Methods for Archaeological Settlement St

7/25/2019 Methods for Archaeological Settlement St

1/47

3. Methods for Archeological

Settlement Study

Rd m

D.

Drennan, Teng MiniO' a r i ~ i a n E. P

Reg10nal survey rneth:xlology, BS it has coml' to be routinely employed in many parts of

world, has not been without its critics. Archeologists

hRV ,

woTTif f l aoout the extent to

which the helter-skelter c:o lections

of

artifacts ofTen made on regional survey accurately repre

sent subsurface remains or

can

sustain quantitative or other analyses adequate for such pUI JXIS

es as chronological identifieation or detennination of site function (e. g. Tolstoy and Fish

1975 ; Parsons, Kintigh and Gregg

1983:

1 - 2 ; Wandsnider and Camilli 1992 ) . Geol

ogists and geoarcheologists have worried alxlUt the

exlt:llt

to which sedimentation and erosion

affect the surfaces to which survey

is

applied. effectively ~ e m o v j n g sites from the accessible

archt;'Ological record or even creating

new

sites through redep.::lSition of artifacts transJXlrted

from their originallocatic::ru: by nuvial Proces >eS (e. g.

Waters

and Field

1986; Brookes.

Levine, and DenneU

1982).

ProJXlnents of fuUooverage survey have debated advocates

of

sampling programs as if the two were inoompatible alternatives (Fish and K o w a l ~ w ~ k i e d ~ .

1990) instead

of

JXltentially complementary strategies. Concern that archeological"

sites

traditionally defined cannot adef}llatf'ly represent the actual distribution of artifacts and an

thropag:enic features of interest has led

to

calls for siteless

survey

( Dunnell and Dancey

1983 ; Dunnell

1992 ) .

One major branch

of

landscape archeolcgy " seeking to replace

an

outrrKxled settlement pattern approach springs from a similar concern (e. g. Rossignol and

Wandsnider.eds.

1992),

while

another

represents a reaction against the new archeology"

asscx::iatiun

WId mdkrialist slant of settlement patter n studies

(e. g,

Ashmot and Knapp,

j 1999)

.

A

number of

these concerns have been expressed repeatedly in the regional settlement

pattern

literature over the years. Nevertheless . much of the largest-scale regional sun.'ey ccl'-

.

122

.


2/47

ried out during the past 30 years has put little effort into methodologiml improvement, as

many of u ' seem

to

have bceome increasingly accustomed

to

simply ignoring such concerns.

Indeed, the im:roducrion to one major reeent retrospective collecTion of papers on settlement

pattern studies ends

with

a very similar lament aoout cursory attention

to

the fundamentals

of data eollection (Bdlman 1999:5), While amcern aoout the quality of data mllection is

occasionally expressed in that volume, little suggestion is offcred toward improvement

e-

yond, for example, an admonition to have experienced, motivated, curious field observers

Finsten and Kowalewski 1999: 35).

The parlicipants in the CICARP have taken regional settlement study in the Chifeng re

gion, not only as an opportunity

to

learn more aoout a very interes ting developmental trajec

tory of complex society [rom aoout 6000

BeE

onward, but also

as

a challenge to provide more

reliable regional-scale analysis of this sequence by addressing s:Jme of the long-5tanding

am -

cems aoout dara collection

in

regional survey. As

is the

case in all regional surveys, we have

needed

to

develop ways of collecting and analyzing data that are practical and effective in the

specific conditions the Chifeng region presents us

with

d. Sanders 1999: 13), but since

many of those conditions can also

be

found in other regions elsewhere in China and the rest of

the

world, we hope the

appTOllches

we explore

may

contribute to an advancement of regional

survey techniques in a broader context as well.

t seeIIl5 to us unarguable that efforts

to

collect comprehensive data on a large scale must

inevitably sacrifice s:Jme of the detail and reliability that can

be

achieved in smaller scale stud

ies

d.

Kowalewski 1990). This

is

not unique 10 archoology-for precisely the same rea

son, the information collected aoout anyone household in a national census is less detailed and

reliable than could

be

collected by intensive observation of that household. The less detailed

and reliable data can, however,

be

collected systematically for a very large number of house

holds. and it is this comprehensiveness that gives a census data set its special uti lity.

We

abo

take it for granted that regional survey is not the only kind of data rollection needed

in

arche

ology, just as cell. ilJSeS are not the only kinds of data needed for studies of contemporary

JXlP-

ulatioll.'i. Research at the regional scale is

an

important complement to research at other scales

and vice versa. This point is not often made explicit in methodological discussions, perhaps

because it seems so obvious as to

be

trite.

We

mention it nonetheless because at least some of

the more

JXllemic

discussion of regional-scale studies

in

archeology overlooks

it.

The survey methcx:iology applied by the CrCARP is comparable in many ways to that of

other large-scale systematic regional surveys conducted in various parts of the world. Tearn.s,

each composed of aoout four archeologisl5, systematically walk back and forth across the en

.

123


3/47

tire Ilinclsc.aPf'_. spaced about 50 T l apm. Most sites are detected as surface scatters of arti

f.Kts usually ceramics). and surface ..;sihility of artifact scatters is generally quite gO Jd

throughout the region-comparable, for example. to that encountered in the Basin of Mexi-

00

the Valley of Oaxaca, or highland Peru and fulivia, though perhaps not quite as gco:.l as

in the

dry

coastal valleys of Peru

or

in Me.. Opotamia. Surface visibility in

the

Chifeng region

is certainly good f nough thRt we have not found it necessary

to

consider techniques such

as

the excavation of shovel tests which have often

been

applied to regional surveys in North

America, the

nonhern

Andes, and other regions. Nowhere in

the

Chifeng region does vege

tation pose challenges

to

regional survey even reroot.ely oomparable to those offered by the

forests of both lowland and highland humid tropical zones.

The

natural plant oommunity of

the

Chifcng region

has

been complecely remoVf'n hy human activity over several millennia.

Today, intensive cultivation complemented by livestock raising (especially sheep and pigs)

leaves the entire landscape very bare except for crops.

Survey has

been

carried

out

during

the

spring and summer, between April and August,

April and May, at

the

end of the

dry

winter , present especially favorable conditions: temper-

t u n ~ s arc gett ing warm enough for comfortable rielclwnrk; wild vegetation is very sparse;

and plowing and cultivation are beginning. By June, crop

growth

in the flat valley

floors,

where planting occurs first. is beginning to intdere with both surface visibility and mobili-

ty. By

July

and August, maize, sunflowers, wheat. miUet, and a wide variety of

other

ma-

turing crops make survey the flat valley floors impossible. The later planting schedule of

the

upland:;, together with generally less intensive cultivation. thllt surface visibility re-

mains good into

June.

July, and August. High temperatures in July and August , however,

dramatically reduce

the

productivity

(not

to mention

the

romfor t) of survey teams. Surface

visibility

seriously

obscured by vegetation. then. is not one of

the

particular methodological

problems we hf-vC faced in Chifeng, except in tenns of scheduling fieldwork to avoid den,


4/47

I

P

I

rion in rep.-' ts of re,Rional ,;urwys t : O n ~ e m e d

with

complex ~ C i e i e s , mose such research is

foundf'd on

,he

notioll or C1rchl: Ologicru ; , i tes-a notion who"e milllY

fI/id

vil iJilY hi:\.,'; been

I

strongly qllf>stioTleo (e.

g.

