Abstract: A century of Chinese archaeology is a blue thread, and reflection and prospecting are conducive to our grasp of the direction of progress, and also conducive to the path choice of researchers. As a guideline for academic development, the growth point is an effective conceptual tool for examining the development of Chinese archaeology in a period. Over the past century, Chinese archaeology has undergone several stages of development, each of which has its own growth points. While inheriting the same lineage, different stages have disciplinary growth points corresponding to their times. Through the review and prospect of growth points, we can also understand the development path, current situation and future development trend of Chinese archaeology in the past century from one perspective.
The development of archaeology is the product of internal and external relations, including social background, contemporary trends and the development of related disciplines, and internal association refers to the contradiction between discipline theories, methods and materials [1]. The development of the history of archaeological thought shows that the development of archaeology has a phased nature, although academic research is a continuous process [2]. The development of archaeology in different periods has its focus, they will lead the development of a period of discipline, we figuratively call the "growth point" of the discipline. Grasping the growth point of discipline development helps us to understand the trend of discipline development and avoid the "involution" of discipline research - although the investment is increasing, the progress in the understanding is getting slower and slower. In the history of scientific development, such as from Newton's classical physics system to Einstein's system of relativity, researchers clinging to the old system have to face the difficulty of research stagnation. As far as individual researchers are concerned, they do not want to be at the forefront of the discipline, that is, the place where the discipline grows, and contribute to the development of the discipline. Therefore, the investigation of the growth point of the discipline is related to the development of the discipline as a whole and the individual researcher, which is undoubtedly of great significance. The development of scientific archaeology in China has a history of 100 years, and it is opportune to look back on the past, examine the present, and look forward to the future. At present, China is at a juncture, and the emerging cultural consciousness is opening a new era, at the same time, the development of Chinese archaeology is also at a critical juncture of transformation. There are many perspectives on the development of the discipline, and the work done here is only one of them, hoping to benefit the relevant discussions in the academic community.
A review of the growth points of Chinese archaeology in the past
Examining past growth points may seem easy, but in fact it is difficult to achieve. Because the development of the discipline has become an established fact, the growth point has long been obliterated. Fortunately, the field of development of early Chinese archaeology was limited, and there were not many key facts, and the investigation was generally feasible. Zhang Zhongpei once described the development of Chinese archaeology with six landmark events[3] :(1) In 1921, Anderson excavated the site of Yangshao Village, which opened the prelude to Chinese scientific archaeology; (2) In 1931, Liang Siyong revealed the Hougang Triassic Layer, representing Chinese archaeologists to begin to master archaeological stratigraphy; (3) In 1948, Su Bingqi published "The Study of Wa mane", marking the successful application of archaeological typology; (4) In 1959, Xia Nai published "On the Naming of Archaeological Culture". The application of archaeological culture theory began to spread; (5) in 1975, Su Bingqi introduced the fauna type theory, which became a theoretical framework to guide archaeologists to construct China's prehistory; (6) In 1985, Su Bingqi published "Ancient Culture ancient city of Western Liaoning - On the focus and major topics of current archaeological work", pointing out how the focus of Chinese archaeological research should shift to the study of the origin of Chinese civilization. Each landmark event can represent the growth point of Chinese archaeology in a period and be associated with the development of Chinese archaeology in a period.
Century-old Chinese archaeology began in 1921, the year of excavation not only of the yangshao village site, but also of the zhoukoudian site. At the same time, Sang Zhihua, De Rijin and others discovered and excavated shuidonggou and the Sarawusu site[5], and Chinese paleolithic archaeology officially began. These are all defining modern archaeology in terms of field archaeological excavations. If we expand this definition and include fieldwork, then Chinese archaeology in the modern sense dates back to around 1900, and its hallmark is three major fieldwork discoveries: (1) Dunhuang Ancient Scrolls; (2) Anyang Oracle Bones; and (3) Quicksand Falling Jane. These three major discoveries are all related to written materials, and archaeological work has enriched ancient historical materials. Wang Guowei was thus able to confirm the lineage of the Shang Dynasty, and used underground excavations to prove the records of ancient historical documents. Along with the excavation of written materials, there are many other types of material remains, and the study of physical materials has begun to enter the field of researchers. The core of the definition of archaeology is to study ancient societies through material remains, and in this sense, around 1900, Chinese archaeology has taken the stage. At the beginning of the 20th century, China, the decline of state affairs, is a semi-colonial country, the initiative of archaeological fieldwork and excavation are done by foreigners, the first excavation by Chinese scholars from the excavation of Xiyin Village in 1926. In short, Chinese archaeology in the modern sense begins with the active investigation and excavation of physical materials, that is, field archaeology opens the prelude to Chinese archaeology.
