A Companion to Chinese Archaeology (Underhill/A Companion to Chinese Archaeology) || The Longshan Culture of Shandong

A Companion to Chinese Archaeology, First Edition. Edited by Anne P. Underhill.© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

The Longshan Culture of Shandong

SUN Bo 孙波

INTRODUCTION: GEOGRAPHY, DATING, AND ENVIRONMENT

Longshan 龙山 period sites are found throughout Shandong province but also in other areas of the Haidai 海岱 , or eastern seaboard region, an historically signifi cant geographic area fi rst identifi ed by Gao Guangren and Shao ( 1984 : 7–14). Longshan period sites are also found in eastern Henan, northern Jiangsu, and Anhui. The late Neolithic Shandong Longshan culture, dating to around 4600–4000 BP ( c. 2650–2050 BC ), developed from the Dawenkou culture (see Chapter 20 ) and was followed by the early Bronze Age Yueshi culture ( Yan Wenming 1984 : 36–44; Luan 1997 : 229–282; see Chapter 23 ). Recent chronological analysis, however, suggests that the Shandong Longshan culture, like the Longshan culture in the Central Plain, might have started later (Group Project n.d.), and may extend into the fi rst phase of the Erlitou period ( Fang 1987 : 56–64; Luan 2003 : 99–107), continuing later than the Longshan culture of the Central Plain. Some scholars think it might even have ended as late as about 1700 BC , including the whole fi rst phase of the Erlitou culture ( Qiu et al. 2006 : 321–332).

Archaeologists have identifi ed variations of the Longshan culture in six distinct regions of Shandong: the Jiaodong peninsula, southeastern coastal area, northern Shandong, mid- and south-central Shandong, northwestern Shandong, and south-western Shandong. There are especially clear differences between the remains found in western Shandong at sites such as Tonglin 桐林 and remains from sites in eastern

CHAPTER 21

436 SUN BO

Shandong; however, these differences are not necessarily indicative of differences in the nature of settlements and social organization.

There are three topographic zones in Shandong: (1) the Jiaodong hills including the Jiaodong Peninsula and the coastal area of southeast Shandong; (2) the moun-tains of mid- and south-central Shandong including Taishan and Lushan 1 (Figure 21.1 ); and (3) the plains spread over northern and western Shandong. The concen-tration of mountains in the center forms a geological boundary that divides northern Shandong from southern Shandong. The area to the north of those mountains is the northern Shandong plain, and western Shandong includes part of the North China Plain. The area to the south, in contrast, has hills.

Two different cultural traditions developed in these areas by the Warring States period (475–221 BC ), Qi in the north and Lu in the south. These two cultural areas probably were signifi cant during earlier periods as well (see Shao 1989 : 11–30). To a large extent, the geographical divisions mentioned above are similar to that in an early Chinese text named Yu Gong 禹貢 ( Tribute of Yu ), a text from the fi rst chapter of the Shang Shu 尚書 ( Venerated Documents ). 2 In ancient times, Mt Tai was named “Yue [Mountain],” and in the Eastern Zhou period (770–256 BC ), the Ji river shared the same watercourse with the present Yellow river. The Yu Gong text mentions dif-ferent states in these geographic areas (see also Chapter 23 ).

Although there are some cultural differences among these various areas, there also are some similarities, no doubt due to close interactions between some areas. It is these sustaining interactions that created the cultural distinctiveness of Shandong. This text also is useful since it gives us clues about transportation between different

Figure 21.1 Important physiographic features in Shandong province.

THE LONGSHAN CULTURE OF SHANDONG 437

areas. The rivers of Shandong must have made it possible for this interregional com-munication to take place. The Yu Gong mentions that all states in Shandong trans-ported tribute by means of rivers. There are several rivers that penetrate the mountainous areas of Shandong, making it possible to connect different areas. Many rivers are still important for transport of materials and for communication today. In addition, the Ji river – the present Yellow river in Shandong – during the Longshan period would have been a key communication route connecting people in northern Shandong with people in the Central Plain.

RESEARCH ON THE LONGSHAN PERIOD

Research on the Longshan culture during the past eighty years can be divided into three phases. The fi rst phase began in 1903 when remains from the Longshan culture were fi rst discovered, and ended in the 1950s when the Shandong Longshan culture was fi nally verifi ed. In 1928, Wu Jinding 吴金鼎 found the Chengziya (or Chengzi ’ ai, Chapter 23 ) 城子崖 site during a survey. From 1930 to 1931, the Archaeology Team of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica, excavated the site twice, formally confi rming the Longshan culture remains. At that time, the abundant black pottery was regarded as the main feature of the Longshan culture. Accordingly, until the early 1950s, all similar remains were considered as belonging to the Longshan culture ( Yin Huanzhang 1955 : 58–64). Meanwhile, some scholars felt that differ-ences between areas in eastern China should be recognized. Specifi cally, Liang Siyong 梁思永 divided the Longshan culture into three regions: the coastal area of Shandong, northern Henan, and Hangzhou Bay ( Liang 1954 : 5–14). Another scholar, Yin Da 尹达 , distinguished between the Longshan culture of coastal Shandong and northern Henan, and he identifi ed three phases of development. He also proposed that the Longshan culture developed from east to west ( Yin Da 1955 : 89–97). After more excavations were carried out, the consensus among scholars was that the variation among sites indicated that the Longshan culture should not be treated as a single culture ( An 1956 : 41–48). The infl uential paper by An Zhimin 安志敏 ( 1959 : 559–566) stated that the Shandong Longshan culture should be regarded as the typical Longshan culture. From then on, a new research phase began.

During the second phase, primarily from 1960 to 1997, there was a focus on identifi cation of regional cultures and establishing sequences of ceramic change in each region. Major sites excavated during this phase included Yinjiacheng 尹家城 , Donghaiyu 东海峪 , Sanlihe 三里河 , Shangzhuang 尚庄 , Chengzi 呈子 , Yangjiaquan 杨家圈 , Yaoguanzhuang 姚官庄 , Xiwusi 西吴寺 , and Dinggong 丁公 . Accordingly, scholars deliberated on the origin and developmental stages of the Shandong Long-shan culture, along with the distribution area of sites and regional subtypes ( Li and Gao 1979 : 56–62; Shao 1984 : 97–104; Wu and Du 1984 : 1–22; Han 1989 ; Guojia 1990 ; Luan 1992a, 1992b ; Jin 1993 ; Yu 1993 : 200–208). Then regional types and developmental stages of cultural material concluded by Luan ( 1997 ) became widely accepted.

After the mid-1980s much research was concerned with aspects of society such as the history of different ethnic groups, economic life, interpretation of differences among graves, ancient technologies, the nature of city sites, and sacrifi cial rites. A

438 SUN BO

key topic was tracing the nature and development of society. More scholars thought the degree of Longshan social complexity had been underestimated. Previously, there had been a consensus that the Longshan culture fi t the criteria expected for a “military democracy” ( junshi minzhuzhi 军事民主制 , a kind of tribal confederation established for military purposes, with a military leader who carried out decisions made by a democratic process). Later, scholars proposed that the Longshan culture represents a more developed evolutionary stage, a “primary civilization,” distinguished from a fully developed “civilization” that has all the expected criteria including writing and metallurgy. In the latter half of the 1980s, thanks to the excavation of many signifi -cant sites and discussions concerning the nature of early Chinese civilization by Su Bingqi 苏秉琦 ( 1999 ) and others, research on the Longshan culture reached a new level. More research, however, is needed in order to understand the nature of Long-shan society. Some researchers began to refl ect upon their former research in order to consider new approaches.

The third phase is from 1990 to the present, during which there has been frequent exchange with foreign archaeologists and an infl ux of new theories, methodologies, and technologies to consider. After regional cultures were clarifi ed in the 1990s, the next task was to understand the societies refl ected by the archaeological remains in these areas ( Zhao Hui et al. 2009 : 1–6). One new trend was greater awareness among archaeologists in China of the value of settlement archaeology for investigating con-nections between settlements and the roles of regional centers. A key scholar at this time was Zhang Xuehai 张学海 , who in the early 1990s investigated the Chengziya site. In 1995 he began a project on the Jingyanggang 景阳冈 site in western Shan-dong. Enlightened by Su Bingqi ’ s (1999) theory on the origin and early development of Chinese civilization, Zhang ’ s studies ( 1993, 1995a, 1995b ) went beyond those which only used a few cultural elements to defi ne “civilization.” These ideas, however, needed to be further developed and could not be easily applied to archaeological research on social complexity.

