In China, archeology is considered a branch of history and can be used to verify scriptures and supplement history. Liang Qichao’s dual evidence method reflected the early Chinese academic circles’ understanding and value expectations of archeology, and is still considered a characteristic of Chinese archeology. In Europe and the United States, archeology is considered a discipline that uses indirect methods to understand ancient human behavior and thoughts from material culture. Since most of the discoveries made by archaeologists are material materials without words, they can neither reconstruct history through words like historians, nor can they directly observe human behavior and thoughts from the research objects like cultural anthropologists can. This shortcoming has long been the biggest challenge restricting archaeologists' understanding of the past and the historical reconstruction of archaeological materials.

To reconstruct history through incomplete material remains, archaeologists, like other natural scientists, must understand the world by observing complex phenomena. Therefore, archaeologists naturally face a serious question in the process of reconstructing history, that is, is the past they show people through their own observations and research the real history? Therefore, this issue not only involves the accumulation and completeness of archaeological materials, but also involves the archaeologist’s own cognitive ability and the legitimacy of the inquiry approach.

For a long time, there have been two opposing ways of understanding the world. One is the epistemology of empiricism, which emphasizes the cognitive role of the senses; the other is rationalism, which emphasizes the use of logical reasoning to provide the reliability of knowledge. Relativism, which emerged at the end of the last century, has made more harsh criticisms of personal concepts and social influences in scientific research. The development of archeology generally reflects this process. A clear understanding of the subjective and objective factors of the scientific cognitive process reflects the increasing maturity of this discipline. Examining the development of archaeological cognitive processes can help us become more reflective about our own research.

Empiricism

Archeology before the 1960s was basically an empiricist operation, which refers to taking the research object for granted or taking it for granted based on intuition, common sense and experience. A seemingly reasonable explanation. Empiricists believe that the objects of human knowledge are specific things or entities in the objective world, so they mainly rely on experience to realize and complete this knowledge.

Empiricists attach great importance to empirical knowledge, which refers to specific facts that can be observed and described by people. This is often regarded as the basis of materialist epistemology, which believes that empirical facts are objective and they exist independently of people's subjective consciousness. Therefore, they believed that as long as people observed without prejudice, the empirical knowledge thus provided could be neutral and absolutely reliable without any theory or preconception. The empiricists' view of observation as a simple physiological reaction process, like the physical imaging of a camera lens, seems too simple and one-sided①. Extreme empiricism even believes that all knowledge comes from experience. It only emphasizes perceptual experience and denies rational thinking. In the view of these people, rational knowledge is abstract and indirect knowledge. The more abstract the thought, the more empty it is, the less reliable it is, and the farther away it is from the truth. Therefore, they oppose abstract thinking and deny the existence of universal concepts and universal academic propositions in research objects.

Most of the operations of Chinese archeology are still at the empirical level. Scholars emphasize the collection and observation of materials, analyze and judge based on their own experience and common sense, and then draw some preliminary conclusions. Some of our scholars despise theories very much and regard them as empty talk or subjective imagination without any factual basis. This empiricist epistemology is very consistent with the traditional Western scholarship method in the 19th and early 20th centuries, which advocates the objectivity of research. William Greenwell, the early British tomb excavator, famously said: "Just collect facts and never consider theories②". Leopold von Ranke, the father of scientific history, believed that the fundamental task of history is to explain "what really happened." If you want to understand the historical truth, the only way is to study the original materials. Ranke believes that collecting basic materials and establishing past facts is the first priority of research, and the interpretation of materials is nothing more than personal subjective opinions.

This kind of objectivism is the main feature of Ranke's school. They advocate that historians should adopt an impartial attitude, let the materials speak for themselves, and try to avoid mixing personal opinions into them. Fu Sinian introduced the academic methods of the Ranke School into China. He claimed to be the Ranke School of China, established an academic policy centered on historical materials, and put forward the slogan "History is historical materials"③. Fu Sinian set up an archeology group at the Institute of History and Philology of the Academia Sinica just to “use some old tools to process some newly discovered materials④”. The academic policy established by Fu Sinian had a great influence on Chinese archeology and has continued in archaeological research after the founding of the People's Republic of China to this day.

