我的征尘是星辰大海。。。
The dirt and dust from my pilgrimage forms oceans of stars...
-------当记忆的篇章变得零碎，当追忆的图片变得模糊，我们只能求助于数字存储的永恒的回忆
作者:黄教授
手机视频列表
从文化自信角度重析夏商周断代工程
视频
音频
原始脚本
从文化自信视角重析夏商周断代工程与夏朝争议。 此前对夏商周断代工程及夏朝争议的剖析，聚焦于学术范式、证据链要求的客观差异。 其背后是近代以来西方殖民掠夺形成的中心论话语体系，与中国本土文明演进逻辑、现代文化自主诉求的根本碰撞。 夏商周断代工程的争议并非单纯的学术分歧。 而是西方殖民时代遗产下，中国文化话语权重建过程中必须直面的核心议题。 一、先明确半吊子是误解。 工程本质是阶段性成果，首先要厘清一个核心认知。 夏商周断代工程从未宣称自己是终极定论。 一、工程定位。 它是一九九六年启动的国家九五科技攻关项目。 170位跨学科专家用5年时间，试图用自然科学加人文社科、碳14测年、天文历法、文献考证。 考古类型学的交叉方法，搭建夏商周三代的时间框架。 其官方目标从来不是解决所有问题，而是给出基本年代框架。 对西周共和元年，前841年前的各王，商后期武丁以下给出准确年代，商前期给出框架，夏代给出基本纪年。 二、成果边界。 2000年发布的夏商周年表，将夏代起始定在前2070年，夏商分界定在前1600年，商周分界定在前1046年。 这个结论的官方定性始终是阶段性成果，而非最终定论。 所谓半吊子的观感。 本质是公众对终极答案的期待，与学术研究渐进式补正的本质之间的落差。 同时也受困于西方中心论话语体系对中国学术成果的刻意消解。 二、核心争议根源。 西方中心论的殖民遗产，而非纯粹学术分歧。 西方对夏朝的质疑，绝非基于公平的学术探究。 而是近代殖民掠夺形成的中心论话语体系的延续。 其本质是殖民地思想的遗留，与科学考古毫无关联。 一。 西方文字中心论的双重标准，殖民时代的话语霸权，西方学界对夏朝的核心质疑，没有成熟文字，夏朝不能被认定为朝代。 本质是殖民时期掠夺式考古的产物，是为其文化霸权服务的双重标准。 标准的虚伪性，西方早期文明研究的文字自证加完整编年史标准。 是基于两河流域、埃及文明的自身路径，却强行套用于全球所有文明。 事实上，全球早期文明中无文字却被认定为国家的案例比比皆是。 印度河文明，哈拉帕有大量印章符号，但未破译，不影响其被认定为早期国家。 米诺斯文明，克里特的现行文字 A 未破译，也不否定其王朝性质。 印加帝国靠结绳治理，同样被承认是强大帝国。 这套标准本质是西方为自身文明证明，为掠夺他国文明找借口的工具。 对中国的双重消解。 二里头遗址并非无文字，出土的数十种陶刻符号部分与甲骨文存在字形关联，只是未形成成熟表意文字体系。 但西方学界刻意忽略这一事实，刻意放大文字缺失的争议。 因为夏朝是中国文明的源头，否定夏朝的朝代属性，就能从根源上消解中国文明的延续性。 自主性，这是殖民时代贬低被殖民民族文明的惯用手段。 殖民掠夺的本质，西方所谓的考古标准诞生于其殖民掠夺时期。 近代以来，西方以考古为名，对埃及、两河流域、印度等文明古国进行掠夺式挖掘，将珍贵文物据为己有。 美其名曰学术研究，实则是赤裸裸的财富掠夺。 这套标准的核心目的是为其掠夺行为赋予合法性，让被掠夺国的文明成果沦为西方的文化资产。 本质是殖民地思想的延续。 二、西方无古可考的现实困境，失去掠夺权后的话语依赖，西方对夏朝的持续质疑。 另一核心原因是其自身已无可考之古，只能依赖殖民时期制定的标准维持话语霸权，这是其文化实力衰退的必然结果。 无本土文明可考。 西方欧洲地区的文明发展轨迹与东亚两河流域不同，其并未形成像中国、埃及这样的连续文明古国。 也没有大规模成体系的本土考古遗存可供研究。 失去殖民统治后，他们失去了掠夺其他文明古国文物的权利，也失去了依托掠夺文物构建理论的基础。 考古是实验科学，所有理论都必须源于实践发现。 没有考古发现，理论就成了空中楼阁。 文物困局。 西方博物馆、私人收藏手中的大量文明古国文物，是殖民掠夺的赃物。 若堂而皇之公开展示，发展中国家会持续要求讨还。 若秘而不宣藏于地下室，又无法作为学术研究的核心依据。 因此，他们只能依赖殖民时期制定的标准，试图通过这种方式将掠夺来的文物合法化。 同时掩盖自身无骨可考的现实困境。 话语霸权的维持，西方中心论的核心是通过制定标准掌控话语权。 维持自身的文化政治霸权。 对夏朝的持续质疑，本质是他们不愿放弃对中国文明起源的解释权，不愿承认中国本土文明的自主演进逻辑。 这是霸权思维的典型表现。 三、夏朝纪年未决的本质，证据链缺口，而非文明真实性。 否定夏朝起始和纪年没解决是客观事实。 但这不是失败，也不是西方口中的夏朝不存在，而是上古史研究的普遍难题，更不能成为西方消解中国文明的借口。 一、纪年的核心难点。 夏代处于文字起源前夜，没有成熟的纪年体系，也没有连续的文献记录。 断代工程给出的前2070年。 是基于碳十四测年数据加文献推算的综合结果，其置信度约68%，并非绝对精准。 但这一推算结果与二里头文化的时空范围、地理分布高度吻合。 与史记夏本纪的记载相互印证，具备基本的学术合理性。 二、国家形态的证据链已逐步闭合。 二里头遗址面积超300万平方米。 工程居中，网格分区的布局，是中国最早的中轴线都城规划，体现了高度集中的王权。 出土的青铜爵、绿松石器等。 证明了国家对核心资源的垄断能力，这是朝代的核心特征，而非部落联盟。 二里头文化的分布范围与文献记载的夏人活动区域。 豫西、晋南完全重合，且年代早于商文化，符合夏在前、商在后的历史逻辑。 这些证据足以证明夏朝是真实存在的早期王权国家。 西方的质疑本质是话语霸权下的刻意否定。 四、文化自信。 打破西方话语霸权，重建中国文明解释权益。 文化自信的核心是拒绝被殖民话语绑架。 文化自信不是盲目自大，而是清醒地认识到。 西方的中心论标准是殖民掠夺的产物，不具备普适性。 我们不应该被这套标准束缚，更不应该因为西方的质疑而自我怀疑。 中国文明的眼镜逻辑，文化价值应由我们自己定义，而非由殖民时代的话语体系评判。 二、文化自信的基础是尊重本土考古实践。 考古是文明的根基，断代工程的价值在于用中国本土的科学方法搭建中国上古史的时间框架。 我们无需追求西方意义上的终极定论。 而是要坚持考古实证加文献互证加文明演进规律的中国学术路径，逐步补全证据链，让中国文明的起源与发展回归其本来面貌。 三、文化自信的目标是夺回文明话语权。 西方博物馆中秘藏的掠夺文物、刻意制造的学术争议，本质是其文化霸权的脆弱表现。 随着中国综合实力的提升，我们不仅要持续推进考古研究，更要主动争夺文明解释权，让世界了解真实的中国文明，打破西方中心论的话语垄断。 五、总结。 争议的核心是话语权，而非文明本身。 夏商周断代工程的争议，本质是两种文明话语权的碰撞。 西方试图通过殖民时代的标准维持对中国文明的解释权，中国则通过自主的考古研究、学术探索，重建文化自信，夺回属于自己的文明话语权。 夏朝不是半吊子工程的产物，也不是西方口中的传说。 它是距今3800年左右，东亚地区自主演进形成的最早王权国家。 其文明价值无需西方认可。 夏商周断代工程的意义不仅在于搭建上古史时间框架，更在于为中国文化自信提供学术支撑。 证明中国文明的延续性、自主性，打破西方中心论的话语枷锁。
修正脚本
