Many Neolithic sites in southern China were also found and excavated, such as Beiyinyangying near Nanjing, Qianshanyang in Zhejiang Province, and Qujialing in Hubei Province. These sites, however, yielded neither a material assemblage as old as the Yangshao culture, which was viewed as the earliest Neolithic culture, nor a continued sequence illustrating a regional cultural development. They were regarded as the peripheries of the central plains with minor significance for Chinese civilization. Such a paradigm of ancient Chinese cultural development was accepted by archaeologists in China and abroad, not only because of the limitations of the archaeological findings, but also because the traditional view of Chinese civilization focused on the central plains.

Archaeology during the Cultural Revolution (1966–1977)

Similar to other disciplines in academic institutions, archaeology stalled during the early part of the Cultural Revolution. Research and teaching were replaced by insurrection, and most junior members of archaeological institutes and students in universities were busy criticizing senior archaeologists and professors. However, excavations never completely stopped as continued construction projects always required salvage archaeology.

It was also soon recognized by the leaders of the Cultural Revolution that archaeology could serve as an instrument of propaganda for political purposes. Sending museum exhibitions of archaeological findings to foreign countries was considered useful in improving China’s international relationships and promoting China’s image as a great civilization. Moreover, the highly developed material culture from ancient times could reconfirm the Chinese people’s national pride, and the wealth discovered from elite burials could be used for the education of the people in terms of class consciousness. Cultural relics unearthed in the People’s Republic of China were displayed for the first time in Paris and London in 1973 in order to demonstrate the glory of the Chinese civilization and the achievements of archaeology in the new China (Xia 1973). Elaborately constructed architecture, burials, and artifacts were interpreted as testimony of class repression and exploitation of the poor by the rich.

To meet the new demands, the three major archaeological journals—Kaogu, Kaogu xuebao, and Wenwu, which were discontinued in 1966—resumed publication in 1972. Wenwu turned into a very popular magazine, as most journals with intellectual contents in social sciences had been stopped. Between 1972 and 1977, eight new archaeology programs were established in universities (Shanxi, Jilin, Nanjing, Xiamen, Shandong, Zhengzhou, Zhongshan, and Wuhan) in order to train much needed archaeologists for the rapidly expanded discipline (Chinese Archaeology Association 1984, 227–236).

Excavations of Neolithic sites were carried out in many regions, such as Dawenkou in Shandong Province, Cishan and Honghuatao in Hebei Province, Jiangzhai in Shaanxi Province, Liuwan in Qinghai Province, Daxi in Sichuan Province, Caoxieshan in Jiangsu Province, Hemudu in Zhejiang Province, Sanyuangong in Hunan Province, and Shixia in Guangdong Province. These sites provided rich information for the understanding of prehistoric development in different regions. In addition, by 1977 the radiocarbon laboratories in the Institute of Archaeology and Beijing University had published four sets of C-14 dates, providing some very early absolute dates from Neolithic sites outside the central plains, which revolutionized archaeological research.

The discoveries of several Neolithic sites in southern China were especially important. The Hemudu site in the lower Yangzi (Yangtze) River valley yielded the earliest evidence of rice cultivation in China, as radiocarbon dates pointed to a period as early as the Yangshao culture. The Hemudu culture seems to have been succeeded by a series of Neolithic assemblages, referred to as Majiabang, Songze, and Liangzhu, which formed a continued cultural sequence in the region. These new data seriously challenged the traditional view, which regarded the central plains as the only center for the development of Chinese civilization. For the first time, the notion of a single origin of Chinese Neolithic culture needed to be reconsidered (Xia 1977) in