Prehistoric Transition to Agriculture in Northeast China

Before Farming 2008/4 article 2 1

The transition to farming in northeast China: a model and

application

Peter Wei Ming Jia

Department of Archaeology, School of Philosophical and historical Inquiry, University of Sydney, NSW 2006 Aus-

tralia

Keywords

Transition to farming, northeast China, availability model, tool-complex analysis

Abstract

This paper assesses the applicability of the ‘availability model’ to the transition from hunting and gathering to

farming in northeast China. It evaluates the model from the perspective of an integrated archaeological framework

that combines ‘tool-complex analysis’ with available faunal and floral data from selected early to mid-Holocene

sites that span the transition. Tool-complex analysis is an empirical study that is based on the (possible) connec-

tion between the types of tools used and the economies of prehistoric societies. The evaluation process con-

cludes that a modified non-lineal version of the availability model might more accurately describe the transition

process in this region, and a ‘three trends model’ is offered as a potential alternative.

1 Introduction

The transition from hunting/gathering to farming is

one of the most significant changes to the traditional

ways of food procurement in human prehistory. This

transition has led to substantial changes in the cul-

tural, social and political contexts of prehistoric soci-

eties, often resulting in greater social complexity. Ar-

chaeological research has attempted to find evidence

of how this transition occurred as well as evidence of

the resulting social changes. Various methodologies

have been used to integrate different theoretical mod-

els of this transition as well as testing them against

empirical data from different regions. Performing

such evaluations is not only important because it

gives us an idea of how accurately models fit the real-

ity of imperfect archaeological data, it also helps to

improve regional archaeological studies of the tran-

sition. For these reasons, this paper evaluates the

‘availability model’ of the transition from foraging to

farming (Zvelebil & Rowley-Conwy 1984, 1986) using

archaeological data from northeast China. It also

demonstrates the necessity of having a framework

that integrates technological data with faunal and flo-

ral data when reconstructing prehistoric economies.

The focus of this paper is not on the origins of

agriculture, instead, it will be on transition to farming

from foraging economies, and how foragers who are

exposed to or influenced by farming neighbours react

to the practice of farming. The longer term aim is to

establish an improved model of the transition to farm-

ing of foragers in northeast China.

2 Modelling of transition to farming among

foragers

Archaeological evidence around the world has sug-

gested that early farmers typically dispersed from

centres of origin into forager territories. A well-known

example is the spread of farming from western Asia

into Europe in the early to mid-Holocene (Ammerman

& Cavalli-Sforza 1971, 1979; Colledge et al 2004).

Archaeological evidence suggests that a process of

spreading or dispersal of farming also took place in

China. Farming began in the mid-Yellow River region

and spread to northeast Asia (Yan 2000a), and also

from the mid-Yangtze River to Southeast Asia (Higham

1995) and further through to the Pacific Islands

(Bellwood 2002). Evidence of agricultural dispersal

from central China into the peripheral regions has

led to a growing belief among Chinese archaeolo-

gists that agricultural societies inevitably overtook for-

ager territories. One of the possible reasons for this

is that Chinese archaeology inherited its principal theo-

retical framework from the school of Chinese history.

For thousands of years, Chinese historians have sub-

scribed to the idea that foragers who inhabited pe-

ripheral regions of China were uncivilised barbarians

2 Before Farming 2008/4 article 2

The transition to farming in northeast China: a model & application: Jia

with very low levels of cultural, social and economic

development (Chen 2004:238). This agricultural bias

in thinking has continually influenced archaeological

research (Trigger 2003:128).

It is widely accepted that many farming societies

which established early complex societies also

moved towards early state formation and this was

certainly the case in west Asia and China. Agriculture

was fundamental for early state formation in the mid-

Yellow River area (Liu 2004; Yan 2000b). Strong so-

cial and political structures and effective economic

management had led to the formation of these early

states, such as those in central China. These early

states were capable of controlling the peripheral ar-

eas and enforcing farming practices in areas inhab-

ited by hunters and gatherers. There is however both

ethnological and archaeological evidence for alter-

native routes to social complexity not necessarily de-

pendent on agriculture, including among highly mo-

bile foraging societies. In North America, some highly

complex societies were based on hunting, gathering

and fishing (Ames & Maschner 1999:25-27; Matson

& Coupland 1995:241-296; Arnold 1996). There is also

an interesting case in North America where a farming

economy which existed for a millennium was ulti-

mately replaced by a foraging economy (Madsen &

Simms 1998). These examples suggest that farm-

ing is not inherently superior to foraging as Chinese

archaeologists have long believed. Moreover, there

may be times where foraging is the preferred or most

sustainable economy as is the case in parts of south-

ern, eastern and central Africa where hunting and

gathering economies have coexisted with farming

economies of neighbouring groups for thousands of

years (Marlowe 2002; Mawoung 2006).

In Japan and Korea, archaeologists have discov-

ered that socially complex hunting and gathering so-

cieties developed long before the adoption of rice farm-

ing around 3000 BP (Rowley-Conwy 1984). In the

more arid areas of northwest China, such as the

margins of the Tengger Desert, foragers adopted

pastoralism rather than farming (Madsen & Elston

2007). In the Wei River area of central China, millet

farming did not become fully established until the cli-

mate improved during the mid-Holocene (Bettinger

et al 2007). The belief that farming is inherently supe-

rior and that it inevitably replaces foraging with time

across China is unsupported, and greater awareness

is needed of the likely complexity of the process of

transformation from foraging to farming on a regional

basis. In studying this transition, we should not sim-

ply assume that either economic pattern, be it farm-

ing or foraging, is somehow superior to the other as

the existing evidence suggests that the transition is

anything but a linear process of replacement.

Archaeologists, like any scientists should also

avoid, as far as possible, any form of conscious ideo-

logical bias (Trigger 2003:128; Read 1990:29-34). In

order to do this, a theoretical model of transition to

farming should be the result of logical inference gen-

erated from archaeological evidence, instead of be-

ing conceived from presuppositions. Such logical in-

ference can be found in Rindos’ (1984) study, as he

has mathematically discussed why the increase of

domesticates in foraging societies follows an expo-

nential form, which becomes a sigmoid curve in loga-

rithmic scale when domesticates increase up to cer-

tain level (Fitzhugh 2000:130-131). According to

Rindos, theoretically, the beginning of a farming

economy must follow the trends as described by the

exponential curve, which means that the percentage

of domesticates in a subsistence economy is slow-

growing at the outset. This slow growth will not change

until the ‘takeoff point’ on the curve is reached. A rapid

increase appears after this point and growth finally

slows when approaching its limit and thus complet-

ing the sigmoid curve. This growth sequence was

termed the ‘general model’ by Rindos (1984:202).