从文化自信视角重析夏商周断代工程与夏朝争议。 此前对夏商周断代工程及夏朝争议的剖析，聚焦于学术范式、证据链要求的客观差异。 其背后是近代以来西方殖民掠夺形成的中心论话语体系，与中国本土文明演进逻辑、现代文化自主诉求的根本碰撞。 夏商周断代工程的争议并非单纯的学术分歧。 而是西方殖民时代遗产下，中国文化话语权重建过程中必须直面的核心议题。 一、先明确半吊子是误解。 工程本质是阶段性成果，首先要厘清一个核心认知。 夏商周断代工程从未宣称自己是终极定论。 一、工程定位。 它是一九九六年启动的国家九五科技攻关项目。 170位跨学科专家用5年时间，试图用自然科学加人文社科、碳14测年、天文历法、文献考证、考古类型学的交叉方法，搭建夏商周三代的时间框架。 其官方目标从来不是解决所有问题，而是给出基本年代框架。 对西周共和元年，前841年前的各王，商后期武丁以下给出准确年代，商前期给出框架，夏代给出基本纪年。 二、成果边界。 2000年发布的夏商周年表，将夏代起始定在前2070年，夏商分界定在前1600年，商周分界定在前1046年。 这个结论的官方定性始终是阶段性成果，而非最终定论。 所谓半吊子的观感，本质是公众对终极答案的期待，与学术研究渐进式补正的本质之间的落差。 同时也受困于西方中心论话语体系对中国学术成果的刻意消解。 二、核心争议根源。 西方中心论的殖民遗产，而非纯粹学术分歧。 西方对夏朝的质疑，绝非基于公平的学术探究。 而是近代殖民掠夺形成的中心论话语体系的延续。 其本质是殖民地思想的遗留，与科学考古毫无关联。 一、西方文字中心论的双重标准，殖民时代的话语霸权，西方学界对夏朝的核心质疑，没有成熟文字，夏朝不能被认定为朝代。 本质是殖民时期掠夺式考古的产物，是为其文化霸权服务的双重标准。 标准的虚伪性，西方早期文明研究的文字自证加完整编年史标准。 是基于两河流域、埃及文明的自身路径，却强行套用于全球所有文明。 事实上，全球早期文明中无文字却被认定为国家的案例比比皆是。 印度河文明，哈拉帕有大量印章符号，但未破译，不影响其被认定为早期国家。 米诺斯文明，克里特的现行文字 A 未破译，也不否定其王朝性质。 印加帝国靠结绳治理，同样被承认是强大帝国。 这套标准本质是西方为自身文明证明，为掠夺他国文明找借口的工具。 对中国的双重消解。 二里头遗址并非无文字，出土的数十种陶刻符号部分与甲骨文存在字形关联，只是未形成成熟表意文字体系。 但西方学界刻意忽略这一事实，刻意放大文字缺失的争议。 因为夏朝是中国文明的源头，否定夏朝的朝代属性，就能从根源上消解中国文明的延续性、自主性，这是殖民时代贬低被殖民民族文明的惯用手段。 殖民掠夺的本质，西方所谓的考古标准诞生于其殖民掠夺时期。 近代以来，西方以考古为名，对埃及、两河流域、印度等文明古国进行掠夺式挖掘，将珍贵文物据为己有。 美其名曰学术研究，实则是赤裸裸的财富掠夺。 这套标准的核心目的是为其掠夺行为赋予合法性，让被掠夺国的文明成果沦为西方的文化资产。 本质是殖民地思想的延续。 二、西方无古可考的现实困境，失去掠夺权后的话语依赖，西方对夏朝的持续质疑。 另一核心原因是其自身已无可考之古，只能依赖殖民时期制定的标准维持话语霸权，这是其文化实力衰退的必然结果。 无本土文明可考。 西方欧洲地区的文明发展轨迹与东亚两河流域不同，其并未形成像中国、埃及这样的连续文明古国。 也没有大规模成体系的本土考古遗存可供研究。 失去殖民统治后，他们失去了掠夺其他文明古国文物的权利，也失去了依托掠夺文物构建理论的基础。 考古是实验科学，所有理论都必须源于实践发现。 没有考古发现，理论就成了空中楼阁。 文物困局。 西方博物馆、私人收藏手中的大量文明古国文物，是殖民掠夺的赃物。 若堂而皇之公开展示，发展中国家会持续要求讨还。 若秘而不宣藏于地下室，又无法作为学术研究的核心依据。 因此，他们只能依赖殖民时期制定的标准，试图通过这种方式将掠夺来的文物合法化。 同时掩盖自身无古可考的现实困境。 话语霸权的维持，西方中心论的核心是通过制定标准掌控话语权。 维持自身的文化政治霸权。 对夏朝的持续质疑，本质是他们不愿放弃对中国文明起源的解释权，不愿承认中国本土文明的自主演进逻辑。 这是霸权思维的典型表现。 三、夏朝纪年未决的本质，证据链缺口，而非文明真实性。 不可否认，夏朝起始和纪年没解决是客观事实。 但这不是失败，也不是西方口中的夏朝不存在，而是上古史研究的普遍难题，更不能成为西方消解中国文明的借口。 一、纪年的核心难点。 夏代处于文字起源前夜，没有成熟的纪年体系，也没有连续的文献记录。 断代工程给出的前2070年，是基于碳十四测年数据加文献推算的综合结果，其置信度约68%，并非绝对精准。 但这一推算结果与二里头文化的时空范围、地理分布高度吻合。 与史记夏本纪的记载相互印证，具备基本的学术合理性。 二、国家形态的证据链已逐步闭合。 二里头遗址面积超300万平方米。 宫城居中，网格分区的布局，是中国最早的中轴线都城规划，体现了高度集中的王权。 出土的青铜爵、绿松石器等，证明了国家对核心资源的垄断能力，这是朝代的核心特征，而非部落联盟。 二里头文化的分布范围与文献记载的夏人活动区域，豫西、晋南完全重合，且年代早于商文化，符合夏在前、商在后的历史逻辑。 这些证据足以证明夏朝是真实存在的早期王权国家。 西方的质疑本质是话语霸权下的刻意否定。 四、文化自信。 打破西方话语霸权，重建中国文明解释权。 一、文化自信的核心是拒绝被殖民话语绑架。 文化自信不是盲目自大，而是清醒地认识到，西方的中心论标准是殖民掠夺的产物，不具备普适性。 我们不应该被这套标准束缚，更不应该因为西方的质疑而自我怀疑。 中国文明的演进逻辑，文化价值应由我们自己定义，而非由殖民时代的话语体系评判。 二、文化自信的基础是尊重本土考古实践。 考古是文明的根基，断代工程的价值在于用中国本土的科学方法搭建中国上古史的时间框架。 我们无需追求西方意义上的终极定论。 而是要坚持考古实证加文献互证加文明演进规律的中国学术路径，逐步补全证据链，让中国文明的起源与发展回归其本来面貌。 三、文化自信的目标是夺回文明话语权。 西方博物馆中秘藏的掠夺文物、刻意制造的学术争议，本质是其文化霸权的脆弱表现。 随着中国综合实力的提升，我们不仅要持续推进考古研究，更要主动争夺文明解释权，让世界了解真实的中国文明，打破西方中心论的话语垄断。 五、总结。 争议的核心是话语权，而非文明本身。 夏商周断代工程的争议，本质是两种文明话语权的碰撞。 西方试图通过殖民时代的标准维持对中国文明的解释权，中国则通过自主的考古研究、学术探索，重建文化自信，夺回属于自己的文明话语权。 夏朝不是半吊子工程的产物，也不是西方口中的传说。 它是距今3800年左右，东亚地区自主演进形成的最早王权国家。 其文明价值无需西方认可。 夏商周断代工程的意义不仅在于搭建上古史时间框架，更在于为中国文化自信提供学术支撑。 证明中国文明的延续性、自主性，打破西方中心论的话语枷锁。
英文翻译
