Settlement Patterns, Chiefdom Variability, and the Development of Early States in North China
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 15, 237±288 (1996) ARTICLE NO. 0010 Settlement Patterns, Chiefdom Variability, and the Development of Early States in North China LI LIU School of Archaeology, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia Received June 12, 1995; revision received May 17, 1996; accepted May 26, 1996 In the third millennium B.C., the Longshan culture in the Central Plains of northern China was the crucial matrix in which the ®rst states evolved from the basis of earlier Neolithic societies. By adopting the theoretical concept of the chiefdom and by employing the methods of settlement archaeology, especially regional settlement hierarchy and rank-size analysis, this paper introduces a new approach to research on the Longshan culture and to inquiring about the development of the early states in China. Three models of regional settlement pattern correlating to different types of chiefdom systems are identi®ed. These are: (1) the centripetal regional system in circumscribed regions representing the most complex chiefdom organizations, (2) the centrifugal regional system in semi-circumscribed regions indicating less integrated chiefdom organization, and (3) the decentral- ized regional system in noncircumscribed regions implying competing and the least complex chief- dom organizations. Both external and internal factors, including geographical condition, climatic ¯uctuation, Yellow River's changing course, population movement, and intergroup con¯ict, played important roles in the development of complex societies in the Longshan culture. As in many cultures in other parts of the world, the early states in China emerged from a system of competing chiefdoms, which was characterized by intensive intergroup con¯ict and frequent shifting of political centers. However, what is unusual about the Chinese case is the fact that the earliest states did not develop from the most complex of the chiefdom organizations, but from the least complex chiefdom systems then existing there. q 1996 Academic Press, Inc. CHIEFDOM THEORIES AND itarian and bureaucratic state societies (Fein- REGIONAL SETTLEMENT PATTERNS man & Neitzel 1984:39). In the typological classi®cation of inter- mediate societies, at least a dozen descrip- The process of social development leading tive subtypes have been identi®ed since to the emergence of ``civilization'' has been Morgan's time a century ago (Feinman & seen as an evolutionary one (Child 1951; Neitzel 1984:40). Among these subtypes, the Engels 1972 [orig. 1884]; Flannery 1972; concept of ``chiefdom'' proposed by Service Fried 1960, 1967; Johnson & Earle 1987; Mor- (1962) has occurred most frequently in the gan 1963 [orig. 1877]; Service 1962; Steward archaeological literature. 1955; White 1959; Wright 1977a,b). A basic tendencyÐthat societies develop from early The Study of Chiefdoms small-scale groups to later complex organi- zationsÐhas been demonstrated by archae- Adopting White's (1959) general evolu- ological ®ndings from all continents (Wenke tionary approach, Service (1962) proposed a 1980). In recent years, the effort to under- social developmental scheme with four main stand evolutionary processes underlying the levels of social integration involving a pro- development of complex societies has cre- gression from the band through the tribe ated a growing interest in societies that are (both egalitarian societies) to the chiefdom organizationally intermediate between egal- to the state (both hierarchical societies). 237 0278-4165/96 $18.00 Copyright q 1996 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. AID JAA 0299 / ai01$$$$61 08-24-96 02:47:58 jaaa AP: JAA 238 LI LIU Based primarily on Sahlins's (1958) descrip- tion of society. Indeed, for the most part, tion of Polynesian societies, Service exchange normally involved status goods (1962:144) suggested that redistribution was which were used to create alliances and mo- the most crucial factor among all other char- bilize support to increase the chief's powers acteristics of chiefdoms, including great (Earle 1977, 1978; Helms 1979; Feinman and population density, social strati®cation, craft Neitzel 1984). specialization, and large public works. These critiques have seriously challenged The interest in the notion of chiefdoms, as not only Service's original concept of chief- proposed by Service, has grown, and a large dom, but also, the typological approach to number of articles concerning this topic social evolution. Some scholars (Blanton et have appeared in the archaeological litera- al. 1981; Hill 1977; Kehoe 1981; Plog & ture (e.g., Carneiro 1981; Drennan & Uribe Upham 1979: 1±3; Tainter 1978; Feinman & 1987; Earle 1978, 1987, 1991a; Flannery 1972; Neitzel 