New evidence for Bronze Age agricultural settlements ...

New evidence for Bronze Age agricultural settlements in the Zhunge’er (Junggar) Basin, China Peter Weiming Jia1, Alison Betts1 and Xinhua Wu2 1

University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia, 2Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing, China

The Zhunge’er (Junggar) Basin in northern Xinjiang was a key crossroads in antiquity for the dispersal of ideas and technological innovations from the Eurasian steppe into the heartland of central China. The Bronze Age chronology of the Zhunge’er Basin is chiefly based on relative dating and little is known about subsistence strategies, although the strong tradition of nomadic and transhumant pastoralism among modern populations suggests that there may have been a high degree of mobility. The visibility of ancient cemeteries and the need to salvage graves before they are looted have resulted in a lack of focus on settlements, with a consequent assumption that in antiquity agriculture played a limited role. This assumption has been challenged by rescue excavations at the Jimusa’er (Jimsar) Luanzagangzi site, which indicate that agriculture may have been a significant component of Bronze Age subsistence strategies. Small-scale soundings at settlement sites provide well-stratified sequences of material for absolute dating which can be used to place the artifacts recovered from graves in a more secure chronological context. Keywords: China, Bronze Age chronology, agricultural settlements, nomadic pastoralism

Introduction The Zhunge’er (Junggar) Basin in northern Xinjiang was a crossroads in antiquity for the dispersal of ideas and technological innovations from the Eurasian steppe into the heartland of central China. Of the two desert basins that make up Xinjiang, the larger in the south, the Talimu (Tarim) Basin, belongs to Central Asia on the basis of its oasis settlements, while the smaller northern Zhunge’er Basin is the easternmost extension of the Eurasian steppe. Little systematic archaeological fieldwork has been carried out in Xinjiang and the work that has been done focuses on the Talimu Basin. With its dry climate, organic material from as early as the Bronze Age is remarkably well preserved in the Talimu Basin (Mallory and Mair 2000; Kuz’mina 2008; Xinjiang Institute of Archaeology 2003), while the Zhunge’er Basin has a moister climate contributing to poor preservation of organic material. Archaeological research in the Zhunge’er Basin has mainly involved excavation of cemeteries, which are abundant in both the oases and the high summer pastures. Such excavations have produced a broad outline of the basin in the Bronze Age, revealing Correspondence to: Alison Betts, Department of Archaeology, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. Email: [email protected]

a range of external cultural influences from the Mongolian Altai and southern Siberia, the Eurasian steppes, and the Gansu corridor in the southeast leading to China (Debaine-Francfort 1988, 1989; An Zhimin 1992; Chen Kwang-Tzuu and Hiebert 1995; Mair 1998; Mallory and Mair 2000; Kuz’mina 2008; Jia et al. 2009; Jia and Betts 2010). The strongest links are with the north and west, suggesting a movement of people, or at least cultural influence, from the Eurasian steppes (Mallory and Mair 2000; Kuz’mina 2008). The high visibility of ancient graves, parallels with the Bronze Age nomadic cultures of the steppe, and the strong tradition of nomadic and transhumant pastoralism among modern populations have contributed to an almost exclusive focus on the excavation of cemeteries rather than settlements. This trend is paralleled in salvage work as cemeteries are threatened by looting because of their complete vessels and museum-quality artifacts. Some cemeteries, such as those at Qiemu’erqieke, Dalongkou, Sazicun, Weisheng, and Xikanerzi, were excavated as part of structured research projects (Xinjiang Institute of Archaeology 1981; Xinjiang Institute of Archaeology et al. 1994; Li Xiao 1992; Jia and Betts 2010; Qitai Cultural Centre 1982), but not all were well dated or fully published. Other cemeteries were excavated as rescue operations by local heritage

ß Trustees of Boston University 2011 DOI 10.1179/009346911X13140904382057

Journal of Field Archaeology

Journal of Field Archaeology jfa36.4_Betts_ed.3d 5/10/11 19:26:10 The Charlesworth Group, Wakefield +44(0)1924 369598 -

Rev 7.51n/W (Jan 20 2003)

2011

VOL .

36

NO .

4

269

Jia et al.

Bronze Age agricultural settlements in Zhunge’er Basin, China

Figure 1 Map of Xinjiang showing Bronze Age sites in the Zhunge’er (Junggar) Basin.

officers, adding to the pool of partially published and poorly dated remains from the region. As a result, local museums contain extensive collections of intact ceramic vessels and associated metal and other artifacts that provide limited information. Heritage authorities know the locations of settlement sites, but because they are not threatened by looting, their excavation is not considered a priority. This has led to the erroneous assumption that the prehistoric population of the Zhunge’er Basin in the Bronze Age was primarily nomadic. Finally, the relative chronology is poorly understood—there are few absolute dates— and little is known about prehistoric economies. The environment of the Zhunge’er Basin is considered to be marginal for human subsistence and high mobility has seemed like a good response to environmental conditions. The Ku’erbantonggute (Gurbantunggut) Desert lies at the center of the basin, which funnels the natural routes through the basin along the foothills of the surrounding mountain ranges (FIG. 1). To the north lie the high mountains of the Altai (Altay). The way to the Eurasian steppes to the west is partly barred by the smaller Tarbagatai Range. On the south the basin is rimmed by the Tianshan (Ta¨ngri Tagh) Mountains. The eastern

270


2011

VOL .

