Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T05:51:19.689Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mortuary Ritual and Social Hierarchy in the Longshan Culture*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 March 2015

Liu Li
Translated by
劉 莉
Liu Li*
Affiliation:
School of Archaeology, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia3083
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The mortuary data from the Longshan culture provide crucial information for understanding the process of socio-political change from non-stratified to stratified societies in late Neolithic China. This article identifies the variables in Longshan burials that can be correlated with social rank, and then studies four Longshan burial sites (Taosi, Chengzi, Yinjiacheng, and Zhufeng) in two steps. The first step is to classify the evidence for determining burial rank; the second step is to analyze intra-cemetery spatial patterns through time, including the location of graves within a site, the distribution of differently ranked graves and spatial relationships between graves and associated features (houses and pits), the diachronic changes observed in a site, and the depositional practices relating to ritual activities. The results of these analyses suggest that kinship-based Longshan communities were internally and externally stratified in their social structure; that this social stratification was ideologically legitimized by ritual activities that emphasized ancestor worship; and that their society was politically reinforced by an elite exchange network of high status goods at both regional and interregional levels. These social, political, and religious relationships formed the foundation for the development of civilization in prehistoric North China.

龍山文化的墓葬材料爲研究中國新石器時代晚期社會向分層結構發展的過程提供了重要資料.本文首先分析龍山文化墓葬中代表社會等級的考古遺存,然后分兩步討論四個龍山墓地（陶寺，呈子,尹家 城,朱封)的考古材料：(1)墓葬等級的分類及(2)墓地平面布局的分析. 後者包括墓葬在墓地中的分布,不同等級墓葬的分布,墓葬與房屋,灰坑之間的分布關系，同一墓地中墓葬在不同時期分布的變化,墓地中文化遺存的埋藏過程與宗敎儀式之間的關系.本文的分析結果顯示龍山文化以親緣關系爲基礎的社會組織已具備了分層結構，以祖先崇 拜爲主導的宗敎禮儀爲社會分層提供了意識形態基礎，而各地區貴族之間進行社會等級象徵物品的交換活動則在政治上加強了分層的社會結構.這些關系爲史前中國北方的文明社會發展奠定了社會,政治,和宗敎基礎.

Type
Articles
Information
Early China , Volume 21 , 1996 , pp. 1 - 46
Copyright
Copyright © Society for the Study of Early China 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I am grateful to Kwang-chih Chang, Richard Meadow, and Chen Xingcan, who read and commented on earlier versions of this article. I especially thank David Keightley, John Olsen, and an anonymous reviewer, who offered detailed suggestions and comments. I express my gratitude to Ming Wei and Rudy Frank, who made the final version of the maps and figures presentable. Appreciation also goes to Thomas Bartlett and Lee Ann Younger, who edited the previous drafts, and to Donald Harper, the Editor of Early China, who edited the final draft. The revision of this work was supported by a research grant from the American Council of Learned Societies with funds provided by the Chiang Ching-kuo Foundation. Without the support and help from the above individuals and institution, the completion of this research would have been impossible. However, I am responsible for all imperfections in the finished product.

References

1. See Chang, Kwang-chih, The Archaeology of Ancient China (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986), 234–94Google Scholar; Liu, Li, “Development of Chiefdom Societies in the Middle and Lower Yellow River Valley in Neolithic China—A Study of the Longshan Culture from the Perspective of Settlement Patterns” (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1994), 107–12Google Scholar, and “Settlement Patterns, Chiefdom Variability, and the Development of Early States in North China,” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 15 (1996), 237–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Underhill, Anne, “Variation in Settlements During the Longshan Period of Northern China,” Asian Perspectives 33. 2 (1994), 197–228Google Scholar.

2. For detailed discussion and critiques of this subject, see Pearson, Richard, “Chinese Neolithic Burial Patterns: Problems of Method and Interpretation,” Early China 13 (1988), 1–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3. E.g., Pearson, Richard, “Social Complexity in Chinese Coastal Neolithic Sites,” Science 213 (1981), 1078–86CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed, and “Chinese Neolithic Burial Patterns”; and Underhill, Anne, “A Mortuary Analysis of the Dawenkou Cemetery Site, Shandong, China” (M.A. thesis, University of British Columbia, 1983)Google Scholar.

4. E.g., Fung, Christopher, “Deer-tusk Knives, Serving Stands and Goblets: A Contextual Analysis of Burial Goods from Selected Dawenkou Burials, North China,” in Essays on East Asian Archaeology in Honor of Professor K.C. Chang, ed. Murowchick, Robert E.et al. (Cambridge, Mass.: Peabody Museum Press, in press)Google Scholar; Keightley, David N., “Dead but not Gone: Cultural Implications of Mortuary Practice in Neolithic and Early Bronze Age China ca. 8000 to 1000 B.C.,” paper presented to the Conference of the Ritual and Social Significance of Death in Chinese Society (Oracle, Arizona, 1985)Google ScholarPubMed; and Keightley, , “The Quest for Eternity in Ancient China: The Dead, Their Gifts, Their Names,” in Ancient Mortuary Traditions of China, ed. Kuwayama, George (Los Angeles: Far Eastern Art Council, Los Angeles County Museum of Art, 1991), 12–24Google Scholar.

5. This approach to mortuary analysis was first proposed by Binford, Louis, “Mortuary Practices: Their Study and Their Potential,” in Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices, ed. Brown, J. A. (Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology 25 [1971]), 6–29Google Scholar; and by Saxe, Arthur, “Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices” (Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, 1970)Google Scholar. Often referred to as the processual approach in archaeology because it addresses the cause-and-effect relationships that generate cultural processes, the mortuary theory of this school emphasizes the direct connection between variations in burial practice and different social systems. Different degrees of energy input in burials are thought to indicate different social ranks among the deceased. See also, Peebles, Christopher S., “Moundville and Surrounding Sites: Some Structural Considerations of Mortuary Practices,” in Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices, ed. Brown, , 8–91Google Scholar; Tainter, Joseph A., “The Social Correlates of Mortuary Patterning at Kaloko, North Kona, Hawaii,” Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania 8 (1973), 1–11Google Scholar; and Tainter, , “Spatial Organization and Social Patterning in the Kaloko Cemetery, North Kona, Hawaii,” Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania 11 (1976), 91–105Google Scholar.

