YOON, SOON-BONG. 2025. Stones of the State: The Politicization of Liaodong Dolmens and the Construction of Chinese National Heritage. SYSB[proceeding].
Stones of the State: The Politicization of Liaodong Dolmens and the Construction of Chinese National Heritage
YOON, SOON-BONG
Abstract
This article examines the politicization of Neolithic and Bronze Age dolmens (shípéng) on China’s Liaodong Peninsula. Through a textual analysis of official heritage documents and museum exhibition narratives, combined with a comparative analysis of archaeological data, it argues that these megalithic structures have been strategically “heritagized” by the Chinese state. This process serves to incorporate a peripheral, non-Sinitic material culture into the master narrative of a continuous, unified, and multi-ethnic Chinese civilization. The selective designation of certain dolmens as national treasures, the curated language used in their interpretation, and their explicit linkage to the Hongshan culture reveal a concerted effort to legitimize contemporary national identity and assert historical claims in the geopolitically sensitive region of Northeast Asia. This case study illuminates the mechanics of archaeological nationalism and the deployment of heritage as a form of domestic and international soft power.
Keywords
Liaodong dolmens, archaeological nationalism, heritage politics, Chinese civilization, Hongshan culture, Northeast Project, soft power, heritage diplomacy.
I. Introduction: Megaliths on a Contested Frontier
The Liaodong Peninsula, a critical land bridge in Northeast Asia, is home to a dense concentration of megalithic tombs known as dolmens (shípéng or 支石墓). These structures, dating to the late Neolithic and early Bronze Age, are part of a wider megalithic tradition extending across the Korean Peninsula and other parts of the world (Miyamoto 2022). While archaeologically significant, their location in a region of historical and contemporary geopolitical contestation between China and the Koreas makes them a focal point for the politics of memory (Kim 2009). Northeast Asia remains a region where historical grievances are deeply intertwined with modern international relations, and where archaeological findings are frequently mobilized to justify political and territorial claims (Kim 2009).
This paper contends that the recent elevation of specific Liaodong dolmens to the status of national cultural heritage in China is not a politically neutral act of preservation. It is, rather, a calculated process of appropriation. This process involves selectively interpreting archaeological evidence to construct a narrative that absorbs these peripheral, non-Sinitic monuments into a state-sanctioned history of a singular, continuous, and multi-ethnic Chinese nation (Zhonghua Minzu). The state’s approach reflects a broader pattern in Chinese archaeology, where research is often guided by political directives aimed at substantiating a narrative of 5,000 years of unbroken civilization, sometimes creating a disconnect with the international academic community (Tseng and Tsai 2023).
By analyzing the bureaucratic and discursive mechanisms of this “heritagization”—from national treasure applications to museum displays—this article will demonstrate how the Liaodong dolmens are being instrumentalized. They are transformed from ambiguous prehistoric relics into powerful symbols that serve contemporary political goals: bolstering a unified national identity, legitimizing the state’s historical narrative, and subtly asserting China’s cultural-historical primacy in a region fraught with historical disputes (Kim 2009; Park 2015). This process is not merely for domestic consumption; it is also an act of heritage diplomacy, using the universal language of cultural heritage to project soft power and advance a specific national agenda on the international stage (Winter 2019). The very undertaking of this analysis highlights a central tension: the state’s promotion of a controlled, internal narrative versus the demands of critical, international scholarship that seeks to place such narratives in a broader, comparative context.
The analysis will proceed in four parts. First, it will establish an empirical baseline of the dolmens’ archaeological context, revealing a pattern of selective preservation. Second, it will deconstruct the official process of national heritage designation through a case study of two key sites, exposing the political language embedded within bureaucratic procedures. Third, it will examine how this official narrative is curated and disseminated to the public through museum exhibitions. Finally, it will situate these findings within the broader theoretical frameworks of archaeological nationalism and heritage diplomacy, drawing explicit parallels to other historical controversies in the region, such as the Northeast Project, to reveal a consistent and strategic state policy.
II. The Archaeological Landscape: A Topography of Selection and Neglect
To understand the political process of heritagization, one must first establish the empirical reality of the archaeological landscape. A comprehensive survey of dolmens in the Liaodong region identifies a total of 73 sites, providing a crucial baseline against which official state actions can be measured (Liaodong Dolmen Research Data 2024). This dataset reveals a topography not of uniform preservation, but of widespread destruction punctuated by highly focused, selective protection.
The dolmens are geographically concentrated in administrative regions such as Gaizhou, Haicheng, and Wafangdian (Liaodong Dolmen Research Data 2024). Of the 73 sites inventoried, a substantial number are recorded as “destroyed” , “damaged” , or “lost”. The reasons cited for their disappearance are overwhelmingly modern and developmental. For instance, the Ximucheng ‘Sao’ dolmen was quarried during road expansion in 1958, the Yongshenggou dolmen was lost after its stone was repurposed in 1973, and the Liudaogou dolmen was obliterated by quarry expansion in 1990 (Liaodong Dolmen Research Data 2024). This pattern establishes a historical context of systemic neglect and destruction throughout much of the mid-to-late 20th century, when these prehistoric structures were viewed primarily as obstacles to modernization or as convenient sources of building material.
In stark contrast to this broad landscape of decay stands the highly selective official record of state protection. An examination of the lists of Liaoning Provincial-level Cultural Protection Units reveals that only a minuscule fraction of the 73 known dolmens have ever received formal recognition (Liaodong Dolmen Research Data 2024). In the first batch of provincial designations announced in 1963, only two dolmen sites were included: the Shipengshan dolmen in Gaizhou and the Ximucheng dolmen in Haicheng (Liaodong Dolmen Research Data 2024). Later, the Shipengyu dolmen in Yingkou was designated as a provincial protected site in the fourth batch of 1988 (Liaodong Dolmen Research Data 2024). Beyond these few high-profile examples, protection efforts for other sites have been minimal and recent, often limited to the installation of local protection markers or rudimentary fences, such as those at the Dumushan and Daheha dolmens (Liaodong Dolmen Research Data 2024).
The following table consolidates the available data, juxtaposing the comprehensive list of known sites with their official protection history. This starkly illustrates the discrepancy between the archaeological reality and the state’s heritage agenda. The vast majority of sites remain unprotected and vulnerable, while a select few have been elevated to the highest echelons of national importance. This is not a random process; it is a deliberate act of selection that forms the first step in constructing a political narrative.
The history of even the most famous sites reveals a more complex trajectory than one of continuous appreciation. Both the Shipengshan and Ximucheng dolmens, despite their initial provincial designation in 1963, were reportedly removed from the protection list in 1979 before being reinstated and ultimately promoted to national treasure status in 1996 and 2001, respectively (Liaodong Dolmen Research Data 2024). This cycle of designation, deletion, and re-designation mirrors patterns observed in other Chinese provinces. In Shandong and Jilin, for example, dolmens were also delisted during the politically tumultuous period of the Cultural Revolution and its aftermath, only to be “rediscovered” and re-listed decades later as part of new state strategies focused on developing tourism or creating regional heritage narratives, such as Jilin’s “Goguryeo Cultural Heritage Zone” (Liaodong Dolmen Research Data 2024). This parallel trajectory suggests that the changing status of the Liaodong dolmens was not an isolated administrative decision but was part of a fundamental, nationwide shift in state ideology. These ancient stones were transformed from remnants of a “feudal” past to be cleared away, into valuable raw material for building a new national story in the post-Mao reform era (Evans and Matson 2024).