36

NO .

route to China runs between the northern foothills of the Altyn Tagh and the Gobi Desert to Gansu. The central desert is low-lying at around 200 masl, while the mountains rise up to 4000 m in height, their peaks covered in permanent glaciers. Seasonal ice caps form in winter providing spring snowmelt, which feeds streams that drain into the desert sands. Rainfall is extremely low in the desert—from around 350 mm on the northern slopes of the Tianshan Mountains to 600 mm in parts of the far west. Above 2000 m on the upper slopes of the Tianshan Mountains there is a band of pine forest. Below this, where the rainfall decreases, the trees give way to mountain grassland. The river valleys support large stands of elms. While much of the land comprises desert or high mountains, there are areas in the valleys, along the slopes of the ranges, and in the oases with favorable conditions for grazing, dry farming, and irrigation agriculture. In 2007, during a tour of the area by one of us (PWJ) and local heritage officials, a settlement site called Luanzagangzi was discovered on the northeastern slopes of the Tianshan mountains near the town of Jimusa’er (FIGS. 1, 2). A salvage sounding under the auspices of the Xinjiang Team of the Archaeological Institute of the Chinese Academy of

4


Rev 7.51n/W (Jan 20 2003)

Jia et al.


Figure 2 View from Luanzagangzi to the southwest showing the Tianshan Mountains.

Social Sciences revealed almost 4 m of occupation deposits rich in charcoal and fragments of pottery, bone, and other artifacts (FIG. 3). Abundant botanical remains indicate that agriculture was an important part of the economy, while starch analyses provide evidence for plant use previously unknown in the prehistoric periods. Absolute and relative dating indicate that Luanzagangzi may have seen two main phases of occupation, an early phase around 1400– 1000 CAL B.C. and a later one from 1000–800 CAL B.C. Painted ceramics from the lowest levels at Luanzagangzi can be linked to ceramics from two previously excavated sites in the region, providing a stronger chronology for the northeastern Tianshan in the Bronze Age. If Luanzagangzi is not unique, the sounding at this site provides evidence for long-lived settlement sites in the Zhunge’er Bronze Age, suggesting that agricultural communities coexisted with more mobile groups. The site illustrates the potential of research on settlements to provide secure chronologies and address issues concerning subsistence strategies and the transfer of agricultural technologies. Test excavation is an inexpensive option that can provide stratified ceramic sequences, and, combined with absolute dating, may be used to establish a chronology for otherwise poorly dated artifacts recovered from cemeteries. Xinjiang is a key area for understanding the relationship between China and the west in the later prehistoric periods. Important ideas and technologies were transmitted across the region and Luanzagangzi offers encouragement that large-scale excavation is not necessarily required to obtain significant results.

Modern Subsistence Economy Today, villages on the northern slopes of the Tianshan Mountains are located on river terraces in the foothills or on floodplains. The northern slopes of the range have higher rainfall and less extreme

Figure 3 Luanzagangzi sounding after excavation.

temperatures than on the south side where the lower slopes border the edge of the Gobi Desert. Rainfall near the mountain slopes is around 350 mm (Yan Shun et al. 2004), within the practical range for dry agriculture. Irrigation agriculture is practiced on the river deltas at the edge of the desert (Xinjiang Bureau of Geographical Survey 1995). The population today is mainly composed of Chinese Muslims (Hui) with a small number of Turkic-speaking Kazakhs. The Hui are settled farmers, growing wheat, barley, beans, and vegetables. The Kazakhs are partially nomadic, practicing short-range transhumance, and breeding sheep, goats, cattle, and horses. The Hui also engage in herding to a limited degree and the Kazakhs have some small-scale agriculture. This mix of subsistence strategies may provide a model for earlier times. It is possible that settled or semi-settled peoples coexisted with more mobile populations moving in from the Eurasian steppes as the Kazakhs did around 100 years ago. Bronze Age sites are located in areas similar to the modern villages, favoring river terraces.

Luanzagangzi Luanzagangzi is located in Jimusa’er County, at the southeastern edge of the Zhunge’er Basin on the northern slopes of the Tianshan Mountains at 1486 masl. The site is about 1 km west of the village of Miaowanzi and 1.5 km east of Quanzijie township (FIG. 4). The Wutanggou River runs about 500 m to the east of Luanzagangzi and at its highest point the



Rev 7.51n/W (Jan 20 2003)

2011

VOL .

36

NO .

4

271

Jia et al.


Figure 4 Location of Luanzagangzi and Jimusa’er.

site lies 8 m above the riverbed. Salvage excavations at Luanzagangzi were carried out in June and July 2007. Road construction had cut through a section of the site exposing it to erosion, and there was a slight depression in the ground surface. Rainwater was collecting in the depression and running down onto the road, creating a gulley about 1.5 m deep and 2 m high that cut back into the ancient occupation levels revealing at least 2 m of occupation deposits. These cultural layers were rich in charcoal and fragments of pottery, bone, and other artifacts. A sounding of 162.5 m was excavated close to the erosion gulley to determine the nature of the site.

Excavation methods Excavation methods followed Chinese field excavation regulations. The site is named JQLYT1 (J: Jimusa’er,

272


2011

VOL .

36

NO .

