中国文明起源新探

苏秉琦

开头的话

我从考古学上探索中国文化和文明的起源是由彩陶和瓦鬲开始的，一九四一年我写的《瓦鬲的研究》作为北平研究院第一本专刊，最初曾交由香港商务印书馆付印。五十多年过去了，一九八三年包括《瓦鬲的研究》和《关于仰韶文化的若干问题》在内的《苏秉琦考古学论述选集》由文物出版社出版，一九九四年获首届国家图书奖，与此同时，辽宁大学出版社又将我从一九八四年以来十年间的文章和讲话，以《华人·龙的传人·中国人——考古寻根记》为书名出版。消息刚传出，香港商务印书馆立刻提出要在海外予以宣传，近六十年后交往因此又接续上了。商务印书馆向以出版高质量的学术著作而闻名，从五四运动以来，出版过“大学丛书”、“万有文库”等，这在当时各大学习惯于每年重复自印讲义，不向社会公开，缺乏正常评论交流的沉闷风气下，确是一个创举。馆方希望我这本书能反映考古学的一个新时代，又要雅俗共赏。要求虽然很高，却符合我们学科的发展方向，也是我们所追求的目标，于是就有了一九九六年初一个月的深圳之行，让我对考古学科在探索中华文化、中华文明和中华传统起源过程中所走过的并不平凡的历程进行一番回顾。

两个怪圈

几十年来，在我们的历史教育中，有两个怪圈：一个是根深蒂固的中华大一统观念；一个是把马克思提出的社会发展规律看成是历史本身。

在中华大一统观方面，我们习惯于把汉族史看成是正史，其他的就列于正史之外。于是，本来不同文化之间的关系，如夏、商、周、秦、汉便被穿在一起，像穿糖葫芦一样，一根棍穿下来，成为一脉相承的改朝换代，少数民族及与境外接壤的周边地区的历史则被几笔带过，这也使中国史与世界史的关系若明若暗。

其实，讲到中国历史，从孔夫子起就不是把中国史看成是铁板一块。子曰：“郁郁乎文哉，吾从周”，就是把夏、商、周看成是三家来进行比较得出的结果，而不是看作一连串的三代。汤武革命不是继承，三家各有千秋，可以互补，但还是周人的学问全面。“周礼”是国家大法，是周人建国治国的系统理论，以一个“文”字代表典章的制度化，是国家已成熟的表现，殷人还未达到这水平，所以孔子要以周为主。古人云，“入夷则夷，入夏则夏”，是看到中原的夏和四周的夷，各有各的根，周边民族到中原来，就被中原民族同化，同样，中原民族到周围地区，就被当地民族同化。这种同化过程往往是很快的，不过一两代人，而且进来是华，出去就是夷，进来出去又多有反复，所以，华夷之间的差别也并不是绝对的。孔夫子“有教无类”的名言，也是认识到他的弟子们来自四面八方，民族文化传统的背景来源不一样，甚至差别很大，而且有不同种族之间的差别。“有教无类”的“类”，一般都解释为身份、背景，较少联系到种族问题，但殷墟的情况给了我们启发。李济分析殷墟大批人头骨后，指出活动在商代中心地区人们的种族差别很大，他在《再论中国的若干人类学问题》一文中说：“从著名安阳遗址出土的人骨资料来看，就远不是纯一人种的。从研究这一人骨的头形指数计算出的标准偏差数，远远超出正常范围，这肯定地说明这一组颅骨有着极不同的来源。”虽然时代越近，人种差别越小，但孔子时代，中原地区的人种差别仍然很大，所以，“有教无类”主要不是指社会贫富等级差别，而是种族特征差别，孔子的教育思想是要平等待人，反对种族歧视，这当然是很进步的思想。由于面对的是多文化且复杂的民族传统社会，所以他讲课的内容也是包罗万象，兼容并举。《周礼》所讲的“六艺”，礼、乐、射、御、书、数，就是包含了多文化的。至于“罢黜百家，独尊儒术”，那是汉武帝以后的事，把孔孟的书以朱熹的注解为标准，将朱熹一家定为一尊，那更是宋代以后才形成的。