Table 1: Comprehensive Inventory and Protection Status of Liaodong Dolmens
| No. | Name (Hanzi / Pinyin) | Location (Admin. Division) | Current Status | Official Protection History & Remarks |
| 1 | 石棚山石棚群 (Shípéngshān Shípéngqún) | 盖州市 (Gaizhou City) | Extant | Provincial Unit (1963, 1st Batch); National Key Unit (1996, 4th Batch) [11, 11] |
| 2 | 析木城 ‘姑’ 石棚 (Xīmùchéng ‘Gū’ Shípéng) | 海城市 (Haicheng City) | Extant | Provincial Unit (1963, 1st Batch); National Key Unit (2001, 5th Batch) [11, 11] |
| 3 | 析木城 ‘嫂’ 石棚 (Xīmùchéng ‘Sǎo’ Shípéng) | 海城市 (Haicheng City) | Destroyed | Destroyed in 1958 for road construction 1 |
| 4 | 石棚峪石棚 (Shípéngyù Shípéng) | 营口市 (Yingkou City) | Extant | Provincial Unit (1988, 4th Batch) 1 |
| 5 | 石棚沟大石棚 (Shípénggōu Dàshípéng) | 大连市 (Dalian City) | Extant (Partial) | No official designation noted; cluster of 1 large, 3 small dolmens 1 |
| 6 | 小关屯石棚 (Xiǎoguāntún Shípéng) | 大连市 (Dalian City) | Damaged | No official designation noted; 1 of 2 original dolmens remains 1 |
| 8 | 永胜沟石棚 (Yǒngshènggōu Shípéng) | 丹东市 (Dandong City) | Lost | Lost in 1973 due to quarrying 1 |
| 10 | 独木山石棚 (Dúmùshān Shípéng) | 建平县 (Jianping County) | Extant | Local protection marker installed (2014) 1 |
| 18 | 六道沟石棚 (Liùdàogōu Shípéng) | 铁岭县 (Tieling County) | Destroyed | Destroyed in 1990 by quarry expansion 1 |
| 20 | 大河下石棚 (Dàhéxià Shípéng) | 铁岭市 (Tieling City) | Extant | Protective fence installed (2018) 1 |
| 21 | 虎渡河石棚 (Hǔdùhé Shípéng) | 西丰县 (Xifeng County) | Lost | Location recorded in 1956, now lost 1 |
| 26 | 周家沟石棚 (Zhōujiāgōu Shípéng) | 盖州市 (Gaizhou City) | Extant | Gaizhou City-level Protection Unit 1 |
| 27 | 高力屯石棚 (Gāolìtún Shípéng) | 盖州市 (Gaizhou City) | Destroyed | Destroyed in the early 1960s 1 |
| … | (Abridged for brevity; full table would include all 73 sites) | … | … | … |
III. The Making of a National Symbol: Deconstructing the Heritage Bureaucracy
The process of transforming a neglected archaeological site into a national symbol is not merely rhetorical; it is bureaucratic. By deconstructing the official application files for the national treasure designations of the Shipengshan (1996) and Ximucheng (2001) dolmens, we can expose the political logic embedded within the state’s heritage management system (Liaodong Dolmen Research Data 2024). These documents reveal how specific language, financial commitments, and management plans are mobilized to serve a nationalist agenda.
The “historical, scientific, and artistic value” argument presented in the Shipengshan application is a masterclass in narrative construction. It asserts that the site “reveals the origin of Chinese ritual systems (中華禮制) and Northeast Asian ritual customs,” thereby grafting the megalithic structure onto the foundational Sinitic concept of Lǐ (禮), a cornerstone of Confucian civilization. This framing audaciously claims a non-Sinitic cultural form as the very wellspring of a core Sinitic value. The argument’s most politically charged component is its “Comparative Judgment,” which states: “Compared to similar dolmens in the Korean Peninsula, this site is grand in scale, has the highest preservation, and possesses characteristics of the direct root system of Chinese culture (中華文化直根系特色)” (Liaodong Dolmen Research Data 2024). This statement serves a dual purpose: it establishes the superiority of the Chinese example while simultaneously making a preemptive claim of cultural ownership, rhetorically severing the dolmen’s connection to a shared heritage with Korea and re-inscribing it as uniquely and primordially Chinese.
This narrative construction is backed by significant state investment, signaling a top-down political priority. The five-year plan for Shipengshan allocated 5.8 million RMB, with the national government providing a substantial 70% of the funds. The Ximucheng application, submitted five years later, secured 4.3 million RMB with a 60% national contribution (Liaodong Dolmen Research Data 2024). This level of centralized funding for what were once obscure provincial sites underscores the national importance they had acquired. The management plans further illuminate the state’s objectives. The plan for Shipengshan included not only scientific preservation techniques like “3D laser scanning” but also public-facing technologies such as an “AR exhibition system” and the construction of a “visitor center and parking lot” (Liaodong Dolmen Research Data 2024). This fusion of conservation with digital media and tourism infrastructure reveals a clear strategy to control and disseminate the official narrative to a mass audience.
The composition of the expert panels required to sign off on these applications also points toward a politicized agenda. While the inclusion of archaeologists, geologists, and architects is expected, the presence of tourism experts from the very beginning of the national designation process is telling (Liaodong Dolmen Research Data 2024). It indicates that these sites were being evaluated not merely for their academic or historical value, but for their potential as destinations for cultural tourism—a key vehicle for promulgating the state-sanctioned national story and generating economic activity that further binds the region to the central state’s development goals.
The timing of these applications is also critical. The five-year gap between the designation of Shipengshan (1996) and Ximucheng (2001) coincides with a period of intensifying historical revisionism and escalating historiographical disputes in Northeast Asia. This period immediately preceded the official launch of the “Northeast Project” (东北工程) in 2002, a controversial state-sponsored research initiative aimed at claiming ancient Korean kingdoms like Goguryeo and Balhae as local minority regimes within Chinese history (Northeast Asian History Foundation 2012). The highly political language in the 1996 Shipengshan application demonstrates that the ideological framework for absorbing non-Sinitic northeastern history was already well-established. The subsequent designation of Ximucheng in 2001 can be seen as a final piece of preparatory work, securing another key megalithic site within the Chinese national heritage canon just before the more overt and contentious claims of the Northeast Project were rolled out to the public. The heritagization of these dolmens was, in effect, a foundational act for the larger geopolitical project that followed.
IV. Curating the Narrative: The Dolmen in the Public Imagination
Once a site is bureaucratically enshrined as national heritage, the state’s narrative must be translated into a compelling and easily digestible message for public consumption. This is primarily achieved through museum exhibitions, which serve as powerful platforms for shaping collective memory. An analysis of the exhibition panel texts from the China National Museum in Beijing and the Liaoning Provincial Museum reveals a remarkably consistent and coordinated effort to curate the public’s understanding of the Liaodong dolmens (Liaodong Dolmen Research Data 2024).
The museum narratives are built upon several interlocking themes, systematically constructing a specific historical identity for the dolmens. First and foremost is the theme of Civilizational Origin. A panel in the China National Museum explicitly states that the “Hongshan culture laid the foundation of Chinese Civilization (奠定中華文明之基石),” and lists “dolmens (石棚)” alongside jade dragons and the Goddess Temple as its key relics (Liaodong Dolmen Research Data 2024). This statement directly links a Neolithic culture of the Liao River basin—and by extension, its dolmens—to the very genesis of “China,” a powerful claim that re-centers the origins of Chinese civilization itself.
Second, the theme of Ritual Primacy positions the dolmens as the source of Chinese spiritual and social order. Panels declare that dolmens “reveal the origin of Chinese ritual systems (揭示中華禮制之源頭)” and functioned as “megalithic altars” for the “worship of heaven and ancestors (崇天敬祖思想)” (Liaodong Dolmen Research Data 2024). An interactive AR exhibit at the National Museum even invites visitors to “experience the five-thousand-year-old ritual of heaven-earth interaction” at Shipengshan, immersing them in this constructed ritualistic past (Liaodong Dolmen Research Data 2024). This narrative effectively appropriates the monuments into the lineage of Confucian ritual tradition.
Third, the theme of Technological Ingenuity celebrates the construction of the dolmens as a feat of early engineering. A children’s display encourages young visitors to “think about how the ancestors transported megaliths,” while a graphic panel illustrates the use of “rolling logs, ramps, and human collaboration” (Liaodong Dolmen Research Data 2024). This serves to foster national pride in the perceived scientific and organizational capabilities of these ancient peoples, now framed as “Chinese” ancestors.
These individual themes are woven together by an overarching historiographical framework known as “Unity in Diversity” (多元一體). The concluding panel at the China National Museum provides the master narrative: “Liaohe, Yellow River, and Yangtze River civilizations coexisted in diversity, eventually converging into one, forging today’s China (多元並立，終歸於一體)” (Liaodong Dolmen Research Data 2024). This official model allows the state to absorb peripheral and non-Sinitic cultures like Hongshan into the national story. They are no longer independent entities but are reframed as essential “tributary streams” that flowed into the great river of Chinese civilization. This represents the state’s co-option of the “regionalist paradigm” in archaeology. While academically this paradigm acknowledged multiple, independent centers of cultural origin in ancient China (Von Falkenhausen 1995), the state has instrumentalized it to argue that all these regional cultures were simply early manifestations of a singular, overarching Chinese identity. Consequently, the dolmens of Liaodong are no longer evidence of a distinct northeastern culture with potential ties to the Korean peninsula; they are evidence for the innate and primordial Chineseness of the region.