Anderson

However, human experience observation is not equivalent to the mechanical imaging of a camera, but a process of identifying images of sensory responses. This identification first depends on the observer's theoretical literacy, knowledge training and practical experience. If the knowledge status and professional background of the observer are different, the way of identifying the image will be different, so the observed things or results will be very different. Anderson visited Longgu Mountain and found veins of quartz in the cave deposits. He concluded that there might be ancient human remains in the cave, but the fellow villagers who passed here every day turned a blind eye. Doctors can diagnose diseases by looking at chest X-rays, but patients themselves cannot see it. This is the difference between an expert and a layman when observing a phenomenon. Also, empirical observation only sees the superficial phenomena of things, not the essence of things and the causal relationships between different things. Furthermore, the observation and understanding of objective facts can be divided into different levels or depths, so the theories and methods for studying different phenomena and problems are also multi-level.

It can be seen that even if we want to maintain completely objective empirical observations, subjective judgment and theoretical factors are still permeated, and understanding and explaining the nature of empirical facts is even more inseparable from theoretical logical speculation. There is no completely objective research method in scientific research. A scholar who claims to let the materials speak for themselves has actually incorporated his subjective judgment into the process of selecting and sorting these materials, but he is not aware of this. Italian scholar Emilio Betti had wonderful insights into the subjective and objective issues of hermeneutics. He emphasized that the objectivity of materials is inseparable from the subjectivity of the interpreter, but the subjectivity of the interpreter must be able to deeply explain the externality of the object. and objectivity, otherwise the interpreter will just project his own subjective one-sidedness onto the object of interpretation.

Scientific research cannot stop at the appearance, but should reveal the secrets or laws hidden behind the complicated phenomena. By understanding the appearance of things, we can delve into the essence of things and the causal relationship that creates things. The same is true for archaeological research. We must not only study the what, when, where, and who of archaeological materials, but also explore the why and how of creating these materials and phenomena. The modern scientific method was born in Western Europe. The British philosopher Francis Bacon, who was hailed by Marx as "the true ancestor of the entire modern experimental science", proposed that the purpose of scientific understanding is to discover the truth of nature. He provided scientific understanding of the world for mankind. An empiricist inductive approach was proposed. The induction method is based on the fact that the world is material. It believes that all human knowledge and concepts come from feelings, and feelings are completely reliable. However, reasonable methods are also needed to organize and digest perceptual materials, and induction, analysis, comparison, Observation and experimentation are the main paths of research. Induction is an extensive cognitive process that draws general conclusions based on a synthesis of specific observations or facts. As specific facts accumulate with increasing reliability and precision, they can be classified and summarized to an ever-expanding level of useful "axioms."

At present, our archaeological research basically belongs to the category of inductive method. For example, typology is used to divide into periods, name various archaeological cultures, and establish types of cultural zones. Furthermore, based on induction and summary, we can deduce that the Yangshao and Longshan cultures belong to two eras, each characterized by the production of painted pottery and black pottery. Furthermore, from the differentiation of bronzes and tombs in the Shang Dynasty, we can conclude that there were national and class differentiation at that time. These operations are all based on the analysis, comparison and induction of unearthed materials.

Since the emergence of modern science, especially since the time of Newton, induction has been regarded as the true foundation of science. However, the real purpose of scientific research is not to list and summarize empirical facts, but to explore the reasons behind these facts.

As Engels said: "Experience gained from observation alone can never fully prove inevitability." Therefore, people realized that the starting point of scientific research should be the problem rather than the phenomenon. If phenomena are repeatedly observed but no problems are discovered or raised, then even if there are new discoveries, they are just recording new facts. One of the biggest shortcomings of Chinese archeology is that it treats countless archaeological discoveries as materials and phenomena, and does not transform them into various scientific problems with different levels, or at most they stay related to documents or explore when, what, who and A preliminary understanding of where. As a result, the development of this discipline is only reflected in the accumulation of materials, which makes it difficult to obtain historical knowledge and stimulate subsequent motivation to explore the true knowledge in depth.

