蘇秉琦

開頭的話

我從考古學(xué)上探索中國文化和文明的起源是由彩陶和瓦鬲開始的，一九四一年我寫的《瓦鬲的研究》作為北平研究院第一本?？?，最初曾交由香港商務(wù)印書館付印。五十多年過去了，一九八三年包括《瓦鬲的研究》和《關(guān)于仰韶文化的若干問題》在內(nèi)的《蘇秉琦考古學(xué)論述選集》由文物出版社出版，一九九四年獲首屆國家圖書獎，與此同時，遼寧大學(xué)出版社又將我從一九八四年以來十年間的文章和講話，以《華人·龍的傳人·中國人——考古尋根記》為書名出版。消息剛傳出，香港商務(wù)印書館立刻提出要在海外予以宣傳，近六十年后交往因此又接續(xù)上了。商務(wù)印書館向以出版高質(zhì)量的學(xué)術(shù)著作而聞名，從五四運(yùn)動以來，出版過“大學(xué)叢書”、“萬有文庫”等，這在當(dāng)時各大學(xué)習(xí)慣于每年重復(fù)自印講義，不向社會公開，缺乏正常評論交流的沉悶風(fēng)氣下，確是一個創(chuàng)舉。館方希望我這本書能反映考古學(xué)的一個新時代，又要雅俗共賞。要求雖然很高，卻符合我們學(xué)科的發(fā)展方向，也是我們所追求的目標(biāo)，于是就有了一九九六年初一個月的深圳之行，讓我對考古學(xué)科在探索中華文化、中華文明和中華傳統(tǒng)起源過程中所走過的并不平凡的歷程進(jìn)行一番回顧。

兩個怪圈

幾十年來，在我們的歷史教育中，有兩個怪圈：一個是根深蒂固的中華大一統(tǒng)觀念；一個是把馬克思提出的社會發(fā)展規(guī)律看成是歷史本身。

在中華大一統(tǒng)觀方面，我們習(xí)慣于把漢族史看成是正史，其他的就列于正史之外。于是，本來不同文化之間的關(guān)系，如夏、商、周、秦、漢便被穿在一起，像穿糖葫蘆一樣，一根棍穿下來，成為一脈相承的改朝換代，少數(shù)民族及與境外接壤的周邊地區(qū)的歷史則被幾筆帶過，這也使中國史與世界史的關(guān)系若明若暗。

其實(shí)，講到中國歷史，從孔夫子起就不是把中國史看成是鐵板一塊。子曰：“郁郁乎文哉，吾從周”，就是把夏、商、周看成是三家來進(jìn)行比較得出的結(jié)果，而不是看作一連串的三代。湯武革命不是繼承，三家各有千秋，可以互補(bǔ)，但還是周人的學(xué)問全面?！爸芏Y”是國家大法，是周人建國治國的系統(tǒng)理論，以一個“文”字代表典章的制度化，是國家已成熟的表現(xiàn)，殷人還未達(dá)到這水平，所以孔子要以周為主。古人云，“入夷則夷，入夏則夏”，是看到中原的夏和四周的夷，各有各的根，周邊民族到中原來，就被中原民族同化，同樣，中原民族到周圍地區(qū)，就被當(dāng)?shù)孛褡逋＿@種同化過程往往是很快的，不過一兩代人，而且進(jìn)來是華，出去就是夷，進(jìn)來出去又多有反復(fù)，所以，華夷之間的差別也并不是絕對的?？追蜃印坝薪虩o類”的名言，也是認(rèn)識到他的弟子們來自四面八方，民族文化傳統(tǒng)的背景來源不一樣，甚至差別很大，而且有不同種族之間的差別。“有教無類”的“類”，一般都解釋為身份、背景，較少聯(lián)系到種族問題，但殷墟的情況給了我們啟發(fā)。李濟(jì)分析殷墟大批人頭骨后，指出活動在商代中心地區(qū)人們的種族差別很大，他在《再論中國的若干人類學(xué)問題》一文中說：“從著名安陽遺址出土的人骨資料來看，就遠(yuǎn)不是純一人種的。從研究這一人骨的頭形指數(shù)計算出的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)偏差數(shù)，遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超出正常范圍，這肯定地說明這一組顱骨有著極不同的來源?！彪m然時代越近，人種差別越小，但孔子時代，中原地區(qū)的人種差別仍然很大，所以，“有教無類”主要不是指社會貧富等級差別，而是種族特征差別，孔子的教育思想是要平等待人，反對種族歧視，這當(dāng)然是很進(jìn)步的思想。由于面對的是多文化且復(fù)雜的民族傳統(tǒng)社會，所以他講課的內(nèi)容也是包羅萬象，兼容并舉?！吨芏Y》所講的“六藝”，禮、樂、射、御、書、數(shù)，就是包含了多文化的。至于“罷黜百家，獨(dú)尊儒術(shù)”，那是漢武帝以后的事，把孔孟的書以朱熹的注解為標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，將朱熹一家定為一尊，那更是宋代以后才形成的。

