"??????????"--????? "????"????????"??"???1980????????????????? ???????????????????? ?????? ????? ??????--?????????"?"? ?????????"?"?????? ???????????????????????????????????? ????? ?????????? ?????????????--???"??"?"??" ??"??????"????"???"?????"???"???--??"??"? ??????????? ????? ????????? ????????????? ?????"????"?"????"??????????--??????? ??????????? content summary: "Doubting the ancients is the beginning of historical thinking"-on the contrary, "reconstructing ancient history" is almost an "innovation" created out of nothing. Just like the monuments rebuilt in various parts of China after the 1980s, the result is that the old looks like new. Therefore, from the perspective of historical thinking, we should not only doubt the past, but also doubt the present, because the present is the past-today will be "ancient" in the eyes of tomorrow, and tomorrow will be "ancient" in the eyes of the day after tomorrow. That's why I say that doubting ancient times is a work that needs to be carried on forever. Restoring the old as new is the fatal wound of historical research. In my opinion, the so-called history, at most, only the calendar is true, and everything else may be mixed with fictional elements-full of "generalizations", "summaries" and other "non-historical elements". This is the meaning of "discrimination of history" rather than just "discrimination of ancient history" - any "history" is a product of a stream of consciousness, as is the case with ancient history, as it is with modern history. In other words, a perceptive historian must wrestle endlessly with "forgetting yesterday" and "tampering today". --Doubting ancient times is not a trend of thought, but a basic historical training.