Table 2: Thematic Analysis of Official Museum Narratives for Liaodong Dolmens
| Panel ID | Museum | Key Phrase (Translation) | Narrative Theme | Link to State Ideology |
| C-1 | China National | “Hongshan Culture laid the foundation of Chinese Civilization” | Civilizational Origin | Project to Trace Origins of Chinese Civilization; Zhonghua Minzu |
| C-3 | China National | “reveal the origin of Chinese ritual systems” | Ritual Primacy | Asserting continuity with Confucian Lǐ (禮) |
| C-5 | China National | “diverse yet unified… forging today’s China” | National Unity | “Unity in Diversity” (多元一體) historiographical model |
| C-7 | Liaoning Provincial | “ancestors of Liaodong created dolmens… demonstrating… reverence for heaven and ancestors” | Ritual Primacy / Regional Origin | Incorporating regional history into the national narrative |
| C-10 | Liaoning Provincial | “completed using rolling logs, ramps, and human collaboration” | Technological Ingenuity | Fostering national pride in ancestral capabilities |
| C-11 | Liaoning Provincial | “provide key evidence for cultural exchange in the Liaohai Corridor” | Cultural Exchange | Framing interactions within a China-centric sphere of influence |
V. Discussion: Archaeological Nationalism and Heritage as Soft Power
The evidence presented—from the selective protection of archaeological sites to the politicized language of heritage applications and the curated narratives of museum displays—demonstrates that the Liaodong dolmens have been systematically instrumentalized by the Chinese state. This process is a clear manifestation of archaeological nationalism, a phenomenon where the practice of archaeology is subordinated to the political goals of the modern nation-state (Tseng and Tsai 2023). While one might argue that these state actions represent a genuine, apolitical effort at cultural preservation, or that the pattern of selective protection is merely the result of budgetary constraints and administrative inefficiency, such alternative explanations fail to account for the highly specific and consistent ideological framing of the selected sites. China has indeed established comprehensive systems for heritage protection (State Council of the PRC 2021) 2, but the language used in the national designation of the Liaodong dolmens, with its emphasis on “Chinese cultural roots” and explicit comparisons to Korean sites, points to a motivation that transcends simple preservation and enters the realm of political assertion. The case of the dolmens exemplifies key tenets of this practice as it has developed in China.
First is the territorial principle, where history is defined by contemporary political borders. Under this logic, any archaeological culture discovered within the present-day territory of the People’s Republic of China is axiomatically defined as a part of “Chinese” history (Northeast Asian History Foundation 2012). This allows the state to lay claim to cultures, such as the creators of the Liaodong dolmens, that may have had little or no connection to the Sinitic civilizations of the Central Plains.
Second is the assimilationist narrative, which reinterprets peripheral or non-Sinitic cultures as “minority” contributors to the unified, multi-ethnic civilization of Zhonghua Minzu. This is achieved through the “unity in diversity” model, which acknowledges regional variation only to subsume it within a larger, singular Chinese identity (Liaodong Dolmen Research Data 2024). This approach has been central to state-sponsored research programs like the “Project to Trace the Origins of Chinese Civilization” (PTOCC), which seeks to prove an unbroken 5,000-year history by incorporating regional Neolithic cultures like Hongshan, Liangzhu, and others into a single national story (Tseng and Tsai 2023).
The treatment of the Liaodong dolmens is a direct echo of the more infamous Goguryeo/Koguryo controversies, which erupted following the launch of China’s Northeast Project in 2002 (Park 2015). Just as the ancient Korean kingdom of Goguryeo, which had its capital and much of its territory in modern-day Northeast China, was officially re-labeled a “local minority regime of China,” the dolmens—a megalithic form with undeniable cultural and typological links to the Korean peninsula (Miyamoto 2022)—are being culturally detached from Korea and grafted onto a “Chinese” civilizational tree. This is a strategic historical claim in a border region where competing national narratives can have contemporary geopolitical implications. This narrative has not gone unchallenged. The Northeast Project sparked widespread public outrage in South Korea and has been strongly criticized by Korean academics, who view it as a politically motivated distortion aimed at severing the historical connection between Korea and its ancient kingdoms in Manchuria.3 The South Korean government, while cautious due to diplomatic and economic ties, has engaged in diplomatic dialogues with China to address these historical disputes, though tensions persist.4
This entire process is also an exercise in what can be termed heritage diplomacy and the projection of soft power (Winter 2019). Domestically, the elevation of the dolmens as national treasures fosters patriotism and reinforces the legitimacy of the Communist Party as the guardian of an ancient and glorious civilization (Zhang 2025). Internationally, by designating these sites as national—and potentially future UNESCO World Heritage—treasures, China utilizes the globally recognized and ostensibly neutral language of heritage preservation to legitimize its historical narrative on the world stage. It is a sophisticated use of cultural policy to advance strategic political interests (Winter 2019).
A powerful, self-reinforcing narrative loop is created by explicitly linking the dolmens to the Hongshan culture. In recent decades, the Chinese state has aggressively promoted Hongshan culture, with its spectacular jades and ritual sites, as a “cradle of Chinese civilization” on par with, or even predating, the traditional Yellow River valley heartland (Guo 2024). This is a monumental revision of Chinese historiography. However, this state-sponsored connection is archaeologically contentious. While Hongshan culture (c. 3500 BC) in the Liaoxi district featured cairns with jade goods, the megalithic tradition in the Liaodong Peninsula is associated with the later Xiaozhushan culture (c. 2500 BC), and the table-type dolmens themselves are a Bronze Age phenomenon that developed from subterranean stone cists.6 International archaeological scholarship suggests these are distinct traditions, with the Liaodong dolmens showing clearer typological links to the Korean peninsula than to Hongshan burial mounds (Miyamoto 2022). By binding the Liaodong dolmens to the more ancient and prestigious Hongshan phenomenon, the state accomplishes two goals simultaneously. It absorbs a key archaeological complex of the Northeast into the national story, and it uses this complex to deepen the timeline and expand the geographical boundaries of “Chinese” civilization itself. In this new narrative, the Northeast is not a periphery that was later “sinicized”; it is an original source of Chineseness. This powerfully preempts any argument that northeastern cultures, including those who built the dolmens or the later Goguryeo kingdom, were independent entities, framing them instead as inherently and anciently part of a greater Chinese civilizational sphere.
VI. Conclusion
This paper has traced the journey of the Liaodong dolmens from neglected prehistoric monuments to celebrated icons of Chinese national heritage. Through an analysis of archaeological records, bureaucratic documents, and museum displays, it has demonstrated that this transformation is a deliberate political project. The pattern of selective protection, the comparative and proprietary language of national treasure applications, and the curated public narratives all work in concert to absorb these monuments into the official story of a unified, ancient, and multi-ethnic China. This process severs the dolmens’ cultural connections to the wider Northeast Asian megalithic tradition and re-inscribes them as foundational evidence for the Chinese state’s historical claims in the region.
The case of the Liaodong dolmens serves as a compelling microcosm of the broader phenomenon of archaeological nationalism in contemporary China. It reveals how the scientific practice of archaeology can be subordinated to the political imperatives of the nation-state, a dynamic visible in state-sponsored historical research projects from the PTOCC to the Northeast Project (Kim 2009; Northeast Asian History Foundation 2012). In the context of Northeast Asia, where historical memory remains a potent battleground, the “heritagization” of these stones is a distinct geopolitical act. It is an attempt to solidify historical narratives that support modern territorial integrity and national identity, often at the expense of historical complexity and the shared cultural heritage of the region.
The stones of Liaodong, once silent witnesses to a distant past, have been given a new and powerful voice by the modern state. The challenge for international scholarship is to listen critically, to distinguish the echoes of history from the pronouncements of politics, and to understand that in Northeast Asia, the past is never truly past—it is an active and contested part of the present.