Similar to Rindos’ theory is the ‘availability model’

as applied to the process of transition from foraging

to farming in northern Europe (figure 1) (Zvelebil &

Rowley-Conwy 1984). The latter approach to the tran-

sition has as its methodological foundation the basic

parameter of the changing proportion of farming as

an economic activity with three phases of increasing

reliance on domesticates: availability, substitution and

consolidation phases (figure 1). Because the gen-

eral model and the availability model are generated

from logical inference and archaeological evidence,

they express no bias towards either farming or forag-

ing. The sigmoid curves applied in both models thus

depict the natural patterns or trends associated with

modelling in behavioural ecology generally (Fitzhugh

2000:130-131), and more specifically with respect to

changes in subsistence economies once the forag-

ers have decided to adopt farming (Madsen & Simms

1998).



3 Can the model be tested?

To evaluate the accuracy of these models they need

to be tested against archaeological data from a vari-

ety of regions. The application of these models, how-

ever, is dependent on generating data on the propor-

tion of domesticates in the diet at a particular place

and time. A closer look at the structure of the availabil-

ity model illustrates the importance of high quality

economic data in order to recognise phases in the

process of transition as each is defined by thresh-

olds of increasing reliance on domesticates (figure

1) (Zvelebil & Rowley-Conwy 1986; Zvelebil 1998).

The initial availability phase refers to period when

domesticates account for less than 5% of food re-

sources with hunting and gathering providing almost

the entirety of the diet. The second or substitution

phase marks an increase from 5% to 50% of foods

from domesticates. The third and final consolidation

phase marks a shift to dependency on domesticates

(>50% of food resources) and effectively replaces for-

aging as the dominant economic practice (Zvelebil &

Rowley-Conwy 1984:105-106). If proportional data

on domesticates versus non-domesticates cannot be

generated with reliability, then these models cannot

be tested.

The inherent limitations of the archaeological

record, particularly the limited or non-representative

survival of cultigens as well as domesticates pose a

real challenge to the development of these quantita-

tive models Barker 2006: figure 3.8). In recognition of

this inherent problem, Zvelebil (1998:11) argued that

the percentage of wild or domestic fauna and flora in

the archaeological record will reflect economic trends

if calculations are based on a regional rather local

scale, but accepts that the methodological conditions

of the availability model ‘can be rarely, if ever, met in

Figure 1 Availability model in diagram (after Zvelebil 1996)



full’. The model when based on field data should al-

ways be recognised as a very brief, simplified, heu-

ristic, sometimes arbitrary simulation (Zvelebil

1998:11), and one reliant on many interpolations

(Rindos 1984:196). The uneasy relationship between

data and model is amplified in the context of north-

east China where archaeological evidence of re-

source use in the form of flora and fauna is seriously

lacking.

Despite the taphonomic limitations of archaeo-

logical databases generally, advances in a number

of fields in recent years, notably archaeozoology, bo-

tanic archaeology and archaeochemistry, have allowed

researchers to retrieve valuable evidence especially

when combined with the use of flotation. One exam-

ple of a relatively complete study in northeast Asia is

Crawford’s research (1995) into the late Jomon

economy in northern Japan, which involved extensive

studies of floral and faunal remains derived from long-

term excavations combined with interdisciplinary

analyses. In contrast to Crawford’s work, reports that

contain information about faunal and floral remains

are scarce in northeast China. This scarcity is the

consequence of a basic lack of research and publi-

cation, but also a reflection of poor natural conditions

of preservation combined with limited excavations

(usually rescue operations) and a lack of recovery

skills among local archaeologists. Flotation has been

applied to only a few sites (eg, Zhao 2005, 2008). As

a result, any assessment of the applicability of the

availability model to northeast China must rely on proxy

economic data in the absence of sufficient direct

sources of information.

An expanded methodology is needed then to re-

construct shifting balances of wild to domesticated

foods at the regional level. The framework used here

integrates all available faunal and floral data with analy-

ses of artefacts excavated from sites with some

chronological control. One of the key methods used

is ‘tool-complex analysis’ which assumes that the

composition of tool assemblages reflects primary

economic activities and that changes in assemblage

composition over time reflect changes in resource

use (Jia 2007:27-38).

4 Tool-complex analysis

Tool-complex analysis proceeds by statistical analy-

sis of various categories of tools from archaeological

sequences (Chan 2006; Cane 1984). This method is

still in an experimental stage and has obvious poten-

tial limitations. One issue that is continually being

addressed concerns how tool functions are defined

and how to summarise the major function of tools

with multifunctional features. A secondary but real

concern is the reliability and the scale of excavation,

especially those undertaken quickly as rescue op-

erations. Small-scale excavations affect the number

of tools discovered and potentially undermine as-

sumptions about how representative an assemblage

is of broader resource extraction strategies. Hurried

excavations also risk mixing stratigraphic levels and

thus introduce uncertainties about the chronological

integrity of assemblages. Such uncertainties result-

ing from fieldwork will have an even greater impact on

the final statistical analysis for the different types of

tools and their relative proportions, especially since

meaningful statistical analysis cannot be carried out

for small sample sizes (n=<30). Variable preserva-

tion conditions will also affect the survival of organic

tools and thus some activities may be under-repre-

sented. Furthermore, unlike the tools found in settle-

ment sites, the ones found in burials are more likely

to have been selected according to personal or ritual

preference, and may not correctly reflect the frequency

of stone tool usage in daily life. All these limitations

need to be considered when using tool-complex analy-

sis to draw inferences about patterns of change in

prehistoric economies. Despite these limitations,

when tool-complex analysis is conducted on tools

from reliably excavated sites and with relatively large

numbers that sufficiently meet the requirements of

statistical inference then the results should, to some

degree, reflect prehistoric activities linked to food pro-

curement.

The transition from foraging to farming as a social

and economic change should have an impact on tool-

making techniques since farming requires new types

of tools and tool-making technologies and these will

be reflected in artefact categories. It is presumed

that an extensively foraging society would not invent a

large amount of farming tools and a predominantly

agricultural society has to invent and use a number of

specialised tools not needed previously. Statistically

significant changes in tool categories over time

should reflect shifts in subsistence practices from

which increasing reliance on domesticated foods can

be estimated. For example, Lu (2002:11) studied the

process of millet cultivation in the Yellow River Valley



of north China through experimentation. She found

that just a few tools were specifically needed for mil-

let cultivation. These included axes for land clearing,

and when they were absent, presumably because

there were few trees, flakes (or reaping knives) for

harvesting were found. She also suggested that grind-

ing slabs and rollers were effective for grain process-

ing. Her experiments not only suggest how simple

the tools for millet cultivation and processing could

be, but also reflect specific categories of possible

tools required for millet cultivation and processing. If

we consider the process of planting as well, the tools

for millet cultivation may also include digging and

ploughing implements. The general principle illus-

trated here and underlying tool-complex analysis is

that tools discovered from archaeological excavation

are likely to reflect economic patterns assuming that

the function of the tools can be identified. The next

question is of course how to correctly identify the func-

tions of the tools.

