zhou Dynasty to the Song and Yuan Dynasties, the history of cities, the history of architecture, the history of Buddhism, the history of metallurgy, the history of porcelain craftsmanship, the history of lacquerware crafts and the history of art have also achieved different degrees of voice, and the right to speak or speak in archaeology has also penetrated to different degrees involving the discussion of heaven, earth, people, and people and heaven. The relationship between the earth and even the spiritual realm of man is all aspects of the various special histories related to the whole process of the whole activity of the ancient Chinese. [22] It is true that archaeology is part of the science of history, and archaeology has taken on a pivotal role in the study of history. Since the excavation of Zhoukoudian in Beijing in 1928, China has found fossils and stone tools from various periods of the early, middle and late Paleolithic periods, making an important contribution to the exploration of the origin of human beings and the origin of culture (tools). Since the excavation of Shaguotun and Yangshao Villages in 1921, Neolithic archaeology over the past 100 years has not only discovered and named dozens of archaeological cultures represented by the "Yangshao Culture" and "Longshan Culture", but also identified the 12,000-9,000 years from the late Paleolithic age as China's "Mesolithic Age" (also known as the "Old Neolithic Transition Period" or "Early Neolithic Period"), distinguishing the Neolithic Age from 9,000 to 4,000 years into the "Chahai Era" The three major development stages of (9000-7000 years), "Yangshao era" (7000-5000 years), and "Longshan era" (5000-4000 years) are equivalent to finding an earlier "new three generations" before the "three generations" recorded in ancient Chinese history, greatly extending the axis of Chinese history, and initially forming a discourse system and expression system of "prehistoric archaeology" with Chinese characteristics. Since the excavation of Yin Ruins in 1928, archaeologists have not only proved the existence of "Yin Shang" (late Shang) in the "Three Dynasties" period through investigation and excavation, but also used this as a clue to carry out the exploration of early Shang, Xianshang and Xia cultures, and carried out the research of Xianzhou, Western Zhou and Eastern Zhou (Spring and Autumn, Warring States) backwards, achieved achievements recognized by the academic circles and attracted the attention of the world, and mastered the discourse power of "three generations of archaeology" and historical research. In addition, the archaeological excavations and research of the historical period with cities, mausoleums and handicrafts as the main objects, as well as the protection of cultural relics and the display of cultural relics carried out therefrom, have also made unprecedented breakthroughs, and have made irreplaceable archaeological contributions in many aspects of research such as urban history, architectural history, Buddhist history, metallurgical history, ceramic history and so on. The important and major archaeological discoveries of the "Central Plains Surrounding Areas" and "Frontier Areas", represented by the Hongshan culture, Shiya culture, Sanxingdui culture, Shijiahe culture, Lingjiatan culture, Liangzhu culture, and Dawenkou-Longshan culture, provide objective materials and lay an empirical foundation for exploring the "pluralistic integration" development context and development pattern of ancient Chinese nationalities, cultures and civilizations. In short, in the past 100 years, Chinese archaeology has made great academic progress and highlighted the status of disciplines.
Fifth, the progress of the role of disciplines. "The research results of Chinese archaeology have not only become a precious spiritual wealth of the Chinese nation that stimulates the patriotic feelings of the people, improves the quality of the nation and enhances national cohesion, but also is an indispensable and important ideological resource for us to follow the law of cultural evolution of 'inheritance, absorption, integration and innovation', promote cultural progress, and promote social, political and economic development by 'learning from the past'." [23] In the past 100 years, in addition to the obvious progress in the construction and development of the discipline itself, Chinese archaeology has also made great progress in the nourishment of public culture and the role of social service, and has developed into an important cultural undertaking and work of great socio-political significance, and has developed into a work that truly serves the people and serves the great rejuvenation of the nation. There is a growing interest in archaeology, despite misunderstandings and delusions of one kind or another. Archaeology is the cause of the people that is receiving more and more attention, and public archaeology or public archaeology has emerged and is developing. The party and the state attach more and more importance to archaeology, and their support is increasing. The role of archaeology has become more prominent: archaeology is the telescope of history in times where there are no written records, archaeology is the microscope of history in times where written records have been written, and archaeology can help a nation or country to retrieve or restore the early historical memories that have been forgotten.
Sixth, progress in the field of research. "Chinese archaeology began to go out of the country. Not only has he participated in the excavation, research and protection of cultural heritage in some countries, but also Chinese scholars have carried out research on foreign archaeological remains based on the theory and method of dealing with domestic archaeological remains, combined with the reality of foreign archaeological remains, and published some foreign archaeological works that are quite influential at home and abroad. Although the scale is small, it is gratifying that Chinese scholars have been able to study foreign archaeology. This is not a trivial matter, but it is a major event of epoch-making significance in the field of Chinese archaeology. [24] The transition from Chinese archaeology to foreign archaeology is an expansion of the subject area and a sign of the maturity of the discipline. Documentary historiography of the study of history in writing already has two brother disciplines of Chinese history and world history, and the historiography of cultural relics that studies history in kind will also have two sister disciplines of Chinese archaeology and world archaeology. Archaeology has made no small contribution to enriching and perfecting the large system of historical disciplines.