6. This interpretation of mortuary practice is associated with contextual archaeology, which represents a critique of the Binford-Saxe Approach. See especially, Hodder, Ian, Symbols in Action: Ethnoarchaeological Studies of Material Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982)Google Scholar; and Hodder, , ed., Symbolic and Structural Archaeology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Contextual archaeology maintains that burial patterns do not directly express the actual power relations in society; rather the symbolism of ritual communication refers only to an idealized expression of such relations. Furthermore, the ideological element in the social context of burial plays an important role in mortuary rites. Thus, the relationship between living and dead should be integrated into studies of mortuary practices, since the dead may be used as one of many modes of social advertisement by survivors for re-ordering their social positions (see Pearson, Michael P., “Mortuary Practices, Society and Ideology: An Ethno-archaeological Study,” in Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, ed. Hodder, , 99–113)Google Scholar.

In the continuing scholarly debate on mortuary practice, many archaeologists are adopting a third theoretical position which reconciles the differences between the two competing interpretations of mortuary practice described above (see Morris, Ian, “The Archaeology of Ancestors: The Saxe/Goldstein Hypothesis Revisited,” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 1. 2 [1991], 147–69)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Proponents of this third position favor the processual school's emphasis on mortuary variability as a reflection of social organization, while also agreeing with the contextual school's insight that recognizes the cognitive contribution of survivors to ritual.

7. See Barrett, John, “The Living, the Dead and the Ancestors: Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Mortuary Practices,” in The Archaeology of Context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age: Recent Trends, ed. Barrett, J. C. and Kinnes, I. A. (Sheffield: Dept. of Anthropology and Prehistory, University of Sheffield, 1988), 30–41Google Scholar; and Thomas, Julian, Rethinking the Neolithic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991)Google Scholar.

8. As Lynne G. Goldstein has pointed out, mortuary sites “reflect both a differentiation of activities and a differentiation of the social units performing the activities; mortuary sites should thus also exhibit a complex formal-spatial structure” (Goldstein, , “One-Dimensional Archaeology and Multi-Dimensional People: Spatial Organisation and Mortuary Analysis,” in The Archaeology of Death, ed. Chapman, R., Kinnes, I., and Randsborg, K. [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981], 57)Google Scholar.

9. Saxe, , “Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices,” 223–34Google Scholar; Goldstein, Lynne G., “Spatial Structure and Social Organization: Regional Manifestations of Mississippian Society” (Ph.D. diss., Northwestern University, 1976)Google Scholar; and Tainter, , “Spatial Organization and Social Patterning,” 91–105Google Scholar.

10. Gao, Qiang and Lee, Yun Kuen, “A Biological Perspective on Yangshao Kinship,” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 12 (1993), 266–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Multiple secondary burials refer to a burial form which is characterized by the presence of multiple skeletons in each grave, and most skeleton remains appear to have been removed from their primary burial pits and then re-buried collectively.

11. Tainter, , “The Social Correlates of Mortuary Patterning,” 6Google Scholar.

12. Binford, , “Mortuary Practices,” 21–23Google Scholar.

13. Pearson, , “Mortuary Practices, Society and Ideology,” 112Google Scholar.

14. The wooden frame and the leathery skin of the drums are rarely preserved, but the bony part of the skin (scute) may remain.

15. Egg-shell pottery was previously referred to as black pottery, and was made of very fine clay. Manufactured or finished by the fast-wheel technique to form an extremely thin wall, it was then well-polished and carefully fired to produce the characteristic shiny black appearance. The high-stemmed goblet form of egg-shell pottery (gaobingbei高柄杯) was developed stylistically from the black pottery gaobingbei of the Dawenkou culture. The egg-shell pottery goblets of the Longshan culture are normally 0.5–2.0 mm thick (the plate on the upper part of the vessel is often the thinnest, while the stem and the base are thicker), are no more than 25 cm high, and weigh 50–70 grams. See Zaizhong, Du杜在忠, “Shilun Longshan wenhua de ‘danketao’” 試論龍山文化的蛋殼陶,Kaogu 考古1982.2,176–81Google Scholar; Yingtang, Su蘇迎堂, “Gutao guibao danketao”古陶瑰寶蛋殼陶, Wenwu文物1980. 9, 82–83Google Scholar; Ruzuo, Wu吳汝祚, “Shilun Longshan wenhua de danke taobei”試論龍山文化的蛋殼陶杯, Shiqian yanjiu 史前硏究1987.1, 34Google Scholar; Ruzuo, Wu, “Cong heitaobei kan Dawenkou Longshan wenhua fazhan de jieduanxing jiqi zhongxin fanwei” 從黑陶杯看大汶口龍山文化發展的階段性及其中心範圍, in Kaoguxue wenhua iw—考古學文化論集, ed. Bingqi, Su 蘇秉琦 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1989), 31–44Google Scholar; and Hua'nan, Zhong 鐘華南, “Dawenkou Longshan wenhua heitao gaobingbei de moni shiyan” 大汶口龍山文化黑陶高柄杯的模擬試驗, in Kaoguxue wenhua lunji, ed. Bingqi, Su, 255–73Google Scholar.