Q: Quanzijie, L: Luanzagangzi, Y: represents the Chinese word for site, T: test pit, 1: number of pit). Each layer was classified based on the color, texture, and context of the fill. All artifacts recovered during the excavations were bagged and recorded. Plans and sections were drawn and photographs of the excavations were taken. Sediment from the excavation was sieved using a three-sieve system (2-, 10-, and 20-mm mesh). Selected samples from the excavated deposits were collected for large seed, phytolith, pollen, and starch analyses. One 5 L seed sample was taken per layer. Three liter random samples were collected for flotation from each of Layers 4 to 10. The flotation sediment was sieved through 0.5 mm mesh. Charcoal samples were collected for radiocarbon analysis from Layers 4 to 10. No carbon samples were collected from

4


Rev 7.51n/W (Jan 20 2003)

Jia et al.


Figure 5 Section of the Luanzagangzi sounding showing ten layers.

Layers 1, 2, and 3 as there was no charcoal in these layers. Eight AMS radiocarbon dates have been processed at 14CHRONO Centre, The Queens University of Belfast (TABLE 1).

Stratigraphy Ten layers were identified in the sounding (FIG. 5). Below the topsoil (1) was a hard yellowish layer (2) that contained no traces of occupation. At a depth of about 0.5 m, sherds and charcoal flecks began to appear and the fill (3) became softer and grayer in color. Another 20 cm down the fill became still softer and light yellow-gray in color. This layer (4) contained sherds and charcoal and yielded a radiocarbon date of 975–953 CAL B.C. (UBA-9066). Below this lay a thick deposit (5) almost 0.5 m in depth containing burned earth, ash, chunks of charcoal, and numerous sherds. A radiocarbon date of 1112–1099 CAL B.C. (UBA9065) was obtained from charcoal.

Traces of a pit or gulley (G1) were found sealed under Layer 5 resting in a depression. The deposit within the depression was a yellowish-gray color and contained charcoal yielding a radiocarbon date of 1003–969 CAL B.C. (UBA-9067), in addition to sherds. There appears to be a stratigraphic division below Layer 5 based on soil stratigraphy (FIG. 5). Layer 6 was around 30 cm deep and contained black ash, burned earth, sherds, and charcoal, which yielded a radiocarbon date of 1111–1102 CAL B.C. (UBA-9064). Below Layer 6 was an ashy layer (7) containing many chunks of burned clay. At its lowest point was a thin, black ash lens 2 cm thick and charcoal from this lens produced a radiocarbon date of 1113–1099 CAL B.C. (UBA-9063). Below the ash the sediment became yellowish again (8), though it was still soft with a high proportion of ash as well as chunks of charcoal and sherds. A radiocarbon date of 1251–1243 CAL B.C. (UBA-9062) was obtained from charcoal. By Layer 9,

Table 1 Radiocarbon dates for Luanzaganzi. All are from charcoal. Laboratory code

14

UBA-9060 UBA-9061 UBA-9062 UBA-9063 UBA-9064 UBA-9065 UBA-9066 UBA-9067

2917¡23 3000¡24 2948¡24 2883¡24 2870¡23 2877¡26 2777¡23 2819¡23

C dates

Calibrated date (B.C.) (95.4%)

Calibrated date (B.C.) (68.3%)

1210–1019 1372–1343 1261–1110 1189–1180 1125–975 1188–1182 999–890 1038–1034

1189–1180 1304–1211 1251–1243 1113–1099 1111–1102 1112–1099 975–953 1003–969



Rev 7.51n/W (Jan 20 2003)

2011

VOL .

36

NO .

4

273

Jia et al.


Figure 7 Wheat seeds recovered from Layer 5 (Triticum aestivum/durum). Photograph by Andrew Fairbairn.

Figure 6 Artifacts from the Luanzagangzi sounding. 1) Knucklebone; 2) Worked bone; 3) Bone hook; 4) Bronze fragments, unstratified; 5) Stone hoe, broken; 6) Stone quern, broken; 7) Handstone, broken.

which was over 0.5 m in depth, it was more difficult to identify traces of occupation. Layer 9 contained a few small pebbles and some sherds and charcoal, which generated a radiocarbon date of 1304–1211 CAL B.C. (UBA-9061). The lowest occupation layer (10) was 80 cm deep. The deposits here were hard and yellow with flecks of charcoal and some sherds. At the base was a concentration of sherds and large chunks of charcoal, which yielded a radiocarbon date of 1189–1180 CAL B.C. (UBA-9060). Below Layer 10 was clean, yellow sediment with no traces of occupation debris. There was no evidence of any structure in the sounding. The only recognizable feature was the shallow depression visible in the north, east, and south sections culminating in the pit or gulley labeled G1 (FIG. 5). It is possible that the burned clay in Layer 7 represents building material and may indicate a structure of some kind. Artifacts were abundant and include sherds, groundstone tools, bronze fragments, and bone tools. Groundstone artifacts were present throughout all phases as well as on the surface. The most common items were broken querns and handstones fashioned from carefully selected sandstone (FIG. 6: 6, 7). Other tools included a centrally pierced stone ‘‘hoe’’ (FIG. 6: 5), a stone chopping tool, and a stone ball. The few bone tools included an animal knucklebone (possibly sheep), another piece worked in the shape of a knucklebone (FIG. 6: 1, 2), a bone hook (FIG. 6: 3), and

274


2011

VOL .