Seventh, the progress of protection awareness. "Chinese archaeology has become an important pillar of cultural heritage protection and has made very important and valuable contributions to the protection of cultural heritage." [25] Archaeology has the dual nature of destroying heritage and protecting heritage, before the word "heritage" appeared, we called the things unearthed by archaeological excavations "relics" or "materials", when we look at underground excavations from the perspective of cultural heritage protection or highly, "relics" are "heritage", and "materials" are "wealth". Although there is a one-word difference, the concept is completely different. Based on this understanding, archaeology should destroy the remains as little as possible, and protect and care for the remains more. Even when a part of the remains have to be destroyed for the sake of research, we should use a protective eye to minimize the damage. In particular, while scientifically excavating, carefully sorting out, and timely compiling and publishing reports, it is also necessary to actively participate in or guide the construction of archaeological site parks and the impact assessment of cultural relics, and give full play to the basic guiding role in the protection and display of cultural relics.
In addition to the progress in the above aspects, Chinese archaeology has also achieved a qualitative leap in institutional construction, team building, talent training, technology development, foreign exchanges and many other aspects. In the words of Zhang Zhongpei: "Chinese archaeology has grown into a giant, grown into a man of iron zhengzheng, standing tall in the forest of Chinese scholarship and holding high among the world's outstanding archaeologists." ”[26]
Third, the vision of Chinese archaeology
New era, new journey. A new century, a new starting point. Looking forward to the next hundred years of Chinese archaeology, it is full of hope and hope.
Looking forward to Chinese archaeology, in terms of talent training, more and more colleges and universities or secondary schools can successively create archaeology, cultural protection, heritage and other related majors and degree points, and cultivate a large number of archaeological professionals and technical talents of different categories, different levels and different scales to meet the needs of the further development of the mainland's cultural relics. It is hoped that the national industry authorities can build several super-large-scale modern and standardized field archaeology practice teaching bases in major areas across the country with the strength of the state, and coordinate and accept students from various colleges and universities across the country to carry out professional internships every year, so as to provide a full guarantee for the quality of professional personnel training in high and secondary schools.
Looking forward to Chinese archaeology, in terms of institutional construction and team building, more and more provinces, municipalities and autonomous regions can continuously increase and expand the number and scale of various archaeological management units, research units, protection units, and collection and display units at all levels on the basis of the original scale, and the team of professional talents can grow and improve exponentially from quantity to quality. Through the expansion of enrollment in schools and the expansion of the scale of employment by institutions, archaeology has gradually moved from a niche to the public.
In terms of theoretical method construction, he can continue to adhere to the theoretical system of archaeological methods with Chinese characteristics, such as "Liang Siyong Archaeological Stratigraphy", "Su Bingqi Archaeological Typology", "Xia Nai Archaeological Culture Naming Theory", "Su Bingqi Cultural Faunae Theory", "Su Bingqi Social Development Theory", "Su Bingqi National Evolution Theory", "Su Bingqi Civilization Model Theory", etc. [27], and on this basis, combined with the development needs of the discipline itself, constantly explore and discover new theories and methods that can solve Chinese historical problems. Especially in the field of interdisciplinary integration research, we must not only continue to expand and deepen cooperation with science, engineering, agriculture, and medical disciplines, but also continuously strengthen the breadth and intensity of cooperation with humanities and social sciences, and through cooperation with political, economic, legal, cultural, artistic, historical and other disciplines, jointly explain the long-standing development of Chinese civilization, and explain the brilliant achievements of Chinese culture and their influence and contributions to world civilization.
Looking forward to Chinese archaeology, in terms of cultural relics protection, we can use the concept of "green water and green mountains are golden mountains and silver mountains" to guide archaeological excavation work and take the road of sustainable development. It is necessary to attach importance to the discovery of new archaeological materials, carry out excavations in a planned and targeted manner, and control archaeological excavations in a measured and measured manner, so that future generations can still have ancient examinations and materials to dig. It is necessary to actively carry out further combing, analysis, digestion and interpretation of the materials excavated from existing archaeological excavations, so that archaeology can play an important professional guiding role in all aspects of research, protection, utilization, and display.
Looking forward to Chinese archaeology, in terms of research horizons and scope, we must not only continue to increase the research on Chinese archaeology, but also continuously expand the scale of foreign archaeological research and improve the level of foreign archaeological research. It is not only necessary to go abroad to preside over or participate in the excavation of foreign field archaeology, but also to use foreign archaeological materials published in the past to carry out relevant foreign archaeology research. Realize the voice of Chinese scholars in some countries or regions, certain fields or directions, and obtain the right to speak and speak of Chinese scholars. Through archaeological discoveries and research, we will tell the story of China, the story of the world, and the story of mankind's transition from a blood community to a regional community and a community of destiny.
Looking forward to Chinese archaeology, in the overall discipline construction, it can correctly handle the relationship between basic research, special topic research and theoretical research, correctly handle the relationship between discipline positioning and interdisciplinary, correctly handle the relationship between scientific research and cultural relics protection, and correctly handle the relationship between professional exploration and social service. We should strive to be able to continuously make new breakthroughs and constantly step up to a new level on the basis of the tremendous progress and prosperity of the past century.
(Author: Zhao Binfu, School of Archaeology, Jilin University.) In addition, the annotation is omitted here, for the full version, please check "Jianghan Archaeology", No. 6, 2021)
Editor-in-charge: Duan Shushan
Audit: Diligence
Chen Lixin
——Copyright Notice——
![Jinsha Ruins "Circle of Friends"[fig]]()