Q: The people of antiquity didn't deliberately leave clues about for later people to study. Aren't archaeologists, when they try to understand an ancient civilization from the remains it has accidentally left behind, a bit like the blind men trying to describe the elephant?

A: It is indeed difficult to see the whole picture.

Archaeology shows only a small portion of a civilization. First, it only shows the material culture. Unless there are written records, other aspects--the spiritual culture, the social organization, religion--have to be deduced from the material culture.

Second, it only shows the part of material culture that can been preserved, and most material culture can't.

All too assailable "truths"

In addition, the science of archaeology has been around for just over 100 years, and it started even later in China. So far, most excavation work has been carried out only in the Hsi-an region of Shensi and in Loyang, Chengchou and Anyang in the north and northwest of Honan. Work in other places has only just begun, but many things that were never thought of have already been discovered.

Only a tiny proportion of China's vast land has been excavated in any detail, and we have no idea what may be unearthed in the future.

The understanding we gain of history and past civilizations through archaeology is highly imperfect and incomplete, and you have to be extremely careful in drawing inferences. In fact, the biggest lesson I've learned over the many years that I've engaged in archaeology is to keep an open mind. New materials are often unearthed that at once can overthrow theories that have been held as truths for years and years by many people.

Q: What sort of "truths," for example?

A: The relationship between the Central Plain and the border regions, for instance. It used to be thought that all of China's high-level civilization originated in the Central Plain.

But archaeological findings over the past 20 years have delivered a heavy blow to the view of the Central Plain as the be-all and end-all. Because early in the neolithic period, about 5000 B.C., when the Yang-shao culture appeared in the Central Plain, there was the Ta-wen-kou culture of Shantung and the Hsin-yueh culture of the Liao River Basin in the north; the Ta-hsi, Ma-chia-ping and Ho-mu-tucultures of the Yangtze river basin in the south; and the Taiwan Strait culture along the southeast coast. There are clear archaeological materials for all of these--in fact, there are certainly more.

Did Chinese culture originate in the Yellow River Basin?

In other words, more and more archaeological evidence supports the view that Chinese culture is diverse and pluralistic in origin rather than uniform and homogeneous. The Central Plain culture is still the most important of those known, of course, but the theory that Chinese culture originated in the Yellow River Basin is no longer completely accurate.

Q: Are there any cases of your having to revise your own theories according to new evidence?

A: There are. The clearest example was that in 1963, when Archaeology ofAncient China first came out, I still thought that Chinese civilization had originated in the Central Plain. That was the traditional view, and most of the archaeological evidence came from that area because that was where most of the work was concentrated at the time.

The book has come out in four editions so far, and I've revised each one, gradually reducing the prominence of the Central Plains and highlighting the special features of regional cultures.

Q: You are renowned for your research into the Three Dynasties period. Chuang-tzu says, "From the Three Dynasties on down, why all this fuss and disturbance in the world?" Viewed from an archaeological perspective, weren't the Three Dynasties a time of great disparity of wealth and turmoil?

A: How you judge it depends on the criteria you use. The 1,500-year period of the Hsia, Shang and Chou dynasties (2000 B.C. to 500 B.C.) was a major stage in the formation of Chinese civilization and the beginning of China's recorded history. Many objects, ideas and systems were established during that period: writing, cities, metallurgy, the nation. You can say that "China" itself began at that time.

What is the key to producing a civilization? I believe it can be represented by one simple word--wealth. Wealth appears in two forms: absolute and relative. The basis of civilization lies in the absolute accumulation of wealth and in its relative concentration in a prosperous society, wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few, who use that wealth and the labor of the greater majority to build and produce a civilization.

So disparities of wealth can be called a "necessary evil" in the development of civilization.

Uncivilized civilization!

Actually, "civilization" isn't a very appropriate term. Anthropology divides social evolution into the three stages: the savage, the primitive and the civilized. But there are no systematic wars in the first two stages. It's civilization that brings exploitation and killing on a grand scale. The stage of civilization is actually very uncivilized.

Q: The Three Dynasties are also called the Bronze Age, in which bronze ware represented wealth and power. Why was it bronze rather than something else?

A: Originally, it was. Before bronze, it was jade.

In the West the evolution of civilization is divided into three stages--a Stone Age, a Bronze Age and an Iron Age--according to the type of tools used. In the past few years, however, along with the unearthing and interpretation of new finds, it has become more and more apparent that between its Stone Age and Bronze Age China also had a Jade Age. Agriculture appeared about 10,000 years ago. It was a time of self-sufficient farming villages in which everyone basically shared an equal status in society. There was no war, generally speaking, and people lived together in peace. That was during the Stone Age, which lasted until around 3000 B.C., when the Jade Age began.