司马迁写《史记》也是兼容并举的，他不仅对百家学说，分门别类介绍，不歧视哪一派，比较客观，而且修史内容超越国界，把西域的乌孙、康居、大月氏、安息都列为传，当国史来写，实际上写的是世界史。

至于另一个怪圈——社会发展史观方面，我们习惯于把马克思提出的社会发展规律看成历史本身。历史本身是多种多样、丰富多彩的。把社会发展史当成唯一的、全部的历史，就把活生生的中国历史简单化了。几本有影响力的中国通史就有这种倾向；一九五八年前后筹建中国历史博物馆时编写的通史陈列说明词、北京大学师生合作编写的考古学教材，都是在这种思想指导下的产物。结果大量丰富的考古资料也只能“对号入座”，把一般的社会发展规律当成教条，再添加些考古资料便交差了事。连调查少数民族史也受到影响，一个现成的例子是，海南岛的五指山，被说成是黎族由母系氏族社会向父系氏族社会过渡的标志。其实，五指是五支，代表黎族内部的五个各有特点的社会群体，五支之间不是社会发展阶段不一样，而是每一支都有自己的传统、自己的标志，是社会内部群体分化，并不代表社会的不同发展阶段，把它简单说成是所有制问题，只进行阶级分析，那就把黎族的民族及其内部的特色给抹掉了。

其实，把社会发展史视为全部历史，在马克思主义经典作家那里，并没有找到什么理论根据。马克思、恩格斯研究和概括社会发展规律的伟大工程时，是从研究具体史实开始的。恩格斯也并不认为人类社会从野蛮进入文明和国家产生的道路全世界只有一条，他在写《家庭、私有制与国家的起源》一书时，就是在研究了他所处的那个时代所能得到的史料之后，提出国家的产生至少有雅典、罗马和德意志三种不同的国家形态，它们各有特点，通过不同的途径，完成了人类社会发展规律所制约的由野蛮向文明的过渡和国家的产生。

我们回头来说近代考古学与历史学的关系。近代考古学的目标就是修国史，从二十世纪初近代田野考古方法传到中国，一九二八年后中国最早的两家考古研究机构中央研究院和北平研究院成立起，这个修国史的目标就很明确。如何修？傅斯年讲过一句话，“上穷碧落下黄泉，动手动脚找东西”，意思是修国史要摆脱文献史料的束缚，不拘泥于文献，不是为了证史补史，而是要找到地下实物史料，作为修国史的重要依据。考古学要从史学中独立出来，自立门户，这两句话很像是考古学的“独立宣言”。于是，设在南京的中央研究院历史语言研究所考古组刚成立，就直奔安阳，因为那里发现过甲骨文，目的是研究商史；设在北平的北平研究院史学研究所考古组，先在北平搜集有关老北京建筑的碑拓，又去了燕下都，后到陕西，却不在西安附近挖周、秦、汉、唐，而是打道宝鸡，因为那里出过一批青铜器，目的是研究先周、先秦史，追溯周、秦的老根。

要以考古学修国史，探索中国文化和文明的起源，说来简单，做起来难，首先碰到那两个怪圈就很容易钻进去钻不出来。如何绕过两个怪圈，道路是十分曲折和艰难的。王国维比较高明，他没有被大一统承接的观念套住，所以他讲殷周制度论时，不仅讲商朝和周朝史，而且讲两种文化的历史，所以能认识到商周不同源。傅斯年虽也提出过“夷夏东西说”，但已经有了正统（夏）和非正统（夷）的观念。徐炳昶有三集团说，不过还不是从分析考古资料入手。面对这种状况，考古学要想独立研究历史，探索出中华文化和文明的起源，就要建立本学科的方法论。如果我们从一开始就意识到这一点，我们学科的起点就高。建立考古学的方法这一问题，还得在下一章从中国文化的特别载体——瓦鬲和仰韶文化这两个当时的热门话题谈起。

