Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 318–345
www.elsevier.com/locate/jaa
Economic adaptation, community structure,
and sharing strategies of households at early sedentary
communities in northeast China
Gideon Shelach
*
Department of East Asian Studies, The Hebrew University, Mt. Scopus, Jerusalem 91905, Israel
Received 23 May 2005; revision received 15 November 2005
Available online 30 January 2006
Abstract
The genesis of agriculture is one of the recurring themes of Chinese archaeology. However, while questions about the
origins of domesticated plants and animals and the date of their domestication have received much recent attention,
anthropologically oriented research on early sedentary communities is a less developed field. This paper contributes to such
research by focusing on the structure of early sedentary communities in northeast China and addressing such issues as their
economic adaptation, the internal organization of households, economic activities and sharing strategies of household
members, and mechanisms of community integration. Analysis of data from the Zhaobaogou site, the only early Neolithic
site from northeast China for which a comprehensive excavation report was published, suggests that households were relatively independent production and consumption units with little sharing and exchange among households. The integration of the community was probably associated with non-economic activity such as religious rituals. Comparison of the
patterns observed in the Zhaobaogou data with patterns from contemporaneous sites in the Wei River area highlights differences in the social organization of the early sedentary communities in the two areas. Those differences are meaningful
for our understanding of the different socio-political trajectories of the two areas and may serve for cross-cultural comparisons with other parts of the world.
2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Neolithic; Northeast China; Household; Site structure; Sharing strategies; Agriculture; Zhaobaogou
Finding the earliest evidence for the beginning of
agriculture and sedentary life in China is a recurring
theme of modern Chinese archaeology. Over the last
60 years this quest has brought to light increasingly
extensive data on early Neolithic communities in
different regions of present day China. In the
*
Fax: +972 3 6479306.
E-mail address: [email protected].
1960s and 1970s, Chinese archaeologists were able
to push back the date of the Yangshao culture—discovered in the Yellow River basin during the early
1920s by the Swedish archaeologist Johan Gunnar
Andersson (Fiskesjö and Chen, 2004)—to the 5th
millennium BCE (Chang, 1986, pp. 107–156). During the 1980s, Chinese archaeologists discovered
the remains of even earlier sedentary communities
in this region, pushing back the beginning of the
Neolithic Era in the Yellow and Wei River basins
0278-4165/$ - see front matter 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jaa.2005.11.007
G. Shelach / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 318–345
to the 6th or even the late 7th millennium BCE
(Chang, 1986, pp. 87–95). At the same time, early
Neolithic sites have begun to be discovered at other
parts of China, including the Yangzi River Basin,
the east China coast and northeast China. Research
in those areas that were once seen as peripheral to
the development of Chinese Civilization—including
its prehistoric foundations—has intensified during
the last 15 years (Underhill, 1997). For example,
the origins and early stages of rice domestication
in the Yangzi river basin has been the focus of ongoing research. This fruitful academic activity has
brought to light very early dates for the beginning
of this process—the ninth millennium BCE or even
earlier—and much new data on early Neolithic
communities in the Yangzi region (Crawford and
Shen, 1998; Higham, 1995; Higham and Lu, 1998;
MacNeish et al., 1997; Pei, 1998; Sato, 2002; Yan,
1991; Yasuda, 2002). The discovery of early sedentary villages in other parts of East Asia, including
northeast China, which are contemporaneous with
the earliest sedentary villages known in the valleys
of the Yellow and Wei Rivers, further challenges
centralistic models of the development of agriculture in China and, more generally, in all of East
Asia (Guo and Li, 2002; Shelach, 2000; Underhill,
1997; Underhill and Habu, 2006).
While debates on where and when agriculture
started and how it was spread are indeed fundamental, research should not be limited to questions of
origins and regional diversity. We should attempt
to use this growing database to address anthropologically meaningful issues pertaining, for example,
to the social structure of those early sedentary societies: What were the dominant social and economic
units—the nuclear family (or household) or the
entire community? How was economic activity
structured and organized? Was there already economic specialization (at a private or family level)
and exchange within the community? Were economic resources shared among the community or ‘‘privately’’ controlled by families or individuals? What
type of interactive forces kept the community
together and what led to its dissolution? This paper
addresses these issues through the analysis of data
from the Zhaobaogou site—one of the earliest sedentary sites found in northeast China and the only
one from this area for which a complete report
has been published to date (Zhongguo, 1997b).
My aim is to develop a more complex understanding of early sedentary societies in this region. One
paper, based as it is primarily on old data, cannot,
319
of course, address all of these issues comprehensively, but I hope to focus attention on significant
anthropologically derived research questions which
future field research may address.
The concluding section of this paper, which compares the Zhaobaogou community with the Jiangzhai
community in the Wei River basin—an area more
closely associated with the traditional core of the
‘‘Chinese Civilization’’—aims at highlighting meaningful differences in community structure and organization between the two regions. This compression
suggests, for example, that communities in the Wei
River area were more closely integrated and practiced
inter-household cooperation more extensively than
the more dispersed and individualized patterns of
communities in northeast China. Rather than constructing rigid socio-economic models, this preliminary comparison aims at suggesting the possibility of
different socio-economic trajectories and to catalyze
fruitful debate on the components, structures, and
development of a sedentary way of life in China.
The early Neolithic age of northeast China: an
overview
The area of northeast China is located north of
the Yan mountain range and centers on the drainage system of the rivers flowing into the northern
part of the Bohai bay. It is located within the
boundaries of the modern Chinese provinces of
Inner Mongolia, Liaoning, Jilin, and Hebei, and lies
roughly between 39 and 45 north latitude and
114 to 125 east longitude (Fig. 1).
Archaeological research in the areas of northeast
China, sometimes referred to in the past as Manchuria, started already in the early years of the 20th
century and continued, albeit not very intensively,
during the 1930s and 1940s under the Japanese
occupation of this area (Guo, 1995; Hamada and
Mizuno, 1938; Liang, 1959; Tong, 1957). Building
on these early foundations, archaeological research
during the early years of the People’s Republic of
China was focused on the identification of local
‘‘cultures’’ and the establishment of their relative
chronology (Liu and Xu, 1981; Zhongguo, 1974).
With the introduction of radiometric dating to Chinese archaeology in the 1970s and the proliferation
of local research, the chronological and geographical variables of this scheme were refined (cf. Guo,
1987; Liu, 1987; Liu and Xu, 1981; Xu, 1989;
Zhang, 1991; Zhang et al., 1987; Zhongguo, 1987,
1988) (see Table 1).
320
G. Shelach / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 318–345
R.
ulun
Xilam
Zhaobaogou
Shenyang
Chifeng
Survey area
Beijing
Bohai
bay
100km
Fig. 1. A Map of northeast China (mark location of the Chifeng survey and of the Zhaobaogou site).
Table 1
Chronology of the Chifeng and the Wei–Yellow rivers regions
Chifeng area
Yellow river
and Wei river
Lower Xiajiadian
(ca. 2200–1600)
Xiaoheyen
(ca. 3000–2200)
Hongshan
(ca. 4500–3000)
Zhaobaogou
(ca. 5250–4500)
Xinglongwa
(ca. 6000–5250)
Erlitou
(ca. 2100–1700)
Longshan
(ca. 2700–2100)
Dawenkou
(ca. 4000–2700)a
Yangshao
(ca. 5000–3000)
Cishan/Peiligang
Area
(ca. 6500–5000)
Dates in years BCE.
a
The Dawenkou culture is confined to the eastern part of this
region and is partly contemporaneous with the Yangshao culture.
One of the main goals of research in this area, as
in many other areas of China, has been the search for
early Neolithic cultures. The Hongshan period, dated to ca. 4500–3000 BCE, (which, until the mid
1980s, was considered to be the earliest Neolithic
culture of northeast China), attracted much attention both in China and in the West, not least because
of its advanced Jade industry and unique ritualistic
expressions (cf. Childs-Johnson, 1991; Guo, 1995;
Nelson, 1991; Shelach, 1999). Recognition of the
pre-Hongshan occupation of northeast China started to emerge during the mid 1980s (Liaoning,
1988; Su, 1986; Yang, 1986; Zhongguo, 1985, 1987,
1988) but only gained official recognition in the early
1990s with the classification of two pre-Hongshan
cultures, the Xinglongwa (ca. 6000–5250 BCE) and
the Zhaobaogou (ca. 5250–4500 BCE). Stratigraphic
excavations and radiocarbon dates from sites of
both cultures have, over the past 20 years, confirmed
their age, and they have become an accepted part of
the regional sequence (Tables 1 and 2).
Through the diligent work of Chinese archaeologists working in this region more than 100 Xinglongwa sites and a comparable number of
Zhaobaogou sites have already been located (Li,
2003), most of them during exploratory work. More
recently the remains of Xinglongwa and Zhaobaogou
sites have been discovered as part of the systematic
survey conducted by the Chifeng International Cooperation Archaeological Project, whose results are
analyzed below. Within the area of 765.4 km2 surveyed, we identified 17 Xinglongwa and 29 Zhaobaogou sites (Chifeng, 2003; Linduff et al., 2004),
suggesting that while the occupation density of the
region during this period was not high (compare,
for example the 160 Hongshan sites discovered in
the same area) early sedentary sites are not rare either.
Very few Xinglongwa and Zhaobaogou sites
have been excavated so far and, with one exception,
only preliminary reports on those excavations have
been published to date. However, these data permit
general observations about the sites and the material culture associated with the two periods (Shelach,
2000). Important Xinglongwa sites include the
G. Shelach / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 318–345
321
Table 2
C14 dates from Xinglongwa and Zhaobaogou sites
Culture
Site
Lab No.
Source
C14 date (half-life 5730)
Calibrated BCE date
Xinglongwa
Xinglongwa
Xinglongwa
Xinglongwa
Xinglongwa
Xinglongwa
Xinglongwa
Xinglongwa
Xinglongwa
Xinglongwa
Baiyinchanghan
Baiyinchanghan
Chahai
Chahai
ZK-1391
ZK-1392
ZK-1393
ZK-1390
ZK-2711
ZK-3070
ZK-2714
ZK-2715
ZK-1389
?
?
BA-93001
ZK-2138
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Bone
Charcoal
Charcoal
?
Charcoal
7470 ± 115
7240 ± 95
6965 ± 95
6895 ± 205
6775 ± 105
6694 ± 48
6630 ± 107
6534 ± 128
5660 ± 170
7040 ± 100
6590 ± 85
7360 ± 150
6925 ± 95
6211–5990
6032–5760
5730–5560
5740–5423
5579–5389
5520–5370
5438–5259
5432–5146
4510–4159
Zhaobaogou
Zhaobaogou
Zhaobaogou
Xiaoshan
Xiaoshan
Xiaoshandegou
Xiaoshandegou
ZK-2136
ZK-2135
ZK-2137
ZK-2061
ZK-2062
ZK-2270
ZK-2269
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
Charcoal
6220 ± 85
6210 ± 85
6155 ± 95
6150 ± 85
6060 ± 85
6045 ± 90
5915 ± 125
5194–4847
5192–4842
5034–4782
4996–4784
4899–4717
4896–4676
4780–4470
Zhaobaogou
Xinglongwa type-site (Zhongguo, 1997a) Baiyinchanghan, Chahai, and Nantaizi (Liaoning, 1988,
1994; Neimenggu, 1994; Neimenggu, 1997; Neimenggu, 2002; Yang and Liu, 1997; Zhongguo,
1997a) and the recently excavated Xinglonggou site
(Liu, 2004a; Zhongguo, 2004). Important sites of
the Zhaobaogou period, apart from the Zhaobaogou-type site (Zhongguo, 1997b), are Xiaoshan,
Xiaoshandegou, Nantaidi, Houtaizi, and Anxinzhuang (Aohanqi, 1991; Zhao, 2003; Zhongguo, 1987).
More detailed discussion of the cultural attributes of the Xinglongwa and Zhaobaogou periods
can be found elsewhere (Shelach, 2000; Zhao,
2003). The main features of these cultures include
rectangular semi-subterranean houses, usually
arranged in parallel rows within the site. Xinglongwa settlements are sometimes surrounded by
a narrow ditch, but this feature was not found at
Zhaobaogou sites. The tool inventory of both cultures includes a variety of stone and bone tools,
including bifacial and ground stone tools (at Zhaobaogou sites, most are polished), large grinding
stones, flaked tools and microliths. Xinglongwa
and Zhaobaogou pottery, among the oldest found
in northeast China,1 is handmade. The quality of
1
Scanty evidence for even earlier ceramic production in this
region is found at a few sites such as Nanzhuangtou and
Hutouliang, both in Hebei province (Guo and Li, 2002; Shelach,
2000, pp. 377–378; Wu and Zhao, 2003).
5712–5530
the ceramics suggests low firing temperatures. While
the variety of vessel shapes is very limited, their decorations are numerous and sometime quite elaborate. Decorative techniques include stamping,
incisions, and appliqués. The most common ‘‘Z’’
motif, which is typical of both cultures, continues
to be dominant during the latter prehistoric period
and testifies to cultural continuity in this area. During the Zhaobaogou period, a few vessels are decorated with intertwining animal motifs which have
been interpreted as having significant ritual meaning
(Zhao, 2003, pp. 209–210; Zhongguo, 1987;
Zhu, 1990). Other ritualistic or artistic artifacts,
such as clay and stone statues of people and animals
(Chengde, 1994; Zhongguo, 1997b, p. 95), as well
as the possible remains of ritual structures (Zhongguo, 1997b, pp. 127–8), also appear during this
period.