16. The burials which yielded remains of alligator drums are M3002, M3015, M3016, M3072, and M3073 at the Taosi site in Xiangfen, Shanxi (yanjiusuo, Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu, “1978–1980 nian Shanxi Xiangfen Taosi mudi fajue jianbao” 1978–1980 年山西襄扮陶寺墓地發掘簡報, Kaogu 1983. 1, 30–42Google Scholar; and Wei, Gao 高偉, Tianlin, Gao 高天麟, and Daihai, Zhang 張海, “Guanyu Taosi mudi de jige wenti” 關于陶寺墓地的幾個問題, Kaogu 1983. 6, 531–36)Google Scholar; M202 at the Zhufeng site in Linqu, Shandong (yanjiusuo, Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu, “Shandong Linqu Zhufeng Longshan wenhua muzang” 山東臨朐朱封龍山文化墓葬, Kaogu 1990. 7, 587–94Google Scholar); and M15 at the Yinjiacheng site in Shandong (jiaoyanshi, Shandong daxue lishixi kaogu zhuanye, Sishui Yinjiacheng 泗水尹家城 [Beijing: Wenwu, 1990], 44–45)Google Scholar.

17. Wangping, Shao 召望平,“‘Yugong’ Jiuzhou de kaoguxue yanjiu” 禹貢九州的考, Kaoguxue wenhua lunji, ed. Bingqi, Su, 11–30Google Scholar; Wei, Gao 高偉, “Longshan shidai de lizhi” 龍山時代的禮制, in Qingzhu Su Bingqi kaogu wushiwu nian lunwenji 慶祝蘇秉埼考古五十五年論文集 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1989), 235–44Google Scholar; Benxiong, Zhou 周本雄, “Shandong Yanzhou Wangyin xinshiqi shidai yizhi zhong de yangzi'e yihai” 山東究州王因新石器時代遺址中的揚子鱷遺骸, Kaogu xuebao 考古學報 1982. 2, 251–60Google Scholar.

18. Geng, Rong 榮庚, Shang Zhou yiqi tongkao 商周舞器通考(Beijing: Harvard Yenching Institute, 1941)Google Scholar, Shangbian 上編, 512, and Xiabian 下編, 514.

19. guanlichu, Shandong sheng wenwu and bowuguan, Jinan shi, Dawenkou 大交口 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1974), 22–25Google Scholar.

20. Siyong, Liang 梁思永, Houjiazhuang 侯家莊 (Henan Anyang Houjiazhuang Yindai mudi 河南安陽侯家莊殷代墓地 [Taibei: Zhongyang yanjiuyuan minzu yanjiusuo, 1968]), vol. 6 (1217 hao damu號大墓), 23–27Google Scholar; Shao Wangping, “‘Yugong’ Jiuzhou de kaoguxue yanjiu”; yanjiusuo, Shanxi sheng kaogu and wenhuaju, Lingshixian, “Shanxi Lingshi Jingjiecun Shang mu” 山西靈石旌介村商墓, Wenwu 1986.11, 1–18Google Scholar; Benxiong, Zhou, “Wangyin yizhi yangzi'e yihai,” 251–60Google Scholar.

21. According to Shangshu 尙書 (Sibu beiyao ed. of Shisanjing zhushu 十三經注疏) “Yugong” 禹貢, 6.6a, Xuzhou 徐州 (which corresponds approximately to today's southern Shandong, northern Jiangsu, and southern Anhui) was the location of several great lakes, such as Dayeze 大野澤and Heze 荷澤.

22. yanjiusuo, Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu, “Shandong Yanzhou Wangyin xinshiqi shidai yizhi fajue jianbao” 山東兗州王因新石器時代遺址發掘簡報, Kaogu xuebao 1979. 1, 5–14Google Scholar.

23. Benxiong, Zhou, “Wangyin yizhi yangzi'e yihai,” 251–52, 257Google Scholar.

24. Zaizhong, Du, “Longshan wenhua de danketao,” 176–77Google Scholar; Ruzuo, Wu, “Longshan wenhua danketao,” 34Google Scholar; Ruzuo, Wu “Dawenkou Longshan wenhua fazhan,” 37Google Scholar; yanjiusuo, Liaoning sheng wenwu kaogu, Liaodong bandao shipeng 遼東半島石棚 (Shenyang: Liaoning kexue jishu, 1994), 80–85Google Scholar; bowuguan, Liaoning sheng and bowuguan, Lūshun, “Dalian shi Guojiacun xinshiqi shidai yizhi” 大連巿郭家村新石器時代遺址, Kaogu xuebao 1984.3, 287–328Google Scholar; Hidenori, Okamura 岡村秀典, “Zhongguo shiqian shiqi yuqi de shengchan yu liutong” 中國史前時期玉器的生產與流通, trans. Baolian, Jiang 会寶蓮, Kaogu yu wenwu 1995. 6, 78–87Google Scholar.

25. Hua'nan, Zhong, “Dawenkou Longshan heitao gaobingbei,” 255–73Google Scholar.

26. Zaizhong, Du, “Longshan wenhua de danketao,” 178Google Scholar.

27. Dunyuan, Liu 劉敦愿, “Longshan wenhua ruogan wenti zhiyi” 龍山文化若干問題質疑, in Shandong Longshan wenhua yanjiu wenji 山東龍山文化研究文集, ed. Fengshu, Cai 蔡鳳書and Fengshi, Luan 欒豐實 (Jinan: Qilu, 1992), 29Google Scholar. See also, Dunyuan, Liu, “Ji Liangchengzhen yizhi faxian de liangjian shiqi” 言己兩城鎮遺址發現的兩件石器, Kaogu 1972. 4, 56–57Google Scholar; and Da, Yin 尹達, Zhongguo xinshiqi shidai 中國新石器時代 (Shanghai: Sanlian, 1955), 58Google Scholar.

28. Liu, , “Development of Chiefdom Societies,” 237–70Google Scholar.

29. Hua'nan, Zhong, “Dawenkou-Longshan heitao gaobingbei,” 271Google Scholar.

30. yanjiusuo, Liaoning sheng wenwu kaogu, Liaodong bandao shipeng, 80–85Google Scholar; Liaoning sheng bowuguan and Lūshun bowuguan, “Dalian shi Guojiacun xinshiqi shidai yizhi.”

