Jump to content

Doubting Antiquity School

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected fromYigupai)
New Culture Movement
Background
Aftermath of1911 Revolution

Eastward spread of Western learning

Ideologies
Practice
Schools of thought
Major publications
Notable people

TheDoubting Antiquity SchoolorYigupai(Chinese:Nghi cổ phái;pinyin:Yígǔpài;Wade–Giles:I-ku-p'ai[1][2]) refers to a group of scholars and writers inChineseacademia,starting during theNew Culture Movement(mid-1910s to 1920s), who applied a critical historiographical approach to Chinese historical sources. They put forward theories doubting the authenticity of texts and narratives that, in traditional Chinese historiography, were often accepted as authentic.

Hu Shihstudied in the West and was deeply influenced by Western thought. He then argued inPeking Universitythat Chinese written history was not credible beforeEastern Zhouwithout critical examination. This view was accepted by his studentsFu Sinianand especiallyGu Jiegang,who further advanced "our traditional knowledge of Chinese antiquity was built up in successive strata, but in an order exactly the reverse of the actual occurrence."[3]

Most of their criticism concerns the authenticity of pre-Qin texts and deals with questions put forward by the past dynastic writers, as well as other subjects.Hu Shihinitiated the critical movement,[1]with his pupilGu Jiegangand his friendQian Xuantongcontinuing this school of thought.[4]Their writings also had influence on many westernsinologists,includingBernhard KarlgrenandSamuel Griffith.

In a more specific way, the Doubting Antiquity School was represented byGushibianCổ sử biện (Debates on Ancient History), the scholarly movement led by Gu Jiegang, centered on the magazine of the same name. Seven issues of the magazine, 1926–1941, contain about 350 essays.

Major critics of the Doubting Antiquity School were historians associated with theCritical Review,a journal founded in 1922. The historians includedLiu Yizheng,Liang Qichao,Wang Guowei,Chen Yinque,andMiao Fenglin[zh].

Evaluation

[edit]

In the atmosphere of critical re-evaluation of traditional culture and learnings of the early 20th century, the Doubting Antiquity School found great influence. Some of their conjectures cast doubt on the authenticity of historical narratives about Chinese antiquity as presented in traditional texts that have been accepted as authentic for millennia. It is these conjectures that gained the greatest popular interest in the non-academic media, such as:

  • Yu the Greatwas originally an animal or deity figure used as a motif on bronzeware, and the veneration of bronzeware led to Yu being recast as a historical but super-human figure from antiquity;
  • thepeaceful transition of powerfromYaotoShunwas concocted by philosophers of theZhou dynastyto support their political philosophy;
  • a series of early antiquity kings were concocted in theHan dynastyandXin dynastyto justify the rule of those dynasties on geomancy grounds; and
  • a portion of the recorded history of theXia dynastywas concocted, borrowing the narrative from real events in theShang dynasty,to give historical precedent to the "revival" of theEastern Han dynasty.

Nevertheless, the Doubting Antiquity School's more important legacy was the critical approach to sources they pioneered. The central tenet of their approach was that the history of Chinese antiquity was created iteratively. Ancient texts have been repeatedly edited, reorganised, tampered with or even completely fabricated, so the historical narrative of antiquity as presented in traditional texts was different at different points of time. As time went on, the history of antiquity became longer and more complicated, characters acquired more features, including more supernatural attributes. This means that it is not always possible to identify the "authentic" version of events from antiquity, only the narrative as stated in a text at a particular time.

Some of the conjectures put forward by the Doubting Antiquity School are now disproved or supported based on archaeological findings undermining or supporting the authenticity of the historical texts that the Doubting Antiquity School posited as inauthentic.Joseph Needhamwrote in 1954 that many scholars doubted that classic texts such asSima Qian'sRecords of the Grand Historiancontained accurate information about such distant history, including the thirty kings of theShang dynasty(c. 1600–c. 1046 BC) listed by Sima. Many scholars argued that Sima could not have had access to written materials which detailed history a millennium before his time. However, the discovery oforacle bonesat an excavation of the Shang capital atAnyang(Yinxu) matched 23 names of the 30 Shang kings listed by Sima. Needham writes that this remarkable archaeological find proves that Sima Qian "did have fairly reliable materials at his disposal—a fact which underlines once more the deep historical-mindedness of the Chinese."[5]

In 1993, scholarLi Xueqinmade an influential speech in which he called for historians to "leave the 'Doubting Antiquity' period", which became the manifesto of the "Believing Antiquity" movement (although Li himself favoured a thirdhistoriographicalapproach of "Interpreting Antiquity" ). Scholars of the "Believing Antiquity" viewpoint argue that archaeological discoveries of recent decades have generally substantiated Chinese traditional accounts rather than contradicted them, rendering the doubts of the Doubting Antiquity School largely obsolete. For instance, manuscripts discovered in tombs have proved the authenticity of several texts long thought to be later forgeries, including theWenzi,theKongzi Jiayu,theHeguanzi,parts of theYi Zhou Shu,and many others.[6]

Criticism

[edit]

The Doubting Antiquity School's opinion and claims were not universally accepted by other schools in 1920s. Major critics of the Doubting Antiquity School were historians from theHistoriography and Geography School( sử địa học phái ) of theNational Central UniversityinNanjingand the academics associated with the academic journalCritical Review,or termed theXueheng School.The major opposition included Chu Coching, Liu Yizheng, Liang Qichao, Wang Guowei, Chen Yinque, and Miao Fenglin.