The other trend was cooperation between Chinese and foreign scholars, and the introduction and practice of foreign theories, methodologies and technologies. As early as the 1980s, Sino-foreign academic exchange began. Some young scholars were simply not satisfi ed with the translations of publications about foreign archaeological theories, advocating an introduction to fi eldwork including foreign technologies and methodologies. In this upsurge of international cooperation, research into the Long-shan culture became one highlight. This included a long-term cooperative, systematic regional survey with Chinese and American archaeologists in southeastern Shandong centering on the Liangchengzhen 两城镇 site and an excavation at that site. Continu-ing over 10 years, the team surveyed more than 1,400 sq km and found 463 Longshan sites, thereby clarifying the distribution of Longshan settlements in the region ( Fang et al. 2008 ; see also Zhongmei 2004 ).

There have been several projects investigating the development and nature of complex society in different regions of Shandong focusing on settlement archaeology. These include excavations by the Shandong Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology (Dantu 丹土 and Chengziya sites) and Shandong University (Ding-gong site). There also have been collaborative projects involving two or more Chinese organizations at Tonglin (Shandong Provincial Institute and Peking University) and at Jiaochangpu 教场铺 (Shandong Provincial Institute and Institute of Archaeology,


Chinese Academy of Social Sciences). Despite the progress in research on the Long-shan culture during this phase, however, more work needs to be done in understand-ing regional developments. One limiting factor is the time it takes to fully publish fi ndings from different areas. It is especially important to avoid the common trap of adopting an overly simplistic approach to understanding settlements, ignoring the importance of variation for individual cases.

LONGSHAN SETTLEMENTS IN DIFFERENT REGIONS OF SHANDONG

Over two thousand Longshan Cultural sites have been identifi ed, and this may be much less that the total, since full-coverage surveys have only been done in south-eastern Shandong and the Xiaoqing river valley. Settlement patterns vary by geo-graphic region in Shandong ( National Bureau 2007 : 54–55). For example there is a low density of Longshan sites in the Xiaoqing river valley in comparison to south-eastern Shandong ( Fang et al. 2005 : 330–352.). The areas with the greatest density of settlement are southeastern Shandong and the piedmont area of northern Shandong.

There are 11 regional centers that can be considered cities in the Haidai region (Figure 21.2 ); four in the coastal area of southeast Shandong (Liangchengzhen, Dantu, Yaowangcheng, and Tenghualuo 藤花落 ); four in the north Shandong region

Figure 21.2 City sites from the Longshan culture in Shandong: 1, Jingyanggang; 2, Chengziya; 3, Dinggong; 4, Tonglin; 5, Bianxianwang; 6, Dantu, 7, Liangchengzhen; 8, Yaowangcheng, 9, Tenghualuo; 10, Fangcheng; 11, Zhuanglixi. (After Sun 2010b : 365, Figure 1.)

440 SUN BO

(Bianxianwang 边线王 , Tonglin, Dinggong, and Chengziya). In northeast Shandong, there is one city site at Jingyanggang and another at Zhuanglixi 庄里西 in the Wen 汶 river and Si 泗 river valleys. Another city site was found at Fangcheng 防城 in the Linyi area, the location of the Yi 沂 and Shu 沭 river valleys ( Sun Bo 2010a : 38–45). All these sites are regional centers and have their own settlement clusters. The excep-tion may be Dantu and Liangchengzhen in southeastern Shandong; the relationship between the two settlements is not clear. Below I discuss settlement patterns in each major geographic area and regional organization in the Shandong Longshan culture.

The coastal area of southeastern Shandong This region extends from the Wulian mountains in the west, to the Yellow sea in the east, with mountains in the northern and southern extremities. The great wall of the Qi state ( c. 1046–221 BC ) and the Wei river valley are situated to the north of this region. This region is composed of two valleys: the southern area includes the center of Yaowangcheng 尧王城 , and the northern area includes the Liangchengzhen site. More than 463 Longshan cultural sites were found during the regional survey ( Qiao 2007 : 25; Fang et al. 2008 : 253–287), nearly covering the whole region. There are clusters of settlements around the centers at Yaowangcheng and at Liangchengzhen. Fewer settlements were found between them, suggesting that there was a boundary between them. As the regional centers, Yaowangcheng and Liangchengzhen are far larger than other settlements, worthy of the name “city,” as discussed further below. In addition, their locations are in the center of each basin. It seems that each settle-ment cluster is an independent polity. Within each of their own settlement clusters, both Liangchengzhen and Yaowangcheng have some mid-sized settlements around them, such as the Dantu city site near Liangchengzhen ( Shandong Provincial 2001 ; Liu Yanchang and Wang 2002 ). The large and mid-sized settlements constitute the core regions, with smaller settlements in outlying areas. The majority of important settlements within the region are on a northeast-to-southwest line, including the centers at Liangchengzhen and Yaowangcheng. This must have been an important communication route between the two independent polities ( Sun Bo 2011 ). We also should take into consideration the site of Tenghualuo to the south in northern Jiangsu province ( Sun Liang and Chen 2001 : 35–38). The Longshan culture in this geographic area, then, should include the coastal area of northern Jiangsu.

Northern Shandong This region is composed of a southern mountainous zone and a northern plain. Several rivers run from the southern mountains to the northern plain, such as the Zi 淄 river and the Xiaoqing 小清 river, as well as the Mi 弥 and Wei 濰 rivers which run directly into the sea. The northern plain has been salty and marshy from ancient times, being suitable for only fi shing and salt-making rather than agriculture. In the south, the elongated plain full of loess deposits is arable. With ample water and good soil, this area is suitable for living, and regional centers are located in this elongated plain.

As opposed to southeastern Shandong, where Longshan settlements have a cen-tripetal structure, meaning the clusters of settlements are attracted and controlled by


the center, Longshan settlements in the northern region are situated along river banks. This is best illustrated by the settlement patterns near the Xiaofu 孝妇 , Wu 乌 , Zi, Mi, and Bailang 白浪 rivers. There is no other pattern currently known than this, and there is no evidence for regional centers. Most settlements in this area are mainly located in the south, along the modern east–west transportation route from Qingdao city to Jinan city. The sites of Chengziya (in the Juye river valley), Ding-gong (Xiaofu river valley), Tonglin (Ziwu river valley), and Bianxianwang (Mi river valley), are arranged in a line from west to east. The regional society composed of these four sites would have been based on a transregional trade system in an economic corridor.

However, the economic corridor did not involve all places in this region. New centers such as Xizhufeng 西朱封 emerged in other areas, in settlement clusters of the Mi and Bailang river valleys. It is clear that these river valleys were the most densely populated regions in northern Shandong, due to the huge alluvial plain created by the two rivers. Like the coastal area in southeastern Shandong, there is no one single central settlement big enough to control or dominate the whole region. It is possible that these settlements were equal and not subordinated to any single settlement, since there is no evidence for tribute or taxation. Although it is likely that there were different kinds of social relationships between regions, I think it also is likely that the most important relationships were economic. There is very little evi-dence for inter-community violence at sites. Therefore, I do not expect that a gov-ernment controlling more than one region had developed at this time.

THE YI RIVER AND SHU RIVER VALLEYS

The Yi river and Shu river valleys are located in the hilly southeastern part of south-central Shandong. Other rivers of different sizes run across the region, too. The Yi and Shu rivers run across the region in a parallel manner. There is a major alluvial plain that includes a net-like river drainage system with modern Linyi city at the center. These two rivers ultimately fl ow into the Huai 淮 river, connecting the area to northern Jiangsu.

Although many archaeological sites have been found, fi eldwork in the region has been limited. Unfortunately, it has been diffi cult to identify regional centers, and settlements tend to be distributed along the rivers. The layout of modern transporta-tion routes from a 1973 map is surprisingly similar to those that have been proposed for the Longshan period. Since the settlements in the Longshan period were distrib-uted along the rivers, I think people during the Longshan period would have used the rivers to travel to other communities in the region.

The Wen river and Si river valleys The Wen river and Si river valleys are located in mid and south-central Shandong, with Mt Tai to the north, and plains to the west. In the past, there were many lakes along the Grand Canal; now the area still includes the renowned Dongping and Weishan lakes. There are alluvial plains along the banks of the lakes, and mountains lie to the east. The Wen and Si rivers divide into two branches in the western hills.

442 SUN BO

Some signifi cant transportation routes developed in antiquity along this north–south piedmont area, but there are relatively few Longshan sites in the region. There are more sites in the Si river valley than in the Da Wen 大汶 river valley to the north. Most sites are found in the foothills and piedmont areas in the east. One explanation for this may be that the alluvial plain in the west was too low and not suitable for human habitation. Another possibility is that some sites are more deeply buried and have not been found yet.

There are fewer regional centers in this region, too. Although large graves were found at Yinjiacheng ( Archaeology Section 1990 : 40–67), the scale of the preserved site is not large. The only other known regional center is a later city site (15 ha) at Zhuangxili that is considered a cemetery for nobles from the local Teng state during the early Western Zhou period c. 1046–771 BC ( Yan Shenggong and Liu 2004 : 205). The site locations seem to follow a regular pattern. The Yinjiacheng site is located along the upper Si river, north of the Nishan mountains. A national highway and railway line pass the site area, likely following an earlier route. Yinjiacheng seems to be situated along a transportation route lying east–west, from the Wen and Si river valleys to the Yi and Shu river valleys.

