Cracking the "Mystery of The New Stone" with field archaeology

The study of Xia culture, especially the early Xia culture, has been a hot spot in the archaeological and historical circles of Xia and Shang in recent years, and the Xinzhan site in Liuzhai Town, Xinmi City, Henan Province, is one of the typical sites of early Xia culture. In recent years, the academic community has successively proposed different concepts such as "Xinzhan Period", "Xinzhan Culture" and "Xinzhan Phenomenon" around the remains of the main body of Xinzhan. This reflects the scholars' unremitting exploration of early Xia culture. However, the author believes that these titles cannot reveal the whole picture of the Xinzhan site, and only by focusing on field archaeology can we solve the "mystery of Xinzhan".

Naming and confirmation of the "New Period"

In March and April 1979, Zhao Zhiquan of the Institute of Archaeology of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences excavated the Xinzhan site for the first time and named it "Erlitou Culture of the Xinzhan Period", believing that it is a cultural relic between the late Longshan culture in Henan and the first phase of the Erlitou culture, which belongs to the transitional form of the development of the Longshan culture into the Erlitou culture. Zhao Zhiquan believes that the significance of the New Period is that it basically connects the late Longshan culture in Henan with the first phase of the Erlitou culture. Soon after, he set up a separate phase of the Erlitou early culture at the Xinzhan site, called the "Xinzhan Period Culture".

In 1985, Zhao Zhiquan clearly put forward the idea of a "new period" between the Longshan culture in Henan and the Erlitou culture at the fourth annual meeting of the Chinese Archaeological Society. Because the test excavation area was too small at that time and the excavated materials were limited, the existence of the "new stage" was not confirmed for a long time.

After the "Xia-Shang-Zhou Dynasty Project" was launched in 1996, the Xinzhan site was excavated again from 1999 to 2000, and the cultural relics of the second phase of Xinzhan were confirmed from the logical relationship between stratigraphic relationship and artifact composition and its evolution. In the first half of 2000, the "Xia-Shang-Zhou Dynasty Project" listed "staging and research on the staging and research of xinzhan sites" as a new topic, organized personnel to re-excavate the xinzhong sites, and divided the main remains of xinzhan excavated from 1999 to 2000 into three phases: the first phase of the remains are the Wangwan phase III culture of the Longshan era, the second phase is the "Xinzhan period culture", and the third phase is the early remains of the Erlitou culture.

In the face of the new materials of the Xinzhan site, Zou Heng of the School of Archaeology and Literature of Peking University still believes that the "Xinzhan period culture" is difficult to establish in terms of its chronology or cultural characteristics. He insisted that there was no transition period between the Longshan culture and the Erlitou culture in Henan Province. If there is indeed a "new period", it should also be classified as a group in the first period of the Erlitou culture, rather than a period of Henan Longshan culture.

Li Weiming of the National Museum of China first questioned the evolution of typical pottery in the late Longshan culture in Henan and the first phase of Xialian Erli in the second phase of Xinzhan, and doubted the information published at the Xinzhan site in 1999. Fang Yousheng of Wuhan University, the implementer of the early fieldwork at the Erlitou site, answered Li Weiming's so-called confusion article by article, and he clearly supported the "New Period".

Gu Wanfa, one of the excavators of the Xinzhan site in 1999 and the Zhengzhou Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, started from the pottery, pottery color, ornamentation, pottery combination and specific shape system, and believed that the remains of the Xinzhan period have many characteristics of the late stage of the Wangwan Phase III culture, and the cultural subject of the Xinzhan site is slightly estranged from the Wangwan Phase III culture and is similar to the entire Erlitou culture Phase I and II, which can be called "Xinzhan cultural submorphology". He believes that the early period of the Xinzhan II period, that is, the narrow sense of the Xinzhan period, is earlier than the Erlitou culture phase I.

When summarizing the work of the Xinzhan site from 1999 to 2000, Li Boqian, chief scientist of the Xia-Shang-Zhou Dynasty Project, clearly pointed out that the re-excavation of the Xinzhan site filled the gap between the Longshan culture and the Erlitou culture in Henan. "Xinzhan period" is a type of relic represented by the second phase of the Xinzhan site, which is later than the late Henan Longshan culture and earlier than the first phase of the Erlitou culture, and its main factor is the development from the late Henan Longshan culture, but it contains a certain number of obvious Shandong Longshan cultural factors. Although some scholars do not fully agree with Li Boqian's views, more scholars fully agree with his new understanding after the re-field archaeological excavations at the Xinzhan site.