One of the best ways to determine actual tool func-

tions is to combine usewear and residue analyses.

This is an improvement upon the traditional meth-

ods, which merely relied on morphological compari-

sons. Many contemporary studies have used this new

approach and successfully confirmed the suspected

functions of archaeological tools and provided evi-

dence of past tasks or specialised activities (Barker

2006:76; Odell 2004:135-173). Recent usewear stud-

ies on the stone tools found in the Xinglongwa and

Zhaobaogou sites in northeast China have shown

encouraging results (Wang 2004, 2002) though fur-

ther improvements are still required. The results sug-

gest that spade-shaped stone tools found in

Xinglongwa were possibly used for digging, chop-

ping and scratching [author - ?scraping?] animal

skin (Wang 2002:142). Microblades from Zhaobaogou

were shown to have possibly been used for harvest-

ing domestic plants (Wang 2002:144). However,

these preliminary conclusions all require further in-

vestigation using residue and usewear analyses.

Unger-Hamilton (1988:245) did such an analysis on

the basic function of microblades in the Near East

and identified residues from the harvesting plants,

both domestic and wild. Wang’s (2002) study was

conducted on a single area in northeast China, and

did not include residue analysis and so we are lim-

ited in what can be said about tool function in the

region based on this one study.

In contrast, usewear and residue studies are quite

popular in neighbouring countries, in particular in

Japan. Imamura (1996:74-75) was able using both

techniques to classify the tools found in the Jomon

period into five categories: hunting, handy-working

[author ? WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?], fishing, wood-

cutting, and gathering or processing. Tool function

was also correlated closely with morphological varia-

tion, and on the basis of these results the function of

tools in northeast China is assumed, for the purpose

of this study, to be identifiable through their morpho-

logical attributes. This tentative identification of the

function of the Chinese tools based on the Jomon

study is far from ideal, but it offers a working hypoth-

esis for future testing. There are few alternatives avail-

able at the moment given the many limitations of the

Chinese record as outlined above, and the current

absence of residue and usewear data from the re-

gion. Despite its obvious shortcomings, this approxi-

mation using Japanese data is still preferable to con-

ventional methods that merely assume function

based on morphology without any supporting data

(eg, Shi 2005). The methodology adopted in this pa-

per is one which considers usewear and residue

analyses (from both local and neighbouring areas)

and uses them to guide the conventional method of

morphological comparisons in determining the func-

tion and category of tools.

Even though many tools may be multifunctional,

most will have a basic or primary function. For exam-

ple, an arrowhead or spear point might be used for

fishing, fighting or even for killing domestic animals

but its major use is for hunting with other secondary

functions linked to the pointed morphology of the tool.

Exceptions exist which highlight the inherent risks in

assuming function from morphology alone, as is the

case for projectiles from Australia. Residue analysis

showed them to be used predominantly for process-

ing starchy plants (Wallis & O’Connor 1998), so as

forager rather than hunting tools. (It should be noted

that the shape of the presumed projectiles in this study

resembled scrapers rather than points.)

Returning to Imamura’s (1996) study of Jomon

tools, [author ?IS THIS CORRECT?] harpoons might

be similar to spears in their ancillary features, but the

major function identified is fishing, and hence may

still be classified as a hunting tool rather than a gath-

ering tool. Net sinkers may be used for many other

purposes similar to ordinary rocks, but since they were



specially-made tools, they are more probably made

for the primary purpose of fishing. Reaping knives

and sickles may be used as a weapon in battle or

animal hunting, but their primary function is for plant

harvesting. Chisels and axes are usually used for

woodworking, cutting trees, constructing houses,

making wood or bone tools, but could be used for

butchering animals, but as an ancillary activity to their

primary purpose. Therefore, in general terms, most

tools have a major function and most other generic

functions are usually related to this function. Some

specialisation can be expected with increased social

complexity as individuals become more full-time spe-

cialists in single tasks, but this potential source of

variation is probably not statistically relevant, particu-

larly at this early stage of the study.

The methodology of tool-complex analysis is used

here to identify the major functions of the tools found

in northeast China. Tools are categorised according

to the pattern of economic activity they may reflect such

as hunting, fishing, gathering and woodcutting. The

number of tools that fall into these categories is then

expressed as a percentage of the total number of

tools discovered in the region. Tool frequency in each

category is used as the key data to determine the

proportion of subsistence activities at particular peri-

ods. This technological data is then combined with

existing faunal and floral data to form the basis for

reconstructing the patterns or shifts from foraging to

farming. A fundamental assumption is that the

number of tools should represent the relative scale of

a given subsistence activity in the region at a particu-

lar time. Differential preservation is not assumed to

be a factor in biasing assemblage composition as

the region is small and the environmental setting is

relatively homogeneous meaning that at a general

level taphonomic processes should be affecting sites

more or less equally. Thus, the statistical analysis of

tool numbers, and hence the relative proportion of

tools in each category, can be used to infer economic

trends.

Two examples follow that help demonstrate the

potential application of tool-complex analysis as a

means of detecting and differentiating between sub-

sistence practices. The sites chosen are at opposite

ends of the economic spectrum with foraging repre-

sented at Xinkailiu in northeast China and farming at

Banpo in central China. Xinkailiu has been identified

and largely accepted as a typical foraging economy

due to the relatively complete list of fauna that indi-

cate a wide range of wild animals once existed in

these parts (table 1) (Heilongjiang Kaogudui 1979).

Moreover, no domesticated species were found.

The 440 tools unearthed have been fully reported,

and most tool classifications in the report are similar

to the categories applied to Jomon tools in Japan.

Table 1 Animal remains in the Xinkailiu site (Heilongjiang Kaogudui 1979)



One hundred and ninety six tools have been reclassi-

fied for this paper according to their major functions:

hunting, fishing, gathering and woodcutting. The other

244, including scrapers, daggers, needles and awls,

may have been used for a wide range of tasks and

thus are not counted for this study pending the appli-

cation of usewear and residue analyses.

The number and percentage of each tool category

are shown in table 2. As might be expected of a north-

ern latitude foraging society, hunting and fishing tools

comprise a large proportion of the total (69.4% hunt-

ing and 12.2% fishing) (table 3). Gathering tools are a

small proportion (1.5%) possibly reflecting the lower

importance of plant foods. With no domesticates

present, the small number of gathering tools would

most likely have been used exclusively for collecting

and processing wild resources.

The second example is Banpo which is broadly

accepted as having a predominantly farming economy

based on botanical remains of domesticated crops

(Chinese Academy & Xian Museum 1963). The tools

found at this site consisted of 294 for hunting, 350 for

fishing and 4271 for gathering (domestic and wild

plant seed harvesting and processing). The predomi-

nance of gathering tools clearly reflects a farming

economy and supports the botanical evidence of do-

mesticates (table 4).

