The dragon totem theory started in the 1940s and has been popular ever since. It once became the dominant view. In the 1980s, some scholars began to question the dragon totem theory, and some negative views emerged. For example: "No matter what, totem objects are always real objects in nature. Because in the final analysis, totemism embodies the relationship between humans and nature. Therefore, if based on popular theories and materials accepted by the academic community, It is unacceptable that the dragon is a totem and does not exist in nature. "(Yan Yunxiang) "So far, there is no credible data from archeology and history to prove that there was a powerful snake in Chinese history. As for the annexation and integration of other clans and tribes with horses, dogs, fish, birds, and deer as their totems, it is completely conjecture.” (Liu Zhixiong, Yang Jingrong) Scholars also pointed out that the integration of ancient Chinese cultural relics. It is also very wrong to regard the animal shapes or patterns appearing on the totem as expressions of totems. Because a certain type of culture in archeology and a certain clan tribe in sociology are two completely different concepts. In terms of time and space, the former is much larger than the latter. Therefore, the possibility that a certain ornamentation in a certain type of culture can be equated with the totem of a certain clan is extremely slim. Some scholars have put forward paradoxes based on the basic characteristics of totem culture. For example, totems are objects of reverence for members of clan groups and must not be damaged, killed or eaten. However, in ancient Chinese classics and myths and legends, there are many denigrations and insults to dragons. Accounts of dragons, dragon-fighting, dragon-slaying, and dragon-eating. One question is that the totem theory comes from Western scholars. Did the ancient Chinese clans and tribes also have a totem worship period like the Australian aborigines and North American aborigines? Analyzing the relevant records in ancient books, the answer seems to be yes. However, according to the general view of the academic circles, totem culture occurred in the middle Paleolithic Age, flourished in the late Paleolithic Age, and tended to decline after entering the Neolithic Age. Entering class society, only some remnants are left to continue. According to the physical data provided by archeology, the origin of the dragon should be after the beginning of the Neolithic Age. This raises a question: totem worship has declined, but the dragon originated. Attributing the ascendant dragon to a declining worship phenomenon goes against the basic logic of the development of things. Another problem is that the concept of totem has its original connotation and denotation that are basically recognized by academic circles. Such a totem is a totem in the strict sense, or it can be called a "narrow sense totem." After increasing its connotation and expanding its denotation, the totem is no longer a totem in the strict sense, and may be called a "generalized totem". Totems in the strict sense are real objects that exist in nature, but dragons do not meet this condition. They are divine objects that do not exist in nature. Therefore, if dragons are totems, they can only be classified into the framework of generalized totems. . The problem is that from time to time, narrow totems and broad totems conflict.
For example, according to the requirements of totem in the narrow sense, totem objects are not allowed to be insulted or killed, but as a totem object in the broad sense, the dragon is repeatedly punished and killed. How to explain this problem?