36

NO .

an artifact made of antler. Four bronze artifacts were recovered: two sharp tips broken off from unidentified tools, the tip of a small knife, and one button (FIG. 6: 4). All were recovered from the exposed section, at the equivalent level of Layers 7 or 8. Animal bones recovered from the sounding are under analysis.

Botanical remains The initial laboratory examination by Andrew Fairbairn shows that carbonized crop seeds were present in every sample, including foxtail millet (Setaria italica), wheat (Triticum aestivum/durum) (FIG. 7), and barley (Hordeum vulgare var. nudum) (FIG. 8). In a separate study, samples for starch residue analysis were extracted from three groundstone artifacts (a broken quern and two broken hammerstones) from Layers 5, 7, and 8. Samples were collected through the ‘‘saturation/extraction’’ technique, using a pipette and ultra-pure water. All slides were observed using a Zeiss Axioskop light penetration microscope with DIC effect. A few unusual starch granules were noted (FIG. 9). These are relatively large and do not resemble any known cereal starches. They have been identified by Florence Chau as Cistanche deserticola, a holoparasitic member of the Orobanchaceae family of plants, used today as a valued ingredient in Chinese medicine.

Ceramics Large numbers of pottery sherds were collected (TABLE 2), but there were no complete vessels. The sherds vary significantly in color, texture, shape, and surface decoration through time from Layer 3 to Layer 10, although only a few sherds were recovered from the levels above Layer 5. In the lower levels (Layers 6–10), painted sherds were abundant. The bases of the vessels may have been predominantly rounded as no recognizable base sherds were recovered. This contrasts with Layers 5 and above where the sherds are unpainted and flat base sherds

4


Rev 7.51n/W (Jan 20 2003)

Jia et al.


other sites in the area such as the Dalongkou burials (Xinjiang Institute of Archaeology et al. 1994) and Xiaoxigou site (Han Yaoping and Yan Shun 1992) as only sherds with a single handle have been recovered. There are two types of this jar, both with plastic, banded decoration at the shoulder. One has a straight, narrow neck opening to an everted, flaring rim (FIG. 10: 1). The exterior surface appears blackened from direct contact with fire, possibly indicating its use as a cooking pot. A single clay band with incised dots is applied to the vessel within the handles. The second type is larger with a wider, inwardsloping neck and a vertical rim (FIG. 10: 2). In Phase II there are fewer painted sherds. These show more simplistic designs involving straight, mostly vertical lines (FIG. 12: 4, 5), and no examples of applied plastic decoration are represented in this phase. Shapes include plain bowls (FIG. 12: 1, 7), bagshaped jars (FIG. 12: 2, 3), and a handled jar without applied decoration (FIG. 12: 6). Incised decoration is illustrated on a single body sherd (FIG. 12: 8). Phase III contained only a few coarse sherds (FIG. 13) representing undecorated vessels with thick walls. A single flat base was found in this phase, in the depression (G1), which implies a change in this late stage from round-bottomed to flat-bottomed vessels. Figure 8 Ventral (left) and dorsal (right) views of asymmetrical (lateral) naked barley grains (Hordeum vulgare var. nudum) from Layer 9. Photograph by Andrew Fairbairn.

were identified. Four phases have been identified based on the stratigraphic profile and ceramic classification. Of the three phases with occupation debris, Phase I includes Layers 8–10; Phase II includes Layers 6 and 7; and Layers 3–5 and G1 comprise Phase III. The dominant vessel shapes in the Phase I deposits are double-handled jars with rounded bodies and straight necks (FIG. 10: 1, 2), jars with plastic decoration in the form of applied clay bands with incised dots on the necks and near the handles (FIG. 10: 3–8, FIG. 11: 8, 16), and single-handled cups (FIG. 11: 12). Other shapes include painted and plain bowls (FIG. 11: 2, 3), painted and plain jars (FIG. 11: 13, 17), and jars with incised decoration (FIG. 11: 4, 7, 11). Some body sherds are up to 15 cm in diameter, indicating that the original vessels were quite large. Some sherds are covered in red or black slip. Many sherds have red painted designs, predominantly net patterns, on both the exterior and interior of some vessels (FIG. 11) There are also small numbers of gray sherds with dots incised directly on the body of the vessel. Similar decoration appears on some red sherds, but the style, technique, and shape are not the same. The double-handled jar reconstructions shown in Figure 10 are based on parallels with vessels from

Chronology The stratification in the sounding at Luanzagangzi is something of a surprise to regional archaeologists. Based on AMS radiocarbon dates, the chronology indicates that this site with its 3.8 m of deposits was continuously or sporadically used for around 400 years before being abandoned. The broad dating for use of the site spans ca. 1300 to 900 CAL B.C. (TABLE 1). On the basis of the ceramic evidence, Luanzagangzi had two main stages of occupation: an early stage characterized by painted vessels (Phases I and II) and a later one (Phase III) with plain coarse ware vessels. This fits with the apparent stratigraphic division between Layers 5 and 6; however, the radiocarbon data are less clear here. The samples obtained from the depression fill (G1) and from Layer 4 fit with a date of ca. 1000–900 CAL B.C. for the late stage, but the date from Layer 5 matches those for Layers 6 and 7, falling generally in the range of 1100 to 1000 CAL B.C. The charcoal samples from Layer 5 came from large chunks and this discrepancy in dates could perhaps be explained by the use of older wood. The rest of the radiocarbon dates for the early stage of occupation indicate a range from around 1300 to 1000 CAL B.C. The closest parallels for the ceramics from the early stage are from the Dalongkou cemetery (Xinjiang Institute of Archaeology et al. 1994), 30 km northwest



Rev 7.51n/W (Jan 20 2003)

2011

VOL .