By 2000 B.C., following the development of techniques in metallurgy, the Bronze Age had appeared. The difficulty of obtaining raw materials--copper and tin--gave bronze a high intrinsic value. In addition, after smelting, bronze can be forged into all kinds of shapes. It became the main material in manufacturing ritual vessels and weapons, which replaced jade objects as symbols of wealth.

Viewed as a whole, the development from prehistory to the Three Dynasties wasn't abrupt and sudden. There was a transition of about 1,000 years in the middle that archaeologists refer to as the "high antiquity" period. That could be the period of Yao, Shun and the rest of the Five Emperors, which we've never had any evidential proof of in the past.

Are legends credible?

Q: Archaeological finds from the field are often used to corroborate legends from antiquity. Just how much credibility do legends possess?

A: The school of "antiquity skeptics" during the early part of this century held that Chinese legends of far antiquity were all fabrications of the Warring States Period and the Han Dynasty and not worth crediting. But as more and more new object sare discovered, a more scientific foundation for ancient history has been established, which has confirmed the rather high credibility of quite a few legends.

The best example is legends that concern historical geography. The last capital of the Hsia Dynasty, for instance, is said to have been a place called Chenhsun, located in the Lo River Basin. The Erhlitou site, discovered in 1959, is now generally considered to have been a capital of the Hsia Dynasty and may well have been Chenhsun.

Also, the Emperor Tang of the Shang Dynasty was said to have set up his capital at Po. Now there were several places named Po, among which the most westward is called Hsi Po (West Po), near Loyang. We have, in fact, found the remains of an ancient city on that site, which geological dating traces to the Shang Dynasty.

Q: How have these legends come down to us?

A: The earliest channel was by word of mouth, being passed along from generation to generation. With the advent of writing, some of them were written down. Those that still exist were mainly recorded during or after the Chou Dynasty. Chenhsun and Po, for instance, both come from Chou Dynasty documents.

Let me give you another example. The Summer Palace in Peking was burned down by the British and French Expeditionary Force in 1860. When I went to the site in 1984, a peasant family that lived nearby pointed to a place they said used to be called the Little Red Chamber, but all that remained was the foundation, the ruins of the palace library. A set of the Ssu-ku chuan-shu, a massive compilation of Chinese writings also known as The Complete Library of the Four Branches of Books, used to be kept there. Why is the site now called the Little Red Chamber? I believe that the library was originally a small red building. The building itself it gone, but the name has been passed on for over a century.

The low mobility of the Chinese peasant has enabled many items of information to be passed on from generation to generation.

Memorable fieldwork

Q: Which parts of archaeological work do you find the most enjoyable and which the most troublesome?

　A: The most interesting is fieldwork. There's no telling what you'll dig up out of ground. Every spadeful holds a surprise.

The most troublesome aspect is negotiations, having to deal with landowners, the local security apparatus and executive agencies, for instance. Even though we usually receive a lot of assistance from government agencies, there's always a troublesome side to getting involved with other people. It's not like the simple pleasure that comes from digging away on your own.

The older I get, the bigger the plans I make, but the less fun I find in it.

Q: When was the last time you dug about on a dig yourself?

A: That was back in the 1960s.

The place I've done most of my fieldwork in is Taiwan. For the mainland, where many areas have been closed off, I've basically just studied documents published by others. But in Taiwan, not counting the times I'd carry a spade with me wherever I went just in case I wanted to dig around, the places I've engaged in systematic excavation of some scale while living in the area, include Fengpitou, Yingpu, Tachia, Tatu, Choshui and Yuanshan. Even now, my greatest interest is still the archaeology of Taiwan.

Q: Do you have special feelings because of having done most of your own digging there?

A: That's an important part of it. But also, Taiwan's my old home!

Taiwan, center of Pacific culture

Q: You once pointed out in a paper that Taiwan is a radial center of the culture of the Pacific islands, didn't you?

A: Yes, I did. Taiwan's importance is recognized around the world. The languages of the original inhabitants of the Pacific islands--from Hawaii in the east, including New Guinea, New Zealand, Indonesia, Malaysia and Taiwan, and west to Madagascar in the Indian Ocean--all belong to the same family. These peoples are termed the Austronesian language group and are generally believed to have originated along the southeast coast of China in about 3000 B.C.