Chinese archaeology before 1949 was linked by several important field archaeological surveys and excavations, including Zhoukoudian, Yin Ruins, and the Sino-Swiss Northwest Expedition. The excavation and research of the Zhoukoudian site was carried out by a sino-foreign cooperation, which trained the first generation of Chinese paleolithic archaeologists such as Pei Wenzhong and Jia Lanpo. Yin's work is led by Chinese scholars, and it is like a school that trains Chinese archaeologists, training a group of archaeologists. At the same time, the basic method of field archaeology gradually formed, and the symbol was the identification of the back post triassic. The Sino-Swiss Northwest Scientific Expedition Represents the rise of China's own academic strength, and the Chinese academic community adheres to sovereignty in the organization and implementation of scientific expedition activities, changing the situation in which Western colonial forces have long dominated Chinese archaeology. Before 1949, the beginning of Chinese archaeology, modern archaeology centered on field archaeology was introduced to China, replacing the position of traditional Chinese epigraphy. If you want to summarize the growth points of archaeology, field archaeology is undoubtedly the most obvious. Among them, focusing on the continuous work of important sites, training teams and developing research has become a set of effective practical strategies.
Although Chinese archaeology before 1949 was still in its infancy, the "founder's effect" it produced had a profound impact on later Chinese archaeology, such as Paleolithic archaeology, which has long been regarded as a natural science and is classified in the field of geoscience, because early paleolithic archaeology was mainly studied by researchers with geological backgrounds. However, the real influence on the characteristics of Chinese archaeology is the historical orientation of Chinese archaeology. Chinese archaeological research can use a wealth of literature, these materials provide a better time frame and era background for archaeological research, Wang Guowei's "double evidence method" is only a representative. However, in the context of China's backward development at that time, this also became a sign of the backwardness of Chinese archaeology - too dependent on literature. It is worth noting that before 1949, scholars often had very good literature skills, whether local scholars or study abroad backgrounds, and this academic foundation could hardly be copied later. Correspondingly, there is the familiarity with traditional material culture, and people's way of life is still relatively traditional. At this stage, Chinese archaeological research and documentary tradition and material culture tradition are closely combined, which constitutes the second growth point of Chinese archaeology in addition to field archaeology, and it is also the growth "gene" of Chinese archaeology - historical orientation.
After 1949, Chinese archaeology, with the organization and support of the state, established relevant institutions and gradually formed a systematic research system. This stage of Chinese archaeology can be divided into two stages, bounded by 1976. In the previous stage, especially in the 1950s, a climax was set off in the development of Chinese archaeology. Beginning in 1952, four consecutive training courses for archaeologists trained 341 professionals,[7] promoting field archaeology throughout the country, much larger than before 1949. Related field archaeological surveys and excavations were carried out around large-scale capital construction. For example, sites such as Banpo, Beishouling, and Yuanjun Temple were exposed in a large area, which brought more systematic field archaeological data and provided a material basis for reconstructing the appearance of prehistoric society. As before 1949, field archaeology is still the main direction of the development of Chinese archaeology, and it is larger and more systematic.
China Neolithic Periodization and Zoning (Zhengzhou Museum Exhibition)
The development of field archaeology was accompanied by the advancement of theoretical methods. Marxism became the basic guiding ideology of Chinese archaeological research during this period, and in the 1950s, young students enthusiastically advocated the development of Marxist archaeology in China[8]. However, there is still a long way to go from the general theoretical principles of Marxism to the specific ancient physical remains, and the theory does not automatically relate to the material, requiring a lot of work by archaeologists to cross the gap between them. This was not something that the Chinese Archaeological Research Institute at the time could solve, and such reflection promoted researchers such as Su Bingqi to pay more attention to the collation and research of archaeological basic materials. In 1959, "Luoyang Zhongzhou Road" was published, which provided a yardstick for the dating of Eastern Zhou tombs in the Central Plains and became a benchmark for archaeological typology work. In the same year, Xia Nai's article "On the Naming of Archaeological Culture" was published, and archaeological culture theory became the basic theory for constructing the temporal and spatial framework of China's prehistory[10]. The development of basic theoretical methods has become a bellwether leading to subsequent archaeological research, and has also become an important growth point for the development of Chinese archaeology in this period.