36

NO .

4

275

Jia et al.


Figure 9 Starch granules (Cistanche deserticola) recovered from groundstone tools. Identification by Florence Chau. Photograph by Peter Weiming Jia, taken with Zeiss Axioskop microscope under DIC effect.

tradition. Based on ceramic similarities with radiocarbon-dated levels at Xintala on the southern slopes of the Tianshan, it has been suggested that the type site of Banjiegou may date to around 1500 CAL B.C. (Han Jianye 2005). The evidence from Luanzagangzi indicates that this estimate may be a little early. The Luanzagangzi-Banjiegou tradition may dominate the late Bronze Age in the mid-northern Tianshan area. The major characteristics of this tradition are the prevalence of round-bottomed vessels, the high proportion of red painted net and triangle designs, and the double-handled jars with

of Luanzagangzi, and the site of Banjiegou (Xinjiang Museum 1981), 40 km to the southeast (FIG. 1). Similar double-handled jars with applied plastic decoration at the neck occur at Dalongkou cemetery (FIG. 14: 3). The Dalongkou examples are round-bottomed, lending weight to the suggestion that the Luanzagangzi vessels are also rounded at the base. Similar painted designs are found on vessels from the Banjiegou site (FIG. 14: 1). There are also parallels in the stone tools, in particular the stone hoes. Thus, the early stage at Luanzagangzi likely belongs to the same archaeological tradition as Banjiegou, forming a ‘‘Luanzagangzi-Banjiegou’’

Table 2 Distribution of ceramic types (number of sherds) by layer at Luanzagangzi.

276

Layer number

10

9

8

7

6

G1

5

4

3

2

1

Total

Double-handled jar Cup with handle Vertical rim Everted rim Rim, red paint Applied clay band Incised design Red painted net pattern Red painted, other Flat base

4 2 24 39 15 32 3 14 45 0

2 4 6 22 5 15 3 4 14 0

10 2 3 11 0 25 9 0 16 0

4 0 0 6 0 6 2 0 2 0

0 0 0 8 2 0 0 0 2 0

0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1

0 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 4 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

20 14 40 98 22 78 17 18 79 1


2011

VOL .

36

NO .

4


Rev 7.51n/W (Jan 20 2003)

Jia et al.


Figure 10 Phase I ceramics. 1, 2) Double-handled jars; 3–8) Jars with plastic banded decoration.

applied plastic decoration. The stone artifacts, while less diagnostic, are also important. The early phase of Sidaogou, a site some 60 km east of Luanzagangzi (FIG. 1), contains similar painted designs but the vessel shapes are different from those of the LuanzagangziBanjiegou tradition. The double-handled, roundbottomed jars from the early phase of Sidaogou find their best parallels in the Nanshan-Tianshanbeilu tradition (Jia et al. 2009) at sites in the Balikun grasslands to the south and at the oasis of Hami on the southern side of the Tianshan. The applied clay bands with incised dots found at Luanzagangzi might have some connections with ceramics from the Ka’ersang site (FIG. 14: 2) located at Yiwu County, on the far northeastern tip of the Tianshan, at the southern edge of the Gobi Desert, near the Mongolian plateau (FIG. 1). Shao Huiqiu (2007) has suggested that the clay band tradition at Ka’ersang is linked to influence from further east, the Bronze Age culture of Xindian tradition found in Gansu, in the area of the upper Yellow River. Gansu Province straddles a corridor

Figure 11 Phase I miscellaneous vessels and painted sherds. 12) Single-handled cup; 2, 3) Plain and painted bowls; 13, 17) Plain and painted jars; 4, 7, 11) Jars with incised decoration; 1, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13–15, 18) Red painted sherds; 8, 16) Jars with plastic banded decoration.

Figure 12 Phase II miscellaneous sherds. 1, 7) Plain bowls; 2, 3) Bag-shaped jars; 4, 5) Red painted sherds; 6) Handled jar; 8) Incised sherd.

that runs through Xinjiang connecting Central Asia with the areas of early cultural development in central China along the middle reaches of the Yellow River. The Xindian tradition (An Zhimin 1992: 324; Su Xiuqing and Chen Honghai 1992; Archaeological Institute, Chinese Academy of Social Science 1980) was widespread across the lower reaches of a series of tributaries of the Yellow River, and lasted around 700 years (1400–700 B.C.). The ceramics are characterized by vessels painted in black and red, often on white slip. A second distinctive feature found on jars is the application of clay bands across the upper shoulder or lower neck, usually running between pairs of handles. This Xindian tradition evolved from the late Chinese Neolithic culture based along the upper Yellow River. It is possible that the connection in prehistoric periods between the Zhunge’er Basin, and in fact the whole of Xinjiang, eastwards to central China might follow multiple routes. The location of Ka’ersang might indicate that one of these routes passed through the Mongolian plateau.

Figure 13 Phase III miscellaneous sherds showing flatbottomed vessels. 1, 3) Flat-bottomed jar; 2) Bag-shaped jar.



