进化论对二十世纪中国迈向现代化的过程影响颇深，其中就包括中国人“祖先”的现代化。这个过程充满了中国人对远古人类进化的想象与争议，尤其是北京猿人化石的发现既丰富了人们对于史前“中国人”的想象，又使得中国人种的起源讨论更加多元。本论文主要探讨北京猿人化石发现对中国人种起源叙事的影响，即关于人类进化和相关化石的科学想象与争论在中国人“祖先”叙事现代化过程中的作用。首先，在1930年以前，关于中国人种起源的争论从无到有，经历了从广泛接受“西来说”到反思外来说，甚至偶有提倡土著说的转变。在此过程中，为中国人找到一个“科学”的祖先成了一个默认要求。这一时期，包括亚洲起源理论和人猿同祖等的人类进化知识也在翻译中获得有限的推广；同时，人们对远古人类时的想象仍是倾向于人属性的“原人”而非兽属性的“猿人”。直到北京猿人化石被发现并成为1930年之后的热点话题，有关中国人种起源和人类起源的两种叙事才开始缓慢交织，这既丰富了人们对史前人类祖先的丰富想象，也激发了关于北京化石发现意义的多方面争论。“北京猿人”的名称使用出现了多重变化，甚至说“中国猿人”才是它最初的官方名称，它不仅是一种想象的符号，也代表了当下对远古人类的理解；而北京猿人头像形态的塑造，也反映了人们对远古人类样貌与生活的好奇与想象。围绕北京猿人，西方学者们主要争论其与爪哇猿人、人类祖先以及与现代蒙古人种的关系；相反，中国科学界秉持谨慎的态度。在大众层面，有关北京猿人的议论和主张更加丰富，北京猿人、中国人种本土起源说和人类起源叙事相互交叉，各种观点和争论充斥报刊文集，北京猿人在部分文章中已经成为中国祖先的“候选人”。本文章认为，北京猿人能轻而易举地成为建国后的官方认可的中国人 “祖先”， 实际上是对中国人种起源追问的延续，这种追问始自二十世纪初“西来说”激发人们用科学方法寻找祖先的社会观念，并在以北京猿人代表的人类进化知识激发的丰富想象与多元争论中，最终得到了中国人自己的解答。这个解答，既是对西方西来说的回应，也是对科学探索民族起源的延续，是西方人类起源研究和中国起源研究范式共同移植到中国，被中国学者消化、吸收、模仿所产生的本土新“神话”。

The evolutionary theory had a profound impact on the process of modernization of China in the twentieth century, including the modernization of their “ancestors”. This process was filled with imagination and controversy regarding science, and the discovery of Peking Man not only enriched people’s imagination of prehistoric “Chinese people”, but also diversified the discussion on the origins of the Chinese race. This article mainly explores the influence of the discovery of fossilized Peking Man on the narrative of Chinese ethnogenesis, to understand the role of scientific imagination and scientific controversy about evolution and related fossils in the modernization of the Chinese “ancestors”.Before 1930, the search on the origin of the Chinese race gradually emerged in China, and then underwent a shift from widely acceptation of “foreign origins” to criticization to this, and even occasional advocacy for indigenous origins. In this process, it became a default requirement to find a “scientific” ancestor for the Chinese. The theory of human evolution and “Out of Asia” also gained limited popularity through translation. At the same time, people‘s imagination of prehistory humans still favored “yuanren (原人，primitive human)” with human attributes, rather than “yuanren (猿人，ape-like human)” with animal attributes.It was not until the discovery of Peking Man fossils, which became a hot topic after 1930, that the narratives of the Chinese ethnogenesis and human origins began to slowly intertwine, forming a rich social imagination of prehistoric human ancestors and a diverse range of public and academic controversies surrounding the significance of the discovery of the Peking Man fossils. The Chinese name “Beijing Yuanren (北京猿人, Peking Man)” underwent multiple variation, and actually “Zhongguo Yuanren (中国猿人, Chinese ape-man)” was originally official. The diverse names not only represented imaginary symbols, but also represents the current understanding of prehistory evidence; and portraits of Peking Man also reflected people’s curiosity and imagination about the appearance and lifestyle of ancient humans.Upon the significance of Peking Man, Western scholars mainly debated its relationship with Java Man, human ancestors, and modern Mongolian races. While, Chinese scientists were not absent from the discussion, but were comparatively cautious. Outside of academia, the discourse and claims were even more diverse, with Peking Man, indigenous origins of the Chinese race, and narratives of human origins intersecting with each other. Various viewpoints and controversies filled the press, with Peking Man already being a “candidate” for Chinese ancestry at that time.This article argues that Peking Man could easily become the official “ancestor” of the Chinese after 1949, essentially as a continuation of the pursuit of the origins of the Chinese race, which began with the idea of using “science” to search for ancestors inspired by the “foreign origins” theory in the early 20th century. With the discovery of Peking Man fossils and the ensuing rich imagination and pluralistic debate pertaining to human evolution, the Chinese finally made their own answer. This answer is both a response to the Western approach and a continuation of the search for national origins, a new local “myth” generated by the joint transplantation of the Western paradigm of human origins research and Chinese origins research to China, which was digested, absorbed, and imitated by Chinese scholars.