Early Neolithic cultures in the
Chifeng area--the
Xinglongwa and Zhaobaogou cultures--were identified during the 1980�s (Xu
1989). To date, very few habitation and burial sites of these periods
have been excavated (Aohan 1991; Neimenggu 1994; Zhongguo 1985; Zhongguo
1987; Zhongguo 1998b; Zhu 1997). These excavations yielded the earliest
evidence in the area known so far for permanent habitation in villages,
ceramic production, and the domestication and cultivation of plants and
animals. The small number of sites so far identified from these cultures
and the limited area of excavations permits only tentative hypotheses about
the way of life in this important period of transition to agriculture.
Results from work to date indicate
that systematic survey locates larger
quantities of these scarce remains than survey methodologies that have
been applied previously in the region. So far we have recovered Xinglongwa
ceramics in 16 different collection units in 14 spatially discrete small
sites and Zhaobaogou ceramics in 28 collection units in 22 spatially discreet
small sites. The largest of these sites covers less than 3 ha.
These are presumably the remains of small economically self-sufficient
egalitarian villages. Further survey will be required to determine
whether this occupation is relatively evenly spread throughout the region
or tends to concentrate in certain sectors based on resource distribution
or other factors. Further site excavation and comparative study of
features and artifact assemblages at the household scale will be required
to delineate possible patterns of social or economic differentiation, productive
specialization, etc. Faunal and botanical remains reported to date
demonstrate the presence of domesticated species, but quantitative study
will be required to evaluate their relative importance as well as that
of wild plants and animals and thus the completeness of reliance on agriculture
and herding.
Hongshan (c. 4500-3000 BC) and Xiaoheyan (c.
3000-2200 BC)
The Hongshan culture has attracted
much attention.
However, in spite of--and maybe even because of--the zeal with which these
ritualistic expressions are being studied, the more mundane aspects of
the Hongshan culture have been largely neglected. Only meager information
on domestic sites of the Hongshan has been published and almost nothing
at all is known about internal site structure and about settlement patterns.
The ritual structures, the elaborate
jade sculptures, and the concentration
of offerings in the burials of a few individuals that have been reported
for Hongshan sites are highly suggestive of the kinds of societies to which
the term "chiefdom" or some similar label is often applied (e.g. Drennan
1995; Earle 1987, 1997). In the survey area to date, Hongshan ceramics
were encountered in 203 different collection units, forming some 129 spatially
discrete sites, suggesting quite substantial population growth for this
period. Altogether 1527 Hongshan sherds were recovered, compared
to only 309 for Xinlongwa and Zhaobaogou combined, reinforcing the impression
of considerable increase in population. (These latter two together
account for about the same amount of time as Hongshan does.) Some
sites continue to be quite tiny, as before, but one was as large as 11
ha, and there is a tendency for larger sites to group together, quite possibly
representing communities within which inter-settlement interaction had
taken on greater importance.
The
social, political, ritual, and/or economic aspects of such interaction
remain to be explored, but it may represent the initial webs of regional
relationships upon which complex societies are based. Completion
of survey over a larger area will be required to delineate these patterns
comprehensively, to see how they emerge from those of the previous period
and give way, in turn, to later ones. Identifiable Xiaoheyan ceramics
are relatively rare, 174 sherds found in 31 collections in 28 discreet
sites, suggesting that these ceramics transitional between Hongshan and
Lower Xiajiadian may not represent an entirely distinct period in their
own right. Further stratigraphic chronological work will be required
to clear up this question.
Lower Xiajiadian (c. 2200-1600 BC)
Population growth appears to be
stronger as the
sequence continues into Lower Xiajiadian times, since these ceramics were
recovered from 608 collection units in nearly 299 discreet sites in the
survey area to date. Altogether, Lower Xiajiadian sherds numbered
7289 (compared to 1527 for Hongshan, which represents more than twice as
much time as Lower Xiajiadian does). The largest single Lower Xiajiadian
site covers 23 ha, and several groupings of large sites, probably represent
sociologically meaningful communities better than individual sites do.
These site groupings tend to be very densely occupied areas on the low
bluffs overlooking the prime agricultural lands of the valley floors with
a very few sites in the bottomland. They are at least loosely associated
with hilltop fortified sites well back in the upland zone between river
valleys. These hilltop-fortified sites tend to be much smaller in
area and to have extremely low densities of surface ceramics despite ideal
surface collecting conditions. Their cultural deposits tend to be
shallow, but the architectural remains (often quite visible on the surface)
include the stone foundations of circular structures, large terraces, and
massive walls and gateways, representing a major investment in construction.
Such features are altogether lacking from earlier sites.
Expanding the survey area is
particularly important
for studying Lower Xiajiadian political organization. Previous surveys
in the Chifeng area indicate the presence of numerous site clusters similar
to those recorded in the survey area to date (Xu 1986; Zhongguo 1998a;
Zhu 1994), possibly representing a series of different Lower Xiajiadian
polities. Surveying a larger area will make it possible to identify
their relative geographic positions, to delineate the patterns of association
between densely occupied residential zones and more sparsely occupied hilltop
sites with monumental defensive works, and to investigate the distribution
of the much smaller settlements that make up the majority of Lower Xiajiadian
sites. The distribution of these smaller settlements in the areas
between such polities, for example, in the form of buffer zones whose presence
or absence might be related to varying degrees of competition between polities.