Dunnell and Duncey

1983;

Chang

1992;

Dunnell 1(192). Pracli

,I

cally all regional surveys hClve iuvo

lvee ~ t i r r e

OJITlPlicated and alrrust always largely subjective

orarbitmry

deciSIOll5 aoout

whm to

call a s i t ~ . 11l1:: criteria by which thEse decisions

ha\lf. h'PIl. TTlo'Jde

are

r7J't'ly

It'forted iil1d , we SlJ.'Spet."1 , often not

eVt'(l

made explicit mrong

s ~

field crews. perhaps

bocause

what a

si

tl' is seems :oJ.) obvious

to

D many a r r h r o k ~ l s t s 11u:

dccisiOfl

ilOCu[ what I I ) calt a

::.:

site matrers \.:.ecau...' , If evidence relevant tIl

O\erall research objectivES cx:LUIS

on

the m ~ in locations that

are-

not

rn.lled

sites

and this evi

dcncc , W [I ~ ~ , is

nol num:led

ther: the ability to achieve n:sean:h obj6:tives is injured .

Chang

(1992). for

examrle.

is particularly cuncerued that settlement surveys

only

des

ignate

.sill'S

thos

localeS' though

10

have been

~ i l l a g e s

or

OthlOr

Jt:'IllJaUent .settlements; re

S'8fCh

on

The

mobill' pm;toral

ways of

life

that

iurerest

her

clearly requires

attention

[0

addi

,

Tional

kinds

of evidence, but there is a more effective solution than replacing

the

runcepl of

site

wirh

the

concept or

supcrartifact

;

ClHmg

:::il..gge:sts. Duta collection should pnx-eerl

hy

designating

as a :sile any locale WiTh saDie trace of ancient human

activity,

It appears that

most tegional surveys do follow this practice. so that e'"iclence of

the

kind

that

concerns

Chang i.s in [111:1 l/lJlikdy to go unrc(-JOrteJ where it exisfs

(st-;(

Persons, H a . s n r . R ~ , and Matos

11

2000 for a particularly reJcvan I

l'xample).

Widespread evidence

of

inler.sive agriculture (SUC.1

.;

a'>

[ e r r a c e ~ ,

c a n a l ~ ,

or raised f i c l d ~ can he more difficult

to

work with

~ i n c e

such fearures

UlfJ

:'.

cover large

arcas.

and obSErv8tirms rnnceming them arl' not as e&;y to record as charactl'ris

t i c ~ of a series of

sites.

Some different means of organizing rhe process of clata recording

and management would indeed ,;eem called for in this j n . s t a n c e - - u l l ~ [ lUI organized [lr0und the

,

I'

d"linf' llion

r

.sites-buT

&'i

a t':Jmplement to u:;e of

the

site concept

rather

than a replacement

for it. since nuIDy other human activities, inclnJing habttatjun, mn.y

wll

be spatially restrict

ed and distinu [hat their evidenc :' Gil l bt dficiently and dccnrately recorded in

ff rTl1. l

of

arcneological sites.

This

11JSt ooncem, toongh, b r i ~ us c1a;er [0 the natlill::' of our :e


5/47

desirable rn the natL1rl?

of

the arcltrokgical rerord

and of the

resean:h. D..mnell

and

Thmcey

provide an illustnltion

of

their rnethxblq ;)' in a

lOlle

where artifacts 00 app:m to be .....;ddy dis

persed. They fann 3JT1f.'

OJIlcentrnnons, but

t ~

OJIlcentrnnCJ "1S. might plausibly

be

defined in dif-

ferent ways,

and

a substantial p:rtion of

the

artifacts visible on the surface o::cur outside such


6/47

In Chifeng, i l l l l IoM reglons, the fimt indication that a survey tf'MI1 encountered

an archeological site

typically [hat

on

member of the

te.. UT1

finds a sherd un the surface.

&JmetiIlles, of

coumc, the

tearn

may

find

no

other ~ h e r s beyond that filSl one. Our rule has

been that, if no one finds any rrore sheIos after the team has eontinued on its course ior aoout

100 r : l beyond thp

/X);m

where me fin>t sneed was found, then that sheed is discarded. the lo

cation is not eonsidered an archeological site,

and,

consequently, information aoout

it is

not

recurded.

If,

however. a second sheed

is

found within 100

m,

the team gathers in the area

and searches more i n [ f ~ l s i v e l y

for

more

ceramics cr orher artifacts.

If

none are found,

the

two

sherds are discarded, and no information

is

recorded.

If,

however, three or more sherds are

found, the locarion

is

OJllSidered an archeologic.a1 site , artifacts are collected,

and

information

is recorded.

(n the absence of much explicit discussion

of

this issue in regional survey reJXlrts, this

seems to be a lower threshold for wnat constitutes a site rnan many regional surveys con

\

cerned

with

complex societies have applied, although perhaps comparable to

that

applied by

Underhill

et

a1.

0998:459

-460) in the Rizhao region in Shandong Province, where desig

nation as a site required

t

least one sherd

that

could

be

ickmified

in

the fieid as to

period.

In

one survey in

the

United States S:!uthwest, Plog (Plog,ed.

1978: 387)

set the criterion (or

2

defining a site at a minimum

3urf


7/47

observe rather than

~ n t e r p r e t i n g

it. In this instanc'e, Ihis Illeam recording for later analysis

any omcentration of as many as three artifacts and m k ~ a surface collection, rather than

p:l5Sibly making a subjective decision in the field rhat the coucenrr;Jtion

not meaning{Jl and

thereby losing the PJS.


8/47

f

to

in

IS

"

II

II

,

Ii

I

I

with marc

~ h e r d s

are uot particlllarly' abundant. These collectior.s represent hilltop sites with

5uhstc.rrtial architectural r"'maius where sherds were not collected iu the initial survey pending

more detailed mapping and surface collecting in the future (as mentioned above). Anif :\(;ts

are, indeed, quire sparse un tht: s u r f c e ~ of these sites, but rhey c\PlIrly do not reflect recent

trllns{X)rt

of

aucient artifaets. since the i.I"chitectural remains are unmistakable.

Another discrepancy between collections with

very

few sherds and collections with mare

sherds is the scarcity of colleetions with betwet:n one and four sht:rd:s

in

a roughly circular area

in tht: nurth-central PllIt of the survey lOne, when: there are reasonable uumbers of collee

tions with

five

sherds or more. This is a part of the survey


9/47

f the sparse sherd scatters were produced by recent transport of ancient artifacts, such trans

port might be expected

to

affect sherds of each

period

sjmilarly _ When the proportions of

sherds in

srmtll

wHeo:.:tion1i are calculated for each period, however, a fpw perioos rliffer from

the value of 1.9% olrerall (Table 3. 1 and Figure 3.4). The biggest difierence

(5.5%

for

Xinglongwa) has very little statistical significance, since the Xinglongwa sample is small

(Figure 3.

4).

For the same reason, the differences observed for Zhaobaogou and Xiaoheyan

are not worth much attention. At the other extreme, we can be highly ronfident of the lower

proportions of sherds in small collections for Hongshan and Lower Xiajiadian and of the high

er

proportion of sherds in small collections ior Llao (Figure

3.

