The Archaeological Ruins of Liangzhu City, located in Yuhang District, Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province, China Photo: TUCHONG

The definition and identification of “civilization” profoundly influences the interpretation of history, the contextualization of the present, and the envisioning of the future. Historically, the “three elements of civilization”—metallurgy, writing, and cities—derived from Mesopotamian and ancient Egyptian experiences, were treated as universal standards shaping historical narratives worldwide. Recent archaeological discoveries and evolving theoretical perspectives, however, have sparked a debate over the criteria for a civilization. This discussion concerns not only the validation of China’s more than 5,000 years of civilization but also the philosophical foundations and methodological renewal of civilization studies. Its implications extend beyond historical archaeology to broader considerations of modern forms of civilization and the global order.

Insufficiencies of extant criteria

Research on civilization often begins with a seemingly simple yet extraordinarily complex question: By what criteria can a society be said to have entered the stage of “civilization?” The theory of the “three elements of civilization” once became a commonly accepted yardstick for identifying civilizations because it seemed clear and easy to apply. Yet when mechanically applied to the diverse civilizations of the world, its inherent limitations become unmistakable. Empirically, it is far from universal. More fundamentally, the problem lies in the framework’s methodological and ideological core. The “three elements” framework is essentially descriptive rather than explanatory: It reduces civilization to an accumulation of material and technological traits, while overlooking the fact that civilization, as a complex social system, fundamentally concerns transformations in social organization and structures of power. It may answer the question of “what civilization has,” but it cannot adequately explain “what civilization is” or “how civilization comes into being.” This tendency to measure civilization through material technology easily leads to a form of “technological determinism.”

Nor is this standard value-neutral. It is deeply intertwined with the history of modern Europe’s global expansion. Reflection on the “three elements of civilization” standard compels a return to the fundamental question: Are the defining marks of civilization certain specific material remains, or a revolutionary transformation in the organization of society itself?

Practice-based Chinese solution

Building upon critical reflection on the “three elements of civilization” standard, while remaining firmly grounded in archaeological practice in China, scholars have gradually proposed and refined a distinctly Chinese approach to understanding the formation of civilized society. Its theoretical foundation explicitly returns to the Marxist proposition that “(the state) is a product of society at a certain stage of development,” anchoring the essence of civilization in qualitative transformations in social complexity and structures of power—namely, the transition from relatively egalitarian clan-based societies to social formations characterized by systematic stratification and coercive public authority (the state). As a result, the research perspective has shifted dramatically, moving from the search for isolated “objects”—such as writing, bronze artifacts, or city walls—to the analysis of dynamic “relationships,” “structures,” and “processes.”

Drawing on archaeological discoveries from a series of capital-site settlements—including Liangzhu, Taosi, Shimao, and Erlitou—researchers have distilled a set of operational criteria for identifying a civilized society: development of production, reflected in significant advances in agriculture and handicrafts alongside the emergence of specialized labor divisions; social stratification, marked by the formation of clear classes and social hierarchies and the concentration of wealth and power; the emergence of urban centers, meaning super-large settlements that functioned as political, economic, and cultural hubs and were equipped with palaces, large tombs, ritual architecture, and other complex facilities; and the formation of kingship and the state, seen in the appearance of coercive public authority standing above society and capable of organizing large-scale public works and administering cross-regional governance. Together, these interconnected and dynamic features form a system through which the emergence of the early state—the core social form of civilization—can be identified in the archaeological record.

In practice, this Chinese approach represents a systematic integration of multidisciplinary methodologies. It requires archaeology to move beyond the traditional confines of stratigraphy and typology, engaging in deep collaboration with archaeometric studies, settlement archaeology, and analyses of material culture.

Most importantly, this framework has fostered a vibrant and constructive dialogue within Chinese academia, deepening scholarly understanding of what civilization means. This dialogue has revolved around several major issues. In the dialectical debate between the “state-centered approach” and the “ethical-cultural approach,” some scholars have refined operational systems within the paradigm of “state formation” while exploring its broader global explanatory power, whereas others have argued that ethical and cultural dimensions—centered on moral systems, systems of knowledge, and ritual institutions—constitute the deeper core of Chinese civilization. In terms of the material interpretation of ritual systems, researchers have sought to incorporate ritual order into archaeological identification frameworks through detailed analyses of early writing systems and the functions of ritual vessels. At the same time, discussions concerning the balance between universality and locality have consistently addressed how the Chinese approach can pursue universal relevance in international academic dialogue while also maintaining methodological self-awareness grounded in Chinese materials and historical experience.

