Protection of Shimao Site

Shimao site, which was founded in 1970s, is famous for thousands of scattered jade articles. Due to the large scope of the site, construction activities such as road construction and soil borrowing in the site, and even indiscriminate and illegal excavation of the site still occur from time to time, and the situation of site protection is urgent. In view of the importance of the site and the long-term archaeological work, scholars attending the meeting called for the establishment of local protection and management institutions of Shimao site as soon as possible to strengthen the daily supervision and care of the site. At the same time, as soon as possible to develop protection measures and site protection planning.

By strengthening publicity, the local residents' awareness of cultural relics protection will be enhanced to avoid further damage to the site. Strengthen protection, especially against illegal excavation. Protecting the site is the premise and foundation of all subsequent work. With the rapid development of Shenmu economy, how to coordinate the development of culture and economy and how to protect the exhibition should be seriously considered by the government. Experts hope that the excavation of Shimao site can be incorporated into the system of local cultural construction. Through the excavation, protection and display of this site, this paper tries to promote the coordinated development of local culture and economy through the protection of cultural heritage. Liu Yunhui, deputy director of Shaanxi Provincial Bureau of Cultural Relics, said that he will continue to vigorously support the archaeological and site protection work of gypsum statue sites and promote the research of gypsum statue sites. The activities of the Yellow Emperor in the Loess Plateau of northern Shaanxi where the headland is located are recorded in Historical Records and Hanshu about the Huangdi Mausoleum in Zichang area of northern Shaanxi not far from the headland. Records of the Five Emperors said: "The Yellow Emperor collapsed and buried Qiao Shan", and Suoyin quoted geography as saying: "Qiao Shan is in Yangzhou County, Shang Jun". According to the geographical records in Hanshu, the word "Qiao Shan is in the south, with the Mausoleum of the Yellow Emperor" is indeed recorded under Yangzhou County, which is Zichang County in northern Shaanxi today, three or four hundred miles east of huangling county in Shaanxi today. In addition, Hanshu Geography also records that in the north of Zichang County, there are "four shrines of the Yellow Emperor" in Fushi County, which is adjacent to Gaojiabao in Shenmu County where Shimao is located, which is now Yulin, Shaanxi Province. Because there are tombs of the Yellow Emperor in Yulin and Zichang near the plaster statue, and there are ancestral halls dedicated to the Yellow Emperor, it is undeniable that the Yellow Emperor and his tribe lived in this area before their death.

At the same time, according to the analysis of ancient books, such as "A Thousand Commandments on Zhi Shi", "Liezi", "Shan Hai Jing", "Wild West Jing", "Zuo Zhuan's Thirteen Years of Success", "Guoyu Yujin Si" and "Guoyu Qiyu", it is considered that not only Bai Di, a descendant of the Yellow Emperor, but also Zhou Ren, a direct descendant of the Yellow Emperor tribe, is active in northern Shaanxi.

Finally, Professor Shen Changyun once again stressed that according to archaeological experts' research, Shimao Ancient City was discovered in the late Longshan period and the early Zhixia period, which was roughly the same as the activities of the Yellow Emperor, so it was more certain that Shimao Ancient City was inhabited by the Yellow Emperor tribe. Guangming Daily published the article "Don't Connect Archaeology with Legend Easily" by Mr. Chen Minzhen, School of Humanities, Yantai University in the Sinology Edition (April, 2065 15, 20 13), arguing that directly connecting Shigao Ancient City with the Yellow Emperor is at least inconsistent with the general records.

Is it possible that Shimao Ancient City is the residence of the descendants of the Yellow Emperor? In the traditional concept of ancient history, the Yellow Emperor and Yao Shun are in the same strain and belong to what Mr. Xu called "Huaxia Group".

The ancient city of Shimao was founded about 4300 years ago, which is equivalent to the "Longshan era". As we know, the "Longshan era" is a key stage in the occurrence of Chinese civilization, and Chinese civilization gradually took shape at this stage. In the past, the "Longshan era" was generally defined as 4600-4000 years ago. The latest research results of "Chinese Civilization Sourcing Project" show that the upper limit of "Longshan Age" is 4,300 years ago, and the lower limit of Liangzhu culture is 4,300 years ago. This adjustment will have a far-reaching impact and needs our attention. If the Taosi ancient city in Xiangfen, Shanxi Province is also related to Yao and Shun, is Shigao ancient city in northern Shaanxi the residence of Huangdi tribe?

