Misinterpretations of Shimao Research and Chinese Archaeology

Abstract

In their article, Jaffe, Campbell, and Shelach-Lavi (2022) allege that Chinese archaeological research and interpretations of the Shimao site mainly serve to reinforce linear histories purporting to explain the rise of dynastic China in the Central Plains. This article is full of factual errors, misleading interpretations, and distortions of people’s arguments. As the corresponding author (Li Liu) for a major research paper on Shimao (Sun et al. 2018) and coauthors of six publications cited numerous times but not invited to provide comments for this article, we are obligated to respond here, although with a restricted word limit. The authors classify research into two types, based on tendentiously selected publications. The first type associates Shimao with legendary figures like the Yellow Emperor. Actually, this approach does not represent mainstream archaeological research on Shimao. Most of the references cited in their article are not written by archaeologists. Shen Changyun’s (whose name is spelled three different ways by the authors: Chen Changgyun, Shen Changyun, and Shen Chengyun) speculative connection between the Yellow Emperor and Shimao was already rejected by the Shimao excavators eight years ago (Sun and Shao 2015). The second type of research, also considered faulty, is said to promote a unilinear evolutionary view of Chinese civilization. Jaffe, Campbell, and Shelach-Lavi applied this allegation freely, without providing a definition of this concept as used in China. In fact, since the 1980s, most Chinese archaeologists have supported a multilinear evolutionary model, as discussed in many influential publications, some with reference to Shimao (Dai 2020; Gao 2013). These works were completely ignored by the authors. Jaffe, Campbell, and Shelach-Lavi state that “arguments about the military expansion of Erlitou (Liu 2004:232–234) are based on some very rudimentary similarities in the pottery found in different regions” (99). In the three pages cited from Liu (2004), the words “pottery similarities” do not appear. Rather, issues related to settlement patterns and distribution of various material