Chinese archaeological scholars believe in the principle of relying on materials and are unwilling to explore issues other than materials, making the operation of this subject to a certain extent a matter of rules. I would like to use Huxley's words to point out this misunderstanding: "People generally have the illusion that scientific researchers should not make conclusions and generalizations beyond the observed facts... However, most people who have actually been exposed to scientific research Everyone knows that those who refuse to go beyond the facts rarely achieve anything."

Rationalism

The opposite of empiricism is rationalism. Rationalism means arriving at true knowledge through logical reasoning rather than representation. In the 17th century, the French philosopher Descartes emphasized the importance of transcending human experience to explain the governing laws of nature, marking the importance that scientific exploration places on rationalism. People realize that although objectivity and perceptual knowledge of materials are very important in scientific cognition, experience and intuition can only obtain superficial views, and superficial views may also be deceiving. Therefore, empirical knowledge that is entirely devoted to surface observation is unreliable, and its depth of understanding the objective world is also relatively limited. British philosopher and historian Hume believed that induction cannot derive the law of necessity, and the so-called observation of objective things is nothing more than "a bunch of impressions." The 19th-century French philosopher Comte proposed that science should transcend empiricism and base knowledge on verifiable and systematic "empirical evidence." He said, "Without some scientific theory as a precursor and providing a final explanation, then the true observation of any phenomenon is impossible."

Positivism (positivism) believes that the task of science is to Prove which subjective intuitions are reliable, and emphasize that scientific explanations must establish certain laws between the observation of different phenomena and the induction of these phenomena. The deductive method is the most commonly used method of positivism. It emphasizes formulating hypotheses about the underlying causes of dominant phenomena and then testing them through experiments or collecting evidence to understand the nature of things. For example, Mendel's understanding of the laws of inheritance gained from the shape variation of pea hybridization, and Mendeleev's improvement of the periodic table of chemical elements can be used as the best examples of using scientific deduction to understand the truth of things. Using deductive methods to explore scientific issues requires scientific abstraction, guiding research through theory, and explaining conclusions. The deductive method explores the underlying causes of phenomena and looks at the essence through appearances. Since there is no reliable and inevitable logical channel from phenomenon to essence, from fact to theory, it can actually only be solved through various guesses and "trial and error". Einstein believed that imagination is more important than knowledge and is the source of intellectual progress. The 19th century British physicist J. Tyndall pointed out, "With accurate experiments and observations as the basis for research, imagination becomes the designer of natural scientific theories."

Binford

The rise of new archeology in the United States in the 1960s was due to dissatisfaction with empiricist methods. New archaeologists or process archaeologists believe that the biggest shortcoming of empiricist and inductive research is the inability to judge and explain conclusions. Right or wrong, they require an empirical approach to eliminate subjectivity and provide objective and scientific interpretations of archaeological materials. Moreover, the goal of archeology cannot be satisfied with listing and chronicling historical facts. It should also explore the motivations and causes of social and cultural changes. In order to meet this requirement, archaeologists must use the deductive method of natural science to test their own conclusions to prevent the occurrence of bias as much as possible. At the same time, archaeologists are required to fully examine their own research capabilities and honesty.

While adopting empirical methods, process archeology also emphasizes the importance of studying general principles and explicitly turns to various materialist determinisms to explore the laws of social evolution, including Stewart's environmental determinism, White's technological determinism, and Boserope's demographic determinism was the most popular. Processual archeology also emphasizes the systematic view of culture and advocates the study of human-land relationships oriented by settlement morphology and cultural ecology. It changes the diffusion theory explanation that usually resorts to external factors in cultural and historical archaeology and regards the driving force of cultural evolution as It comes from the interaction of various subsystems within society. In order to interpret human behavior from material remains, American archaeologist Binford proposed the concept of "mid-range theory", which is to understand the life history of artifacts from the perspectives of ethnology, experimental archeology and taphonomy, and exclude other The impact of natural and man-made disturbances on it after abandonment in order to more accurately extract information on human behavior.

