1. Historical Cognition Challenges Historical Truth
History generally refers to what happened in the past. There is only one historical truth, but after the incident, people's descriptions of history are different, and their evaluations of history are even more varied.
Is Tomb No. 2 in Xigaoxue, Anyang, Cao Cao’s tomb ? Although the mainstream archaeological community has given a positive answer, there are still some scholars who are skeptical. There is almost a complete chain of evidence to confirm the tomb of Cao Cao, but its authenticity is still questioned.
The Cao Cao tomb incident has even developed into an outlet for many people to vent their emotions. Some people joked that the archaeological team found two heads in an ancient tomb in Anyang, China. "It was identified that one belonged to Cao Cao, and the other belonged to Cao Cao when he was a child." In addition to ridicule, what was originally a serious archaeological issue was turned into entertainment for the public. In order to show their "academic rigor", some people claim that in order to prove that Tomb No. 2 in Xigaoxiao is Cao Cao's tomb, the "evidence chain" formed by the unearthed cultural relics alone is far from enough. In the view of these "incomparably rigorous" scholars, to identify Tomb No. 2 in Xigaoxiao, Anyang, as Cao Cao's tomb, only the male head in the tomb suddenly opened his eyes and said personally, "I am Cao Cao." Are such stringent requirements really a scientific attitude? If archeology must be so strict, even if the head suddenly speaks, it still cannot prove that he is Cao Cao. What if the head "lied" after being resurrected? A serious archaeological issue was instantly related to an academic stance and even turned into a moral issue. People often flaunt "rigorous academic style", ignore academic principles, constantly raise standards, and push academic research to a moral platform.
The tomb structure of "Cao Cao's Tomb"
The surface map of "Cao Cao's Tomb"
This phenomenon has long been noticed by theoretical historians and theoretical archaeologists.
At the beginning of the 19th century, historians, with good wishes, called for telling the truth, being impartial, discarding falsehoods while retaining the truth, and objectively describing history, thus forming the famous "Ranke School". The "Rank School" hopes to juxtapose history and natural science and get rid of the control of philosophy and vision. However, Ranke's school was soon challenged by the Annales School. According to the Annales School, past events occurred in "multiple times" and it is very difficult or even impossible to obtain objective historical knowledge.
Theoretical development in archeology also reflects similar changes. In the 1960s, processual archeology (also known as new archeology) emerged, influenced by scientific positivism. Archaeologists at that time confidently believed that using experimental archeology, ethnoarchaeology and other scientific methods, underground Excavated materials can build objective historical knowledge. However, since the 1980s, new archeology has been criticized by “post-processualist” archaeologists. More and more archaeologists realize that in the process of searching for historical truth, the researcher's political stance, life experience, knowledge structure and personal hobbies are all involved in the interpretation of data. Therefore, it is impossible for archeology to seek "absolute history". the truth".
Whether it is the Cao Cao tomb incident, the theoretical thinking of historians, or the post-processual criticism of new archeology, they all reflect the fact that it is almost impossible to pursue absolute historical truth. However, whether it is the "Annals School" in history or "post-processualism" in archeology, they do not deny the exploration of basic objective historical facts. The task of archeology is to find knowledge that is as close to the historical truth as possible by searching for various materials, especially underground materials. Putting aside all kinds of comments about history, the essential task of historians is to find the knowledge closest to the historical truth. From a disciplinary perspective, archeology and history are not omnipotent, but they cannot adopt a passive and inactive attitude.
"Historical Records"
2. Can Xia Dynasty be verified
According to historical documents, Shang Dynasty was established on the basis of overthrowing Xia Dynasty. Since I have been engaged in archaeological research of the Shang Dynasty for a long time, people often ask me: Did the Xia Dynasty really exist? Have the ruins of the Xia Dynasty been found?
If we go back to the beginning of the last century, I am afraid that such a question will not be raised at all.Because everyone believes in Sima Qian and the "Historical Records of Xia Benji" he wrote. Why is the existence of the Xia Dynasty now a problem? This is because some scholars have raised the "threshold" for verifying history. Many people believe that as long as no texts are unearthed, the existence of the Xia Dynasty cannot be proven. And it must be written with "Xia Dynasty" written on it. According to the above analysis, people who hold this view are obviously subject to "moral coercion" from themselves and others. Because he or she wants to show that his or her academic attitude is very correct and rigorous.
Do the remains of the Xia Dynasty have to be proved by words? actually not. Academically speaking, a single piece of evidence cannot prove the remains of the Xia Dynasty, but if there is a strict chain of evidence, it can be judged as "knowledge close to the historical truth."
The current mainstream view in the archaeological community is that the Erlitou site in Yanshi, Henan is the capital of the Xia Dynasty. What supports this piece of knowledge is a series of evidence chains.