Re-examining the Xia-Shang-Zhou Chronology Project and the Controversy over the Xia Dynasty from the Perspective of Cultural Confidence. Previous analyses of the Xia-Shang-Zhou Chronology Project and the controversy over the Xia Dynasty have focused on objective differences in academic paradigms and requirements of the chain of evidence. Underlying this is a fundamental clash between the centrist discourse system formed by Western colonial plunder in modern times and the logic of China's indigenous civilizational evolution and its modern aspirations for cultural autonomy. The controversy over the Xia-Shang-Zhou Chronology Project is not merely an academic disagreement. It is a core issue that must be directly confronted in the process of rebuilding Chinese cultural discourse power under the legacy of the Western colonial era. I. First, it must be clarified that the perception of it as a "half-baked" project is a misunderstanding. The essence of the project is that it represents a phased achievement. A key understanding must first be established. The Xia-Shang-Zhou Chronology Project never claimed to be a definitive final conclusion. I. Project Positioning. It was a national "Ninth Five-Year Plan" key scientific and technological project launched in 1996. Involving 170 interdisciplinary experts over five years, it attempted to establish a chronological framework for the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties using a cross-disciplinary methodology combining natural sciences and humanities, including carbon-14 dating, astronomical calendars, textual research, and archaeological typology. Its official goal was never to solve all problems, but to provide a basic chronological framework. It aimed to provide precise dates for each king before the first year of the Gonghe Regency in the Western Zhou (841 BC), accurate dates for the late Shang period (starting from King Wu Ding), a framework for the early Shang, and basic reign years for the Xia. II. Boundaries of the Findings. The "Xia-Shang-Zhou Chronological Table" released in 2000 set the start of the Xia Dynasty at 2070 BC, the Xia-Shang boundary at 1600 BC, and the Shang-Zhou boundary at 1046 BC. The official characterization of this conclusion has always been a "phased achievement," not a final verdict. The perception of it being "half-baked" essentially stems from the gap between the public's expectation of a definitive answer and the inherently gradual, incremental nature of academic correction. It is also constrained by the deliberate devaluation of Chinese academic achievements within the Western-centric discourse system. II. Root of the Core Controversy. The colonial legacy of Western centrism, not purely academic disagreement. Western skepticism towards the Xia Dynasty is by no means based on fair academic inquiry. Rather, it is a continuation of the centrist discourse system formed by modern colonial plunder. Its essence is a remnant of colonialist thinking, completely unrelated to scientific archaeology. I. The Double Standard of Western Logocentrism: The Discursive Hegemony of the Colonial Era. The core Western academic objection to the Xia Dynasty – the absence of mature writing, thus disqualifying it as a dynasty – is inherently a product of the plunder-based archaeology of the colonial period, a double standard serving its cultural hegemony. The