Hunter-gatherers or Agriculturalists? Debates on the
economic adaptation of early sedentary communities
in northeast China
The economic adaptation of the Xinglongwa and
Zhaobaogou societies is assumed by many archaeologists to rely, to a certain degree at least, on agriculture and animal husbandry (e.g., Liu and Dong,
1996). Analyses of animal bones from the Zhaobaogou site suggest that while wild animals—different
species of deer in particular—were still the main
322
G. Shelach / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 318–345
source of meat, domestic animals were also becoming important. Analysis of the animal bones excavated from the Zhaobaogou site suggests that
most of the meat consumed at the site came from
two main sources: 63 deer and 26% pig meat
(Zhongguo, 1997b, p. 199).2 Deer were obviously
hunted but the pigs may have been domesticated
species raised by humans. This is inferred from the
homogeneity of their age distribution—most were
between 1 and 2 years old at the time of death—a
pattern associated, according to the excavators,
with the butchering of domesticated animals rather
than with hunting (Zhongguo, 1997b, p. 185). However, even this tentative identification of domesticated species is not universally agreed upon. In a recent
study, Liu (2004b, pp. 88–89) argued that the morphology of the skeletons resembles more that of
wild rather than domesticated pigs.
While proofs for the domestication of animals
during the Zhaobaogou period remains somewhat
inconclusive, we do not even have such indirect evidence for the domestication of plants. Based on the
prevalence of axes and ‘‘hoes’’ (si) among the stone
tool assemblage, presumably used for clearing and
tilling the fields, and the frequent finding of large
mortars, pestles and rollers at Xinglongwa and
Zhaobaogou houses, many archaeologists assume
that agriculture was one of the main economic activities practiced by the population of those sites (Guo,
1997; Liu and Dong, 1996; Yang, 1994; Zhao, 2003;
Zhongguo, 1997a,b). Microwear analyses conducted on a few of the larger stone tools from the Zhaobaogou site tend to support the claim that they were
used to break the upper soil (Zhongguo, 1997b, pp.
238–243).
While some archaeologists suggest that the
transition to agriculture in northeast China predated the Xinglongwa period (cf. Wu and Zhao,
2003, p. 19), others raise the possibility that the
population at the Xinglongwa and Zhaobaogou
sites were hunter-gatherers, or that they relied
mainly (if not exclusively) on wild food sources
(Jia, 2005; Li, 2003; Liu, 2004b). Such claims find
support in analogies to the Natufian culture (ca.
13,000–10,000 B.P.) of the Levant, where similar
stone tools have been found and where the economy was focused on the intensive exploitation of
natural resources rather than on the cultivation
2
This calculation was based on the MNI method and took into
account the average weight of each species.
of domesticated plants (Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen, 1989; Bar-Yosef and Meadow, 1995; BelferCohen and Bar-Yosef, 2000).
Analyses of plant remains might have contributed much to our understanding of this issue; however, such studies have only recently been initiated
and the few botanical remains currently available
from the excavations of early sedentary sites in
northeast China are not sufficient to allow for a
meaningful analysis. Studies of human remains is
another method of addressing the diet of the
ancient population. In a recent study of 10 human
skeletons form the Xinglongwa site—seven of
which belong to the Xinglongwa period, one to
the Hongshan and two to the Lower Xiajiadian
period—Zhang Xuelian and his colleagues found
a relatively low levels of 13C isotopes among the
Xinglongwa period skeletons. They suggest that
such levels resulted from the intensive consumption
of C3 plants, probably wild resources such as nuts
(Zhang et al., 2003, p. 69). However, the sample
they worked with was relatively small and other
analyses they preformed, such as the ratio of the
15
N isotope in the human bones, do suggest the
existence, during the Xinglongwa period, of animal
husbandry and perhaps agriculture (Zhang et al.,
2003, p. 73).
Barbara Smith’s (2005) analysis of 53 human
skeletons from the same site resulted in very similar conclusion. Among those skeletons, she found
a relatively low level of the pathologies that are
usually associated with a transition to agriculture,
such as iron deficiency anemia, periosteal reactions, and dental caries. Comparison with human
populations from sites of the Wei and Yellow
River valleys suggested a relatively low level of
reliance on agriculture among the Xinglongwa
population.
Settlement patterns of the Xinglongwa and
Zhaobaogou periods in the Chifeng
Survey area
Analysis of settlement patterns is yet another
way of addressing the economic adaptation of
ancient populations. Below I attempt to do so
using data recovered during the systematic survey
carried out by teams of the Chifeng International
Cooperation Archaeological Project. Within the
of 765.4 km2 surveyed so far in the Chifeng region
(Fig. 1) during the 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 seasons, 17 Xinglongwa sites and 29 Zhaobaogou sites
G. Shelach / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 318–345
have been found3 (Linduff et al., 2004). Examining
the spatial distribution of these sites provides, inter
alia, indications about the economic adaptation of
the societies which built them. Excluding from our
analysis collection units with less than 3 pot shards
from the Xinglongwa or the Zhaobaogou period—
a measure against the inclusion of accidental findings that are not related to a ‘‘real’’ habitation
site—leaves us with only 2 Xinglongwa and 16
Zhaobaogou sites.
Comparing the distribution of sites from the Xinglongwa and Zhaobaogou periods to that of the
Hongshan (ca. 4500–3000 BCE) sites—a period
when agriculture was clearly the main economic
resource (Guo, 1995; Zhao, 2003)—can help us
evaluate the economic adaptation during the early
periods. Similarities between the two distribution
patterns will suggest that agriculture was fundamental to the Xinglongwa and Zhaobaogou periods,
while the absence of such similarities will question
and even negate this idea. Using GIS programs,4 I
defined an area of 300 m around the 18 Xinglongwa
and Zhaobaogou sites, and examined how many of
those buffer zones include Hongshan sites. The
results show a marked similarity between the two
periods: half of the early sites (nine out of 18) are
located within 300 m of a Hongshan site, among
which three are found together in the same site area.
Considering the large area in which those sites are
distributed, such recurrent occupation of similar
or proximate locations is, to my mind, suggestive.
Information on the location of Xinglongwa and
Zhaobaogou sites in other places seems to indicate
a similar close proximity to later Neolithic sites.
For example, a map provided in the excavation
report of the Zhaobaogou type-site (Zhongguo,
1997b, p. 3, Fig. 2) shows that in its vicinity, within
approximately 400 m, there are at least one Hongshan and two Xiaoheyan sties.
To investigate this issue further, I analyzed the
distribution of sites from those periods in relation
to present day land-use categories. These categories,
derived from a map published in 1988 (Neimenggu,
3
During the survey we recorded collection units, each more or
less 100 m wide, rather than sites. Here, I treat adjacent collection
units in which shards from the same period have been found as
belonging to a single site. For a detailed description of the survey
method used by the Chifeng International Cooperation Archaeological Project, see: Drennan et al., 2003a.
4
I used a combination of AutoCAD map and Idrisi programs
to perform the GIS analyses discussed in this paper.
323
1988), are: 1, irrigated agricultural land; 2, non-irrigated agricultural land; 3, pasture; and 4, forests. I
am conscious of the fact that the current land-use
patterns do not necessarily reflect prehistoric landuse. For one thing, during the prehistoric times we
are addressing, it is almost certain that people did
not engage in irrigation agriculture, at least on the
scale practiced today in the Chifeng area. Nevertheless, the logic of the analysis is that current land-use
patterns can be seen as rough estimates of the agricultural potential of the land. Locations of today’s
irrigated fields were always the moister areas and
therefore best suited to agriculture. The agricultural
potential of areas that today are used for dry agriculture was less in the past as well, and areas that
today are used for herding were probably not suitable for agriculture then too. This is not to say that
in some periods, depending on human motivations,
areas that are used today for agriculture could not
have been used for the collection of wild resources
or for herding. Areas that are marked on the map
as forests (those in the survey area are all recently
planted forests) are problematic for our analysis
because their location may not reflect anything
meaningful about past land exploitation. The location of some of the patches of forested land near rivers suggests that they were planted in areas to which
water can easily be brought and that they may occupy land that could otherwise have been used for
agriculture or perhaps areas where marshland existed in the past. However, since the area occupied by
such forests is not large, it does not affect our analysis in any meaningful way.
In the analysis, I cross-tabulated the occupied
and unoccupied areas of each of the land categories
in our survey area for each period. For each land
category, I calculated the ratio of occupied to unoccupied land. If sites were randomly placed on the
land we can assume that the occupied area in each
land category will reflect the size of land belonging
to this category in our survey area. Deviation from
this random selection mode would reflect, therefore,
the attractiveness each type of land for the prehistoric populations. To compare between the periods,
I standardized those numbers to an occupation
index that totals 1 for each period.
Table 3 and Fig. 2 clearly show that the land
preferences of people of the Xinglongwa and
Zhaobaogou periods and those of people of the
Hongshan period are very similar. Both periods
show preferences for what is today agricultural
land. If anything, sites of the earlier periods are
324
G. Shelach / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 318–345
0.6
0.5
0.4
XLW & ZBG
HS
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Forests
Pasture
Land
NonIirrigated
Agri.
Irrigated
Agri.
Fig. 2. Occupation Indexes of the Xinglongwa and Zhaobaogou periods and of the Hongshan period at different landuse categories.
Table 3
Distribution of Xinglongwa, Zhaobaogou, and Hongshan sites in relation to land-use categories
Land type
Xinglongwa and Zhaobaogou
Irrigated agriculture
Non-irrigated agriculture
Pasture
Forest
Sum
Hongshan
Irrigated agriculture
Non-irrigated agriculture
Pasture
Forest
Sum
Occupied (ha.)
Unoccupied (ha.)
Occupied/unoccupied
Occupation index
0.647
1.399
0.193
0
2.239
2042.331
3374.596
1979.922
255.138
7651.987
0.000317
0.000415
0.000097
0
0.000829
0.382214
0.500178
0.117608
0
1
3.112
6.253
2.573
0.105
12.043
2039.866
3369.742
1977.542
255.033
7642.183
0.00153
0.00186
0.0013
0.00041
0.005094
0.300353
0.365135
0.255202
0.080487
1.0011776
even more heavily concentrated in the areas of
today’s agricultural lands than sites of the Hongshan period. However, because the sample of sites
from the earlier periods is relatively small, I would
not attempt to attribute this slight variation to different adaptation strategies. Both periods show a
slight preference for present-day non-irrigated over
irrigated fields. One explanation for this phenomenon is that during prehistoric times, flat-land in the
valley floors, where many of the fields currently
under irrigation are located, was exposed to frequent flooding and therefore not settled (Shelach,
1999). This hypothesis is currently being tested in
the field through a coring of the alluvial strata
(Shelach et al., 2003).
In conclusion, my GIS analysis of patterns of site
location in relation to land-use categories indirectly
supports the assumption that the population of the
Xinglongwa and Zhaobaogou sites was engaged in
agricultural cultivation. However, it is likely that
hunting, fishing and probably the collection of
undomesticated plants and fruits were all still
important dietary sources.
The Zhaobaogou site
While systematic surveys provide data that is crucial for our understanding of the earliest sedentary
settlement of northeast China, excavations of
domestic sites are no less important, especially for
the study of the dynamics at the site and household
levels. Among the few Xinglongwa and Zhaobaogou sites excavated thus far, only one comprehensive report has been published—that of the
Zhaobaogou site (Zhongguo, 1997b). Rather than
try to incorporate data from several preliminary
reports, I focused my analysis on the one comprehensive report. This focus, moreover, suits my interest in the synchronic organization of the early
sedentary community in northeast China.
The Zhaobaogou site is located at the Chifeng
area in the eastern part of Inner Mongolia, some
25 km west of the city of Aohan banner (Fig. 1).
A survey conducted here in the winter of 1982 located on the surface of the site 89 areas of burnt earth
and artifact concentrations which were identified as
remains of prehistoric structures (Zhongguo, 1997b,
64
5
G. Shelach / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 318–345
325
650
640
F9
F8
F7
F14
F2
F6 F5 F3
F1
F13
635
F10
635
F105
Excavated Structure
F101
F102
F103
633
F104
F106
639
Un-excavated Structure
50m
Fig. 3. Map of the Zhaobaogou site (redrawn from Zhongguo 1997: 5, Fig. 3).
pp. 3–5). The structures are organized in parallel
lines more or less along the slope of the hill on
which the site is located (Fig. 3). The site was divided by the archaeologists into two areas: Area I, at
the northern part of the site from the top of the hill
and on its southeastern slope, where 82 of the structures are located; and Area II, in the south, at a
small saddle between two hills, where a smaller cluster of seven structures has been identified.