Processual archeology introduces natural science methods into archaeological research and advocates the concept of exploring the laws of social development, which has played a great role in promoting the move away from empiricism and intuitive methods in archaeological research. However, archeology studies historical and social phenomena, and the objects of this type of research are still very different from natural phenomena. Process archeology also overestimates the role of empirical methods, believing that as long as rigorous scientific methods and steps are adopted, the effects of empiricism and subjectivism can be overcome and objective and scientific conclusions can be obtained. In addition, the causes of social and cultural development are complex, and archeology may not necessarily be able to obtain general principles as clearly defined as the natural sciences. Since the 1980s, postmodernism has challenged process archaeology’s “naive” idea that scientific conclusions can be obtained through empirical methods. This view, known as “relativism”, believes that even empirical research cannot Be completely rational and objective. Although archeology will become less subjective as materials accumulate and technical methods improve, social conditions still influence what materials scholars consider important and how they interpret them. These social influences include national consciousness, political orientation, funding, and the opinions of authoritative scholars. These interpretations will always support, intentionally or unintentionally, the mainstream political and economic interests of society, and will always reinforce or defend the ideological positions associated with these people.

As early as the 1930s, British philosopher and archaeologist Robin Collingwood examined the impact of subjective factors on scientific cognition from the perspective of idealism or idealism. In the past, we were accustomed to opposing materialism and idealism, as if discussing the impact of subjective factors on the research object was a manifestation of an idealist view of history. However, it is the tradition of Western scholars to constantly reflect on the bias of subjective consciousness in the cognitive process that promotes scientific progress. For example, in natural science, Copernicus and Galileo overturned the geocentric theory, and the latter further invented telescopes for observation. Testing and correcting errors in subjective perception represents an epochal shift in scientific research.

The influence of this conceptualism is ubiquitous in the history of science. Examples abound of historians and archaeologists being constrained by class positions, ethnocentrism, personal biases, scientific fashions, and material constraints in their understanding and reconstruction of history. For example, influenced by the fashionable theory of biological evolution, American anthropologists and archaeologists in the 19th century used the theory of evolution to study the history of indigenous Indians, which strengthened their prejudice against Indians and regarded them as primitive humans who could not evolve to civilization and were inevitably extinct. destiny. Even Louis Morgan believed that native Indians, including the Incas and Aztecs, were at the level of tribal society. Echoing the popular social Darwinism and racist trends at the time, German archaeologist Gustav Kossina used archaeological evidence to prove the glorious history of the German nation and provide an ideological basis for the rise of the Nazi regime. Under the influence of insufficient materials and the prevailing communication theory at the time, Anderson proposed a Western interpretation of Chinese culture based on Yangshao painted pottery. Influenced by written chronicles, Chinese scholars once believed that the center of Chinese civilization was in the Yellow River Basin. Only with the continuous emergence of new archaeological materials from other regions did this single-center view of the origin of civilization change. However, the shadow of this literature orientation still lingers in today's civilization exploration, reflecting the constraints of acquired knowledge and existing traditional thinking on scientific exploration.

At the level of material analysis, Chinese archaeological methods mainly adopt the analytical concepts of typology and stratigraphy, and analyze functionalism, process theory, and post-process theory that were popular in international academic circles in the second half of the 20th century. The academic concepts are quite unfamiliar, and some people even find these methods resistant and difficult to understand. Therefore, archaeologists who are deeply influenced by historical positioning and are good at typology and chronology analysis will naturally think that establishing cultural periodization and historical relationships and supplementing written history with archaeological materials are the most important research goals, and do not think that understanding human behavior is the most important research goal. What is the necessary way. They do not value and explore the issues of human adaptation and agency reflected in these materials because these issues are completely outside the scope of their acquired concepts and experiences. This limitation in subjective consciousness and knowledge background has become a significant problem that has not yet been fully recognized and restricts the development of this discipline. Chinese scholars rarely admit that they may have subjective biases, biased traditional values ??and outdated professional knowledge, lack reflection on their own research abilities, and do not welcome opposing or different critical opinions. From this point of view, archeology is deeply influenced by the traditional research methods of Chinese studies.