After considering faunal and floral data, we have

seen that the relative number of tools in different cat-

egories reflects the pattern of economy in each of the

two cases (figure 2). Xinkailiu which other data sug-

gests to be a foraging society had more than 80% of

tools dedicated to hunting and fishing. In contrast,

Table 2 Tool categories at the Xinkailiu site (Heilongjiang Kaogudui 1979)

Table 3 The tool percentage of each category at the Xinkailiu site

(Heilongjiang Kaogudui 1979)



Table 4 Tool category and percentage at Banpo

(Chinese Academy 1963)

Figure 2 The percentage of each tool category Top: Xinkailiu, Bottom:

Banpo

Figure 3 Research regions in northeast China

Banpo, a farming society, had at least 70% of tools

dedicated to farming. In these two cases at least, tool-

complex analysis was able to fairly accurately reflect

the pattern of economic activities in the two commu-

nities. Given these encouraging results, the method

will now be applied to a more difficult case study.

5 Case study in the Upper Liao River area

The Upper Liao River area located in the southwest

region of northeast China (figure 3) has been selected

as one of six study regions with which to assess the

availability model using an integrated framework that

incorporates tool-complex analysis (Jia 2007). From



Figure 4 Chronological summaries in the Upper Liao River region

past archaeological data, we know that there were six

distinct archaeological periods each marking a dis-

tinct culture in the Upper Liao River area (figure 4).

Some variants were also discovered within each cul-

ture, but the present study will focus on the cultural

units as single entities given the lack of comparable

levels of data on internal variability. In addition, the

present study will be at the level of the archaeological

site or on a single culture if multiple cultural layers

are present within a single site. If more fieldwork is to

be conducted in the future, the data should be ana-

lysed at the level of each phase or even on each layer

within a site.

The proportion of tools (see Appendix) derived from

different cultures from 8000-3000 BP in the Upper Liao

River area has been visually represented in figures 5 to

13. In this area, the average numbers of several differ-

ent sites have been used if the proportion of tool cat-

egories are similar, or in the same cultural tradition, in

order to increase total number of tools for statistical

analysis. For instance, the sites of Xinglongwa and

Chahai belong to the same cultural tradition called the

Xinglongwa, and even though these two sites are sepa-

rated by more than 100 kilometres in distance their tool

complexes are similar (figure 5). Both sites have a large

number of gathering tools as a proportion of total tools;

90% at Chahai and 60% gathering tools Xinglongwa.

So in this case, the mean proportion of the combined

databases will be used in the final comparison. The

mean percentage of tools has also been used in other

cultures in the area (figures 5, 9, 11, 12). The results of

tool categories from different sites are sometimes pre-

sented separately even though they belong to the same

cultural tradition as is the case with the Xiaoshan and

Xinglonggou sites where the variation between the two

sites is too great for them to be presented together

(figures 7, 8). It should be noted that the diagram of

Xiaoheyan (figure 11) is based only on cemeteries be-

cause there is a lack of settlement data from the site.

Once the settlement data is made available it will be

integrated with the cemetery data and revised results

published. All available results are framed in figure 14

for further comparison.

Figure 15 integrates all the diagrams into a single

line chart showing changing pattern of tool propor-

tions over time.

When we consider the available faunal and floral

data, as part of the integrated framework of analysis,

a high proportion of gathering tools in the first dia-

gram of Xinglongwa (8000BP) (figure 14) should re-

flect a large amount of wild plant harvesting since

very few domesticated seeds were discovered (us-

ing flotation) (Zhao 2005, 2008). It is inferred that

farming played a minor role in the economic mix at



this time, probably similar too or less than that

10% of subsistence provided by domesticates in

the subsequent Xiaoshan period (7500 BP). Like-

wise, a small proportion of gathering tools around

the period of U. Xiajiadian (3000 BP; figure 13)

would not necessarily indicate a small amount of

domesticates in a foraging society since large

amounts of domesticated animal remains were

unearthed in this culture. By including the avail-

able faunal and floral data, changing patterns of

dependence on domesticates emerges through

time in Upper Liao River area (figure 16). The inte-

grated framework also reveals dynamic patterns

of diverse economic activities in the sequence. For

instance, the general increase of woodcutting tools

may indicate a growing demand of such tools for

making wooden tools as well as increased house

construction and tree clearance for agricultural pur-

poses. Economic activities other than farming as

indicated by differing tool proportions are not be

discussed here, see Jia (2007) for further infor-

mation.

6 Northeast China and the availability

model

In the Upper Liao area, the application of the inte-

grated analytical framework allows us to display

the process of the transition to farming visually and

quantitatively in a sequence of three groups, each

containing clusters of similar results. The patterns

in the first group (figure 17) named as the ‘ideal

group’ are very similar to the patterns expected in

the availability model with close-to exponential or

near-sigmoid shape, which shows a smooth and

Figure 5 Tool complexes of two sites of Xinglongwa culture (%)

(8000 BP)

Figure 6 Tool complexes of Xinglongwa culture (%) (8000BP) (Mean

of the sites)

Figure 7 Tool complexes of the Xiaoshan site (%) (7500 BP)

Figure 8 Tool complexes of the Zhaobaogou site (%) (7000 BP)

Figure 9 Tool complexes of three Hongshan sites (%) (6000 BP)

Figure 10 Tool complexes of Hongshan (%) (6000 BP) (Mean of the

sites)



constant increase in the use of domesticates after

the takeoff point is reached. This group represents

a relatively ideal form of the transition to farming

as described in the availability model.

The second group presents a substantial re-

versal in expected trend some time after the take-

off point was reached (figure 18). However, it is

premature to conclude that this pattern necessar-

ily reflects a decline in reliance on domesticates.

It is far more likely that the two regions that display

this pattern, the Upper Liao River and Song-Nen

plains, may have seen a shift to animal husbandry

perhaps because of the immigration of nomadic

herding societies from further north (Jia 2007:112-

133). However, the two other patterns displayed in

the Ji-Chang region appear to be either unstable

or reversing to a low percentage of farming in the

economy. This ‘reverse group’ then may represent

complex local variations in the process of transi-

tion to farming.

A third group includes the Houwa site in the

Liaodong peninsula and Changbaishan (figure

19). In this group, farming remained at the level of

initial plant cultivation or of plant food gathering.

The ini t ial percentage of farming within the

economy was quite low (around 17-18%) and only

slowly increased. In the case of Houwa, from 6000

to 2000 BP, the percentage of farming economy

increased by less than 10% overall. This pattern

is named as the ‘resistant group’ since it reflects

a reluctance to adopt farming as the major sub-

sistence provider, and it seems that the takeoff

point was never reached. From environmental,

social, cultural and political perspectives, this re-

sistance may have been the result of either the

sufficient availability of wild food, or the result of

cultural behaviours that prevented or inhibited the

society from adopting farming in preference over

other economic strategies.