The cultures of the Taiwan aborigines can be dated back to 2000 or 3000 B.C. The differences in their languages show that the Austronesian language family has existed in Taiwan for a long, long time--long enough to differentiate itself to such a high degree--and Taiwan is the only place along the entire southeast coast of China where the Austronesian languages are still spoken. To trace back the steps of the Austronesian forebears to the Chinese mainland, we have to rely on archaeology to reconstruct the ties between Taiwan and Fukien.

So in studying the origin of the culture of the Austronesian peoples -- the inhabitants of most of the Pacific Islands--the study of Taiwan is a key. What's more, there are now materials showing similarities between the prehistoric cultures of the Min River coast in Fukien and the western coast of Taiwan.

Q: What kind of similarities?

A: Looking at the latest materials found in Fukien, the methods of surface finishing used on some of the pottery from 2000 to 3000 B.C. are similar to those used on pottery unearthed in Taiwan from the same period. Marking designs on the surface of the pottery with a rope or a saw-toothed shell, for instance, is a characteristic shared only by Taiwan and Fukien among other cultures known from the same period.

Q: Is that why you hope to promote joint research across the Taiwan Strait?

A: That's just one of the reasons.

Another is that Taiwan and Fukien have a similar natural environment -- small rivers running down the mountains in little valleys perpendicular to the coast--and almost the same natural resources in the ocean. Be it past or present, people have always had to operate within the natural environment to seek a living, and where there are similar resources, human adaptations should also be similar. That's why the Taiwan Strait can serve as a single area of research.

To dig or not to dig

Q: Do archaeologists ever get caught in the dilemma of "to dig or not to dig"--digging may solve some riddles but it may also destroy the clues to a solution because of inadequacies in present technology, while not digging may lead to the gradual disappearance of clues with the passage of time?

A: There are a lot of dilemmas like that, and not just in archaeology. The most frequent is whether to open an historic site to the public. If it is, it may be damaged, but if not, it loses its educational value to the public. There are very few things that can be handled perfectly in all respects.

However, underground artifacts have been buried for thousands of years, so why not leave them for a few more decades? Technology is improving day by day and will certainly be much better in 50 years. What's the big hurry? Some of the riddles of history have been around for generations and generations. What gives us and only us the right to know?

Practically speaking, compromises can be made. The caves in France, for instance, have been divided into groups for excavation over many decades, leaving many for posterity.

Q: Have you done it like that in any of the projects that you have beenin on between Taiwan and the mainland?

Leave some for later

A: We haven't consciously intended to leave anything behind, but in fact you always do. Sites are large and excavated on a sample basis, so a large portion is left behind.

Some places on the mainland have been intentionally preserved from digging, however. There has always been heavy pressure to excavate the tombs of Chin Shih-huang-ti [the First Emperor of the Chin Dynasty] and the Tang emperors, for instance, but specialists have successfully resisted it because of fears that the preservation technology isn't good enough.

Tombs like those of the Empress Wu Tze-tien and the Emperor Kao-tsung, as far as we know, have never been opened. Nobody knows what's inside--it may be ruined as soon as they're opened. Until we can be sure of what we're doing, it's better to leave them for more capable people who come after us.

I'll give an example of what may happen otherwise. In 1957, one of the Thirteen Tombs of the Ming emperors, near Peking, was opened, the tomb of the Emperor Wan-li. The silks and satins they found looked brand new but have slowly deteriorated since.

The items had been preserved so well because the tombs had been hermetically sealed, shutting off oxygen and killing the microorganisms. But they couldn't hold up once the tombs had been opened.

The Yellow Emperor--no such person?

Q: Can't the items inside be preserved even with today's technology?

A: It would be difficult. It's so big inside there'd be no way to reseal it as a vacuum. And removing the objects for preservation would harm the excavation by destroying clues.

In addition, there would be many other things inside besides silks, such as lacquerware, wooden items and paintings on coffins, which would be well preserved because of underground moisture. But as soon as they were excavated, the moisture would evaporate and they would peel.

Q: Were the ancients aware that objects could be preserved like that when they buried them, or have they been kept that way by chance?

A: Sometimes they were. For instance, a sealed coffin was found at the site at Ma-wang-tui, which dates from 200 B.C., with two layers, one of plaster and one of coal, completely cutting off the outside air. The body of the woman inside is some 2,000 years old but the flesh is very well preserved.

That design was clearly deliberate--and scientific.

Q: It's amazing that people in ancient times had knowledge like that. Another thing that's startling is that we Chinese have always called ourselves children of the Yellow Emperor, but archaeologists don't seem to think he really existed.

