The upper and lower limits of archaeology

The upper and lower limits of archaeology

The upper limit of archaeology

Humanoid recovery

Top left: Australopithecus Afarensis (3.8 million – 2.9 million years ago)

Upper middle: Australopithecus Africanus (2.5 million years ago)

Top right: Paranthropus Boisei, 2 million-million years old

Bottom left: Erect Homous, 1.80-70,000 years ago

Lower middle: Homo Heidelbergensis (700,000–200,000 years ago)

Bottom right: Homo Neanderthalensis (200,000–28,000 years ago)

The upper limit of archaeological research mainly depends on two factors: first, new archaeological discoveries, the emergence of new fossil evidence, often pushing human history forward significantly, and also extending the time range of archaeological research to earlier times. For example, Neanderthals discovered in the middle of the 19th century, Javanese discovered in the late 19th century, Pekingese discovered in the early 20th century, and a number of Australopithecus species discovered in the second half of the 20th century. Compared with the long history of human evolution, the fossils found by archaeology are only the tip of the iceberg, and more fossil evidence will be found in the future, constantly revising our understanding of human evolutionary history.

The second is the definition of "man" at the theoretical level, because archaeology is a science that studies people, and the object of study must be directly or indirectly related to the human subject. Therefore, it is necessary to first determine what is "human", and the time frame of archaeological research will also vary for different definitions of "human". The upper limit of archaeology will certainly change with new archaeological discoveries and theoretical innovations, but one thing should be certain - the upper limit of archaeology should not exceed the emergence of the ancestors of the immediate primates of human animals, which should have previously fallen under the scope of paleontological research.

"Gu Bu Kao three generations or less"

There has long been a saying in the mainland archaeological circles that "the ancients do not examine the three generations or less", that is, the focus of archaeological excavation and research is before the Qin and Han Dynasties, because the literature after the Xia And Shang Dynasties is relatively rich, the historical record system is relatively complete, and the role of archaeology in the historical research after the Qin and Han Dynasties is not as important as that of the Xia Shang Zhou. According to Mr. Shi Zhangru's account in the "Biography of the Excavated Employees of Yin Ruins", this sentence first came from the mouth of Mr. Wu Jinding, and the original words were "Gu Bu Kao is less than three generations old, and it is necessary to dig up prehistoric remains". The background of this statement is that in the spring of 1932, Mr. Wu Jinding found black pottery in Xin Village, so he searched downstream along the Qishui River to find the ruins, and finally found the prehistoric ruins in the east of Pinghan Road and the south of Dalaidian Village. The reason why Mr. Wu has such a statement, on the one hand, is because in the early 1930s, China's field archaeology has just started, the number of archaeologists is very small, in addition to the Yin Ruins, the location of field archaeology is even rarer, the collection of archaeological data in the historical period is very limited, so everyone has certain limitations in the understanding of archaeology; on the other hand, Wu Jinding himself was just 31 years old at this time, engaged in field work for about 4 years, and the basic sites he contacted were neolithic and Shang Zhou periods. There is insufficient understanding of the value of archaeological data after the Qin and Han dynasties. From 1941 to 1943, from the fact that Mr. Wu insisted on cleaning up and excavating the tombs of the Han Dynasty cliffs in Pengshan, Sichuan, and the tombs of the former Shu kings in Chengdu, he "denied" his previous views with his own practical actions. However, in the field of archaeology, Mr. Wu's "famous sayings" are deeply rooted in the hearts of the people and have far-reaching influence, and to this day, I still hear scholars of previous generations say from time to time that "the ancients do not examine the three generations below", but when they say it, they are mostly ridiculous, and the archaeological community has reached a consensus on the importance of historical research since the Qin and Han dynasties.

There is no archaeology after the Ming Dynasty

The Qing Dynasty and later are relatively short in time, the historical materials are even more sweaty, the number of various cultural relics is also very large, and archaeological data has never been valued. In the 1990s, during the archaeological excavation of the Three Gorges, some scholars collected a number of archaeological remains of the Qing Dynasty, and many colleagues at the work report meeting said that they "have nothing to dig up", and the contempt for the archaeological data of the Qing Dynasty was overflowing.

Of course, in addition to being neglected, archaeological excavations in the Qing Dynasty and later, especially tomb excavations, do bring some legal and ethical problems. Tombs in the Qing Dynasty and later are often the descendants of the tomb owners, how to deal with the relationship with the descendants of the tomb owners is very tricky, for example, a similar situation has occurred in Suzhou, the excavation report of the Qing Dynasty tombs excavated by rescue excavations was read by the descendants of the tomb owners after publication, and they took the list of excavated cultural relics in the excavation report to the cultural relics and archaeology department to ask for ancestral relics.