The entanglement of "Xinzhong culture"

Just when the discussion of the "New Zhen Period" was in full swing, Xia Shang archaeologists Du Jinpeng and Xu Hong put forward the concept of "Xinzhan Culture", which triggered a new wave of attention to the remains of Xinzhan. Du Jinpeng has been doing field work at the Erlitou site for many years, and he proposed that the "Xinzhan Culture" includes the "Xinzhan Period" and the first phase of the Erlitou Culture, which are merged into an archaeological culture independent of the Wangwan Phase III culture and the Erlitou Culture - the "Xinzhan Culture", and Du Jinpeng's "Xinzhan Culture" includes both the "Xinzhan Period" and the first phase of the Erlitou Culture, which is quite peculiar. The "Shingen culture" was also supported by Hsu Hong, and the Japanese archaeologist Daisuke Tokuryo agreed with this view.

Pang Xiaoxia and Gao Jiangtao of the Institute of Archaeology of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, who participated in the excavation of the Xinzhan site, also proposed the concept of "Xinzhan culture". They pointed out that the artifacts left over from the Xinzhan Period are different from both the Wangwan Phase III culture and the Erlitou culture, and that more than one site has been found, and there are corresponding remains in Gongyi Huadizui, Xinmi Huangzhai, Zhengzhou Niuzhai and Zhengzhou North Erqi Road. Not only that, the core area of the Xinzhan site also revealed a large shallow cave building site, a city wall moat and high-grade relics, so it is more appropriate for the "Xinzhan Period" remains to be named "Xinzhan Culture" as an independent archaeological culture. They divided the "Xinzhan culture" into two types, Xinzhan and Huadizui, and tried to explore its distribution range, type and properties. It should be noted that the "Xinzhong Culture" they proposed does not include the first phase of the Erlitou Culture.

The naming of archaeological cultures is an important archaeological and cultural research work. Du Jinpeng, Pang Xiaoxia and others took the lead in proposing the "Xinzhan culture", although the courage is commendable, but they do not have a full grasp of the distribution range of the "Xinzhan culture", so the "mystery of the Xinzhan culture" has not been solved. However, the proposal of the "Xinzhan culture" encourages people to explore the remains of the "Xinzhan Period", such as the exploration of scientific and technological archaeology, physical anthropology, ancient soil, zoology and botany.

Wei Jiyin of the School of History and Culture of Henan University acknowledged the naming of the "Xinzhan Culture", but he believed that the formation of the "Xinzhan Culture" was the result of the Westward Migration Replacing the Wangwan Iii Culture in Central Henan after the Longshan Era Zhaolutai Culture absorbed a small amount of the Hougang Phase II culture in northern Henan and the Longshan cultural factors in other regions, and absorbed some of its cultural factors. Its formation interrupted the normal process of the development of the local Wangwan Phase III culture, opened a new sequence of cultural development, and formed a new independent archaeological culture. He pointed out that the "Xinzhan culture" is the main source or predecessor of the Erlitou culture. It should be noted that the important basis for Wei Jiyin's conclusion is the deep abdomen of the mother-son mouth. He believes that most of the deep belly jars of the mother and son come from the East, so the main source of the "Xinzhan culture" is the Oriental Zhaolutai culture, not the Wangwan Phase III culture. In fact, the number of deep-belly jars of the mother-daughter mouth is far less than that of the square lip fold along the deep abdomen tank, and the abdominal wall of the square lip folding along the deep abdomen tank is often decorated with rope patterns or checkered patterns and basket patterns, rather than the plain surface as is the deep belly jar from the East (including the Zhilutai culture).

Therefore, it is necessary to carefully analyze the typical units of the "New Period" to find out which instruments are composed of the main utensils of the New Period, which are the local traditional utensils, the proportion of the absolute number of the main instruments in each period, and what changes have been made before and after, so as to reveal whether the main cultural factors of the "New Period" come from the Henan Longshan culture or the Zhilutai culture.

The emergence of a new term for the "neo-phenomenon"

Just as scholars are focusing on the "New Zhen Period" and "New Zhen Culture", the so-called "Xin Zhan Phenomenon" has come out again.

