A ceramic jar unearthed from the Shixia site at Shaoguan, Guangdong Province, currently preserved in the Guangdong Museum. Photo: IC PHOTO

Using nouns as adverbs or adjectives has become a fashionable linguistic practice in contemporary archaeological discourse. This linguistic posture reflects the elevation of archeology to a first-level discipline or a prominent academic field.

Yet the fundamental questions remain: why and how should archaeology be conducted? The answer to the first is straightforward—archaeology exists to study history. As for the second, The Archaeology Volume of the Encyclopaedia of China offers a similarly direct response: archaeology seeks to “study the history of ancient human society by examining the material remains left behind by human activities.” However, this seemingly clear-cut definition serves primarily to distinguish archaeology from other disciplines, particularly historiography, which focuses on the study of written documents and language. The need for this distinction arises from the frequent conflation of archaeology with history. While the two fields differ in research objects and methods, they share the same ultimate goal. Renowned Chinese archaeologist Xia Nai famously compared their relationship to the “two wheels of a cart” or the “two wings of a bird” within the broader domain of historical research. 

Given this close relationship, might archaeology encounter the same doubts and debates over its scientific validity as historiography has? Although no widely circulated publications explicitly question the discipline’s scientific status, underlying concerns are evident in academic discussions surrounding the “subjectivity” and “authenticity” of archaeological interpretation and whether archaeology can truly “restore ancient history.”

History presented through objects

Scholars have often noted that while subjectivity is rarely a problem in the natural sciences, it becomes a central and necessary consideration in the arts and humanities disciplines. Archaeological research can be broadly divided into two components: the first involves the extraction and description of material data; the second concerns the interpretation of this data. The former aligns closely with methodologies typical of the natural sciences and raises few concerns over subjectivity. However, the latter engages directly with the complexities of human society, culture, and experience, aligning it firmly with the humanities, much like historiography. In this sense, archaeology is a discipline concerned with understanding people through material remains—an approach often described as “seeing people through things.”

But who exactly is the “person” we are seeing through these material traces? The answer varies depending on the theoretical framework employed by archaeologists. For example, diffusionists focus on patterns of human movement, migration, and cultural diffusion, while Marxist archaeologists prioritize aspects such as human agency, class structure, social organization, levels of productive forces, the relations of production, power distribution, and the underlying mechanisms driving societal change.

Patricia Urban, an archaeologist at Kenyon College in Ohio, the United States, once provided an example to illustrate these differences. When examining a stone axe unearthed from an archaeological site, a processualist might ask about its functional adaptation. A post-processualist might interpret it as symbolizing male secondary sexual characteristics. A Marxist archaeologist, however, would pose questions like: Who benefitted from using it? Was it available to all or only a few? Was the stone imported by a privileged minority? Did its distribution to specific craftsmen serve as a means of exerting power? Both processualist and Marxist approaches share a materialist foundation but diverge significantly in their interpretations of the role of materialism and archaeology in identifying and solving social problems.

Marxist archaeology in China

The concept of “seeing people through things,” widely associated with Marxist archaeology in China, is rooted in the Marxist dialectical understanding that the economic base determines the superstructure. Although material objects are the primary subject of archaeological study, they are not its ultimate goal. Instead, archaeology aims to study human beings and ancient societies. This approach distinguishes archaeology from antiquarianism. As Xia Nai noted, “The primary focus of archaeological research is on socially significant material objects—an entire type of artifacts, rather than isolated items. The latter are merely antiques… The goal of archaeology is to study ancient human conditions.”

In his article “Archaeological Observations on the Periodization of Ancient History,” Yu Weichao systematically employs archaeological data to propose a framework for periodizing Chinese history, emphasizing the use of material evidence to interpret history and understand human society. Drawing from extensive archaeological materials, Yu offers a periodization of its historical development by examining the economic systems, class structures, and social organization of ancient China.

According to the theories of Marx and Engels, the developmental trajectory of ancient societies follows a logical sequence characterized by distinct economic forms. Between primitive communal society and feudal society, two stages of slavery typically occur: domestic slavery and slave labor. Yu Weichao contends that during the Xia (c. 21st century–16th century BCE), Shang (c. 16th century–11th century BCE), and Zhou (1046–256 BCE) dynasties, China was in the stage of domestic slavery. From the late Spring and Autumn period (770–476 BCE) to the Han (206 BCE–220 CE) dynasty, Chinese society evolved into a form of slave labor unique to its historical context. Yu’s research draws on various archaeological findings, including evidence related to agricultural production conditions during the early iron age, human sacrifice and burial practices, the use of human figurines, penal servitude, cemetery layouts, and systems of large-scale land ownership. Through these observations, Yu argues that China’s ancient slave system underwent two distinct phases, aligning with the general laws of societal development articulated in Marxist theory.