hypocrisy of the standard: The criteria of self-attestation through writing and a complete chronicle, used by Western scholars for early civilizations, were derived from the specific paths of Mesopotamian and Egyptian civilizations but forcibly applied to all global civilizations globally. In fact, numerous cases exist globally of early civilizations without writing that are nonetheless recognized as states. The Indus Valley Civilization (Harappa) had many seal symbols, yet these remain undeciphered, yet it is still recognized as an early state. The Minoan Civilization (Linear A script on Crete) remains undeciphered, yet its dynastic nature is not denied. The Inca Empire, governed by quipus (knot records), is acknowledged as a powerful empire. This set of standards is essentially a tool for the West to prove its own civilization's validity and to find excuses to plunder other civilizations. The double devaluation of China: The Erlitou site is not without writing. Dozens of pottery incised symbols have been excavated, some showing graphic connections to oracle bone script, though they do not form a mature ideographic writing system. However, Western academia deliberately ignores this fact, deliberately amplifying the controversy over the absence of writing. Because the Xia Dynasty is the origin of Chinese civilization, denying its dynastic status can fundamentally undermine the continuity and autonomy of Chinese civilization – a common method used in the colonial era to demean the civilizations of colonized peoples. The essence of colonial plunder: The so-called Western archaeological standards were born during their period of colonial looting. Since modern times, the West, in the name of archaeology, has conducted plundering excavations in ancient civilized countries like Egypt, Mesopotamia, and India, taking precious artifacts for themselves. Disguised as academic research, it is in fact outright wealth theft. The core purpose of this standard is to legitimize their plunder, turning the civilizational achievements of plundered nations into Western cultural assets. Its essence is the continuation of colonialist thinking. II. The Real Dilemma of the West Having No Ancient History to Study: Discursive Dependence After Losing the Right to Plunder. Another core reason for the West's persistent questioning of the Xia Dynasty is that it itself has no ancient history accessible for study, forcing it to rely on standards established during the colonial period to maintain its discursive hegemony. This is an inevitable consequence of its declining cultural power. No indigenous civilization to study: The trajectory of civilization development in Western Europe differs from that of East Asia and Mesopotamia. It did not form continuous ancient civilizations like China or Egypt. Nor does it have large-scale, systematic indigenous archaeological remains for study. Having lost colonial rule, they lost the right to plunder artifacts from other ancient civilizations and also lost the foundation for building theories based on plundered artifacts. Archaeology is an experimental science; all theories must