【李济高中作文】张光直：现在很想念你(1896 ~ 1979年)

想念李基(1896 ~ 1979年)

张广直

在过去的60年里，先是作为中国考古学之父，接着是中国考古学藏文3763李今，为人文和历史科学做出了不可磨灭的贡献。在中国，他的学术思想至今仍在他的研究领域占据支配地位。

出生在湖北，在家乡和北京成长的现在，他的童年在与西方接触的压力下，迈出了走向现代化漫长道路的第一步。(威廉莎士比亚，《哈姆雷特》，《生活》)和现在一样，当时有才能的青年被送到西方各国学习他们的科学奥秘。(威廉莎士比亚、温斯顿、Stunger)从著名的清华学堂毕业后，李志被送到美国马萨诸塞州伍斯特的克拉克大学学习心理学和社会学，然后去哈佛学习人类学。现在，在1977年与费正清的夫人魏梅女士的谈话中，他说，他去克拉克大学是因为清华的一位心理学老师沃尔科博士说，如果想学心理学，就必须去克拉克。克拉克时代，现在养成了每周六上午去图书馆开阅览室，尽情浏览各种出版物的习惯。在这种吃草的阅读中，他偶然接触到了自己不知道的人类学书籍，立刻被这门学问迷住了。现在在1923年获得哈佛大学博士学位。在这里，他跟着虎藤、托彻和迪克森三位老师分别学习了体质人类学、考古学和人种学。这三门学问对他的博士论文写作(1928年正式出版)和以后60年的学术生涯都很有用。

现在从1923年回国到1928年为止，一直担任正统美国式大学教授兼研究学者。他在天津南开大学(1923 ~ 1925年)和母校清华大学新成立的国学研究院(1925 ~ 1928年)任教。从1925年到1926年，他主持了陕西南部夏县西阴村的仰韶文化新石器时代遗址的发掘。这次发掘由清华的国学研究院和美国华盛顿特区的弗里尔美术馆共同举办，现在成为第一位发掘考古遗址的中国学者。

1928年是现在一生的转折点，也是中国考古学和历史学的转折点。为了充分评价从1928年开始伊泽索经历的事件的重要性，几乎要追溯到年前的1899年，即义和团事件和八国联军入侵的前一年。由于八国联军的入侵，中华帝国在西方工业大国和军事强国的威力面前蒙受了奇耻大辱。这一年，商(或银)代(公元前1766年~公元前1122年)的甲骨文是王朝灭亡近3000年来首次引起古代史学者们的关注。此后的年里，中外研究商社的学者们被这种新的史料来源吸引，大规模追踪了在古董市场流通的这种骨片的出土来源。不久，这些学者就注意到，耻骨甲骨来自殷墟，即河南北部水水岸附近有现代安阳的3354银王朝的废墟。

国民党3763 (KMT Foundation)于1928年取得北伐胜利，在南京成立了新政府。新的全国性科研机构——“中央研究院”——成立，研究院内设立了国家历史语言研究所。傅斯年少将曾在德国学习历史学和语言学，他立即为新成立的研究所设立了两个项目。(1)成立考古队，作为研究中国历史的新工具。(2)殷墟发掘，考古队的第一个田野工作项目。为了实现这两点，傅迫切需要受过西方田野工作传统训练的有资历的考古学家。(威廉莎士比亚，温斯顿，工作)集团主任和挖掘项目主持3763进程的必然选择结果都落到了现在。从此，现在的学术生活与安阳的发掘再也分不开了。由“中央研究院”领导的这一发掘工作持续到1937年年中为止，持续了15个赛季。

今天，只有少数3763万人在寻找合适的学者来领导新成立的考古小组——时，这实际上意味着选择国家考古事业的领导人——。不是一个人，而是两个强有力的候选人3763，另一个是马衡(1881-1955)。马是受人尊敬的传统古文物研究学者，后来是北京大学考古研究室院长和故宫博物院的院长。想象一下：如果马衡当年傅最后评选的3763，中国的考古学现在会是什么样子？因为1928年至1937年安阳发掘和李济对安阳发掘的领导作用对下半年中国考古学的发展产生了决定性的影响。

首先，安阳的发掘确立了上文明在中国古代史中的主导地位，是整个东亚地区最早记载文字的文明。对方是连接广大中国私人记录和日益增多的史前中国信息体的纽带。但是我们对对方的知识大部分是现在给我们定的。他在安阳组织了考古探索。他使用了西方的考古学方法和观念。他招募了很多同事和学生，并在安阳的实地工作中用这些方法和观念培养了他们。这些年轻学者包括从1981年夏天到——年夏天，——年中国社会科学院考古研究所所长，以及几乎以来活跃在考古界的所有重要人物。(威廉莎士比亚、中国社会科学院考古研究所所长、考古研究所所长、考古研究所所长、考古研究所所长、考古研究所所长、考古研究所所长、考古研究所所长等)现在为安阳出土器物研究确定了总结构，确立了研究的主动性。他的整个研究方法——，特别是陶器和青铜器的命名和类型学方法——，一直在整个中国考古界保持统治地位。在他本人的研究工作中，他建立了高要求的科学标准——。他的继承人都努力在自己的工作中树立榜样。他是认真捍卫中国文化珍品、防止外国盗窃者侵犯的爱国者，也是接受西方能提供的最佳技术和观念，在世界背景下观察和构想中国的国际主义者。他的继承人中，很多3763可以做到两者之一，但很少有人能像他一样同时做到人性和眼光两个方面。