Su Bingqi’s research on the Shixia Culture (approximately 4,000 to 5,000 years ago) stands as a classic example of the “seeing people through things” approach. In his article “Preliminary Study of the Shixia Culture,” Su analyzes stone agricultural tools such as spades, hoes, and mattocks, concluding that “cultivated agriculture replaced primitive agriculture. Agriculture, which was originally dominated by female labor, transitioned to being primarily conducted by men. This shift inevitably led to corresponding changes in social relationships… revealing the beginning of the disintegration of the egalitarian relationships characteristic of primitive communal clan societies.” One noteworthy observation from Su’s study is the presence of specialized woodworking tools as grave goods, indicating that the traditional industry had, at least partially, differentiated itself from agriculture and become an independent economic sector.

Su’s analysis of social stratification trends reflected in Shixia burials exemplifies the practical application of Marxist archaeology’s “seeing people through things.” He identifies four distinct types of graves based on the quantity and type of grave goods, “with stark differences that reveal emerging signs of class division. The first type are graves containing stone yue (axes), stone zu (arrowheads), sets of jade artifacts, large numbers of production tools, and complete sets of pottery, often with distinctive grave pits. Some graves feature primarily stone cong (an octagonal, hollow artifact) and zu, along with jade yuan (rings with a large central hole), jade huan (rings similar to yuan but often smaller), jade pendants, and complete sets of pottery. The second category is graves featuring primarily stone zu, along with a significant number of production tools, but smaller in scale than the first category. The third category is graves containing only a few production tools and limited pottery, with smaller grave pits than the second type. The fourth type is graves including only small amounts of pottery. The first two categories are marked by the concentration of weapons, production tools, and prestigious objects like the yue and cong, symbolizing the owner’s elevated status. In contrast, the latter two categories lack both valuable items and weapons. This differentiation reflects the monopolization of the means of production and wealth by a minority, coupled with the exclusive control of violence—a hallmark of class-based society. At this stage, the division between exploiters and the exploited, oppressors and the oppressed, had begun to take shape, signaling the final stage of primitive society’s disintegration.”

Su Bingqi’s functional analysis of the cong and yue in the Shixia Culture established a methodological precedent for subsequent archaeological studies. For instance, Zhang Zhongpei, drawing on findings from Liangzhu tombs, distinguished the social status of tomb occupants based on the presence of jade objects such as cong, bi (a flat, circular disk with a central hole), and yue. He proposed that the cong and bi symbolized religious authority, while the yue represented military power. Accordingly, tombs could be classified as follows: those containing both cong (or bi) and yue, indicating figures who held both religious and military authority; those containing only yue, signifying individuals with merely military authority; those containing only cong (or bi), representing figures with merely religious authority.

Multidisciplinary research

In Western archaeology, subjectivity emerged as a key theme in post-processualism, serving as a critical response to the emphasis on the “scientificity” of processual archaeology. While processualists championed the objectivity of archaeological inquiry, post-processual archaeologists like Ian Hodder argued for the necessity of examining the subjectivity embedded within archaeological cultures. Hodder emphasized that archaeological research should not only focus on collective social structures but also on individuals—on every life that has ever lived.

Hodder later proposed specific research methodologies to achieve this aim. He advocated for incorporating documentary and ethnographic materials into archaeological analysis to explore the self-determination and consciousness of cultural agents, broadening the scope of inquiry to include subtle and nuanced details while emphasizing that the significance of groups transcends mere processual frameworks. This is often referred to as the “theory of the cultural subject” within post-processual archaeology.

Both the pursuit of significance and symbols within post-processual archaeology and the focus on individual intentions and lived experiences within the framework of the “theory of the subject” require a detailed examination of historical elements embedded in archaeological materials. This carries historical significance, as documentary records often provide direct insights into these meanings and experiences. On a deeper level, both historical research and post-processual archaeology converge in their prioritization of the subject—the active agent within history.

Given that archaeology is a discipline that integrates both the natural sciences and the humanities, it is not necessary to privilege one over the other. Instead, the two dimensions can complement each other. When natural science perspectives are required, their theories, methods, and strategies should be rigorously applied. Conversely, the interpretation of archaeological materials should not be restricted solely to paradigms rooted in natural science methodologies that seek to establish universal theorems or laws.

Xia Nai articulated in his article “Review and Prospect of Chinese Archaeology”: “The use of natural science methods in archaeology is essentially what is referred to as ‘multidisciplinary research.’ In this regard, we should not only adopt the advanced technologies employed in foreign archaeological studies but also organizational methods for conducting ‘multidisciplinary research work.’”

Contemporary Chinese archaeology is undergoing a transformation from traditional stratigraphic and typological approaches to a multidisciplinary research paradigm. This shift is significant because it underscores the nature of archaeology as a field that integrates the humanities and the natural sciences.

Tang Huisheng is a professor of archaeology at Hebei Normal University. 

Edited by REN GUANHONG