Western Shandong Western Shandong consists of two regions with plains, northwest Shandong and southwest Shandong. The terrain is higher in the west and lower in the east. In northwest Shandong, rivers such as the Yellow or Huanghe 黄河 , Tuhai 徒骇 and Majia 马颊 , run toward the northeast and fl ow into the sea in a parallel manner. In southwest Shandong, rivers run toward the southeast and fl ow into Weishan lake and the Grand Canal. There are some stylistic differences between artifacts from the Longshan cultures in these two regions ( Luan 1992a : 924–935). Some scholars proposed that Longshan communities here were similar to those in neighboring areas external to Shandong. A recent opinion, however, is that this area should be regarded as the location of an independent type of Longshan culture ( Jia 2001 : 1). Most sites in this area are dated to the middle and especially the late Longshan period. One notable change from the middle to late periods in this area is that increasingly more coarse paste pottery vessels were made. The cultural remains in western Shandong exhibit many similarities with respect to forms and decorations of pottery vessels with those from the Henan Longshan culture ( Yan Wenming 2000 : 35–43). This can be attributed to the fact that the area is relatively close to the Central Plain. The simi-larities are quite clear for northwestern Shandong, but they are less evident for southwestern Shandong.

There are a limited number of identifi ed Longshan settlements in both areas, pos-sibly due to the depositional environment there. Some sites may still be buried beneath the ground. A better explanation may be that these settlements, originally established in raised areas built by the ancient people, were destroyed over the years by later residents who wanted good soil for their agricultural activities.

In southwest Shandong, Longshan sites are mainly concentrated in the south and west. The clusters of Longshan settlements look like two joined T-shaped strips. One is from north to south, along a modern railway route. The other is distributed east–west along the Wanfu 万福 and Hongwei 红卫 rivers. At present we know little about


the Longshan settlements here, but we can suggest the larger sites of Gaogudui 郜崓堆 and Xinzhongji 莘冢集 probably were regional centers. On the whole, the east–west settlement cluster extends to the heartland of Shandong, while the south–north cluster seems to be situated in an area that would have had better communica-tion with the Shangqiu area of eastern Henan. The geographic location of the east–west settlement cluster must have been more advantageous. There are more settlements, a relatively dense distribution of settlements, and two potential centers there.

In northwest Shandong, the Longshan settlements can be divided into three areas from southwest to northeast, corresponding to the terrain and direction of the rivers. There has been much more research in the area of modern Chiping city than in other parts of northwest Shandong. The ancient people chose the higher areas to settle in this region with many sand banks, adapting well to their environment. They could have further raised the surfaces when building their settlements as well ( Sun Bo 2003 : 90–95).

One study ( Zhang 1995 ) divides these sites into two groups. One group is centered around the site of Jingyanggang, while the other is centered around Jiaochangpu. Zhang ( 1995b ) proposes that these sites demonstrate a regional settlement pattern with three levels of hierarchy: du 都 capital, yi 邑 city, and ju 居 household. Excava-tions at the two sites demonstrate that Jingyanggang should have the status of a city, but Jiaochangpu should not (presumably given its size [Ed.]). Therefore, Jingyang-gang is the only center for this region ( Chen Kunlin and Sun 1997 ; Shandong Provincial 1997 ).

The excavations at Shangzhuang ( Shandong Provincial Museum 1978 : 35–45; Shandong Provincial 1985 : 465–506) and at Jingyanggang reveal interactions with people from areas of the Yellow river valley lying further west during the Longshan period. The method of building rammed-earth walls by stamping earth between board frames recognized at Jingyanggang was probably introduced from the Central Plain area. It appears there were more direct connections with the Central Plain by people in this western area than in other areas of Shandong. A new Longshan city site named Qicheng 戚城 that will hopefully provide more valuable information was found recently in the neighboring Puyang area of eastern Henan, facing the Jing-yanggang site in Shandong.

The Jiaodong peninsula The terrain in this area is characterized by foothills that cover the whole peninsula, from west to east. Rivers are short and rise from the central hills to the south and north. Neolithic remains in the Jiaodong peninsula have distinctive characteristics. Due to the lack of good quality farm land, the scale of settlements is not large, and most settlements are distributed along rivers and in coastal areas. The mountains make transportation and communication diffi cult. The geographic setting was an impediment to the formation of a society that united more than one region.

Some typical Shandong Longshan sites have been found in the Miaodao archi-pelago and Liaodong peninsula. It seems that these areas formed the main transporta-tion route for the spread of the Longshan culture to northeast China. This included the spread of rice cultivation. There are archaeobotanical data to show the spread of

444 SUN BO

rice cultivation by way of the Jiaodong peninsula to northeast Asia (Yan Wenming 2000: 35–43; Luan 2005 : 41–47). Therefore, more attention should be paid to this region.

A CASE STUDY OF THE TONGLIN SITE IN NORTHERN SHANDONG

The Tonglin site provides a useful case study for analyzing interactions in the north-ern Shandong region between the center at Tonglin and surrounding settlements. Tonglin is on a plain near the Yugong mountains, and the modern city is about 8 km away. The Wu river and Hua 澅 river meet in the center of the site.

At around 230 ha, Tonglin is the largest site in the area. Situated around Tonglin are 51 Longshan sites: 29 in the Wu river valley and 22 in the Zi river valley. These settlements are concentrated on the banks of the major rivers and their tributaries. Fewer sites are found in the area between the rivers. There are two parallel clusters of settlement along the rivers. Most of the settlements in the region are located along the rivers in a north–south line.

Tonglin was a city site in addition to a regional center. As previously mentioned, the signifi cance of Tonglin is partly due to its location in the economic corridor of the north Shandong region. East of the Tonglin site are several other settlements along the Hua and Xi rivers that also must have been part of the economic corridor. Following this line eastwards and crossing the Mi river, is the site of Bianxianwang. I agree with the conclusion drawn by Liu Li ( 1998 : 88–105) that the establishment of Tonglin must have involved a range of social and economic interactions in differ-ent areas of northern Shandong, involving both cooperation and competition.

The Tonglin site is divided into nine sections of different size and elevation, due to the terrain formed by the erosion of rivers and other factors. As discussed below, we are gradually uncovering more chronological data for each section. Longshan cultural remains are found in each section. The central section is the largest and constituted the urban core area (Figure 21.3 ). This urban area was surrounded by eight ordinary residential areas (two sections in the north, two in the east, two in the south, two in the west) that can be considered suburbs. Both parts formed an inte-grated settlement system.

The central, core city area enclosed by the rammed-earth wall was occupied during two phases. In the early phase, the city was small, covering the south-central area. In the second phase, the city expanded to include the entire elevated area now evident in the central section (discussed further below). The outline of the early central section enclosed by the earthen wall is still evident today. The early city was in the shape of a rectangle, with slightly convex sides, and was about 15 ha in area. Expan-sion in the later phase was mainly toward the north and a little toward the east, reaching to the edge of the raised area. The city in the late phase covered a larger area north–south than east–west. The northeastern corner was damaged by erosion from the Hua river. The late city was at least 30 ha in area and probably was more than 35 ha, if we take the damaged northeastern corner into consideration.

We discovered traces of gateways or entrances to the city by identifying fi ve gaps in the wall: two for the early city and three for the late city. The basic architectural arrangements were nearly the same for the two phases, except for minor changes.


The north wall of the east gate, for instance, was used for a large architectural feature in the late phase after the early wall was abandoned. We are still preparing our report that describes remains we think are traces of feasts, including beautiful black, eggshell-thin, pottery such as tall-stemmed cups ( gaobing bei 高柄杯 ), and hu 壶 tall-necked jars – wares that are very different from the ordinary household vessels at the site such as ding 鼎 tripods and guan 罐 jars.

The early city (urban core area) was constructed in the early Longshan period, and the late city was built in the middle and late Longshan period. Accordingly, the set-tlement and society reached a climax in these periods, when there is evidence for sophisticated techniques of craft production in addition to a larger scale of settlement. The expansion of the central city area after the middle Longshan period was not accidental and must be attributed to the rapid social and economic development that had taken place. Most scholars maintain that the dates for the periods of Longshan culture in Shandong are: early ( c. 2600–2400 BC ), middle ( c. 2400–2200 BC ), and late ( c. 2200–2000 BC ). Based on the established chronology, the early city at Tonglin was established around 2500 BC , and the late city at Tonglin was occupied starting about 2300 BC . The new radiocarbon data mentioned above, however, could mean that the early city was established later, about 2200 BC , and the late city around 2000 BC . More research is needed to refi ne the chronology at Tonglin and at other sites in Shandong. 3

Figure 21.3 Major sections of the Tonglin settlement. (After Sun 2011 : 51, Figure 6.)