When reconstructing the archaeological and cultural genealogy of the formation and initial development stage of the Erlitou culture in various parts of the Central Plains, Zhang Hai of the School of Archaeology and Literature of Peking University believes that the remains of the neogenes only exist in a few individual sites, and most of them occur in the Zhengzhou area, while in parallel with many late Longshan culture remains, including the Zhengzhou area. Parallel to the "Xinzhan Late Class Remains" of the Xinzhan site, there are the remains of the first phase of the Erlitou culture in the Luoyang Basin and the late Longshan culture in the middle and upper reaches of the Yinghe River and the early stage of the Erlitou phase of the Sharu River Basin. He believes that in the process of the formation of the Erlitou culture in the hinterland of the Central Plains, due to the significant regional differences, the end time of the Longshan culture in various places is not consistent with the beginning time of the Erlitou culture. The Xinzhan site and other unique cultural phenomena influenced by foreign cultures in this process of transformation.

Zhang Hai does not advocate the concept of "Xinzhan Period" or "Xinzhan Culture", but uses "Xinzhan Phenomenon" to express archaeological and cultural phenomena that only occur at specific periods and specific sites. He believes that by the late Longshan culture, the regional imbalance in the development of various archaeological cultures had reached its peak, and due to the decline of the Wangwan III culture in the hinterland of the Central Plains, the relatively advanced cultures in the surrounding areas began to strengthen their influence on the Central Plains. In the Zhengzhou area, the area with the relatively strong Longshan culture has absorbed foreign cultures, but retained more local cultural traditions. Others absorb more foreign cultures, leading to the emergence of the "neo-phenomenon". He believes that unlike the short-lived phenomenon of the "New Stone Phenomenon", the powerful expansion of the Erlitou culture has re-integrated the cultural factors of the surrounding areas. At present, there is still a lack of echoes for the "new phenomenon".

The author believes that the understanding of an archaeological culture ultimately returns to the study of the site itself. Therefore, from the initial "Xinzhan Period Erlitou Culture" to the "Xinzhan Period Culture" finally re-excavated and proposed the "Xinzhan Ii Culture", which is the embodiment of the return to the site itself to solve the problem of archaeological culture naming. The remnants of the "New Period" should highlight its cultural connotations, and the mere change in the name does not change the fact that the "New Period" really occurred.

Kodano Archaeological Search "New Fort Period"

The new developments, new viewpoints, and new understandings that have emerged in recent years on the research on the remains of the "New Zhen Period" are not only the results of the academic community's attention to the new zhen problem, but also the efforts of scholars to explore the unknown. Of course, in order to solve the current controversy and future unification to solve the "mystery of the new stone", the research method must also do the following two points.

First, the dispute over different namings is rooted in different understandings and understandings of archaeological cultures, types, and periods. Especially for places where the age span of the site is not large, the cultural appearance is relatively similar, and the pottery that is the main object of research has not undergone fundamental changes in pottery, pottery color, ornamentation, shape and other aspects, which is more difficult in staging. The name of the "New Period" is derived from the study of field data, and it has its own core artifact group such as the mother-daughter urn, the side-mounted triangular ding, the folded wall double-layer button cover, the pot-shaped koshiki, the double-belly bean and so on. Compared with the Wangwan III culture, it lacks core artifacts such as double-bellied basins and axes; compared with the Erlitou culture, it does not see round-bellied jars and lace jars. In the future work, we should pay attention to the commonality and difference, and further determine more core artifact groups.

The second is the relationship between the "late Longshan period", the "new period" and the "first phase of the second period". This problem was actually solved as early as the field archaeological excavations from 1999 to 2000, and the excavation briefing of that year has reported the stratigraphic evidence and artifact evolution trajectory of the Wangwan Phase III culture before the "Xinzhan Period" and the "Xinzhan Period" before the Erli first phase.

As the academic community generally recognizes, the "Xinzhan Period" objectively exists as a cultural relic that is later than the late Longshan culture and earlier than the first phase of the Erlitou culture. The author believes that whether to further name it "Xinzhan Culture" or "Xinzhan Phenomenon" is not the most important, these are just name entanglements, noisy for a while. Far more important than this issue is what exactly remains of the second phase of the Xinzhong site. Among them, what are the types of pottery in the group? What are the typical sites of the second phase of the Xinzhong Site besides the Xinzhan Site? How big is the distribution range of the New Zhen II culture? Within the distribution range of the new Phase II cultural sites, can the settlement levels be further divided? In the end, we must start from the archaeology of the new field and answer the above questions one by one, which is the direction that should be focused in the future.

(Author Affilications:Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences; College of History and Culture, Henan University)

Editor: Chen Xuanyu