司馬遷寫《史記》也是兼容并舉的，他不僅對百家學(xué)說，分門別類介紹，不歧視哪一派，比較客觀，而且修史內(nèi)容超越國界，把西域的烏孫、康居、大月氏、安息都列為傳，當(dāng)國史來寫，實(shí)際上寫的是世界史。

至于另一個怪圈——社會發(fā)展史觀方面，我們習(xí)慣于把馬克思提出的社會發(fā)展規(guī)律看成歷史本身。歷史本身是多種多樣、豐富多彩的。把社會發(fā)展史當(dāng)成唯一的、全部的歷史，就把活生生的中國歷史簡單化了。幾本有影響力的中國通史就有這種傾向；一九五八年前后籌建中國歷史博物館時編寫的通史陳列說明詞、北京大學(xué)師生合作編寫的考古學(xué)教材，都是在這種思想指導(dǎo)下的產(chǎn)物。結(jié)果大量豐富的考古資料也只能“對號入座”，把一般的社會發(fā)展規(guī)律當(dāng)成教條，再添加些考古資料便交差了事。連調(diào)查少數(shù)民族史也受到影響，一個現(xiàn)成的例子是，海南島的五指山，被說成是黎族由母系氏族社會向父系氏族社會過渡的標(biāo)志。其實(shí)，五指是五支，代表黎族內(nèi)部的五個各有特點(diǎn)的社會群體，五支之間不是社會發(fā)展階段不一樣，而是每一支都有自己的傳統(tǒng)、自己的標(biāo)志，是社會內(nèi)部群體分化，并不代表社會的不同發(fā)展階段，把它簡單說成是所有制問題，只進(jìn)行階級分析，那就把黎族的民族及其內(nèi)部的特色給抹掉了。

其實(shí)，把社會發(fā)展史視為全部歷史，在馬克思主義經(jīng)典作家那里，并沒有找到什么理論根據(jù)。馬克思、恩格斯研究和概括社會發(fā)展規(guī)律的偉大工程時，是從研究具體史實(shí)開始的。恩格斯也并不認(rèn)為人類社會從野蠻進(jìn)入文明和國家產(chǎn)生的道路全世界只有一條，他在寫《家庭、私有制與國家的起源》一書時，就是在研究了他所處的那個時代所能得到的史料之后，提出國家的產(chǎn)生至少有雅典、羅馬和德意志三種不同的國家形態(tài)，它們各有特點(diǎn)，通過不同的途徑，完成了人類社會發(fā)展規(guī)律所制約的由野蠻向文明的過渡和國家的產(chǎn)生。

我們回頭來說近代考古學(xué)與歷史學(xué)的關(guān)系。近代考古學(xué)的目標(biāo)就是修國史，從二十世紀(jì)初近代田野考古方法傳到中國，一九二八年后中國最早的兩家考古研究機(jī)構(gòu)中央研究院和北平研究院成立起，這個修國史的目標(biāo)就很明確。如何修？傅斯年講過一句話，“上窮碧落下黃泉，動手動腳找東西”，意思是修國史要擺脫文獻(xiàn)史料的束縛，不拘泥于文獻(xiàn)，不是為了證史補(bǔ)史，而是要找到地下實(shí)物史料，作為修國史的重要依據(jù)?？脊艑W(xué)要從史學(xué)中獨(dú)立出來，自立門戶，這兩句話很像是考古學(xué)的“獨(dú)立宣言”。于是，設(shè)在南京的中央研究院歷史語言研究所考古組剛成立，就直奔安陽，因為那里發(fā)現(xiàn)過甲骨文，目的是研究商史；設(shè)在北平的北平研究院史學(xué)研究所考古組，先在北平搜集有關(guān)老北京建筑的碑拓，又去了燕下都，后到陜西，卻不在西安附近挖周、秦、漢、唐，而是打道寶雞，因為那里出過一批青銅器，目的是研究先周、先秦史，追溯周、秦的老根。

要以考古學(xué)修國史，探索中國文化和文明的起源，說來簡單，做起來難，首先碰到那兩個怪圈就很容易鉆進(jìn)去鉆不出來。如何繞過兩個怪圈，道路是十分曲折和艱難的。王國維比較高明，他沒有被大一統(tǒng)承接的觀念套住，所以他講殷周制度論時，不僅講商朝和周朝史，而且講兩種文化的歷史，所以能認(rèn)識到商周不同源。傅斯年雖也提出過“夷夏東西說”，但已經(jīng)有了正統(tǒng)（夏）和非正統(tǒng)（夷）的觀念。徐炳昶有三集團(tuán)說，不過還不是從分析考古資料入手。面對這種狀況，考古學(xué)要想獨(dú)立研究歷史，探索出中華文化和文明的起源，就要建立本學(xué)科的方法論。如果我們從一開始就意識到這一點(diǎn)，我們學(xué)科的起點(diǎn)就高。建立考古學(xué)的方法這一問題，還得在下一章從中國文化的特別載體——瓦鬲和仰韶文化這兩個當(dāng)時的熱門話題談起。

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漢族） 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六藝）’ 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.