446 SUN BO

No excavations have been carried out in the eight surrounding areas, so data about these external settlement areas are limited. On the whole, these eight smaller settle-ment areas of different size are evenly distributed in a circle around the central urban area. These eight residential areas surrounding the walled city area would have been integrated in some way. This centripetal structure, with a center surrounded by smaller sites, forms a large-scale and complex cluster of settlements.

How did this complex cluster form? Can stages of development be identifi ed? We know the wall was initially built in the late phase of the early Longshan culture, which was later than the lowest cultural deposits of the city. The distribution of Longshan cultural remains indicates that the expansion of the city was toward the north. The eight smaller settlement areas occupy 85 percent of the area for the whole settlement system. Probably the urban core area gradually incorporated the existing smaller set-tlements into its social and political organization, attracting and controlling them, thus forming a larger settlement system.

It is important to ask how the centripetal settlement structure formed. The differ-ent size of the surrounding settlement areas can be attributed to the geographic environment that provided different kinds of space for development. The surrounding settlements were evenly arranged around the central area without being infl uenced by rivers and roads. The reason for that arrangement appears to be that the central section played a regulatory role, drawing the adjacent settlements into its ambit. There were still some unused spaces in the east and south after the expansion of the urban core. Why did people choose not to use these spaces? There are two potential reasons. The fi rst is that these spaces may have been areas of special meaning, not used for residences of ordinary people. The second, more probable reason is that there are some differences in the nature of the residents of the inner urban and outer areas. Probably development of the outlying settlements resulted from migration from other areas. The growth of the city can be attributed to its development involv-ing deliberate separation of the groups in the center from those outside.

Change in organization of the central settlement section at Tonglin Currently, archaeological work at Tonglin is concentrated on the urban core. My discussion here focuses on the city walls and an area with a possible large courtyard. Through our fi eldwork we learned that the houses in the central section were initially individual buildings with walls made of adobe or rammed earth. Surrounding the houses were remains of mainly household waste during the construction of the possible courtyard area, as well as several graves and storage pits. As time passed, the cultural deposits between adjacent houses were connected. As houses were used and rebuilt, these deposits gradually expanded and became higher, forming a small area similar to a platform. This platform or taiji 台基 then was formed over a long period of time.

This formative process is best illustrated by the excavation of the southeastern area of the central section. This area, excavated from 2003 to 2005, is more than 1,500 sq m. We determined that the development of the settlement here can be divided into three phases.

The remains of the fi rst phase date to the early Longshan culture. In the central excavated area, there are two contemporary houses, a round house made of adobe and a rectangular house made of rammed earth. These two houses are not far from


each other and share the same open spaces. There also are three houses in the north-ern excavated area, seemingly intentionally separated from the southern excavated area by a shallow drainage ditch. Some graves are located in the vicinity of houses. Since no special graveyard within the settlement has been found, the graves must be directly related to the houses.

Based on our fi ndings we hypothesize that the initial settlement in the central section was as follows. First, there were no city walls, and most of the structures were individual houses. On the basis of the small size of these houses (many of them less than 20 sq m in area) and the simple structure (all of them are single rooms), we can conclude that the residents belonged an individual family. On the other hand, the clustering of houses having the same boundary area suggests that people also belonged to more inclusive social groups. There is no direct evidence for this, however, since no remains such as a cemetery have been found.

In the second phase, the settlement pattern in this area changed. First, wattle-and-daub construction with a foundation trench replaced the walls made of adobe and rammed earth. Second, the shallow drainage ditch that formed a border and the northern community were supplanted by what appears to be a large courtyard. We have not yet, however, found any architecture inside this courtyard. The emergence of a large courtyard would represent an important change in internal settlement organization at Tonglin. This possible large courtyard area is situated in the south-central part of the urban core and is nearly opposite of the middle section of the south wall. It is almost located on the cardinal axis, indicating a signifi cant location. Excavations have only taken place in the southeastern corner of this courtyard, and the excavated area is nearly 100 sq m.

The area revealed by the excavation to date is only a small part of the courtyard. If there were some buildings within the courtyard, the buildings would not be ordi-nary buildings, given the scale of the courtyard. If that is true, not only did the set-tlement pattern change, but the nature of the courtyard also was transformed. It may have been one of the central courtyards within the whole settlement cluster. The excavations indicate that the courtyard walls were rebuilt many times, so this court-yard could have been used as a central area for a long time.

During the third phase of occupation corresponding with the late Longshan culture, the courtyard was abandoned, and the settlement pattern changed. At this time people built their houses somewhat below ground level. There also are large pits (deeper and larger than previously) and some graves from this phase. The houses built during the previous phase with foundation trenches disappear. The late-phase semi-subterranean houses (rectangular or round) are similar to houses from the later Yueshi culture settlements in Shandong. The change in settlement pattern here may indicate that some signifi cant social changes took place from the late Longshan culture to the Yueshi culture.

My analysis shows that the macro- and micro-settlement patterns changed at roughly the same time. For instance, the large courtyard and the earliest city walls of rammed earth were built during the late phase of the early Longshan culture. The use of a large courtyard area at Tonglin may indicate the emergence of a central architectural area. At the same time, the city walls were being built, indicating that Tonglin was gradually developing into a regional center. The changes in settlement kept pace with increased social differentiation.

448 SUN BO

LONGSHAN ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES

Archaeological excavations have uncovered much material with which to investigate farming, animal husbandry, and the use of natural resources. Agricultural production was the foundation of the whole society. It also was important to elite rule and social stability. Information about agriculture in the Longshan culture is increasing due to new recovery methods such as fl otation and analysis of phytoliths. There is evidence for crops such as foxtail millet, broomcorn millet, rice, and wheat. People may have used some plants such as lotus ( Nelumbo nucifera ), but it is uncertain whether they were cultivated. Foxtail millet was the most important crop in the period, on the basis of the quantities of seeds recovered from fl otation. Foxtail millet could be grown widely, since it is drought-enduring and easily managed.

Although there is evidence of cultivated rice at several sites, a small patch of a rice fi eld has been identifi ed and excavated only at the site of Zhaojiazhuang in the Jiao-dong peninsula ( Jin et al. 2007: 2161–2168 ). This rice fi eld is located on the edge of the settlement and includes two parts. The part near the settlement is irregular, and there is a pit for water storage in the center. This part looks like a place for management of seedlings or manure collection. The rice fi eld itself is no more than several square meters in area, very regular in shape, and surrounded by ridges. It is notable that this rice fi eld with a slight slope is located at the edge of the site near a river channel. This river would have provided a regular supply of water, and the sloped terrain would have kept the water fl owing. Another signifi cant factor is the clay layer that was discovered at the base of the fi eld, indicating that water could be contained in an effi cient manner.

Recent scholarship includes considering differences in farming systems by region (southeastern Shandong versus western Shandong), comparing wet rice and dry crops ( Zhao Zhijun 2004 : 210–224). We also need to consider how differences in chronol-ogy account for the variation, carefully noting the evidence for each phase of occupa-tion at settlements.

An increasing quantity of wheat is being found at Longshan sites, suggesting that wheat was becoming a signifi cant crop ( Jin 2007 : 11–20). Although the quantity of wheat recovered is much smaller than that of rice and foxtail millet, its cultivation is signifi cant.

The main kinds of farming tools preserved at sites are made from stone and bone. The quantities are not high, but the available information is useful (see also Chapter 22 ). There are more tools used for reaping such as knifes and sickles, but relatively few tools used for plowing such as spades and hoes. Tools related to grain-processing are rare. One possible reason is that tools used for plowing or grain-processing are easily damaged during use and discarded in fi elds. Another reason may be that they were made of bamboo or wood, so they do not preserve well. Rare discoveries of some special tools, such as grinding slabs ( mopan 磨盘 ) which are indispensable for fl our-processing, raise questions about methods used for food-processing.

Discussions about farming should also consider household labor. The fundamental social unit of the Longshan culture is likely to have been the individual family ( Sun Bo 2007 : 12–33). Evidence for this comes mainly from the spatial location of graves


near houses, no longer in separate cemeteries. I think that the concept of private property must have already existed in order for individual families to have independ-ent burial areas. By the Longshan period, the system of communal property within the patrilineal family in the Dawenkou period had ended ( Sun Bo 1998 : 81–90). I expect that because of the privatization of property, individual households could carry out agricultural production as independent units in the Longshan culture, and they could keep the results of their own harvests.

Domesticated animals from Longshan culture sites are pigs, dogs, cattle, goats, and chicken. Cattle were never a major source of meat. There may be two reasons for this. First, although there is currently no archaeological evidence, the ox may have been more valuable for labor than for meat and milk. Second, the cost of raising cattle may have been too high because of the requirement for large-scale pasture land, probably a limited resource in much of northern China. In comparison to cattle, goats eat less grass and are a good source of meat. Data from excavations of Longshan sites demonstrate that more than 50 percent of animal bones recovered are from pigs. Dogs are the next most common, followed by cattle and goats.