1984) have opposed the approach's Johnson & Earle 1987; Kirch 1984; Peebles & primary focus on the classi®cation of speci®c Kus 1977; Renfrew 1973; Wright 1984). societies into ideal organizational types us- Several problems with this approach have ing a few key attributes to infer the presence also been remarked upon, however, such as of all aspects traditionally associated with a some general weaknesses in the Service ty- typical paradigm. A historical-particularistic pology of social development. Cordy view which emphasizes the differences be- (1981:27±29) has summarized these de®- tween developmental trajectories has be- ciencies as follows. First, many traits of the come in¯uential, and some scholars propose various stages are not easily measured em- abandoning evolutionary theory (e.g., Hod- pirically. Second, lack of clarity about the der 1986; Shanks & Tilley 1987; Yoffee 1993). differences between chiefdoms and states is The most recent critiques of the concept of especially apparent when attempting to clas- chiefdom primarily reject a model of holistic sify bordering societies which are between change in evolutionary stages, and empha- stages. Third, among societies which are size a heterarchical approach to complex so- classi®ed as chiefdoms, there are variations cieties (Ehrenreich et al. 1995). in degrees of social complexity in terms of In spite of this, many anthropologists still their populations, territories, and social ech- believe that complex societies have evolved elons. Fourth, there is no systems-oriented through a series of general developmental approach to classi®cation; all the methods stages, and similarities may have been for classifying societies are based on the shared by societies cross-culturally within presence or absence of speci®c traits which each stage (e.g., Rothman 1994; Spencer do not re¯ect the relation between parts and 1987). The chiefdom concept is still alive, but the whole. Fifth, the basic tenetÐthat social it has evolved into something quite different criteria change as an entire, qualitative setÐ from Service's original formulation. is incorrect; rather, social change occurs as Recent rede®nitions of the concept of spurts and lags in different dimensions of chiefdom tend to focus on political and ad- societal organization. ministrative criteria (Spencer 1987:369). For The most recurring criticism of Service's example, Carneiro (1981:45) has de®ned the concept of chiefdoms has focused on the role chiefdom as ``an autonomous political unit of the chief as the focal point in a redistribu- comprising a number of villages or commu- tive network through which subsistence nities . .'' Redistribution is no longer re- goods moved, and united diverse, ecologi- garded as a central characteristic of the cally specialized villages. In many areas of chiefdom. the world, the position of the chief in food In recent years, a shift has occurred from distribution was not essential to the integra- the analysis of formal characteristics shared AID JAA 0299 / ai01$$$$62 08-24-96 02:47:58 jaaa AP: JAA CHIEFDOMS IN NORTH CHINA 239 by chiefdoms to a concern with aspects such 1978; Wright 1977a; Wright & Johnson 1975). as variability between chiefdoms and the According to Johnson (1973:4±12), tribes evolutionary processes by which chiefdoms and chiefdoms have one and two adminis- were created and maintained (Earle 1991b). trative tiers, respectively, while a state Discussions about chiefdom variability have should have at least three levels of decision- focused on the following schemes: (1) the making hierarchy. structure of chiefdoms can be distinguished Opinions about the correlation between the as group-oriented vs individualizing (Ren- number of decision-making levels and the de- frew 1974), (2) the economic basis of chief- grees of social complexity vary among schol- doms may be characterized as staple vs ars. For example, Steponaitis (1978:420) has ar- wealth (Brum®el & Earle 1987; D'Altroy & gued that simple chiefdoms have one level Earle 1985), and (3) the level of the develop- of decision-making authority, while complex ment of chiefdoms may be dichotomized as chiefdoms have two or three tiers of political simple vs complex. This third scheme of hierarchy. By contrast, Wright (1984:42) has analysis is particularly emphasized in this demonstrated that simple chiefdoms have one study. level of control hierarchy above the level of the local community, while complex chief- Simple vs Complex Chiefdoms and Decision- doms cycle between one and two levels of Making Hierarchy control hierarchy. Combining information about population size with analysis of political Because chiefdoms varied greatly ac- hierarchy, Earle (1991b:3) also outlined some cording to degree of social complexity, sev- critical features of these two types of chief-