VII. References
Evans, J.G. and Matson, E. (2024) ‘Revisiting China’s Historical Narratives’, U.S.-China Dialogue Podcast, Georgetown University. 7
Guo, D. (2024) ‘China Amazes Me: Telling Hongshan Stories’, First International Communication Conference of Hongshan Culture and the New Era forum, reported in China Daily, 8 July. 8
Kim, S.J. (2009) ‘Historical Disputes and Reconciliation in Northeast Asia’, EAI Working Paper Series. 9
Lee, J. (2014) ‘China’s Northeast Project and Contemporary Korean Nationalism’, Journal of Korean Studies, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 315-339. 5
Liaodong Dolmen Research Data (2024) [Unpublished raw data from Appendices A-E]. [11]
Miyamoto, K. (2022) ‘Prehistoric cairns and dolmens in Manchuria (China)’, in Megaliths of the World, vol. 2, Archaeopress, pp. 641-661. 6
Northeast Asian History Foundation (2012) ‘Dispute over history: China’s Northeast Asia Project’, VANK Friendly Korea, 15 March. 10
Park, J.H. (2015) ‘The Goguryeo Controversies: A Case of Sino-Korean Politics of Memory’, The Asia-Pacific Journal, vol. 13, no. 23. 11
State Council of the PRC (2021) Guidelines on Strengthening the Protection of Historical and Cultural Heritage in Urban and Rural Construction. Beijing: State Council of the People’s Republic of China. 2
Tseng, J. Y-C. and Tsai, W-H. (2023) ‘Archaeological Nationalism in Contemporary China and the Official Construction of Ancient Chinese History’, Asian Journal of Social Science, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 250-258. 12
Von Falkenhausen, L. (1995) ‘The regionalist paradigm in Chinese archaeology’, in Kohl, P.L. and Fawcett, C. (eds.) Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 198-217. 13
Winter, T. (2019) ‘Heritage Soft Power in East Asia’s Memory Contests’, Journal of International Affairs, vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 121-138. 14
Zhang, X. (2025) ‘Exporting Culture, Cementing Control: How the CCP Pursues Domestic Legitimacy Through Soft Power’, The Diplomat, 20 February. 15
Supplementary Material
Appendix A: Liaoning Province-Level Cultural Protection Units (1st–4th Batches)
| No. | Batch | Category | Name | Period | Location | Notice No. |
| 1 | 1st | Modern/Revolutionary | Xipaotai Site | Qing (1888) | Yingkou City | 【①】 |
| 2 | 1st | Modern/Revolutionary | Wanzhong Tomb | Qing (1896) | Dalian City | 【②】 |
| 3 | 1st | Modern/Revolutionary | Dalian Chinese Engineering Society Old Site | Republic (1923) | Dalian City | 【③】 |
| 4 | 1st | Modern/Revolutionary | Soviet Red Army Fallen Soldiers Memorial | 1945 | Shenyang City | 【④】 |
| 5 | 1st | Modern/Revolutionary | Liaoshen Campaign Site | 1948 | Jinzhou City | 【⑤】 |
| 6 | 1st | Modern/Revolutionary | Liaodong Liberation Martyrs Memorial Tower | 1949 | Dandong City | 【⑥】 |
| 7 | 1st | Modern/Revolutionary | Pingdingshan Martyred Compatriots Memorial | 1951 | Fushun City | 【⑦】 |
| 8 | 1st | Modern/Revolutionary | Shenyang Resist America Aid Korea Martyrs’ Cemetery | 1953 | Shenyang City | 【⑧】 |
| 9 | 1st | Modern/Revolutionary | Sino-Soviet Friendship Memorial Tower | 1957 | Dalian City | 【⑨】 |
| 10 | 1st | Ancient Architecture | Yunjie Temple Pagoda | Liao | Chaoyang City | 【⑩】 |
| 11 | 1st | Ancient Architecture | Guangji Temple Pagoda | Liao | Jinzhou City | 【⑪】 |
| 12 | 1st | Ancient Architecture | Chongxing Temple Twin Pagodas | Liao | Beizhen County | 【⑫】 |
| 13 | 1st | Ancient Architecture | Jin Pagoda | Liao | Haicheng County | 【⑬】 |
| 14 | 1st | Ancient Architecture | White Pagoda | Liao | Liaoyang City | 【⑭】 |
| 15 | 1st | Ancient Architecture | Stone Pagoda | Jin | Jinxi County | 【⑮】 |
| 16 | 1st | Ancient Architecture | Dachengzi Pagoda | Jin | Kazuo County | 【⑯】 |
| 17 | 1st | Ancient Architecture | Chongshou Temple Pagoda | Liao | Kaiyuan County | 【⑰】 |
| 18 | 1st | Ancient Architecture | Fengguo Temple | Liao | Yi County | 【⑱】 |
| 19 | 1st | Ancient Architecture | Beizhen Temple | Ming/Qing | Beizhen County | 【⑲】 |
| 20 | 1st | Ancient Architecture | Shangdi Temple | Ming | Gaizhou City | 【⑳】 |
| 21 | 1st | Ancient Architecture | Longquan Temple | Qing | Anshan City | 【㉑】 |
| 22 | 1st | Ancient Architecture | Guangji Temple | Qing | Jinzhou City | 【㉒】 |
| 23 | 1st | Ancient Architecture | Taiqing Palace | Qing | Shenyang City | 【㉓】 |
| 24 | 1st | Ancient Architecture | Shisheng Temple | Qing | Shenyang City | 【㉔】 |
| 25 | 1st | Ancient Architecture | Shenyang Imperial Palace | Qing | Shenyang City | 【㉕】 |
| 26 | 1st | Ancient Architecture | Wanfotang Grottoes | Northern Wei | Yi County | 【㉖】 |
| 27 | 1st | Ancient Architecture | Li Chengliang Stone Archway | Ming | Beizhen County | 【㉗】 |
| 28 | 1st | Ancient Architecture | Zu Family Stone Archway | Ming | Xingcheng County | 【㉘】 |
| 29 | 1st | Ancient Architecture | Battle of Sarhu Inscription Stele | Qing | Fushun City | 【㉙】 |
| 30 | 1st | Ancient Architecture | Yongan Stone Bridge | Qing | Shenyang City | 【㉚】 |
| 31 | 1st | Ancient Architecture | Xingcheng County Wall | Qing | Xingcheng County | 【㉛】 |
| 32 | 1st | Ancient Site | Aihejian Ancient City Site | Han/Goguryeo | Dandong | 【㉜】 |
| 33 | 1st | Ancient Site | Chengzishan Mountain Fortress | Goguryeo | Xifeng County | 【㉝】 |
| 34 | 1st | Ancient Site | Daheishan Mountain Fortress | Goguryeo | Jin County | 【㉞】 |
| 35 | 1st | Ancient Site | Wunüshan Mountain Fortress | Goguryeo | Huanren County | 【㟝】 |
| 36 | 1st | Ancient Site | Fenghuangshan Mountain Fortress | Goguryeo | Fengcheng County | 【㊱】 |
| 37 | 1st | Ancient Site | Gaolicheng Mountain Fortress | Goguryeo | Gai County | 【㊲】 |
| 38 | 1st | Ancient Site | Yanzhoucheng Mountain Fortress | Goguryeo | Liaoyang County | 【㊳】 |
| 39 | 1st | Ancient Site | Gao’ershan Mountain Fortress | Goguryeo | Fushun City | 【㊴】 |
| 40 | 1st | Ancient Site | Tayingzi Ancient City | Liao | Fuxin County | 【㊵】 |
| 41 | 1st | Ancient Site | Hetu Ala City | Qing | Xinbin County | 【㊶】 |
| 42 | 1st | Ancient Tomb | Ximucheng Dolmen | Neolithic | Haicheng County | 【㊷】 |
| 43 | 1st | Ancient Tomb | Shipengshan Dolmen | Neolithic | Gai County | 【㊸】 |
| 44 | 1st | Ancient Tomb | Yingchengzi Mural Tomb | Han | Dalian City | 【㊹】 |
| 45 | 1st | Ancient Tomb | Liaoyang Mural Tomb Group | Han/Wei/Jin | Liaoyang City | 【㊺】 |
| 46 | 1st | Ancient Tomb | Yongling Mausoleum | Qing | Xinbin County | 【㊻】 |
| 47 | 1st | Ancient Tomb | Fuling Mausoleum | Qing | Shenyang City | 【㊼】 |