31. Weihua, Tong ׳冬偉華, “Jiaodong bandao yu Liaodong bandao yuanshi wenhua de jiaoliu” 膠東半島與遼東半島原始文化的交流, in Kaoguxue wenhua lunji, ed. Bingqi, Su (Beijing: Wenwu, 1989), 78–95Google Scholar.

32. Okamura, “Zhongguo shiqian shiqi yuqi de shengchan yu liutong.”

33. Braun, D. P., “Illinois Hopewell Burial Practices and Social Organization: A Reexamination of the Klunk-Gibson Mound Group,” in Hopewell Archaeology: The Chillicothe Conference, ed. Brose, D. S. and Greber, K. N. (Ohio: Kent State University Press, 1979), 70Google Scholar.

34. Fung, “Deer-tusk Knives, Serving Stands and Goblets.”

35. yanjiusuo, Zhejiang sheng wenwu kaogu, “Zhejiang sheng xinjin shinian de kaogu gongzuo” 浙江省新近十年古工作, in Wenwu kaogu gongzuo shinian 文物考古工作十年 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1989), 118Google Scholar.

36. Jing, Guang Wen and Zhichun, “Chinese Neolithic Jade: A Preliminary Geo-archaeological Study,” Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 3 (1992), 251–75Google Scholar.

37. See Zhixin, Sun, “The Liangzhu Culture: Its Discovery and Its Jades,” Early China 18 (1993), 24–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for a review of studies on Liangzhu jade sources.

38. Shi, Qu 曲石, “Guanyu woguo gudai yuqi cailiao wenti” 關于我國古代玉器材料問題, Wenwu 1987. 4, 60Google Scholar.

39. According to Xizheng, Yun and Yongkang, Mou, “Zhongguo shi־ qian yishu de guibao” 中國史前藝術的瑰寶, in Zhongguo yuqi quanji 中國宝器全集, vol. 1, ed. Yongkang, Mou and Xizheng, Yun (Shijiazhuang: Hebei meishu, 1992), 28Google Scholar, some pits filled with semi-finished jade artifacts were found at Liangchengzhen. A piece of jade material with traces of cutting, a core from a cong tube, and a semifinished cong tube were collected by the Cultural Relics Management Department of Yuhang County (Yongkang, Mou 牟永抗, “Liangzhu yuqi santi” 良渚玉器三題, Wen-wu 1989. 5, 64–68, 74)Google Scholar. For Mopandun, see bowuyuan, Nanjing and wenjiaoju, Dantu xia, “Jiangsu Dantu Mopandun yizhi fajue baogao” 江蘇丹徒磨盤壞遺址發掘報告, Shicjian yanjiu 1985. 2, 71–84Google Scholar.

40. Jianfang, Yang, Zhongguo chutu guyu 中國出土古玉, vol. 1 (Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, 1989), plate 22:16Google Scholar.

41. Junyong, Liu 劉俊勇, “Dalian chutu de xiuyuqi ji youguan wenti” 大連出土的岫玉器及有關問題, Gugong bowuyuan yuankan 故宮博物院院刊 1989. 2, 53–56Google Scholar; Okamura, , “Zhongguo shiqian shiqi yuqi de shengchan yu liutong,” 80–81Google Scholar.

42. yanjiusuo, Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu, Jiaoxian Sanlike 勝縣三里河 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1988)Google Scholar, figure 51:13; Mou Yongkang and Yun Xizheng, eds., Zhongguo yuqi quanji, plate 42.

43. Xuehai, Zhang 張學海, “Yazhang zatan” 牙璋雜談, in Nan Zhongguo ji linjin diqu guwenhua yanjiu 南中國及鄰近地运古文化硏究, ed. Centre for Chinese Archaeology and Art, ICS, The Chinese University of Hong Kong (Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 1994) 19–25Google Scholar.

44. Yongkang, Mou and Xizheng, Yun, eds., Zhongguo Yuqi Quanji, plates 229, 230, 231Google Scholar.

45. Xueqin, Li 李學勤, “Shilun yazhang jiqi wenhua beijing” 試論牙璋及其文化背景, in Nan Zhongguo ji linjin diqu guwenhua yanjiu, 6Google Scholar; Yongkang, Mou, “Nanyadao ‘yazhang’ tanwei: guanyu yulibing de ruogan sikao”南丫島牙璋探微：關于主禮兵的若干思考, in Nan Zhongguo ji linjin diqu guwenhua yanjiu, 149Google Scholar.

46. Sun, , “The Liangzhu Culture,” 1–40Google Scholar.

47. Zaizhong, Du, “Lun Wei Zi liuyu de yuanshi wenhua” 論灘溜流域的原始文化, in Shandong shiqian wenhua lunwenji 山東史前文化論文集, ed. sheng, ShangdongQi Lu kaogu congkan bianjibu (Jinan: Qi Lu, 1986), 141Google Scholar.

48. yanjiusuo, Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu, “Shanxi Xiangfen xian Taosi yizhi fajue jianbao”山西襄汾縣陶寺遺址發掘簡報, Kaogu 1980.1, 18–31Google Scholar; see plate 6: 7, 8.

49. Yongkang, Mou and Xizheng, Yun, eds., Zhongguo yuqi quanji, plate 43Google Scholar. The Lushanmao jade artifacts were collected from a non-excavation context, but it is possible that some of them belong to the Longshan culture. The style of the cong tubes resembles the early Liangzhu cong examples, and Longshan culture deposits were also found at the site (Xizheng, Yun and Yongkang, Mou, “Zhongguo shiqian yishu de guibao,” 29)Google Scholar.

