论文部分内容阅读
Chinese archaeology started with the excavation of the Yangshao Culture ruins in 1921. Major discoveries have been made in China almost every year since 1949， impressing archaeologists around the world.
In such circumstances， voices calling for a “Chinese School”of archaeology have gradually emerged in Chinese archaeological circles. The “Chinese School”is characterized by two major features： It is guided by Marxism and has Chinese characteristics.
In the second half of the 20th century， American archaeology led the world. It showed two distinct characteristics：
First， with the United States being far from the Eurasian supercontinent， its archaeological studies mainly focus on indigenous American culture. Developing in parallel with the great geographical discoveries and colonialism， American archaeology is similar to that in Africa and Oceania. It references ethnographic surveys and ethnography and heavily relies on anthropology.
Second， American archaeology primarily targets prehistoric peoples， which by definition has few records for reference. Therefore， archaeologists often make bold assumptions， verify hypotheses， and make good use of archaeological theories and methods. They consider archaeology not just to be excavating， recording， and establishing chronology， but more about pondering， explaining， and restoring human behavior and social life in history. This tendency was born in the unique environment of the United States.
Renowned British archaeologist and scientist Glyn Daniel discussed the emergence， development， and achievements of archaeology from 1800 to 1905 in 150 Years of Archaeology and later added post-war archaeological history from 1945 to 1970.
Some Western archaeologists appraised Chinese archaeology as lagging behind， primarily in the period from 1949 to 1979 when Chinese and Western archaeological circles hardly conducted exchanges with each other. China didn’t learn anything from the successful experience of the United States and the West also missed a golden opportunity to study Chinese archaeology.
Guided by Marxist historical materialism， Chinese archaeology has macroscopic vision and advantages in terms of social history research. The first half of the 20th century was led by culture-historical archaeology represented by the concepts of Australian-born British archaeologist Vere Gordon Childe （1892-1957）， and the second half was led by process archaeology and post-processual archaeology represented by the theories of famous American archaeologist Lewis R. Binford （1931-2011）. Childe was deeply inspired by Marxism， and his concepts of Neolithic revolution and urban revolution remain irrefutable. New archaeological theories are not brand new， and the old ones are not useless either. In the study of world civilization， Eurasia is an irreplaceable“highlight.” Asia is much bigger than Europe， and the latter has only a quarter of the former’s geographical area. European understanding of different parts of Asia decreases with the geographical distance. Europeans have done extensive archeological work in West Asia， Central Asia， South Asia and Southeast Asia， but East Asia and Northeast Asia remain relatively unfamiliar to European archaeologists. Especially， little archaeological work has been done by Europeans in China， Mongolia， Russia， South Korea， and Japan， which represent more than half of Asia.
British art historian and archaeologist Jessica Rawson is known for reminding Western scholars that China is important for any world studies. Though located at the eastern end of the Eurasian supercontinent， China has always been the center of the global civilizational storm. Renowned Chinese-American archaeologist Zhang Guangzhi（1931-2001） predicted that Chinese archaeology would play a pivotal role in rewriting world history more accurately. I tend to agree.
Chinese archaeology is a key piece of world archaeology. Archaeological discoveries in China are enriching world archaeology. Looking at the world from a Chinese perspective and viewing China with a global vision is a trend that will continue growing.
In such circumstances， voices calling for a “Chinese School”of archaeology have gradually emerged in Chinese archaeological circles. The “Chinese School”is characterized by two major features： It is guided by Marxism and has Chinese characteristics.
In the second half of the 20th century， American archaeology led the world. It showed two distinct characteristics：
First， with the United States being far from the Eurasian supercontinent， its archaeological studies mainly focus on indigenous American culture. Developing in parallel with the great geographical discoveries and colonialism， American archaeology is similar to that in Africa and Oceania. It references ethnographic surveys and ethnography and heavily relies on anthropology.
Second， American archaeology primarily targets prehistoric peoples， which by definition has few records for reference. Therefore， archaeologists often make bold assumptions， verify hypotheses， and make good use of archaeological theories and methods. They consider archaeology not just to be excavating， recording， and establishing chronology， but more about pondering， explaining， and restoring human behavior and social life in history. This tendency was born in the unique environment of the United States.
Renowned British archaeologist and scientist Glyn Daniel discussed the emergence， development， and achievements of archaeology from 1800 to 1905 in 150 Years of Archaeology and later added post-war archaeological history from 1945 to 1970.
Some Western archaeologists appraised Chinese archaeology as lagging behind， primarily in the period from 1949 to 1979 when Chinese and Western archaeological circles hardly conducted exchanges with each other. China didn’t learn anything from the successful experience of the United States and the West also missed a golden opportunity to study Chinese archaeology.
Guided by Marxist historical materialism， Chinese archaeology has macroscopic vision and advantages in terms of social history research. The first half of the 20th century was led by culture-historical archaeology represented by the concepts of Australian-born British archaeologist Vere Gordon Childe （1892-1957）， and the second half was led by process archaeology and post-processual archaeology represented by the theories of famous American archaeologist Lewis R. Binford （1931-2011）. Childe was deeply inspired by Marxism， and his concepts of Neolithic revolution and urban revolution remain irrefutable. New archaeological theories are not brand new， and the old ones are not useless either. In the study of world civilization， Eurasia is an irreplaceable“highlight.” Asia is much bigger than Europe， and the latter has only a quarter of the former’s geographical area. European understanding of different parts of Asia decreases with the geographical distance. Europeans have done extensive archeological work in West Asia， Central Asia， South Asia and Southeast Asia， but East Asia and Northeast Asia remain relatively unfamiliar to European archaeologists. Especially， little archaeological work has been done by Europeans in China， Mongolia， Russia， South Korea， and Japan， which represent more than half of Asia.
British art historian and archaeologist Jessica Rawson is known for reminding Western scholars that China is important for any world studies. Though located at the eastern end of the Eurasian supercontinent， China has always been the center of the global civilizational storm. Renowned Chinese-American archaeologist Zhang Guangzhi（1931-2001） predicted that Chinese archaeology would play a pivotal role in rewriting world history more accurately. I tend to agree.
Chinese archaeology is a key piece of world archaeology. Archaeological discoveries in China are enriching world archaeology. Looking at the world from a Chinese perspective and viewing China with a global vision is a trend that will continue growing.