中国文明起源新探 苏秉琦

2013年第4期东吴学术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。汤武革双语经典中国文明起源新探苏秉琦005DOI:10.16100/j.cnki.cn32-1815/c.2013.04.011东吴学术2013年第4期命不是继承，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 关于同志近三年现实表现材料材料类招标技术评分表图表与交易pdf视力表打印pdf用图表说话 pdf 典章的MATCH_ word word文档格式规范word作业纸小票打印word模板word简历模板免费word简历 _1715529276057_0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0062013年第4期东吴学术的是研究商史；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。【作者简介】苏秉琦（一九〇九-一九九七），原中国社会科学院考古研究所研究员、北京大学历史系教授、中国考古学会理事长。OpeningWordsInmyexplorationoftheoriginsofChinesecultureandcivilizationfromthearchaeologicalperspective，Istartedwithpaintedpotteryandpot－teryli-vessel（tripodsusedforcooking）.Myarti－cle‘AStudyofPotteryli’（1941）wasthefirstspecialistpublicationofthePekingAcademy.ItsfirstprintingwasbytheCommercialPress，HongKong.Overfiftyyearslater，thissamearticle，to－getherwithanotherofmyearlypapers‘QuestionsrelatingtotheYangshaoculture’waspublishedinthevolumeSelectedWorksontheDiscourseofArchaeologybySuBingqi（CulturalRelicsPub－lishingHouse，1983）.ThisvolumewononeoftheANewInvestigationoftheOriginsofChineseCivilizationSuBingqiTrans.byWangTaoHelenWang双语经典007东吴学术2013年第4期firstNationalBookAwardsin1994，whichwasal－sotheyearinwhichacollectionofmyarticlesandlecturesfromthedecade1984-1994werepub－lishedinthevolumeDescendantsoftheDragon–TracingtheRootsoftheChinesePeoplethroughArchaeology（LiaoningUniversityPress，1994）.Assoonasthisbookwaspublished，theCommercialPressannouncedthatitwishedtocelebrateourre－lationshipofalmostsixtyyearsbypromotingthebookoverseas，andtoworktogetheronanewbook.TheCommercialPressisrenownedforpublishingacademicworksofaveryhighstandard.SincethetimeoftheMay4thMovement，ithaspublishedseveralinfluentialseriesofbooks.Inthosedaysu－niversitieswouldprintoutcopiesoflecturesyearafteryear，butthesewerenotforgeneraldistribu－tion.Aregularforumforexchangeofviewswaslacking，andinthosestifledtimes，the‘UniversitySeries（Daxuecongshu）’andthe‘EncyclopedicLibrary（Wanyouwenku）’wereatrulywonderfulinitiative.TheCommercialPresshopedthatmybookwouldreflectanewperiodinarchaeology，andallowsmorepeopletoappreciatethedevelop－mentsthathavetakenplace.TheCommercialPress’srequirementswerehigh，buttheywereconsistentwiththedirectioninwhichourdisci－plineisdeveloping，andwiththegoalsweareseekingtoreach.So，earlyin1996Imadeamonth-longtriptoShenzen，specificallytoreflectfromapersonalpointofviewontheextraordinarypathofarchaeologyintheexplorationofChineseculture，ChinesecivilizationandChinesetradition.TwoViciousCirclesFordecadesnow，Chinesestudentshavebeentaughthistoryeitherfromtheverydeep-rootedconceptofChineseunity，ortakeforgrantedthatMarxisttheoryofthelawofsocialdevelopmentishistoryitself.Thesearetwoviciouscirclesinourhistoricaleducation.WhenwethinkoftheconceptofChineseu－nity，wetendtothinkofthehistoryoftheHanpeople（Hanzu汉族）asthestandardversionofhistory，andtoleaveoutthenon-Hanpeoples.Thishastheeffectofstringingtogetherthedifferentdy－nasties—theXia，Shang，Zhou，QinandHan—inalinearconsecutiveorder，likebeadsonaneck－lace；inotherwords，historicaldevelopmentbe－comessimplysomedynasticchanges.Thehistori－calpictureofethnicminoritiesandborderregionsisdottedaboutinandamongst.ThisapproachblurstherelationshipbetweenthehistoryofChina，aswellasthehistoryoftheworld.ButChinesehistoryshouldnotbemonolithic.WhenConfucius（551-479BC）said，‘Ofallthegrandcivilizations，IfollowtheZhou，’hewascomparingthethreedynastiesofXia，ShangandZhouontheirmerits，ratherthanfollowingacon－secutivechronologicalorder.WhenChengTang（founderoftheShangdynasty）andKingWu（theZhoukingwholedtheconquestoftheShangdy－nasty）alteredthecourseofhistory，itwasnotaquestionofdirecthistoricalsuccession，butofrev－olution.Thethreedynastiesallhadtheiradvan－tagesandshortcomings，andwerecomplementedoneanother.ButitwastheZhoudynastythatwasthemostdistinguishedintermsofitsculturalaccomplish－ment.TheZhouli（‘TheRitesofZhou’）wasthestatecode，andthesystematictheoryofhowtheZhoupeopleestablishedandgovernedtheirstate.Itaimedtoinstallasystemofdecreesandregula－tionsandaninstitutionalizedculturalcode，andmanifestedamaturelevelofstateformation.TheShangpeoplehadnotyetreachedthisstage，henceConfucius’preferencewasfortheZhoudynasty.Thesituationatthattimewasreflectedintheancientsaying，‘IfyougototheYi，youbecomeaYiperson;ifyougototheXia，youbecomeaXiaperson.’TheXiapeoplelivedintheCentralPlains，andtheYiwerethepeoplesinthelandsaroundthem.The‘Xia’andthe‘Yi’hadtheirownroots.Whenpeoplefromtheborderareascame0082013年第4期东吴学术totheCentralPlains，theyadoptedthewaysoftheCentralPlainspeople;andwhenpeoplefromtheCentralPlainswenttotheoutlyingregions，theyadoptedthewaysofthepeoplethere.Itisarealissueofculturalidentity.Assimilationcouldtakeplacequickly，withinjustagenerationortwo.ExchangebetweentheCentralPlainscultureandtheoutlyingculturescontinuedinbothdirections，overandoveragain，untilthedifferenceswerenolongersoclearcut.Thatwell-knownquotefromConfucius—‘Edu－cationforallwithoutdiscrimination’—wasanacknowledgementthathisdisciplescamefromdif－ferentregionsandfromdifferentculturalback－grounds.Thereweredifferences，sometimesverybigdifferences，betweenthevariousethnicgroups.Theword‘discrimination’inthequoteisconventionallyunderstoodinthecontextofsocialclass.ItwashoweverthearchaeologicalevidenceatYinxu（fromthe13thto11thc.BC，thesiteofthecapitaloftheShangdynasty，nearthemodern-daycityofAnyang，Henan）thatpromptedustocomprehenditinthecontextofethnicity.DuringhisanalysisofalargegroupofhumanskullsfoundatYinxu，thearchaeologistLiChi（LiJi1896-1979）observedthattherewerehugeanthropolog－icalvariationsamongthepeoplewhowereactiveattheheartoftheShangterritory;hewrote：‘FromthehumanbonesunearthedatthefamoussiteatAnyang，itisclearthatthesepeoplewerefarfrombeingasinglehomogenousrace.Researchingtheskullsfromthissitedoesnotproduceastandardthatcanbeindexed；theevidenceiswaybeyondtherangewewouldconsidernormal，andconfirmsthatthepeopleherehaddifferentorigins.’（LiChi，‘AnotherdiscussiononethnologyinChina’）Thedifferencesbetweentheethnicgroupsmayhavebecomelessnoticeableoverthecen－turies.ButinConfucius’day，6thcenturyBC，therewerestillhugedifferencesofethnicityontheCen－tralPlains.Itseemsmoreappropriate，therefore，tounderstand‘Educationforallwithoutdiscrimina－tion’intermsofdifferencesofethnicityratherthandifferencesofsocialwealthandranks.Inthislight，Confucius’advocationofequalityforallpeoplesandoppositiontoracialprejudiceisanearlyexampleofprogressivethinking.IfweconsiderthatConfuciuswasaddressingatraditionalsocietythatwasmulti-culturalandcomplex，wecanseehowsociallyinclusivehisteachingwas，andhowhestroveforequality.TheZhouliliststhe‘SixArts（liuyi六艺）’astherites，music，archery，chariot-driving，calligraphyandmathematics，whichcombineddifferentcul－turalelements.Indeed，itwasnotuntilthetimeofEmperorWuDi（reign141-86BC）oftheHandynastythatthepolicyof‘Abandonallotherschoolsofthought，andrespectfullyfollowonlytheConfucianteaching’wasputintoplay.ItwasnotuntiltheSongdynasty（960-1279）thattheearnestfollowingofConfuciusandhisdiscipleMencius（372-289）began，withtheNeo-Confu－cianiststakingZhuXi’s（1130-1200）annota－tionsasthestandardinterpretationofthemaster’swords（ineffect，itisnotZhuXihimself，buthisfollowers）.SimaQian’sShiji（‘RecordsoftheGrandHistorian’）wasalsoall-encompassing.Hewroteaboutalltheschoolsofthought，andintroducedtheirmanydifferentaspectswithoutdiscrimina－tion.Infact，hewasquiteobjective，andhishistori－calrecordextendedbeyondthebordersoftheChi－neseempire，toincludetheWesternRegions（modern-dayXinjiang）andpeopleandlandsbe－yond：theWusun，Kangju，Dayuezhi（Kushans），andAnxi（Parthia）.Inthisrespect，SimaQian’sShijiwasclosertoahistoryoftheworldthanahistoryofChina.Theotherviciousconceptconcernssocialdevelopment.TheMarxistviewofhistoryiscustu－maltakenasthelawofsocialdevelopment.Buthistoryitselfisvariedandcolourful.Toseethehis－toryofsocialdevelopmentasonemodel，andtore－garditasthewholeofhistoryoversimplifiesthe009东吴学术2013年第4期vibranthistoryofChina.WehaveseenthisquiteclearlyinseveralinfluentialpublicationsonChi－nesehistory：forexampleinthebookletsaccompa－nyingthedisplaysattheNationalMuseumofChineseHistory，c.1958;andintheteachingma－terialsonarchaeologyco-authoredbystaffandstudentsatPekingUniversity.Theseweretheproductsofthatparticularwayofthinking.Followingthisapproach，thericharrayofar－chaeologicalmaterialhadtobe‘pigeon-holed’accordingly.Thegenerallawofsocialdevelopmentwasakindofdogma，anditwasacaseoffindingtherightwayoffittinginthearchaeologicaldata.Thisrigidapproachevenaffectedethnographicsurveysofethnicminorities.Avividexamplecon－cernsWuzhiShan（Wuzhimountain）onHainanIsland，whereitwassaid（erroneously）thattheLipeople（Lizu）couldbeseenasalivingexampleofthesocialtransformationfromamatriarchaltoapatriarchalsociety.ThefactofthematteristhatthenameWuzhi（literally‘fivefingers’）referstothefivesocialgroups，or‘fivebranches’oftheLipeople.Eachbranchhasitsowntraditionsanditsownculturalmarks/symbols.Inotherwords，thereisinternaldifferentiationamongtheLi.Theinves－tigatorsmisunderstoodthis，anderroneouslyde－scribedthefivesocialgroupsasbeingatfivedif－ferentstagesofsocialdevelopment.Tosimplifythistoaquestionofownership，toanalyseitsolelyfromthepointofviewofclass，diminishestheethnicityoftheLipeopleandtheirinternalcharacteristics.Infact，Ihavebeenunabletofindanytheo－reticalbasisintheMarxistcanonforregardingthehistoryofsocialdevelopmentasthewholeofhisto－ry.InthegreatworksbyMarxandEngels，itisclearthattheirresearchandthesummaryofthelawofsocialdevelopmentarebasedontheirstud－iesofspecifichistoricalfacts.Engelscertainlydidnotbelievethattherewasonlyonerouteforhumansocietytoevolvefrombarbarismtocivilizationandtostateformation.BeforewritingTheOriginoftheFamily，PrivatePropertyandtheState（1884），hereadallthehistoricalmaterialthatwasavailabletohimatthattime.Henotedthattherewereatleastthreemodelsofstateformation—Athens，RomeandGermany—allthreeofwhichhadverydifferentfeaturesandhadtakendifferentroutestomeetthelawsofhumansocialdevelopmentandtocompletethetransitionfrombarbarismtociviliza－tiontotheformationofastate.Itisimportanttosayafewwordsaboutthecurrentrelationshipbetweenarchaeologyandhis－tory.TheprimarygoalofmodernarchaeologyinChinahasbeentoassistthewritingofnationalhistory.Thisaimhasbeencrystalclearsincemod－ernfieldarchaeologyanditsmethodswerefirstbroughttoChinabytheEuropeansintheearly20thcentury