7 Some resulting issues

This application of the integrated framework to a

regional sequence raises broader issues about

the relationship between the data and the meth-

odological assumptions that underpin the avail-

ability model. The sigmoid curve is just like many

mathematical equations that must assume an

ideal environment which is stable, consistent and

with no interruption, obstruction, competition or

resistance (Fitzhugh 2000; Zvelebil 1998). The

availability model has been understood to present

an idealised sequence from which archaeological

data might deviate, with the deviations from the

predictions providing potential insights into his-

torically situated processes. In this study, the pat-

tern of line-charts in the ideal group is similar to,

but not exactly the same as the sigmoid curve of

the availability model.. As Rindos (1984:202) noted,

his theoretical equation was based purely on a

mathematical equation, meaning that the model

only works in an ideal situation and will probably

never fit perfectly any experimental data. Archaeo-

logical contexts are far from ideal situations that

are affected by environmental, social, cultural and

political influences as well as taphonomic biases.

Figure 11 Tool complexes of Xiaoheyan (5000 BP) (From two burial

sites)

Figure 12 Tool complexes of Lower Xiajiadian (4000 BP) (Four

sites)

Figure 13 Tool complexes of Upper Xiajiadian (3000 BP)



Figure 14 A succession of the results from tool complex analysis in the Upper Liao River area

Figure 15 Toll complexes change through time in the Upper Liao River area

In other words, if a human society passively

adopted a farming way of life without external in-

fluences or unexpected internal dynamics then the

process of transition would be exactly like that pre-

dicted by the sigmoid curve.

In the context of northeast China, the statistical

threshold between the availability and the substi-

tution phase as predicted by the availability model

is usually, but not always around 5% of the eco-

nomic mix (Zvelebil & Rowley-Conwy 1984). In gen-

eral, farming economies in these regions had a

period of fluctuation with a relatively low percent-

ages of farming as proportion of total subsistence

before a period of constant increase. The starting

point of this constant increase is the takeoff point

(figure 20) mentioned earlier. So if we consider

that the takeoff point may be variable rather than

the arbitrarily set percentage (5%), then we can

use the takeoff point to identify more accurately the

extent and structure of the availability phase. In this

study, farming accounted for 10% of the economy

for a long time before a considerable increase in

both the Upper and Lower Liao River areas (figure

20).

In this region of China the takeoff point here is

the division between the availability and substitu-

tion phase, and the start of the substitution phase

may vary between less than 5% to more than 10%



Figure 16 Changing pattern of farming economy in the Upper Liao River area

Figure 17 Ideal group of transition to farming (with reference from Yellow River in Jia 2007)



Figure 18 The reverse group

Figure 19 Resistant groups



Figure 20 Different locations of taking off point

Figure 21 Various directions of transition to farming



farming, according to the different dynamic situa-

tions.

Also the percentage of domesticated plants used

to define ‘farming’ may also vary depending on the

different proportions of each category of subsistence

activity. Some societies may have retained a combi-

nation of various resources, both domesticated and

wild foods (as many modern societies do), and did

so for long periods of time if this state of existence

met social and political needs and was ecologically

sustainable.

Finally, the three transition patterns identified in

this study give an indication of how complex the tran-

sition process was in reality. Indeed, more patterns

may emerge as more data become available in the

future. Prehistoric societies selected the ways of life

they believed were most advantageous to their needs.

When some groups began to undergo the transition

to farming, other neighbouring groups may or may

not have been influenced by the process. As we have

seen, some groups also returned to hunting/gather-

ing in the middle of the transition process. Presum-

ably, there was a spectrum of economies between

the two extremes of pure farming and pure foraging

societies, with many societies based on varying mix-

tures of the two.

As we have seen with the case studies, the pat-

tern of economic heterogeneity can be determined to

some degree with archaeological data including that

derived from tool-complex analysis. The three local

patterns seen in the transition to farming transition in

northeast China (ideal, reverse and resistant) dem-

onstrate the variability that existed in hunter-gatherer

responses to contact with farmers (figure 21). This

database does not show at all that a farming economy

was inherently superior to a foraging economy.

The swings between farming and foraging seen

here probably reflect internal social dynamics among

these Holocene societies. As Madsen and Simms

(1998) observed in the context of the Fremont Com-

plex of the Colorado Plateau, behavioural options drive

the decision making process when foragers are deal-

ing with influences from farmers or from the impact of

environmental changes. Adaptive flexibility becomes

a successful way of life, and in northeast China we

can expect that a greater diversity of adaptive strate-

gies existed than the three patterns identified here.

8 Conclusion and limitations

The sigmoid curve of the general and availability mod-

els can be tested using an integrated framework

based on tool-complex analysis and experimental

data as demonstrated for northeast China. The vari-

ety of behavioural patterns underscores the complex-

ity of the transition to farming, which is likely to have

been a highly variable and non-linear process reflect-

ing differing behavioural responses to shifting oppor-

tunities and challenges. The task of archaeological

research is to recover more data on a regional scale

to test these models or to create new models to re-

flect actual data and thereby improve our understand-

ing of prehistoric human behaviour.

The present study, with its integrated framework

of tool-complex analysis and faunal and floral data,

is the first of its kind. Not surprisingly, there are still

many methodological problems and limitations,

though the initial results are promising. The identifi-

cation of tool function in this study mainly relies on

references to Japanese archaeology and this is an

inadequate foundation for further work in northeast

China. An independent data set is needed derived

from a large number of usewear and residue analy-

ses on local archaeological sequences. Also, the

number of tools in some sites (see Jia 2007: Appen-

dix) is relatively small due to limited fieldwork, and

cannot satisfy statistical requirements of reliability. To

conduct the present study, however, there were no

alternative sources of data and this shortcoming is

acknowledged. Finally, if possible and practical, the

method of tool-complex analysis should be evaluated

against ethnographic studies in which tool uses are

known and can be compared with known subsist-

ence activities to assess the robustness of linkages

between the two sets of behaviours.

Acknowledgements

The data used in this paper is taken from my PhD

research which was supported by Australian Post-

graduate Award. Many thanks to Professor Marek

Zvelebil for his permission to use the diagram of the

availability model and many thanks to my PhD super-

visor Dr Peter White for his constant support of my

research and helping me edit my drafts. Also thanks

Ms Susan Shujing Jia for editing the final draft.