4). (Note here that ',.;hen

we

say snall uAlection:;j' , we mean collections with fewer than

five

sherd,; -'lltogether--not col

lections with small quantities

of

.' herds from a particular period

~ g a r d l e s s

of the total number

of sherds collected. )

The relatively smalL, but highly significant differences for these threc periOOs are entirely

consistent with what we observe in larger collections as well. When

we

look at the numbers

of rollections with different quantities of sherds during each of these periods, for only collec

tions with five sherds or more (Figures 3.5 and 3. 6), we see somewhat differentiy ~ h a p e d

distributiOIlt;. Fur Liso there are more small collections (up to f100ut 35 sherds) cnd fewer

large collections----ronslstent with the high proportion of collections with fewer than five

sherds In ron trast, for Hongshan and especially Lower Xiajiadian, there are more large col

lectioru;

and fewer small collections among the collections with fiye sherds or rnore-roIlSistent

with the low projXJrtions of collections with f e ~ e r than five sherds. Tha t is to say, periods

with unusually low prcportions of collections with fewer than fiv sherds are periods wilh un

usually low proportion," of rolJections with slightly larger numbers of sherds as well (say, 5 to

20) . These lre clcnrly periods when the distributions of shf'rd quantities per rollection are

skE'Wed overall toward large collections (say, oyer 20 sherds). Similarly 1 the period with an

unu


10/47

th11t unusually low proportions of Hongshan and Lower Xiajiadian sherds come from rnllec

rions with fewer th11n five sherds

is

consistent with the unusually small prop::lrtion of rnllec

tions from ~ two periods that

wnsist

of not very many more than five shenfs. This

mn-

sistency

is

difficult

to

undersmnd

if

small low-density sherd $CAtter9 were mostly the pmuct

of the displacement across the landscape of ancient ceramics by more recent agricultural prac

tices. (t does make sen:-e, however. if the pattern of small low-density sherd shat ters reflects

a particular abundance of small, dispersed Liao occupations and a particular scarcity of such

occupations during Hongshan and Lower Xiaiiadian.

Such differences in the densities of surfaa: artifacts are sometimes argued to result from

differences in the lengths of the periods,

with

denser artifacts on sites of longer perieds. The

observations we have ju:;t made about these three periods, however, cannot readily

be

at

tributed to this factor. It is true that Hongshan

is

probably the longest period in the se

quence. and this might result in fewer sparse occupations

as

artifacts had longer

to

accumulate

in particular places

on

the landscape. Lower Xiajiadian, however, which likewise shows a

scareity of sparse occupations,

is

among the shorter periods. and

Liao,

with

its abundance of

sparse occupations, falls in betweeu.

Soil, and especially

comJXlSt.

used to enrich cultivated fields often originate in and

aroum.1 villages. Thus, if small, sparse sherd scatters are largely produced by recent move

ment of ancient materials in such activities, we might expect small collections to have larger

propJrtions of Te:'ent ceramies than the larger collections that indisputable indications of

ancient settlement. The correlation between rollection size and proportion of recent ceramics,

however. although it has some significance p

= O.

079 because the sample is so large

n

1633). is of negligible strength

r=0.043).

Yet

another

factor that might acrount or difference> between periods if small, spane

sherd Sl..:B.tter9 were largely produced by recent transp:Jrt of ancient artifacts would be a rela-

tionship between the distributions of settlements of certain periods and modem settlements.

That is. if the

n s tu

remains of settlements in II particular period tended to

be

especially

dose

to modem l'Offimwlities. then the sherds of that period might more often be transp:med

with romp:JSt than those of other periods and, as a roru;equence. more small, sparse $CArters

pertaining to that peried would be created.

This JXlSSibility

was investigated with II GIS anal

ysis of the territory near modern communities. whose results are surmnarized in Table

3.2.

This

analysis considered only sites of each period whose rollections produced five sherds or

more

that

is.

the

ones

with

surface material abundant enough to serve as plausible

SOUIces

of

transp:Jrted ancient artifacts).

131


11/47

f transport of ancient sherds with compo."t originating in or near mooern towns were a

major factor in pmdueing the high proportion of small, sparse scattel1l for the Lieo perioo,

then we might expect that an unusually large proportion of Liao site are.a with denser surface

materials would be in or near modern towns, and this is, in fact, the care. On the same ba

sis, we would expect that an unusually smaJi proportion of Hongshan and Lower Xiajiadian

site area with denser surface materials would be near modern towns, since small, spar&' scat

tel1l

are especially unusual for these periods. Hongshan does have a low prop:mion of site area

near modern

tOW115.

but Lower Xiajiadian has an even higher proportion than does Liao.

Up-

per Xiajiadian and Zhanguo-Han also had low proportions of small, sparse scatters, although

these differences from the overall prop:mion had less significance than those already dis

cus...'led.

In

these

twu

cases, the corresp:::mdence with prop:rt"tion of site area near modem

towns is al:'O incunsistent: Upper Xiajiadian has a low prop'Jrtion of site area near modem

towns. but for Zhanguo-Han this proPJrtion

is

high. Precisely as these observations would

suggest, a rank-order correlation between the prop'Jrtion of sherds from small collections and

the proPJrtion of sites near modem towns has little strength or significance ('.,

= 0.103, =

0.870). We do not,

then,

see the pattern


12/47

,

I

wme of distributional analyses, since they are not distribnted very differently from larger

sites. or

on

the outcome of regional demographic analyses, since they

repre.


13/47

effiC'ient to incorporate such iufonnation in map fonn through GIS analysis. Here.

V1{

are

concerned particularly with characteriz:ing sites in terms of four interrelated parameters:

chrouolog) , spJltial extent, function

(or

ORtUff of utilization). and intensity of utilization.

Information relevant to these parameters, of

COUY"!:le,

can came from architectural remains and

other f e t u r e ~ visible ll the surface, but in many regions (including Chifeng) most sites lack

sueh features.

n

such cases, the single most important source of infonnatiou available for all

four parameters

is

the artifacts available on the surface. Reliable information, then, alxllit the

nature

and

spatial distribution of artifacts within sites must

be

collected at a level of detail

corrunensurate with both the needs of regional-scale analysis and the p r a c t i C 1 l l i t i ~ of compre

hensive regional-scale data collection.

The interrelations among the four parameters camplieate the task. ChronOlOgy

is

typical

ly ssessed in regional surveys by as.."igning sites to one or more periods, and we do not pursue

other possible approaches here. But spatial extent, intensity of utilization. and function must

also

be

lI.s. lt: s made at only Xlme sites in the Ikc;in of Mexico have

been regarded as inadequate for quantitative analysis,

00

characterization of chronology, spa

tial exten t, intensity of utilization and functi,:m

is

based on subjective visual 8ssc..'I:: mcnts made

in the field. Greater reliability and

preci:-;ion

for all focr of the parameters considered here can

134

.1

"

"

i'

I

"

j

!

,

I

I:

,. '1


14/47

be achieved when artifac[ oollections are made that can sustain quantitative analysis

at

a scale

01 spatial resolution smalier than that

of

the individual site.

The methodology we have followed to accomplish this in the Chifeng

sUlVey

addresses

the issue; of time and practicality in the fjeld. sample size, sampling bias, and spatial resolu-

tion. Spatial resolution is based on collection units not exceeding 1 ha. For sites of 1 ha or

smaller, this means that a single artifact collection is made. Sites larger than 1 ha are divided

into subunits {or oollection, Thus each IlrliIac oollection represents a defined area of I ha or

less in the field.

The

ooundarips of this area are marked on photographic enlargements of

satellite images carried by each survey team in the field so that each area can be located and

its area measured with some precision. A site, then, ronsists of one

or

more rontiguous col-

lection units whose areal extent indudes the entire distribution of features and/or artifacts

visible on the surface_ This makes it PJSSible

to

calculate the area of each site by :mmming the

areas of the collection units that make it up. More important, it

make.,,;

it PJSSible to calculate

a different occupied area for each slte during each period, since after the ceramics have been

analyzed, those rollection units that do not contain ceramics from a particular period can be

omitted from the area calculation for that period. Similarly, different intensities of utilization

and different functions that it may be

PJSSible

to identify for different periods on the basis of

the artifacts present, are assigned not to entire sites but to individual areas of 1 ha

or

less

within sites.

Utilization of such collection units makes it

p:J..'lSible

to deal with the spatial aspects of the

other parameters in

tenns

o areas measured to the nearest hectare.