50. yanjiusuo, Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu, “1978–1980 nian Shanxi Xiang-fen Taosi mudi fajue jianbao,” 50Google Scholar; Kaogu jinghua 考古精華 (Beijing: Kexue, 1993), plate 39: 3Google ScholarPubMed.

51. Qizhong, Xu 徐其忠, “Shandong diqu shiqian wenhua zhong de yuyue” 山東地區史前文化鍾的玉鉞, Kaogu 1995. 7, 614–22Google Scholar.

52. yanjiusuo, Shandong sheng wenwu kaogu, “Linqu xian Xizhufeng Longshan wenhua chongguomu de qingli”臨朐縣西朱封龍山文化重槨墓的淸理, in Haidai kaogu 海岱考古, vol. 1, ed. Xuehai, Zhang 張學海 (Jinan: Shandong daxue, 1989), 219–24Google Scholar; Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo, “Shandong Linqu Zhufeng Longshan wenhua muzang.”

53. Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo, “1978–1980 nian Shanxi Xiang-fen Taosi mudi fajue jianbao.”

54. The earliest examples of pig mandibles interred in human burials were found in two tombs (M15, M208) at the Dadiwan大地灣site in Qin'an 秦安, Gansu, dated to Phase I (c. 5400 B.C.) of the Dadiwan culture (bowuguan, Gansu sheng, “Gansu Qin'an Dadiwan xinshiqi shidai zaoqi yicun”甘肅秦安大地灣新石器時代早期遺 Wenwu 1981. 4, 1–7)Google Scholar.

55. For a list of Neolithic sites at which pig skulls were found in burials, see Renxiang, Wang 王仁湘, “Xinshiqi shidai zangzhu de zongjiao yiyi” 新石器時代葬猪的宗敎意義, Wenwu 1981. 2, 79–81Google Scholar; see table 1.

56. For example, pig teeth were found on top of the stone chamber in 90% of the burials at Tuchengzi 土城子in Jilin, dating to the Zhou period (Renxiang, Wang, ”Xinshiqi shidai zangzhu de zongjiao yiyi,” 79)Google Scholar.

57. yanjiusuo, Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu, “Shanxi Xiangfen xian Taosi yizhi fajue jianbao,” 30Google Scholar.

58. Youheng, Li 李有恆, “Dawenkou muqun de shougu ji qita dongwu guge”, 大交口墓群的獸骨及其他動物骨豁, in Dawenkou, ed. guanlichu, Shandong sheng wenhua and bowuguan, Jinan shi, 156–58Google Scholar.

59. jiaoyanshi, Shandong daxue lishixi kaogu zhuanye, Sishui Yinjiacheng, 155Google Scholar.

60. For example, see Zuobin, Dong 董作賓, Xiaotun dier ben: Yinxu wenzi yibian (Nanjing: Zhongyang yanjiuyuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo, 1949), 4543Google Scholar: ”Crack-making on the day jiazi. Use two non-castrated boars and two boars as sacrifices for ancestor Xiayi” (甲子卜0[二豕二豕土于下乙). Shi 豕 may have referred to non-castrated boars, while 豕± may have been used as a general term for all boars. See also, Zhenyu, Luo 羅振玉, Yinxu shuqi houbian 殷虛書契後編(n.p., 1916; rpt. Taibei, n.d.), 1.24.8Google Scholar: “Crack-making on the day jichou. In making burnt offering to the (Yellow) River at night, it should be a young pig (that we use)” (己丑卜河赏夕虽隊).Tun膝 means young pigGoogle Scholar. See Cheng, Zhao 趙誠, Jiaguwen jianming cidian 甲骨文簡明詞典 (Beijing: Zhonghua, 1988), 199–200Google Scholar.

61. E.g., Zhuchen, Tong 侈柱臣, “Cong kaogu cailiao shitan woguo de siyouzhi he jieji de qiyuan” 從考古材料試探我國的私有制和階級的起源, Kaogu 1975. 4, 213–21Google Scholar; Da, Shan 單達and Shi Bing史兵, “Cong Dawenkou wenhua yicun kan woguo gudai siyouzhi de yunyu he mengya” 從大汶口文化遺存看我國古代私有制的孕育和萌芽, Wenwu 1976. 4, 84–88Google Scholar.

62. Kim, Seung-Og, “Burials, Pigs, and Political Prestige in Neolithic China,” Current Anthropology 35. 2 (1994), 119–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

63. Kim, , “Burials, Pigs, and Political Prestige,” 126Google Scholar.

64. For additional criticisms of the argument that pigs were items of long–distance exchange, see also Lee, Yun Kuen, “Comments,” Current Anthropology 35.2 (1994), 133–35Google Scholar; and Nelson, Sarah, “Comments,” Current Anthropology 35. 2 (1994), 135–36Google Scholar.

65. Renxiang, Wang, “Xinshiqi shidai zangzhu de zongjiao yiyi,” 79–81Google Scholar.

66. The sacrifices found in the Shang royal cemetery include humans, elephants, horses, dogs, pigs, sheep, monkeys, and birds. See yanjiusuo, Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu, Yinxu de faxian yu yanjiu 殷墟的發現與硏究(Beijing: Kexue, 1994), 117Google Scholar. Several animal sacrificial pits dated to the Western Zhou were found at Xiwusi 西吳寺 in Shandong. These pits contained either complete animal skeletons or were packed with mixed animal bones from cattle, pig, deer, and sheep. See xunlianban, Guojia wenwuju kaogu lingdui, Yanzhou Xiwusi 竞州西吳寺 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1990), 122–29Google Scholar.

67. Renxiang, Wang, “Xinshiqi shidai zangzhu de zongjiao yiyi” 83 (Wang cites the Weizhi passage from the Sanguozhi 三國志)Google Scholar.