One season of excavation was carried out at the
site in the summer of 1986. All together 2000 m2
were excavated, in which 20 structures were found:
13 structures in Area I, and seven structures in Area
II. Among these structures, three were identified as
the remains of storage or refuse pits (F4, H4, and
H101), while the remaining 17 are large rectangular
structures (Table 4).5 Among the 17 structures three
5
According to the convention in China, remains of houses are
marked with the letter F, pits are marked with H and graves are
marked with M. Those letters derived from Romanization of the
relevant Chinese terms. In the case of structure F4 at Zhaobaogou, it seems that the excavators first identified it as a house and
than changed their mind but the label remained.
are badly disturbed (F1, F10, and F102) and the rest
are complete or disturbed in a relatively minor way.
All complete houses include rectangular shallow pits
in their center which were identified, based on their
shape and on the burnt earth found in them, as
hearths. Other features found in a few of the structures include post holes, niches, and storage pits. A
few of the structures are divided into two halves;
with the floor of the front half slightly elevated
above the back part, creating a low step in the transition between them (Figs. 4 and 5).
Artifacts, such as ceramics, stone and bone tools,
as well as remains of animal bones, antlers and shellfish were found in all the structures. Most structures
have one layer of accumulation of 20–60 cm in which
most of the artifacts are found. This suggests that all
were used for approximately the same period of time.6
6
The few structures in which the excavators identified two
layers of accumulation are all structures that are divided into two
parts—high and low. The second layer is always found in the
lower section and seems to be associated not with a distinct
period of occupation but with different accumulation processes in
this lower part.
326
Table 4
Structures excavated at the Zhaobaogou site and the artifacts found in them
Size (in m)
F1
3 · 1.7 (not complete)
F2
0.1 deep
7.8 · 6.35 (niche 1. · .2)
0.8 deep
Features
A niche added to the
southwestern wall.
Inside, a pit 1.05 wide
and 0.8 deep
Hearth 0.72 · 0.6, 0.1
deep (located in the
lower part of the house)
2 post holes (D1–2) 2
depressions in the
ground (K1–2)
Hearth 0.8 · 0.78, 0.3
deep
F3
4.9 · 4.7
F4
0.28 deep
0.4 · 0.4 · 0.1
F5
4.8 · 4.8
Hearth 0.82 · 0.82, 0.24
deep
0.2 deep
Storage pit (H1 p 119)
round, 0.51 wide and
0.43 deep
A niche added to the
southwestern wall.
Inside there is a
depression 0.36 deep
Hearth 0.70 · 0.70, 0.164
post holes (D1–4) 2
depressions in the
ground (K1–2)
F6
8.9 · 7.7 (niche 1.48 · .1)
0.84 deep
Ceramics
Stone tools
3 (2 bowls bo; 1 deep
container guan)
6 (1 mortar mopan; 1
pestle mobang; 1 stone
ball qiu; 3 stone axes fu)
40: (21 guan, 17 bo, 2
zun).
52 (2 axes; 1 hoe si; 3
pestles; 2 mortar; 1 ball;
2 scrapers bing; 1 arrow
head zu, 1 unclear; 39
microliths xishiqi).
Other findings
Remarks
The house is not
complete. More than
half was destroyed by a
modern road
3 bone tools 31 shells 108
animal bones (16 pig; 85
deer; 1 dog; 3 bear; 1
goose; 2 pheasant).
Divided into two
halves—high and low
Areas of ashes (S1–S4)
4 (2 guan; 2 bo)
7 (5 axes; 1 pestle; 1
unclear)
1 bone tool 2 shells 7
animal bones (2 pig; 5
deer)
7 (4 guan; 3 bo)
9 (5 fu; 2 si; 1 blade; 1
pestle). 4 of these found
in the storage pit
5 shells 11 bones in the
storage pit: (10 deer; 1
pheasant)
26 (13 guan; 1 zun; 11 bo;
1 unclear). Of these, 4
are placed in the niche (1
guan; 3 bo).
8 (2 fu; 2 si; 1 blade; 2
scrapers; 1 core) Of
these, 1 is placed in the
niche (1 si).
1 bone tool 12 shells 22
animal bones (6 pig; 16
deer)
Southeastern side
destroyed—but does not
seem that much is
missing
As small ash-pit,
probably not a house.
Storage or refuse pit? No
artifacts found
Partly destroyed
Divided into two
halves—high and low
Area of ashes (S1)
The zun is decorated
with animal motifs
G. Shelach / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 318–345
Structure
F7
Hearth 0.74 · 0.74, 0.45
deep
0.32 deep
Storage pit (H3, p. 122–
3), elliptic 1.14 · 0.9,
0.26 deep
Hearth 0.74 · 0.74, 0.22
deep
A niche added to the
southwestern wall.
Inside it there is a 1 m
deep pit. Hearth:
0.92 · 0.92, 0.20 deep. 4
post holes (D1–4)
F8
4.3 · 4 0.14 deep
F9
9.7 · 8–10.15 Niche
(1 · 1.2) 1.3 deep
F10
4.5 · 4
F13
0.2 deep
4.5 · 4.8
F14
0.2 deep
4.8 · 4.0
F 101
0.12 deep
3.2 · 4.3
F102
0.5 deep
3.25 · 1.15
0.12 deep
F103
4.0 · 5.25
0.54 deep
28 (12 guan; 2 zun; 10 bo;
1 dou; 3 unclear). 1 in
storage pit
37 (7 fu; 5 si; 2 pestles; 3
mortars; 1 blade; 1
scraper; 2 other; 14
microliths; 2 cores). 2 in
storage pit
4 bone tools 23 shell 27
animal bones (5 pig; 20
deer; 1 bear; 1 rodent). 1
shell and 4 animal bones
in storage pit
9 (6 guan, 3 bo)
3 (1 fu; 1 si; 1 mortar)
6 animal bones (6 deer)
101 (39 guan; 38 bo; 4
spindle whorls; 13
circular potshards
(leads?); 7 other)
49 (8 fu; 3 si; 4 mortar; 1
arrowhead; 28
microliths; 3 cores; 2
other)
29 bone tools 123 shells
308 animal bones (97
pig; 171 deer; 2 cow; 16
raccoon; 9 badger; 4
rodent; 1 swan; 7
pheasant; and 1 fish)
Hearth 0.75 · 0.60, 0.12
deep
7 (3 guan; 4 bo)
Hearth 0.74 · 0.63, 0.2
deep
14 (6 guan; 7 bo; 1 zun)
5 (2 fu; 2 si; 1 ball)
1 bone tool 7 shells 2
animal bones (2 deer)
Hearth 0.74 · 0.8, 0.2
deep
5 (3 guan; 2 bo)
9 (3 fu; 3 si; 1 scraper; 2
microliths; 1 core)
8 shells 4 animal bones
(1 pig; 3 deer)
Hearth 0.65 · 0.65, 0.12
deep
7 (5 guan, 2 bo).
7 (2 fu; 1 mortar; 1 core;
3 other)
1 animal bone (1 bovine)
8 (4 guan; 4 bo)
2 (1 fu; 1 si)
27 (9 guan; 16 bo; 2 small
clay human faces)
11 (2 fu; 2 si; 1 scraper; 2
pestles; 3 microliths; 1
other)
Hearth 0.70 · 0.70, 0.16
deep
1 animal bone (1 deer)
2 bone tools
Trapezoid shape.
Divided into two
halves—high and low.
Areas of ashes (S1–S4).
This house is very deep
(1.3 m as compared to
most houses that are 20–
30 cm). Artifacts were
placed in the niche but it
is unclear which
Eastern half of the
building is destroyed
Perhaps partly destroyed
(but not much)
Southern half destroyed
Area of ashes (S1). 1
ceramic bo was in the
hearth
Small southwest corner
damaged
Unique 2 small clay
human faces
(continued on next page)
G. Shelach / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 318–345
6.15 · 4.5
327
328
Table 4 (continued)
Size (in m)
Features
Ceramics
Stone tools
Other findings
Remarks
F104
3.95 · 7.4
Hearth 0.70 · 0.70, 0.16
deep
20 (15 guan; 5 bo).
20 (3 fu; 7 si; 2 scrapers;
5 pestles; 1 mortar; 2
other)
1 antler.
F105
0.34 deep
4.3 · 3.6
Hearth 0.66 · 0.58, 0.10
deep.
26 (12 guan; 14 bo)
4 (1 fu; 3 si).
Divided into two parts,
high and low. Most
artifacts and evidence of
activity seems to be in
the upper part
Ashes scattered widely
Small part of the
southwest section is
destroyed
19 (14 guan; 4 bo; 1 small
music instrument)
19 (1 fu; 2 si; 1 blade; 2
scrapers; 1 arrowhead; 8
pestles; 2 mortar; 2
microliths).
1 shell
2 (1 fu; 1 other).
1 shell ornament 13
shells 3 animal bones (3
deer)
Divided into two parts,
high and low.
Northwestern side of the
house destroyed
Most artifacts and
evidence for activity
seems to be in the upper
part
Areas of ashes (S1–2)
Storage or refuse pit?
northeast of F9 but not
very close to any
structure
0.29 deep
F106
8.05 · 3.6
Depression (or storage
pit) 0.14 deep near the
northeastern wall (K 1).
Some artifacts in it.
Hearth: 0.62 · 0.58, 0.16
deep
0.36 deep
H4
Elliptic 1.2 · 0.9,
5 (2 guan; 3 bo).
H101
0.16 deep
Elliptic 2.3 · 1.8,
0.3 deep
2 (2 guan).
Storage or refuse pit?
Near structure F103
G. Shelach / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 318–345
Structure
G. Shelach / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 318–345
329
Fig. 4. Drawing of House F6 of Zhaobaogou (after Zhongguo 1997, p. 29, Fig. 21). 1. Hearth; 2. Concentration of artifacts at the niche; d,
posthole; k, shallow pit; and s, concentration of ashes.
Fig. 5. Drawing of House F7 of Zhaobaogou (after Zhongguo 1997, p. 36, Fig. 27). 1. Hearth; H3, storage pit. Concentrations of stone
artifacts and ceramics are marked inside the house.
While it is possible that some of the artifacts found
inside the structures were left there during the abandonment process, it is impossible to distinguish in
the report between such artifacts and artifacts that
were incorporated into the accumulation during the
life-span of the structure. While at least one author
330
G. Shelach / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 318–345
suggested that at some of the houses artifacts were
rearranged during ‘‘abandonment rituals’’ (Li, 2003,
pp. 97–98), I see no clear evidence for such activity
or for the trashing of refuse inside the structures after
they were abandoned. Consequently, in the following
analysis I have treated all artifacts found in a single
structure as part of one entity associated with activity
that took place in the structure during the time it was
occupied.
The structures excavated at the site do not intrude
on each other. It therefore seems reasonable to
assume that they are all contemporaneous. This does
not preclude the possibility that some were constructed slightly earlier while others were added as
the local community developed. However, because
the excavation report does not indicates any evidence for the secondary use of structures or the
trashing of garbage into what may have been abandoned structures, I assume that the layout of the site
represent its final form before it was deserted.
Such considerations do not apply directly to the
two separate areas of the site. Indeed, based on stylistic analyses, the excavators argue that the structures in Area II (at the southern part of the site)
are earlier than those in Area I (Zhongguo, 1997b,
p. 206). While I am not convinced by the details
of this analysis, this reconstruction remains a viable
option. In what follows, I treat all the structures at
the site as being contemporaneous with each other
but consider the possibility of a different scenario
in which we are dealing with two separate phases
of occupation, one slightly earlier in area II and
one later in area I.
The Zhaobaogou report does not mention any
findings in the areas between the structures and it
is not even clear if and how extensively those areas
were excavated. We therefore have no information
on activity that may have taken place in the open
areas of the site.
On the top of the hill, east of Area II, a stone wall
18.5 m long and 1.3 m high was located. The wall
was excavated and only three potshards were found
associated with it, all of them from the Zhaobaogou
period. The wall is free-standing and not part of a
building. Though its function (and perhaps even
its date) is unclear, because of its unique features
the excavators identified it as part of a ritualistic
structure that was constructed and used by the
Zhaobaogou community (Zhongguo, 1997b, p.
127).
The investment in permanent structures, such as
houses and storage facilities, and the presence of
large stone tools and ceramic vessels suggest that
Zhaobaogou was a sedentary community. However,
as pointed out by Bar-Yosef (2001, pp. 5–6), analysis of animal bones, and especially the high incidence of commensal bones, is better evidence for
year-round occupation than remains of human
activities. Such direct evidence for sedentary occupation was indeed found at the Zhaobaogou site.
Analysis of deer antlers found at the site demonstrates that the deer were killed in different seasons,
supporting the hypothesis of year-round habitation
of the site (Zhongguo, 1997b, p. 200).
Village organization and house structure
Ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological studies
warn us against intuitive assumptions that houselike structures are invariably used for habitation
and suggest that such structures can be used for
non-domestic purposes, such as preparing food,
storage, communal gatherings, etc. (Byrd, 2000;
David, 1971; Oswald, 1987; Shelach and Peterson,
n.d.). Following these precepts I have tried, in the
discussion below, to adopt a clear terminology to
distinguish between structure (any architectonic feature), house (a structure clearly used for dwelling)
and household (the group of people who co-resided
and shared economic tasks and decision making)
(Blanton, 1994, p. 5; Netting et al., 1984). Clearly,
such definitions also represent the hierarchy of our
interpretations, from the most basic inference that
connects material patterns observed in the excavation to intentional human activity, to a high order,
and three times removed from the material patterning, interpretations of social relations.
