 |
[email protected] |
 |
3275638434 |
 |
 |
| Paper Publishing WeChat |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Reflecting on Implicit Criteria of Evaluation in Area Studies through The Indus: Lost Civilizations
PAN Qiwei
Full-Text PDF
XML 128 Views
DOI:10.17265/2159-5836/2026.08.010
Minzu University of China, Beijing, 100074, China
Andrew Robinson’s The Indus: Lost Civilizations captures the distinctive features of the Indus Valley civilization. The ancient society achieved sophisticated urban infrastructure and cross-regional trade networks, yet it lacks visible traces of centralized rulership, decipherable written records, and long-term cultural continuity, which sets it apart from dominant civilizational models. Readers’ subtle regret over these historical gaps stems from two ingrained evaluative frameworks. The paper re-examines some tacit judging criteria and challenges the tendency to assess alien civilizations through culturally specific benchmarks. It argues that Chinese area studies must confront endogenous cognitive inertia and suspend preset value judgments to interpret marginalized civilizations on their own empirical terms and strengthen methodological reflexivity.
indus civilization, civilizational evaluation criteria, eurocentrism, self-centrism
Journal of Literature and Art Studies, August 2026, Vol. 16, No. 8, 699-704
Farmer, S., Sproat, R., & Witzel, M. (2004). The collapse of the Indus-script thesis: The myth of a literate Harappan civilization. Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies, 11(2).
Green, A. S. (2021). Killing the priest-king: Addressing egalitarianism in the Indus civilization. Journal of Archaeological Research, 29(2), 153-202.
Kenoyer, J. M. (1998). Ancient cities of the Indus Valley civilization. Karachi, Pakistan: Oxford University Press.
Parpola, A. (2015). The roots of Hinduism: The early Aryans and the Indus civilization. NY: Oxford University Press.
Possehl, G. L. (2002). The Indus civilization: A contemporary perspective. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Rao, R. P. N., Yadav, N., Vahia, M. N., Joglekar, H., Adhikari, R., & Mahadevan, I. (2010). Entropy, the Indus script, and language: A reply to R. Sproat. Computational Linguistics, 36(4), 795-805.
Robinson, A. (2015). The Indus: Lost civilizations. London: Reaktion Books.
Said, E. W. (1978). Orientalism. NY: Pantheon Books.
Vidale, M. (2007). The collapse melts down: A reply to Farmer, Sproat & Witzel. East and West, 57(1-4), 333-366.
Wallerstein, I. (1997). Eurocentrism and its avatars: The dilemmas of social science. New Left Review, 226, 93-107
陈瑾. (2025). 华夏文明与古印度文明在文化艺术方面的五点不同. 中原文学, (16), 198-200.
梁运文, 杨飞. (2025). 无法回避的任务：中国特色区域国别研究理论与方法的再思考. 湖南科技大学学报 (社会科学版), 28(6), 131-140.
邱运华, (2026). 中国区域国别学的研究理念与实践路径. 《光明日报》 (11版), 06-05.
王茜, 王建新. (2021). 哈拉帕遗址与二里头遗址经济发展比较研究. 西北大学学报 (哲学社会科学版), 51(1), 63-72.
殷之光. (2006). 中国区域国别研究的主体性问题及其普遍性. 《人民论坛·学术前沿》,第6期. DOI:10.16619/j.cnki.rmltxsqy.2026.06.002
赵裴, 姜锋. (2024). 试论区域国别学的研究主体与客体. 外语电化教学, (4), 3-9.
邹广文. (2026). 文明标准：从西方中心到多元共生. 中国社会科学报, 05-25. https://www.aisixiang.com/data/176959.html