| 48 | 1st | Ancient Tomb | Zhaoling Mausoleum | Qing | Shenyang City | 【㊽】 |
| 49 | 2nd | Revolutionary Site | Zhou Enlai’s Youth Reading Site | 1910–13 | Shenyang City | 【㊾】 |
| 50 | 2nd | Revolutionary Site | Tashan Blockade Battle Martyrs Memorial | 1963 | Huludao City | 【㊿】 |
| 51 | 2nd | Revolutionary Site | Lei Feng Tomb & Memorial | 1964 | Fushun City | 【51】 |
| 52 | 2nd | Ancient Architecture | Chaoyang North Pagoda | Tang/Liao | Chaoyang County | 【52】 |
| 53 | 2nd | Ancient Architecture | Balengguan Pagoda | Liao | Chaoyang County | 【53】 |
| 54 | 2nd | Ancient Architecture | Xingcheng Baitayu Pagoda | Liao | Xingcheng City | 【54】 |
| 55 | 2nd | Ancient Architecture | Dagushan Ancient Building Complex | Qing | Donggang City | 【55】 |
| 56 | 2nd | Ancient Architecture | Lengyan Chan Temple | Republic | Yingkou City | 【56】 |
| 57 | 2nd | Ancient Site | Jinniushan Paleolithic Site | Paleolithic | Dashiqiao City | 【57】 |
| 58 | 2nd | Ancient Site | Gezidong Paleolithic Site | Paleolithic | Kazuo County | 【58】 |
| 59 | 2nd | Ancient Site | Warring States Great Wall Site | Warring States | Jianping County | 【59】 |
| 60 | 3rd | Protected Area | Niuheliang Hongshan Culture Site | Neolithic | Jianping/Lingyuan | 【60】 |
| 61 | 3rd | Protected Area | Suizhong Wanjia Qin/Han Palace Site | Qin/Han | Suizhong County | 【61】 |
| 62 | 4th | Ancient Site | Shaguoyuan Site | Neolithic | Kangping County | 【62】 |
| 63 | 4th | Ancient Site | Dongshanzui Site | Neolithic | Kazuo County | 【63】 |
| 64 | 4th | Ancient Site | Shichengshan Site | Neolithic | Zhangwu County | 【64】 |
| 65 | 4th | Ancient Site | Gaotaishan Site | Neolithic/Bronze | Xinmin County | 【65】 |
| 66 | 4th | Ancient Site | Machengzi Site | Neolithic/Bronze | Shenyang City | 【66】 |
| 67 | 4th | Ancient Site | Pianpu Site | Bronze Age | Shenyang City | 【67】 |
| 68 | 4th | Ancient Site | Zhengjiawazi Site | Bronze Age | Shenyang City | 【68】 |
| 69 | 4th | Ancient Site | Dadianzi Site | Bronze Age | Kazuo County | 【69】 |
| 70 | 4th | Ancient Site | Gangshang Site | Bronze Age | Wafangdian City | 【70】 |
| 71 | 4th | Ancient Site | Erdaojingzi Site | Bronze Age | Chaoyang City | 【71】 |
| 72 | 4th | Ancient Site | Zuobaoshan Site | Bronze Age | Lingyuan City | 【72】 |
| 73 | 4th | Ancient Site | Gushan Mountain Fortress | Goguryeo | Dalian City | 【73】 |
| 74 | 4th | Ancient Site | Delisi Mountain Fortress | Goguryeo | Wafangdian City | 【74】 |
| 75 | 4th | Ancient Site | Longtanshan Mountain Fortress | Goguryeo | Kaiyuan City | 【75】 |
| 76 | 4th | Ancient Site | Xincheng (New City) | Goguryeo | Fushun City | 【76】 |
| 77 | 4th | Ancient Site | Houcheng Mountain Fortress | Goguryeo | Xinbin County | 【77】 |
| 78 | 4th | Ancient Site | Heigou Mountain Fortress | Goguryeo | Fengcheng City | 【78】 |
| 79 | 4th | Ancient Site | Baiyan Mountain Fortress | Goguryeo | Liaoyang City | 【79】 |
| 80 | 4th | Ancient Site | Shitaizi Mountain Fortress | Goguryeo | Shenyang City | 【80】 |
| 81 | 4th | Ancient Site | Jiangjunshan Mountain Fortress | Goguryeo | Zhuanghe City | 【81】 |
| 82 | 4th | Ancient Site | Weibashan Fortress | Goguryeo/Liao | Wafangdian City | 【82】 |
| 83 | 4th | Ancient Site | Tiebeishan Site | Liao | Faku County | 【83】 |
| 84 | 4th | Ancient Site | Liaodongwei Ancient City | Liao/Jin | Liaoyang City | 【84】 |
| 85 | 4th | Ancient Site | Longgangsi Kiln Site | Liao | Chaoyang County | 【85】 |
| 86 | 4th | Ancient Site | Simiancheng | Liao/Jin | Changtu County | 【86】 |
| 87 | 4th | Ancient Site | Shengzhou Ancient City | Liao/Jin | Xinmin County | 【87】 |
| 88 | 4th | Ancient Site | Guangning Ancient City | Liao/Jin/Yuan | Beizhen City | 【88】 |
| 89 | 4th | Ancient Site | Guidezhou Ancient City | Liao/Jin/Yuan | Changtu County | 【89】 |
| 90 | 4th | Ancient Site | Yuantai chang Site | Yuan | Xingcheng City | 【90】 |
| 91 | 4th | Ancient Site | Pengjiagou Kiln Site | Yuan | Kazuo County | 【91】 |
| 92 | 4th | Ancient Site | Guangyou Temple | Ming | Liaoyang City | 【92】 |
| 93 | 4th | Ancient Site | Sanchahe Ancient City | Ming | Donggang City | 【93】 |
| 94 | 4th | Ancient Site | Great Wall – Dandong Section | Ming | Dandong City | 【94】 |
| 95 | 4th | Ancient Site | Great Wall – Fushun Section | Ming | Fushun City | 【95】 |
| 96 | 4th | Ancient Site | Great Wall – Shenyang Section | Ming | Shenyang City | 【96】 |
| 97 | 4th | Ancient Site | Great Wall – Tieling Section | Ming | Tieling City | 【97】 |
| 98 | 4th | Ancient Site | Great Wall – Jinzhou Section | Ming | Jinzhou City | 【98】 |
| 99 | 4th | Ancient Site | Great Wall – Huludao Section | Ming | Huludao City | 【99】 |
| 100 | 4th | Ancient Site | Great Wall – Chaoyang Section | Ming | Chaoyang City | 【100】 |
| 101 | 4th | Ancient Site | Heishancheng | Ming | Heishan County | 【101】 |
| 102 | 4th | Ancient Site | Tiequanpu | Ming | Anshan City | 【102】 |
| 103 | 4th | Ancient Tomb | Gao’ershan Tomb Group | Goguryeo | Fushun City | 【103】 |
| 104 | 4th | Ancient Tomb | Dongdazhangzi Tomb Group | Bronze Age | Kazuo County | 【104】 |
| 105 | 4th | Ancient Tomb | Sanguandianzi Tomb | Bronze Age | Jianping County | 【105】 |
| 106 | 4th | Ancient Tomb | Shangpu Tomb Group | Han | Gaizhou City | 【106】 |
| 107 | 4th | Ancient Tomb | Beifen Tomb | Han | Liaoyang City | 【107】 |
| 108 | 4th | Ancient Tomb | Suncheng Tomb | Han/Jin | Wafangdian City | 【108】 |
| 109 | 4th | Ancient Tomb | Yuantai zi Tomb Group | Han/Jin | Chaoyang County | 【109】 |
| 110 | 4th | Ancient Tomb | Zhangjiafen Tomb Group | Liao | Fushun County | 【110】 |
| 111 | 4th | Ancient Tomb | Liaobin Tomb | Liao | Xinmin County | 【111】 |
| 112 | 4th | Ancient Tomb | Hanjia Tomb Group | Liao | Faku County | 【112】 |
| 113 | 4th | Ancient Tomb | Feng Sufu Tomb | Northern Yan | Beipiao City | 【113】 |
| 114 | 4th | Ancient Tomb | Cui Family Tomb Group | Ming | Anshan City | 【114】 |
| 115 | 4th | Ancient Tomb | Zhang Family Tomb Group | Ming | Tieling City | 【115】 |
| 116 | 4th | Ancient Architecture | Shuangtasi Stone Pagoda | Liao | Chaoyang City | 【116】 |
| 117 | 4th | Ancient Architecture | Zhongsi Pagoda | Liao | Suizhong County | 【117】 |
| 118 | 4th | Ancient Architecture | Qiansi Pagoda | Liao | Suizhong County | 【118】 |
| 119 | 4th | Ancient Architecture | Tazigou Twin Pagodas | Liao | Kazuo County | 【119】 |
| 120 | 4th | Ancient Architecture | Dongluoma Tomb Pagoda | Liao | Yi County | 【120】 |
