李学勤王震中博士是中国社会科学院历史研究所的研究员，专门研究中国古代历史文化已有多年。他特别集中于文明起源问题的探索，做出了令人瞩目的成绩，早在1994年就出版了《中国文明起源的比较研究》一书，已为学术界所熟悉，以其独到的见解，引起了不少反响。《中国古代国家的起源与王权的形成》是他近期又一力作，得到国家社科基金的支持，也是中国社会科学院的重点项目，从内容性质来说，可以视为《中国文明起源的比较研究》的延续和发展。《中国古代国家的起源与王权的形成》是一部约60万字的大书，今年初我看了其中一部分章节，已深感其论说专业而有创新性。及至春节过后，震中博士寄示全稿，得以了解这部书的整体构思，更对其观点的新颖特异之处有更进一步的认识。承他不弃，再三要我写一篇小序，由于付印在即，时间紧迫，只能随便谈一些绎读之余的感想，能否有当便在所不计了。首先我想说，震中博士这部书论述的主题，即中国国家的起源问题，乃是探索中国文明起源这个重大学术课题的核心环节，具有非常重要的意义。大家都知道，中国有五千多年的文明史，然而辉煌灿烂的中国文明是在什么时间，什么地方，经历了什么样的历程产生形成的？回答这个疑问，关键要看国家。有了国家，才是进入了文明时代，这一点凡读过恩格斯《家庭、私有制和国家的起源》的人都会记得。考古学家夏鼐先生在《中国文明的起源》里便说，“文明”是“指一个社会已经由氏族制度解体而进入有了国家组织的阶级社会的阶段”。许多学术界前辈曾探讨中国古代国家的起源问题。郭沫若先生在1929年撰著了《中国古代社会研究》，该书于1930年印行，其“自序”表明他认为这本书“可以说就是恩格斯的《家庭、私有制和国家的起源》的续篇。研究的方法便是以他为向导，而于他所知道了的美洲的印第安人、欧洲的古代希腊、罗马之外，提供出来了他未曾提及一字的中国的古代。”郭沫若先生是历史研究所首任所长，继他为第二任所长的侯外庐先生，在1943年出版过《中国古典社会史论》（后改名为《中国古代社会史论》），讨论了中国国家的形成途径及其早期形态的演变。再有长期担任历史所领导工作的尹达先生，1943年在《中国原始社会》书中同样论说了氏族社会的崩溃和国家的初期形态。一直到1983年，他为《史前研究》创刊写题为《衷心的愿望》的代序，仍然涉及这方面的问题，而这已是他最后的学术文章了。从这些我们不难看到，历史研究所有重视古代文明和国家起源研究的传统，王震中博士正是继承了这个传统，做出了自己的创新。王震中博士的这部《中国古代国家的起源与王权的形成》，采取了多学科交叉结合的研究方法，从大量考古学发现材料的整理分析开始，对传世典籍内的种种古史传说试做整合解释，提出了一系列富于新意的理论观点，构建了一个全新的体系。许多人知道，自1925年王国维先生倡导古史研究要实行古书记载与地下材料彼此印证的“二重证据法”以来，多数研究古代的学者都努力以历史学与考古学相互配合，相互补充，那种对古史传说一律抹杀，以为全不可信的看法，已被认为是不正确的。尹达先生的《中国原始社会》说得好：“古代的传说并不是毫无史实凭借的谰言，并不是荒唐无稽的神话，其中一定会影射着不少的具体事实，一定会有其不可缺少的史实作为素地。这是我们对于中国古代传说的一个总的估计。”王震中博士书中属于这方面的不少见解，都足以引发大家深思。我还想建议，这部《中国古代国家的起源与王权的形成》的读者，在打开书以后，不妨先读一下全书的“结语”。作者在“结语”开头讲道：“国家与文明起源的研究，既是一个考古学实践问题，亦是一个理论问题，而且还需二者紧密地结合。”我觉得这说得很对，古代国家与文明的起源形成，归根到底是一个理论问题。对这样重大课题的研究，如果没有提高到理论的高度，就不能说有真正的成果。王震中博士的理论创新，在全书的“结语”中又有进一步的提炼和升华，在其夹叙夹议中展开了中国古代国家起源及其发展的历史画卷。王震中博士在给我的一封信里，叙说了他写这部书时对“理论创新与实证研究相结合”的追求。我认为他的这部书做到了这一点。这部力作是对他近年来提出的“文明和国家起源路径的聚落三形态演进”说，进入国家社会之后所经过的“邦国-王国-帝国”说，以及“夏商周三代为复合制国家结构”说这些学术体系的系统展示和进一步深化、完善。在书中，他还对近年学术界流行的酋邦理论和社会分层理论等作了分析和批评，提出应“以聚落形态和社会形态为主，去整合酋邦理论和社会分层理论”。王震中博士的这些理论观点，是贯彻在他全书中的，希望读者能予注意。2013年2月28日

Dr. Li Xueqin and Wang Zhenzhong are researchers at the Institute of History of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, specializing in ancient Chinese history and culture for many years. As early as 1994, he published the book "A Comparative Study of the Origin of Chinese Civilization", which has been familiar to the academic community and has aroused many repercussions with his unique insights. "The Origin of the Ancient Chinese State and the Formation of Royal Power" is another of his recent masterpieces, supported by the National Social Science Fund, and is also a key project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, which can be regarded as the continuation and development of "A Comparative Study of the Origin of Chinese Civilization" in terms of content nature. "The Origin of the Ancient Chinese State and the Formation of Royal Power" is a large book of about 600,000 words, and I read some of its chapters earlier this year, and I felt that its arguments were professional and innovative. After the Spring Festival, Dr. Epicenter sent the full manuscript, which allowed him to understand the overall concept of the book and further understand the novelty and peculiarities of his views. He did not give up, and repeatedly asked me to write a small preface, because the printing was imminent and time was urgent, so I could only casually talk about some thoughts after reading, and whether I could have it or not was at the right time. First of all, I would like to say that the theme discussed in Dr. Epicenter's book, that is, the origin of the Chinese state, is the core link of exploring the origin of Chinese civilization, which is of great significance. Everyone knows that China has a history of more than 5,000 years of civilization, but at what time, where and what kind of process did the splendid Chinese civilization come into being? The key to answering this question depends on the country. With the state, it is the era of civilization, which anyone who has read Engels' "The Family, Private Property and the Origin of the State" will remember. Archaeologist Mr. Xia Nai said in "The Origin of Chinese Civilization" that "civilization" refers to the stage in which a society has disintegrated from the clan system and entered a class society with state organization." Many academic predecessors have explored the origin of the ancient Chinese state. Guo Moruo's 1929 book A Study of Ancient Chinese Society, published in 1930, indicates