In 1937, the scene of the fifteenth Yin Ruins archaeological excavation, taken in the palace and temple area of Yin Ruins
Just like mathematicians solving problems, the discussion of the Xia Dynasty must "go from the known to the unknown." The Shang Dynasty is a known point, so when discussing the Xia Dynasty, we must start from the Shang Dynasty.
Mainstream archaeologists believe that they have found relics from various stages of the Shang Dynasty: Anyang Yin Ruins represents the late Shang Dynasty, Huanbei Shangcheng represents the mid-Shang Dynasty, and Zhengzhou Shangcheng is the early Shang Dynasty city. However, a few scholars disagree with this and believe that the only thing that can be proven about the Shang Dynasty is the Yin Ruins in Anyang. Because oracle bone inscriptions were discovered in the Yin Ruins, and the oracle bone inscriptions were engraved with the posthumous names of various Shang kings, proving the existence of the Shang Dynasty. It is highly doubtful whether the Zhengzhou Mall, which is earlier than the Yin Ruins in Anyang, is a relic of the Shang Dynasty. Without written evidence, how can we say that this city must be from the Shang Dynasty? They would rather call it the "Erligang Empire".
Is it necessary to have clear written evidence to confirm the remains of the Shang Dynasty?
It is good to have written evidence, but without direct words, we can also form an evidence chain through other evidence to find the historical truth. The starting point of this chain of evidence is the oracle bone inscriptions that are recognized by everyone and can convince the public.
From "大 Yi (成 Tang )" to " Emperor Xin", 31 Shang kings were engraved on the oracle bone inscriptions. Judging from the long-term excavation results, the archaeological discoveries at the Yin Ruins can only correspond to the 20th king Pan Geng to the last king Di Xin of the Shang Dynasty. If the oracle bone inscriptions are reliable documents, ancient remains corresponding to the 1st to 19th kings of the Shang Dynasty must exist. Documents handed down from ancient times say that the Shang Dynasty moved its capital many times. If there is a site that happens to be earlier than the Yin Ruins, has cultural characteristics that are of the same lineage as the Yin Ruins, and has the scale of a capital, we have to admit that it may be a Shang Dynasty capital earlier than the Yin Ruins period.
Zhengzhou Mall is just such a capital city. This ancient city happened to be older than the Yin Ruins, its scale was large enough to correspond to the royal city, and its geographical location coincided with the capital "Bo" of the Shang Dynasty in the literature. The styles and manufacturing techniques of the archaeological relics discovered in Zhengzhou Mall (whether they are pottery, bronze, or jade) are the ancestors of similar artifacts from the Yin Ruins. This cultural consistency also supports the argument that "Zhengzhou Mall was the capital of the early Shang Dynasty." (1). What's more, pottery inscriptions engraved with the character "Bo" were directly unearthed from the Warring States strata of Zhengzhou Mall.
无码Bujia (photo by Cai Xiaochuan)
However, the above evidence is not enough to form a chain of evidence. What really forms the evidence chain is the "sequential coupling and duration coupling" between several city-level sites discovered by archaeologists and the migration of the royal capital of the Shang Dynasty in the literature during the 550 years from the 16th century BC to 1046 BC. ".
Starting from the Yin Ruins in Anyang, the cultural features of the Central Plains region are consistent with the Yin Ruins. The geographical location is also within the scope of the Shang Dynasty in the literature, and it has ruins with royal capital standards (large palace buildings, city walls, copper casting workshops, and large residents were discovered point), the following group can currently be listed:
Yin Ruins (Anyang) → Huanbei Shopping City (Anyang) → Xiaoshuangqiao Ruins (Zhengzhou) → Zhengzhou Shopping City (Zhengzhou)/Yanshi Shopping City (Yanshi)
According to documentation, The Shang Dynasty moved its capital many times. Starting from the latest Yin Ruins, a sequence can also be formed:
Yin→Yan→Xing→Xiang→Yun→Bo
There is also an important piece of information in the literature data, that is: each The corresponding kingdom of the city. This means that the order between each city is given, as well as the time when each capital was used.