Our

focus on these collec-

tion units parallels practice in the Basin of Mexico as well, where surface distributions of arti-

facts finally were characterized "field by field" because some large areas of rontinllOlJS art ifact

distributions defied easy definition of site ooundaries in the field. Site limits were defined lat-

er, subjectively, based on the infornLation recorded on air photographs. and results were ana-

lyzed and reported in teIlIlS of the sites so defined. In Chifeng, we have carried this approach

farther by standardizing the areas of rollection units at approxinLately 1 ha

(which mayor

may not correspond to fields or other mcx:lem feattl e:5 of the landscape) and collecting arti-

facts separately in all rollt.'Clion units. As i s ~ more fully below, the roIJection unit,

nol

the

site, beromes

the

important basic unit of analysis, and we can move directly from data

organized by rollection unit to definition of communities

at

various scales, largely without ref-

erence to the site as a unit of data recording or analysis.

With spatial units of approximately 1 ha,

then.

the

next

issue

is

how to make artifact

collections in such a way that they can sustain quantitative analysis.

There

are two kinds of

135 .


15/47

quantitative information that it

is

particularly important

to d e r i v ~

from these collectiorus: pro

portions of artifacts of various kinds (e. g. proportions of sherds of a particular perioo,

or

proportions of lithic t:eols of >llmlP

p ~ r t i c l i l r

kind. or proportions of sherds of 'OUle particular

vessel form,

etc.)

and densities of surface artifact:s i. e. the number of artifacts pt:r m

2

on

the surface across

the

area of the rollection

unit). If

a collection of artifacts is

to

be taken to

repre'lf:nt a

collection unit in these regards. then both 5Mnple size and sampling bias

are

con

cerns to be addressed. Sample representativeness' m;ght seem the relevc.nt issue, but this

characteristic

of

samples cannot be assessed

directly-uuly

uy attempting to

increa.-


16/47

sampling because survey crews exercise no judgement aoout what to

oollecr

and what not

tu collect,

and

becauSE arrifacts

whc>s(

characteristics make

them

inconspicuous

are

less likely

[ 0

be overlooked when the ground surface in a small area is l'xamined very carefully. Al

though

:lUch

techniques have been used in many

oootexts.

large-&:ale regional surveys

are

of

ten

carried

out

without systematic mIJection because ehe practice

is

thought to

be

too time

consuming to be practical

on

this scale.

n

Chifeng, however, we have found making system

atic collecdons eminently practical. Two members of a survey crew can mark out a circle 3 m

in diameter very quickly.

One

stands still holding one end of a 1.5 m rope while the other

holds the other end and walks around in a circle making b::ot marks on the ground. ) All ar ti

facts within the circle are collected

it

usually takes less than ten minutes). If fewer than 20

sherds are found. then additional adjacent circles are collected until the minimum sample size

is achieved. and the total number of circles serves as a record of the area within which the

systematic oollection was made so that the average number of sherds

or artifacts of any kind)

per m

2

can be calculated.

This kind of systematic collection procedure. however. introduces another potential

sampling problem because the artifacts found on the 5urfal.:e in a very small defined area are

caken to represent those in a much larger area

up to

1

ha

in our case). Field crews can. for

example. subamsciously choose to place systematic oollections in spots where artifacts are e.s-

peciaIly dense

or

where

partkularly

unlL'o;ual artifacts are noticed. We attempt

to

avoid such

biases by selecting the precise spot for a systematic oollection within a 1 ha collection unit be

fore we get dose enough to be able to observe exactly what

the

surface distribution of artifacts

looks like there. While this can prevent subconscious selection of unusual

that

is. systemati

cally unrepre.sentative) locations for systematic collections. there is still the concern that

the

proJXlrtions of artifacts may vary widely across

the

surface of a oollection unit causing the re

sults of a systematic oolleetion to depend on whl'Te, exactly, it is placed.

This plSSibility was inve.stigated through more intensive suriaee oolJection of one site in

2001 prior

to

small-scale stratignlphic tesTing.

The

surface distribution of artifacts

at

site 674

mvers about 3.3 ha, so on regional survey u.sing the methooolc:gy described above. this sire

would be divided into at least three oolleetion units. For ilIu.stration, it is divided into five

collection units according to the topography

Figure 3.8).

Prior

to

testing, 24 systematic

oollections were made at the si,e, so we can investigate just how systematic oollections might

have repre:o;ented their [X)(Jection units differently. depending on exactly where they were

placed.

The

ceramics of three

peri


17/47

lections. as illustrated in Figure 3.

9.

The collections in the south-centrol collection unit

(Figure 3.8) are shown on the first row in Figure 3.9. The proportions of Iypes from the

different periods vary somt:what, but all collection5 from this area

in the

site are characterized

by very high propJrtions of Upper Xiajiadian sherds and

v{'ry

low p r o ~ r t o s of sherds from

the other two perioos. Whichever location might have been chosen for II systematic collection

in regional survey would have represented the sherds on the surface in the collection unit rea

sonably well. Exactly the same can be said of the collections made in the north-central unit

(those shown in the second row of Figure 3.9). All four systematic collections

in

the

5Outh-

eastern unit the third row

in

Figure 3. 9) have much more similar proportions of Lower Xia

jiadian and Upper Xiajiadian sherds than do the colla:tions in the first two rows and no

Zhanguo-Han material. Sometimes Upper Xiajiadian sherds are more numerous than Lower

Xiajiadian. and sometimes the reverse, but

the propxtions

for these two periods are

alWllYs

much more nearly even than

in

the first two rows. In similar fashion, the systematic colJec

tlUns

from the northernmost unit

the

fourth row

in

Figure 3.

9)

have substantial amounts

E

Lower Xiajiadian and Upper Xiajiadian and very little Zhanguo-Han. And the collections

from

the

northwestern unit

the :xJttom

row in Figure

J.

9) are predcnninandy Lower Xiajia

dian. While the proPJrtions of

i;lherds

do vary across this site, dividing it into five collection

u n ~ t s each represented

by

anyone of the

s y ~ t e m a t i c

collections actu? ly made within

the

unit

would provide a reaoonable approximation of the overall distributional patterns.

Systematic collections cannot, however,

be

made

in

all i n s t a n c e ~ In some sites surface

artifacts occur at such low density that there may not even

be

20 sherds visible

on

the surface

in an entire hectare.

If

it appears that the surface artifflct density is so low in a collection unit

that 803m diameter cirele would not contain as many as five sherds, then crews do not at

tempt systematic collections, but make opPJrtunistic general collections instead. Crews col

lect the first artifacts they see in a collection unit until the minimum sample size h.as been sur

passed; then rollecting stops.

This

procedure is an effort to eliminate judgements aoout

which artifacts to collect and which ones to leave on the ground, so as to reduce the sampling

bias in favor of more noticeable, more unusual, or more interesting artifacts that has often

been noted for such opportunistic collecting

e.

g. Drennan 1996b:88) , If crews range

Widely around the all''a of a collection unit making a general collection, then the worry that

the single small loc..:J.rion from which a collection is made may not represent the entire area

very well (discussed aoove (or ~ y s t e m a t i c collections:' simply

deJl:'s

not arise. Although our

prE"ferred method of mllection

if'

;oystematic , whert ~ u r f a c e artifact demities are high

enough

to

make

it

practical arc a distinct minority

in

the Chifeng

region. Up

through

2001

.

, 138 .

r.

I


18/47

only

241

of 2168 collections made (about 11 ) were systematic, Despite comprising such a

f

~ m a l l fraction of the L'ollections, the sy,.;tematic collections have provided extremely valuable

infonnation on snrface artifact d e m i [ i e ~ e s p e c i a l l y so considering thaI they are the collec

tions from the largest and densest sites.

Since stratigraphic tests were carried out at Site 674, it also provide:!

lL'3

with an oppor

tunity to explore the relationship betwecn surface collections and the materials encountered in

subsurface 5trata. Test A was located near the bonndary between the two centrally located

collection units shown in Figure 3. 8

(those

whose collections are represented in the top two

rows of Figure

3.9).