68. Thompson, Stuart E., “Death, Food and Fertility,” in Death Ritual in Late Imperial and Modern China, ed. Watson, J. L. and Rawski, E.S. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), 71–108Google Scholar; Watson, James L., “Of Flesh and Bones: The Management of Death Pollution in Cantonese Society,” in Death and the Regeneration of Life, ed. Bloch, M. and Parry, J. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 155–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Watson, Ruble S., “Remembering the Dead: Graves and Politics in Southeastern China,” in Death Ritual in Late Imperial and Modern China, ed. Watson, and Rawski, , 203–27Google Scholar.

69. Keightley, , “Dead but not Gone,” 33–34Google ScholarPubMed; Fung, “Deer-tusk Knives, Serving Stands and Goblets,”

70. guanlizu, Changwei diqu wenwu and bowuguan, Zhucheng xian, “Shandong Zhucheng Chengzi yizhi fajue baogao” 山東諸城呈子遺址發掘報告, Kaogu xuebao 1980. 3, 329–85Google Scholar; yanjiusuo, Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu, Jiaoxian Sanlihe 應縣三里河 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1988), 173–84Google Scholar.

71. Renxiang, Wang, “Xinshiqi shidai zangzhu de zongjiao yiyi,” 84Google Scholar.

72. Keightley, , “Dead but not Gone” 33Google ScholarPubMed; Fung, “Deer-tusk Knives, Serving Stands and Goblets.”

73. Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo, “Shanxi Xiangfen xian Taosi yizhi fajue jianbao,” and “1978–1980 nian Shanxi Xiangfen Taosi mudi fajue jianbao.”

74. Gao Wei, Gao Tianlin, and Zhang Daihai, “Guanyu Taosi mudi.”

75. Wei, Gao, “Longshan shidai de lizhi,” 239Google Scholar.

76. In Taosi burials, the large V-shaped stone knives were associated with cutting boards, indicating that they were used for food preparation in ritual (Wei, Gao, “Longshan shidai de lizhi,” 242)Google Scholar. This type of stone knife was also found at Liangzhu sites in the lower Yangtze River region (Jian, Song 宋健, “Songshan diqu yu Taihu diqu wenming jincheng de bijiao yanjiu” 嵩山地區與太湖地區文明進程的比較硏究, Shanghai bowuguan jikan 6 [1992], 366, figure 20)Google Scholar and the Lushanmao site in Shaanxi (Naijun, Ji 姬乃軍, “Yan'an shi faxian de gudai yuqi” 延安巿發現的古 代玉器, Wenwu 1984.2, 84–87)Google Scholar.

77. Wei, Gao, Tianlin, Gao, and Daihai, Zhang, “Guanyu Taosi mudi,” 532–33Google Scholar.

78. yanjiusuo, Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu, “1978–1980 nian Shanxi Xiangfen Taosi mudi fajue jianbao,” 32Google Scholar.

79. Wei, Gao, Tianlin, Gao, and Daihai, Zhang, “Guanyu Taosi mudi,” 533Google Scholar.

80. Wei, Gao, Tianlin, Gao, and Daihai, Zhang, “Guanyu Taosi mudi,” 534Google Scholar.

81. The occupants of small tombs were probably not captives, slaves, or human sacrifices. First, skeletons in all small burials were placed in the grave pits in an extended dorsal position, suggesting that the deceased had received regular mortuary treatment. Second, the skeletons reveal no evidence of a violent death. Last, in each section of the cemetery, all ranks of burials were closely spaced and organized in a regular pattern, indicating the existence of close relationships among the deceased when they were alive. Evidence of human sacrifice in Neolithic burials, however, was revealed in three Liangzhu culture burials at Fuquanshan 福泉山 in Qingpu, 靑浦, Shanghai, (“Shanghai faxian sanzuo ‘Liangzhu’ gumu you peizang nuli” 上海發現三座良渚古墓有陪葬奴隸, Xinhua ribao 新華日報, 01 3, 1988)Google Scholar, and eight large burials at Huating in Jiangsu, belonging either to the Dawenkou culture (bowuguan, Nanjing, “1987 nian Jiangsu Xinyi Huating yizhi de fajue” 1987 年江蘇新祈花廳遺址的發掘, Wenwu 1990. 2, 1–26Google Scholar; and “Jiangsu Xinyi Huating yizhi 1989 nian fajue jiyao” 江蘇新沂花廳遺址1989年發掘記要, Dongnan wenhua 東南文化 1990.1-2, 225–61)Google Scholar or to the Liangzhu culture (Minghua, Zhang 張明華, “Guanyu yipi Liangzhu xing guyu de wen-hua guishu wenti” 關于一批良渚型古玉的文化歸屬問題, Kaogu 1994. 11, 1012–21)Google Scholar.

82. Changwei diqu wenwu guanlizu and Zhucheng xian bowuguan, “Shandong Zhucheng Chengzi yizhi fajue baogao.”

83. I disagree with the excavation report, which suggests that the burials were divided into three sections; see guanlizu, Changwei diqu wenwu and bowuguan, Zhucheng xian, “Shandong Zhucheng Chengzi yizhi fajue baogao,” 349Google Scholar.

84. The two houses were not dated in the excavation report. However, house F2 was on top of a middle-phase burial (M18), and house F3 had intruded into an early-phase burial (M76). It is likely that the houses belong to the late phase. From the structure of the houses and the artificial remains near them, there is no evidence that the houses had been used for any purpose other than as domestic residences.

85. Pit H16, which has been dated to the late phase and was associated with house F3, adds support to dating the houses to the late phase (guan-lizu, Changwei diqu wenwu and bowuguan, Zhucheng xian, “Shandong Zhucheng Chengzi yizhi fajue baogao,” 377)Google Scholar.