Site

/ L

aye

rLo

ngitu

deLa

titud

eD

ate

c.B

PP

rop

ert

yH

untin

gF

ish

ing

Woo

dG

athe

ring

Tota

l**

Re

fere

nce

cutti

ng

Anb

an t

otal

10

7°5

1’1

”3

4°2

2’1

2”

60

00

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

55

43

24

41

35

Xib

ei

Un

ive

rsity

20

00

Anb

an I

10

7°5

1’1

”3

4°.

22

’12

”6

00

0S

ettle

men

t V

illag

e8

11

81

8X

ibe

i U

niv

ers

ity 2

00

0A

nban

II

10

7°5

1’1

”3

4°2

2’1

2”

55

00

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

19

28

21

50

Xib

ei

Un

ive

rsity

20

00

Anb

an II

I1

07

°51

’1”

34

°22

’12

”5

00

0S

ettle

men

t V

illag

e2

81

23

15

67

Xib

ei

Un

ive

rsity

20

00

Bai

jinba

o1

24

°25

’1”

45

°31

’48

”3

00

0S

ettle

men

t V

illag

e1

03

84

46

5H

eilo

ngjia

ng K

aogu

dui

1980

Ba

ish

icu

n1

21

°22

’33

”37

°33’

70

00

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

73

65

21

Yan

tai

Mus

eum

200

0B

aish

icun

tot

al1

21

°22

’33

”37

°33’

60

00

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

17

61

44

98

6Y

anta

i M

useu

m 2

000

Bai

shic

un I

12

1°2

2’3

3”

37°3

3’7

00

0S

ettle

men

t V

illag

e5

21

89

70

Yan

tai

Mus

eum

200

0B

aish

icun

II

12

1°2

2’3

3”

37°3

3’6

00

0S

ettle

men

t V

illag

e5

06

42

39

13

7Y

anta

i M

useu

m 2

000

Ba

np

o1

09

°02

’24

”3

4°1

5’3

6”

60

00

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

29

43

50

14

32

42

71

63

47

Ch

ine

se A

cad

em

y e

t a

l. 1

96

3B

ash

an

121

°48’

45°3

6’4

87

0B

uri

als

23

26

61

24

5Ji

lin K

aogu

suo

1988

bB

eini

anto

u11

7°0

6’40

°06’

62

20

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

29

08

27

64

Bei

jing

Wen

yans

uo e

t al

.198

9aB

eis

ha

n1

29

°55

’48

”4

2°5

9’2

4”

25

00

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

34

01

84

56

Jilin

TH

RT

19

94

Be

ixin

117

°10

’12

”3

5°0

2’2

4”

70

00

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

15

67

43

34

24

0S

hand

ong

Kao

gusu

o 19

97C

ha

ha

i12

1°3

6’4

2°0

6’3

6”

73

60

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

60

16

10

71

29

Liao

ning

Kao

gusu

o 19

94a

Ch

an

gsh

esh

an

126

°33’

364

3°3

3’3

6”

25

00

Bu

ria

ls1

78

10

98

35

84

28

Jilin

Wen

wud

ui 1

980

Cis

han

tota

l11

4°0

1’1

2”

36

°36

’36

”7

50

0S

ettle

men

t V

illag

e1

84

10

99

91

65

55

7H

anda

n A

dmin

istr

atio

n 19

77C

isha

n I

114

°01

’12

”3

6°3

6’3

6”

70

00

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

85

33

12

13

92

78

Han

dan

Adm

inis

trat

ion

1977

Cis

han

II11

4°0

1’1

2”

36

°36

’36

”7

50

0S

ettle

men

t V

illag

e1

33

12

36

81

72

68

5H

anda

n A

dmin

istr

atio

n 19

77D

ach

en

gzi

13

1°0

4’1

2”

43

°56

’24

”2

50

0S

ettle

men

t V

illag

e0

32

611

Hei

long

jiang

Mus

eum

197

9D

ad

ian

zi4

2°0

1’4

8”

12

0°0

3’3

6”

40

00

Bu

ria

ls6

04

14

39

0C

hin

ese

Aca

de

my

IMT

19

96

aD

anan

gou

119

°00

’ 3

6”

42

°31

’48

”4

13

5B

uri

als

85

03

51

31

33

Liao

ning

Kao

gusu

o et

al.

1998

Da

we

nko

u 7

411

7°0

8’2

4”

36

°10

’48

”6

00

0B

uri

als

65

26

91

118

30

0S

hand

ong

Adm

inis

trat

ion

et a

l. 19

74D

aw

en

kou

97

117

°08

’24

”3

6°1

0’4

8”

60

00

Bu

ria

ls1

26

10

38

16

19

0S

hand

ong

Kao

gusu

o 19

97D

awen

kou

tota

l11

7°0

8’2

4”

36

°10

’48

”6

00

0S

ettle

men

t V

illag

e1

91

36

12

91

34

49

0D

azui

zi t

otal

12

1°1

3’1

2”

39

°02

’24

”S

ettle

men

t V

illag

e3

82

72

25

82

68

98

0D

alia

n K

aogu

suo

2000

Daz

uizi

I1

21

°13

’12

”3

9°0

2’2

4”

40

25

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

77

71

73

8D

alia

n K

aogu

suo

2000

Daz

uizi

II

12

1°1

3’1

2”

39

°02

’24

”3

00

0S

ettle

men

t V

illag

e3

29

62

0D

alia

n K

aogu

suo

2000

Daz

uizi

III

12

1°1

3’1

2”

39

°02

’24

”2

50

0S

ettle

men

t V

illag

e8

35

13

39

33

48

07

Dal

ian

Kao

gusu

o 20

00D

on

gsh

an

zui

119

°28

’48

”4

1°1

0’4

8”

40

00

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

30

71

42

4Li

aoni

ng M

useu

m e

t al

. 19

83D

ongx

ing

I1

29

°41

’24

”4

4°4

6’1

2”

25

00

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

31

13

8H

eilo

ngjia

ng K

aogu

suo

1996

Don

gxin

g II

12

9°4

1’2

4”

44

°46

’12

”2

00

0S

ettle

men

t V

illag

e2

20

23

27

Hei

long

jiang

Kao

gusu

o et

al.

1996

Du

kou

12

9°4

1’2

4”

44

°52

’12

”2

00

0S

ettle

men

t V

illag

e1

10

13

Hei

long

jiang

Kao

gusu

o 19

97b

Fe

ng

xia

120

°39’

41

°50

’24

”4

00

0S

ettle

men

t V

illag

e3

80

20

10

31

61

Liao

ning

Adm

inis

trat

ion

1976

Gun

tulin

g1

31

°40

’48

”4

6°4

5’3

6”

21

40

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

60

18

15

Hei

long

jiang

Kao

gusu

o 19

97H

ekou

II

12

9°4

0’4

8”

45

°19

’48

”2

50

0S

ettle

men

t V

illag

e4

54

21

34

Hei

long

jiang

Kao

gusu

o et

al.