Longshan sites also have yielded a small quantity of remains from wild animals such as deer (including elk, spotted deer, and muntjac), boar, badgers, birds, and even wolves and tigers. Aquatic animals such as fi sh, mollusks, turtles, and Yangzi alligators also are common. It is clear that fi shing and hunting were still important methods of obtaining meat. At some sites, the quantities of bones from wild animals are even greater than from domestic animals. At Yinjiacheng, deer bone accounted for more than two-thirds of the total animal bones unearthed, twice the amount of pig ( Lu and Zhou 1990 : 350–352). The environment was favorable and wild animals were abundant, so exploiting wild animals became a useful supplement to agriculture. Many subsistence-related tools such as arrowheads, spears, and net-sinkers have been found, 4 more evidence that fi shing and hunting were very common methods of sub-sistence. At some sites such as Sanlihe, bones of migratory fi sh have been identifi ed. Fishermen there might have been skilled professionals, since they needed to know about fi sh migration patterns and adequate fi shing equipment.

Craft production and exchange During the Longshan period production of pottery vessels, stone tools, and textiles was common. There also is some evidence for production of fermented beverages and valuable goods made from jade and metal.

Pottery production was the most developed type of craft production during the Shandong Longshan period, involving large-scale production of diverse types of vessels. Archaeologists have found some intact pits for storing pottery vessels at several sites. The quantities and varieties of excavated pottery vessels from the Longshan period are far greater than for any other period. It is widely believed that this is related to improvements in technology and specialized production.

Systematic study of the pottery vessels excavated at the site of Tonglin, for example, reveals that ceramic technology reached its peak in the middle and late Longshan periods. Wheel-thrown vessels were very common. Even parts of vessels such as the daizu 袋足 bulbous legs of the gui 鬶 pitcher, li 鬲 tripod, and yan 甗 steamer were wheel-thrown, and nearly all of them had delicate decoration. Given the skill

450 SUN BO

required, these types of vessels were probably made by professional crafts people in workshops.

Analysis of the ground stone tools at Tonglin indicates that stone tools were made in two steps. First, the stone was quarried from Mt Yugong, located to the west of the site, where primary processing often took place. Second, the semi-fi nished stone tools were brought to the settlement for processing by pecking and polishing. In some cases, raw stone was brought to the settlement directly without any processing. At Tonglin, the semi-fi nished stone tools and stone debris were everywhere, but a professional workshop was not found. Therefore, we believe that these stone tools were made by individual families.

Finished tools or those broken through use are not abundant at Tonglin. They are more common at ordinary settlement sites. One possible reason is that stone tools were widely traded between settlements. Half-fi nished stone tools have been found not only at Tonglin but also at sites such as Gaoyang 高阳 , Yihexinan 沂河西南 , Tianwangxi 田旺西 , and Xiaodujianan 小杜家南 . The Gaoyang city site is far away from mountains rich in stone. The semi-fi nished stone tools found there would not have been produced locally, but probably were traded from Tonglin. This leads us to two possible conclusions. If the semi-fi nished stone tools found at the surrounding sites were produced at Tonglin, people at Tonglin would have controlled the stone quarry. On the other hand, the semi-fi nished stone tools could have been produced in smaller settlements for local use rather than for trade.

Archaeologists have not yet found textiles in Longshan culture sites. Given the degree of social development at the time, at least silk and hemp, and probably also Pueraria lobata were used. 5 Marks on the bottom of some pottery vessels and cord-mark decorations were probably produced by rope made of hemp. We also found large spindle whorls at Longshan sites that were likely used for twisting thread. Some scholars proposed that a bone tool excavated from the earlier Dawenkou site was used as a shuttle for weaving ( Editorial Board 1984 : 1), but its appearance is quite similar to a dart, a kind of weapon. Concomitant with textiles is dying, for which we have very little evidence. At a few sites archaeologists found some red iron ore and vermilion, possibly used as dye.

Large quantities of pottery vessels suitable for fermented beverages ( jiu 酒 ) support the chemical compositional data for the conclusion that people in the Longshan period had grasped brewing technology ( McGovern et al. 2005 : 73–85). Although this technology probably was diffi cult for every individual family to acquire, vessels probably used for the special beverage were common. As this article explains, scholars have argued for quite some time that jiu was indispensable not only for social life, but also for ritual activities such as feasts and ceremonies involving sacrifi cial offerings. Given the great demand for jiu , there might have been professional producers of jiu to meet the demand.

Jade and fi ne stone objects must have been luxury goods for elites. Most forms of jade known from Shandong Longshan sites, especially forms with ritual signifi cance such as the yue 钺 axe, xuanji 璇玑 swirl-shaped disk, bi 璧 disk, cong 琮 tube, zhang 璋 tablet, duokong dao 多孔刀 long jade knife with two holes, and gui 圭 large tablet, have been unearthed from regional centers or sacrifi cial contexts. Rulers would have supervised the laborious production of jade objects and would have tried to


control access to the fi nished items. Some graves of ordinary people also contain a few exquisite stone objects and small, low-quality jade objects.

Some small metal items generating much discussion have been reported from Longshan sites in Shandong. At Sanlihe, two chisels identifi ed as brass were found in the same layer ( History of Metallurgy 1988 : 196–199). At Yangjiaquan, a broken stick-like item made of copper was found, along with copper fragments in two other areas ( Beijing and Shandong 2000 : 151–206). Other metal remains are reported for Yaowangcheng ( Linyi Municipal 1984 : 51–64) and at Beichangshan Island (Yan Wenming 1984). Yan states that the Longshan culture is a kind of Chalcolithic culture on the basis of these materials (Yan Wenming 1984: 36–44). Given the small quantity of items found, it is diffi cult to judge how much this new technology impacted people ’ s lives. The complicated techniques and scarcity of ores probably mean that these objects were made by specialists.

It is widely believed that specialized production is based on limited access to resources or technologies. Taking pottery production as an example, although clay is abundant, knowing how to use advanced technology such as a fast wheel could lead to specialized production. There could have been professional pottery workshops in the Longshan period, where the majority of vessels were produced. In comparison to pottery, stone as a material and the techniques of production may have been easier for ordinary people to obtain, thus stone tools probably were made by individual families.

Trade would have been a catalyst of social development during the Longshan period. We should consider three factors: goods, markets, and consumers. Different products would have included crops, domesticated animals, craft goods, and raw materials such as minerals. Given patterns in historical periods of China, there could have been three types of markets in the Longshan period: the primary market, regional market (or central market), and transregional market. The small-scale primary market would have been located in the countryside. Modern sociological investigations indicate that the radius of travel to the rural market is less than 5 km ( Du 1996 : 13–36). Regional markets would have consisted of several small-scale markets and would have taken place close to regional centers such as Tonglin and Liangchengzhen. The transregional market would have incorporated several regional market areas.

I propose that people would have traded different goods at markets such as these during the Longshan period. At the primary markets, ordinary people could have exchanged some craft goods, agricultural products, and other items for daily life. I expect that more valuable goods would have been traded in regional markets. It is possible that some regional markets were permanent and required professional managers. Transregional market systems should involve trade without a fi xed location or time. In order to supply the whole region, long-distance transportation would have been required. As a result, towns would have emerged along the road, and there would have been professional merchants with special-ized knowledge.

Trade in the Liangchengzhen region must have been quite different. Here, small settlements surround mid-sized settlements, forming a settlement cluster within a radius of 5 km. The regional center perhaps had a market that was benefi cial to the self-suffi ciency of the settlement cluster. This kind of market, which has a key

452 SUN BO

function in a regional society, would have a good geographical location and would become a signifi cant base along roads. As the regional center, Liangchengzhen must be where the central market was located, for two reasons. First, it would provide skilled workers from the large population at the regional center a chance to be trained in advanced techniques for producing exquisite objects made from various materials such as clay and stone, a process which leads to specialization. Specialization of pro-duction makes it possible to provide more goods for trade, a process that yields benefi ts to people. Second, there would be a great demand for goods at the regional center, with its large population, including elites who wanted luxury goods. As a locus of trade and transportation, Liangchengzhen would have been the key location in the region for management of economic activities.

The transregional market must have existed in more than one region during the Shandong Longshan period. Along the axis mentioned above for southeastern Shan-dong from Liangchengzhen to Yaowangcheng, there could have been a market covering Liangchengzhen, Yaowangcheng, and Tenghualuo. Another example is the economic corridor that runs through the northern Shandong area including Cheng-ziya, Dinggong, Tonglin, and Bianxianwang. Markets play an essential role in social integration within regions. They also would have enhanced communication between the Haidai region and the Central Plain.

SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND POLITICAL ORGANIZATION AT THE REGIONAL LEVEL

Since the quantity and density of Longshan sites in Shandong is greater than for other prehistoric periods, there must have been a population explosion. To support an increasingly large population, people had to increase the effi ciency of land use through more intensive cultivation practices. Goods that were produced in settle-ments with different resources and technologies would be complementary to those from other settlements. This situation would have caused trading of goods to increase between settlements. The preferred locations for trade with respect to geo-graphic position, transportation, and available resources probably became more per-manent over time and developed into regional centers. The increasingly high population density probably led to fi erce economic competition among settlements. In an effort to avoid confl icts, coordinators would have been needed to manage regional social interactions. In each region these people would have come from the settlement with the advantage in trade, and then would become leaders of the set-tlement cluster. Thus, economic and political developments must have been interrelated.

In coastal southeastern Shandong, the spatial pattern of settlements suggests that some areas were under the control of the two major centers, Liangchengzhen and Yaowangcheng. Other areas were controlled by smaller, secondary centers. This spatial structure is quite similar to what is expected for the “state” in early Chinese texts such as the Shijing 诗经 for the era roughly from the early Western Zhou to the mid-Spring and Autumn period of the Eastern Zhou, around 1046–500 BC (see Gu 1963 ). Generally speaking, we can call the former jinei 畿內 (territory around the capital) and the latter bangtu 邦土 (territory of the state). 6 This


dual structure is what we should expect for an early state, with both urban and rural areas.

This kind of spatial organization is evident for other areas of Shandong during the Longshan period, such as northern Shandong (with Tonglin and other sites), and western Shandong (including Jingyanggang). There may have been several early states in Shandong, along with some kind of transregional social system. I estimate that economic relationships fi rst contributed to transregional communication and that these facilitated political relationships. These could have further strengthened ethnic or ideological ties between peoples across these regions.

The structure of cities such as Tonglin, given their roles as the core of society, would have been complicated. All citizens could not be farmers, because arable land must have been limited and at a distance from the city. The large quantity of semi-fi nished stone tools at Tonglin seems to indicate production by some households ( Chen Xingcan 2006 : 51–61). Gao Mingkui ( 2008 ) concludes that pottery produc-tion within the walled, urban area of Tonglin was more professional and involved specialists, more so than outside the walled area.

Also, production of the jade objects found primarily in large graves from the Shan-dong Longshan period must have involved specialists under the strict control of rulers. Jade workers would have had access to more advanced technologies than ordinary household craftspeople. Jade and other objects probably were distributed by specialists in trade as well.

Other changes that no doubt took place were the establishment of upper social classes, the development of city managers, and the rise of specialists who could protect the cities from invasion. Eventually, some of the specialists in management must have become the ruling class, having large public resources and power allowing them to establish social regulations.

In comparison to other areas of China with Longshan period remains, however, the gap between rich and poor in Shandong was not very pronounced. In contrast, there are marked differences among graves at the Taosi site (see Chapters 13 , 14 ; Institute and Linfen 1983 : 30–42). I believe that the graves in Shandong indicate a large middle class with a certain amount of wealth and a stable life. There are fewer graves belonging to the upper and lower classes. This phenomenon is further evidence for the conclusion that cities in Shandong developed primarily from economic factors.

CONCLUSIONS

The development of cities in the Shandong Longshan culture stemmed from a popu-lation explosion and increase in the density of settlements. The development of Longshan society benefi ted from a stable social environment, rather than confl ict or violence. The city walls were built simply and not high, indicating that they were not built for military purposes. Instead, cities probably resulted from the desire to classify space into urban areas and rural areas. Support for this conclusion comes from the fact that there are few remains indicating violence from sites of the Shandong Long-shan culture. The stable social environment enabled rapid accumulation of social wealth and social change, including the increasing importance of political life for managing social affairs that impacted daily life.

454 SUN BO

NOTES

1 The character shan 山 means “mountain.” 2 Shangshu Zhengyi 尚書正義 (Commentaries on the Venerated Documents ), in Shisan Jing

Zhushu 十三經注疏 (Commentaries on and Annotations of the Thirteen Classics ), ed. Ruan Yuan 阮元 (1764–1849): 6.146, Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju, 1980. See Shao Wangping 邵望平 , 禹貢九州的考古學研究：兼說中國古代文明的多源性 (An Archaeological Study on the Nine Regions of China in the Tribute of Yu with an Additional Analysis of Multi-Origins of Chinese Ancient Civilizations), Jiuzhou Xuekan 九州學刊 2.1 (1981): 11–30. The Shangshu is believed to be the earliest Chinese historical record. Although parts of the book were written in the Western Zhou period, it is commonly believed that Confu-cius ( c. 551–479 BC ) edited the book. There is no doubt the original Shijing was a pre-Qin (221–207 BC ) text. Most of its original copies were, however, destroyed in 213 BC when the fi rst Qin emperor launched a large-scale book-burning. The later transmitted texts have two different versions. One is called Modern Script text ( jinwen 今文 ) with 29 chapters, transmitted by a former Qin academician named Fu Sheng 伏生 to younger scholars in the early Han period and transcribed in the clerical script in use during the Western Han. This version became the standard edition 179–156 BC during the reign of Han Emperor Wen. The other version is called Archaic Script text ( guwen 古文 ), which was allegedly recorded in pre-Han script and legendarily discovered in the walls of Con-fucius ’ s old home in the Western Han dynasty. This text included 45 chapters, with 16 more new chapters comparing to the Modern Script text. It was presented by the scholar Kong Anguo 孔安國 , a direct lineal descendant of Confucius, to the Western Han court. This text was, however, lost in the Eastern Han period ( AD 25–220). In the early fourth century AD , a new set of Archaic Script discoveries, which were later recognized as forger-ies, were submitted to the throne during the reign of Emperor Yuan (r. 317–322) of the Eastern Jin. Famous Classicists in medieval times somehow mistook these later forgeries for Kong Anguo ’ s early transcriptions. The version of the Shangshu known today combines the 29 chapters of the Modern Script text and those rediscovered pseudo-Kong chapters in the authorized Shangshu recension, produced by the imperially sponsored Correct Meanings of the Five Classics ( Wujing Shengyi 五經正義 ) project in AD 653 during the Tang dynasty. The Tang scholar Kong Yingda 孔穎達 supervised this project and was often regarded as the author of Shangshu Zhengyi , which provided offi cial interpretation of the Shangshu . [JW]

3 A broad estimate given the available data is c. 2600–1900 BC . [Ed.] 4 Probably the majority of projectile points and spears were used as tools, not weapons. 5 Pueraria lobata is a vine in East Asia that also can be used for making baskets or for food.

[Ed.] 6 邦畿千里，惟民所止 (“The royal domain of a thousand li is where the people rest”), in

Shijing 詩經 (Classic of Poetry): Shisan Jing Zhushu , ed. Ruan Yuan: 20.3.623. (There is no precise date that we can give to the Shijing . Although it was commonly believed that Confucius ( c. 551–479 BC ) edited the book, most scholars today doubt it. There is no doubt, though, that the Shijing is a pre-Qin (221–207 BC ) text. [JW]) For discussion about these terms, see Gu 1963 : 1.1. Jiegang 顧頡剛 , “ 畿服 ( Territory Around the Capital ),” in 史林雜識初編 ( The First Serial Compilation of Miscellaneous Historical Notes ), Gu Jiegang, Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju, 1963. [JW]

REFERENCES

An , Zhimin 安志敏 . 1956 . 中国新石器时代的物质文化 (Material Culture of Chinese Neolithic Age) . Wenwu Cankao Ziliao ( 8 ): 41 – 48 .


–– 1959 . 试论黄河流域新石器时代文化 (Some Comments on the Neolithic Cultures of the Yellow River Valley) . Kaogu ( 10 ): 559 – 566 .

Archaeology Section [ 山东大学历史系考古教研室 ] . 1990 . 泗水尹家城 (Yinjiacheng of Sishui) . Beijing : Wenwu Press .

Beijing and Shandong [ 北京大学考古系、山东省文物考古研究所 ] . 2000 . 杨家圈遗址发掘报告 (Report of Excavation at the Yangjiaquan Site) . In 胶东考古 (Archaeology on the Jiao-dong Peninsula) , ed. 北京大学考古系、烟台市博物馆 : 151 – 206 . Beijing : Wenwu .

Chen , Kunlin 陈昆麟 , and Sun Huaisheng 孙淮生 . 1997 . 阳谷景阳冈龙山文化城址 (Long-shan City Remains in Jingyanggang, Yanggu) . In 中国考古学年鉴 ·1995 (Annals of Chinese Archaeology 1995) : 150 . Beijing : Wenwu .

Chen , Xingcan 陈星灿 . 2006 . 从灰嘴发掘看中国早期国家的石器工业 (Analysis of the Stone Industry in the Early State from the Excavation at Huizui) . In 中国考古学与瑞典考古学 – 第一届中瑞考古学论坛文集 (Chinese Archaeology and Swedish Archaeology: Papers of the First International Academic Conference) , ed. Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and Institute of Archaeology, Swedish State Heritage Committee : 51 – 61 . Beijing : Science Press .

