This trend was apparent in the late 1920s but has long failed to attract the attention of historians. The author explores the point at which the old and new schools of historical research diverged, the ways in which t...This trend was apparent in the late 1920s but has long failed to attract the attention of historians. The author explores the point at which the old and new schools of historical research diverged, the ways in which this trend was related to the contemporary skeptical approach to Chinas early history, and to the socalled “double evidence,” a method that emphasized the combination of literary and archaeological data in historical studies. The scholars of the new school adopted a heretical, antitradition stance in their efforts to join the international intellectual community, and were interested in the topics studied by Western sinologists. These factors were responsible for their paradoxical attitude toward historical data: They liked to see more but hated to read literary sources.展开更多
文摘This trend was apparent in the late 1920s but has long failed to attract the attention of historians. The author explores the point at which the old and new schools of historical research diverged, the ways in which this trend was related to the contemporary skeptical approach to Chinas early history, and to the socalled “double evidence,” a method that emphasized the combination of literary and archaeological data in historical studies. The scholars of the new school adopted a heretical, antitradition stance in their efforts to join the international intellectual community, and were interested in the topics studied by Western sinologists. These factors were responsible for their paradoxical attitude toward historical data: They liked to see more but hated to read literary sources.