86. At Cishan, 474 ash pits and only two house foundations were found in an area of 2,579 m2. Among the ash pits, eighty were filled with millet and two with tree seeds. The millet deposit was 0.3 m to 2.0 m in thickness. Sometimes skeletons of dogs and pigs were underneath the millet deposit, and whole vessels were also found in some pits (guanlichu, Hebei sheng wenwu and baoguansuo, Handan shi wenwu, “Hebei Wu'an Cishan yizhi” 河北武安磁山遺址, Kaogu xuebao 1981. 3, 303–38)Google Scholar. Gong, Bu 卜工, “Cishan jisiyizhi jixiangguan wenti” 磁山祭祀遺址及相關問題, Wenwu 1987.11, 43–47Google Scholar, argues that the ash pits may have served a ritual function, and that the excavated areas at the Cishan site were largely used as places for public ritual activities. This kind of activity, which involved digging a pit and burying sacrifices, may be the prototype of the rituals later identified as xianji 陷祭in oracle bone inscriptions, as yimai 瘦埋 in Erya 爾雅, “Shitian” 釋天, and as kan in Liji 禮言己 (all refer to a burying ritual).

87. guanlizu, Changwei diqu wenwu and bowuguan, Zhucheng xian, ”Shandong Zhucheng Chengzi yizhi fajue baogao,” 348Google Scholar.

88. Pit H14, which was close to a middle phase burial (M67), is dated to the early phase in the excavation report, and would seem to be an exception. However, several pottery vessels found in the pit, such as an All type ding 鼎 tripod and a II type cylinder-stand pan 盤 basin, were dated to the middle or late phases. Therefore, I place pit H14 in the late phase, and consider it to be later than burial M67.

89. guanlizu, Changwei diqu wenwu and bowuguan, Zhucheng xian, ”Shandong Zhucheng Chengzi yizhi fajue baogao,” 348Google Scholar.

90. jiaoyanshi, Shandong daxue lishixi kaogu zhuanye, Sishui Yinjiacheng, 2–4Google Scholar.

91. It seems that there was a cultural discontinuity between phase I and phase II. In phase I, six dismembered human skeletons, including four children under thirteen years of age and one old male, were found on the floors of the four houses. Abundant burnt mud and ash as well as a large quantity of tools and pottery vessels were also found above the house floors. The evidence suggests that phase I may have ended with the occurrence of some kind of disaster at the village—probably an enemy raid, as the houses were burnt down after the elder and younger inhabitants were killed. In contrast, phases II-IV show a continuous cultural development.

92. According to Tiemei, Chen 陳鐵梅, “Zhongguo xinshiqi muzang chengnian rengu bili yichang de wenti” 中國新石器墓葬成年人骨比例異常的問題, Kaogu xuebao 1990. 4, 511–22Google Scholar, an unbalanced sex ratio, in which the number of males is much higher than the number of females, exists in 50% of Neolithic burial sites. However, as noted by Chen, the gender data from Neolithic burial sites may not reflect true demographic configurations. The reasons can be summarized as follows: (1) poor preservation of the skeletons makes sex determination difficult; (2) misidentifications may be made by archaeologists due to the lack of understanding of the differences between Neolithic and modern female body types (Neolithic female skeletons were more robust than those of modern females, since they performed more physical work in their daily lives); (3) Women often died at a younger age in the Neolithic period, and their skeletons were more perishable than those of males who tended to survive longer; (4) males and females were not treated equally in burial customs; (5) female infanticide may have been practiced for population control. Because of these factors, the sex ratio from Neolithic sites has to be handled with caution.

93. The distribution of burials at the site is illustrated in the excavation report (Shandong daxue lishixi kaogu zhuanye jiaoyanshi, Sishui Yinjiacheng, figure 32), but the locations of pits and houses are not. This makes spatial analysis difficult. Based on descriptions in the text and based on the inventory lists, I have tried to plot the houses and pits in my maps. The accuracy of this plotting is limited, since the report only indicates the number of the excavation squares in which houses and pits were found. I can only mark the approximate location of the houses and the pits in the excavation squares where they were found. Most houses were poorly preserved, so it is difficult to analyze the ranking of houses in relation to the ranking of burials. Therefore, burial ranking is the only variable used here for the study of spatial separation as an indicator of social hierarchy.

94. Other comparable examples are the three burials found at Zhufeng in Linqu, Shandong (see below).

95. One exception is M138, which was not associated with any houses. It was located in the southwestern corner of the excavated area. It is not known if there were more archaeological features, including houses and burials, beyond the excavated area.

96. The jade knife (16.1 cm long, 7.8–8.1 cm wide, and 0.3 cm thick) was found in M139, ranked in Class 2.

97. The pits near the houses probably also had a religious function in household ritual activities of the Longshan culture (an example of this has been identified at the Kangjia 康家 site in Lintong 臨潼, Shaanxi). See Liu, , “Development of Chiefdom Societies,” 99–128Google Scholar.

98. Shandong sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, “Linqu xian Xizhufeng”; Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu yanjiusuo, “Shandong Linqu Zhufeng.”

99. The Liangzhu jade ornaments mentioned here refer to the so-called guanzhuangqi 冠狀器 “headdress-shaped objects” (Figure 4), found near the head of skeletons in large burials at the Fanshan site in Yuhang, Zhejiang. See Jinpeng, Du 杜金鵬, “Lun Linqu Zhufeng Longshan wenhua yuguanshi ji xiangguan wenti” 論臨朐朱封龍山文化玉冠飾及相關問題, Kaogu 1994. 1, 55–65Google Scholar.

100. yanjiusuo, Shandong sheng wenwu kaogu, “Linqu xian Xizhufeng,” 224Google Scholar.

101. yanjiusuo, Shaanxi sheng kaogu, Longgangsi 龍岡寺(Beijing: Wenwu, 1990), 10, 59–67Google Scholar; Jingwu, Wei 魏京武 and Yachang, Yang 楊 亞 長, “Longgangsi xinshiqi shidai gonggong mudi de fajue yu chubu yanjiu” 龍崗寺新石器時代公共墓地的發掘與初歩研究, in Kaoguxue yanjiu: jinian Shaanxi sheng kaogusuo chengli sanshi zhounian 考古學硏究：紀念陕西省考古所成立三十周年 (Xi'an: Sanqin, 1993), 91–111Google Scholar.