| 121 | 4th | Ancient Architecture | Shuiling Temple | Liao | Heishan County | 【121】 |
| 122 | 4th | Ancient Architecture | Jiqing Temple | Liao | Beizhen City | 【122】 |
| 123 | 4th | Ancient Architecture | Huideng Temple | Liao | Gaizhou City | 【123】 |
| 124 | 4th | Ancient Architecture | Qingjiao Temple | Liao/Jin | Jinzhou City | 【124】 |
| 125 | 4th | Ancient Architecture | Dafo Temple | Jin | Yi County | 【125】 |
| 126 | 4th | Ancient Architecture | Guanyin Pavilion | Jin | Jinzhou City | 【126】 |
| 127 | 4th | Ancient Architecture | Jinzhou Ancient Pagoda | Ming | Dalian City | 【127】 |
| 128 | 4th | Ancient Architecture | Yuantong Temple | Ming | Liaoyang City | 【128】 |
| 129 | 4th | Ancient Architecture | Ci’en Temple | Ming | Shenyang City | 【129】 |
| 130 | 4th | Ancient Architecture | Longxing Temple | Ming | Tieling City | 【130】 |
| 131 | 4th | Ancient Architecture | Shuangqing Temple | Ming | Tieling City | 【131】 |
| 132 | 4th | Ancient Architecture | Zhonghou Temple | Ming | Anshan City | 【132】 |
| 133 | 4th | Ancient Architecture | Qingquan Temple | Ming | Wafangdian City | 【133】 |
| 134 | 4th | Ancient Architecture | Longfeng Temple | Ming | Fushun County | 【134】 |
| 135 | 4th | Ancient Architecture | Putuo Temple | Ming | Jinzhou City | 【135】 |
| 136 | 4th | Ancient Architecture | Shengshui Temple | Ming | Huludao City | 【136】 |
| 137 | 4th | Ancient Architecture | Yunxing Temple | Ming | Chaoyang City | 【137】 |
| 138 | 4th | Ancient Architecture | Lingbao Temple | Ming | Kaiyuan City | 【138】 |
| 139 | 4th | Ancient Architecture | Sanxue Temple | Ming/Qing | Beizhen City | 【139】 |
| 140 | 4th | Ancient Architecture | Anle Temple | Ming/Qing | Liaoyang City | 【140】 |
| 141 | 4th | Ancient Architecture | Dasheng Temple | Qing | Dalian City | 【141】 |
| 142 | 4th | Ancient Architecture | Xiangshui Temple | Qing | Dalian City | 【142】 |
| 143 | 4th | Ancient Architecture | Shengshui Temple | Qing | Dalian City | 【143】 |
| 144 | 4th | Ancient Architecture | Guanyin Temple | Qing | Dalian City | 【144】 |
| 145 | 4th | Ancient Architecture | Longhua Temple | Qing | Anshan City | 【145】 |
| 146 | 4th | Ancient Architecture | Xuanming Palace | Qing | Fushun City | 【146】 |
| 147 | 4th | Ancient Architecture | Yongan Bridge | Qing | Fushun County | 【147】 |
| 148 | 4th | Ancient Architecture | Guandi Temple | Qing | Dandong City | 【148】 |
| 149 | 4th | Ancient Architecture | Li Family Grand Courtyard | Qing | Shenyang City | 【149】 |
| 150 | 4th | Ancient Architecture | Siping Library | Qing | Shenyang City | 【150】 |
| 151 | 4th | Ancient Architecture | Kuixing Tower | Qing | Faku County | 【151】 |
| 152 | 4th | Grotto/Carving | Xianrendong Grottoes | Liao | Yi County | 【152】 |
| 153 | 4th | Grotto/Carving | Shuanglongshan Cliff Buddha | Liao | Kazuo County | 【153】 |
| 154 | 4th | Grotto/Carving | Jingangshan Cliff Statues | Ming | Anshan City | 【154】 |
| 155 | 4th | Modern/Memorial | Guan Xiangying Former Residence | 1902-1924 | Dalian City | 【155】 |
| 156 | 4th | Modern/Memorial | Northeastern University Old Site | 1923 | Shenyang City | 【156】 |
| 157 | 4th | Modern/Memorial | CCP Manchuria Provincial Committee Old Site | 1927-1931 | Shenyang City | 【157】 |
| 158 | 4th | Modern/Memorial | Zhang’s Marshal Mansion | 1914 | Shenyang City | 【158】 |
| 159 | 4th | Modern/Memorial | Zhao Yiman Former Residence | 1927 | Shenyang City | 【159】 |
| 160 | 4th | Modern/Memorial | Northeast Anti-Japanese United Army 1st Army Site | 1934 | Huanren County | 【160】 |
Appendix B: Comprehensive List of Liaodong Dolmens (Total 73)
| No. | Site Name | Administrative Division | Latitude (N) | Longitude (E) | Current Status | Remarks (Source) |
| 1 | Shipengshan Dolmen Group | Gaizhou City | 40.3932 | 122.3564 | Extant | National Key Cultural Relics Protection Unit (1996, 4th Batch). |
| 2 | Ximucheng ‘Gu’ Dolmen | Haicheng City | 40.851 | 122.7342 | Extant | 2001 5th Batch National Treasure designation. |
| 3 | Ximucheng ‘Sao’ Dolmen | Haicheng City | 40.8488 | 122.729 | Destroyed | Quarried during road expansion in 1958. |
| 4 | Shipengyu Dolmen | Yingkou City | 40.6769 | 122.2351 | Extant | 1988 Provincial-level Protection (4th Batch). |
| 5 | Shipenggou Great Dolmen | Dalian City | 39.6095 | 121.9947 | Extant (Partial) | Cluster of 1 large, 3 small dolmens. |
| 6 | Xiaoguantun Dolmen | Dalian City | 39.6012 | 121.9854 | Damaged | Originally 2, only 1 remains. |
| 7 | Baidianzi Dolmen | Dalian City | 39.7348 | 122.0269 | Extant (Damaged) | Open-type dolmen partially collapsed. |
| 8 | Yongshenggou Dolmen | Dandong City | 40.3407 | 124.2203 | Lost | Traces lost after stone was used in 1973. |
| 9 | Yushan Dolmen | Huanren County | 41.2364 | 125.1478 | Extant | Covered by Hunjiang cultural area development. |
| 10 | Dumushan Dolmen | Jianping County | 41.6091 | 119.5285 | Extant | Local protection marker installed in 2014. |
| 11 | Xishuiling Dolmen | Beipiao City | 41.6197 | 120.7793 | Extant | Moved 2m during reservoir construction. |
| 12 | Tazihe Dolmen | Chaoyang City | 41.544 | 120.3921 | Extant | Conservation pavilion built in 2022. |
| 13 | Matoushan Dolmen | Xingcheng City | 40.7016 | 120.6289 | Extant | On-site sign indicates ‘Megalithic Altar’. |
| 14 | Zhuqueling Dolmen | Jianping County | 40.9883 | 119.9365 | Damaged | One capstone fell. |
| 15 | Jiulongshan Dolmen | Fushun City | 41.9897 | 123.9331 | Extant | On a trail in a national park. |
| 16 | Sandaohe Dolmen | Xinbin County | 42.1352 | 125.0833 | Extant | Manchu inscription stele also installed. |
| 17 | Xia’anping Dolmen | Xifeng County | 41.828 | 121.0242 | Extant | 2023 survey confirmed table-type. |
| 18 | Liudaogou Dolmen | Tieling County | 42.3274 | 123.9254 | Destroyed | Lost during quarry expansion in 1990. |
| 19 | Jinhuazi Dolmen | Jianping County | 41.5569 | 119.654 | Extant | Case of debate on Hongshan culture connection. |
| 20 | Daheha Dolmen | Tieling City | 42.2558 | 123.801 | Extant | Protective fence installed in 2018. |
| 21 | Huduhe Dolmen | Xifeng County | 41.4246 | 123.1092 | Lost | Only location record remains (1956). |
| 22 | Mujiling Dolmen | Haicheng City | 40.6421 | 122.683 | Extant | Solitary type on a mountain ridge. |
| 23 | Gaoheling Dolmen | Beizhen City | 41.0134 | 120.9472 | Damaged | Capstone destroyed, 2 wall stones remain. |
| 24 | Dingshiling Dolmen | Gaizhou City | 40.4654 | 122.6221 | Extant | Developed for tourism after trail opened in 2020. |
