The “Hou Mu Xin” bronze gong vessel from the Shang Dynasty, unearthed from the Tomb of Fu Hao at Yinxu Site, Henan Province Photo: Ren Guanhong/CSST

---

The Cambridge History of Ancient China (1999) offers a comprehensive account of Chinese history from the Shang Dynasty (c. 1600–1046 BCE) to the unification under Qin in 221 BCE. As the most systematic and complete study of early Chinese history produced by Western Sinology in the late 20th century—reflecting the mainstream perspective of Western scholarship—it has sparked debates about ancient Chinese historical sources that originate from the book itself and extend beyond it. These debates, which began during the book’s compilation, continue to evolve alongside shifting academic contexts. On the surface, they focus on whether early transmitted sources hold evidentiary value for historical reconstruction. At a deeper level, they raise broader questions about how early Chinese history should be interpreted—particularly whether the traditional narrative of the civilization’s origins and the succession of the Xia (c. 2070–1600 BCE), Shang, and Zhou (c. 1046–256 BCE) dynasties, preserved in transmitted texts but not yet fully corroborated by archaeology or contemporary records, should be accepted.

The historiographical stance taken by The Cambridge History presents a significant challenge to Chinese scholars. The ensuing debate unfolds on two levels: methodological and cultural.

Methodological disputes

At the methodological level, three broad issues arise.

First is how to approach historical source criticism. Some Western scholars argue that, unlike archaeological materials, transmitted texts have undergone repeated copying, editing, and compilation, thus losing their original material characteristics and contextual integrity. From this view, relying on such texts—often of uncertain provenance—for historical interpretation introduces an inherent risk of credulity. These scholars caution against accepting transmitted literature as authoritative without rigorous scrutiny and are particularly critical of efforts to correlate textual sources too readily with archaeological findings, seeing such attempts as methodologically unsound.

The second issue concerns the appropriate mode of textual criticism. Chinese scholars often follow a principle of textual affirmation, holding that although early records were orally transmitted and mythologized, they retain a rational core closer to historical truth than later Confucian classics or “orthodox histories.” Western scholars, in contrast, tend to emphasize textual skepticism, arguing that ancient texts and their commentaries should not be presumed credible unless their reliability can be rigorously verified.

The third issue involves defining early “China.” Chinese scholars generally maintain that a broad, multiethnic, and multilingual cultural-political entity identifiable as “China” had begun to form in early periods. Many Sinologists, however, question whether such an integrative framework existed during the Shang and Zhou—or earlier—and remain skeptical that the notion of “China” can fully capture the complexity of developments across this vast region from the Neolithic through the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties. At a more specific level, disagreement often stems from some Western scholars’ limited familiarity with ancient Chinese texts and cultural contexts.

Cultural positioning beyond texts

These academic debates have also extended into questions of cultural positioning beyond the scope of The Cambridge History. Unlike in some countries where archaeology is closely linked to anthropology, sociology, or art history, modern Chinese archaeology has, from its inception, been deeply integrated with the study of ancient society and historical-cultural traditions. This integration has shaped its role in contributing to understandings of the Chinese nation and civilization. While disciplinary boundaries merit academic discussion, some Sinologists interpret this configuration—when it diverges from their expectations—as motivated by nationalist agendas.

A related example is the reaction to the “Xia–Shang–Zhou Chronology Project.” While many scholars have legitimately critiqued its methodology, evidentiary standards, and ideas such as “surpassing skepticism, emerging from confusion,” it remains important to distinguish scholarly critique from culturally tinted derision.

More than two decades after The Cambridge History’s publication, some Sinologists still filter analysis through cultural biases. As transformations in Chinese historiography—driven by evolving research conditions—have introduced new approaches to evaluating historical sources, these scholars often label such shifts as “localism,” “premodern,” or “new traditionalism,” asserting that unlike Western scholarship, which is grounded solely in disciplinary norms, Chinese research is invariably shaped by nationalism or ideological agendas. They impose ideological frameworks a priori onto unfamiliar or overlooked aspects of Chinese scholarship, engaging in circular reasoning.

Autonomous discourse for Chinese history required

Within and beyond The Cambridge History, Western academia poses significant challenges to early Chinese historical sources and interpretive frameworks, across methodological and cultural dimensions. How should Chinese scholarship respond? Methodological questions must be addressed according to scholarly principles. The widely held Sinologist view—that early historical sources require critical evaluation before use—should be recognized with humility. Such materials must undergo rigorous historical analysis to assess reliability, factual basis, and applicability. Scholars must also understand the conceptual structures in these texts and the mechanisms of transmission and codification. For materials not yet open to such scrutiny, the appropriate stance is to suspend judgment and seek truth from facts.