Opening Words

In my exploration of the origins of Chinese culture and civilization from the archaeological perspective，I started with painted pottery and pottery li-vessel （tripods used for cooking）.My article ‘A Study of Pottery li’（1941） was the first specialist publication of the Peking Academy.Its first printing was by the Commercial Press，Hong Kong.Over fifty years later，this same article，together with another of my early papers‘Questions relating to the Yangshao culture’was published in the volume Selected Works on the Discourse of Archaeology by Su Bingqi（Cultural Relics Publishing House，1983）.This volume won one of the first National Book Awards in 1994，which was also the year in which a collection of my articles and lectures from the decade 1984-1994 were published in the volume Descendants of the Dragon–Tracing the Roots of the Chinese People through Archaeology（Liaoning University Press，1994）.As soon as this book was published，the Commercial Press announced that it wished to celebrate our relationship of almost sixty years by promoting the book overseas，and to work together on a new book.The Commercial Press is renowned for publishing academic works of a very high standard.Since the time of the May 4thMovement，it has published several influential series of books.In those days universities would print out copies of lectures year after year，but these were not for general distribution.A regular forum for exchange of views was lacking，and in those stifled times，the ‘University Series （Daxue congshu）’and the ‘Encyclopedic Library （Wanyou wenku）’were a truly wonderful initiative.The Commercial Press hoped that my book would reflect a new period in archaeology，and allows more people to appreciate the developments that have taken place.The Commercial Press’s requirements were high，but they were consistent with the direction in which our discipline is developing，and with the goals we are seeking to reach.So，early in 1996 I made a month-long trip to Shenzen，specifically to reflect from a personal point of view on the extraordinary path of archaeology in the exploration of Chinese culture，Chinese civilization and Chinese tradition.

Two Vicious Circles

For decades now，Chinese students have been taught history either from the very deep-rooted concept of Chinese unity，or take for granted that Marxist theory of the law of social development is history itself.These are two vicious circles in our historical education.

When we think of the concept of Chinese unity，we tend to think of the history of the Han people （Hanzu汉族） as the standard version of history，and to leave out the non-Han peoples.This has the effect of stringing together the different dynasties — the Xia，Shang，Zhou，Qin and Han —in a linear consecutive order，like beads on a necklace；in other words，historical development becomes simply some dynastic changes.The historical picture of ethnic minorities and border regions is dotted about in and amongst.This approach blurs the relationship between the history of China，as well as the history of the world.

But Chinese history should not be monolithic.When Confucius（551-479 BC）said，‘Of all the grand civilizations，I follow the Zhou，’he was comparing the three dynasties of Xia，Shang and Zhou on their merits，rather than following a consecutive chronological order.When Cheng Tang（founder of the Shang dynasty）and King Wu （the Zhou king who led the conquest of the Shang dynasty） altered the course of history，it was not a question of direct historical succession，but of revolution.The three dynasties all had their advantages and shortcomings，and were complemented one another.

But it was the Zhou dynasty that was the most distinguished in terms of its cultural accomplishment.The Zhou li（‘The Rites of Zhou’）was the state code，and the systematic theory of how the Zhou people established and governed their state.It aimed to install a system of decrees and regulations and an institutionalized cultural code，and manifested a mature level of state formation.The Shang people had not yet reached this stage，hence Confucius’preference was for the Zhou dynasty.

The situation at that time was reflected in the ancient saying，‘If you go to the Yi，you become a Yi person;if you go to the Xia，you become a Xia person.’The Xia people lived in the Central Plains，and the Yi were the peoples in the lands around them.The ‘Xia’and the ‘Yi’had their own roots.When people from the border areas came to the Central Plains，they adopted the ways of the Central Plains people;and when people from the Central Plains went to the outlying regions，they adopted the ways of the people there.It is a real issue of cultural identity.

Assimilation could take place quickly，within just a generation or two.Exchange between the Central Plains culture and the outlying cultures continued in both directions，over and over again，until the differences were no longer so clear cut.That well-known quote from Confucius— ‘Education for all without discrimination’—was an acknowledgement that his disciples came from different regions and from different cultural backgrounds.There were differences，sometimes very big differences，between the various ethnic groups.