As I climb this ‘‘ladder of interpretations’’ I will
try to make my assumptions and reasoning explicit.
I argue below that at Zhaobaogou we have good
reasons to suggest that most of the structures excavated thus far were indeed ‘‘houses’’ in the sense
that people used them to prepare and consume food
and to sleep in as well as, perhaps, for other purposes such as craft production and storage.7 This conclusion is supported not only by the size of the
structures, which is large enough to house one or
more persons, but also by material remains which
we can associate with domestic activity. For exam7
Excluded from this generalization, and from my analysis, are
the few structures which the excavators clearly identified as
storage or refuse pits. These are labeled in the report as: F4; H2;
H4; and H101.
G. Shelach / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 318–345
Population estimates
Population estimates are essential for any analysis of prehistoric societies. On the individual household level, such estimates are used, inter alia, to
address the structure of the family and strategies
of accumulating power, prestige, and wealth. On
the community level, they are a vital component in
addressing issues like adaptation to the local environment and procurement of resources, division of
labor and specialization, and levels of social complexity (Kuijt, 2000; Shelach and Peterson, n.d.).
Population estimates are also crucial, of course,
for regional studies (see discussion in Drennan
et al., 2003b).
At sites like Zhaobaogou, it is tempting to use the
number of contemporaneous houses and their sizes
as the basis for population estimates. However, even
if we can establish that all or most structures were
indeed domestic units, (see above) it is not self-evident that differences in floor area among them represent differences in the number of inhabitants.
Although such correlation is supported by many
ethnological studies among non-urban populations
(e.g., Brown, 1987; Casselberry, 1974; Cook and
Heizer, 1968; Kolb, 1985; Kramer, 1979, 1982, pp.
116–126; Le Blanc, 1971; Naroll, 1962; Read,
1978; Watson, 1978; Wiessner, 1974; Yellen, 1977),
variability in house size may also reflect differences
in wealth or prestige among families of more or less
the same size.
Artifacts found inside the houses can help us to
address this issue. Assuming that more people will
use more artifacts, we can hypothesize that there
will be a close correlation between house size and
the number of artifacts found in it in cases where
size is a clear reflection of the number of inhabitants. Using the sample of 14 undisturbed houses
from Zhaobaogou, I conducted a linear regression
analysis of those variables and found a positive
and statistically significant correlation between the
two—house size and the number of artifacts found
in it (r = 0.800, F = 21.401, p = 0.001) (Fig. 6). A
similar correlation is found between the size of the
house and the number of animal bones found in it
(r = 0.813, F = 23.48, p < 0.001). Though animal
bones were not found at some of the houses in Area
II of the site, (suggesting perhaps a different pattern
of garbage disposal or abandonment for this area),
the positive correlation of house size and the number of animal bones do suggest that the amount of
meat consumed in each house was in direct proportion to its size, and presumably to the number of
people residing in it.
Correlation between the size of the house and the
numbers of artifacts or animal bones found in it
suggest that this size is determined by the number
of people residing at the house. However, one may
argue that this correlation may be biased because
rich households use more artifacts and enjoy a better diet and therefore we can expect rich and poor
households with an equal number of members to
produce a different amount of refuse. Perhaps the
200
Number of Artifacts
ple, in the center of each structure the excavators
found a shallow rectangular pit which they identify
as a hearth. Burnt ash found inside all of those pits
and animal bones found in some of them confirm
this classification and suggest that they were used
to cook food and warm the houses. Domestic artifacts, and especially ceramic vessels used for cooking and serving food which were recovered from
all the houses, further support this conclusion.
Other functions evident in many of the houses (see
below) such as storage, processing of animal and
plant food, and craft production, suggest that we
can see each structure as a place in which many of
the household activities (though not all, of course)
were aggregated. Such a co-variance of activity
areas is typical to households (Netting et al.,
1984). Though, of course, a household can reside
at more than one house, my working hypothesis is
that each structure in the site represents one
household.
331
150
100
50
0
10
20
30
40 50 60
House Size
70
80
90
Fig. 6. Linear regression of house size against the number of
artifacts found in it.
332
G. Shelach / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 318–345
most direct way to decide whether the size of the
house is a reflection of the number of people living
in it or an expression of wealth and prestige is by
correlating the size of the structure to the number
of eating utensils found in it. The assumption is that
while accumulation of certain types of objects and
tools may also be associated with the accumulation
of wealth, it is unlikely that simple eating and cooking utensils would serve this purpose. It is more
likely that the number of such artifacts would be
in direct correlation to the number of people using
the structure to prepare and take their meals and
to the length of time the house was used. Given a
uniform rate of disposal for such artifacts for all
the households in the Zhaobaogou site, and assuming that they were all built and abandoned more or
less at the same time, the only independent variable
is the number of dwellers.
In the Zhaobaogou site, the type of ceramic bowl
called bo (Fig. 7) is the only one that seems to have
served as an eating bowl. The other common type,
guan, may have served to store food or for cooking,
and more elaborate types, such as zun, may be prestige items. Bo vessels were found in all 14 houses,
which further supports my conclusion that they
were all domestic structures. Linear regression of
the size of each structure against the number of bo
vessels found in it, while not as strong as the linear
regression of all the artifacts, supports a clear and
statistically significant correlation between the two
variables (r = 0.762, F = 16.612, p = 0.002). I maintain, therefore, that for the Zhaobaogou site it is
justified to make population estimates that are
based on house floor area.
The floor area of the 14 complete or almost complete structures excavated at the Zhaobaogou site
ranges from 13.8 to 89.5 m2. The average size is
31.78 m2 (SD 22.8). This is more or less comparable
to house sizes at the earlier Xinglongwa site of
Nantaizi where the 32 complete houses found at
the excavation range between 18.9 and 81.6 m2
and average 32.9 m2 (Neimenggu, 1997). However,
the size of houses from the early sedentary sites in
northeast China is almost double the mean house
Fig. 7. Drawing of Bo ceramic vessels excavated from house F9 at Zhaobaogou (after Zhongguo 1997, p. 59, Fig. 46).
G. Shelach / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 318–345
floor areas at the Jiangzhai site—a typical early
Yangshao culture site from the Wei River basin
(Shelach and Peterson, n.d.). At Jiangzhai, the
house floor area ranges from 1.8 to 125.6 m2 with
a mean house floor area of 18 m2. Houses at Zhaobaogou—and in extension at early sedentary communities in northeast China in general—stand out
as being large not only in comparison to early
Yangshao sites but also in a worldwide comparison.
For example, in comparison to houses at sites of
early sedentary societies in the Levant (Byrd, 2000,
pp. 71–80), houses at Zhaobaogou are two to four
times as large.
Since the incipient attempts in the early 1960s
much archaeological and ethnoarchaeological data
has accumulated on the ratio of house floor area
to the number of people living in it (e.g., Brown,
1987; Casselberry, 1974; Cook and Heizer, 1968;
Kolb, 1985; Kramer, 1979, 1982, pp. 116–126; Le
Blanc, 1971; Naroll, 1962; Read, 1978; Watson,
1978; Wiessner, 1974; Yellen, 1977). While the actual ratio of floor area each inhabitant occupied is still
debated, most studies suggest a strong correlation
between the two variables. Naroll’s (1962) pioneering cross-cultural comparison of 18 different societies can be seen as a starting point for such a
discussion, and his estimate of 10 m2 per individual
is still accepted by many (Kramer, 1979, p. 155,
1980:321). In a study of cross-cultural data from
Samoa, Iran, and Peru, Le Blanc (1971) presents a
range of ratios from 7.3 to 11 m2 of floor area per
person, similar to Naroll’s original conclusion. But
other studies since Naroll have suggested different
ratios. Kolb (1985, p. 590), for example, has
observed a mean density of 6.1 m2 per person for
contemporary Mesoamerican villages, and Brown
(1987), in a restudy of HRAF-collected residential
density data for 38 societies (including hunter-gatherers, horticulturists, agriculturists, and pastoralists), observed this same mean of 6.1 m2/person
(SD = 4.1 m2, range = 0.3–18.5 m2). He also re-coded data for 11 of Naroll’s (1962) 18 cases, corrections which decrease the mean dwelling floor area
(for all 18 societies) from 10 m2/person to 6 m2/person (SD = 5.6 m2, range = 0.8–22.5 m2; Brown,
1987, pp. 32–33, Table 6). Similar ratios are also
found by Casselberry’s (1974) study of New World
societies.
More recently, Byrd (2000, p. 83) has suggested
that the residential densities of early Neolithic villages may be more akin to those of hunter-gatherer
groups than to those of agricultural communities.
333
Research of residential densities among huntergatherer societies in North America and Alaska suggest a range from 0.8 to 7.7 m2 (Cook and Heizer,
1968, pp. 90–91; Hayden et al., 1996). A range of
3 or 4 m2 of house floor per person seem reasonable
for such societies. Indirectly this is also confirmed
by studies among African hunter-gatherers, which
observe 5.9 to 10.5 m2 of campsite per person
(Wiessner, 1974; Yellen, 1977).
In the absence of any objective way to decide
which of the ratios suggested best fit the situation
at Zhaobaogou, I experimented with three different
ratios: Naroll’s ratio of 10 m2/person; a ratio of
6 m2/person suggested by Brown (1987) and Casselberry (1974); and a ratio of 4 m2/person suggested
by studies of hunter-gatherer societies (Table 5).
The three ratios were used to project the population
of the 14 excavated and undisturbed houses from
Zhaobaogou. Contrary to the conclusion reached
by Christian Peterson and myself (Shelach and Peterson, n.d.) in our study of the Jiangzhai site, and to
Byrd’s conclusion about early sedentary communities in the Near East, the 4 m2/person ratio seems
to produce an unreasonably high number of residents for each house. If each structure is considered
to represent a family or a household, the size of 22
and 18 persons estimated respectively for the two
largest structures, seems unreasonably high. Since
ethnographic studies in different types of communities always note the existence of structures which
house one or two persons, representing, for example, low points in the household’s life cycle (cf.
Table 5
Population estimates of excavated houses in Zhaobaogou using
three different ratios of residential density
House
Area
(in m2)
10 m2/person
6 m2/person
4 m2/person
F2
F3
F5
F6
F7
F8
F9
F13
F14
F101
F103
F104
F105
F106
49.5
22.1
23
71.6
22.7
17.2
89.5
21.6
19.2
13.8
21
29.2
15.5
29
5
2
2
7
2
2
9
2
2
1
2
3
2
3
8
4
4
12
4
3
15
4
3
2
4
5
3
5
12
6
6
18
6
4
22
5
5
3
5
7
4
7
Average
31.8
3.1
5.4
7.9
334
G. Shelach / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 318–345
David, 1971; Netting et al., 1984; Oswald, 1987),
even the average of eight persons per house seem
very high. An average of 5.4 (median 4) suggested
by the 6 m2/person is still high but more reasonable
while an average of 3.1 persons (median 2) is relatively low. Such average numbers of people per
household seems to suggest that structures housed
units more or less akin to nuclear families. The large
variability among the sample of households (from 1
to 9 persons according to the low estimate or 2–15
according to the higher ratio) may be associated
with the household’s life-cycle and with natural variability among the household but, at least in the case
of the larger households, it can also represent efforts
to recruit additional household members.
Taking these two ratios as high and low assessments, it is possible to project them onto the entire
sample of structures located on the surface of the
site and to estimate the range of inhabitants of the
Zhaobaogou village. All together, 89 structures
were identified by archaeologists at the site (Zhongguo, 1997b, p. 4). No structure seems to intrude
onto another suggesting that they all may be contemporaneous. However, among the 20 structures
excavated, three are storage or refuse pits and not
houses. Applying this ratio of 17 houses to every
20 structures visible on the surface (85%), we arrive
at 76 houses. The range of inhabitants of the site is
therefore estimated to be between 236 and 388 people (or 217–378 if we exclude the six houses in Area
II which the excavators suggest are earlier). This is
in the range of contemporaneous villages from the
Wei River valley, such as Jiangzhai and Banpo
(Chang, 1986, pp. 108–122; Lee, 1993; Shelach
and Peterson, n.d.). While the area of the Zhaobaogou site and its estimated population is larger than
that of late Natufian and Early Neolithic sites in
the Levant, it is more or less comparable to Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) villages (Bar-Yosef, 2001,
p. 24; Kuijt, 2000, pp. 80–81).
This population estimate suggests that the Zhaobaogou was a relatively large community, far
exceeding the range which Flannery (1972, p. 47),
in his seminal paper, defined as belonging to the
‘‘compound’’ type. Based on ethnographic data,
he suggests that communities belonging to this type
usually housed some 20 people and only rarely more
than 80.