This test contained primarily Upper Xiajiadiall ceramics down to con

siderable depth. Tests B and D were located in the southeastern roUection unit (whose sys

tematic collections are shown 111 the third row of Figure 3.

9).

Some 92 % of the sherds from

TesT B were Lower Xiajiadian, a somewhat higher proportion than encountered in nearby

Collection 17, although Collection

17

s proportion of Lower Xiajiadian was the highe:'it of

all

collections in this

part

of the site.

Test

0

which was excavated down

to

sterile soil,

had

substantial amounts of both Lower Xiajiadian and Upper Xiajiadian material , with Lower Xi-

ajiiadian being slightly more

abnndam,

much like nearby Collection 16. Test C was in the col

lection unit with Collections 19, 20, and 21, and. like these colleclions in general, showed

similar amounts of Lower and Upper Xiajiadian (with the latter slightly predominating) a

long with a small amann! of Zhanguo-Han ceramics.

The

systematic collections made at Site

674 prior to stratigraphic testing,

then.

provided a view of the proportions and distributions

of ceramics of different periods broadly consistent with that which emerges from analysis of

the ceramics from our stratigraphic tests. Even at this site. where cultural dePJSits :teII.ch at

Jea'il

5 to 6 m beiow the surface and three different perioos are represented, there

is

no pro

nounced tendency for earlier materials to be underrepresented on the surface because the earli

er dep:JSits are overlain by more recent materials. Our results, then, agree with others about

consistency betwecn surface lind subsurface remains (e. g.l))wnum and Brown 1998). In

some cases, surface remains may provide an even roore useful indication of ancient activities

than subsurface remains,

as

in cases where no detectable stratigraphic evidence of features re

mains bU[ the characterislic signatures of artifact distributions have not been erased and are

recoverable with careful surface collecting (e. g. Hawkins 1998).

Aio

we

continne

to

conduct stratigraphic tests in Chifeng al more sites representing dif

ferent periods,

we

will cont inue to systematically monitor the correspondence between surface

and subsurface assemblages. So far , though, it thal the surface-collecting p r o e u ~

described above pnxluce samples of artifacts of sufficient size and small enough risk of serious

. 13'1


19/47

bias to enable us to arrive at quantitative ch8racteri7.ations of the chronological ;x-riods repre

sented. The same characteristic'> make it possible to analyze artifacts in functional terms

(proportions of different vessel forms, for example) so as to reconstruct how patterns

of

ac'

tivities may have varied from one rollectiun unit to another during any particular period.

The

spatial resolution of ooth chronological

HOO

functional n l y ~ is the 1 h

a

rollection unit.

If

future work suggests

that,

for example. eRrlier periods are systematically underrepresented in

5urface rollections, then the same r o m p r i ~ s of surface and subsurface assemblages that

s u g g e ~ t this fact can be used

to

establish "correction factors" based on the degree to which

early materials seem attenuated in surface rollectiotl'l.

The fourth parameter to characterize for rollection units is intensity of utilization. One

of the principal clues to this parameter available to regiomtl 9urvey

is

surface artifact density.

The rollecting proceciuIl'S just

d i s u ~

provide information aoout surface sherd densities,

first in ten11.9 of two rough categories: high and low. Low density equates to tho..'Ie collection

units where general collections were made because densities were nul high enough for system

atic rollection circles to practicable. This

is

around 3 or 4 sherds per circle, so low density

areas wht:rt: general rollections were made have Ie&:

than

aoout

O.

:; ..hf'rds/m

2

on the surface.

High density consequently means more than aoout O. 5 sherds/m

2

, and the systematic collec

tion' provide for precise quantification o{ these densities since both numbers of sherds and the

specific area'

(in

m

2

from which they were collected are known.

As might be expected, systematic collections tend to oontain more sherds than general

rollections (Figures

3.10

and 3.11

). The

fact thaI 1465 of the 1691 colJa:tions made (87% )

are general collections indicates that the vast majority of site area recorded in Chifeng oonsists

of relatively low density surface a r t i f a c t ~ (roughly O.

5

~ h e r ~ per m or leSl). Surface sherd

densities,

as

measured by systematic collections, are mostly less than 5 sherds per m

2

but

range up to a maximum slightiy over 22

~ h e r d

per

ml(Figurc 3.12).

This variation in density is, of murse, affectEd to J DITle extent by surface conditions,

and the degree of surface visibility is also recorrlPd for each collection unit acmrdinp; to subjec

tive judgement as high, medium,

or

low. Since surface ronditions have already been de

scribed

as

favorable for settlement survey in the Chifeng region generally, it will rome as no

surprise that fully 78% of the units coliected through the 2000 seBs:::Jn were rated

as

having

high surface artifact visibility; another

20 ,

moderately good vi."ibility; and only 2 , low

visibility. The existence of this variation does, however, make it worth investigating its im

pact on surface ceramic densities iI. recorded.

Just as one might feat, mllection units with low surface

v i ~ i i J i j i l Y

hay/: the

1o ..e.:>t

mean

140

r.


20/47

sherd density, and those with high visibility have the highest mean surface density (Figure

3.13). There IS some statistical sigmficance to these differences. as indicated by

the

error

ranges

in

Figure

3. 13-principally

because the numbers of collections are large enough

10

pn:xluce quite small error ranges.

The

magnitude of the differences between the means,

how-

ever,

is

quite small. Looked

at

another way,

it

is clear that the degree of surface visibility

is

correlated

with

surface ceramic deILSity, and this cor-relation has some significance r = O.

056

p=O.QZ3; r =O.040. P=O.10B . The

correlation, however,

is

extremely

weak;

less than 1 of the variation in surface ceramic density is explained by visibility

(0.3%,

[

be exact). If this

correlation had

n

stronger, it

might

have been useful to explore

the

PJ5

sibility of correcting the den.sity figures for condition.s of surface visibility.

As

it is, surface

visibility

is

shown to be such a trivial comp:ment of the variability observed in surface ceramic

densities, that

we

simply

OJ rot

need

to 'WOrry

al:u..tt it.

Ccrnbining accurate asse&'itl1ents of areal extents and of intensity of utiliz.ation as indicat

ed by den.sities of artifacts

on

the surface provides

an

especially JXlwerful tool for regional set

tlement studies. This

is

particularly so when it comes

to

demographic approximation.s, which

are discussed

further

below. Suffke it to say here that the field procedures for making surfac'e

collections described aoove provide artifact samples whose size and relatively unbiased nature

will sn.stain quantitative chronologieal and functional analyses connected to area

and

den.sity

measurements at a spatial resolution of 1 ha.

This is

substantially finer than the site-scale

characterizations of these parameters provided by many regional settlement studies. We have

found these field

procedlll1 .5

efficient enough in Chifeng that they require very little additional

time in

the

field so that they do not noticeably slow down field work or result in reduced areal

coverage.

They

have

the

additional advantage of shifting more of the

pl ClC5S

of interpretation

to the post-fieldwork phase of analysis when it can be based on systematic quantification of

c1e.med

artifacts in

the

laooratory rather than impressionistic field

~ m e n t s The

demo

graphic analysis presented in the next chapter can serve as an example of the k inds of analysis

such field procedures pemut. Clearly, even more accurate quantification of artifact as;em

blages, their spatial

extents,

and their densities can be accomplished with extensive excava

tions. Regional survey cannot be expected to provide the same level of detai l; it can, howev

er.

provide less detailed information for all the sites that can

be

found in areas

of

hundreda

or

thousands of square kilometers.

It

is the comprehensiveness of such a data

set

(now

consist

ing of 2176 collection units in 1069 sites scattered through 765 krn

2

in Chifeng after the

2001 survey season)

that,

as in

the

case of census data, gives it its value.