After about 1976, the archaeological research work that was once influenced by political movements gradually resumed, and with the tide of China's reform and opening up, the connection with Western archaeology increased, and new theoretical methods were introduced into Chinese archaeology. Therefore, in this period, the growth point of Chinese archaeology should first belong to the introduction of Western archaeological theoretical methods, among which the outstanding achievements should be regarded as multidisciplinary interdisciplinary methods, absolute dating, animal archaeology, plant archaeology, micro-trace analysis, etc. In theory, the acceptance is relatively weaker, although some works have been translated, but the impact is limited, and the basic theoretical framework of Chinese archaeology has not changed. However, multidisciplinary approaches often imply functionalist ideas, that is, to study how ancient social life worked, such as the function of tools, the domestication of animals and plants, and the impact of environmental changes. The application and popularization of these methods paved the way for the functionalization trend of contemporary Chinese archaeological research (Chinese archaeology after about 2000). Some emerging Chinese archaeologists have tried to embrace Western archaeology, especially the methods of process archaeology[11], but due to their unfamiliarity with the theoretical basis of process archaeology, there are still large deviations in understanding. Other scholars disagree with Western theories of archaeology.
Influenced by the tide of Sino-foreign exchanges, Chinese archaeology began to pay more attention to its own characteristics and Chinese cultural identity. Su Bingqi systematically proposed the fauna type theory[13], which is a development of Chinese scholars on the basis of archaeological and cultural theory. On this basis, Su Bingqi proposed that the focus of Chinese archaeology should shift to the study of Chinese civilization, the Chinese nation, and the origin of Chinese culture.[14] Later, he further proposed the idea of building a Chinese school of archaeological research[15], which is also a reflection of the entry of Chinese archaeology into the International Academic System dominated by the West, and the uniqueness of Chinese culture and Chinese archaeology is realized in international exchanges. As a result, Chinese archaeology, which has its own particularity in academic tasks and theoretical methods, has begun to move towards the academic stage. However, Su Bingqi's proposal is only an idea, and it is the responsibility of contemporary and future Chinese archaeology to transform it into reality. In this sense, the construction of the Chinese archaeological school is still only a growth point in the bud. But from this time on, archaeological research on Chinese civilization has increasingly become a hot topic.
2. The growth point of contemporary Chinese archaeology
We define contemporary archaeology in the past 20 years of time, in 2001 China's accession to the WTO, opening up to the outside world into a new pattern, the development of national economic strength accelerated, the scale of archaeological research unprecedented expansion, it can be said that Chinese archaeology has entered a new stage, its development is obvious to all. Here it is directly summarized into six representative growth points.
The archaeology of Chinese civilization is the most shining growth point in the study of contemporary Chinese archaeology. Worldwide, the major archaeological discoveries of ancient civilizations are concentrated in the mid-to-late 19th century and the early 20th century, and since then, there have been no more such great discoveries. [16] That period can be called the "burning years" in the history of archaeology, because archaeologists needed to cross the desert jungle to overcome disease, bandits, corrupt officials, and stranger-hating races, and with legendary expeditions, great archaeological discoveries continued to emerge, and disappeared civilizations were found one by one. However, compared with the discovery of other classical civilizations in the world, the concentrated discovery of Chinese civilization seems to be 100 years late. For Chinese archaeology, the discovery of the great civilization that disappeared has just entered the climax. The official confirmation of the ancient city of Liangzhu was in 2007, and the subsequent discovery of the dam system made the title of "Liangzhu Civilization" possible. In 2011, the ancient city of Shiya was officially confirmed, and people were surprised to find that there was a huge city (city) on such a desolate Loess Plateau 4500 years ago. In the past, those classical civilizations were discovered by Western archaeologists, but now fortunately, the glory of discovering China's classical civilization is left to the Chinese archaeologists themselves. We may expect that the next decade or two will likely usher in more, if not more important, discoveries of Chinese civilization.
Henan Xingyang Qingtai ruins Big Dipper Nine Star Sacrifice Relic
The archaeology of Chinese civilization is also an integral part of the discovery of archaeological materials, and the discovery of materials relies on field archaeology, so in this sense, field archaeology is the first growth point of Chinese archaeology. Through field archaeology, not only remarkable discoveries are obtained, but also scientific research materials for exploring ancient history are obtained, and furthermore, cultural heritage that can be used for display and appreciation is obtained. There are now hundreds of archaeological excavation projects in China every year, some of which are infrastructure projects, which have to be excavated in order not to be destroyed by construction projects, and a small number of active excavations for research purposes. China's infrastructure construction boom has not yet passed, there are still a large number of excavation projects to be completed, and new materials are constantly emerging. At the same time, with the expansion of the professional team and the increase of national support, there will be more active excavation projects, and the degree of refinement of excavation is still improving.
The second bright growth point of Chinese archaeology is scientific and technological archaeology, also known as archaeological science, technical archaeology, or laboratory archaeology. Judging from the development of the past one or two decades, in international archaeological journals, this direction has produced the most research results, becoming the field with the highest degree of internationalization of Chinese archaeology and the field with the most rapid progress in Chinese archaeological research. Scientific and technological archaeology has formed several branches in Chinese archaeology, including plant archaeology, animal archaeology, dating archaeology (dating), human skeleton archaeology, ancient DNA archaeology, cultural relics protection technology, etc., and more branches are growing. The biggest feature of these sub-fields is the interdisciplinarity, in addition to understanding archaeology, researchers also need to understand the relevant direction of professional knowledge and skills. In the near future, more and more laboratories will be built in Chinese archaeological institutions, which is an inevitable choice for the development of Chinese archaeology, without which the analysis and protection of archaeological materials will not be possible. This direction requires more talents, which is a development direction with great potential.