For example, according to literature, the last city of the Shang Dynasty, "Yin", lasted for 8 generations and 12 kings; while the capital of the mid-Shang Dynasty, "Xiang", only experienced 2 generations and 2 kings; and the earliest capital of the Shang Dynasty, "Bo", experienced Arrogance. There are 6 generations and 9 kings from B to Zhong Ding. The cities occupied by Shang kings in different periods formed the order and duration differences:
Bo (6 generations and 9 kings) → Xian (1 generation and 3 kings) → Xiang (2 generations and 2 kings) → Xing (3 generations and 4 kings) King) → Am (2 generations and 3 kings) → Yin (8 generations and 12 kings)
The above-listed series of ruins with city scale, their order and duration are as follows:
Zhengzhou Mall/Yanshi Mall (about 150 years) → Xiaoshuangqiao (short time) → Huanbei Shangcheng (short time) → Yinxu (more than 200 years ago)
Zhengzhou Shangcheng, Xiaoshuangqiao, Huanbei Shangcheng and other ruins not only have the scale of a capital city, but also enjoy the same benefits as Anyang Yinxu cultural attributes, and the geographical location corresponds to the Shang capital recorded in the literature, and the "sequence and duration" formed between them is generally consistent with the migration of the Shang capital in the literature (only one missing point is consistent with the literature " Nangeng Migration" corresponding sites). The relationship between the ruins and the city migration in the literature can be represented by the following table:
Comparison chart of the relationship between the relevant ruins and the city migration in the literature
The "sequence and duration" found by archeology makes the argument for the city of the Shang Dynasty a reliable one chain of evidence. From this, it can be concluded that the main cities of the Shang Dynasty have been discovered. Zhengzhou Mall was an early city of the Shang Dynasty, which should be a basic fact close to the historical truth.
With this known basis, we can discuss the remains of the Xia Dynasty.
According to documentary records, the Shang Dynasty was established on the basis of overthrowing the Xia Dynasty. According to the law of dynasty replacement, if Zhengzhou Mall is the "earliest commercial capital", it can become a symbol of the boundary between the Xia and Shang dynasties. If we can find a site that is just earlier than Zhengzhou Shang City, has the scale of a city, and its geographical scope is covered by the power of the later Shang Dynasty, then it may be the capital of the Xia Dynasty.
The Erlitou site in Yanshi, Henan is one such relic. The Erlitou site is large in area, and large-scale architectural remains were discovered at its core. Not only were palaces discovered, but also bronzes and copper-casting workshops. These remains indicate that it had an urban character. Mainstream academic circles believe that the Erlitou site may be the last city of the Xia Dynasty. why?
In addition to the urban scale of the Erlitou site itself, the most important reason is that it matches the last capital of the Xia Dynasty in the literature in terms of age, location, and culture.
Yanshi Mall is a Shang Dynasty site that is basically the same age as Zhengzhou Mall and also has a huge city wall. This site is only 6 kilometers away from the Erlitou site. This spatial distance is completely consistent with the historical background of the Shang Dynasty overthrowing the Xia Dynasty. Some scholars even believe that Yanshi Shangcheng was built by merchants after the extermination of Xia specifically to suppress the Xia people in the Yiluo River basin. In terms of time, Yanshi Mall (including Zhengzhou Mall) coincided with the decline of the Erlitou site. In terms of cultural attributes, what is shown is the rapid replacement of Erlitou culture by business culture. These phenomena are conducive to the argument that the Erlitou site is a relic of the Xia Dynasty. Unfortunately, the current archaeological data does not form a chain of evidence that proves the existence of the Shang Dynasty similar to "sequence and duration". Therefore, the Xia Dynasty ruins that are earlier than the Erlitou site still need to be carefully verified.However, after analyzing the literature, Zou Heng found that the route of the merchants' expedition to Xia was from northern Hebei and southern Hebei along the Taihang Mountains, which was consistent with the development of Shang culture from northern Hebei and southern Hebei to the Zhengzhou area and western Henan. Finally, The route of completely replacing Xia Wenhua in Yanshi Shopping Mall can be regarded as important supplementary evidence.
Of course, there are still many issues that need to be discussed in the Xia Dynasty, but you can rest assured that the conclusion that the Erlitou site is a relic of the Xia Dynasty is based on credible "known points". Academically speaking, we should not only believe in the existence of the Xia Dynasty, but also believe that some of the remains of the Xia Dynasty have been found, and the Erlitou site is such a remains.
In 1978, the excavation site of the Erlitou Palace No. 2 foundation site
(Photo courtesy of the Erlitou Team of the Institute of Archeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences)
3. The legendary ancient "Five Emperors"
"Historical Records·Yin Benji" was confirmed, and "Historical Records·Yin Benji" was confirmed. This part of Xia Benji has also been confirmed. Can the opening chapter of "Historical Records: The Chronicles of the Five Emperors" be confirmed?