1937年7月爆发的抗日战争实际上结束了现在考古队进行的重要田野考古工作。1949年以后，随着蒋介石政府的逃亡，李志也去了台湾。现在从1937年到1979年去世，1928年到1937年大部分时间都花在保管、运输、研究和出版安阳出土的资料上。

。虽然因战争而造成的研究生活的不稳定，以及参加安阳工作的考古学家中有些人故去、有些人离去，给李济管理商代遗宝的计划造成不利的影响，但到他去世前，他看到在他的最后一部著作《安阳》（1977年英文版）中撮要概述到的很大一部分资料都已经出版了。完整的报告并没有出来，但是不利的因素已非李济所能控制的了；他已经做到他力所能及的一切，对此我们表示衷心的感谢。我强烈地意识到，李济一生之所以一再拒绝美国一些大学提供职位的邀请、没有像他的一些同事那样在战中或战后移民过去，最根本的原因是，他感到自己必须留在国内，看到安阳研究的全过程。

除了安阳的发掘和研究外，李济还从事了其他许多重要的学术活动，最早是在抗战时期的大西南，1949年以后在台湾。这里仅列举其中的几项:1934年他被任命为中央博物院的筹备主任，从此以后，他成为一个主张历史博物馆应是发掘、研究兼教育的机关的热心拥护者。他的这一理想在近三十年里已在中国得到广泛的实现。1949年他在台北的台湾大学创办了考古人类学系，第一次在中国把培养专业考古学家列入大学计划之内。20世纪60年代初期，他在促成“中央研究院”成立中国古史委员会，着手编写一部多著者、跨学科的中国古史中起到关键作用，此举开中国史学编著之先河。到李济去世时，该书的初稿已开始问世。

我第一次见到李济是在1950年秋季进入台大他创办的新系的时候。这以后的29年里，他是我的老师、导师、批评者、行为榜样和学术良心。当然，我时常感到，李济是一个伟大的历史人物，他塑造了今天中国的考古学；但对于我来说，他最主要的价值就在于他体现了在中国历史学和考古学研究中所能达到的最高科学标准。他对在中国建立科学的学术事业怀有一种纯挚的热忱，并用自己的言行树立了一个令他的后继者渴望达到而又难以企及的榜样。他的过世是世界上一切真正学人的一大损失。

1981年11月19日

Li Chi: 1896-1979
K. C. Chang

After almost sixty years, first as the father and later as the dean of Chinese archaeology, Li Chi has left indelible contributions to the science of humankind and of history, and his thinking still dominates his discipline in China.

Born in Hupei, Li Chi grew up at home and in Peking at a time when the old country, forced by encounters with the West, was taking its initial steps on the long road to modernization. Then, as now, bright young students were sent to Western countries to learn their scientific secrets. After his graduation from the elite Tsinghua Academy, Li Chi was sent to the United States, where he studied psychology and sociology at Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts, and then anthropology at Harvard. According to an interview with Wilma Fairbank in 1977, Li Chi said that he went to Clark because a psychology teacher at Tsinghua, a Dr. Wolcott, had told him that Clark was the place to be for psychology. While at Clark, Li Chi developed the habit of spending every Saturday morning browsing in the open shelves of the library. There he happened upon anthropology books and was fascinated by this subject, of which he had had no previous knowledge. At Harvard, where he earned a doctorate in 1923, Li Chi studied with Hooten, Tozzer, and Dixon, and from these three mentors he learned, respectively, physical anthropology, archaeology, and ethnology, all of which he made use of, both in his doctoral dissertation (1928) and in his subsequent sixty-year career in China.

From 1923, when he returned to China, to 1928, Li Chi was the typical university professor-cum-research scholar in the American mold. He taught at Nan-k’ai University in Tientsin (1923-1925) and then at his alma mater Tsinghua Academy’s new Graduate Research Institute (1925-1928). From 1925 to 1926 he undertook the excavation of a Neolithic Yang-shao Culture site at Hsi-yin-ts’un in Hsia Hsien, southern Shansi, under the joint auspices of the Tsinghua Institute and the Freer Gallery of Art, Washington D. C., becoming the first Chinese scholar to dig an archaeological site.

The year 1928 was a turning point in Li Chi’s life, and it was a turning point in Chinese archaeology and historiography as well. To appreciate fully the significance of events surrounding Li Chi beginning in 1928 we must go back some thirty years, to 1899, one year before the Boxers and the Allied Invasion which wrought Imperial China’s ultimate humiliation in the face of the industrial and military might of the West. In that year oracle bone inscriptions of the Shang (or Yin) Dynasty (1766-1122 B.C.) came to the attention of ancient historians for the first time since the dynasty’s fall three thousand years previously, and during the next thirty years Shang scholars within and outside of China became fascinated by this new historiographic source material and launched extensive efforts to track down the bones floating on the antiquities market. Before long, the scholars became aware that these inscribed bones had come from Yin Hsü, the ruins of the Yin Dynasty, long known to be on the banks of the river Huan, near the modern city of An-yang, in northern Honan.