2001

Hek

ou II

I1

29

°40

’48

”4

5°1

9’4

8”

20

00

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

11

04

6H

eilo

ngjia

ng K

aogu

suo

et a

l. 20

01H

ekou

IV

12

9°4

0’4

8”

45

°19

’48

”1

53

0S

ettle

men

t V

illag

e7

10

21

33

2H

eilo

ngjia

ng K

aogu

suo

et a

l. 20

01H

ekou

V1

29

°40

’48

”4

5°1

9’4

8”

10

40

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

92

41

02

5H

eilo

ngjia

ng K

aogu

suo

et a

l. 20

01H

ouga

ng I

114

°21

’36

”3

6°0

5’2

4”

60

00

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

80

111

53

4C

hin

ese

Aca

de

my

19

82

Hou

gang

II

114

°21

’36

”3

6°0

5’2

4”

50

00

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

40

31

01

7C

hin

ese

Aca

de

my

19

82

Ho

ush

ish

an

126

°30’

43

°49

’48

”2

27

5S

ettle

men

t V

illag

e5

83

99

61

Jilin

Kao

gusu

o et

al.

1993

Hou

wa

I1

24

°07

’12

”3

9°5

3’2

4”

70

00

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

18

98

22

42

46

54

1X

u et

al.

1989

Hou

wa

II1

24

°07

’12

”3

9°5

3’2

4”

50

00

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

12

45

04

82

71

0X

u et

al.

1989

Jia

hu

113

°31

’12

”3

3°3

0’3

6”

80

00

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

31

51

60

115

32

59

15

Hen

an K

aogu

suo

1999

Jia

ng

jialia

ng

113

°48’

40°2

1’5

00

0B

uri

als

42

90

00

42

9H

ebei

Wen

yans

uo 2

001

*Appendix Tool numbers from excavation sites



Site

/ L

aye

rLo

ngitu

deLa

titud

eD

ate

c.B

PP

rop

ert

yH

untin

gF

ish

ing

Woo

dG

athe

ring

Tota

l**

Re

fere

nce

cutti

ng

Jian

gzai

tot

al1

09

°13

’48

”34

°15’

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

10

62

75

41

78

66

22

65

6B

anpo

Mus

eum

et

al.

1988

Jian

gzai

I1

09

°13

’48

”34

°15’

60

00

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

17

52

43

13

54

51

05

7B

anpo

Mus

eum

et

al.

1988

Jian

gzai

II

109

°13’

48’

34°1

5’5

50

0B

uri

als

42

07

43

21

48

Ban

po M

useu

m e

t al

. 19

88Ji

angz

ai I

II1

09

°13

’48

”34

°15’

50

00

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

30

32

8B

anpo

Mus

eum

et

al.

1988

Jian

gzai

IV

10

9°1

3’4

8”

34°1

5’4

00

0S

ettle

men

t V

illag

e3

80

10

61

35

27

9B

anpo

Mus

eum

et

al.

1988

Jia

ng

zai

V1

09

°13

’48

”34

°15’

35

00

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

14

05

02

08

4B

anpo

Mus

eum

et

al.

1988

Jin

che

ng

129°

36’

42

°40

’12

”3

27

0B

uri

als

29

80

15

34

34

7Li

u et

al.

1986

Jin

gu

12

9°2

5’1

2”

42

°42

’36

”4

50

0S

ettle

men

t V

illag

e1

40

15

27

56

Yan

bian

Mus

eum

199

1Li

utin

gdon

g1

29

°28

’12

”4

2°5

0’2

4”

31

60

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

44

02

24

8Y

anbi

an M

useu

m 1

983

Ma

che

ng

zi A

I1

24

°08

’24

”41

°18’

50

00

Ca

ve

35

17

16

Liao

ning

Kao

gusu

o et

al.

1994

Mac

heng

zi A

II1

24

°08

’24

”41

°18’

35

00

Bu

ria

ls7

88

05

10

0Li

aoni

ng K

aogu

suo

et a

l. 19

94M

ache

ngzi

tot

alS

ettle

men

t V

illag

e7

91

39

94

12

32

Liao

ning

Kao

gusu

o et

al.

1994

Ma

che

ng

zi B

I1

23

°53

’24

”4

1°1

3’4

8”

50

00

Ca

ve

111

22

42

9Li

aoni

ng K

aogu

suo

et a

l. 19

94M

ache

ngzi

BII

12

3°5

3’2

4”

41°1

8’3

50

0B

uri

als

13

01

21

44

Liao

ning

Kao

gusu

o et

al.

1994

Ma

che

ng

zi C

12

4°0

8’2

4”

41°1

8’3

50

0B

uri

als

01

29

33

3Li

aoni

ng K

aogu

suo

et a

l. 19

94N

an

sha

n1

30

°03

’36

”43

°4

00

0S

ettle

men

t V

illag

e4

80

15

97

2Ji

lin T

HR

T 1

99

3N

ansh

ange

n I

118

°45

’36

”4

1°3

1’1

2”

40

00

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

13

00

52

65

Ch

ine

se A

cad

em

y IM

T 1

97

5N

ansh

ange

n II

118

°45

’36

”4

1°3

1’1

2”

30

00

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

14

04

82

6C

hin

ese

Aca

de

my

IMT

19

75

Na

sita

i11

8°4

9’4

8”

43

°22

’12

”6

00

0S

ettle

men

t V

illag

e1

40

02

03

4B

alin

you

qi

Mu

seu

m 1

98

7N

azh

ua

ng

tou

115

°45

’36

”3

9°1

3’4

8”

10

00

0O

pen

site

50

28

15

Bao

ding

Adm

inis

trat

ion

et a

l. 19

92P

ing

yan

gZ

hu

an

cha

ng

12

3°2

5’1

2”

46

°25

’48

”2

00

0B

uri

als

28

41

11

73

03

Yan

g et

al.

1990

Qia

on

an

129°

36’

46

°16

’48

”1

90

2S

ettle

men

t V

illag

e2

02

23

27

Li e

t al

. 20

00S

anta

ng I

12

1°2

8’4

8”

39°3

3’5

00

0S

ettle

men

t V

illag

e2

68

33

7Li

aoni

ng K

aogu

suo

1992

San

tang

II

12

1°2

8’4

8”

39°3

3’4

00

0S

ettle

men

t V

illag

e4

45

611

66

Liao

ning

Kao

gusu

o 19

92S

ao

da

go

u1

26

°28

’48

”4

3°4

4’2

4”

30

00

Bu

ria

ls9

01

46

29

Dua

n et

al.

1985

Sh

an

che

ng

zi B

C1

23

°53

’24

”41

°18’

35

00

Ca

ve

13

14

14

77

Liao

ning

Kao

gusu

o et

al.