that he considered the book "a sequel to Engels' The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State." The method of research was to use him as a guide, and in addition to what he knew, the Indians of the Americas, the ancient Greece and Rome of Europe, and provided the ancient China that he did not mention. Mr. Guo Moruo, the first director of the Institute of History, succeeded him as the second director, Mr. Hou Wailu, published Classical Chinese Social History (later renamed Ancient Chinese Social History) in 1943, which discussed the way the Chinese state was formed and the evolution of its early form. Then there is Mr. Yin Da, who has been a historical leader for a long time, and in 1943 he also discussed the collapse of clan society and the initial form of the state in his book "Chinese Primitive Society". Until 1983, when he wrote the preface to the inaugural journal of Prehistoric Studies entitled "Heartfelt Wishes", this is still the subject of this issue, and this is his last scholarly article. From these it is not difficult to see that historical research attaches importance to the tradition of ancient civilizations and the study of the origin of countries, Dr. Wang Zhenzhong has inherited this tradition and made his own innovations. Dr. Wang Zhenzhong's "The Origin of the Ancient Chinese State and the Formation of Royal Power" adopts a multidisciplinary research method, starting from the collation and analysis of a large number of archaeological discovery materials, trying to integrate and explain various ancient history and legends in the handed down texts, and putting forward a series of innovative theoretical views to build a new system. Many people know that since Mr. Wang Guowei advocated the implementation of the "double evidence method" in the study of ancient history in 1925, in which ancient book records and underground materials corroborate each other, most scholars who study ancient times have tried to cooperate and complement each other with history and archaeology. Mr. Yin Da's "Primitive Society in China" put it well: "Ancient legends are not rumors without historical facts, they are not absurd myths, they must insinuate many specific facts, and there must be indispensable historical facts as a prime." This is our general estimate of ancient Chinese legends. "Many of the insights in Dr. Wang Zhenzhong's book belong to this regard, which are enough to cause everyone to think deeply. I would also like to suggest that readers of this "The Origin of the Ancient Chinese State and the Formation of Royal Power" may wish to read the "epilogue" of the whole book after opening the book. The author begins his "Epilogue" by saying: "The study of the origin of the state and civilization is both a practical and a theoretical problem in archaeology, and it needs to be closely integrated. "I think this is very correct, the origin and formation of ancient countries and civilizations is, in the final analysis, a theoretical issue. If the research on such a major topic is not raised to the level of theory, it cannot be said that there will be real results. Dr. Wang Zhenzhong's theoretical innovation is further refined and sublimated in the "conclusion" of the book, and the historical picture of the origin and development of ancient Chinese countries is unfolded in his narrative and discussion. In a letter to me, Dr. Wang Zhenzhong described his pursuit of "combining theoretical innovation and empirical research" when he wrote this book. I think his book does that. This masterpiece is a systematic display, further deepening and improvement of the academic systems of "the three-form evolution of the settlement of the origin path of civilization and the state" proposed by him in recent years, the "state-kingdom-empire" theory that passed through after entering the national society, and the theory that "Xia Shang was a composite state structure". In the book, he also analyzes and criticizes the chiefdom theory and social stratification theory popular in academia in recent years, and proposes that "settlement form and social form should be the mainstay, and the chiefdom theory and social stratification theory should be integrated". These theoretical views of Dr. Wang Zhenzhong are implemented throughout his book, and I hope readers will pay attention to them. February 28, 2013（AI翻译）