Items unearthed from the Xinzhai site, displayed in the Chinese Archaeological Museum Photo: Ren Guanhong/CSST

The academic community has reached a consensus about the existence of the Xia Dynasty and its status as the first dynasty in Chinese history. Operating under the assumptions that “the Xia Dynasty existed in history” and “the Xia culture possessed distinct characteristics,” Chinese archaeologist Xia Nai proposed that “Xia culture” should refer to the culture of the Xia people during the Xia era. Currently, the main approaches to exploring Xia culture in academia include cross-referencing archaeological discoveries with historical documents, deducing the geographical locations and functions of ancient capitals through the analysis of regional archaeological evidence, and employing “Cultural Factors Analysis” to examine ancient cultures by analyzing various cultural elements of a particular society.

Xia in historical records

Since its inception, Chinese archaeology has been closely tied to historical textual studies in terms of research objectives. The study of Xia culture is a product of this connection, making itself an important issue in historical research.

The chapter “Annals of the Xia Dynasty” from the ancient classic Records of the Grand Historian [written by the Western Han scholar Sima Qian] states that the Xia Dynasty was ruled by 17 successive monarchs across 14 generations. Another ancient chronicle, Bamboo Annals, suggests that the Xia Dynasty lasted for 471 years, and included periods with and without kings. The so-called “king-free” period refers to the time when the minister Han Zhuo betrayed and killed Yi, the monarch of Xia of the time, and ordered his son Jiao to kill King Xiang, until Shao Kang [son of Xiang] eventually restored the Xia regime. Based on these records, contemporary historians estimate that the Xia Dynasty spanned from the 21st to the 16th centuries BCE.

Renowned archaeologist Zhang Zhongpei believes that the establishment of the Xia put an end to the fragmented political landscape of the Longshan Culture period (c. 2500–2000 BCE), during which various regimes ruled over people belonging to the same archaeological cultural or ethnic groups. According to Zhang, the Xia marked the beginning of an “exclusive” sovereign system. The early Xia corresponded to a time of great social transformation. Key events recorded from this time, such as “King Tai Kang losing his regime due to his neglect of state affairs,” “Yi replacing Tai Kang and ruling Xia,” and “Shao Kang restoring Xia,” led to a 40-year interruption of the Xia Dynasty’s rule. This view has gained considerable acceptance in the academic community and is supported by trace evidence found in archaeological cultures.

Xinzhai key to bridging the gap

Although the historical records about the Xia Dynasty are relatively brief and contain discrepancies across different texts, careful discernment of these records can still offer valuable clues for archaeological surveys and excavations. In 1959, Xu Xusheng explored the “Xia Ruins” in western Henan, guided by the clues provided by historical records. His efforts led to the discovery of the large capital site of Erlitou and later the Erlitou culture [which likely existed from the 21st to the 16th centuries BCE], thus igniting interest for the exploration of Xia culture.

By using carbon-14 dating on related archaeological cultures and basing calculations on the start of the successive Shang Dynasty, a relatively accurate start date for the Xia Dynasty can be determined. The Xia–Shang–Zhou Chronology Project, relying on current archaeological findings from sites such as the Yin Ruins, Zhengzhou Shang City, and Yanshi Shang City, dates the end of the Xia Dynasty and the beginning of the Shang Dynasty to around 1600 BCE. Given that the Xia Dynasty lasted for 471 years, its beginning would be approximately 2070 BCE, a date which closely aligns with historical chronologies.

Currently, there is a consensus within academia that the Erlitou culture was mainly Xia culture, and that the Erlitou site was the late Xia capital. From the perspective of archaeological typology, there is no direct evidence linking the first phase of the Erlitou culture with any culture from the previous Longshan era. Additionally, carbon-14 dating of the earliest artifacts from the first phase of the Erlitou culture only dates back to the early 18th century BCE, much later than the starting period of the Xia Dynasty. With the discovery and identification of the Xinzhai period remains [dated from about 1870 to 1720 BCE], scholars tend to believe that the Erlitou culture may have corresponded to the late period of Xia, with the beginning of the Xia Dynasty predating the Erlitou culture. Early Xia culture should therefore be explored through the Xinzhai period remains, which predate the Erlitou culture.

The Xinzhai site, located in Xinzhai Village, Xinmi City, Henan Province, is crucial for exploring early Xia culture. In 1979, Zhao Zhiquan from the Institute of Archaeology at Chinese Academy of Social Sciences conducted the first excavation of the Xinzhai site, discovering remains dating between the late Longshan culture and the Erlitou culture, filling the chronological gap between the two. Following the launch of the Xia–Shang–Zhou Chronology Project in 1999, Peking University and the Zhengzhou Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology jointly excavated the Xinzhai site, confirming the existence of the Xinzhai period.