That

said, the fin

er

the

spatial resolution that can be achieved in regional settl ement study, the better-as long

141


21/47

as sacrifices in comprehen."iveness are ot required.

We

have found that focusinR o collection

units provides finer spfltial resolution than focusing on .sites, with little or o sacrifiee in COTJ1-

preherL'llveness.

3.3 Sites as Units of Analysis

As discussed above. we have used the site as a unit of data recording in a minor way,

grouping collection units. and such thing5 as notes and sketch maps of features visible o the

surface together into numbered :r;ites.

t

is a simple matter of convenience to group together

things that are spatially contiguous and separated from

other IU"cheological rIIlain:r;

when the

distribution of archeologieH1 remains

is

not

continuous

(as

is

the case

in

Chireng). In

the

chapter just concluded, however, it became clear that. even though

the

subjeet was the char

acteri7..ation of si tes, the collection unit quiekly superseded the site as the prime unit of analy

r;i r; and that this provided for more accurate and precise chamcterization of large site.


22/47

Figure

3.14,

for most sites, the area covered by Hungshan occupation (the sum of

the

or the collection units that

produLcd

Hongshan

ceramics)

which forms the basis of this analy-

sis

is

smaller than the total area of the site (which would also include the collection units that

produced no Hongshan). Altogether. the area mapped in Figure 3. 14

contains 40 spatially

separate surface scatters of Hongshan ceramics

(40

Nsites ).

When

the

site

is

taken to

be

a meaningful unit of analysis, it becomes important

to

es

tablish some standard gOYeTIling when to call a gap in the apparent surface distribution of arti-

facts large enough to require defining the scatter as two sites

rather

than one. It

is

not un-

common to use 100 m

as

the criterion. That is, if a gap of as much as 100 m exists in the dis-

tribution, then two sites are defined: gaps of less than 100 m are ignored, and the distribu-

tion

is

treated

as

the oontinuous manifestation of a single site.

::Orne

of the sites

in

Figure

3.14, however, are not

as

much

as

100 m apart. Fjgure

3.15

illustrates these sites surround-

ed by 50 m buffers; where these buffers intersect, gaps between site:l are less than 100

m,

I'

and

the

two sites separated by such a gap might be called one. For cJUUTlple, the grouping in

the north central section of Figure 3.15, originally called three sites in the field, would be-

oome only two ~ i t s as two of the original sites are separated by a gap of less than 100 m.

The grouping originally called five sites just slightly farther south. would become four sites

as

the two closest together would beoome one since they,

too,

are 5eparated by a gap of

les.s

than LOO m. The total nwnber of sites shown in this map would become only 31

if

all sites

separated by gaps less than 100 m were combined. If instead of 100 m, 200 m were taken

as

the

minimum gap in surface distribution u5ed

to

separate sites, then all thooe whose

lOO

m

buffers intersect

in

Figure

3.

15

would be oombined.

The

original three sites in

the

north cen-

tral section of Figure 3. 15 would berome only one, and the original five sites just to the south

would also beoome only one. There would be only 22 sites in the area.

It

is

not

at

all surprising that the total number of sites changes if

the

criterion for sepa-

rating surface scatters into different sites

is

changed. The changes noted in this area of Hong-

shan sites may seem fairly unimP='nant. but they can result in major qualitative changes in

the oonclusions reached from some kinds of analyses. It

has,

for example. as noted ab:we,

berome OOTl1mon in regional settlement studies to examine histograms of site in an effort

to

determine the number of levels in

the

settlement hierarchy and thus something aoout the

degree of mmplexity and centralization of regional organization. Figure 3. 16 provides his-

tograrru; of site sizes for

the

three versions of

the

Hongshan sites illustrated in Figure 3.15. In

the histogram of the sizes of sites as defined originally in the field (at the left in Figure 3. 16)

the distribution has the general shape of the Poisson distribution one would expect of such da

. 143


23/47

ta in the event that only one kind of site was present. This histogram would, then, ordinari

ly be interpreted in regional settlement analysis as an indication that no site hier


24/47

analysis

prOOuce

such confusing, indeed a:mtradictory, results. depending on minor variation

in the decision aoom whether to call some surface scatters of artifacts one sire or two. The

concern only increases

when

we recognize that these criteria are usually est.ablished largely ar

bitrarily before carrying out fieldwork, if in fact, they are

the

subject of much explicit at

temion

at

all.

One

reaction to the recogni[ion of these probleII18

lXluld

be

an effort to deter

mine what is the corrEct way to define a site. There is, however, no a:mvineing way tD

make this determination.

It is

much more proouctive to seek ways to avoid using the notion

of site as a unit of analysis. This re1)nates strongly with the siteless survey approach thar

has been advocated by Dunnell

(1992) and

orhers. Thc reasons we have arrived at such a

a:mclusion in the analysis of the Chifeng seulement data, however,

are

somewhat

differt:ont

from, although not inconsistent with, Dunnell's argwnent. Unlike Dunnell, we find archeo

logical sites to be real phenomena in the Chifeng region, as diseussed aoove. Application of

the

site notion provides a reasonably adequate characterization of the discontinnous distribu

tion of archeological materials on the surface, and has some utility in facilitating the recording

of some kinds of data.

The difficulties arise when we shift from using thl' conCl'pt of archeological site as a

:;()mewhat vaguely defined unit of data recording to using it

85

a nnit of analysis in a context

that assumes that

each archeological site represents a single human community that s mean

ingfully divided from nearby archeological sites which constitutE separate human communi

ties. The notion that there is such a perfect

co.rt S{:Ondt:once

between archeological siles and

human

communities, of murse, arises from the asswnption that groups of people living in

close proximity to each

other

interact more intensively than those living farther apart. By and

large this notion.seems valid, but the distance-interaction scale

is

not always easy to divide in

to c1earcm categories. The map of Hongshan sites in Figure 3.15 illustrates this {:Oint. n

the

north

central section of this

map

are Eight sites (as originally defined in the field). It seems

reasonable to think that each one represents the living area

of

a gronp of pcople more tightly

interrelated with each

other

in at least some ways than they were with the residents of the

other seven sitcs. At

the

samE

timt:o,

it seems plal..l5ible that those who lived in

the

northern

three sites, on the one hand, and those who lived in thl' five sites farther south, on the oth

er, were more dosely interrelated in some kinds of activities than were these two groups with

each other. The more inclusive criteria for site definition that make the;e occupations two

sites rather than eight would reflect social reality

at

this slightly larger scale. By the same to

ken,

these two larger sites are only slightly separated, comparl'd

to

the larger distances

that

separate them from their other neighoors. This suggests that this entire group of people may

145


25/47

have interacted more strongly with each other than with the residents of the other more dis

tant site.o;. At

the next larger scale.

then,

these

two

larger sites could

r e a ~ n a b l y be

combined

as

II

single human corrununity.

In

sum,

human communities are composed of nested sets of relationships that form ever

expanding interaction networks. This can be expected to be reflected archeologically in re

I

gional-scale

~ t t l e m e n t

data in the form of hierarchically nested sets of

site; .

In different

places and times,

there

are likely

to

be different scales

at

which it

is

meaningful

to

draw

the

dividing lines between human comrnutIities. This issue cannot be dealt with effectively

j

through arbi trary decisions p rior to fieldwork al:xJut how far apart surface artifact scatters

must be

to

be called separate archeological sites which are then assumed to reflect ancient hu

mlln o:nnmunities one-far-one.

The

definition of meaningful human o:nnmunities at various

,

scales should, instead. be an objective of explicit and systematic analysis in and of itself.

Such analysis, like site size histograms and rank-size p lots, involves demogrnphic a.."'-"ss

ments,

fot this (5

what

site area

is

really taken to mean in lx>th these grnphR.