In 1928, the Nationalists succeeded in their Northern Expedition and founded a new regime in Nanking. A new national academy of sciences—Academia Sinica—was established, and under it there was a National Research Institute of History and Philology. The institute’s director, Fu Ssu-nien, who had studied historiography and philology in Germany, decided at once on two projects, among others, for the new institute to launch—to establish a department of archaeology as a new instrument to investigate Chinese history; and to carry out an excavation at Yin Hsü as the department’s first field project. For both, Fu needed a senior archaeologist trained in the Western tradition of field investigations, and Li Chi was a logical choice for both department chairman and excavation project director. From then on, Li Chi’s career became inextricably linked with the An-yang excavations, which, under Academia Sinica, lasted for fifteen field seasons, until the middle of 1937.

It is known to only a very few people now that when Fu was looking for a suitable scholar to head the new archaeology department—thus choosing, in effect, the national leader of archaeology—he had recommended to him not one, but two strong candidates, the other being Ma Heng (1881-1955), a highly respected scholar of the traditional antiquarian mold, later to become chairman of the Research Section of Archaeology of Peking University and director of the Palace Museum. It would be interesting to speculate what Chinese archaeology would be like now had Ma Heng been Fu’s final choice, for the An-yang excavations of 1928-1937 and Li Chi’s direction of them were to shape Chinese archaeology for the next half century.

First of all, the An-yang excavations established the status of the Shang civilization at the head of the ancient history of China as the first civilization in the whole eastern half of Asia with written documents. Shang is the linchpin that ties together the vast recorded history of China with the increasing body of information about prehistoric China. But our knowledge of the Shang has to a great extent been shaped by Li Chi. He organized the search at An-yang for archaeological sites. He applied Western archaeological methods and concepts. He recruited colleagues and students and trained them in these methods and concepts at An-yang. Among these younger scholars were all the leading archaeologists active in China in the last thirty years, including Hsia Nai, director of the Institute of Archaeology, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, and Kao Ch’ü-hsun, until summer 1981 director of the Institute of History and Philology in Taiwan. Li Chi also set both the tone and the priorities of the study of the An-yang finds, and his methodology—above all ceramic and bronze vessel nomenclature and typology—still dominates the whole field of archaeology in China. In his own research he set a high standard of scientific excellence, which his successors struggle to measure up to in their own works. He was also both a patriot, jealously guarding China’s cultural treasures against foreign pilferage, and an internationalist eager to adopt the best techniques and ideas the West had to offer and to view and conceptualize about China in the world setting. Many of his successors have succeeded in being one or the other, but few have equalled his tenacity and vision to be both.

The Sino-Japanese War that broke out in July 1937 virtually put an end to further archaeological fieldwork of significance being carried out by Li Chi’s department, and after 1949 he went to Taiwan with the exiled government of Chiang Kai-shek. From 1937 until his death in 1979, Li Chi spent much of his time dealing with the care, transportation, study, and publication of the An-yang material excavated during the 1928-1937 interval. Although the war-caused instability of institute life and the deaths and departures of many of the An-yang archaeologists had adversely affected Li Chi’s plans for the Shang treasure, by the time of his death he had seen the publication of the bulk of the material, which he summarized in his last book Anyang (1977). The whole report is not out, but the adverse factors were beyond Li Chi’s control, and he did everything he could have done, for which we are truly grateful. I have a strong feeling that the reason Li Chi declined repeated offers of university posts in the United States, to which some of his Academia Sinica colleagues immigrated during and after the war, was primarily because he felt he had to stay in China to see the Anyang studies through.

Outside his An-yang work, Li Chi was engaged in many other significant scholar activities, first during the war in the Southwest and, after 1949, in Taiwan. Among them we may name the following. In 1934 he was appointed to head the Central Museum, and from then on he was an ardent espouser of historical museums as organs of excavation, research, and education. This ideal has been put into practice extensively throughout China during the last thirty years. In 1949 he founded the Department of Archaeology and Anthropology at the National Taiwan University in Taipei, the first university program in China to train professional archaeologists. In the early 1960s he was instrumental in the organization, under Academia Sinica, of a committee on the ancient history of China to launch the preparation of a multiauthored, interdisciplinary volume on ancient Chinese history, the first such effort in Chinese historiography. By the time of his death the first drafts of this volume were beginning to appear.

I first met Li Chi in the fall of 1950, when I was admitted to his new department at Taiwan University. For the next twenty-nine years he was my teacher, mentor, critic, role model, and academic conscience. I was always conscious, of course, that Li Chi was a great historical figure, who had given archaeology in China its present shape. But above all he meant just one thing to me—he embodied the highest scientific standard that could be achieved in the study of Chinese history and archaeology. He had a single-minded devotion to scientific scholarship in China and by his own word and deed set a forbidding model for his followers to aspire to. His death is a gigantic loss for all true scholars of the world.