The third growth point is the archaeology of Sino-foreign exchanges. This is a new direction, and it has gradually become a hot spot in recent years. With the construction of the National Belt and Road Initiative, a large number of cultural workers familiar with relevant countries are needed. Archaeological research is very suitable as a way for China to exchange and cooperate with belt and road countries, through such cooperation, we can better understand the history and culture of these countries, and lay more favorable conditions for cooperation in other aspects in the future. Research in this area requires familiarity with the language, history and culture of the countries in which you work. The more urgently needed languages are French, Spanish and Russian. With the development of Chinese archaeology, it is inevitable to go abroad to study the civilizations and cultures of other parts of the world. On the one hand, it is to understand the world outside China, and on the other hand, it is also to better understand chinese civilization itself. Only through the comparison of civilizations can we more clearly grasp the characteristics of Chinese civilization. Sino-foreign exchange of archaeology requires a large number of pioneers, and our work has just begun.
The fourth growth point is historical archaeology. This growth point is a bit old, but deeply rooted. If the archaeological study mentioned above is where the iceberg emerges from the water, then historical archaeology is the iceberg under the water. It is rooted in China's long historical tradition and rich and diverse material culture, and researchers are not only archaeologists, but also a large number of enthusiasts. In historical archaeology, the study of cultural relics is an important part. To engage in research in this field, you need a good foundation of literature, you need to be familiar with ancient Chinese history and culture, and you need one or two specialties, bronze, jade, statues, inscriptions... There are many trades, and any one of these categories requires lifelong research to be proficient. Perhaps because this field is too difficult, the talent of the later archaeology is scarce. Archaeology students think that after graduating from school, they can work in this area, only to find that they are often just getting started, and their real learning must start from the time of actual work. Cultural relics (a term that archaeologists don't seem to like much of) are important carriers of cultural traditions and should be important objects of study in archaeology. In this regard, we have neglected it in the past, and there should be a lot of room for growth in the future.
There is also a very special growth point related to the above four directions, that is, underwater archaeology. It is field archaeology, but also scientific and technological archaeology, but also Sino-foreign exchange archaeology, or historical archaeology, because shipwrecks are basically historical periods. Underwater archaeology appeared relatively late in Chinese archaeology, only 20 or 30 years of history, and the development of recent years is relatively fast. At present, there are more than 150 people in the Chinese archaeological community with underwater archaeology qualifications, and nearly half of them can now work in the water. The scope of china's underwater archaeology work has now expanded to the Red Sea and the Mediterranean Sea. Underwater archaeology is a technical and capital-intensive direction in archaeology that requires considerable investment. At present, Chinese underwater archaeology has its own professional vessels and also has professional diving equipment. Despite the advanced equipment support, underwater archaeology is challenging. However, underwater archaeology has an advantage that other directions do not have, that is, once it is found, the effluent will be extremely rich and very complete.
The last growth point is public archaeology (or public archaeology). This is a hot but controversial direction. Customarily, everyone consciously or unconsciously equates it with archaeological science, in fact, there is a big difference between the two. The purpose of archaeological research is ultimately to serve the public, serve reality, and serve the times. The emergence of public archaeology represents the dawn of a new era. Reading the history of archaeology, we will find that archaeology originally served the elite of society, who collected and played with antiques after tea and dinner, monopolizing cultural life. With the development of the modernization process, the middle class has stepped onto the stage of history, and if antiquities are still controlled by private individuals, it is difficult for everyone to appreciate. So there are museums, there is a tourism industry, and there are professional archaeologists. Now when we talk about public archaeology, the purpose is to encompass the largest range of social groups, and obviously these publics should be educated groups (the public is the product of the popularization of education). Its key point, or the difference between it and the popularization of archaeological science, is that public archaeology emphasizes the interaction between professional groups and the public, attaches more importance to public participation, especially the participation of archaeology enthusiasts, so that archaeology can obtain a certain publicity that is beneficial to social development. To do this, on the one hand, it requires material conditions, and the advent of the Internet era provides convenient conditions for such interaction and participation; on the other hand, professionals who master expression skills need to be able to express professional discourse in a more grounded and artistic form. The public is a very large group, so the demand for public archaeology is also enormous.
Prospects for future growth points in Chinese archaeology
What will chinese archaeology look like in the future? No one can be a prophet. If you don't know what Chinese archaeology will look like in the future, why can we talk about future growth points? Perhaps we can think of it as an ideal or hope, and it is also a growth point that we need to focus on developing.