Discussion and Conclusion

For a long time, Chinese archeology has regarded the accumulation of original materials as the top priority, making the achievements of this discipline mainly reflected in the accumulation of materials rather than the analysis of materials. Interpretation of information. This is why many historians feel very confused and alienated from archeology. Because the typology and stratigraphy that archaeologists talk about are only analytical concepts and methods for organizing materials, the listing and description of artifacts in a large number of archaeological reports cannot provide historical knowledge that historians can understand and use. The 19th-century French philosopher, mathematician, astronomer, and physicist J.H. Poncare once said: “Science is built of facts as a house is built of stone; but a collection of facts is no more science than a collection of facts. A pile of stones is not the same as a house⑥" This is the biggest problem that Chinese archaeological research currently needs to overcome. If a large amount of unearthed materials are to be transformed into concrete knowledge that historians can use, archeology must go beyond simple empirical methods. and taken-for-granted explanations, using scientific reasoning and various analytical methods to refine information and understand the underlying causes of things and phenomena, providing a substantial and reliable basis for historical reconstruction.

Tomb of Zhang Guangzhi (Massachusetts, USA)

Modern sciences, including archeology, were developed in Western Europe. During the spread of Western learning to the east, they were influenced by traditional Chinese studies. Very big. Although traditional Chinese culture does not have philosophical reflections on its own epistemology, there is also a dual emphasis on objectivity and subjectivity. On the one hand, this cognitive tradition emphasizes "disbelief without evidence", which reflects a kind of unconscious objectivism. However, for phenomena that cannot be intuitively understood, a purely speculative approach is adopted, that is, "the mind knows its meaning" to explain the potential causes of various phenomena. In the field of history, Mr. Zhang Guangzhi described the academic method of Chinese scholars as: on the one hand, it pays special attention to the recording of objective historical facts; on the other hand, it uses the description and selection of historical facts to express the subjective judgment of its own values, that is, relying on subjective judgment. to explain history. This method of scholarship is manifested in archaeological research by paying special attention to the acquisition and verification of materials, distrusting subjective theories, and believing that theory is just a prejudice⑦.

Modern scientific thought regards the world as a natural and independently existing object. Through abstract thinking and rigorous logical and mathematical reasoning methods, it can turn empirical observations into scientific theories that understand and explain the real world. . But in traditional Chinese culture, there is no such intellectual heritage. Determining an opinion about something that cannot be verified by the senses is not regarded as a problem that can be solved by logical reasoning. C. Furth, the author of "Ding Wenjiang", summarized three methods commonly used in traditional Chinese epistemology. One is to learn from history and use past successful experiences to confirm the correctness of one's views; the other is to use belief reconciliation, Pay attention to the merging of old and new, but not making a choice; the third is imitation, sorting out based on the appeal of the concept. She pointed out that traditional Chinese intellectuals have the purest "rationality", which means they neither rely on positivist testing nor logical reasoning to analyze the inner structure of things. Therefore, the Chinese people's understanding of nature is entirely gained through meditation.

Also, during the early spread of Western learning to the east, China was most interested in Western technology, focusing on applied disciplines rather than basic theory. Later, people gradually realized that the great power of science lies not only in technology, but also in the predictability and insight of scientific reasoning⑧.