Since the 1970s, extensive discoveries of excavated texts from periods with clearer chronologies and minimal later disturbance have enabled reassessment of early Chinese sources and traditional frameworks. A central question has been the composition of ancient texts. Increasingly, scholars focus on tracing textual origins and examining intertextual relationships to authenticate early literature. Drawing on materials such as the Guodian Chu slips, Shanghai Museum bamboo slips, Tsinghua Bamboo Slips, and Anhui University Bamboo Slips, researchers have studied canonical works including the Book of Documents, Book of Songs, and Book of Rites, analyzing chapter formation, textual evolution, and interrelations across texts.

These new studies demonstrate that transmitted classical texts—products of long-term cultural transmission and selection—possess a credible foundation of authenticity. The relationship between excavated manuscripts and traditional histories is not wholesale revision but partial correction and supplementation. As Chinese scholars progress, many overseas Sinologists have likewise begun reconsidering their approaches, showing growing openness to textual evolution and discursive convergence.

Regarding the difficult assertion that a culturally and politically integrated concept of “China” had existed in antiquity, Chinese scholars have responded with empirical evidence and reasoned argument. From the Three Dynasties of Xia, Shang, and Zhou—and some include the earlier Yu Dynasty—the ideological basis of unity was already present, laying foundations for large dynastic formations. Though the centralized structures of these dynasties differed from Qin (221–207 BCE) and Han (206 BCE–220 CE), they sustained meaningful, relatively stable links between central authority and regions. The grand unification under Qin and Han culminated a gradual process whereby longstanding ideals of unity became institutionalized governance structures. Although the Three Dynasties distinguished “Huaxia” from “barbarians,” such boundaries were difficult to define by bloodline or geography. “China” never referred only to the Central Plains or the Huaxia polity; it has always transcended region, ethnicity, and regime.

At the cultural level, the key issue is authority over historical interpretation. Recognizing the limits of Western ideological frameworks and their academic constraints, Chinese scholars have actively developed theoretical and conceptual models rooted in China’s historical experience, aiming to build an autonomous discourse for ancient Chinese history. Since the late 18th century, the Industrial Revolution has widened China-West material gaps, and “Eurocentrism” has dominated explanatory frameworks. Western academic tradition long projected superiority in institutions, values, research standards, and moral ideals. These assumptions—often reinforced by “stagnation theory”—have come under critique even within Western Sinology, where some scholars label them as narrow “professional ideology.”

Historically, Chinese history has been marginalized in Western historical studies due to limited resources and career opportunities. This marginalization is accompanied by strong ideological confidence that often discourages engagement with recent developments in Chinese historiography. Many ideas and narratives about China—products of specific historical contexts—remain widely accepted in the West, even as new evidence undermines them. Findings based on Chinese sources are often used merely to illustrate or validate Western theoretical constructs before being disseminated globally through English-language academia. This process sustains an explanatory authority system positioning itself as “mainstream scholarship.”

For decades, Western historians and archaeologists have identified writing, metallurgy, and urbanization—especially writing—as civilization’s defining traits. Yet this framework, extrapolated largely from Mesopotamian and ancient Egyptian models, cannot serve as a universal standard. The Cambridge History, following this approach, treats the appearance of writing as the sole marker of China’s transition from prehistory to history. Consequently, the Xia Dynasty is dismissed as ahistorical, and even early Shang is excluded due to lacking contemporary written records.

After initial uncertainty, Chinese scholars recognized that uncritical adherence to Western frameworks risks confining Chinese research within external discursive boundaries, reducing it to a derivative enterprise defined by others. In today’s global civilizational competition, China should develop its own interpretations of major historical questions concerning itself.

On the question of when China entered its historical era, Chinese scholars have explored alternative criteria grounded in local civilizational conceptions. In the absence of contemporary writing, they have turned to the Marxist definition of civilization, which marks the state as the threshold of civilized society. Archaeological evidence reveals core features of early states, notably urban centers dating roughly from 3500 to 1500 BCE. Referencing global civilizational patterns, scholars propose state formation as the criterion for civilization’s onset. This applies not only to China but other ancient civilizations. By this measure, some regions of China had entered an early state-level civilization phase about 5,300 years ago. This marks a significant shift—from passively following Western models to proactively constructing independent frameworks, and from arguing within imposed parameters to questioning their validity.

The Chinese academic community values its historical traditions not to retroactively validate classical texts, but because these traditions are intertwined with national sentiment and deeply rooted cultural values. Negating the historical framework risks undermining these values. While drawing on international Sinology’s insights, Chinese scholars increasingly commit to interpreting history consistent with China’s developmental realities, refining methodologies and charting a path toward more intellectually autonomous discourse. This trend defines contemporary Chinese historical research. 

Zhang Shuyi is a professor from the School of History and Culture at South China Normal University.

   

Edited by REN GUANHONG