#头条创作挑战赛#
In the current research on the origin of Chinese civilization, we have done a very good job in the discovery of physical remains, the scientific analysis of materials, and even the protection and utilization of cultural heritage. However, in comparison, theoretical research is much inferior. This book is a series of theoretical reflections on the origin of Chinese civilization, hoping to promote the development of relevant theoretical research. The main body of the book can be roughly divided into five parts.
The first part (Chapter 1) focuses on the significance of archaeology. For those who are familiar with me or those who are majoring in archaeology, it may be a cliché that can be skipped. Considering that some readers may not be so familiar with archaeology, this article explores the unique perspective of archaeology in detail, revealing its significance in understanding the evolution of human beings and human society, as well as understanding us as Chinese. The reason why we are Chinese lies in the inheritance of cultural significance, and its main carrier is the object of archaeological research - physical remains. This is also one of the important reasons why archaeology should study the origin of Chinese civilization, and it is regrettable that this reason is often ignored, and a good research path has not been established so far.
The second part (Chapters 2 and 3) focuses on some basic theoretical issues. What exactly is civilization? How do you define civilization? Why do we define civilization that way? To answer these questions, we must first clarify the relationship between culture and civilization, and between civilization and society. Civilization is regarded here as a stage, a state, and a form of cultural development. Civilization is a phenomenon of human society, which needs to be understood from the historical process of the evolution of human society, therefore, correspondingly, civilization has three dimensions of meaning: it is a historical stage with spatio-temporal significance, it is also a state of social organization and evolution, and it is also a form of social existence. Current archaeological research mainly focuses on the first dimension, and is deepening to the second dimension, while relatively ignoring the third dimension. The last dimension is the humanistic dimension, for the exploration of the origin of Chinese civilization, the focus is on how the Chinese civilization as the identity of the Chinese nation, that is, the Chinese nation in the cultural sense, was formed.
Delving deeper into the definition of civilization, we will find that there are differences between the conceptual foundations on which Chinese and Western civilizations are based. In the early stage of civilization, the whole/collective orientation and individual orientation actually existed in Chinese and Western civilizations, but with the development of history, Chinese and Western civilizations chose different development paths, Chinese civilization chose the former, and Western civilization chose the latter, and this difference can be traced back to the beginning of civilization. The reason for this is inseparable from their respective production methods. Civilization is the product of the development of agricultural society, and the civilizations of the world without exception, the difference in agricultural production methods has profoundly affected the characteristics of Chinese and Western civilizations, and this influence has continued to the present.
The third part (Chapters 4, 5, 6, and 7) is the main body of the book, focusing on the stages, patterns, patterns, and rhythms of the evolution of Chinese civilization. What is the development process of Chinese civilization? I am not confined to the Neolithic, but begin with the Paleolithic hunter-gatherer societies. This is related to my personal academic training, where my research was in Paleolithic archaeology at the master's level and my doctoral thesis was in the Paleolithic transition, which is now in the origins of civilization. Long-term investigation is also an advantage of archaeology, which is more conducive to grasping historical trends and understanding historical processes. From a long-term perspective, civilization did not begin to sprout in Neolithic or agrarian societies, but can be traced back at least to the transition period between the Old Neolithic and the Neolithic.
Stone hoes, stone axes, and stone knives during the Xinglongwa culture period
The long-term period itself is a macro perspective, which will inevitably bring attention to the pattern of Chinese civilization. I will first talk about the pattern of prehistoric human cultural development, and then turn to the investigation of the pattern of Chinese civilization. Generally speaking, there are three independent centers for the development of human civilization: West Asia, Central and South America, and China. The fundamental reason for this distinction is that they correspond to the three main centers of agricultural origin. The lack of suitable domesticated animals in the agricultural system of Central and South America is inherently fragile, which is one of the reasons why it is difficult to resist Western colonial aggression. Agriculture in West Asia spread to the Nile Valley, the Indus Valley, and Europe, and the ancient Egyptian civilization, the Indus Valley civilization, and the ancient Greek civilization were formed on this basis. However, the distance between these centers of civilization is far away, and there are significant geographical barriers in between, and the development of civilizations has not been able to achieve integration. It is worth noting that the agricultural system based on West Asia itself is divided into contradictory cereal cultivation and animal husbandry, which requires exchange, which is more conducive to the development of an individual-oriented civilization, but this development is not conducive to the integration and unification of civilizations.
