Why Is Linear Evolutionary Theory Popular in Archaeology in China?

Clicks: 4
ID: 322026
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #991 of 1,518 articles by views in Oxford University Press eBooks

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 1,518 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract While linear evolutionary theory has largely lost its lustre in Anglo-American archaeological literature, it continues to exert considerable influence on various aspects of Chinese archaeology, particularly in discussions on state formation. This chapter seeks to explain why linear evolutionary theory still dominates research on state formation during the Late Neolithic and Bronze Age in China. Four key factors contribute to this enduring influence: (1) The path dependency of Marxist theories. Archaeologists in China from the 1920s to the 1980s directly applied Marxist stages of social development to describe Chinese prehistory and protohistory. When these stages proved ill-suited to depicting Chinese state formation in the 1980s, scholars began to use Marxist historical materialism, focusing on economic factors and class struggle to define evolutionary stages. (2) The political use of evolutionism. Evolutionary theory was used in archaeology and ancient history in the late 19th to 20th centuries to learn from the West. In the present, it has been repurposed to bolster cultural self-confidence as China seeks to assert a leading role in a global history of human civilisation. (3) The distinction between ‘centre’ and ‘periphery’. Different stages of social evolution are defined primarily based on the social development of the ‘centre’, with the ‘periphery’ often considered as ‘lagging behind’ in the evolutionary trajectory. (4) Changes in understandings of temporality during the late 19th century, from the traditional dynastic temporality to a progressive and teleological temporality of modernity.
Reference Key
openalex_W7170065290 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Guo Peng Chen 陈国鹏
Journal Oxford University Press eBooks
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197800324.013.0023
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197800324.013.0023
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.