"Historical Records: The Chronicles of the Five Emperors" records the Yellow Emperor, Zhuan Xu, Emperor Ku, Yao, and Shun, and also mentions Shennong and Leizu. When Sima Qian wrote "Historical Records: The Chronicles of the Five Emperors", he obviously recorded the above-mentioned figures according to "faithful history". The concept of the "Five Emperors" as real figures in early Chinese history has been around for more than 2,000 years. Until the beginning of the last century, when modern Chinese historians wrote a general history of China, the history of China that can be tested should be counted from the Yellow Emperor, through Zhuan Xu, Emperor Ku, Yao, and Shun, until Yu passed to Qi, and the Xia Dynasty came into being (2). However, with the introduction of modern Western history into China, some magical and absurd colors in "五帝" attracted people's attention. Influenced by Rank's historiography, scholars who demanded an objective description of history began to group the Yellow Emperor, Zhuanxu, Emperor Ku, Yao, and Shun together with the Youchao clan, Suiren clan, Fuxi clan, Shennong clan, etc. "The Era of Ancient History and Legends".
It is hard for us to believe that Huangdi, Zhuanxu, Emperor Ku, Yao and Shun were completely "made up" by the ancients. But how do we prove they were ever real? Some scholars believe that the Five Emperors are destined to exist only in "legends" because we cannot verify the records about the Five Emperors at all. As a result, some scholars adopted a completely negative attitude towards "Historical Records: The Chronicles of the Five Emperors" and concluded based on this that China's dynastic history can only be counted from Xia and Shang. The Xia and Shang Dynasties were a country in the true sense, and "a country is the summary of a civilized society." Based on this, Chinese civilization can of course only start from the Xia Dynasty. If this concept is true, where did China get its 5,000 years of civilization?
Why must we completely verify the records about the Five Emperors? The Five Emperors are not a whole, and there is no need to demonstrate them all at once. Huangdi, Zhuanxu, Emperor Ku, Yao, and Shun, the documentary records of each emperor are different. Some are rich, some are scattered, some are slightly absurd, and some are relatively plain. In fact, as long as it is proved that the Five Emperors or one of the "Emperors" among the Five Emperors is not fictitious, it will break the completely unreliable arbitrary statement of "Historical Records: The Chronicles of the Five Emperors". Regardless of whether the existence of the Five Emperors is "all true and all false" or "half true and half false", we may only be able to prove part of it but not all of it. In other words, what we call the era of "ancient history and legends" is likely to be partially verifiable.
The portrait of Emperor Shun comes from "Portraits of Emperors, Saints, Sages and Famous Ministers of the Past", Collection of the French National Library
Recently, there have been many discussions in the academic world around the nature of the ancient city of Taosi in Shanxi, and it has even affected the interpretation of the ancient city of Shimao in Shaanxi. For example, many scholars link the Taosi site with Yaodu. Due to the lack of written evidence as direct evidence (although limited pottery inscriptions have been found in Taosi ), various opinions are still at the stage of academic research and cannot be concluded, but some evidence of the "legends" of the Five Emperors has emerged. As one of the Five Emperors, Yao may become the first confirmed ancient emperor.
Of course, even partial confirmation is a very challenging subject. Scholars have had many methodological considerations.For example, Zhang Guangzhi proposed to study the "Five Doors" of ancient Chinese society (3); Li Boqian proposed to rely on three channels of traditional history, archeology, and sociology to explore the legendary era (4); Ye Shuxian proposed using the "four-fold evidence method" Think about the problems of ancient society (5). However, macro-level responses cannot replace solutions to specific problems. The final solution to the problem depends on new archaeological discoveries, and there is also an important premise. The ancients did leave us important evidence, otherwise we will "die" "Wait", and cannot wait for archaeological data that can solve practical problems.
Therefore, the study of ancient history must adhere to the principle of "multiple interpretations, separate expressions, and camera integration" for a long time. "Ancient China" based on legends, "Ancient China" based on documents, and "Ancient China" based on archaeological data may coexist for a long time. We are not eager to interpret them in conjunction.
Notes:
(1) Zou Heng. Collection of Xia, Shang and Zhou Archeology [M]. Beijing: Cultural Relics Press .1980.
(2) At the beginning of the 20th century, most historical works treated the legendary era as historical content . For example, Lu Simian's "History of the Country in Vernacular" published by the Commercial Press in 1923, wrote the history of the country based on the "Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors" and the "Three Kings Era".
(3) Zhang Guangzhi. Shang Wenming [M]. Liaoning: Liaoning Education Press 2002: 1-56.
(4) For the argument, see the article "Archaeological Observation of Ancient History Legends: Can the Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors Be Verified" in this journal.
(5) Institute of Advanced Social Sciences, Southern University of Science and Technology. Ten Thousand Years of China Theory - The Historical Depth of the Grand Tradition Theory. Heritage Volume 1 [C]. Nanjing: Nanjing University Press .2019: 175-191.
This article Originally published in "Beauty for a Long Time" Issue 4, 2019.