When we examine the formation process of Chinese civilization, we usually place special emphasis on its characteristics of "pluralism and unity". Integration is integration, and pluralism is differentiation and development. In the process of its formation, the Chinese civilization has had stages of differentiation and development, and has formed a number of civilization origin centers with different characteristics, and has a development trend of first periphery and then center. The diversification needs to be traced back to the transition period of the Old Neolithic, on the basis of which a number of Neolithic cultural fauna were formed around 8,500 years ago, and it was in these cultural fauna that different patterns were formed in different regional early civilizations. Around 6,000 years ago, the process of civilization accelerated, and regional civilization centers were gradually formed. At the same time, China in the cultural sense was formed. Then, through nearly 2,000 years of mutual exchanges, these early civilizations finally merged into a unified dynastic civilization more than 4,000 years ago, officially opening the pattern of civilization development centered on the Central Plains.
In the process of civilization development, differentiation, integration, and diffusion have always existed, but the main trends in different periods are different. Differentiation, integration, and diffusion are themselves the basic rhythm of the development of human culture, and civilization, as a part of culture, naturally has such a rhythm. The formation process of Chinese civilization can be divided into three distinct stages: differentiation, integration, and diffusion. Tracing this development process allows us to realize that the origin of Chinese civilization is not a sudden event, but a long-term process, a "trilogy" with a unique rhythm, in which there are ups and downs and colorful colors. Looking back at the history of the origin of Chinese civilization, we are like reading a heart-wrenching epic and watching a drama with ups and downs.
The stone knife of the lower culture of Xiajiadian
The fourth part (Chapters 8 and 9) devotes two chapters to the methodology of civilization exploration, which is why I began to focus on civilization exploration. Probably many people are thinking about the question: Can we know the real past? We don't have a time machine, we can't go back in time, and even if we find the real history, we can't verify it. I have discussed this with students in class, and they have learned that we may never be able to get the truth, but we should try to get as close to the truth as possible, and many of the older scholars thought the same way. The question is: how do you know that you are close to the truth? The goal of such research is a utopia. Let me use an example to answer the students' questions. We have all read the Analects, is it really necessary for us to know the original thought of Confucius? Once a work is completed, the critic can analyze what the work wants to express according to the connotation of the work, the relationship of the times, the way of expression, etc., such an analysis is based on the development logic of the work, as for the original meaning of the author, it may not be so important, because there are some things that the author himself may not be aware of. Even if we look at contemporary society, what one hears and sees may not be true. If we study contemporary waste-garbage, then we can understand contemporary society from another dimension, which may not be as specific as what we hear and see, but it is very reliable, because these wastes are the remnants of actual behaviors, and those hearsay things may not have happened at all.
From the above two examples, I would like to say that archaeological research provides a dimension of truth (achieved through the study of physical remains), and does not aim to conform to the documentation or a certain theoretical model. Archaeology is based on current theories, methods and materials, and the results it obtains represent the understanding of historical truth in this era, and its core is the general principles of science, rationality, objectivity, and logic. In this regard, we don't need to know what the "original truth" is—it's impossible to get it. It is important to establish a rational historical truth based on the analysis of physical remains.
On this basis, let's look at the role of documentary history. The two are factual accounts of different dimensions, which may or may not coincide. When the two meet, it is the so-called "double evidence method", which is not a mutual proof between the two, but a double affirmation of their relevance to historical facts. When the two do not coincide, the physical remains can still retain their objectivity. In fact, historical documents about early civilizations are often of a legendary nature, and there may be cases of grafting, and the use of ancient legends in a sword-like way will destroy the value of these precious documents, far from being helpful. The book repeatedly emphasizes that documentary history (as ethnographic literature is analogous) has two values: first, as a clue or revelation for reasoning; The second is the cultural context association as our understanding of archaeological materials, after all, the physical remains of prehistory without writing cannot tell us what they represent, and only in the cultural context association can we better understand their cultural significance.
It should be further emphasized that the purpose of archaeology is not only to obtain historical truth (based on archaeological research), but also to understand the significance of historical facts and its significance in the formation of Chinese civilization. The reason why I use the concept of "pattern of Chinese civilization" is that it can better connect Chinese prehistory with written history, and deepen our understanding of Chinese history and contemporary reality by tracing back to prehistory.
Thus, in the fifth and final part of this book, I have devoted three short essays to the value of archaeology in this regard. Looking back at the formation process of Chinese civilization, its origin can be traced back to the stage of agricultural origin, China and West Asia are known as the world's two earliest agricultural origin centers, and also the center of population and agricultural culture diffusion, and then on this basis, several regional civilization origin centers have been formed. For 10,000 years, China has been one of the two main centers of human culture and civilization development, constantly merging to form a super-large civilization that has not been broken so far. We have good reason to be culturally confident. In contrast, the dominance of Western civilization in human history has been a very brief phenomenon. Today, Chinese civilization has re-emerged, inclusive, and harmonious, and can contribute its unique value to a community with a shared future for mankind.