Lies, lies, lies

A: You're right. The idea of the Yellow Emperor didn't appear until the Spring and Autumn Era, when he is mentioned in documents and bronze inscriptions. The general view is that the Yellow Emperor is an anthropomorphic version of Shang-ti [God] that arose during the Eastern Chou Dynasty.

And the story that "the Yellow Emperor fought a battle with Yen, and the victor became the overlord of all China," which is still current today, comes mainly from the Shih-chi [Records of the Grand Historian]. The Shih-chi holds a commanding place in the Chinese view of history, and every nation needs an "overlord," a common forebear--it has to find one even if none exists. There just happened to be this suitable choice, and the legend of the source of the nation was formed.

Q: But if, as you just said, there are still many, many things yet to be unearthed on the Chinese mainland ...

A: Yes, and so of course it's very hard to say with certainty that there was or wasn't such a person--unless we excavate a tomb and find that everything matches the legend.

As far as we now know, however the figure of the Yellow Emperor originated in myths of the Chou Dynasty. It was during the Eastern Chou that people said that before the Shang Dynasty there was such an overlord of all the tribes. We archaeologists believe in evidence. Evidence can completely overthrow past theories, but without it we don't want to be hoodwinked by the ancients!

Chang Kwang-chih in Brief

1931 Born in Peking (of Taiwanese ancestry), moved to Taiwan with his parents when he was in high school.

1954 Graduated in anthropology and archaeology from National Taiwan University.

1960 Earned a doctorate in anthropology from Harvard University.

1961 Began teaching at Yale University, for 16 years in all.

1969 Advanced to full professor.

1970-3 Chairman of the Department of Anthropology.

1975-7 Chairman of the Council on East Asian Studies.

1977 Returned to Harvard University as professor of anthropology.

1981-4 Chairman of the Department of Anthropology.

1986-9 Chairman of the Council on East Asian Studies.

His chief writings are studies of Chinese antiquity and Taiwan archaeology, including in English Archaeology of Ancient China, Early Chinese Civilization: Anthropological Perspectives, Shang Civilization and Fengpitou, Tapenkeng and the Prehistory of Taiwan and in Chinese The Bronze Age in China and The Bronze Age in China (Ⅱ).

He was elected a member of Academia Sinica in 1974 and was awarded an honorary doctorate at the Chinese University of Hong Kong in 1990.

[Picture Caption]

The endless vista outside the window is matched by the boundless river of human civilization followed by the people inside. This is Chang's second home -- the Harvard department of anthropology. (photo by Lu Huey-fen)

Besides reading myriads of books, archaeologists also must travel myriads of miles. Chang Kwang-chih, renowned for his research into the Three Dynasties period, has visited the site of the ancient capital of the Shang Dynasty at Anyang in Honan many times. The picture was taken in 1975.

(Left, above) Chang feels that the greatest joy in archaeology is fieldwork. Here he is shown excavating paleolithic remains in France in 1959.

Passing on knowledge in the world of archaeology. The picture shows Chang (left) as a college student with his professor Shih Chang-ju engaged in fieldwork at Shuiwei in Taichung.

Chang is famous for his research on ancient China. This photo was taken in 1980 on a visit to the remains of Peking Man at Choukotien.

After having been out of the country a dozen or so years, Chang (second from left in front) returned to his alma mater, National Taiwan University, in 1970 to visit friends. A number of them had become important figures in R.O.C. archaeology, including Sung Wen-hsun (second from right in front) and Huang Shih-chiang (first on right in front), both anthropology professors at the school.

Besides reading myriads of books, archaeologists also must travel myriads of miles. Chang Kwang-chih, renowned for his research into the Three Dynasties period, has visited the site of the ancient capital of the Shang Dynasty at Anyang in Honan many times. The picture was taken in 1975.

（Left, above） Chang feels that the greatest joy in archaeology is fieldwork. Here he is shown excavating paleolithic remains in France in 1959.

Passing on knowledge in the world of archaeology. The picture shows Chang （left） as a college student with his professor Shih Chang-ju engaged in fieldwork at Shuiwei in Taichung.

Chang is famous for his research on ancient China. This photo was taken in 1980 on a visit to the remains of Peking Man at Choukotien.

After having been out of the country a dozen or so years, Chang （second from left in front） returned to his alma mater, National Taiwan University, in 1970 to visit friends. A number of them had become important figures in R.O.C. archaeology, including Sung Wen-hsun （second from right in front） and Huang Shih-chiang （first on right in front）, both anthropology professors at the school.