The main remains found at the Xinzhai site date to three phases: the first phase belongs to the Mei-shan type of the Wangwan Phase III culture, a late Longshan culture that emerged around 2400 BCE. The second phase corresponds to the Xinzhai culture (Xinzhai period remains), and the third phase to the early Erlitou culture. The stratigraphic relationships and artifact assemblages preliminarily confirmed that the Xinzhai culture dates to a period later than the late Longshan culture in Henan and earlier than the Erlitou culture, with its primary elements evolving from the former.

Xinzhai city site

Since 2002, the Institute of Archaeology of the CASS has conducted ongoing excavations at the Xinzhai site, yielding fruitful results.

Excavations have confirmed that the Xinzhai city site was a large-scale capital city roughly covering an area of 1 million square meters. The city was surrounded by three concentric trenches, with the site’s layout being nearly square. The southern side borders the old course of the Shuangji River, while the remaining three sides retain parts of the city walls and moats.

In the central area of the site, the remains of an architectural structure in the form of a shallow pit [a type of ancient construction where the building process generally involved the following steps: dig a large rectangular pit into the ground with a depth of about 0.6 to 0.7 meters or more, then layers of compacted earth are laid from the bottom up] from the late Xinzhai culture was discovered, measuring over 100 meters in length and 14.5 meters in width, the largest of its kind for that period. This structure was possibly related to sacrificial activities.

In recent years, large architectural components from the Xinzhai culture, as well as sacrificial pits containing whole pigs, fragments of ceramic lids with animal face patterns, vermilion-painted ceramic birds, ceramic bells, fragments of cast bronze containers, bronze knives, jade cong, and jade huang have been found around the shallow-pit architectural remains, indicating its ritualistic significance. It is speculated that the central area of the city site may have served as a residence for the nobility.

Li Boqian believes that the discovery of the Xinzhai city site offers new evidence for addressing the academic question of the “Residence of King Qi,” suggesting that the first phase of the Xinzhai site was where this residence was located. The period of the Xinzhai culture corresponds with the period from “Tai Kang losing the Xia” to “Yi seized Xia,” with its distribution aligning with the activities of Yi, Zhuo, Jiao, and Yi (豷) [both Jiao and Yi (豷) were sons of Zhuo]. The assumption that the Xinzhai culture primarily evolved from the subsequent influence of the late Longshan culture in Henan correlates with the historical records of “Yi governing the Xia people and seizing the Xia regime.” Therefore, it can be further confirmed that the Xinzhai culture represents the early Xia culture during the period from “Tai Kang losing the Xia” to “Yi seized Xia.”

The settlement layout and functional zoning of the central area of the Xinzhai city site still need further clarification, but the discovery of the large shallow-pit remains, the three-ring moat surrounding the site, and the high-level artifacts such as bronzes and jades further demonstrate that the Xinzhai city site may have had a center of authority.

The core issue in exploring early Xia culture is determining when various regions transitioned from the Longshan era to the Xia period and when they were eventually integrated into the Erlitou culture. This process could illuminate the development of early Xia culture. The transition from the Longshan era to the Xia period marks a significant historical transformation, signaling the beginning of the integration of multiple prehistoric cultures into the unified Central Plains civilization. During this period, the cultural characteristics of different regions varied. Zhang Zhongpei posits that at least 12 archaeological cultures and representative remains display traits of transition from the Longshan era to the Erlitou culture.

The Zheng-Luo [Zhengzhou and Luoyang in Henan] region, centered around the Song Mountains, is considered the “main battleground” for exploring early Xia culture, and the Xinzhai culture provides key information for determining its beginnings. Given extent information and research findings, it is essential to focus on the Xinzhai culture and concentrate efforts on in-depth studies of the archaeological cultures that preceded and followed it in the Zheng-Luo area.

After a century of continuous efforts, the path of exploring early Xia culture in Chinese archaeology has become clearer. Archaeologists and historians have made beneficial attempts at combining historical textual studies with archaeology. In the future, through solid archaeological work and new discoveries, we will further enrich the research on the Xia culture. This will update our understanding of the historical context and social development of the early Xia Dynasty, which holds great academic significance in depicting the background of early Chinese civilization.

Dong Xiaolei is an assistant research fellow from the Institute of Archaeology at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.