Rev 7.51n/W (Jan 20 2003)

2011

VOL .

36

NO .

4

277

Jia et al.


Figure 14 Ceramics from other sites (various scales): 1) Painted sherds from Banjiegou; 2) Jars with applied decoration from Kaersang; 3) Round-bottomed jar from Dalongkou.

The Bronze Age in the Zhunge’er Basin To put these finds in context, it is necessary to review what is known of the Bronze Age in the Zhunge’er Basin. During the period from around 2000–1000 CAL B.C., evidence from the Zhunge’er Basin reflects a variety of influences (Jia et al. 2009), with the earliest being the Tianshanbeilu Culture in the southeastern corner of the basin. The painted decoration of this tradition shows connections with the east through the Siba Culture in Gansu (Jia et al. 2009: 179, fig. 8). A little later in the southwestern basin, on the northern slopes of the Tianshan, are the Banjiegou and early Sidaogou sites, starting at around 1500 CAL B.C., which also yielded ceramics with painted decoration. In the northwest, excavations at a series of cemeteries collectively termed Qiemu’erqieke (Shamirshak) revealed pottery and burial practices that have parallels in the Okunevo culture of the Altai region of southern Siberia and the Yenisei Valley (Xinjiang Institute of Archaeology 1981; Lin Yun 2008; Jia and Betts 2010). To the southwest, and a little later in date, are the Sazicun and Adunqiaolu sites. These have some connections with the steppic Andronovo (Mei Jianjun and Shell 1999) and the more localized and slightly later Karasuk cultures (Jia et al. 2009). The vessels from all of these sites are predominantly unpainted gray wares, decorated with incised and punctate designs. These northern and western sites imply the possible expansion of steppe cultures into the Zhunge’er Basin from Eurasia through the natural lowlands to the west and perhaps through patterns of nomadic movement across the Altai. Pottery found at

278


2011

VOL .

36

NO .

Shuinichang imitates classic Karasuk forms, suggesting that adaptation by incomers to the environment and interaction with local groups may have resulted in new cultural variants of the steppic Bronze Age in Xinjiang (Guo Wu 2005; Han Jianye 2005). Cultural influence or actual migration of people from the Eurasian steppe, however, should not be taken to assume a fully nomadic population and an absence of settlements. Along the streams in the well-watered lowlands around Tacheng in the far west are a number of small settlement sites clearly visible from surface pottery scatters and eroded sections on the river banks (e.g., Li Xiao 1992). What can be seen then in the Luanzagangzi-Banjiegou tradition is a local culture blending eastern influences, as shown in the painted pottery, with western influences as populations in the northeastern Tianshan adapted new cultural traits from the Eurasian steppe. Agricultural sites in Xinjiang are significant for another important reason. While Chinese scholars are still divided on the issue, there is consensus among western scholars that wheat was first domesticated in western Asia. Wheat derived from the wild progenitors einkorn (Triticum boeoticum) and emmer (Triticum dicoccoides) was cultivated as early as 8200 CAL B.C. Domesticated wheat is present in archaeological contexts in the same region from at least 7250 CAL B.C. (Tanno and Willcox 2006; Heun et al. 1997). Wheat cultivation then spread eastward, reaching central China several thousand years later (Li Xiaoqiang et al. 2007), where the earliest reliable evidence for wheat comes from finds around Gansu and the Yellow River in northern China dated to the late 4th to early 3rd millennia CAL B.C. Charred wheat grains from the site of Donghuishan in the Hexi corridor are dated to 3400/1900 CAL B.C. (BK92101) (Li Shuicheng and Mo Duowen 2004; Flad et al. 2010) and wheat seeds from Xishanping on the Xi River, in the upper part of the Yellow River drainage system, are dated by associated charcoal to 2650 CAL B.C. (Li Xiaoqiang et al. 2007). From western Asia, domesticated wheat entered Central Asia from northern Iran and first appears in Neolithic sites along the northern foothills of the Kopet Dagh in Turkmenistan around 6000 CAL B.C. (Harris et al. 1993). It also appears at around the same time at Mehrgarh in Baluchistan (Costantini 1981). This leaves a gap of well over a millennium between the appearance of wheat in Central Asia and Pakistan and its earliest recorded appearance in China, during which time it must be assumed that wheat agriculture gradually spread into China through the only feasible route, across Xinjiang. The lack of excavation of settlement sites and the limited use of flotation techniques means that little is known about this process. While the evidence from

4


Rev 7.51n/W (Jan 20 2003)

Jia et al.

Luanzagangzi is too late to contribute meaningfully to this debate, the results of our sounding show that a search for earlier agricultural sites in Xinjiang might well be fruitful.