The Zhaobaogou village was not very densely
occupied in comparison to contemporaneous villages in the Wei river valley (see Table 10). The excavators of the Zhaobaogou site estimated that the
village covered an area of nine hectares. However,
based on their map, which I digitized, I calculated
that the residential area is between five and six hectares (depending on whether Area II is included or
not). Using even this conservative estimate suggests
a population density of 39–64 persons/ha., which is
much lower than the estimated 285 persons/ha. for
the Jiangzhai village (Shelach and Peterson, n.d.)
but more or less similar to the suggested population
densities in the Neolithic villages of the Levant (BarYosef, 2001, p. 24).8
Site structure and community organization
As mentioned above, the houses at the Zhaobaogou village were organized in rows. Such an organization seems to emphasize the individual space of
each house. Though the location of the entrance
to the houses is not clear,9 their arrangement suggests that houses did not face each other. An alternative arrangement would be one in which houses
surround a central plaza, where each of them faces
the public space but also faces the other houses
and therefore afford the households less privacy
(Byrd, 1994; Flannery, 1972; see also the comparison below with sites of the Wei River valley).
In his analysis of the Zhaobaogou settlement,
(Li, 2003, p. 104) argues that house F9, the largest
excavated so far in the site, served as a kind of focal
point for the arrangement of the settlement. Though
arrangement in rows is not conducive to the central
placement of such a structure, Li seems to imply
that this house, because it was larger and contained
more artifacts than any of the other structures, was
the location of the site leaders or most prestigious
family (see also Wang, 2005). While similar arguments have been made for larger houses discovered
in early Neolithic sites at the Wei and Yellow River
basins, my analysis suggests that the size of the larger houses at Zhaobaogou and the amount of artifacts found in them are related to the number of
people living in the house and not necessarily to
social factors such as prestige or to the accumulation of wealth.
8
Kuijt (2000, p. 81) uses two ranges of population estimates,
one around 90 people/ha., the other 294 people/ha. Both
estimates, however, are based on ethnographic data from modern
villages.
9
The protrusions from a few of the houses which are indicated
on the site map (Fig. 3) are not entrances but rather niches dug
into the walls of the house (see Fig. 4).
G. Shelach / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 318–345
While I tend to see each house as the locus of a
more or less autonomous household unit, it is
worthwhile considering the hypothesis for the existence, at Zhaobaogou, of extra-household units
(Wang, 2005; Zhu, 1997). In one of the only
attempts to analyze the pattern of house distribution at the Zhaobaogou site, Zhu (1997) suggested
that the houses were clustered in groups. He divided
the central row of houses that was excavated at the
site into four such groups: 1, F1 and F2; 2, F3, F5,
and F6; 3, F7, F13, and F14; 4, F8. Zhu argues that
each of those groups, except for the last one which
may be incomplete, contains one large house which
may be seen as the residence of the leader of this
small group. Perhaps each group might be seen as
an extended family that cooperates more within its
boundaries than with other extended families.
It is difficult to evaluate this model based on
house location alone. For one thing, the partial
excavation of the site forestalls a rigorous spatial
analysis and comparison among a large sample of
house groupings. The impression given by the map
provided in the excavation report is that many of
the unexcavated houses are not clustered in groups
(Fig. 3). In fact, among the excavated houses F8
stands alone, as does F10, which was not included
in my analysis because it is partly disturbed. The
distance between houses F1 and F2 (15 m), which
Zhu groups together, is almost as long as the distance between F2 and the houses in group 2
(24 m) or between groups 2 and 3 (16 m).10
Among the three houses designated by Zhu
(1997) as the location of the leading family or persons in their respective groups, houses F2 and F6
are not only relatively large (41.5 and 71.6 m2,
respectively), they also contain architectonic features, such as internal division of the house into
two halves and post holes, not found in regular
houses. Indeed, Li (2003) argued that the post holes
represent a superstructure of the houses that distinguishes them from other structures in the site. However, house F7 designated by Zhu (1997) and Li
(2003) as serving the same function is relatively
small (22.7 m2) and displays none of those unique
features. It seems, therefore, that among the four
groups, half do not have the formal group
attributes.
10
Distances were calculated from an AutoCAD map I produced
from the map provided in the site report. Because the original
map was not very detailed, there may be slight inaccuracies in my
calculations.
335
A better way to evaluate Zhu’s proposal and to
deepen our understanding of inter-household interactions is through the analysis of economic activities
carried out inside the houses. If the clusters suggested by Zhu reflect meaningful social units, we should
expect to find evidence for cooperation among
them, such as the conducting of complementary
activities in each of the structures, apart from that
which is inferred for the entire village. We turn to
such analysis in the next section of this paper.
Resource management, economic specialization, and
social stratification
How people managed the resources available to
them—how they were procured, processed, distributed among members of the household and the wider community, consumed or manipulated to acquire
status or wealth—is one of the fundamental issues
that every study of an early sedentary community
must address. As discussed above, the size of the
houses at Zhaobaogou and the type of artifacts,
facilities and refuse found in them suggest that each
was the focal area in which many household activities were concentrated and where members of the
household resided. Correlating each structure and
the materials found in it with one household provides the basis for our analysis of resource management and economic organization at the
Zhaobaogou community.
As pointed out by Flannery (1972, 2002) and
Plog (1990), the way storage facilities are distributed
within the site and among the domestic structures is
a good indication of economic strategies and type of
access people had to economic resources. At Zhaobaogou most houses have internal storage facilities.
Dug-in storage pits were found inside houses F2,
F5, F6, F7, and F9. No such storage facilities are
found in houses in Area II but large guan vessels
were found at all the complete houses in this area
(F101, F103, F104, F105, and F106). These vessels,
which are some 40 cm high and 30 cm wide holding
up to 25 or 30 L of grain each, were found only in
houses in Area II and were not found in those with
built-in storage facilities. In addition to these ten
houses, house F3, which did not have an internal
storage facility, is the closest to F4, which seems
to be an external storage pit. Therefore, of the 14
houses in our sample, only three (F8, F13, and
F14) do not have any visible storage facilities. It is
unclear if features H4 and H101, which are very
shallow pits ranging in depth from 16 to 35 cm, were
336
G. Shelach / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 318–345
used as storage pits, refuse pits or installations for
other purposes. However, even if we take them to
be some kind of external storage facilities, it is clear
that most storage facilities at Zhaobaogou are distributed within the houses or in close association
with an individual structure.
This situation in which most households at Zhaobaogou had their own storage facilities, seem to be
akin to what Plog (1990, p. 190) calls ‘‘restricted
sharing,’’ where food resources are shared among
members of the household but much less between
different households. Such an arrangement is typical
of societies in which ‘‘[r]isk is assumed at the level of
the family’’ (Flannery, 2002, p. 421), though the
possibility for some risk-sharing at the community
level, in the direct form of shared storage or indirect
social mechanisms such as gift exchange, should not
be overruled.
If, as argued above, we can see each of the 14
houses in our sample as a more or less independent
case that represents the activities of one household,
then we should attempt to explain the diversity of
this sample. Clearly the houses in our sample are
very different from each other in terms of their size
and the quantity and quality of the artifacts found
in them (Table 4). One explanation for this diversity, as discussed above, is the different number of
people who used and dwelled in each house. But is
this the only factor accounting for diversity? Using
factor analysis to search for correlations in the multi-variable database seems to support this hypothesis (Table 6). All the formal variables of house
structure and content are extraordinarily well correlated in Factor 1, which explains 82% of the variTable 6
Factor analysis of house features and artifactsa
Factor 1 (82%)
Animal bones
Shells
Bone tools
Ceramic vessels
House size
Stone tools
Hearth size
0.989
0.990
0.968
0.955
0.852
0.792
0.682
Factor 2 (11%)
0.011
0.056
0.138
0.167
0.155
0.456
0.695
Bold numbers indicate exceptionally high positive or negative
correlations.
a
The factor analysis was preformed using principal components (PCA) method and a correlation matrix of extraction. The
real values for each category were standardized (using SD
method) and the analysis was preformed without rotation. Since
only one factor, no. 1, had Eigenvalues higher than one the cutoff criteria was lowered to include the second factor as well which
had an Eigenvalue of 0.77.
ability of our sample. In other words, large houses
are likely to have many animal bones, bone tools,
ceramic artifacts, etc., while houses with few ceramic vessels are also likely to be small and with few
stone artifacts, etc. Hearth size is the one factor
which is less well coordinated with the rest and
which, in Factor 2 (which explains 11% of the variability), seems to stand on its own. It is unclear,
however, what the meaning of differences in hearth
size is and if the size of the hearth would change
much in accordance to house or population size.
Tool-kits and craft specialization
While looking at the formal attributes gives the
impression that the only variable affecting the diversity was the size of the family, examining each of
these categories in more detail could result in a more
complex picture. One way of approaching such an
analysis is by dividing the artifacts found according
the their function, and constructing activity toolkits in order to examine the kinds of activities that
took place in each of the houses (Shelach and Peterson, n.d.). Admittedly, such an analysis is speculative, especially since I did not examine the artifacts
themselves and in most places relied on the classification made by the excavators in their site report,
and in some cases on my common-sense assessment.
Although specific aspects of my classification might
be challenged, I argue that the overall patterns it
suggests are meaningful.
My classification includes eleven activity toolkits: 1, heavy activity tools (for clearing and toiling
fields(?), such as the stone axe, fu, and hoe, si); 2,
light activity tools (for wood, bone or leather processing, e.g., scrapers); 3, cutting and butchering
(stone blades and microliths); 4, plant processing
(mortars, pestles, and rollers); 5, stone tool production (stone core; whetstones); 6, hunting/warfare
(stones points; bone and antler points; and stone
balls); 7, cooking/serving (ceramic cooking pots,
bowls); 8, storage (installations and large ceramic
guan); 9, spinning (ceramic spindle whorls); 10, art
and rituals (figurines; animal decorations, ceramic
musical instruments); and 11, Ornaments (perforated shells and bones). Tabulating the number of
activities associated with each structure suggests
that more activities are present at the larger houses
(Table 7). This makes statistical sense, since larger
artifact samples may be expected to contain more
types of artifacts than smaller ones. However, it
may also suggest that more activities, especially
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
Plant
processing
Cutting and
butchering
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
In the individual activity columns, 1, present; 0, absent.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
9
4
4
6
8
3
9
3
5
5
7
5
3
8
49.5
22.1
23
71.6
22.7
17.2
89.5
21.6
19.2
13.8
21
29.23
15.5
29
F2
F3
F5
F6
F7
F8
F9
F13
F14
F101
F103
F104
F105
F106
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
Heavy
activity
tools
Number
of activities
Light
activity
tools
the less common ones, were conducted by the larger
households. Perhaps such larger households could
coordinate better the household tasks so as to free
some members to perform activities which smaller
households did not have the manpower to perform.
A linear regression of house size and the number of
different activity kits found in the houses shows a
positive correlation between the two variables, but
the statistic significance of this correlation is not
very strong (R = 0.593; F = 6.493, p = 0.026).
An association can also be made between the
number of activities and the internal division of
the house. Assuming that such internal division,
even if symbolic, represents a more rigid arrangement of space and a more complex assignment of
place to activities, we would expect such structures
to allow for a larger variety of activities to take
place in them. This is indeed the general case, perhaps because houses with an internal division are
usually also the larger houses in the sample, but
there are clear exceptions, such as house 104, which
is internally divided but has only five types of activities, and houses F7 and F103 which are not divided
but have eight and seven types of activities respectively. Activities appear not to have been clustered
at one part of the site, as shown in Fig. 8.
All in all, it seems that although there is some
relation between the size and structure of the house
3
Size
Internal division
of the house
337
9
House
Table 7
The distribution of activity tool-kits at the excavated houses in Zhaobaogou
Stone tool
production
Hunting/
warfare
Cooking/
serving
Spinning
Storage
Art and
rituals
Ornaments
G. Shelach / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 318–345
5 3 8
4
6 4
9
House with
internal division
6
Number of
activities
3
5
50m
5
8
7
Fig. 8. Schematic map of the excavated houses at Zhaobaogou
and the number of activities associated with them.
338
G. Shelach / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 318–345
and the number of activities carried out in it, there
are also other factors that contribute to the variability. For one thing, no one house, even not the largest (F9), contains evidence for all of the 11 activities
defined. There seems, therefore, to be some sort of
household specialization and exchange among the
households.
This impression is supported by factor analysis
that correlates the different activities (Table 8). It
is clear that all houses had ceramic vessels for preparing and serving food. This supports our assumption that all structures were dwelling units where, at
the minimum level, households gathered to eat and
sleep. All structures also had heavy stone tools, presumably used for clearing and preparing the land.