Therefore, the traditional archaeology of the mainland generally takes the Ming Dynasty as the lower limit, and the 1986 edition of the "Encyclopedia of China Archaeology Volume" is the lower limit of the introduction of the Ming Dynasty site, and believes that "the so-called 'industrial archaeology' of the United Kingdom, the so-called 'historical archaeology' or 'colonial archaeology' of the Americas, is actually the use of archaeological methods to study modern history, so it cannot be counted as real archaeology." The "General Theory of Chinese Archaeology", which is the most commonly used general theory textbook for archaeology in domestic universities, is also the final chapter of "Song Yuanming Archaeology", and the length is not large. However, there are not a few Qing Dynasty tombs and relics found in field archaeological excavations, and we have noticed that the "Yearbook of Chinese Archaeology" has included some Qing Dynasty relics since the 1980s, indicating that in practice, archaeologists did not completely adhere to the prejudice of traditional concepts, but did their best to collect material and cultural materials.

Modern archaeology

In 1999, the ruins of the Winery in Shuijing Street, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, discovered the ruins of the Ming, Qing, and Republic of China to the present, and were rated as the "Top Ten Archaeological New Discoveries" in 1999; in 2015, the "Dandong No. 1" Qing Dynasty shipwreck (Zhiyuan Ship) in Liaoning and the underwater archaeological survey of the 2018 Liaoning Zhuanghe Jiawu Shipwreck Site were rated as "Top Ten Archaeological New Discoveries", indicating that in recent years, the role of archaeology in the protection and study of important historical and cultural sites and relics in modern and modern times has not only been recognized but also increasingly recognized by the government. The importance of the academic community and the people.

In 2018, the Heilongjiang Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology edited the "Report on the Archaeological Excavation of the Bacteriological Laboratory and the Ad Hoc Prison of the Former Site of the 731st Unit of the Japanese Army Invading China" was published, which was shortlisted for the final evaluation list of the "2018 National Cultural Heritage Top Ten Books", and Mr. Gao Menghe believes that the "Report on the Archaeological Excavation of the Bacteriological Laboratory and the Special Prison of the Former Site of the 731st Unit of the Japanese Army Invading China" has brought Chinese archaeology "closer to a new realm of modern site archaeology", and Mr. Gao's evaluation is realistic. In addition to the archaeological research of the 731 site, in fact, as early as the 1960s, the mainland had made similar archaeological attempts on the Datong Mass Grave in Shanxi. The remains of compatriots killed in the Nanjing Massacre have also been excavated 4 times, of which 2 are professional archaeological excavations, using professional archaeological excavations and physical anthropological identification techniques to restore the victimization scenarios of the compatriots who were killed. In recent years, Zhang Quanchao and Zhang Qun of the Frontier Archaeology Research Center of Jilin University have called for the more widely applied forensic archaeology to the study of the remains of the victims of the "mass graves" during the Japanese invasion of China, "using an international and standardized forensic archaeology information collection system to provide accurate and comprehensive data for the formulation of resolutions and related documents related to the 'human rights disaster' events of the Japanese invasion of China in the future."

Contemporary archaeology

In fact, we believe that as long as the method of archaeology is used to excavate the site, the use of archaeological theory to study the data should belong to the category of archaeology, at least belong to the interdisciplinary discipline related to archaeology, and the lower limit of archaeological research should not stop at modern times, but can be extended to the contemporary, the most important example is the "forensic archaeology" mentioned earlier. Many universities in Western countries are already recruiting graduate students in forensic archaeology, but the mainland is still in its infancy.

"Forensic archaeology" is to apply the methods and technical means of archaeology to the work of forensic doctors, jointly complete the exploration and excavation of ancient and modern human remains and the surrounding environment, and can collect more information that was missed when the "excavation" was completed by forensic doctors in the past. At present, the application of forensic archaeology to modern and contemporary data mainly focuses on the detection of criminal cases and the investigation and collection of evidence in human rights disasters. For example, in 1984, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) sent a team of investigation teams to Argentina to assist in the excavation and investigation of collective cemeteries in cases of "enforced disappearances"; and in 1996, the "International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda" and the "International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia" supported the investigation and excavation of collective cemeteries such as the Rwandan Massacre and the Srebnica Massacre, which were very successful examples. We also look forward to more contributions from mainland archaeologists in the field practice and theoretical innovation of contemporary archaeology in the future.

(This article was published in the September 2019 issue of Popular Archaeology, and the author Wu Ling is a librarian of Wuxi Museum; He Wenjing is a librarian of Suzhou Archaeological Research Institute)

Reprinted from Popular Archaeology