The word ‘discrimination’ in the quote is conventionally understood in the context of social class.It was however the archaeological evidence at Yinxu （from the 13th to 11th c.BC，the site of the capital of the Shang dynasty，near the modernday city of Anyang，Henan） that prompted us to comprehend it in the context of ethnicity.During his analysis of a large group of human skulls found at Yinxu，the archaeologist Li Chi （Li Ji 1896-1979）observed that there were huge anthropological variations among the people who were active at the heart of the Shang territory;he wrote：‘From the human bones unearthed at the famous site at Anyang，it is clear that these people were far from being a single homogenous race.Researching the skulls from this site does not produce a standard that can be indexed；the evidence is way beyond the range we would consider normal，and confirms that the people here had different origins.’（Li Chi，‘Another discussion on ethnology in China’）

The differences between the ethnic groups may have become less noticeable over the centuries.But in Confucius’day，6th century BC，there were still huge differences of ethnicity on the Central Plains.It seems more appropriate，therefore，to understand‘Education for all without discrimination’in terms of differences of ethnicity rather than differences of social wealth and ranks.In this light，Confucius’ advocation of equality for all peoples and opposition to racial prejudice is an early example of progressive thinking.

If we consider that Confucius was addressing a traditional society that was multi-cultural and complex，we can see how socially inclusive his teaching was，and how he strove for equality.The Zhou li lists the ‘Six Arts （liuyi六艺）’ as the rites，music，archery，chariot-driving，calligraphy and mathematics，which combined different cultural elements.Indeed，it was not until the time of Emperor Wu Di （reign 141-86 BC） of the Han dynasty that the policy of ‘Abandon all other schools of thought，and respectfully follow only the Confucian teaching’was put into play.It was not until the Song dynasty （960-1279） that the earnest following of Confucius and his disciple Mencius （372-289）began，with the Neo-Confucianists taking Zhu Xi’s （1130-1200） annotations as the standard interpretation of the master’s words （in effect，it is not Zhu Xi himself，but his followers）.

Sima Qian’s Shiji （‘Records of the Grand Historian’） was also all-encompassing.He wrote about all the schools of thought，and introduced their many different aspects without discrimination.In fact，he was quite objective，and his historical record extended beyond the borders of the Chinese empire，to include the Western Regions（modern-day Xinjiang）and people and lands beyond：the Wusun，Kangju，Dayuezhi （Kushans），and Anxi （Parthia）.In this respect，Sima Qian’s Shiji was closer to a history of the world than a history of China.

The other vicious concept concerns social development.The Marxist view of history is custumal taken as the law of social development.But history itself is varied and colourful.To see the history of social development as one model，and to regard it as the whole of history oversimplifies the vibrant history of China.We have seen this quite clearly in several influential publications on Chinese history：for example in the booklets accompanying the displays at the National Museum of Chinese History，c.1958;and in the teaching materials on archaeology co-authored by staff and students at Peking University.These were the products of that particular way of thinking.

Following this approach，the rich array of archaeological material had to be ‘pigeon-holed’accordingly.The general law of social development was a kind of dogma，and it was a case of finding the right way of fitting in the archaeological data.This rigid approach even affected ethnographic surveys of ethnic minorities.A vivid example concerns Wuzhi Shan （Wuzhi mountain）on Hainan Island，where it was said （erroneously）that the Li people（Lizu）could be seen as a living example of the social transformation from a matriarchal to a patriarchal society.The fact of the matter is that the name Wuzhi（literally ‘five fingers’）refers to the five social groups，or ‘five branches’ of the Li people.Each branch has its own traditions and its own cultural marks/symbols.In other words，there is internal differentiation among the Li.The investigators misunderstood this，and erroneously described the five social groups as being at five different stages of social development.To simplify this to a question of ownership，to analyse it solely from the point of view of class，diminishes the ethnicity of the Li people and their internal characteristics.

