On a damp spring morning, the muffled sound of pages turning echoes in Beijing's library. On a table in one corner, scattered were some ancient documents and yellowed paper. A young historian, frowning, his gaze resting on a yellowed book: Hu Shi's "History of Chinese Culture."
It is in this book that Hu Shih asks a simple and unconventional question: "Did the Xia Dynasty Really Exist?" and his approach was simple and straightforward: "If you want to prove that the Xia Dynasty really did not exist, you must present the evidence that historians fabricated the history of the Xia Dynasty." This question is like a lightning bolt that breaks the tranquility of the historical circles and triggers a search for the truth about ancient Chinese history.
Historical questioning of the Skeptics
In China in the twenties of the twentieth century, the rise of skepticism brought about a profound challenge to traditional notions of history. Their doubts not only stopped at the suspicion of the Three Emperors and the Five Emperors and the Xia Dynasty, but also extended to the examination of the history of the Shang Dynasty and the Western Zhou Dynasty. This widespread skepticism has sparked heated discussions in the academic community.
Skeptic scholars believe that the exact starting point of Chinese history should be 841 BC, that is, the beginning of the Spring and Autumn Zuoqiu Ming chronicle. They argue that most of the previous historical accounts are based on legends and myths, and lack actual archaeological evidence to support them. The proposition of this point of view has directly impacted the way historians have understood and recorded ancient Chinese history in the past.
This view caused great controversy in the historical circles of the time. At an academic seminar, an elderly historian excitedly said, "You people are denying our ancestors and our cultural roots!" A young scholar of the antiquity school responded: "We are not denying, but seeking the truth of history." ”
The sceptical view of antiquity challenges the authority and foundations of traditional historiography. Many traditional historians believe that historical records are an important part of national memory and cultural inheritance, and cannot be easily questioned and subverted. However, skeptical scholars believe that historical research should be based on more rigorous research and empirical evidence, rather than relying solely on traditional historical records.
This controversy has attracted a lot of attention in the academic community. Some scholars have begun to re-examine the records of ancient history books, exploring how to combine traditional historiography with modern archaeology in order to have a more accurate understanding of ancient Chinese history. They began to study physical evidence such as bronzes and steles, as well as new interpretations of ancient texts.
In this process, scholars of the Skepticism School actively participated in field archaeological work. They hope to find evidence to support their point of view through actual excavation. Despite the difficulties of this process, they insisted that only empirical evidence could put historical research on a more solid footing.
The antiquity of this period also influenced the way Chinese history is taught. In some schools and universities, traditional methods of history education are beginning to be questioned, and teachers are being asked to introduce more critical thinking and evidence analysis. This change, though slow in its beginnings, gradually paved the way for a more scientific and rigorous approach to historical research.
At the same time, the rise of the Skepticism has also aroused widespread public interest. Newspapers and magazines often see reports of controversies between skeptics and traditional historians. These discussions have led to more ordinary people beginning to pay attention to historical research, increasing the public's curiosity about historical truth.
In addition, the skepticism's skepticism has also attracted the attention of the government. Some government officials have begun to support archaeological research, hoping to solve historical mysteries through scientific methods. This support was an encouragement for the development of archaeology at the time, and also laid the foundation for later major archaeological discoveries.
Gaps and logical inferences in archaeology
Due to the limited evidence of empirical archaeology, many of the sceptics inevitably fall into the vortex of logical reasoning. They try to support their questioning of traditional historical accounts through reinterpretation and logical analysis of existing documents. This approach was prominent in the academic environment of the time, and at the same time caused widespread controversy.
At an academic conference, a traditional historian questioned the methods of the Skeptics: "Can your purely logical inferences explain the truth of history?" and a representative of the Skeptics replied: "Until there is sufficient archaeological evidence, we can only use logical reasoning as much as possible." ”
This controversy reflected the disagreement among scholars at the time on the methods of historical research. Although the Skeptics sought to innovate, their methods were largely limited by the state of development of archaeology at the time. The lack of physical evidence makes many of their views theoretical, difficult to proven.
At the same time, archaeological work during this period also began to be influenced by the ideas of the Skepticism. Some archaeologists have begun to try to combine historical documents with archaeological discoveries to gain a more comprehensive understanding of ancient Chinese history. In their fieldwork, they look for evidence that is consistent with or contradicts traditional historical records, hoping to verify or refute the views of the skeptics.
In the course of this exploration, many archaeologists face many challenges. The conditions of archaeological work are difficult and the technical means are limited, and it is often difficult to obtain conclusive evidence. During a field archaeology, an archaeologist told a colleague: "Our current technology is too backward to find conclusive evidence from these ruins." A colleague responded: "Even so, we can't give up, the truth of history needs to be discovered." ”
During this period, although archaeology was not yet mature, it had begun to gradually be valued by the academic community and the public. Governments and academic institutions began to devote more resources to archaeological research. This investment is reflected not only in terms of funding, but also in the change of attitude towards archaeology, and people are beginning to realize the importance of archaeology for historical research.