;

In the next chapter we will consider approaches to making such assessments that take us

beyond simple use of site areas as a proxy measure for P=lpulation,

s ;

further consideration of

such analysis is deferred until then. Suffice it to say for now, however, that reJying

on

j

archeological sites as units of analysis ooITesJXlnding to ancient human oorrununities

seems

unpromising with regional settlement data [ike that

from

Chifeng, that we prefer to pursue

other approaches that do not rely on this assumption. Although we use sites ill a v ry approx

i'

imate way as an aid to practical data recording, we do not focus analysis on sites. ins tead the

mllection

unit is the

basic unit of analysis. making

no

assumptions whatever aoout any corre

sJXlndence between mlJection units and ancient

'OCial

rcalities. In effect,

the

mllection unit

j

becomes analogous to the grid square familiar jf site excavl'ltion. When excavating sites where

it

does not seem practical or worthwhile to record the

JXlSition

of each individual artifact with

precise

axmiinates

in

three

dimensions, we are quite accustomed to establishing a grid and

l.I.Sing

squares(of 1 by 1

m.

2 by 2

m,

5 by 5 m or some

other

sire) as spatial units within

which artifacts recovered are aggregated. In just the same way, mllection units can be used

as the grid squares of regional survey. Rather than

attempt

to record precise OXlrdinates for

each individual

artifact,

the surface

is

examined grid

, \Quare

by

grid

square

(that is,

mllection

unit

by rollection unit).

If

more than

two

artifacts occur in a grid square.

its

location is

recorded, artifflcts are mllel ted, and it bemmes a Rite

(or

part of

one),

h ~ grid

&J.uares,

seems appropriate to the regional scale of

study,

are much larger than the grid

squa."'eS of a site excavation-approximately 100 by 100 m-flnd they are irregularly shaped

146

.


26/47

_ _

for mnvenience ratber than truly square, but the principle is the same.

3.4 Environmental Processes

Any regional survey

faL-es

data rtiXwery problems

re.''lUlting

from environmental processes

either contemporaneous

with or

:subsequent to the creation of the elements of the archeological

record it attempts to record. One of the principal benefits of systemat ic examination of the

entire landscape in regional survey is the confidence

with

which one can say that areas on the

resulting map that are devoid of si tes are areas that were not occupied during the period being

studied Having this eurnidenee depends on considering explicitly whether an absence

or

scarcity of sites

in

some part of a regiou could result from environmental processes which de

stroy, modify, or obscure the archeological record. This has often been rerognized by geolo

gists and geoarcheologists (Bn:okes, Levine and Dennell

1982;

Waters and Field

1986),

but regional ~ t t m n t analysis

has

often been carried out

with

little attention

to

this issue.

For

Chifeng [he environmental processes of concern are rather different for the two zones cre

ated by the principal environmental dichotomy of the region-uplands and alluvial valley floor

Figure 3. 18).

In the uplands, as already noted, surface visibility is

goa:l

at most times of year. The

principal geological activity of concern for site identification is erosion. Sheet erosion is mod

est and seems largely to help pre,,-ent surface artifacts and features from beooming obscured.

t

has not been severe enuugh

to

produce much site de..struction or movement of ancient cul

tural materials. Gully eJ'08ion,

on

the

other

hand

is

.';vere, producing

an

upland zone sharply

diSSL Cled

by gullies sometimes

20

to

30

m deep or more, with vertical walls. These

can be

al

ll1.OOt imp:lSSible

to crass for distances of a kilometer

or

more, representing a substantial in

to the movement of survey tearns in the uplands. Survey

paths,

cornequently,

are organized parallel to them to the extent p:lSSibJe deep as they may be, however, these

gullies are, for the most part narrow enongh that only the &nallest of sites could have been

removed entirely by this erosiun, and even the measured areas of larger sites would be onJy

minimally affected.

The lone exception to this generalization is at the juncture between the uplands and the

IS valley flooIS, where gully mouths broaden out. The very large gully mouths do not represent

newly fanned features during the time since the periods we are studying, but many of them

have certainly broadened considerably, destroying cultural deposits in the process. This is at

tested to by the fact that sites on the

bluffs.

above the valley floors are sometimes visibly cut

147 .


27/47

by the

gullies, from whose walls arttfacts and features may spill ouL At ~ gully

m o u t h ~

the destructive effect of

this

natural efl)Sion

on

archeological sites is substantially exacerbated

by the excavat ion of clay for brick-making. This is a particular problem for high density

Lower Xiajiadian site.'i, which are often located

on

these bluffs adjacent to gully mouths, and

allowance may need to be made for the wmbined impact of gully erosion and brick-making

in

settlement analysis for this period especially. One prospect for determining the magnitude of

the allowance

that

might need

to

be made is to search carefully

in

the natural

sited artifacts (Waters and Field

1986).

much erosion and redep:lSition occurted, then rede(XlSited ar tifacts should appear at

least occasionally

on

the surface of the fan deposits and in places where they have been ex

through

mo:::Iem

excavation

or

erosion. Dating these ceramics in the same way

that

ce

ramics rollected iT

s tu

are dated would make possible the evaluation of the relative impact of

such processes on different pericds. Since these

data

have not been collected yet in Chifeng,

this

must

remain for

the

moment a programmatic

statement.

There has been a potentially more seriou:o impact on settlement analysis from geological

action in the alluvial valley floors. Jt has long been known that archeological sites are scaree

on these valley floors, and this represents a sharp

contrast to

the distribution of modern occu

pation, which

is

heavily concentrated on the valley floors adjaeent to

the

most fertile

~ i l s

which are, tcxlay,

the

most intensively Olltiv


28/47

might well expect that older sites would systematically

be

obscured to a greater degree than

more recent site:s. Thi:s could be reflected in a :steadily decreasing propxtion of recorded site

area in the valley floor as one moved farther and farther back in time. Table

3,3

gives the to

tal area of .'lites recorded up

to

now for each period, together with the area of

:iites

in the

ley floor

and

the

percentage of the total site area for

the

period). 'Bl'08.dly speaking, we

do

see lower percentages for earlier periods, but the figures in the table are not consistent with

the idea that the ability

to

detect ancient occupations decrea..-.es in proportion to the amount of

time

that

has elapsed for them to be covered over by sedimentation.

In

the first place, the

complete absence of Xinglongwa, ZhaobaoKQu, and Xiaoheyan sites in

the

valley floor is not

surprising. Given the very small total areas of sites for these periods. this observation must

be disrounted. The laJl?:cst pro XJrtion of site area in the valley floor is, indeed, for the most

recent period; and

the

second largest . for the serund most recent period. Lower Xiajiadian,

however. has a much higher proportion of site area in the valley floor than

Upper

Xiajiadian.

And the pro XJrtion for Hongshan, while low, is still substantial.

These percentages certainly do not rule out the \U>Sibility that a number of sites may

have been covered by more recent sediment, but they make it quite clear that there are

also

substantial amounts of occupation, going far back in the sequence, that have not thus been

removed from easy detection. Although the occupation we see on the valley floors may well

be affected by such prucesses, we are also without question seeing changes in occupational

-

patterns through time.

A

priority in plannEd research is a geological evaluation of the sedi

mentary history of the alluvial valley floors, in

an

effort

to

identify which sectors of the valley

floor.;

are most

at

risk of enough ret'ent deposition

to

make it im\U>Sible

to

detect ancient oc

cupations through ordinary pedestrian survey. Depending on the results of this evaluation,

a other field methodologies such as, for example, a sampling program of auger cores) may

need to

be

devised to estimate the amounts of occupational evidence last under the alluviwn

in d., for example ling,

Rapp,

and Gao 1995,1997; ling and Rapp 1998).