Conclusions The sounding at Luanzagangzi provides important data on the local subsistence economy of northeastern Tianshan from the mid-2nd into the early-1st millennium CAL B.C. The botanical remains indicate intensive dry-land agriculture in the late Bronze Age and it is likely that this was associated with some degree of permanent settlement. Even after damage from erosion and road construction, at least 4000 sq m of the site remain intact. No features or structures were identified in the sounding, but this does not imply a lack of permanent structures at the site. The sounding also provides a well-stratified sequence of absolute dates for comparison with other excavations and museum collections. The results clearly indicate the potential productivity of soundings at other settlement sites. Test excavation is inexpensive and can provide stratified ceramic sequences that, with absolute dating, may be used to tie in a significant number of the poorly dated artifacts recovered from cemeteries. Archaeological research in the Zhunge’er Basin has focused on burials, which may have led in part to an assumption that the Bronze Age population was primarily nomadic, drawing attention away from the important information to be derived from excavation of settlement sites. It is clear that this perception is at least partially incorrect. Around the mid-2nd millennium CAL B.C. the southwestern corner of the basin was occupied by people with a mixed agricultural subsistence strategy. Xinjiang must also have formed part of the route by which elements of the Near Eastern Neolithic package of domesticated crops and animals were transferred to central China. The route must have passed either from Central Asia over the Pamirs into Kashgar, or through the Ili Valley along the Tianshan, or from the Eurasian steppe through the Zhunge’er Basin. The presence of a stratified settlement site from the mid-2nd millennium CAL B.C. along one of these potential routes suggests that the search for an earlier agricultural settlement dating to the 4th or 5th millennium CAL B.C. might not be fruitless. Excavations at Luanzagangzi illustrate the potential for focused research on aspects of economy and cultural exchange.

Acknowledgments Excavations at Luanzagangzi were organized by the Xinjiang Team of the Archaeological Institute of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, assisted by staff from the Department of Archaeology at the University of Sydney. Jia’s work in Xinjiang was


funded by Australian Research Council Discovery Grant No. 0770997. The fieldwork was conducted under a collaborative agreement between the Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and the University of Sydney. The fieldwork, including excavation, flotation, and starch residue extraction, could not have been carried out without the kind assistance of Xia Guo, Director of Bureau of Relics, Jimusa’er County. Junfeng Ma and Ding Zhang from the Bureau helped with the excavation, flotation, and starch residue extraction. Yanli Zhong drew the illustrations of the artifacts and compiled the Relics Files for storage in the Bureau. The carbonized seed remains were identified by Andrew Fairbairn at the University of Queensland. Starch residue analysis was carried out by Jia at the University of Sydney, using the facilities of the Electronic Microscope Unit (EMU). Judith Field kindly offered assistance regarding the analysis. Identification of starches was conducted at the University of Sydney by Florence Chau. The charcoal samples were analyzed at the 14 CHRONO Centre, The Queens University of Belfast. The authors are grateful to Paula Reimer, and to James Mallory, Queens University Belfast, for his advice and support. The authors would like to acknowledge valuable comments from two anonymous referees in relation to earlier drafts of the manuscript. Throughout the text, place names within the People’s Republic of China are given in Chinese Pinyin with the common Turkic or Mongol spelling in brackets at the first occurrence. Spelling of local names is not consistent in English language publications and the names here may vary from those published elsewhere. Peter Weiming Jia (Ph.D. 2005, University of Sydney) is a University of Sydney Research Fellow in the Department of Archaeology at the University of Sydney and a Member of the Centre for Chinese Studies. He has been involved in East Asian prehistoric archaeology since 1982 and is currently working on two Australian Research Council-funded projects in China, one on the Bronze Age in Xinjiang and the other on the study of obsidian artifacts from northeast China. Alison Betts (Ph.D. 1986, University of London) is Associate Professor and Director of the University of Sydney Central Asian Research Programme (USCAP) and Convenor of the Archaeology and Ancient History Group in the Centre for Chinese Studies. She has been working in Central Asia for 15 years and has over 30 years of experience in the study of prehistoric nomadic peoples in the arid regions of the Middle East and Asia. Xinhua Wu (Ph.D. 1997, Archaeological Institute of Chinese Academy of Social Science) is Director of the Xinjiang Team for the Archaeological Institute. He has



Rev 7.51n/W (Jan 20 2003)

2011

VOL .

36

NO .

4

279

Jia et al.


been involved in many aspects of Xinjiang historical and prehistorical archaeology for the past 12 years.