Although the doubts and logical inferences of the skeptics were controversial at the time, they undoubtedly promoted the development of Chinese history and archaeology. They have stimulated scholars' search for historical truth and promoted the improvement and development of archaeological methods. With the passage of time, more and more archaeological discoveries began to provide empirical support for the study of ancient Chinese history.
The empirical efforts of the Skeptics
Although the skeptics have faced many doubts from the outside world, their historical skepticism is not unfounded. While skeptical, skeptical scholars are also actively looking for empirical evidence to support their views. Mr. Hu Shih's viewpoint, "If a suspect is a thief, there must be definite evidence that he is a thief, and if a suspect is a thief, there must be at least an example of his fraud." This fully reflects their adherence to the principle of empirical evidence in historical research.
In order to find this "conclusive evidence", the scholars of the Paleocratic School did not limit themselves to research in libraries and archives, but also went into the field and participated in archaeological excavations in the field. At an archaeological site, a skeptical scholar is carefully studying the excavated artifacts with the archaeological team. They sought to find evidence from these objects to support or refute traditional historical accounts.
In the process, the scholars of the antiquity school encountered many challenges. Due to the limited archaeological technology and equipment at the time, many times it was difficult for them to obtain conclusive information from the excavated relics. After an excavation, a skeptical scholar told his peers: "Our current technology is too limited to draw definitive conclusions from these ruins." The colleague replied: "Even so, our efforts are an exploration of historical truth." ”
The efforts of the Skeptics were not entirely fruitless. In an in-depth study of some ancient texts, they found a number of inconsistencies with traditional accounts. For example, in the interpretation of certain ancient inscriptions, they found information that contradicted the traditional historical records. Although these findings do not fully prove the errors of traditional history, they provide some support for the view of the skeptics.
In addition, scholars of the Skepticism also look for the inherent contradictions in historical records by comparing the documents of different historical periods. They believe that through this comparative analysis, it is possible to understand the authenticity of historical events in a deeper way. At a colloquium, a skeptical scholar presented his comparative analysis of the historical records of different dynasties, trying to illustrate the obvious contradictions and inconsistencies in the accounts of certain historical events.
These efforts of the Skeptics gradually attracted the attention of the academic community and the public. Some enlightened traditional historians have come to recognize that the skeptics' questioning, while sometimes too radical, is worthy of recognition for their empirical explorations. This change in attitude has led to the development of historical research in a more rigorous and scientific direction.
The far-reaching influence of the Skepticism
Hu Shi's view, "If you want to prove that the Xia Dynasty really didn't exist, you must come up with evidence that historians fabricated the history of the Xia Dynasty", which had a far-reaching impact on Chinese historians in the 20s of the 20th century. This view not only challenges the foundations of traditional historiography, but also promotes the innovation of historical research methods. The proposal of the skeptical school has become an important force to promote the transformation of the methodology of Chinese historiography and laid the foundation for the modernization process of Chinese historiography.
In this context, historians have begun to re-examine the existence of the Xia Dynasty. They sought to find evidence of the existence of the Xia Dynasty from ancient documents and archaeological sources, or the absence of evidence. As a result of this effort, historiographical research is no longer limited to the interpretation of documents, but begins to combine empirical research with archaeology.
At an academic conference, a skeptical scholar presented his research on ancient bronze inscriptions. He noted that the existence of the Xia dynasty is not explicitly mentioned in these inscriptions, which may indicate that the historical status of the Xia dynasty needs to be reassessed. One of the traditional historians in the audience responded: "But this does not completely negate the existence of the Xia Dynasty. The skeptical scholar replied, "Yes, but at least it means that we need more evidence to prove its existence." ”
With the deepening of research, some archaeologists have found some evidence related to the possible existence of the Xia Dynasty in archaeological excavations across the country, such as ancient capital ruins, tombs and cultural relics. Although these findings cannot directly prove the existence of the Xia Dynasty, they provide new clues to the study of the Xia Dynasty. These clues were brought back to the research institute, and historians and archaeologists worked together to analyze the relics in an attempt to construct a more complete historical picture of the Xia Dynasty.
In addition, Hu Shih's views have prompted scholars to pay attention to the sources and compilation process of historical records. They began to explore the context in which ancient history books were compiled, to analyze the purposes and perspectives of their authors, and how these factors influenced the recording of history. This research method makes historical research pay more attention to the source and reliability of historical materials, thus improving the rigor of historical research.
The proposal of the antiquity skepticism also aroused public interest in the truth of history. Newspapers, magazines, and radio began to report on the existence of the Xia dynasty, and the scholarly issue gradually became the focus of public attention. This increase in public attention, in turn, has led to the development of historical research, as more people have begun to pay attention to and support historical research.
Although many of the views of the Skeptics were proved to be inadequate in later archaeological discoveries, their adherence to the spirit of positivism and their challenge to traditional concepts had a profound impact on the development of Chinese history. As a result of their efforts, the study of historiography no longer relied solely on documentary records, but began to combine the knowledge and methods of archaeology, philology, and history. This interdisciplinary approach to research provides new perspectives and methods for later historical research.
A History of Chinese Culture