双语汇 | 韩建业：中华文明到底是五千年还是八千年，分歧在标准上

韩建业

中国人民大学

By HAN JIANYE

近些年来，“文明”成为热词，中华文明到底是5000年，还是8000年，抑或更早更晚？众说纷纭。究其原因，学界对“文明”的内涵和标准有不同理解。

In recent years, “civilization” has become a subject of heated debate. Does Chinese civilization date back 5,000 years, 8,000 years, or even earlier—or somewhat later? Opinions vary widely. At the root of these disagreements are differing scholarly understandings of the meaning of “civilization” and the criteria by which it should be identified.

“文明”的内涵。近现代学者对西方语境下的“文明”有多种理解，可归纳为两个维度。一是时间或进化论维度。摩尔根将“文明”解读为与“野蛮”相对的高级社会发展阶段——文明时代，这也是目前国内外流行的说法。这一维度下的“文明”常和“国家”相关联，以至于不少人将二者等同。其实与“国家”含义相近的是“文明社会”。二是空间或形态史维度。梁启超有五大文明古国的提法，汤因比列举出人类历史上20余种文明。这一维度的“文明”，可理解为各个长久传承下来的文化传统或广泛的文化实体。

Meaning of ‘civilization’

Modern and contemporary scholars have understood “civilization” in the Western context in diverse ways, which can broadly be summarized along two dimensions. In temporal or evolutionary terms, Lewis Henry Morgan interpreted “civilization” as an advanced stage of social development set against “barbarism”—the civilized era. This remains an influential understanding both in China and abroad. Viewed in this way, “civilization” is often associated with the “state,” to the point that many treat the two as virtually synonymous. Strictly speaking, however, “civilized society” is closer in meaning to the “state.”

A second understanding approaches “civilization” in spatial or historical-morphological terms. Liang Qichao wrote of the “five great ancient civilizations,” while Arnold J. Toynbee identified more than 20 civilizations across human history. From this perspective, “civilization” can be understood as long-lasting cultural traditions or broadly defined cultural entities.

文明起源标准。作为综合文化实体的“文明”有其起源和形成的过程，文明起源和形成两个阶段各有标准。不少学者注意到，早在文明时代之前，就已有城市、青铜器、文字等“文明因素”的起源。按照笔者对“文明”的定义，文明起源包括三个方面：一是承载文明的“综合文化实体”的起源，即须初步形成一个较大范围的文化共同体；二是社会复杂化的开端，须有初步的社会分化、手工业分工等；三是须有复杂精神观念和知识系统的起源。以此衡量，亚欧非大陆的几个早期文明的起源都经历了大致相同的两个阶段：第一阶段从距今8000多年前开始，第二阶段从距今6000年前后开始。

Criteria for civilizational origin

As a comprehensive cultural entity, “civilization” has both an origin and a process of formation, and these two stages should be judged by distinct criteria. Many scholars have noted that “civilizational elements”—such as cities, bronze artifacts, and writing—had already appeared before the advent of full-fledged civilizations.

According to the definition adopted here, the origin of civilization entails three aspects: the emergence of a comprehensive cultural entity that carries “civilization,” namely the initial formation of a relatively large-scale cultural community; the onset of social complexity, marked by preliminary social stratification and the division of labor in handicrafts; and the emergence of complex spiritual concepts and knowledge systems.

Measured against these criteria, several early civilizations across Asia, Europe, and Africa followed roughly similar two-stage trajectories: the first beginning more than 8,000 years ago, and the second around 6,000 years ago.

文明形成标准。文明起源发展到何种程度可视为文明正式形成，或进入文明时代？政治学上的判定标准是国家的出现。恩格斯指出，国家和旧的氏族组织有本质区别，一是“按地区来划分它的国民”，二是“公共权力的设立”。按地区划分国民，主要根据地缘关系而非血缘关系组织社会。公共权力集中体现在凌驾于社会之上的“王权”，包括军权、政治权、经济权等，建立在阶级分化的基础之上。如果必须确立文明形成的物化标准，以便在考古实践中把握，最符合条件的是大型中心城市或都邑。

Criteria for civilizational formation

At what point can the development of civilization be said to have produced a fully formed civilization, or to have entered the civilized era? In political science, the decisive criterion is the emergence of the state. According to Engels, in contrast to the old gentile organization, the state is distinguished firstly by the grouping of its members on a territorial basis, and secondly by the institution of a public force. Territorial grouping means organizing society primarily on the basis of geographic rather than blood relations. Public force is concentrated in “sovereign power” standing above society—including military, political, and economic authority—and rests on the foundation of social stratification. If material criteria for the formation of civilization must be established for use in archaeological practice, the most appropriate benchmark is the emergence of large central cities or duyi, the capital city.

总之，对“文明”内涵和标准的界定应兼顾东西、着眼全球，文明起源和形成两个阶段各有标准。文明起源的标准包括承载文明的“综合文化实体”的起源、社会复杂化的开端、复杂精神观念的起源三方面。文明形成或进入文明时代的政治学上的标准是国家的诞生，而物化标准则是大型中心城市或都邑的出现。

In sum, definitions of “civilization” and the criteria used to identify it should integrate Eastern, Western, and global perspectives. Civilization’s origin and formation are two distinct stages, each requiring its own set of criteria. The origin of civilization involves the emergence of a comprehensive cultural entity that carries civilization, the onset of social complexity, and the emergence of complex spiritual concepts. In political science, the formation of civilization—or entry into the civilized era—is marked by the emergence of the state, while the rise of large central cities or duyi serves as its material benchmark.

来源：ChineseSocialSciencesToday微信公众号

新媒体编辑：程可心

如需交流可联系我们