These historians claimed that the many hypotheses ofDoubting Antiquity Schoolwere radical and nationalist revisionisms influenced by theMay Fourth MovementandNew Culture Movement,which aimed to abolish Chinese tradition. And some claims of the Doubting Antiquity School, such asSino-Babylonianism,were based on assumption without any archaeological evidence. Chinese writerLu XundismissedDoubting Antiquity Schooland their publicationGushibian( cổ sử biện,Debates on Ancient History). He argued that the real intention behind Doubting Antiquity School was to aggressively demolish the Chinese imperial legacy, so much so that they would reject real historiography.[7]Much archaeological evidence discovered in 20th century, such asYinxuandTaosi,proved some of the Doubting Antiquity School's claims to be incorrect.[8]

Zhang Guoan ofBeijing Normal Universitybelieves the existence ofDoubting Antiquity Schoolwas a reflection of the political climate of rising Chinese nationalism at the time.[9]

Relationship with Chinese archaeology

[edit]

The influence of Doubting Antiquity School caused many people to lose confidence in many ancient books and traditional ancient histories. Driven by the special interest of Chinese people in history, they turned to Chinese archaeology, which was just born, in order to gain a better understanding of Chinese ancient history. The excavation of the ancient site ofYangshaoVillage in 1921 and the excavation of the ancient site of Xiyin Village in 1926 made people seek its relationship with the early history of China. Some also use fashionable sociological and historical theories to explain the origin of ancient Chinese history and ancient history and culture. Some Western and Japanese scholars also use archaeology in the service of their political intentions and racial prejudice.[10]

At this time, the culture of the West was very clamorous, and its influence was widespread. The excavation of Yin Ruins in Anyang in 1928 brought the understanding and discussion of ancient history into a new stage. The Yin Ruins have oracle bone inscriptions and their important content to confirm the lineage of the Shang Dynasty's ancestors and kings recorded in "Records of the Grand Historian Yin Benji", as well as exquisite bronze wares. stage. In 1929, the sixth excavation of Yin Ruins in Anyang discovered a piece of painted pottery, which further aroused the thinking and discussion of the relationship between Yangshao and Xiaotun.

It can be said that modern Chinese archaeology was developed in order to seek the roots of Chinese culture under the Doubting Antiquity School about the authenticity of historical documents and the stimulation of "Western Origin".

List of early modern scholars

[edit]

Prominent figures

[edit]

Others

[edit]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^abWilkinson, Endymion(2000).Chinese History: A Manual.Harvard Univ Asia Center.ISBN0-674-00249-0.Page 345, see:[1]
  2. ^Loewe, Michael and Edward L. Shaughnessy (1999).The Cambridge History of Ancient ChinaCambridge University Press.ISBN0-521-47030-7.Page 72, see:[2]
  3. ^Peng, Peng (1 October 2021)."Decentralizing the Origin of Civilization: Early Archaeological Efforts in China".History of Humanities.6(2): 515–548.doi:10.1086/715935.ISSN2379-3163.S2CID244133983.
  4. ^De Bary, William Theodore (2001).Sources of Chinese Tradition: From 1600 Through the Twentieth Century.Published by Columbia University Press.ISBN0-231-11271-8.p. 364.[3]
  5. ^Needham, Joseph. (1972).Science and Civilization in China: Volume 1, Introductory Orientations.Richmond: Kingprint Ltd., reprinted by permission of the Cambridge University Press with first publication in 1954.ISBN0-521-05799-X.Page 88, see:here.
  6. ^Shaughnessy, Edward L.(2006).Rewriting Early Chinese Texts.SUNY Press. pp. 257–258.ISBN9780791482353.
  7. ^"Nhắc lại một đoạn bàn xử án"(in Chinese).
  8. ^Doubt and out of the Doubt(PDF)(in Chinese).The Commercial Press.1991.ISBN9787100071772.
  9. ^"Cố hiệt mới vừa cùng hồ thích: Từ luận chiến hoàn bại đến" sử học cách mạng "Đại nghịch chuyển".The Paper.29 April 2019.
  10. ^Lương đào bạch lập siêu (2013).""Nhị trọng chứng cứ pháp" cùng sách cổ nghĩ lại ".Journal of Tsinghua University(Philosophy and Social Sciences).

Further reading

[edit]
  • Liu, Jianguo (2004).Distinguishing and Correcting the pre-Qin Forged Classics.Xi'an: Shaanxi People's Press.ISBN7-224-05725-8.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doubting_Antiquity_School&oldid=1238709375"