Du , Zanqi 杜赞琪 . 1996 . 文化、权利与国家 – 1900–1942 年的华北农村 (Culture, Power and Country: North China from 1990 to 1942) . Trans. Wang Fuming 王福明 . Nanjing : Jiangsu Renmin .

Editorial Board [ 中国大百科全书编委 ] . 1984 . 中国大百科全书 · 纺织卷 (Encyclopedia of China: Textiles Part 1) . Beijing : Zhongguo Dabaikequanshu .

Fang , Hui 方辉 . 1987 . 二里头文化与岳石文化 (Erlitou Culture and Yueshi Culture) . Zhong-yuan Wenwu 1987 ( 1 ): 56 – 64 .

Fang , Hui 方辉 , Qian Yihui 钱益汇 , Chen Xuexiang 陈雪香 , and Lan Qiuxia 蓝秋霞 . 2005 . 济南市小清河流域区域系统考古调查 (Brief Report on Systematic Regional Survey in the Upper Valley of Xiaoqinghe River near Jinan City) . Dongfang Kaogu 2005 ( 2 ): 330 – 352 .

Fang , Hui 方辉 , Anne Underhill 文德安 , Gary Feinman 加里费曼 , Linda Nicholas 琳达尼古拉斯 , Luan Fengshi 栾丰实 , and Yu Haiguang 于海广 . 2008 . 鲁东南沿海地区聚落形态变迁与社会复杂化进程研究 (A Study on the Change of Settlement Patterns and the Development of Social Complexity in Southeastern Coast Area in Shandong, China) . Dongfang Kaogu 2008 ( 4 ): 253 – 287 .

Gao , Guangren 高广仁 , and Shao Wangping 邵望平 . 1984 . 中华文明发祥地之一海岱历史文化区 (A Birthplace of Chinese Civilization: Haidai Historic and Cultural Region) . Shiqian Yanjiu ( 1 ): 7 – 14 .

Gao , Mingkui 高明奎 . 2008 . 桐林遗址龙山文化制陶业及相关问题的初步研究 (Preliminary Analysis of Longshan Culture Pottery Making Industry and Related Issues at the Tonglin Site) . PhD diss., Peking University.

Group Project [ 夏商周断代工程专家组 ] . 2011 中华文明探源工程（二）年代学课题结项报告 (Chronological Report of Chinese Civilization Origin Project II) . MS in the possession of the author.

Gu , Jiegang 顧頡剛 , ed. 1963 . “ 畿服 (Territory Around the Capital) . In 史林雜識初編 (The First Serial Compilation of Miscellaneous Historical Notes) . Beijing : Zhonghua Shuju .

Guojia [ 国家文物局考古领队培训班 ] . 1990 . 兖州西吴寺 (Xiwusi of Yanzhou) . Beijing : Wenwu .

Han , Rong 韩榕 . 1989 . 试论城子崖类型 (On the Chengziya Cultural Complex) . Kaogu Xuebao 1989 ( 2 ): 1 – 137 .

History of Metallurgy [ 中国冶金史编写组 ] . 1988 . 三里河遗址龙山文化铜器鉴定报告 (Report of Longshan Culture Metal Unearthed from the Sanlihe Site) . In 胶县三里河 (Report on the Sanlihe Site at Jiaoxian) , ed. 中国社会科学院考古研究所 : 196 – 199 . Beijing : Wenwu .

Institute and Linfen [ 中国社会科学院考古研究所山西工作队、临汾地区文化局 ] . 1983 . 1978–1980 年山西襄汾陶寺墓地发掘简报 (Excavation Report of Graves at the Taosi Site from 1978 to 1980) . Kaogu 1983 ( 1 ): 30 – 42 .

456 SUN BO

Jia , Xiaobing 贾笑冰 . 2001 . 鲁西龙山文化又添新类型 (Discovery of a New Type of Longshan Culture in Western Shandong) . Zhongguo Wenwu Bao , Dec. 17 : 1 .

Jin , Guiyun 靳桂云 . 1993 . 关于龙山文化城子崖类型的几个问题 (Several Questions on the Chengziya Type of Longshan Culture) . In 纪念城子崖遗址发掘 60 周年国际学术讨论会文集 (Papers of the International Academic Conference in Commemoration of the 60th Anniversary of Excavation of the Chengziya Site) , ed. Zhang Xuehai 张学海 : 229 – 237 . Jinan : Qilu .

Jin , Guiyun 靳桂云 . 2007 . 中国早期小麦的考古发现与研究 (Excavation and Research on Ancient Chinese Wheat) . Nongye Kaogu ( 4 ): 11 – 20 .

Jin , Guiyun 靳桂云 , Yan Shengdong 燕生东 , Yutianjin Chelang 宇田津彻郎 , Lan Yufu 兰玉富 , Wang Chunyan 王春燕 , and Tong Peihua 佟佩华 . 2007 . 胶州赵家庄遗址 4000 年前稻田的植硅体证据 (Phytoliths of Rice Farmland Dating Back to 4000 BP from the Zhaojiangzhuang Site, Jiaozhou) . Kexue Tongbao 52 ( 18 ): 2161 – 2168 .

Li , Jiafang 黎家芳 , and Gao Guangren 高广仁 . 1979 . 典型龙山文化的的来源、发展及社会性质初探 (A Preliminary Study of the Origin, Development and Social Nature of Typical Longshan culture) . Wenwu 1979 ( 11 ): 56 – 62 .

Liang , Siyong 梁思永 . 1954 . 龙山文化 - 中国文明的史前期之一 (Longshan Culture: One of the Chinese Prehistoric Cultures) . Kaogu Xuebao 1954 ( 7 ): 5 – 14 .

Linyi Municipal [ 临沂地区文管会、日照县图书馆 ] . 1984 . 日照尧王城龙山文化遗址试掘简报 (Brief Excavation Report of Yaowangcheng, Rizhao) . Shiqian Yanjiu ( 4 ): 51 – 64 .

Liu , Li 刘莉 . 1998 . 龙山文化的酋邦与聚落形态 (Chiefdoms and Settlement Patterns of the Longshan Culture, translated by Chen Xingcan) . Huaxia Kaogu 1998 ( 1 ): 88 – 105 .

Liu , Yanchang 刘延长 , and Wang Xueliang 王学良 . 2002 . 五连丹土大汶口文化、龙山文化城址和东周时期墓葬 (City Remains of Dawenkou and Longshan Cultures and Eastern Zhou Cemetery in Dantu, Wulian) . In 中国考古学年鉴 2001 (Annals of Chinese Archaeology 2001) : 182 . Beijing : Wenwu .

Lu , Haoquan 卢浩泉 , and Zhou Caiwu 周才武 . 1990 . 山东泗水尹家城遗址出土动植物标本鉴定报告 (Report of Faunal and Flora Remains Excavated from Yinjiacheng Site, Sishui, Shandong) . In 泗水尹家 (Yinjiacheng of Sishui) , ed. Archaeology Section of the Department of History, Shandong University : 350 – 352 . Beijing : Wenwu .

Luan , Fengshi 栾丰实 . 1992a . 龙山文化王油坊类型初论 (Preliminary Analysis of Longshan Cultural Wangyoufang Type) . Kaogu 1992 ( 10 ): 924 – 935 .

–– 1992b . 龙山文化尹家城类型的分期及其源流 (Stages and Origins of the Yinjiacheng Type of Longshan Culture) . Huaxia Kaogu 1992 ( 2 ): 56 – 80 .

–– 1997 . 海岱地区考古研究 (Archaeological Research in the Haidai Region) . Jinan : Shandong University Press .

–– 2003 . 海岱系文化在华夏文明形成过程中的作用 – 从海岱、中原两大文化区系的相互关系谈起 (Discussion on the Role Played by the Haidai Culture in the Formation of Huaxia Civilization – from the Mutual Relationship Between the Two Great Cultural Regions, Haidai and Central Plain) . In 华夏文明的形成与发展 (Formation and Development of the Huaxia Civilization) , ed. 河南省文物考古研究所 : 99 – 107 . Zhengzhou : Xiang .

–– 2005 . 海岱地区史前时期稻作农业的产生、发展和扩散 (The Appearance, Development and Pervasion of Prehistory Rice Cultivation Agriculture in the Haidai Region) . Wenshizhe 2005 ( 6 ): 41 – 47 .

McGovern , Patrick E. 麦戈文 , Fang Hui 方辉 , Luan Fengshi 栾丰实 , Yu Haiguang 于海广 , Anne Underhill 文德安 , Wang Chenshan 王辰珊 , Cai Fengshu 蔡凤书 , Gretchen R. Hall 格里辛霍尔 , Gary Feinman 加里费曼 , and Zhao Zhijun 赵志军 . 2005 . 山东日照市两城镇遗址龙山文化酒遗存的化学分析 – 兼谈酒在史前时期的文化意义 (Chemical Analy-sis of the Longshan Culture Fermented Beverage Unearthed from the Liangchengzhen Site in Rizhao City, Shandong) . Kaogu 2005 ( 3 ): 73 – 85 .