The first growth point is the mid-range theory and the meso-strata approach. Although the two share a "medium" word, the two are not the same. Linking the two is a common task: seeing people through things. The core goal of archaeology is to understand the ancients through the material remains of antiquity. To achieve this goal, it is inseparable from medium-range theory and mid-level methods. The key significance of the mid-range theory is that it provides a framework or template for archaeologists to reconstruct the past. The biggest deficiency of material remains (archaeological materials) is scattered and mutilated, not all the activities of the ancients will leave material remains, not all material remains can be preserved, not all preserved material remains can be found by us, and not all the material remains found by us can be accurately identified... After such a lot of screening, the material relics we can get are finally only a dime a dozen of ancient societies. Anyone who has done pottery stitching knows that if we roughly know what kind of artifact it is, if we can get fragments from the mouth to the bottom, then we can basically and accurately restore the artifact. This rough look is the framework or template, and this is what the middle-range theory provides.
Specific to archaeological research, such medium-range theories mainly refer to ethnic archaeology, experimental archaeology, direct history law, and contemporary material culture research. Regrettably, China lacks research resources for ethnic archaeology and has lost the best opportunity to carry out ethnic archaeology. In the process of colonization in the West, in Africa, the Americas, Oceania and Asia, it encountered human groups at different levels of development, some of which still used stone tools, some still lived on hunter-gatherers, and some lived a matriarchal social life, so that the vivid appearance of life provided a rare window for archaeologists to understand prehistoric human life. There is no doubt that the "primitive" life recorded in modern ethnography and anthropological expeditions does not equate to the real situation in prehistory. However, this information is invaluable when we have no other object to refer to. Medium-range theory does not endorse simple analogies between ancient and modern societies, but advocates extracting a theoretical framework with certain universality from ethnographic and anthropological materials. For example, when we study prehistoric hunter-gatherers, whether ancient or modern, as long as they depend on this way of life, they must seek food from nature, not produce food. This means that it is impossible for them to settle in one place, it is impossible to form a large-scale and stable social group, and it is impossible to develop a complex social organization, so that they are comparable in their livelihood methods and living forms. [18] Penford studied the settlement organization strategies of the Nunamiut (a branch of the Eskimos) in Alaska, which led to the famous forager-collector model. This model is widely used in judging the function of Paleolithic archaeological sites, analyzing tool design strategies, and studying cultural adaptation changes.
With the global commercialization of industry, it is difficult to find more suitable research objects that can carry out ethnoarchaeology. However, in this regard, by increasing the intensity of translation, to a certain extent, we can make up for the shortcomings. If English materials can be directly used, then it is possible to achieve "foreign use for Chinese use". Other aspects of medium-range theory can be carried out, such as experimental archaeology. At present, our work is still preliminary, not systematic enough, and the scale is limited. In the future, if possible, we may be able to carry out large-scale experimental archaeological projects, and even invite the public to participate in them. As for the direct historical method, this is the characteristic and strength of Chinese archaeology, because we have a continuously developed civilization, have good historical documents, and can connect historical periods with prehistoric periods, so that we can understand some prehistoric material and cultural significance. Finally, contemporary (and can also include modern) material culture research can also develop into our strength, because China's traditional agricultural society has just disappeared, and many of the remnants of the agricultural era are very valuable; in addition, China's vast territory and cultural diversity are also conducive to the development of contemporary material culture research, from which to extract valuable reference frameworks. In this regard, Rushje's "junk archaeology project" has a lot to learn from.
In contrast to the medium-range theory, which is only a framework for reference, the middle-level approach is directly used to study material remains. Settlement archaeology, systematic regional investigation, stone tool micro-trace analysis, and operation chain analysis, which are more commonly used in domestic archaeology, all belong to this level (archaeological stratigraphy and typology belong to the underlying theoretical methods). The middle method is the main body of contemporary archaeological methods, and it is the main path for archaeological research to achieve the goal of seeing through things. This field is the strength of Western archaeology, and if we look at the papers of Western archaeology, regardless of their research significance, we can find that the use of the middle-level method of the vast majority of papers is quite good. The middle-level approach is inseparable from scientific thinking, that is, believing that there are principles behind things, and through observation, measurement and abstraction of concepts, it is possible to establish a logical relationship between concepts and then develop mathematical descriptions. That is to say, the middle-level method is not only some methods, but also implies scientific habits of thinking. What needs to be explained here is that the middle-level method is different from the scientific and technological archaeology, which is the product of the intersection of disciplines, while the middle-level method is developed within archaeology.