This involves the era of the Yellow Emperor. "History of Taoist Opera" volume three quotes "Annals of Bamboo Books": "Huangdi to Yu was thirty years old." If this record has a certain basis, combined with the 30-year record of a "world" in Shuowen, the interval between Huangdi and Dayu is 900 years. Based on the understanding of the Xia Dynasty in the "Xia Shang Zhou Dating Project", the age of the Yellow Emperor was about 5,000 years ago. In fact, this is also a common understanding in the era of the Yellow Emperor. If Shimao Ancient City is directly related to the Yellow Emperor, it at least conflicts with the general records. Source: Guangming Daily

After the publication of the article "Shimao Ancient City is the Residence of Huangdi Tribe", it has attracted many people's attention in academic circles. Among them, there are also people who criticize poor writing, such as Mr Chen Minzhen. He thinks that my argument is to easily link the archaeological remains of the Neolithic age with ancient historical legends, saying that this practice is "dangerous". He admitted that the ancient city of Shimao was founded in the late Longshan period, but on the grounds that the ancient city of Taosi in Xiangfen was related to Yao and Shun, he proposed that the Yellow Emperor before Yao and Shun did not live in Shimao. According to the record of "Huangdi to Yu at the age of 30" in Road History, he thinks that the age of Huangdi was about 5,000 years ago, so my statement that Shimao Ancient City is the residence of Huangdi tribe is wrong. He also believes that the archaeological culture of the gypsum site only reflects the natural and nomadic traditions of the northern grassland culture and is not commensurate with the Chinese civilization represented by the Yellow Emperor. Shigao ancient city may be a defensive building for people of northern grassland civilization against southern farming civilization.

I also agree that archaeological sites in the Neolithic Age should not be easily associated with ancient legends. But the key here seems not to be whether archaeological sites can be linked with ancient legends, but whether such links are accurate and reasonable, or whether your hook is rash and simple, as the author said. In fact, this kind of "hook-up" practice has long been common in archaeology, such as describing Dengfeng Wang Chenggang as Yangcheng in Du Yu and Taosi Site in Xiangfen as the capital of Yaoshun and so on. The author does not object to this, but only opposes "putting the Yellow Emperor culture into some archaeological culture". What is the reason? Presumably, the author will say that he advocates the opinion of "most scholars", but can academic research be judged by "majority" or "minority"?

What most scholars say is not necessarily true. For example, most scholars (including the author) say that the ancient city of Taosi is the capital of Yao. However, which ancient document in the pre-Qin period clearly pointed out that Yao was in the Tao Temple in Xiangfen, Shanxi Province today? The history books only say that "people in the Tang Dynasty were all in Hedong". Later generations understood the Tang Dynasty as Tao, saying that Tao was the "number" of Yao, so it became that Yao was all in Hedong. Gu Jiegang pointed out long ago: "In Zuo Zhuan, Yao didn't have the name of Tang, and Tang didn't talk about the queen of Yao" (see the first book of ancient history). Even Guan Zi said that Yao attacked Tang, and Lu Chunqiu Ancient Music also divided Tao and Emperor Yao into two. After him, Xu still insisted on Tang Xuanzong's view, but he criticized Tao Xuanzong's understanding in Hedong (that is, southern Shanxi) and thought that his old place was only in today's Tang County and Wang Du, Hebei Province. In fact, Biography of Historical Records of Huo Zhi records that Yao was written in Chengyang. Chengyang is in Heze, Shandong Province today. I don't know why today's scholars ignore the records in Historical Records. Limited by space, I can't discuss this issue, nor can I discuss Shun's residence and the region of Xia culture. Interested friends can find my article about it from other places. I just want to give this example to show that academic views that are not within the scope of the "majority" are not necessarily unreasonable and should be abandoned.

Returning to the controversy over the relationship between the Yellow Emperor and the ancient city of Shimao, I feel that the author's criticism of me is still based on the "majority" and takes the so-called "general understanding" as the standard of right and wrong, and puts forward different ideas from mine.

The first is the era of the Yellow Emperor. As mentioned above, the author emphasizes that the ancient city of Taosi is related to Yao and Shun, just to show that the last two emperors of the "Five Emperors" lived in the Longshan period, that is, the construction of Shimao ancient city began around 4300, so as to set off that the Yellow Emperor, the first of the "Five Emperors", has nothing to do with Shimao ancient city. It is of course a "general understanding" to say that the Yellow Emperor is the head of the "Five Emperors", long before Yao and Shun, but is this understanding right? Today's scholars, starting from Gu Jiegang and others, including Xu, few people believe that Sima Qian's Biography of the Five Emperors is headed by the Yellow Emperor, and other ancient emperors and the Xia, Shang and Zhou royal families are descendants of the Yellow Emperor. Everyone admits that the so-called "five emperors" are actually the leaders of prehistoric clans and tribes, and their descendants worship their ancestors. These tribes all live their own lives. In that case, why should we prove the historical order of these tribal leaders? For example, the Yellow Emperor, as the ancestor of Zhou people, what evidence do we have to prove that he must be before the other four emperors? Is it the result of the comparison between the lineage of the Yellow Emperor-Zhou clan and the lineage of the emperor in Zhuan Xu, or is there exact historical data to prove that the Yellow Emperor must live longer than the emperor? It is said that Di Ku is the ancestor of a businessman. Let's just believe this statement But there is no evidence that he was the ancestor of a businessman many generations ago. Why do you want to say that he must be behind the Yellow Emperor and Zhuan Xu, but before Yao and Shun? What can be determined is probably only the time before Yao and Shun by Zhuan Xu, because the book Zuo Zhuan mentioned the lineage of You Yu's family, saying that Zhuan Xu was the leader of You Yu's family before Shun. Besides, nothing can be decided. Of course, we can't ignore the "evidence" given by the author here that the Yellow Emperor was 5,000 years ago and before Yao and Shun, that is, the so-called bamboo annals. Unfortunately, the credibility of this record is very doubtful. First, according to the textual research of Chen and Fang Shiming, the chronological facts of the chronicle can be traced back to the summer, but the yellow emperor mentioned in the bamboo book Chronicle quoted in Road History is not the original of the Chronicle. Secondly, as far as the phrase "Huangdi to Yu is thirty years old" is concerned, it is also the language of the materials used, not the original of Historical Records. However, Robbie wrote the history of the road after the chronicle and copied today's chronicle. Do you know that this sentence is not Robbie's conclusion based on other materials in today's chronicle? I think, even if this sentence comes from a real chronicle, there is no need to believe it, because the chronicle was written at the end of the Warring States period. At that time, a book compiled legends such as the Yellow Emperor on a genealogy, which has greatly changed the image of primitive tribal leaders such as the Yellow Emperor. Chronicles say that the Yellow Emperor is natural. How can you believe it? Here, I would like to ask, in addition to this kind of literature in the late Warring States period, what other ancient books in the pre-Qin period can provide evidence of the Yellow Emperor 5000 years ago?