| 25 | Wolongshan Dolmen | Xingcheng City | 40.6141 | 120.4876 | Extant | Drone survey completed in 2024. |
| 26 | Zhoujiagou Dolmen | Gaizhou City | 40.4211 | 122.4503 | Extant | Gaizhou City-level Cultural Relics Protection Unit. |
| 27 | Gaolitun Dolmen | Gaizhou City | 40.51 | 122.5833 | Destroyed | Destroyed in the early 1960s. |
| 28 | Hongqicun Dolmen | Gaizhou City | 40.4528 | 122.3861 | Extant | |
| 29 | Taishantun Dolmen | Gaizhou City | 40.3833 | 122.6667 | Extant | |
| 30 | Ljiatun Dolmen | Gaizhou City | 40.4667 | 122.3667 | Destroyed | |
| 31 | Shuangtaiyu Dolmen | Gaizhou City | 40.3167 | 122.4 | Extant | |
| 32 | Xinkailing Dolmen | Gaizhou City | 40.4333 | 122.6167 | Extant | |
| 33 | Meirengou Dolmen | Gaizhou City | 40.3 | 122.5333 | Extant | |
| 34 | Xiashipeng Dolmen | Gaizhou City | 40.3333 | 122.5833 | Extant | |
| 35 | Dafangshen Dolmen | Gaizhou City | 40.35 | 122.5667 | Extant | |
| 36 | Yangyunjia Dolmen | Gaizhou City | 40.3667 | 122.5167 | Extant | |
| 37 | Shi’erhe Dolmen | Gaizhou City | 40.3167 | 122.55 | Extant | |
| 38 | Guzhangyu Dolmen | Haicheng City | 40.8667 | 122.75 | Extant | |
| 39 | Xihuangqi Dolmen | Haicheng City | 40.9333 | 122.8167 | Extant | |
| 40 | Xiabao Dolmen | Haicheng City | 40.9167 | 122.8 | Extant | |
| 41 | Shangbao Dolmen | Haicheng City | 40.9333 | 122.8 | Extant | |
| 42 | Donghuangqi Dolmen | Haicheng City | 40.9167 | 122.8167 | Extant | |
| 43 | Wangjiagou Dolmen | Haicheng City | 40.9 | 122.7833 | Extant | |
| 44 | Bawangzhuang Dolmen | Haicheng City | 40.8833 | 122.7667 | Extant | |
| 45 | Xisifang Dolmen | Haicheng City | 40.8833 | 122.7833 | Extant | |
| 46 | Dongsifang Dolmen | Haicheng City | 40.8833 | 122.8 | Extant | |
| 47 | Xiaoshiqiao Dolmen | Haicheng City | 40.8667 | 122.7333 | Extant | |
| 48 | Delisi Dolmen | Wafangdian City | 39.95 | 121.9833 | Extant | |
| 49 | Wangjia Dolmen | Wafangdian City | 39.8167 | 122 | Extant | |
| 50 | Xujia Dolmen | Wafangdian City | 39.8 | 122.0167 | Extant | |
| 51 | Laohuzui Dolmen | Wafangdian City | 39.7833 | 122.0167 | Extant | |
| 52 | Dongwujia Dolmen | Wafangdian City | 39.7667 | 122.0333 | Extant | |
| 53 | Luotuoshan Dolmen | Wafangdian City | 39.75 | 122.0333 | Extant | |
| 54 | Chengshan Dolmen | Wafangdian City | 39.7333 | 122.0167 | Extant | |
| 55 | Shuangtuozi Dolmen | Wafangdian City | 39.7167 | 122.0167 | Extant | |
| 56 | Wudaoling Dolmen | Wafangdian City | 39.7 | 122.0333 | Extant | |
| 57 | Yangjia Dolmen | Wafangdian City | 39.6833 | 122.0333 | Extant | |
| 58 | Zhaojia Dolmen | Wafangdian City | 39.6667 | 122.0167 | Extant | |
| 59 | Dashipeng Dolmen | Wafangdian City | 39.65 | 122.0167 | Extant | |
| 60 | Lijia Dolmen | Wafangdian City | 39.6333 | 122.0167 | Extant | |
| 61 | Huatong Dolmen | Wafangdian City | 39.6167 | 122.0167 | Extant | |
| 62 | Dawangtun Dolmen | Zhuanghe City | 39.7 | 122.9667 | Extant | |
| 63 | Qujiadian Dolmen | Zhuanghe City | 39.7167 | 122.9833 | Extant | |
| 64 | Yujia Dolmen | Zhuanghe City | 39.7333 | 123 | Extant | |
| 65 | Xiaowangtun Dolmen | Zhuanghe City | 39.7 | 122.9833 | Extant | |
| 66 | Qianbai Dolmen | Zhuanghe City | 39.7167 | 123.0167 | Extant | |
| 67 | Houbai Dolmen | Zhuanghe City | 39.7333 | 123.0167 | Extant | |
| 68 | Matun Dolmen | Zhuanghe City | 39.75 | 123.0333 | Extant | |
| 69 | Guojiadian Dolmen | Zhuanghe City | 39.7667 | 123.05 | Extant | |
| 70 | Loushang Dolmen | Jinzhou City | 41.1167 | 121.1167 | Extant | |
| 71 | Shangbao Dolmen | Liaoyang City | 41.2667 | 123.1833 | Extant | |
| 72 | Sandaoxiang Dolmen | Liaoyang City | 41.2833 | 123.2 | Extant | |
| 73 | Xiabao Dolmen | Liaoyang City | 41.25 | 123.1667 | Extant |
Appendix C: Museum Exhibition Panel Texts
| No. | Exhibition/Panel Title | Original Text (Traditional Chinese) | Korean Translation |
| C-1 | China National Museum, Special Exhibition “Archaeological Achievements of Hongshan Culture” Intro | 紅山文化奠定中華文明之基石，玉豬龍、女神廟與石棚等遺跡，展示先民對天地、祖先之崇拜。 | 홍산문화(紅山文化)는 중화문명(中華文明)의 기초를 닦았다. 옥저룡(玉豬龍), 여신묘(女神廟)와 석붕(石棚) 같은 유적은 선민의 천지·조상 숭배를 보여 준다. |
| C-2 | Same exhibition, sub-panel “Origin of the Dragon” | 玉豬龍，為龍圖騰之濫觴，象徵中華民族共同精神之源。 | 옥저룡(玉豬龍)은 용 토템의 발상지로, 중화민족(中華民族) 공동 정신의 근원을 상징한다. |
| C-3 | Same exhibition, sub-panel “Dolmens and Altars” | 石棚為史前巨石建築，兼具祭祀與葬俗功能，揭示中華禮制之源頭。 | 석붕(石棚)은 선사 거석 건축으로, 제사와 묘장 기능을 겸하여 중화 예제(中華禮制)의 근원을 드러낸다. |
| C-4 | China National Museum, Digital Interactive Zone “China’s First Altar AR Experience” | 觀眾可透過AR重現石棚山祭禮，體驗五千年前天地交感之儀式。 | 관람객은 AR을 통해 석붕산(石棚山) 제례를 재현하며 5천 년 전 천지 교감 의식을 체험할 수 있다. |
| C-5 | China National Museum, Ending Panel “Diverse yet Unified China” | 遼河、黃河、長江文明多元並立，終歸於一體，鑄就今日中華。 | 료하(遼河)·황하(黃河)·장강(長江) 문명이 다원적으로 공존하다가 결국 하나로 합쳐져 오늘의 중화를 이뤘다. |
| C-6 | China National Museum, Children’s Guide | …請找到‘小石棚’模型，思考先民如何搬運巨石並建立家園。 | …‘작은 석붕’ 모형을 찾아 선민이 어떻게 거석을 운반해 삶터를 세웠는지 생각해 보자. |
| C-7 | Liaoning Provincial Museum, Permanent Exhibition “Ancient Liaoning” Intro | 遼東先民創造石棚、玉器，展現早期工匠精神與崇天敬祖思想。 | 요동 선민(遼東先民)은 석붕과 옥기를 창조해 초기 장인정신과 하늘·조상 숭배 사상을 보여 줬다. |
| C-8 | Same exhibition, Shipengshan section main panel | 石棚山石棚，青銅時代巨石祭壇兼墓葬建築，1996年列入第四批國保單位。 | 석붕산 석붕은 청동 시대 거석 제단 겸 묘장 건축으로 1996년 제4차 국보에 포함됐다. |
| C-9 | Same exhibition, Ximucheng section sub-panel | 析木城姑石保存完整，嫂石毁於二十世紀五十年代公路工程，警示文物保護之重要。 | 시무청 고석(姑石)은 온전히 보존됐으나 수석(嫂石)은 1950년대 도로 공사로 파괴돼 문화재 보호의 중요성을 일깨운다. |
| C-10 | Same exhibition, Educational Graphic | 巨石搬運示意：利用滾木、坡道及人力協作完成。 | 거석 운반 모식도: 구름목·경사로·인력 협동을 이용해 완성했다. |
| C-11 | Liaoning Provincial Museum, “From Megaliths to Ancient States” section | 石棚等禮制遺跡為遼海走廊文化交流提供關鍵證據。 | 석붕 등 예제 유적은 요해(遼海) 회랑 문화 교류의 핵심 증거를 제공한다. |
| C-12 | Liaoning Provincial Museum, Ending Panel | 保護歷史遺產，既是守護文化根脈，也是推動經濟振興之道。 | 역사 유산을 보호하는 일은 문화 뿌리를 지키는 것이자 경제 진흥을 촉진하는 길이다. |
Appendix D: Comparative Data on Cultural Heritage Lists
D-1: Total Number of Designated Sites by Year (1956–2023) 1
| Year | Shandong | Hebei | Heilongjiang | Jilin |
| 1956 (1st Batch) | 1629 | 215 | 73 | 36 |
| 1975 (End of Cultural Rev.) | 163 | – | – | – |
| 1977 (Shandong ‘Re-announcement’) | 146 | – | – | – |
| 1981 (Heilongjiang/Jilin Re-announcement) | 158 | – | 128 | 173 |
| 1982 (Hebei ‘Abolition+Re-establishment’) | – | 304 | 128 | 173 |
| 1986 (National 2nd/3rd Batches) | 437 | 304 | 128 | 173 |
| 1988 (National 4th Batch) | 562 | 304 | 128 | 173 |
| 1997 | 782 | 389 | 211 | 240 |
| 2010 (National 3rd Survey) | 1136 | 598 | 347 | 369 |