In fact，I have been unable to find any theoretical basis in the Marxist canon for regarding the history of social development as the whole of history.In the great works by Marx and Engels，it is clear that their research and the summary of the law of social development are based on their studies of specific historical facts.Engels certainly did not believe that there was only one route for human society to evolve from barbarism to civilization and to state formation.Before writing The Origin of the Family，Private Property and the State （1884），he read all the historical material that was available to him at that time.He noted that there were at least three models of state formation — Athens，Rome and Germany—all three of which had very different features and had taken different routes to meet the laws of human social development and to complete the transition from barbarism to civilization to the formation of a state.

It is important to say a few words about the current relationship between archaeology and history.The primary goal of modern archaeology in China has been to assist the writing of national history.This aim has been crystal clear since modern field archaeology and its methods were first brought to China by the Europeans in the early 20th century，and China’s first two archaeological research institutions–the Academia Sinica and the Peking Academy–were established in 1928.

How are we to write our ancient history? I like to recall of Fu Sinian’s（1896-1950）words：‘Go up to the sky，go down to the yellow springs.Use your hands，use yourfeet，and look for things.’They tell us that to understand the history of China，we must break the limitation of historical documents，and we must not simply stick to the literary sources.The purpose of archaeology is not to prove history nor to add to history，but to find materials in the ground，as an important evidence for understanding our history.Archaeology must become independent of history;it must become a discipline in its own right.These words are the cornerstones of archaeology’s‘Declaration of Independence.’With the writing of China’s ancient history as the goal，when the archaeology team was first formed at the Institute of History and Philology，Academia Sinica，Nanjing，they went straight to Anyang，because oracle bones had been found there and the aim was to study Shang history.When the archaeology team at the Institute of History，Peking Academy，was established，its first assignment was to collect stele rubbings from the architecture of old Peking;it then went to the Yan Xi-adu site （the capital of the Yan state，Eastern Zhou period），and then to Shaanxi province.While in Shaanxi they did not try to excavate the tombs of the Zhou，Qin，Han and Tang periods in the suburb of Xi’an，but instead they went to Baoji where early on an important assemblage of bronze vessels had been found.For archaeologists from the both academic institutions，their primary aims were to research the history of the pre-Zhou and pre-Qin times，and to trace back the roots of the Zhou and Qin cultures.

To employ archaeology to assist the writing of our national history and to explore the origins of Chinese culture and civilization--it is easier said than done.It is not uncommon to find oneself stuck inside one of the two vicious circles，unable to pull free.How can we try to bypass those two circles?The route is difficult and full of twists and turns.The great scholar Wang Guowei（1877-1927）did not find the traditional concepts such as China was always a unity and followed a liner continuation wholly convincing.So，when discussing about the relationship between the Shang and Zhou dynasties，he not only stressed their dynastic histories，but also the history of these two cultures，and thus was able to determine that they derived from different sources.

However，when Fu Sinian proposed the theory of the ‘Yi from the east and Xia from the west，’he was trying to argue the concept of orthodox （Xia）and non-orthodox （Yi） in Chinese history.The scholar Xu Xusheng （1888-1976） devised the‘Three Groups theory’①Xu Xusheng wrote a book Zhongguo gushi de chuanshuo niandai（The Legendary times in ancient Chinese history）（Beijing，1960）in which he proposes that there were three groups that were active in prehistoric China：the Huaxia group on the Central Plains，the Dong Yi in the East，and Miao-Man in the south between the Changjiang and Hanshui rivers.without referring to the archaeological data.Given this kind of pre-consumption，it is even more important for us that archaeology seeks to become independent of history.If archaeology is to enable us to explore the origins of Chinese culture and civilization it needs to establish itself as an independent discipline with its own methodology.If historians and archaeologists can acknowledge this，then our starting point would be so much higher.As for the question of construction of an archaeological methodology，this will be addressed in the next chapter，which looks at the special archaeological remains and artifacts of early Chinese culture：the pottery li-vessel and Yangshao culture.