102. For a more detailed discussion of the development of ancestor ritual revealed in Neolithic data, see Liu, Li, “Ancestor Worship: An Archaeological Investigation of Ritual Activities in Neolithic North China,” in Essays on East Asian Archaeology in Honor of Professor K.C. Chang, ed. Murowchick, et al.Google Scholar

103. Chang, Kwang-chih, Shang Civilization (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980), 110–24Google Scholar; yanjiusuo, Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu, Yinxu d6faxian yu yanjiu, 100–121Google Scholar.

104. Chang, , Shang Civilization, 90–95Google Scholar; Zhangru, Shi 石王章如, Yinxu jianzhu yicun 殷墟建築遺存 (Taibei: Zhongyang yanjiuyuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo, 1959), 309–12Google Scholar.

105. Chang, Kwang-chih, Art, Myth, and Ritual: The Path to Political Authority in Ancient China (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1983), 44–55Google Scholar.

106. Keightley, David N., “The Religious Commitment: Shang Theology and the Genesis of Chinese Political Culture,” History of Religions 17 (1978), 212–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

107. Watson, , “Remembering the Dead: Graves and Politics in Southeastern China,” 207–10Google Scholar.

108. The social position of women may have not been universally lower than that of men. In one case at Sanlihe in Shandong, female burials make up the greater percentage of the highest ranking burials (Liu, , “Development of Chiefdom Societies,” 214–17)Google Scholar.

109. yanjiusuo, Zhejiang wenwu kaogu, “Zhejiang Yuhang Fanshan Liangzhu mudi fajue jianbao” 浙江餘杭反山良渚墓地發掘簡報, Wenwu 1988. 1, 1–31Google Scholar; and “Yuhang Yaoshan Liangzhu wenhua jitan yizhi fajue jianbao” 餘杭瑶山良渚文化祭壇遺址發掘簡報, Wenwu 1988. 1, 32–51Google Scholar.

110. See Peebles, , “Moundville and Surrounding Sites: Some Structural Considerations of Mortuary Practices,” 68–91Google Scholar; and de Morales, Merry, “Chalcatzingo's Burials as Indicators of Social Ranking,” in Ancient Chalcatzingo, ed. Grove, David C. (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1987), 95–113Google Scholar.

111. See Hong, Wu, “From Temple to Tomb: Ancient Chinese Art and Religion in Transition,” Early China 13 (1988), 78–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The remains of a shrine found on top of M5 at Xiaotun in Anyang, Henan (which belongs to Fuhao 婦好, a consort of King Wuding 武丁 in the late Shang dynasty) is one indication that rituals were performed at tombs (yanjiusuo, Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu, Yinxu Fuhao mu 殷墟婦好墓 [Beijing: Wenwu, 1980], 6)Google Scholar.

112. Wangping, Shao, “‘Yugong’ Jiuzhou de kaoguxue yanjiu,” 11–30Google Scholar. “Yugong” (Tribute of Yu) is a pre-Qin text recording the tribute made to the dynastic court, probably in Jizhou (in Shanxi and Hebei) from surrounding regions.

113. Guangren, Gao 高廣仁and Wangping, Shao 邵望平, “Zhongguo shiqian de guiling yu quansheng” 中國史前的龜靈與犬, in Zhongguo kaoguxue yanjiu 中國考古學研究, ed. Bingqi, Su (Beijing: Wenwu, 1986), 57–70Google Scholar.

114. Wangping, Shao, “‘Yugong’ Jiuzhou de kaoguxue yanjiu,” 28–29Google Scholar.

115. The remains of a pair of turtle shells painted with red pigment, perhaps used as a rattle, were found in a Longshan culture deposit at the Kangjia site in central Shaanxi. The turtle was identified as Chinemys reevesii, a form not native to the area; the turtle rattle was probably obtained directly or indirectly from southern regions as ritual paraphernalia (see Liu, “Development of Chiefdom Societies,” 107–12)Google Scholar.

116. Hirth, Kenneth, “Interregional Exchange as Elite Behavior: An Evolutionary Perspective,” in Mesoamerican Elites: An Archaeological Assessment, ed. Chase, Diane Z. and Chase, Arlen F. (Norman and London: University of Oklahoma Press, 1992), 28Google Scholar.

117. Zaizhong, Du, “Longshan wenhua de danketao,” 181Google Scholar; Ruzuo, Wu, “Longshan wenhua danketao,” 35–36Google Scholar.

118. jiaoyanshi, Shandong daxue lishixi kaogu zhuanye, Sishui Yinjiacheng, 202–4Google Scholar; Fengshu, Cai 蔡鳳書, “Shilun Yueshi wenhua” 試論岳石文化, in Jinian Chengziyai yizhi fajue 60 zhounian guoji xueshu taolunhui wenji 紀念城子崖遺址發掘60周年國際學術討論會文集, ed. Xuehai, Zhang 張學海and Shuming, Wang 王樹明 (Jinan: Qi Lu, 1993), 254–65Google Scholar.

119. The Erlitou culture is divided into four phases, dating to 1900–1600 B.C. The bronze ritual vessels, bronze workshops, elaborate burials, and most palatial structures occurred in Phase III. See yanjiusuo, Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan kaogu, Xin Zhongguo de kaogu faxian he yanjiu 新中國的考古發現和硏究 (Beijing: Wenwu, 1984), 211–15Google Scholar; Chang, , The Archaeology of Ancient China, 307–16Google Scholar; and Thorp, Robert L., “Erlitou and the Search for the Xia” Early China 16 (1991), 1–38Google Scholar.