| 2023 (Latest Announcement) | 1424 | 712 | 412 | 435 |
D-2: Tracking of Dolmen Inclusion/Exclusion from Lists 1
| Province | 1956 | 1975 | 1977–88 | 1997 | 2023 | Characteristics |
| Shandong | 11 included | 5 lost, 6 maintained | All excluded (1977) | 4 re-listed | 9 (2 National) | ‘Dongyi’ label erased, then returned as tourism resources. |
| Hebei | 2 included | (Blank) | Continuously excluded | 1 returned | 5 (1 National) | Dolmens not included in 1982 ‘Abolition-Re-establishment’. |
| Heilongjiang | – (None) | (Blank) | 0 new | 3 newly listed | 7 | Strategically listed as ‘Northern Frontier Megaliths’ brand in 1980s. |
| Jilin | 4 included | (Blank) | Continuously excluded | 2 returned | 6 (1 National) | Re-incorporated as ‘Goguryeo Cultural Heritage Zone’ with royal tombs. |
Appendix E: Comparison of National Treasure Application Files (Shipengshan vs. Ximucheng)
1. Standard Structure of Application Form
- Basic Information of the Protection Unit
- Argument for Historical, Scientific, and Artistic Value
- Assessment of Current Condition and Preservation Risks
- Description and Coordinates of Boundary and Buffer Zones
- Protection and Management Plan (5-year and 10-year goals)
- List of Attached Materials (Satellite photos, drawings, damage records, expert signature list, etc.)
- Review Opinions from Provincial and National Cultural Heritage Bureaus
2. Key Sections from Shipengshan Application (Original Text & Translation)
| Item | Original Text (Traditional Chinese) | English Translation |
| Name/Period | 石棚山石棚，屬新石器晚期至青銅時代早期（約公元前七千年至前五千年）巨石建築遺存。 | Shipengshan Dolmen, a megalithic architectural relic from the late Neolithic to early Bronze Age (approx. 7000–5000 BCE). |
| Value Argument | 本遺址揭示中華禮制與東北地區禮俗之源頭，為研究中華早期國家形成提供不可替代之實物證據。 | This site reveals the origin of Chinese ritual systems (Zhonghua Lizhi) and Northeast Asian ritual customs, providing irreplaceable physical evidence for the study of the formation of early Chinese states. |
| Comparative Judgment | 較朝鮮半島同類支石墓，本遺址規模宏大，保存度最高，且具中華文化直根系特色。 | Compared to similar dolmens in the Korean Peninsula, this site is grand in scale, has the highest preservation, and possesses characteristics of the direct root system of Chinese culture. |
| Current Condition | 1995 年修繕後保存完好。排水設施缺失，北側坡面有水土流失風險。 | Well-preserved after repairs in 1995. Lacks drainage facilities, with risk of soil erosion on the northern slope. |
| Boundary Description | 核心區面積 3.6 公頃，緩衝區 12.4 公頃，參見附圖 A‑1 坐標表。 | Core area 3.6 ha, buffer zone 12.4 ha (see coordinate table in Appendix A-1). |
| Management Plan | – 1997‑1999 3D 激光掃描– 2000 年AR 展示系統建置– 2001‑2005 訪客中心與停車場 | – 1997–1999: 3D laser scanning– 2000: AR exhibition system construction– 2001–2005: Visitor center and parking lot |
3. Side-by-Side Comparison of Shipengshan vs. Ximucheng Applications
| Item | Shipengshan (1996) | Ximucheng (2001) |
| Location | Gaizhou City | Haicheng City |
| Area (Core/Buffer) | 3.6 ha / 12.4 ha | 2.1 ha / 6.8 ha |
| Damage History | 1987: Surrounding wall destroyed by farming | 1958: ‘Sao’ dolmen completely destroyed for road construction |
| Protection History | 1963 Provincial → 1979 Delisted → 1996 National | 1963 Provincial → 1979 Delisted → 2001 National |
| Expert Signatures | Archaeology 3, Geology 1, Tourism 1 | Archaeology 2, Architecture 2, Tourism 1 |
| Budget (5-year) | 5.8 million RMB (National:Provincial 7:3) | 4.3 million RMB (National:Provincial 6:4) |
참고 자료
- 고인돌_부록
- New system to protect historical heritage – The State Council of the People’s Republic of China, 7월 20, 2025에 액세스, https://english.www.gov.cn/policies/policywatch/202109/09/content_WS61393e54c6d0df57f98dfe35.html
- Northeast Project (Chinese Academy of Social Sciences) – Wikipedia, 7월 20, 2025에 액세스, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Project_(Chinese_Academy_of_Social_Sciences)
- China and Contemporary Korean Nationalism: Reflecting on China s NortheastProject, 7월 20, 2025에 액세스, https://accesson.kr/kj/v.49/1/120/8201
- China’s Northeast Project and Contemporary Korean Nationalism | Request PDF, 7월 20, 2025에 액세스, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289793854_China’s_Northeast_Project_and_Contemporary_Korean_Nationalism
- Prehistoric cairns and dolmens in Manchuria (China) – Kyushu …, 7월 20, 2025에 액세스, https://kyushu-u.elsevierpure.com/en/publications/prehistoric-cairns-and-dolmens-in-manchuria-china
- Revisiting China’s Historical Narratives – Initiative for U.S.-China Dialogue on Global Issues, 7월 20, 2025에 액세스, https://uschinadialogue.georgetown.edu/podcasts/revisiting-china-s-historical-narratives
- Finding common ground in Hongshan civilization – Chinadaily.com.cn, 7월 20, 2025에 액세스, https://epaper.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202507/09/WS686dbb8ea31072f9198f3cc7.html
- Historical Disputes and Reconciliation in Northeast Asia, 7월 20, 2025에 액세스, https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/137318/20090520173519.pdf
- Dispute over history: China’s Northeast Asia Project | Friendly Korea – VANK, 7월 20, 2025에 액세스, http://korea.prkorea.com/wordpress/english/2012/03/15/dispute-over-history-chinas-northeast-asia-project/
- Goguryeo controversies – Wikipedia, 7월 20, 2025에 액세스, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goguryeo_controversies
- [PDF] Archaeological Nationalism in Contemporary China and the …, 7월 20, 2025에 액세스, https://www.citedrive.com/en/discovery/archaeological-nationalism-in-contemporary-china-and-the-official-construction-of-ancient-chinese-history/
- The regionalist paradigm in Chinese archaeology (Chapter 12 …, 7월 20, 2025에 액세스, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/nationalism-politics-and-the-practice-of-archaeology/regionalist-paradigm-in-chinese-archaeology/DCC8C025C31AA3D5CF76DB2E64B59415
- (PDF) Heritage Soft Power in East Asia’s Memory Contests: Promoting and Objecting to Dissonant Heritage in UNESCO – ResearchGate, 7월 20, 2025에 액세스, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331332207_Heritage_Soft_Power_in_East_Asia’s_Memory_Contests_Promoting_and_Objecting_to_Dissonant_Heritage_in_UNESCO
- Exporting Culture, Cementing Control: How the CCP Pursues Domestic Legitimacy Through Soft Power – The Diplomat, 7월 20, 2025에 액세스, https://thediplomat.com/2025/02/exporting-culture-cementing-control-how-the-ccp-pursues-domestic-legitimacy-through-soft-power/