National Bureau [ 国家文物局 ] . 2007 . 中国文物地图集 (Atlas of Chinese Cultural Relics) . Beijing : Chinese Cartographic Publishing House .

Qiao , Zhuojun 乔卓俊 . 2007 . 中美联合考古队结束在鲁东南地区的考古调查 (Sino-American Archaeology Team Ended the Archaeological Investigation in Shandong Southeastern Area) . Newsletter of East Asian Archaeology Research 9 : 25 .


Qiu , Shihua 仇士华 , Cai Lianzhen 蔡莲珍 , and Zhang Xuelian 张雪莲 . 2006 . 关于二里头文化的年代问题 (Chronological Research on the Erlitou Site) . In 二里头遗址与二里头文化研究 (The Erlitou Site and Research on the Erlitou Culture) , ed. Du Jinpeng 杜金鹏 and Xu Hong 许宏 : 321 – 332 . Beijing : Kexue .

Shandong Provincial [ 山东省文物考古研究所 ] . 1985 . 茌平尚庄新石器时代遗址 (The Neo-lithic Site at Shangzhuang, Chiping County) . Kaogu Xuebao 1985 ( 4 ): 465 – 506 .

–– 1997 . 山东景阳冈龙山文化城址调查与试掘 (Survey and Test Excavations of Longshan Cultural City Remains at Jingyanggang, Shandong) . Kaogu 1997 ( 5 ): 11 – 24 .

–– 2001 . 五连丹土发现大汶口文化城址 (Dawenkou City Remains Discovered in Dantu, Wulian) . Zhongguo Wenwu Bao , Jan. 17 : 1 .

Shandong Provincial Museum 山东省博物馆 . 1978 . 山东茌平尚庄第一次发掘简报 (Excava-tion (First Season) at Shangzhuang in Chiping County, Shandong Province) . Wenwu 1978 ( 4 ): 35 – 45 .

Shao , Wangping 邵望平 . 1984 . 对龙山文化的再认识 (Reconsideration of the Longshan Culture) . In 新中国的考古发现和研究 (Archaeological Excavation and Research in New China) , ed. 中国社会科学院考古学研究所 : 97 – 104 . Beijing : Wenwu .

–– 1989 . “ 禹贡 ” 九州的考古学研究 – 兼说中国古代文明的多源性 (Archaeological Research on Tribute of Yu and the Diversity of the Origins of Chinese Civilization) . In 考古学文化论集 (Collection of Essays About Archaeological cultures) , ed. Su Bingqi 苏秉琦 : 11 – 30 . Beijing : Wenwu .

Su , Bingqi 苏秉琦 . 1999 . 中国文明起源新探 (New Research on Origins of Chinese Civiliza-tion) . Beijing : Sanlian .

Sun , Bo 孙波 . 1998 . 建新墓地初探 (Preliminary Research on the Burials at Jianxin) . In 刘敦愿先生纪念文集 (Papers in Commemoration of Liu Dunyuan) , ed. 山东大学考古系 : 81 – 90 . Jinan : Shandong University Press .

–– 2003 . 试论黄淮下游的沙基堌堆遗址 (On Mounded Sites in the Lower Reaches of the Huanghe and Huaihe Rivers) . Kaogu 2003 ( 6 ): 90 – 95 .

–– 2007 . 再论大汶口文化向龙山文化的过渡 (Discussion on Transition from the Dawenkou Culture to the Longshan Culture) . Gudai Wenming Yanjiu Zhongxin Tongxun 6 : 12 – 33 .

–– 2010a . 山东龙山文化城址略论（简稿） (Preliminary Analysis of City Sites of Shandong Longshan Culture) . Gudai Wenming Yanjiu Zhongxin Tongxun 19 : 38 – 45 .

–– 2010b . 山东龙山文化城址略论 (Brief Inquiry into City Sites from the Shandong Longshan Culture) . In 中国聚落考古的理论与实践 ( 第 – 辑 – 纪念新砦遗址发掘 30 周年学术研讨会论文集 (Theory and Practice of Settlement Archaeology in China, Vol. 1: Anthology Com-memorating the 30th Anniversary of the Discovery of the Xinzhai Settlement) , ed. 中国社会科学院考古研究所，郑州市文物考古研究所 : 357 – 375 . Beijing : Kexue .

–– 2011 . 桐林与两城 – 鲁北中部 – 鲁东南沿海龙山时期的聚落与社会 (Tonglin and Liangcheng: the Longshan Cultural Settlements and Society in Middle–Northern Area and Southeastern Coast Area in Shandong) . Dongfang Kaogu 2011 ( 7 ): 36 – 64 .

Sun , Liang 孙亮 and Chen Gang 陈刚 . 2001 . 江苏连云港藤花落遗址考古发掘纪要 (Summary of Excavation of Tenghualuo Site, Lianyungang City, Jiangsu Province) . Dongnan Wenhua 2001 ( 1 ): 35 – 38 .

Wu , Ruzuo 吴汝祚 , and Du Zaizhong 杜在忠 . 1984 . 两城类型分期问题初探 (Preliminary Study of the Periodization of the Liangcheng Type of Longshan Culture) . Kaogu Xuebao 1984 ( 1 ): 1 – 22 .

Yan , Shenggong 燕生东 , and Liu Yanchang 刘延长 . 2004 . 滕州市庄里西新石器时代至汉代遗址 (Zhuanglixi Site Dating to the Neolithic and Han Dynasty in Tengzhou). 中国考古学年鉴 2003 (Annals of Chinese Archaeology 2003) , ed. Chinese Archaeology Asso-ciation : 205 . Beijing : Wenwu .

Yan Wenming 严文明 . 1984 . 论中国的铜石并用时代 (Analysis of Chinese Chalcolithic Culture) . Shiqian Yanjiu 1984 ( 1 ): 6 – 44 .

–– 2000 . 农业发生与文明起源 (Origins of Agriculture and the Rise of Civilization) . Beijing : Kexue .

Yin , Da 尹达 . 1955 . 中国新石器时代 (Chinese Neolithic Age) . Beijing : Sanlian Shudian .

458 SUN BO

Yin , Huanzhang 尹焕章 . 1955 . 华东新石器时代遗址 (Neolithic Sites in Eastern China) . Shang-hai : Xuexi Shenghuo .

Yu , Haiguang 于海广 . 1993 . 泗水尹家城 > 和 < 兖州西吴寺 > 中龙山文化的分期 (Stages of Longshan Culture in the Yinjiacheng Site of Sishui and Xiwusi of Yanzhou ) . In 纪念城子崖遗址发掘 60 周年国际学术讨论会文集 (Papers of the International Academic Conference in Commemoration of the Sixtieth Year of the Excavation of Chengziya Site) , ed. Zhang Xuehai 张学海 : 200 – 208 . Jinan : Qilu .

Zhang , Xuehai 张学海 . 1993 . 城子崖与中国文明 (Chengziya and Chinese Civilization) . In 纪念城子崖遗址发掘 60 周年国际学术讨论会文集 (Papers of the International Academic Conference in Commemoration of the Sixtieth Year of the Excavation of Chengziya Site) , ed. Zhang Xuehai 张学海 : 13 – 25 . Jinan : Qilu .

–– 1995a . 鲁西两组龙山文化城址的发现 (Discovery of Two Longshan Cultural City Sites in West Shandong) . Zhongguo Wenwu Bao , Jun. 4 .

–– 1995b . 鲁西两组龙山文化城址的发现及对几个古史问题的思考 (Two Groups of Walled Towns of Longshan Culture in Western Shandong and Several Old History Questions) . Huaxia Kaogu 1995 ( 4 ): 47 – 58 .

Zhao , Hui 赵辉 , Qin Ling 秦岭 , Zhang Hai 张海 , and Sun Bo 孙波 . 2009 . 新形势新需求新规程：新修订 - 田野考古工作规程 - 的相关说明 (Some Examples About the Code of Archaeological Fieldwork) . Nanfang Wenwu 南方文物 2009 ( 3 ): 1 – 6 .

Zhao , Zhijun 赵志军 . 2004 . 两城镇与校场铺龙山时代农业生产特点的对比分析 (Comparison and Analysis on the Characteristics of Agriculture and Civilization Process in the Huai River Valley) . Dongfang Kaogu 2004 ( 1 ): 210 – 224 . Beijing : Kexue .

Zhongmei [ 中美两城地区联合考古队 ] . 2004 . 山东日照市两城镇遗址龙山 1998–2001 年发掘简报 (Brief Excavation Report of the Liangchengzhen Site from 1998 to 2001, Rizhao, Shandong) . Kaogu 2004 ( 9 ): 7 – 18 .