Shimao and the Archaeology of the Highland Longshan Society

. The bottom line in academic debates is intellectual honesty. By promoting false dichotomies and misrepresenting other scholars ’ work, the paper by Jaffe, Campbell, and Shelach-Lavi (2022) tarnishes the reputation of Current Anthropology as a leading journal for the discipline. First, the authors exaggerated the pseudointellectual in fl uence on Chinese archaeology. Citing Shen Changyun ’ s work as primary evidence, the paper argues that the Chinese archaeological research on Shimao is compromised by an uncritical entanglement with myth and historiography. As a historian of later periods, Shen does not have any credentials in archaeology and has frequently acknowledged that few Chinese archaeologists embraced his claims about Shimao ’ s mythical associations. Reviewers familiar with the fi eld would have certainly pointed out that Shen ’ s pseudointellectual claims had very little impact on Chinese archaeology. The authors ’ choice to promote this false narrative undermines the trust developed between the Chinese and international archaeological community through decades of collaboration.