This suggests that the household was also the basic
unit of production. Factor analysis of all other
activity kits suggests the clustering of activities
around certain households. Factor 1, which explains
21% of the variability, strongly correlates hunting
activity with cutting tools kit that may have been
used for butchering or processing of the meat. It is
also associated with what I call light activity tools,
such as stone scrapers, which may have been used
for the processing of hides. The association, in factor 2 (which explains 18.5% of the variability), of
spinning tools and ornaments is perhaps less meaningful, because spinning tools were found at only
one house and ornaments at two. However, both
houses (F2 and F9) are among the largest of the
houses, suggesting that such activity was done by
the largest households and the products perhaps
exchanged with the other families. An interesting
association of plant processing tools and storage
facilities (component 3; explaining 16% of the variability) suggests that while most households had
their own capacity for processing and storing plant
foods, some (such as those dwelling in F13 and F14)
were dependent on others for some of their basic
food. Stone tool production stands as a relatively
isolated activity (component 4; explaining 15% of
the variability) which may suggest specialization in
small stone tool production. It is interesting to note
that while some evidence for such activity was found
at the largest houses (F2, F6, and F9), other houses
in which it was carried out were among the smallest
of our sample (F14 and F101). Artifacts associated
with art or ritual activity, which is somewhat correlated to the light activity stone tool kit (component
5; explaining 16.5% of the variability) is another
activity which seems to be concentrated not in the
largest houses but rather in small and medium size
houses. Using the relative proportion of artifacts
from each category (row percentages), rather than
the present/absent index, produce similar—though
not identical—correlations among the different
activities (Table 9).
While some type of specialization is suggested by
the above analysis, for a true type of specialization,
which is based on the production of certain artifacts
or food by a few families and the exchange of those
special products among the families, we would
expect to find not only positive correlations among
different activities but also negative correlations. In
other words, we would expect to find some households specializing in certain types of activities while
avoiding those activities that their neighbors do.
While a few such correlations are found in Table
9—but not in Table 8 which is based on the presence
or absence of activities within the households—the
situation in Zhaobaogou may be better described
not as specialization but as an aggregation of activ-
Table 8
Factor analysis of activity-kits from excavated houses at Zhaobaogou (based on present/absent data)a
Hunting
Cutting and Butchering
Spinning
Ornaments
Plant processing
Storage
Stone tool production
Art and Rituals
Light activity tools
1 (21%)
2 (18.5%)
3 (16%)
4 (15%)
5 (16.5%)
0.819
0.813
0.216
0.453
0.252
0.186
0.175
0.074
0.430
0.324
0.064
0.901
0.643
0.007
0.213
0.195
0.098
0.488
0.006
0.126
0.079
0.221
0.889
0.770
0.052
0.016
0.083
0.009
0.329
0.120
0.360
0.164
0.197
0.921
0.098
0.432
0.037
0.257
0.056
0.171
0.173
0.397
0.057
0.953
0.545
Bold numbers indicate exceptionally high positive or negative correlations.
a
Heavy activity stone tools (for clearing and tilling fields [?]) and cooking and serving vessels were found in all the houses. The factor
analysis was preformed using principal components (PCA) method and a correlation matrix of extraction. The cut-off criterion was an
Eigenvalue of 0.7 and the Varimax rotation solution was applied.
G. Shelach / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 318–345
339
Table 9
Factor analysis of activity-kits from excavated houses at Zhaobaogou (based on percentages of tools in each house)a
Hunting
Cutting and Butchering
Spinning
Ornaments
Plant processing
Stone tool production
Art and Rituals
Light activity tools
Cooking and serving
Heavy Activity
1 (26%)
2 (21%)
3 (17%)
4 (12.5%)
0.035
0.633
0.882
0.969
0.128
0.017
0.097
0.138
0.031
0.447
0.070
0.205
0.161
0.074
0.190
0.012
0.877
0.858
0.005
0.556
0.010
0.388
0.126
0.026
0.550
0.132
0.125
0.312
0.987
0.421
0.182
0.271
0.063
0.057
0.614
0.808
0.251
0.152
0.075
0.061
5 (9%)
0.918
0.463
0.130
0.163
0.004
0.156
0.133
0.048
0.029
0.414
Bold numbers indicate exceptionally high positive or negative correlations.
a
Storage facilities were excluded because calculating their percentage, relatively to artifact types, is meaningless. The factor analysis was
preformed using principal components (PCA) method and a correlation matrix of extraction. The cut-off criterion was an Eigenvalue of
0.7 and the Varimax rotation solution was applied.
ities in certain households. Such an aggregation may
be associated with the size of the household and
with strategies of risk management.
Although we did not find in Zhaobaogou clear
differences in wealth or prestige among the different
households, the marked differences in the size of the
families, as reflected by differences in house size,
may by itself reflect incipient strategies that lead
to such developments. As argued by Byrd (2000,
p. 86), differences in the size of households could
reflect ‘‘the ability of some families to mobilize more
labor by getting unattached individuals into their
families.’’ Pooling of activities by the larger households may reflect the same process. By incorporating more people into the family and conducting
more diverse activities, the larger households could
perhaps provide more security for their members.
However, in Zhaobaogou at least, we do not have
evidence that this resulted in any direct advantages,
such as better diet for members of the larger households, or in the development of clear stratification
among the households.
Early sedentary societies in northeast China and the
Wei river valley: two models of socio-economic
organization?
The analysis of the Zhaobaogou data suggests
that the structure of early Neolithic sites in northeast China and the social organization of the communities that resided in them were quite different
from that of early sedentary communities in the
other parts of China or in the Near East. Houses
were arranged in rows rather than around a common plaza, the houses were all rectangular in shape
and relatively large, and the storage of food was
done internally rather than externally. Pursuing this
comparison can illuminate important aspects of the
social organization of early sedentary communities
and the variability among such societies. This can
have meaningful results for the study of human society in many parts of the world.
To exemplify this theoretical aspect, I compare
the Zhaobaogou community with that at Jiangzhai,
one of the best known early Neolithic village of the
Yellow and Wei Rivers region and a type-site which
figures prominently in many models describing the
socio-political and economic processes in this region
(cf. Chang, 1986, pp. 116–119; Gong, 2001; Lee,
1993; Underhill and Habu, 2006, pp. 128–129).
Jiangzhai is an Early Yangshao period (Banpo
Phase, ca. 5000–4000 BCE) village located in the
Wei River basin near the modern city of Xian, in
the Shaanxi Province. Excavations that were carried
out from 1972 to 1979 exposed almost the entire site
area, and the final site report for Jiangzhai (Xian,
1988) is one of the most comprehensive records of
Neolithic village occupation anywhere in the world
and allows for a comprehensive analysis (Lee,
1993; Shelach and Peterson, n.d.). While a detailed
discussion of the Jiangzhai site is beyond the scope
of this paper, the main features of it are summarized
in Table 10.
The Zhaobaogou and the Jiangzhai sites represent contemporaneous sedentary communities of
roughly the same size. According to the terms developed in Flannery’s seminal paper on the types of
early sedentary communities in the Near East and
Mesoamerica, they are both ‘‘true villages’’, as
opposed to the smaller and more temporary type
340
G. Shelach / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 318–345
Table 10
Comparison between the Jiangzhai and Zhaobaogou sitesa
Jiangzhai
Site area
Site organization
Zhaobaogou
1.8 ha.
Central plaza; groups of houses clustered around a
large house.
Residential area surround by ditch
Contemporaneous houses 90 ±
House structure
Single room structures.
Circular and rectangular, semi-subterranean and on
surface.
Average house size
18 m2
Storage
Outside and not associated with individual houses
Other features
Dug-in hearths
A few houses have earthen platforms
a
5–6 ha.
Parallel lines of houses with no common plaza or open
space.
No clear site boundaries
70–80
Single room structures.
Rectangular, semi-subterranean.
31.78 m2
Inside most houses
Dug-in hearths
A few houses are divided into higher and lower parts
Data for Jiangzhai comes from the final site report (Xian 1988); the interpretation of this data follows Shelach and Peterson (n.d.).
of ‘‘compound’’ or ‘‘homestead’’ (Flannery, 1972).
However, the significant differences which are found
between the two sites, and more generally between
sites in the Wei and Yellow River basins and sites
in northeast China, suggest that the category of
‘‘village’’ may subsume societies that are quite different from each other.
One of the formal differences in the attributes of
the two sites is the much larger average house size at
Zhaobaogou (Table 10). As pointed out by Byrd
(2000, p. 85), expansion in the average size of
domestic structures can reflect ‘‘a trend toward
greater use of internal space for domestic activities,
storage, and production.’’ Clearly, the fact that storage was done internally in Zhaobaogou and externally in Jiangzhai can explain some of the
differences in house size. This, however, does not
yet explain the reason for such tendencies. Why
do some societies choose to conduct most of the
household activities indoors while in others much
of the same activity was carried out in the open? Climate differences among the regions may be one such
explanation. Perhaps the harsh conditions during
the long winters of northeast China forced people
to use the houses for activities which, in warmer
environments, are done in the open. An example
of such an interpretation is Lee’s (1993, p. 140–
141) suggestion that at Jiangzhai, cooking was done
in external hearths. Although Shelach and Peterson,
n.d. argue against this interpretation, it is possible
that other activities, such as craft production, were
done in the open public space.
While climate seems to be an intuitively plausible
explanation for the differences in house size, this
hypothesis was rejected by Brown (1987, p. 30–31)
who found, in the analysis of a cross-cultural sample
of 38 societies, that global differences in mean house
floor area per person are unrelated to specific temperature or precipitation regimes. I too am inclined
to assume that the concentration of activities inside
the houses rather than in the open is more a function of the socio-economic structure of the society
than of climatic conditions. The fact that storage
in Zhaobaogou was done internally, is associated,
I believe, with the way resources were managed
and shared. If anything, the cold and dry conditions
of northeast China are more suitable for exterior
storage than those of the more humid Wei River
valley or the Levant.
Regardless of the origins of such differences, it is
quite clear that households in Zhaobaogou were
much more independent in comparison with their
Jiangzhai counterparts. The aggregation of activities, including storage, inside the houses at Zhaobaogou suggests a restricted form of sharing—
mainly within the household, as opposed to the
more ‘‘open sharing’’ and communal orientation
of household at Jiangzhai. The same is evident by
examining the overall layout of the sites. As charted
in Table 10, the Jiangzhai pattern, with houses clustered close to one another, surrounded by a moat
and facing a common courtyard, suggests much
greater communal integration than that of the
Zhaobaogou site, where houses are much more
widely dispersed and where site boundaries are not
clearly demarcated. As pointed out by Wiessner
(1982, p. 174): ‘‘Camp plans from various societies
which share widely within the camp,. . . depict an
open site layout which allows members of each
household to see what others around them are doing
at all times of the day.’’ This description is clearly
applicable to the organization of the Jiangzhai
G. Shelach / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 318–345
village. In Zhaobaogou, on the other hand, the
organization of houses in parallel lines obstructs visibility and enhances the individual space of each
structure. Decreased visibility can be seen as a
mechanism for preventing jealousy and inter-household conflicts in a more individualistic society
(Byrd, 1994; Wiessner, 1982). As seen in Table 10,
while the number of houses at Zhaobaogou is more
or less the same as in Jiangzhai, they are dispersed
over an area three time as large. This low density
of occupation, or the spreading out of domestic
structures, can also be seen as a mechanism to
decrease inter-household tensions.
Although, as pointed out above, the analysis of
Zhaobaogou suggests a society in which the individual households were the main social entities and
where community-wide sharing and cooperation
was limited, the co-residency of several hundred
people in a relatively confined space is unimaginable
without some integrative mechanisms (Byrd, 1994;
Flannery, 1972, 2002; Plog, 1990). Such mechanisms
were necessary to reduce tension and resolve conflicts among households and individuals, and to
promote group cohesiveness and enable cooperation
in economic activities such as the clearing of agricultural fields. At Jiangzhai, the central courtyard
where communal activity took place is a clear correlate for such a mechanism (compare to Rautman,
2000) as are the large houses which some argue
served for communal meetings (Gong, 2001; Lee,
1993). The ditch which surrounded the site, an
installation more than 1.5 m deep and more than
2 m wide and some 500 m long,11 is both a visual
marker of community integration and clear outcome of a community-wide cooperative effort. The
construction of such a large-scale work must have
required the cooperation of members from all the
households in the community.
At Zhaobaogou archaeological correlates for
integrative mechanisms are less clear.12 If the
remains found on the hilltop above the site are
indeed of a ritualistic structure, as suggested by
the excavators (Zhongguo, 1997b, p. 127), then inte11
It is unclear whether the ditch surrounded the entire village or
only three sides of it.
12
The boundaries of some Xinglongwa sites, such as Xinglongwa and Baiyinchanghan, are demarcated by a narrow ditch
(Guo, Bao, Suo, 1991; Shelach, 2000, p. 401; Zhongguo, 1985).
While this may be a symbolic manifestation of community
integration, because of their small scale their construction
demanded less of a cooperative effort. No ditches have so far
been found at sites of the Zhaobaogou period.
341
gration may have been achieved through ceremonies
carried out outside the domestic area of the site. It is
worthwhile, perhaps, to note that ritualistic structures were identified by archaeologists in at least
one other early Neolithic site in northeast China
(Wang, 2005).
I suggest that the models of social organization
which were found at the Zhaobaogou and Jiangzhai
sites be seen not as two evolutionary stages but as
two parallel models of village societies. They can also
be seen as the starting point for the parallel but different trajectories of the Neolithic of the Wei–Yellow
Rivers area and of northeast China. These trajectories culminated in the Wei and Yellow Rivers area
with the fortified sites of the Longshan period which
seem to continue the early Neolithic emphasis on
communal integration and public works (Chang,
1986; Underhill, 1997). In the northeast it culminated
with the Hongshan period, famous for its ritualistic
structures and ritually oriented craft, but in which
villages seem to be quite dispersed (Chifeng, 2003;
Guo, 1995; Shelach, 1999).