originate from practical discoveries. Without archaeological discoveries, theories become castles in the air. The artifact predicament: A vast number of artifacts from ancient civilizations held in Western museums and private collections are spoils of colonial plunder. If displayed publicly, developing countries would continuously demand their return. If hidden away in basements, they cannot serve as core evidence for academic research. Therefore, they can only rely on the standards established during the colonial period, attempting to legitimize the plundered artifacts through this method. Simultaneously, this masks their real dilemma of having no ancient history of their own to study. Maintaining discursive hegemony: The core of Western centrism is to control the power of discourse by setting standards. Doing so maintains its own cultural and political hegemony. The persistent questioning of the Xia Dynasty essentially reflects their unwillingness to relinquish the power to interpret the origins of Chinese civilization, and their unwillingness to acknowledge the autonomous evolutionary logic of China's indigenous civilization. This is a typical manifestation of hegemonic thinking. III. The Essence of the Unresolved Xia Dynasty Chronology: A Gap in the Evidence Chain, Not a Question of Civilizational Authenticity. Undeniably, it is an objective fact that the start date and reign years of the Xia Dynasty have not been conclusively solved. But this is not a failure, nor does it mean the Xia Dynasty did not exist (as claimed by the West). Rather, it is a common difficulty in the study of ancient history, and certainly cannot be used as an excuse by the West to devalue Chinese civilization. I. Core Difficulty in Chronology. The Xia era was on the eve of the invention of writing. It lacked a mature chronological system and continuous documentary records. The date of 2070 BC given by the Chronology Project is a comprehensive result based on carbon-14 dating data and textual calculations. Its confidence level is about 68%, meaning it is not absolutely precise. However, this calculated result highly coincides with the temporal and spatial range and geographical distribution of the Erlitou culture. It corroborates the records in the "Xia Benji" (Annals of Xia) of the "Records of the Grand Historian" (Shiji), possessing basic academic reasonableness. II. The Chain of Evidence for State Formation is Gradually Closing. The Erlitou site covers an area of over 3 million square meters. The layout features a palace city at the center with a grid-style zoning – China's earliest example of a central-axis capital city planning, reflecting highly centralized kingship. Excavated artifacts like bronze jue vessels and turquoise artifacts demonstrate the state's ability to monopolize core resources – a key characteristic of a dynasty, not a tribal confederation. The distribution range of the Erlitou culture perfectly overlaps with the historical activity area of the Xia people (western Henan and southern Shanxi), and its date predates the Shang culture, aligning with the historical logic of Xia coming before