本文藉著購買明清檔案與殷墟發掘兩件事，來探討傅斯年、陳寅恪、李濟等人所 代表的新史料觀，與深受清儒治學影響的舊史料觀的衝突。作者首先指出，傅斯年等新學者 對舊史家的批評主要有兩點，一是他們對文字資料的迷戀；一是他們的學術往往帶有「骨董 化」的傾向。接著藉新舊學者對明清檔案整理與殷墟考古發掘關注點的不同，勾勒二代學者 史料眼光的不同。對於明清檔案，傅斯年、陳寅恪等寄望能從中發現清代政治實情，羅振玉 等則只看重�堶惘陬L宋版書。對於殷墟發掘，傅斯年、李濟等希望地下能提供「整個的知識 」，舊派學者則仍只關心其中有無甲骨文。藉著當時學術界兩件影響深遠的工作，來點出新 舊學者對史料認知的差距，同時也說明近代中國史學發展的進程。本文的附錄則討論學術文 化上新舊觀點的差別，與政治上中央與地方之緊張的關係。除了明清檔案與殷墟發掘之外， 本文還另外舉了幾個事件為例。

　　　　　This article demonstrates that in the 1920s, there was a major transition in views of historical evidence. Scholars trained in the West including Hu Shih, Fu Ssu-nien, Ch'en Yin-k'o, and Li Chi were deeply discontent with traditional views of historical evidence, which were, according to them, self-indulgent treatments of purely written data such as texts related to Confucian classics and Sung woodblock prints. Scholars of the new generation, viewed the nature of historical evidence differently. I delved into the archives of the Institute of History and Philology at the Academia Sinica to probe how new views of historical evidence held by Fu Ssu-nien, Ch'en Yin-k'o, and Li Chi, layed a conceptual foundation for Fu's rescue of the Ming-Ch'ing archives in the 1920s and Li Chi's excavation of Shang capital at An-yang in the late 1920s.