index.html官网,index.html

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.