The second growth point is archaeological theory. Theories always feel a little hollow, no amount of theory can really answer the question, and the last thing that can answer the question is the discovery of archaeological materials. This empirical thinking has a long history, however, academic development cannot be achieved by empiricism alone. Craftsmen who can cast famous swords such as Gan generals and Mo Xie have rich experience, but they cannot pass on their experience because they have not mastered the scientific principles of metallurgical casting. Theory is the essence of the development of a discipline, and it is also a manifestation of the maturity of discipline development. The theoretical development of contemporary Chinese archaeology is still in its infancy.
Archaeological theoretical research mainly solves two problems: one is to explore what archaeology can or should study; the other is to answer why archaeology can do this. The former aspect involves the exploration of archaeological boundaries, such as cultural history archaeology constructs a prehistoric space-time framework, which in a certain sense answers the question of the origin of ethnic groups. But the development of archaeology does not stop at this step, process archaeology extends the boundaries of archaeology to explain why and how culture has changed in two new fields. Post-process archaeology goes a step further, extending boundaries to the level of cultural significance (symbolism). Now it all looks perfect, as if all levels of culture have been studied, but the boundaries of archaeology are endless, and the pace of exploration will not stop. Perhaps the next step, archaeological research will go beyond the limitations of the concept of culture. In the field of contemporary archaeological theory, in addition to culture-centered research, there are also paradigms such as ecology, evolution, agency, Marxism, and history, and the research topics include materiality, gender, social relations, and the mind.
Unfortunately, the current theories in Chinese archaeology come from Western archaeology. Although some people constantly question whether the theories of Western archaeology are in line with the practice of Chinese archaeology, no theory of our own has ever been born. Theory definitely has the problem of suitability, and the theory contains some implicit premises, and some premises require reflection and criticism. Absorption, criticism and re-creation should be the basic path for the development of Chinese archaeological theory. When Chinese archaeology has its own theory, the name of the Chinese school may also be established. Although the theory is good, it is not a wood without a root and a water without a source after all. What may surprise many is that the source of archaeological theories is not fieldwork in the history of archaeology. Fieldwork can test theories, but it does not automatically generate theories themselves. Many theories are the product of the intersection of disciplines, especially archaeology and anthropology, history, sociology and other closely related disciplines. There are also some theories that come from the study of the fringes of the discipline, such as ethnic archaeology and contemporary material culture studies.
The third direction is foreign archaeology. If Sino-foreign exchange archaeology is the first step, then the next step is foreign archaeology, which can also be called world archaeology, that is, the study of the world. This field has always been exclusive to Western archaeology, but in the future, Chinese archaeology must be involved in it. China is not an imperialist or colonialist country, and the purpose of our study of the world is not to control and dominate other countries, but to better understand the world, to better understand mankind itself, and to better understand our own civilization. Although we all study foreign archaeology, our starting point is different from that of the West. Now Chinese archaeologists are also increasingly aware that the problems of Chinese archaeology cannot be solved through domestic research alone. Taking the study of the origin of Chinese civilization as an example, we urgently need to understand the formation process of other civilizations in the world, and it is possible to locate Chinese civilization and understand its characteristics through comparison. Every civilization with history has been a successful person, and there are things worth learning from and learning; every civilization that has disappeared must also have lessons, which are worthy of our vigilance and reflection. Mutual learning among civilizations is indispensable for the long-term development of every civilization.
At present, in the study of Chinese archaeology, foreign archaeology in the true sense is very rare. The reason is also very simple, because our previous level of development was not enough, there was not enough funds, equipment, and corresponding talent training, and there was a lack of ways to carry out research. Even if someone studies foreign archaeology, it may become a "dragon slaying technique" and be useless. Today, the situation has changed, China's development is deeply embedded in the world, close international exchanges have created a demand, and we urgently need to understand other civilizations and cultures in the world. With China's further reform and opening up, this need is becoming more and more intense. How to meet this need becomes the problem. In the 1950s, Lin Zhichun of Northeast Normal University began to study the archaeology of classical civilization, leading the establishment of the Ancient World History Newsletter and the Journal of Ancien tCivilizations (1986), creating China's first Institute for the History of Classical Civilizations in the World, and training a group of master's and doctoral students in classics, Egyptology, Assyria and Hittite studies. After the reform and opening up, some researchers further went to the West for further study and became the backbone of the field.
In general, our research on the world's classical civilization is more achieved through literature research, and most researchers have no training in archaeology and do not have the opportunity to go abroad to directly participate in field archaeological work or directly study physical materials. This will change in the future. Students studying archaeology can enter this field, which will effectively expand the scope of archaeological research and enrich future development options. Foreign archaeology is by no means limited to the study of classical civilizations, from Paleolithic archaeology to historical period archaeology can be selected. Nowadays, some students choose to study art history, which is the predecessor of classical (civilized) archaeology and historical archaeology, which is more suitable for students who are interested in art. We often refer to these areas as "absolute learning", and researchers need to be familiar with multiple languages, in addition to common languages such as Chinese and English, and may also need to learn some words that have disappeared. Learning from China and the West, integrating ancient and modern, should be said to be the standard description of researchers in this field.