References An Zhimin. 1992. ‘‘The Bronze Age in Eastern Parts of Central Asia,’’ in A. H. Dani and V. M. Masson, eds., History of Civilizations of Central Asia, Vol 1: The Dawn of Civilization: Earliest Times to 700 B.C. Paris: UNESCO, 319–336. Archaeological Institute, Chinese Academy of Social Science. 1980. ‘‘Excavation at Zhangjiazui and Jijiachuan Sites,’’ Kaoguxuebao 2: 187–219 (in Chinese). Chen Kwang-Tzuu and F. T. Hiebert. 1995. ‘‘The Late Prehistory of Xinjiang in Relation to its Neighbours,’’ Journal of World Prehistory 9: 243–300. Costantini, L. 1981. ‘‘The Beginning of Agriculture in the Kachi Plain: The Evidence of Mehrgarh,’’ in B. Allchin, ed., South Asian Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge Archaeology Press, 29–33. Debaine-Francfort, C. 1988. ‘‘Archeólogie du Xinjiang des Origins aux Han,’’ Paleórient 14: 5–29. Debaine-Francfort, C. 1989. ‘‘Archeólogie du Xinjiang des Origins aux Han,’’ Paleórient 15: 183–213. Flad, R., Shuicheng Li, Xiaohong Wu, and Zhijun Zhao. 2010. ‘‘Early Wheat in China: Results from New Studies at Donghuishan in the Hexi Corridor,’’ The Holocene 20: 955– 965. Guo Wu. 2005. ‘‘Archaeological Studies of Tianshan Region Around First Millennium B.C., Xinjiang,’’ unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Academy of Social Science, Beijing(in Chinese). Han Jianye. 2005. ‘‘Chronological and Typological Analysis of Xinjiang Bronze and Early Iron Age,’’ Xinjiang Wenwu 3: 57– 91 (in Chinese). Han Yaoping and Yan Shun. 1992. ‘‘Observations on the Jimusa’er Xiaoxigou Site,’’ Xinjiang Wenwu 4: 16–23 (in Chinese). Harris, D., V. Masson, Y. Berezkin, M. Charles, C. Gosden, G. Hillman, A. Kasparov, G. Korobkova, K. Kurbansakhatov, A. Legge, and S. Limbrey. 1993. ‘‘Investigating Early Agriculture in Central Asia: New Research at Jeitun, Turkmenistan,’’ Antiquity 67: 324–338. Heun, M., R. Scha¨fer-Pregl, D. Klawan, R. Castagna, M. Accerbi, B. Borghi, and F. Salamini. 1997. ‘‘Site of Einkorn Wheat Domestication Identified by DNA Fingerprinting,’’ Science 278: 1312–1314. Jia, P., and A. Betts. 2010. ‘‘A Re-analysis of the Qiemu’erqieke (Shamirshak) Cemeteries, Xinjiang, China,’’ Journal of IndoEuropean Studies 38: 1–43. Jia, P., A. Betts, and Wu Xinhua. 2009. ‘‘Prehistoric Archaeology in the Zhunge’er (Junggar) Basin, Xinjiang, China,’’ Journal of Eurasian Prehistory 6: 167–198. Kuz’mina, E. E. 2008. The Prehistory of the Silk Road. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

280


2011

VOL .

36

NO .

Li Shuicheng and Mo Duowen. 2004. ‘‘Analysis of the Date on Charred Wheat Seeds Found at Donghuishan,’’ Kaogu yu wenwu. 6: 51–60 (in Chinese) Li Xiao. 1992. ‘‘The Cemetery Found at the Weisheng School, Tacheng,’’ Chinese Archaeology Year Book 1991. Beijing: Wenwuchubanshe, 328–329 (in Chinese). Li Xiaoqiang, J. Dodson, Xinying Zhou, Hongbin Zhang, and R. Matsumoto. 2007. ‘‘Early Cultivated Wheat and Broadening of Agriculture in Neolithic China,’’ The Holocene 17: 555– 560. Lin Yun. 2008. ‘‘Some Issues of Qie’ermuqieke Remains Found in Northern Xinjiang – Referring to the Pottery Found in Buerjin County,’’ in Lin Yun, ed., Lin Yun Xueshuwenji. Beijing: Beijing Science Press,143–161 (in Chinese). Mair, V., ed. 1998. The Bronze Age Peoples of Eastern Central Asia. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum Publications. Mallory, J. P., and V. Mair. 2000. The Tarim Mummies. Ancient China and the Mystery of the Earliest Peoples from the West. London: Thames and Hudson. Mei Jianjun and C. Shell. 1999. ‘‘The Existence of Andronovo Cultural Influence in Xinjiang During the Second Millennium B.C.,’’ Antiquity 73: 570–578. Qitai Cultural Centre. 1982. ‘‘The Lithic Site and Cemetery Found in Qitai, Xinjiang,’’ Kaoguxue jikan 2: 22–24 (in Chinese). Shao Huiqiu. 2007. ‘‘Prehistoric Cultures, their Development, Distribution and Relationship with Neighbours,’’ unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Jilin University, China. Accessed from CNKI net on December 2, 2010. (http://epub.cnki.net/ grid2008/detail.aspx?QueryID523&CurRec51). Su Xiuqing and Chen Honghai. 1992. ‘‘The Excavation at Hetaozhuang Shanjiatou Cemetery, Qinghai,’’ Wenwu 11: 26– 31 (in Chinese). Tanno, K., and G. Willcox. 2006. ‘‘How Fast Was Wild Wheat Domesticated?’’ Science 311: 1886. Xinjiang Institute of Archaeology. 2003. ‘‘Excavation Report in 2002 of Xiaohe Cemeteries,’’ Xinjiang Wenwu 2: 8–46 (in Chinese). Xinjiang Bureau of Geographical Survey. 1995. Atlas of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, People’s Republic of China. Ulumuchi: Bureau of Geographical Survey. Xinjiang Institute of Archaeology. 1981. ‘‘Summary of Excavation at Qiermu’erqieke Cemetery,’’ Wenwu 1: 176–186 (in Chinese). Xinjiang Institute of Archaeology, Cangji Heritage Management Centre, and Jimusa’er Heritage Management Centre. 1994. ‘‘Jimusa’er Dalongkou Burials,’’ Xinjiang Wenwu 4: 1–11 (in Chinese). Xinjiang Museum. 1981. ‘‘Qitai Banjiegou Neolithic Site, Xinjiang,’’ Kaogu 6: 552–553 (in Chinese). Yan Shun, Mu Guijin, Kong Zhaochen, Ni Jian, and Yang Zhenjing. 2004. ‘‘Environmental Evolution and Human Activity on the North Slopes of the Tianshan Mountains, China,’’ Journal of Glaciology and Geocryology 25: 403–410.

4


Rev 7.51n/W (Jan 20 2003)