Comparing these polities can also help us understand their political and
economic makeup.
Typologies of Lower Xiajiadian sites
have been suggested
previously (Shelach 1999; Zhongguo 1998a), but they have not entirely resolved
the question of functional differences between small and large sites, between
very densely occupied and very sparsely occupied sites, between sites with
and without defensive works. Rigorous comparison of sites in terms
of such variables as location, accessible resources, artifact assemblage
composition, and types of architectural features would help us to understand
possible differences in site functions and the nature of relationships
between sites. To add to the data recorded on regional survey, we
began to use a Total Station to produce detailed maps of a selected sample
of Lower Xiajiadian sites and to make intensive artifact collections in
association with individual architectural features. This additional
data will help us to reconstruct patterns of intra-site organization.
The Upper Xiajiadian represents a
transformation
no less dramatic that the Lower Xiajiadian. The three-tiered central
place settlement hierarchy proposed by Shelach (1999) all but disappears,
and Upper Xiajiadian sites display no evidence of massive defensive works.
On the other hand, a local bronze industry flourished during this time
and burial practices became very elaborate. In comparison to the
richest Lower Xiajiadian graves which contained no more than twenty ceramic
vessels, a few bone and stone artifacts, bones of sacrificed animals (usually
pigs and dogs), and an occasional small bronze artifact (Aohan 1976; Guo
1995b; Liu and Xu 1989;Zhongguo 1996), the richest Upper Xiajiadian grave
contained over a thousand artifacts including more than ninety large bronze
artifacts along with imported Chinese bronze vessels (Liaoning 1973; Xiang
and Li 1995). In the 1999/2000 survey area, the number of collection
units with Upper Xiajiadian ceramics drops to 499 in some 245 spatially
discrete sites. The total number of sherds is 6470, a decrease from
the 7288 Lower Xiajiadian sherds recovered, even allowing for the fact
that Lower Xiajiadian represents about 50% more time than the Upper Xiajiadian
does. A tendency for settlements to group together continues, but
the groupings are often smaller and more spread out than before.
Surprisingly, the total area of Upper Xiajiadian sites of 7.57 square
km, including large clusters often found in the valleys between mountains,
exceeds that of the Lower Xiajiadian total of 7.03. What these clusters
indicate is not yet understood, but these areas are obvious candidates
for test excavation.
This evidence of population increase,
of overall loosening of settlement
groupings, and less clear settlement hierarchy seems to contradict the
much more developed socioeconomic hierarchy suggested by the burial evidence�at
least in terms of what one might expect on the basis of general schemes
advanced to account for the development of complex societies in global
comparative perspective. Rich Upper Xiajiadian graves may be evidence
of a society in which political power is personally associated with the
leaders or upper social strata, rather than with the communal functions
such as leaders performed (Shelach 1999).
Surveying a larger area will make it
possible to
test the association of Upper Xiajiadian sites with locations most suitable
to a mixed agro-pastoral economy. The distribution of Upper Xiajiadian
graves, very frequently visible on the surface, shows a considerable variability
in different sectors of the study area, being much more common in the region
surveyed by Shelach (1999) than in the 1999/2000 survey area. Data
on the sizes of the individual graves and their number can be collected
in regional survey and help reconstruct patterns of stratification and
variation between possible political units.
Warring States�Han (c. 500 B.C ? A.D 200);
Period from 200
AD through the Liao Dynasty (907-1122)
This period represents the first real
intrusion
of the Chinese states into the area. It has been recently suggested
that this close interaction between the Chinese and non-dynastic polities
helped shape the history of China during this and later periods (Di Cosmo
1999). The increasing geographical scale of polities and of meaningful
political interactions make our regional approach less suitable for the
study of socio-political process during this period. Nevertheless, since
settlement pattern studies of this period have never been done, our work
can contribute to the understanding of the local effects of the large-scale
processes.
Warring States�Han material was found
in 306 collection units in about
189 spatially discreet sites in the 1999/2000 survey area. Altogether,
there were 2869 sherds, compared to 6470 sherds for the preceding Upper
Xiajiadian (which is about 100 years shorter). The largest single
site was nearly 12 ha. The overall population level changed and the
population was dispersed into a larger number of smaller sites. There
is less apparent tendency for these sites to form groupings than in earlier
periods. Sherds from the periods following through the Liao numbered
5097 from 325 sites in 529 collections were also collected. These
data will be compared to those from current population censuses as well
as settlement locations in the region. Land-use patterns will also
be of interest as we continue to be able to document earlier patterns.
In order to further understand and
explain the changes
in social patterns in this area, we will continue the full-coverage survey
as well as begin test excavation and refined mapping of selected sites.
All records are made in both Chinese and English, and the data is stored
on laptop computers and kept in Hohhot (Institute of Archaeology, (Zhang
Wenping); the Department of Archaeology, Jilin University (Teng Mingyu);
The Hebrew University (Shelach); and the University of Pittsburgh (Drennan
and Linduff). Computer technology used to store and manipulate all
the data as well as to create these maps was introduced by the US team
and was quickly absorbed.
The new methods of study were eagerly
tested by
the Chinese members of the team while their expertise in regional topography,
ceramic analysis and previous excavation results was provided has been
fundamental to the progress of the project to date. Preliminary results
of the survey have being drafted and will be published in both Chinese
and English next year.