As far as the development of foreign archaeology is concerned, in the past, we used to cultivate on our own, and selected a small number of students to go abroad to study, and then returned to China to continue to train students. This is slower, and the sustainability is not too good. Today, we have better conditions, Chinese archaeologists are going to the world, in addition to the Belt and Road countries, we have now entered Latin America. While this is just the beginning, the trend is already there. There is another way, In addition to going out, Chinese archaeology also needs to be introduced, we can invite foreign archaeologists to teach in China, on the one hand, we can invite scholars from Western countries; on the other hand, we can invite archaeologists from third world countries to teach in China, cultivate talents at the same time, but also build a relatively stable cooperative relationship. If the bulls go hand in hand, we will be able to expand our foreign archaeological research strength relatively quickly.
The fourth is "Chinese cultural archaeology". Over the past 100 years, the theme of China's development has been how to modernize, which refers not only to science and technology, but also to social systems, cultural ideas, humanities and arts. However, it is difficult to make a clear distinction between modernization and Westernization. A piece of furniture, it is a technical product, at the same time, it must also be a cultural product. It is impossible not to accept its cultural influence when using such a product. Does modernization necessarily amount to Westernization? Is there an inevitable contradiction between modernization and the promotion of Chinese cultural traditions? At present, the idea of modernity needs to be reflected, and our superstitions about modernity should end. This should be the trend of China's academic development in the future, because in the past 100 years or so, there is another concept that has accompanied the theme of China's modernization, that is, independence and autonomy. The two are dialectical. We first won political independence, then the national defense industry, then other industrial systems, science and technology, and eventually it will be the turn of independence in the cultural field. Maybe this step didn't come as fast as expected, but as a historical trend, it will not change.
In the early 1990s, humanistic thought began to surge, but the "humanities" mentioned at this time basically referred to Western humanistic thought. Over the past 10 years, more and more people have realized that such humanism is naïve, a utopian idea, and that it would be disastrous to truly promote it in the field of social practice. The future of China needs "new humanism", this humanistic trend of thought will of course learn from the excellent humanistic ideas of the West, but at the same time will return to the Chinese cultural basics, we need to adopt a more neutral attitude to look at Chinese and Western culture. Compared with the path we have taken, it is the revival of Chinese literature, and it is more likely to be a kind of re-creation. To return to the Chinese tradition, it is necessary to trace the formation process of Chinese culture. In its inception, any culture is full of vitality and good spirits, and when it declines, it is often rigid and dull. At present, Chinese archaeological research has found that some elements of Chinese culture can be traced back to the Neolithic period and even earlier periods. Exploring the origins of Chinese culture should be an important task of Chinese archaeology, which should also be an important content of Chinese cultural archaeology.
Fifth, the new synthesis. The synthesis of world archaeology is nothing new, since the advent of carbon fourteen and other absolute dating techniques, archaeological materials around the world have a unified time scale, there is a possibility of comparative study, so that the world prehistory can be written. This was the precondition for Graham Clarke to write The Prehistory of the World. Since then, comprehensive research has been endless. Now that we have synthesis, is it still necessary for us to do it? Of course it is necessary! Opening a variety of comprehensive works on the prehistory of the world, it is not difficult to find that the parts dealing with Chinese archaeology are often very small, one-thirtieth or 40th of the length, or even less. In the existing system of world prehistory, Chinese prehistory is almost insignificant. This is very disproportionate to our long-term share of a quarter of the world's population.
Any synthesis is selective, and any choice is a value judgment. The current synthesis of archaeology is all done by Western scholars, who have their own value judgments, who have their own preferences. Those related to the historical development of Western culture will inevitably receive more attention, and content related to its knowledge system will be accepted. It is naïve to think that there is a standard prehistory of the world, and there has never been a standard prehistory or world archaeology, but there will be a world prehistory or world archaeology that can be examined from different perspectives. In short, Chinese archaeology needs its own global synthesis. This is not to say that we can cut or even distort the material at will, but that we can understand and interpret it from our own point of view.