3.5

Chronology

The series of archoological culmres defined for the Chifeng region ( Gno

1987

; Liu

1987;Liu and Xu

1981jXu 1989;Zhang 1991; Zhangetal.

1987; Zhong

'

gno 1974,1987,1988,1998) ha.s fonned the basis of the chronological scheme used in the

preceding pages. We have treated these cultures as a seqnence of

periods-a

praetiL" followed

in other

regional surveys as well.

The

definition of archeological cnltnres has similarities

to

. 149


29/47

establishing a chronological scheme,

but

there are differences between

the

two as well, dcriv

ing frrnn their

rather different aims,

For

Chifeng, three principal unresolved chronologir.al is

sues arise frrnn these methodological differences.

The

first of these, in chronolC@"icalorder, roncems Hongshan. which occupies the

peri

od

t w ~ n 4500 and 3000 BeE.

This

archeological culture is well documented over quite a

large region in northeastern China. Most of the radiocarbon dates that identify its time span

are for samples that rome from sites well outside the Chifeng region. however, and there is,

for this

r e a ~ : m

some suspicion

that

Hongshan might not begin in the Chifeng region quite as

early

as

in rome other places.

Thus

its span in our

study

area

might

not really be as long as

1500

yean;.

Sea:md, as discussed in

Chapter

2,

the tran5ltion between Hongshan and Lmver Xiajia

dian and their exact chronological relationship to the intennediate Xiaoheyan culture remain

inrompletelyunderstcod Chang 1986b:375;

Guo

1995a,1996b).

In our survey

SO

far,

Xiaoheyan Cramics

are

extremely rare compared to those of preceding and succeeding peri

oos.

There

are only

28

discrete sites with Xiaoheyan Cramics, compared to 129 for

the

pre

ceding Hongshan culture and 299 for the succeeding Lower Xiajiadian. Only J74 sheros of a

total of

24,

034 classified) a11:' identified as Xiaoheyan, compared t 1 ,527 for Hongshan and

7,288

for Lower Xilljiadian. All this suggests the po.ss.ibility

that

the Xiaoheyan ceramic com

plex, while making clear the local transition from Hongshan to Lower Xiajiadian.

may

nol

represent an entirely dist inct

period

in its own right. II this is the case. then occupation dur

ing this periocl

wCJUld

be underrepresented and preceding

and/or

subseque.nt occupation over

represented in settlement analysis.

Third,

the archeological cultures defined for Chifeng leave a 600-year gap between the

Lower and Upper Xiajiadian.

This

reflects the fact that there

is

a gap in radiocarbon dates

at

this juncture in the sequence. The similarity of ceramic style between Lower and Upper Xia

jiadian does suggest continuity although

S Jme

major social, political, and eronornic changes

occurred,

5ee

below). In

the

demographic analysis that appears in Chapter 4 we have as

sumed that

thE

gap in the sequence of radiocaroon dates is an accident of archeological sam

pling rather than a true hiatus in occupation. but as of now it is not possible to confinn this

or, if

this notion

is

confinned, to locate clearly the dividing line between the Lower and

Up-

per Xiajiadian.

Resolution of these three chronological issues

is

among our immediate goals for future

work in Chifeng so as 10 make settlement pattern analysis more precise. All three will require

stratigraphic test:s designl'd specifically

t

clarify chronology. Survey through 2001 has identi

. 150 .


30/47

fled 160 Hongshan ~ i t ~ so there is no dearth of candidates for stratigraphic testing for this

period. Clarifying the chronological position of Xiaoheyan is a task that overlaps with that of

defining beginning and ending dates for Hongshan. One reason this part of the sequence is

oot cleu-er already. is that sites with a combination of Hongshan. Xiaoheyan, and Lower Xia

jiadian ceramics are scarce (owing largely

to

the rarity of Xiaoheyan materi al). At least three

such sites have been identified. however. among the sites recorded on survey to date, and

they appear to show some promise for stratigraphic testing. AB for the OOundary between

Lower and Upper Xiajiadian, survey to date has documented 247 sites

with

occupations for

roth the5e cultures, so, once again there are abundant potential locations for relevant strati

graphic tests.

3.

6

Conclusion

In Ihis chapter we have attempted to consider and reflect Up:>n how regional settlement

data are rollected and analyzed. The particular variant of regional survey methodology we

have applied in the Chifeng region is tailored to the particular conditions found

there.

as must

always

be

the case for archeological methodology. At the same time. in one way or another,

conditions in Chifeng are not unlike those found in many other pans of the world as well.

Our hope is that the discuS5ion ai:xNe will not only make clearer the nature of the evidence

that stands behind our conclusions but also enrourage others involved in settlement pattern

studies

in

other regions to ronsider more vigorously how we can rontinually improve upon the

methodology of such studies. Some of the

iS5ues

discussed

arove

will

be PLmlued

further in

the next chapter when we take up the task of making demographic reronstructions.

-

151 .


31/47

3.1 al>llll'J'll!. (1)'1' 5 It

III

Itll'Jll!. (


32/47

41

r

" 3. 2 I>otll!l1!i':l'IlIlIIlII

>1M)

' ' , !\ tI.UIlt

IIJ;fJll:

ilillll'E1li 'If , !H:U:

'"

IlIIJ;flll:

ililll'" IIJ

t ~ l 9 9 9

I1l

2000

' 'iOJ

.lHIIIIJ'Il*'l)

Tablr 3.2 .

AIl.'ali

oC .si1ft; with n ~ 1IheTd8 (8 '

rtl ft ftlWld

within 500

m

of IIlOlkm tOWJl\l all

8

proportion

,

fJC

lota.I

area of

sllei with

nve sberd!i or IIlDn for

eath

period (datil fram 1999

-

2000

s..uvey)

,

1

3.ilIftMtIlJift:lll:.l!Iiel(r(JltiJ!

Proportion

of

Site Arnil near Modem

Town

Jl;tJtll

Penal

tl

liM) !I'

200*

m.'

lOOm

200 l r l

Within

!I

nll l

41. 4%

13.9%

4.2%

!

....

I B J i ~ ~

57.1

%

21.5%

1.7%

Law.or XiajiadiBn

,

IB-Ji5-.tm

,

37.5% 12.0%

1.0%

.,

,

U p ~ Xiajilldian

~ O O N

50.0%

HL4%

3.8%

'';:

Z J n g ~ f < m

iII\:

55.7%

2.1 2% 4.4%

Uw

.

:'

3.3 l>il'IlI!

'

l 'l'1O.tIIJ;fJll:ii ilRl'EIIi.;flll: ii i

III '"

IJ

It ~

(1999 1IJ

2000

'!'

iIiJ.IKJOIIIJ

'Il*'I)

Table 3.3. Are&'i of silei in

the

alluvial vlllicy nOOl as a

proprtion

of letal area, by periods

,

.

1


33/47

UP

SV

J

~

"

0

~

8

0

g

,

I

I

l

,

,

t

i

I

I

,

J


34/47

,

t i ~ - ~ J t I J

1

2

J-tlllilh-IYol*#1oA

Collections with no

shtrds

Collections with 1 or 2 sherds

.

J J t ~ J t r t . J . A

COlleclions with 3 ,herds

4 g- ' It iJ H ~ L A

COlleCIKJUS ilh 4 sberds

~ , ; .

i

-: -

.-

,

J;

- ' ,: ' / ' ,.

... ,

. ~

;}';':.

t

F

.

,

.....

,: .'

,

./iIl


42/47

'H

,U

mU

W

,

o

0

L

:

O

U

L

W

'K


43/47

~XO

aAmU

Cm

,

N

I

o

J

~

'

,

0

0

o

,

WD

U

P

WW

UOU

L

l


47/47

>

'p&m

'TMXS

(H1

L

Documents

Methods for Archaeological Settlement St