，andChina’sfirsttwoarchaeologicalresearchinstitutions–theAcademiaSinicaandthePekingAcademy–wereestablishedin1928.Howarewetowriteourancienthistory?IliketorecallofFuSinian’s（1896-1950）words：‘Gouptothesky，godowntotheyellowsprings.Useyourhands，useyourfeet，andlookforthings.’TheytellusthattounderstandthehistoryofChina，wemustbreakthelimitationofhistoricaldocuments，andwemustnotsimplysticktothelit－erarysources.Thepurposeofarchaeologyisnottoprovehistorynortoaddtohistory，buttofindma－terialsintheground，asanimportantevidenceforunderstandingourhistory.Archaeologymustbe－comeindependentofhistory;itmustbecomeadis－ciplineinitsownright.Thesewordsarethecor－nerstonesofarchaeology’s‘DeclarationofInde－pendence.’WiththewritingofChina’sancienthistoryasthegoal，whenthearchaeologyteamwasfirstformedattheInstituteofHistoryandPhilolo－gy，AcademiaSinica，Nanjing，theywentstraighttoAnyang，becauseoracleboneshadbeenfoundthereandtheaimwastostudyShanghistory.WhenthearchaeologyteamattheInstituteofHistory，PekingAcademy，wasestablished，itsfirstassign－mentwastocollectstelerubbingsfromthearchi－tectureofoldPeking;itthenwenttotheYanXi－0102013年第4期东吴学术adusite（thecapitaloftheYanstate，EasternZhouperiod），andthentoShaanxiprovince.WhileinShaanxitheydidnottrytoexcavatethetombsoftheZhou，Qin，HanandTangperiodsinthesub－urbofXi’an，butinsteadtheywenttoBaojiwhereearlyonanimportantassemblageofbronzevesselshadbeenfound.Forarchaeologistsfromthebotha－cademicinstitutions，theirprimaryaimsweretore－searchthehistoryofthepre-Zhouandpre-Qintimes，andtotracebacktherootsoftheZhouandQincultures.ToemployarchaeologytoassistthewritingofournationalhistoryandtoexploretheoriginsofChinesecultureandcivilization--itiseasiersaidthandone.Itisnotuncommontofindoneselfstuckinsideoneofthetwoviciouscircles，unabletopullfree.Howcanwetrytobypassthosetwocircles?Therouteisdifficultandfulloftwistsandturns.ThegreatscholarWangGuowei（1877-1927）didnotfindthetraditionalconceptssuchasChinawasalwaysaunityandfollowedalinercontinuationwhollyconvincing.So，whendiscussingabouttherelationshipbetweentheShangandZhoudynas－ties，henotonlystressedtheirdynastichistories，butalsothehistoryofthesetwocultures，andthuswasabletodeterminethattheyderivedfromdif－ferentsources.However，whenFuSinianproposedthetheoryofthe‘YifromtheeastandXiafromthewest，’hewastryingtoarguetheconceptoforthodox（Xia）andnon-orthodox（Yi）inChinesehistory.ThescholarXuXusheng（1888-1976）devisedthe‘ThreeGroupstheory’①withoutreferringtothearchaeologicaldata.Giventhiskindofpre-con－sumption，itisevenmoreimportantforusthatar－chaeologyseekstobecomeindependentofhistory.IfarchaeologyistoenableustoexploretheoriginsofChinesecultureandcivilizationitneedstoes－tablishitselfasanindependentdisciplinewithitsownmethodology.Ifhistoriansandarchaeologistscanacknowledgethis，thenourstartingpointwouldbesomuchhigher.Asforthequestionofconstructionofanarchaeologicalmethodology，thiswillbeaddressedinthenextchapter，whichlooksatthespecialarchaeologicalremainsandar－tifactsofearlyChineseculture：thepotteryli-ves－selandYangshaoculture.【作者简介】苏秉琦（一九〇九-一九九七），原中国社会科学院考古研究所研究员、北京大学历史系教授、中国考古学会理事长。【译者简介】汪涛，伦敦大学亚非学院、考古学院高级讲师。HelenWang，大英博物馆研究人员。①XuXushengwroteabookZhongguogushidechuanshuoniandai（TheLegendarytimesinancientChinesehisto－ry）（Beijing，1960）inwhichheproposesthattherewerethreegroupsthatwereactiveinprehistoricChina：theHuaxiagroupontheCentralPlains，theDongYiintheEast，andMiao-ManinthesouthbetweentheChangjiangandHanshuirivers.011