The so-called new synthesis does not refer to a simple listing of global archaeological materials, it has several meanings. First of all, synthesis is from the perspective of China, the collation of archaeological research in other parts of the world, such synthesis, the purpose of which is to help us answer the questions of Chinese archaeology. Because some problems must stand at a global level and need to be solved through all-round comparison. Second, synthesis should not only refer to the archaeological level, but also include all relevant research. Chinese archaeology is biased toward historicism, while Western archaeology, especially American archaeology, is anthropologically centered. There are many places between the two that can complement each other, and synthesis means the digestion of differences. Moreover, synthesis is not only a collection, but also a re-creation on this basis. It is conceivable that if the above synthesis can really be achieved, new ideas may be born from it. The synthesis here is sublimation, and the Chinese "new humanism" mentioned above can be regarded as such a sublimation, which is the product of carrying forward its own traditions on the basis of extensive study of different cultures in the world. The sea is full of rivers, and there is tolerance is great. China's cultural traditions are good at synthesis, because they are good at absorbing, so they are broad. The future of Chinese archaeology should do much.
IV. Conclusion
Although we divide Chinese archaeology into several stages for investigation, it is still necessary to emphasize that scholarship is a cumulative development, and it is precisely because future generations can stand on the shoulders of predecessors that they can see farther. Through the investigation of the growth points of Chinese archaeology at different stages, it is not difficult to see that the archaeological development of each period is deeply influenced by its era, from the development of Marxist Chinese archaeology, to the development of Su Bingqi's advocacy, to the Chinese archaeology to the world, each step reflects the spirit of the times and the needs of reality. Generally speaking, field archaeology centered on material discovery and collation has long dominated the development of Chinese archaeology, but at different stages, we can also see the leading and promoting role of theories and methods. Moreover, it should be pointed out that the development of archaeology has its own logic, and the scope and quality of materials, the scientific nature and diversity of methods, and the foresight and suitability of theories are the key factors affecting the development of archaeology. Following this logic of development, we can finally look forward to the future development of Chinese archaeology. In the future, Chinese archaeology will go to the "sea of stars", and there will be unlimited and broad development space, which is worth our efforts to pursue.
exegesis
Swipe up to read
Chen Shengqian. Paradigm and paradigm change of Chinese archaeological research[J].Chinese Social Sciences, 2019(2).
[2] Bruce Trigg. History of Archaeological Thought[M].Beijing:Chinese Min University Press,2010.]
ZHANG Zhongpei. Chinese Archaeology: Practice, Theory and Method[M].Zhengzhou:Zhongzhou Ancient Books Publishing House,1994:47-48.]
Beijing Municipal Committee for the Compilation of Local History. Zhoukoudian Ruins[M].Beijing:Beijing Publishing House,2004:356.]
Gao Xing. The Early Development of German-Japanese and Paleolithic Archaeology in China[J].Quaternary Studies, 2003(4).
Zhou Chuanru. Historian Wang Guowei[J].Historical Research,1981(6).
[7] Editorial Board of Archaeology, Chief Editorial Committee of Encyclopedia of China. Encyclopedia of China and Archaeology[M].Beijing: Encyclopedia of China Publishing House, 1986:736.
ZHANG Zhongpei. Chinese Archaeology: Practice, Theory and Method[M].Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou Ancient Books Publishing House, 1994:35;Yan Wenming.Archaeology Toward the 21st Century[M].Xi'an:Sanqin Publishing House, 1997:8.
Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Luoyang Zhongzhou Road[M].Beijing:Science Press,1959.]
Xia Nai. On the question of the naming of cultures in archaeology[J].Archaeology, 1959(4).
Yu Weichao,Zhang Aibing. Outline of a New Understanding of Archaeology[J].Chinese Social Sciences,1992(6).
ZHANG Zhongpei. Chinese Archaeology: Practice, Theory and Method[M].Zhengzhou:Zhongzhou Ancient Books Publishing House,1994:161.]
[13] Su Bingqi,Yin Weizhang. On the fauna type of archaeological culture[J].Cultural Relics, 1981(5).
Su Bingqi. Ancient Culture ancient city of Western Liaoning: A Discussion on the Key Points or Major Topics of Current Field Archaeology[J].Cultural Relics, 1986(8).
Su Bingqi. Establishment of an archaeological school with Chinese characteristics[J].Archaeology,1995(6).
[16] C.W. Syram, Gods, Tombs and Scholars: Legends of Archaeology[M].Beijing: Sanlian Bookstore, 2012.
Chen Shengqian. The Structure of Archaeological Reasoning[J].Archaeology,2007(10).
［18］L.R.Binford，Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology［M］.New York：Academic Press，1978.
[19] William Rusher, Cullen Murphy. Garbage Song: An Archaeological Study of Garbage. Beijing:China Social Sciences Press,1999.]
［20］R.A.Bentley，H.D.G.Maschner，C.Chippindale，eds.，Handbook of Archaeological Theories［M］.Lanham：AltaMira，2008.
［21］G.Clark.World Prehistory in New Perspective［M］.Cambridge：Cambridge UniversityPress，1961.
Author: Chen Shengqian, School of History, Chinese Min University
The original article was published in The Central Plains Cultural Relics, No. 6, 2021
The image comes from the Internet