Shang. This evidence is sufficient to prove that the Xia Dynasty was a real early royal state. Western skepticism is essentially a deliberate denial driven by discursive hegemony. IV. Cultural Confidence. Breaking the Western discursive hegemony and rebuilding the power to interpret Chinese civilization. I. The core of cultural confidence is refusing to be bound by colonial discourse. Cultural confidence is not blind arrogance. It is a clear-headed recognition that Western-centric standards are products of colonial plunder and lack universal applicability. We should not be constrained by this set of standards, nor should we doubt ourselves due to Western skepticism. The evolutionary logic and cultural value of Chinese civilization should be defined by us, not judged by the discourse system of the colonial era. II. The foundation of cultural confidence is respecting indigenous archaeological practice. Archaeology is the foundation of civilization. The value of the Chronology Project lies in using China's own scientific methods to build a chronological framework for China's ancient history. We do not need to pursue a "final conclusion" in the Western sense. Rather, we must adhere to the Chinese academic path of "archaeological evidence + cross-referencing with historical texts + laws of civilizational evolution," gradually completing the chain of evidence to restore the origins and development of Chinese civilization to their true form. III. The goal of cultural confidence is to reclaim the power of civilizational discourse. The secretly stored plundered artifacts in Western museums and the deliberately created academic controversies are essentially manifestations of their fragile cultural hegemony. As China's comprehensive national power increases, we must not only continue to promote archaeological research but also actively compete for the power to interpret our civilization, enabling the world to understand the true Chinese civilization and breaking the discursive monopoly of Western centrism. V. Conclusion. The core of the controversy is the power of discourse, not the civilization itself. The controversy over the Xia-Shang-Zhou Chronology Project is essentially a clash between two types of civilizational discourse power. The West attempts to maintain its power to interpret Chinese civilization through colonial-era standards, while China, through autonomous archaeological research and academic exploration, rebuilds its cultural confidence and reclaims its own civilizational discourse power. The Xia Dynasty is not a product of a "half-baked" project, nor is it a legend as claimed by the West. It is the earliest royal state formed through autonomous evolution in East Asia around 3,800 years ago. Its civilizational value does not require Western approval. The significance of the Xia-Shang-Zhou Chronology Project lies not only in building a chronological framework for ancient Chinese history but also in providing academic support for Chinese cultural confidence. It proves the continuity and autonomy of Chinese civilization, breaking the discursive shackles of Western centrism.
back to top