Chinese traditional culture did not provide any foundation or preparation for accepting Western scientific ideas. Therefore, as a product of the spread of Western learning to the east, archeology was introduced into China due to China’s social background and cultural traditions. Development in China is very different from that in the West. Just like the early introduction of many Western science and technologies into China mainly for their practicality, archeology is also favored as an indispensable tool that helps historians find underground materials. Therefore, the value expectation of Chinese academic circles is still that it will be used in China. "Seeking truth" and "application" in history are not "seeking truth" in science. As a result, this subject was basically introduced and applied as a ground excavation technology. As for how to explore and reconstruct history from wordless material remains, there is a lack of scientific epistemology and methodology. In addition to turning to history and relying on documentary clues, archaeologists can only rely on intuition and empiricism.

It is precisely because of this lack of rationalism that eighty years after archeology was introduced to China, although we have introduced many physical and chemical dating and analytical testing techniques, the research objectives and main academic The concept has not changed. Since the periodization and division of material culture are still regarded as the core goals of archaeological research, the typological method and the concept of "archaeological culture" are still adhered to by some scholars as academic orthodoxy in China today, and they are also concerned about the emergence of Europe and the United States in the 1960s. The new archeology is skeptical. In academic circles, respect for the teachings of teachers is better than the pursuit of scientific truth, and the concept of inheritance and acquisition is adhered to as a belief, which affects the sustainable development of this discipline and the cultivation of the innovative spirit of the younger generation. Swedish chemist Bezilias reminds us that being accustomed to a certain opinion often makes us convinced of its correctness. Habits can conceal the biggest weakness of this opinion and make us lose the ability to use arguments to refute it.

It is precisely the value orientation of "realism" and "application" in traditional culture that caused archeology to be regarded only as a tool and technology when it was introduced to China, and as a helper for historical research. The development in recent decades has also highlighted the bias of this value trade-off. For example, environmental archeology and settlement archaeology methods are currently widely adopted by Chinese academic circles, and flotation has also become a necessary operating procedure in the excavation process. In fact, these methods are commonly used by the new archeology in the United States since the middle of the last century. However, in the United States, these research methods were developed together with theoretical concepts and explanatory models such as cultural ecology, systems theory, and social complexity to explore the inherent laws of cultural adaptation and social change. However, after our choices during the process of being introduced to China, flotation method, environmental archeology and settlement archeology were promoted for their "practical" functions, and along with them were used to solve the interaction and research on the relationship between man and earth. Theoretical concepts and interpretive models of social change have been ignored. As a result, flotation method, environmental archeology and settlement archeology inevitably become a purely technical operation due to lack of theoretical support, becoming embellishments of artifact typologies and unable to provide "true knowledge" of the changes in prehistoric culture. Therefore, while we are considering the introduction of technology for "application", we must also consider the importance of basic theoretical research in guiding technology operations and historical reconstruction.

Mr. Zhang Guangzhi said that Chinese humanities were not the mainstream of the world in the 20th century. This is an undeniable fact. Modern China has produced many outstanding historians, but no one is respected as a master by the international academic community, and no one has become a historical theorist with status in the world. This is because on the stage of the world’s humanities and social sciences, Chinese scholars themselves have chosen a marginalized position and are willing to be abandoned outside the mainstream⑨. Investigating the fundamental reason, we may also need to reflect on the knowledge level of Chinese traditional culture. It’s not that China has no talents, it’s not that the materials are bad, it’s not that our brains are inferior to others, but our traditional cultural cognitive methods have constrained our brains. Without rationalistic thinking, it’s difficult to cultivate first-class scholars who can win the Nobel Prize. We should realize that one-sided emphasis on Chinese characteristics and reference based on pragmatism is not a broad path for archaeological research. The value orientation of purely pursuing "application" will be difficult to produce research results of universal value and will not be able to exert leadership on the international scientific stage. The role of the world.

Chinese archeology must make changes in the way it trains students. It should not only teach students experiential knowledge such as field excavation techniques and distinguishing types of artifacts, but more importantly, cultivate their ability to think rationally and analyze problems. ability. Einstein said that the goal of school is to cultivate independent thinkers, rather than prioritizing the acquisition of professional knowledge. Without people with independent thinking and creative abilities, the upward development of society would be impossible.

This article was originally published in the 2010 Issue 1 of "Southern Cultural Relics", and the annotations are omitted.