Conclusions
Transitions to food production and to a sedentary
way of life are among the most significant developments in the history of humankind. Research about
their origins and spread from one area to another is
crucial, and we should attempt to understand more
fully the complexity of the social, economic and political consequences of such processes. The kind of
anthropologically oriented research needed to
address those issues requires that we use ethnographic analogies and make certain assumptions abut
human behavior. While the validity of some of the
analogies and assumptions I have made in this paper
may be challenged, I think that without them we are
unable to advance this research and develop new
models.
The real value of such research is, to my mind,
that it inspires new and more sophisticated research.
The ideas and models presented in this paper should
not be seen—and I certainly do not regard them—as
conclusive. Rather, we should see them as hypotheses to be tested. Future research designed to test
those and other anthropologically derived models
will undoubtedly deepen our knowledge of early
sedentary communities in northeast China. I expect,
for example, that new data on botanical remains
found in site, and analysis of human bone such as
the work already started by Zhang Xuelian and
342
G. Shelach / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 318–345
his colleagues and by Barbara Smith (Smith, 2005;
Zhang et al., 2003), will increase our knowledge of
economic activities and consumption patterns.
Complete publication of excavated data from more
sites in this region and the excavations of new ones,
perhaps done explicitly to test some of the ideas
raised here about issues of residency and sharing
strategies, will enable advanced analyses that will
produce more conclusive results.
Addressing anthropologically derived questions
through field research and the analysis of data pertaining to early sedentary communities is important
not only for a better and more complex understanding of the socio-political and economic trajectories
of northeast China but for comparative purposes
as well. As I tried to demonstrate in the last section
of this paper, such comparisons could highlight
meaningful aspects of the local trajectory which
are not otherwise visible. Moreover, it is only
through such comparative work that we can gain
a better understanding of human behavior and the
choices made by individuals and societies. On the
other hand, such comparisons should be seen for
what they are: generalizations on differences and
similarities among human societies. Such generalizations, including those presented above about early sedentary communities in northeast China and
the Wei River valley, will hopefully catalyze more
research in each of the regions which, in the future,
will enable better comparisons among them and
with other regions in China and world-wide.
Acknowledgments
This paper was written during my stay at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton; I am grateful
to the members and staff of this Institute for their help
and advice. I am also grateful to my colleagues at the
Chifeng International Cooperation Archaeological
Project for allowing me to use the data we have collected together, and to Li Xinwei, Jia Weimin and
Barbara Smith for sending me their dissertations. I
benefited immensely from comments on early versions of this paper from Robert Drennan, Christian
Peterson and the two anonymous reviewers. Needless
to say, I am solely responsible for the opinions presented in the paper.
References
Aohanqi bowuguan, 1991. Aohanqi Nantaidi Zhaobaogou wenhua yizhi diaocha (Survey of the Zhaobaogou culture site of
Nantaidi at Aohan banner). Neimenggu wenwu kaogu 5,
2–10.
Bar-Yosef, O., 2001. From sedentary foragers to village hierarchies: the emergence of social institutions. In: Runciman, G.
(Ed.), The Origins of Human Social Institution. Oxford
University Press, Oxford, pp. 1–38.
Bar-Yosef, O., Belfer-Cohen, A., 1989. The origins of sedentism
and farming communities. Journal of World Prehistory 3,
447–498.
Bar-Yosef, O., Meadow, R.H., 1995. The origins of agriculture I
the Near East. In: Price, T.D., Gebaure, A.B. (Eds.), Last
Hunters—First Farmers. School of American Research,
Santa Fe, pp. 39–94.
Belfer-Cohen, A., Bar-Yosef, O., 2000. Early sedentism in the
Near East: a bumpy ride to village life. In: Kuijt, I. (Ed.), Life
in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization,
Identity, and Differentiation. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, pp. 19–37.
Blanton, R.E., 1994. Houses and Households: A Comparative
Study. Plenum, New York and London.
Brown, B.Mc.C., 1987. Population estimation from floor area: a
restudy of ‘‘Naroll’s constant. Behavior Science Research 22,
1–49.
Byrd, B.F., 1994. Public and private, domestic and corporate: the
emergence of the southwest Asian village. American Antiquity 59.4, 639–666.
Byrd, B.F., 2000. Households in transition: Neolithic social
organization within southwest Asia. In: Kuijt, I. (Ed.), Life in
Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, pp. 63–98.
Casselberry, S.E., 1974. Further refinement of formulae for
determining population from floor area. World Archaeology
6.1, 117–122.
Chang, K.C., 1986. The Archaeology of Ancient China, Fourth
ed. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Chengde Diqu Wenwu Baoguansuo, Luanping Xian Bowuguan,
1994. Hebei Luanping Xian Houtaizi yizhi fajue jianbao
(Preliminary Report of the Excavations at Houtaizi, Luanping, County, Hebei). Wenwu vol. 1994.3, 53–74.
Chifeng International Collaborative Archaeological Project,
2003. Regional Archaeology in Eastern Inner Mongolia: A
Methodological Exploration. Kexue chubanshe, Beijing.
Childs-Johnson, E., 1991. Jades of the Hongshan culture: the
dragon and fertility cult worship. Arts Asiatique 46, 82–95.
Cook, S.F., Heizer, R.F., 1968. Relationship among houses,
settlement area, and population in aboriginal California. In:
Chang, K.C. (Ed.), Settlement Archaeology. National Press,
Palo Alto, pp. 79–116.
Crawford, G.W., Chen Shen, 1998. The origins of rice agriculture: recent progress in East Asia. Antiquity 72.278, 858–866.
David, N., 1971. The Fulani compound and the archaeologist.
World Archaeology 3.2, 111–131.
Drennan, R.D., Teng Mingyu, Peterson, C.E., Shelach, G.,
Indrisano, G.G., Zhu Yanping, Linduff, K.M., Guo Zhizhong, Roman-Lacayo, M.A., 2003a. Methods for archaeological settlement study. In: Chifeng International
Collaborative Archaeological Project. Regional Archaeology
in Eastern Inner Mongolia: A Methodological Exploration.
Kexue chubanshe, Beijing, pp. 122–151.
Drennan, R.D., Peterson, C.E., Indrisano, G.G., Teng Mingyu,
Shelach, G., Zhu Yanping, Linduff, K.M., Guo Zhizhong,
G. Shelach / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 318–345
2003b. Approaches to Regional Demographic Reconstruction. In: Chifeng International Collaborative Archaeological
Project. Regional Archaeology in Eastern Inner Mongolia: A
Methodological Exploration. Kexue chubanshe, Beijing, pp.
152–165.
Fiskesjö, M., Chen Xingcan, 2004. China Before China: Johan
Gunnar Andersson, Ding Wenjiang, and the Discovery of
China’s Prehistory. Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities,
Stockholm.
Flannery, K.V., 1972. The origins of the village as a settlement
type in Mesoamerica and the Near East: a comparative study.
In: Ucko, J.P., Tringhm, R., Dimbleby, G.W. (Eds.), Man,
Settlement and Urbanism. Gerald Duckworth, London, pp.
23–53.
Flannery, K.V., 2002. The origins of the village revisited: from
nuclear to extended households. American Antiquity 67.3,
417–433.
Gong Qiming, 2001. Cong kaogu ziliao kan Yangshao wenhua de
shehui zuzhi he shehui fazhan jieduan (From Archaeological
Data Observing the Social Organization and the Development
of Social Stratification During the Yangshao Culture.)
Zhongyuan wenwu 2001.5, 29–37.
Guo Dashun, 1987. Shilun Weiyingzi leixing (Discussing the
Weiyingzi culture), In: Su Bingqi (Ed.), Kaoguxue wenhua
lunji. Wenwu chubanshe, Beijing, pp. 79–98.
Guo Dashun, 1995. Hongshan and Related Cultures. In: Nelson,
S.M. (Ed.), The Archaeology of Northeast China. Routledge,
London and New York, pp. 21–64.
Guo Ruihai, Li Jun, 2002. The Nanzhuangtou and Hutouliang
sites: exploring the beginning of agriculture and pottery in
north China. In: Yasuda, Y. (Ed), The Origins of Pottery and
Agriculture. Lustre Press and Roli Books, New Delhi, pp.
193–204.
Guo Zhizhong, 1997. Neimenggu dongbu diqu xingshiqi—
qingtong shidai de kaogu faxian yu yanjiu (Archaeological
Discoveries and Research of the Neolithic to Bronze Age of
Eastern Inner Mongolia). In: Wei Jian, (Ed.), Neimenggu
wenwu kaogu wenji. Zhongguo dabaike, Beijing, pp. 13–23.
Guo, Z., Bao Q., Suo X., 1991. Linxixian Baiyinchanghan
yizhi fajue shuyan (Review of the Excavations in Baiyinchanghan site, Linxi County). In: Neimenggu dongbu qu
kaoguxue wenhua yanjiu wenji, Haiyang chubanshe, Beijing, pp. 15–23.
Hamada, Kosaku Mizuno, Seiichi, 1938. Hung-Shan-Hou,
Ch’ih-Feng: Prehistoric Sites at Hung-Shan-Hou, Ch’ih-Feng
in the Province of Jehol, Manchukuo. Archaeologia Orientalis, A, 6, Far Eastern Archaeology Society of Japan, Tokyo.
Higham, C., 1995. The transition to rice cultivation in southeast
Asia. In: Price, T.D., Gebaure, A.B. (Eds.), Last Hunters—
First Farmers. School of American Research, Santa Fe, pp.
39–94.
Higham, C., Lu, T.L., 1998. The origins and dispersal of rice
cultivation. Antiquity 72.278, 867–877.
Hayden, B., Reinhardt, G., MacDonald, R., Holmberg, D.,
Crellin, D., 1996. Space per capita and the optimal size of
housepits. In: Coupland, G., Banning, E. (Eds.), People Who
Lived in Big Houses: Archaeological Perspectives on Large
Domestic Structures. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin,
pp. 151–164.
Jia Weimin, 2005. Transition from Foraging to Farming in
Northeast China. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Archaeology, The University of Sydney.
343
Kolb, C.C., 1985. Demographic estimations in archaeology:
contributions from ethnoarchaeology on Mesoamerican peasants. Current Anthropology 26.5, 581–599.
Kramer, C., 1979. An archaeological view of a contemporary
Kurdish villages: domestic architecture, household size and
wealth. In: Kramer, C. (Ed.), Ethnoarchaeology: Implications
of Ethnography for Archaeology. Columbia University Press,
New York, pp. 139–163.
Kramer, C., 1982. Village Ethnoarchaeology: Rural Iran in
Archaeological Perspective. Academic Press, New York.
Kuijt, I., 2000. People and space in early agricultural villages:
exploring daily lives, community size and architecture in the
late pre-pottery Neolithic. Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology 19, 75–102.
Le Blanc, S., 1971. An addition to Naroll’s suggested floor area
and settlement population relationship. American Antiquity
36.2, 210–211.
Lee Yun Kuen, 1993. Tribal Segmentation and Spatial
Variability: The Social Organization of a Prehistoric
Yangshao Village Community. Ph.D. Dissertation, submitted to the Department of Anthropology, University of
Michigan.
Li Xinwei, 2003. Development of Social Complexity in the Liaoxi
Area, Northeast China. Ph.D. Dissertation, submitted to the
Archaeology Program, School of Historical and European
Studies, La Trobe University.
Liang Siyung, 1959. Liang Siyung kaogu lunwenji (Collection of
Essays on Archaeology by Liang Siyung). Kexue chubanshe,
Beijing.
Liaoning Sheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, 1988. Fuxin Chahai
xinshiqi shidai yizhi shijue jianbao (Preliminary Report of the
Test Excavation of Chahai at Fuxin). Liaohai wenwu xuekan
1988.1, 11–16.
Liaoning sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, 1994. Liaoning Fuxin
xian Chahai yizhi 1987–1990 nian san ci fajue (Three Seasons
of Excavation, 1987–1990, at the Chahai Site, Fuxin County,
Liaoning Province). Wenwu 1994.11, 4–9.
Linduff, K.M., Drennan, R.D., Shelach, G., 2004. Early complex
societies in NE China: the Chifeng international collaborative
archaeological research project. Journal of Field Archaeology
29 (1–2), 45–73.
Liu Guanmin, 1987. Xilamulunhe liuyu butong xitong de
kaoguxue wenhua fenbu quyu de bianqian (Changes in the
Distribution of Different Archaeological Cultures in the
Xilamulun River Basin). In: Su Bingqi, (Ed.), Kaoguxue
wenhua lunji. Wenwu chubanshe, Beijing, pp. 48–57.
Liu Guanming, Xu, Guangji, 1981. Neimenggu dongbu diqu
qintong shidai de liang zhong wenhua (Two Types of Bronze
Age Cultures of the Eastern Part of Inner Mongolia).
Neimenggu wenwu kaogu 1, 5–14.