This ongoing dialogue demonstrates that the Chinese approach is not a closed or definitive conclusion, but rather an open theoretical framework still under dynamic construction. While it upholds state formation as the core criterion derived from historical materialism, it also accommodates deeper explorations into the intellectual core, cultural characteristics, and multiple developmental pathways of civilization.

This “constructive reconstruction” has, first of all, achieved a theoretical paradigm shift from a “checklist of elements” to “structural analysis.” Research is no longer satisfied with describing surface phenomena; instead, it seeks to uncover the internal dynamics of social complexity and the essential transformations of power organization, thereby advancing understanding of the evolution of human civilization from outward manifestations to underlying structures. Second, it has promoted a systematic methodological transformation in archaeology and historical studies more broadly. The integration of multidisciplinary approaches and advanced scientific techniques has made it possible to reconstruct ancient social structures, economic networks, and even intellectual worlds through material remains, providing a mature methodology for the study of diverse early civilizations worldwide. Third, it has facilitated a historical linkage between standards for identifying the origins of ancient civilizations and criteria for evaluating modern civilizations. In the contemporary context of “creating a new form of human advancement,” this linkage has inspired reflection on the standards by which modern civilization should be judged—for example, by emphasizing people-centered development and the conception of human rights with the rights to subsistence and development as the primary basic human rights as important evaluative dimensions of modern civilization. In this way, the framework establishes continuity from “verifying the ancient” to “understanding the present” and “opening new horizons.” Finally, it has substantively advanced the diversification and decentralization of global civilizational discourse. By systematically demonstrating the non-universality of the “three elements of civilization” theory and successfully proposing and applying a Chinese approach capable of effectively explaining China’s own civilizational trajectory, it has challenged the long-standing Western monopoly over the authority to define civilization.

Toward inclusivity and diversity

Exploration of the criteria for civilization is an unending endeavor, and future discussions will need to deepen and expand in several directions. First, greater integration is needed between intellectual dimensions and material evidence. Current operational standards centered on state formation still place primary emphasis on hard indicators such as economic foundations, social structures, and material evidence of political authority. A major challenge for future research lies in transforming the profound insights at the level of philosophical anthropology—including morality, knowledge systems, and ritual order—into concepts that can be identified and operationalized within the archaeological record. This will require the development of more refined forms of “archaeology of ethical culture” or “archaeology of ideas and beliefs,” capable of interpreting the cosmologies and ethical orders reflected in archaeoastronomical features, ritual sites, and the decorative motifs of ritual objects. In this way, thought and culture would no longer appear merely as “appendages” of the state, but rather as indispensable and relatively autonomous criteria for evaluating civilization, organically complementing the state-centered framework.

Second, a more flexible and multi-layered system of reference for civilizational standards needs to be constructed. Faced with the diversity of world civilizations, scholars should seek a model with greater inclusiveness and explanatory power. Such a model might adopt a multi-tiered structure of “core + pathways + characteristics.” The core layer would emphasize commonality, taking the formation of complex societies or early political entities (states) as the fundamental marker of civilization and serving as the baseline and common denominator for comparative dialogue among civilizations. The intermediate layer would focus on developmental pathways, identifying the different routes through which civilizations arrived at this core condition. The outer layer would accommodate the distinctive cultural expressions unique to each civilization, thereby revealing the rich textures and diversity of human civilizations. In this way, while maintaining social complexity as the essential criterion, the model would fully respect and present the unique features of different civilizations, achieving a dialectical unity between global explanatory power and local civilizational subjectivity.

Third, the rational foundations of civilizational dialogue must be upheld while maintaining openness and inclusiveness. Genuine dialogue among civilizations should be grounded in equity, order, inclusiveness, and shared benefit. It should acknowledge the legitimacy of civilizational differences while also seeking value consensus and common progress on the basis of mutual respect. Ultimately, discussions of civilizational standards should serve to promote mutual understanding, reciprocal learning, and exchange among civilizations, jointly exploring pathways toward the sustainable development of human society.

Looking ahead, this ongoing reconsideration of the criteria used to define civilization will continue to unfold. Its ultimate aim is not only to illuminate more clearly the origins and distinctive characteristics of Chinese civilization itself, but also—through an academic posture marked by openness, confidence, and inclusiveness—to work together with scholars around the world in contributing indispensable Eastern wisdom to humanity’s understanding of the plurality, brilliance, and shared future of human civilization.

Yang Bo is a research fellow from the Institute of Ancient History at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.