Secondly, the relationship between the Yellow Emperor and China and Chinese civilization. The author still says according to the old routine, as the "ancestor of China" in a general sense, the civilization created by the Yellow Emperor is of course Chinese civilization, and Chinese civilization is only distributed in the Yangtze River and Yellow River basins. The implication is that the Yellow Emperor and his tribe will not leave footprints on the North Great Wall. This seemingly reasonable statement can't stand scrutiny, because it can't answer why there are so many documents, and it is an earlier document that mentions the activities of the Yellow Emperor in the Great Wall in the north. For example, there are not only the tombs of the Yellow Emperor in northern Shaanxi, but also the documentary records of the Yellow Emperor and Chiyou fighting there with Zhuolu in Hebei as the capital, as well as the records and archaeological remains of their descendants and Zhou people's activities in Shaanxi and Shanxi. The author didn't respond directly to the arguments I quoted, and he was also avoiding the question. It seems that the author has confused the boundary between the legend of Huangdi, the ancestor of a cultural phenomenon, and the real history of Huangdi tribe. The Yellow Emperor, as the ancestor of the Chinese nation, is the expression of the national psychological quality reflected by the same culture after the formation of the Chinese nation. The formation of the Chinese nation in China was established in the Zhou Dynasty, and it only appeared after the long-term integration of Zhou people with the old Xia and Shang nationalities and various barbarians. As for why the Chinese people regard the Yellow Emperor as the same clan and put him at the head of your ancestors, it is because Zhou people belong to the direct descendants of the Yellow Emperor tribe. The ancestor of the Zhou Dynasty, Huangdi, originally lived in the Great Wall in the north, and was different from the representative of the same culture in China, which was regarded as the ancestor of the Chinese nation in the future. The two are interrelated but not contradictory, and the historical background on which the former depends cannot be denied.

Finally, the nature of Shimao site and its archaeological culture. In our opinion, it is natural, imprecise and unscientific for the author to classify the archaeological culture belonging to Shigao ancient city into the category of grassland culture, and to regard people living in Shigao as a nation opposite to the southern farming civilization. The formation of the so-called northern grassland culture has a process, and not all places in the north are the scenery of grassland culture at the beginning. Shimao site belongs to Zhukaigou culture, which basically belongs to a farming culture, especially in the early stage, and the establishment age of Shimao ancient city coincides with the early stage of Zhukaigou culture. This involves the change of geographical environment in the early and late period of Zhukaigou cultural distribution area. Scholars have found that in the early days of Zhukaigou culture, the natural environment on which Zhukaigou culture depended was still forest and grassland landscape, with a lot of precipitation, which was more suitable for the development of agricultural economy. Archaeological findings also prove that the agricultural production in Zhukaigou at that time had developed to a high level (Tian's Northern Culture and Xiongnu Civilization, pages 26 1-263 and 300-30 1). Only in its later period, the climate in this place became drier and colder, which led to the transformation of its natural environment into a typical grassland landscape, and the local economy became semi-agricultural and semi-agricultural. We can't say that people here were engaged in animal husbandry economy or even a "nomadic economy" during the period of the Yellow Emperor. It is conceivable that it is such a change in climate and environment that prompted the descendants of the Yellow Emperor-some Bai Di people and Zhou people who lived here to move eastward and southward, and later the rise of Zhou people in the Weishui River basin and the establishment of the Zhou Dynasty, as well as the great integration of ancient tribes in the Central Plains led by Zhou people and the formation of the Chinese nation. From this point of view, Shimao Ancient City, as the residence of Huangdi, the ancestor of Zhou people, is also the birthplace of the Chinese nation.