Liu Guoxiang, 2004a. Xinglonggou juluo yizhi fajue shouhuo ji
yiyi (Results of the Excavations at the Xingloggou Site and
their Meaning). In: Liu Guoxiang, Dongbei wenwu kaogu
lunji. Kexue qubanshe, Beijing, pp. 58–74.
Liu Guoxiang, 2004b. Zhaobaogou wenhua jingji xingtai ji
xianggouna wenti tantao (Discussing the Economy of the
Zhaobaogou Culture and Related Questions). In: Liu Guoxiang, Dongbei wenwu kaogu lunji. Kexue qubanshe, Beijing,
pp. 87–96.
Liu Jinxiang and Dong Xinlin,1996. Qianlun Zhaobaogou
wenhua de nongye jingji (Discussion on the Agriculture of
the Zhaobaogou Culture). Kaogu 2, 61–65.
344
G. Shelach / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 318–345
MacNeish, S.R., Cunnar, G., Zhao, Z., Redding, R., Gill, D.,
Libby, J., 1997. Second Annual Report of the Sino-American
Jiangxi Origin of Rice Project. Andover.
Naroll, R., 1962. Floor area and settlement population. American Antiquity 27.4, 587–589.
Neimenggu caochang ziyuan yaogan yingyung kaochadui, 1988.
Neimenggu zizhiqu Chifengshi ziran tiaojian yu caochang
ziyuan ditu (Maps of Natural Conditions and Natural
Resources of the Chifeng Area, Inner Mongolia Autonomous
Region). Kexue chubanshe, Beijing.
Neimenggu Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, 1994. Keshiketeng qi
Nantaizi yizhi fajue jianbao (Preliminary Report of the
Nantaizi Site in Keshiketeng Banner). In: Li Yiyou, and
Wei Jian, (Eds.), Neimenggu wenwu kaogu wenji, vol. 1,
Zhongguo dabaike quanshu chubanshe, Beijing, pp. 87–95.
Neimenggu wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, 1997. Keshenketeng qi
Nantaizi yizhi. (The Nantaizi Site, Keshenketeng Banner). In:
Wei Jian, (Ed.), Neimenggu wenwu kaogu wenji, vol. 2, pp.
53–77.
Neimenggu wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo and Jilin daxue kaogu xuexi,
2002. Neimenggu Linxixian Baiyinchanghan shiqi shidai yizi
1991 nian fajue jianbao. (Preliminary Report on the Excavations of 1991 at the Baiyinchanghan Stone Age Site, Linxi
County, Inner Mongolia). Wenwu 2002.1, 4–15.
Nelson S.M., 1991. The ‘Goddess Temple’ and the Status of
Women at Niuheliang, China. In: Walde, D. and Willows, N.
(Eds.), The Archaeology of Gender. Proceedings of the 22nd
Annual Chacmool Conference, Calgary, pp. 302–308.
Netting, R.McC., Wilk, R.R., Arnould, E.J., 1984. Households:
Comparative and Historical Studies of the Domestic Group.
University of California Press, Berkeley.
Oswald, D.B., 1987. The organization of space in residential
buildings: a cross-cultural perspective. In: Kent, S. (Ed.),
Method and Theory for Activity Area Research. Columbia
University Press, New York, pp. 295–344.
Pei, A., 1998. Notes on new advances and revelations in the
agricultural archaeology of early rice domestication in the
Dongting lake region. Antiquity 72, 878–884.
Plog, F., 1990. Agriculture, sedentism, and environment in the
evolution of political systems. In: Upham, S. (Ed.), The
Evolution of Political Systems: Sociopolitics in Small-Scale
Sedentary Societies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
and New York, pp. 177–199.
Rautman, E.A., 2000. Population Aggregation, Community
Organization, and Plaza-Oriented Pueblos in the American
Southwest. Journal of Field Archaeology 27.3, 271–283.
Read, D.W., 1978. Towards a formal theory of population size
and area of habitation. Current Anthropology 19, 312–317.
Sato, Yo-Ichiro, 2002. Origin of rice cultivation in the Yangtze
river basin. In: Yasuda, Y. (Ed.), The Origins of Pottery and
Agriculture. Lustre Press and Roli Books, New Delhi, pp.
143–150.
Shelach, G., 1999. Leadership Strategies, Economic Activity, and
Interregional Interaction: Social Complexity in Northeast
China. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press, New York.
Shelach, G., 2000. The earliest Neolithic cultures of northeast
China: recent discoveries and new perspectives on the
beginning of agriculture. Journal of World Prehistory 14.4,
363–413.
Shelach, G. and the Chifeng International Collaborative Archaeological Project Team, 2003. Using and Improving Regional
Analysis. In: Chifeng International Collaborative Archaeo-
logical Project. Regional Archaeology in Eastern Inner
Mongolia: A Methodological Exploration. Kexue chubanshe,
Beijing, pp. 166–173.
Shelach, G., Peterson, C., n.d. Jiangzhai: Socioeconomic Organization of a Middle Neolithic Chinese Village.
Smith, B.L., 2005. Diet, Health, and Lifestyle in Neolithic North
China. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
Harvard University.
Su Binqi, 1986. Liaoxi guwenhua gucheng guguo (Ancient State,
Ancient Cities, Ancient Cultures in the Liaoxi Area). Wenwu
1986.8, 41-44.
Tong Zhuchen, 1957. Chifeng Dongbajia shicheng zhi kancha ji.
(A Report of Survey at the Dongbajia Stone Wall Site of the
Chifeng Area). Kaogu tongxun 1957.6, 230–237.
Underhill, A.P., 1997. Current issues in Chinese Neolithic
archaeology. Journal of World Prehistory 11, 103–160.
Underhill, A.P., Habu, J., 2006. Early communities in east Asia:
economic and sociopolitical organization at the local and
regional levels. In: Stark, M.T. (Ed.), Archaeology of Asia.
Blackwell, Malden, pp. 121–148.
Wang Lixin, 2005. Liaoxi qu shiqian shehui de fuzahua jincheng
(The Development of Social Complexity in the Prehistory of the
Liaoxi Area). Jilin Journal of Social Science 2005.3, 1–9.
Watson, P.J., 1978. Architectural differentiation in some near
eastern communities, prehistoric and contemporary. In:
Redman, C., Berman, M.J., Curtin, E.V., Langhorne, W.T.,
Versaggi, N.M., Wanser, J.C. (Eds.), Social Archaeology.
Academic Press, New York, pp. 131–157.
Wiessner, P., 1974. A functional estimator of population form
floor area. American Antiquity 39.2, 343–350.
Wiessner, P., 1982. Beyond willow smoke and dog’s tails: a
comment on Binford’s analysis of hunter-gatherer settlement
systems. American Antiquity 47.1, 171–178.
Wu Xiaohong, Zhao Chaohong, 2003. Chronology of the
Transition form Palaeolithic to Neolithic in China. The
Review of Archaeology 24.2, 15–20.
Xian Banpo Bowuguan, 1988. Jiangzhai: Xinshiqi Shidai Yizhi
Fajue Baogao (Jiangzhai: Report of the Excavations at a
Neolithic Site). Wenwu Chubanshe, Beijing.
Xu Yulin, 1989. Dongbei diqu xinshiqi de wenhua gaishu
(General Description of Neolithic Cultures in the Northeastern Area). Liaohai wenwu xuekan 1989.1, 56–87.
Yang Hu, 1986. Shilun Xinglongwa wenhua ji xiangguan wenti
(Preliminary Discussion of the Xinglongwa Culture and
Related Issues), In: Zhongguo kaoguxue yanjiu, vol. 1.
Wenwu chubanshe, Beijing, pp. 71–81.
Yang Hu, 1994. Liaoxi diqu xinshiqi-tongshibingyong shidai
kaoguxue wenhua xulie yu fenqi (Seriation of the Archaeological Cultures from Neolithic to Lithic-Bronze Period in the
Liaoxi area). Wenwu 1994.11, 37–59.
Yang Hu, Liu Guoxiang, 1997. Xinglongwa wenhua jushi zangsu
ji xiangguan wenti tan tao (Inquiry into the Graves within
Houses of the Xinglongwa Culture and Related Questions).
Kaogu 1997.1, 27–36.
Yan Wenming, 1991. Chinas Earliest Rice Agriculture Remains.
In: Bellwood, P. (Ed), Indo-Pacific Prehistory: Proceedings of
the 14th Congress of the IPPA. The Indo-Pacific Prehistory
Association, Canberra, pp. 118–126.
Yasuda, Yoshinori, 2002. Origins of Pottery and Agriculture in
East Asia. In: Yasuda, Y. (Ed), The Origins of Pottery and
Agriculture. Lustre Press and Roli Books, New Delhi, pp.
119–142.
G. Shelach / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 318–345
Yellen, J.E., 1977. Archaeological Approaches to the Present.
Academic Press, New York.
Zhang Xuelian, Wang Jinxia, Xian Ziqiang, Chou Shihua, 2003.
Gurenlei shiwu jiegou yanjiu (A Study of Ancient Human’s
Diet). Kaogu 2003.2, 62–75.
Zhang Zhongpei, 1991. Guanyu Neimenggu dongbu dichu kaogu
de ji ge wenti (Some Questions Concerning the Archaeology of
Eastern Inner Mongolia). In: Neimenggu dongbu kaoguxue
wenhua yanjiu. Haiyangshan chubanshe, Beijing, pp. 3–8.
Zhang Zhongpei, Kong Zhesheng, Zhang Wenjun, Chen Young,
1987. Xiajiadian Xiaceng wenhua yanjiu (Research on the
Lower Xiajiadian Culture). In: Su Bingqi (Ed.), Kaoguxue
wenhua lunji, vol. 1, Wenwu chubanshe, Beijing, pp. 58–78.
Zhao Binfu, 2003. Dongbei shiqi shidai kaogu (Stone Age
Archaeology of Northeast China). Jilin daxue chubanshe,
Changchun.
Zhongguo kexue kaogu yanjiu Neimenggu gongzuodui, 1974.
Chifeng Yaowangmiao, Xiajiadian yizhi shijue baogao
(Report on the Test Excavations at Yaowangmiao and
Xiajiadian Sites, in the Chifeng Area). Kaogu xuebao
1974.1, 111–144.
Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo Neimenggu gongzuodui, 1985. Neimenggu Aohan qi Xinglongwa yizhi fajue
jianbao (Preliminary Report on Excavations at the Xinglongwa Site, Aohan Banner, Inner Mongolia). Kaogu
1985.10, 865–873.
Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo Neimenggu gongzuodui, 1987. Neimenggu Aohan qi Xiaoshan yizhi (The
Xiaoshan Site, Aohan Banner, Inner Mongolia). Kaogu
1987.6, 481–506.
Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo Neimenggu gongzuodui, 1988. Neimenggu Aohan qi Zhaobaogou yihao yizhi
fajue jianbao (Preliminary Report on the Excavation of
Zhaobaogou Site Number One, Aohan Banner, Inner Mongolia). Kaogu 1988.1, 1–6.
Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo Neimenggu gongzuodui 1997a. Aohan qi Xinglongwa juluo yizhi 1992 nian
fajue jianbao (Preliminary Report of the 1992 Excavations at
the Xinglongwa Site, Aohan Banner, Inner Mongolia).
Kaogu 1997.1, 1–26.
Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo, 1997b. Aohan
Zhaobaogou—Xinshiqi shidaijuluo (Zhaobaogou—A Neolithic Settlement), Zhongguo dabaike quanshu qubanshe,
Beijing.
Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo Neimenggu di yi
gongzuodui, 2004. Neimenggu chifengshi Xinglonggou juluo
yizhi 2002–2003 nian de fajue (The 2002–2003 Season of
Excavations at the Xinglonggou site, Chifeng, Inner Mongolia). Kaogu 2004.7, 3–8.
345
Zhu Yanping, 1990. Xiaoshan zunxingqi ‘‘niao shou tu’’ shixi
(Analysis of the ‘‘Birds and Beast Drawing’’ on the Zun
Vessel from Xiaoshan). Kaogu 1990.4, 360–365.
Zhu Yanping, 1997. Zhaobaogou yizhi qianxi (Preliminary
Analysis of the Zhaobaogou Site). In: Wei Jian (Ed.),
Neimenggu wenwu kaogu wenji, vol. 2, Zhongguo dabaike
quanshu chubanshe, Beijing, pp. 24–29.
Glossary
Glossary of Chinese terms and place names
Anxinzhuang:
;
;
Aohan banner:
;
Baiyinchanghan:
;
bing (scraper):
;
bo (ceramic bowl):
;
Bohai bay:
Chahai:
;
;
Chifeng region:
;
fu (stone axe):
guan (deep container):
;
Hongshan:
;
;
Houtaizi:
;
Jiangzhai:
;
mobang (pestle):
;
mopan (mortar):
Nantaidi:
;
Nantaizi:
;
Si (‘‘hoe’’):
;
;
Wei River:
Xinglonggou:
;
Xinglongwa:
;
Xiaoshan:
;
;
Xiaoshandegou:
;
xishiqi(microliths):
;
Yan mountains:
;
Yangshao culture:
;
Zhaobaogou:
zu (arrow head):
;
zun (ceramic vessel):