1994

Shi

huic

hang

I1

29

°23

’39

”4

4°1

6’1

2”

40

00

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

00

52

7M

udan

jiang

Adm

inis

trat

ion

1990

Shi

huic

hang

II

12

9°2

3’3

9”

44

°16

’12

”2

00

0S

ettle

men

t V

illag

e2

13

39

Mud

anjia

ng A

dmin

istr

atio

n 19

90S

hila

sha

n1

25

°50

’24

”44

°06’

30

00

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

11

32

7Ji

lin K

aogu

suo

1991

bS

huan

gtuo

zi t

otal

121°

36’

38°5

7’B

uri

als

32

117

23

Ch

ine

se A

cad

em

y 1

99

6b

Shu

angt

uozi

I12

1°36

’38

°57’

40

00

Bu

ria

ls5

52

16

37

Ch

ine

se A

cad

em

y 1

99

6b

Shu

angt

uozi

II

121°

36’

38°5

7’3

50

0B

uri

als

31

53

72

17

6C

hin

ese

Aca

de

my

19

96

bS

huan

gtuo

zi I

II12

1°36

’38

°57’

30

00

Bu

ria

ls1

71

41

22

11

54

Ch

ine

se A

cad

em

y 1

99

6b

Shu

iqua

n11

3°42

’3

4°3

4’4

8”

72

70

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

10

06

41

30

20

4C

hin

ese

Aca

de

my

He

na

n T

ea

m 1

99

5S

ilen

gsh

an

119

°23

’24

”4

2°1

6’4

2”

50

00

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

43

05

20

68

Liao

ning

Mus

eum

et

al.

1977

Wu

jiacu

n1

22

°19

’48

”3

9°1

1’2

4”

53

75

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

69

67

10

92

Liao

ning

Kao

gusu

o et

al.1

994

Xia

ga

12

9°4

6’4

8”

43

°00

’36

”2

00

0S

ettle

men

t V

illag

e0

14

27

Jilin

Yan

-Hun

Tea

m 2

001

Xia

nren

dong

tot

al11

6°5

3’2

4”

28

°40

’12

”C

av

e6

97

111

29

9Ji

angx

i A

dmin

istr

atio

n 19

63X

ianr

endo

ng I

116

°53

’24

”2

8°4

0’1

2”

10

00

0C

av

e2

26

20

62

110

Jian

gxi

Adm

inis

trat

ion

1963

Xia

nren

dong

II

116

°53

’24

”2

8°4

0’1

2”

90

00

Ca

ve

51

12

83

5Ji

angx

i A

dmin

istr

atio

n 19

63X

iaol

aha

I1

24

°27

’36

”4

5°5

3’3

5”

50

00

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

20

80

02

8H

eilo

ngjia

ng K

aogu

suo

et a

l. 19

98X

iaol

aha

II1

24

°27

’36

”4

5°5

3’3

5”

38

30

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

18

68

10

42

Hei

long

jiang

Kao

gusu

o et

al.

1998

Xia

olah

a III

12

4°2

7’3

6”

45

°53

’35

”2

00

0S

ettle

men

t V

illag

e6

67

32

2H

eilo

ngjia

ng K

aogu

suo

et a

l. 19

98X

iao

sha

n1

20

°40

’48

”4

2°2

2’4

8”

70

00

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

16

70

13

21

20

1C

hin

ese

Aca

de

my

IMT

19

87



Site

/ L

aye

rLo

ngitu

deLa

titud

eD

ate

c.B

PP

rop

ert

yH

untin

gF

ish

ing

Woo

dG

athe

ring

Tota

l**

Re

fere

nce

cutti

ng

Xia

ozhu

shan

I1

22

°19

’48

”3

9°0

9’3

6”

70

00

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

52

15

13

Liao

ning

Mus

eum

et

al.

1981

Xia

ozhu

shan

II

12

2°1

9’4

8”

39

°09

’36

”5

00

0S

ettle

men

t V

illag

e1

20

31

63

1Li

aoni

ng M

useu

m e

t al

. 19

81X

iaoz

hush

an I

II1

22

°19

’48

”3

9°0

9’3

6”

40

00

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

112

41

02

7Li

aoni

ng M

useu

m e

t al

. 19

81X

iap

an

wa

ng

I11

4°2

2’4

8”

36

°21

’36

”6

00

0S

ettle

men

t V

illag

e2

011

22

35

Heb

ei A

dmin

istr

atio

n 19

75X

iapa

nwan

g II

114

°22

’48

”3

6°2

1’3

6”

50

00

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

13

01

61

52

18

1H

ebei

Adm

inis

trat

ion

1975

Xia

panw

ang

III

114

°22

’48

”3

6°2

1’3

6”

30

00

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

15

02

21

66

20

3H

ebei

Adm

inis

trat

ion

1975

Xid

uanl

iang

shan

I1

25

°22

’12

”4

2°3

1’4

8”

60

00

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

90

311

23

Jilin

Kao

gusu

o 19

91a

Xid

uanl

iang

shan

II1

25

°22

’12

”4

2°3

1’4

8”

55

00

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

14

23

19

38

Jilin

Kao

gusu

o 19

92a

Xin

gch

en

g1

29

°19

’48

”4

2°4

6’1

2”

32

60

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

40

54

12

11

07

Jilin

Kao

gusu

o et

al.

1998

Xin

glo

ng

wa

12

0°4

3’1

2”

42

°22

’12

”8

00

0S

ettle

men

t V

illag

e1

84

33

25

7C

hin

ese

Aca

de

my

IMT

19

97

Xin

guan

g1

29

°34

’12

”4

3°0

1’4

8”

23

90

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

14

04

15

33

Jilin

WY

HT

199

2X

inka

iliu

tota

l1

32

°22

’48

”4

5°2

0’2

4”

Bot

h3

24

74

79

0H

eilo

ngjia

ng K

aogu

dui

1979

Xin

kaili

u I

13

2°2

2’4

8”

45

°20

’24

”7

00

0S

ettle

men

t V

illag

e5

82

50

65

Hei

long

jiang

Kao

gudu

i 19

79X

inka

iliu

II1

32

°22

’48

”4

5°2

0’2

4”

60

00

Bu

ria

ls2

05

16

69

52

95

Hei

long

jiang

Kao

gudu

i 19

79X

inle

I1

23

°25

’48

”4

1°4

9’1

2”

64

15

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

23

84

14

26

28

2S

heny

ang

Adm

inis

trat

ion

1978

Xin

le I

-(2)

12

3°2

5’4

8”

42

°49

’12

”6

50

0S

ettle

men

t V

illag

e6

50

51

38

3S

heny

ang

Adm

inis

trat

ion

1985

Xin

le I

I1

23

°25

’48

”4

3°4

9’1

2”

30

00

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

20

41

52

1S

heny

ang

Adm

inis

trat

ion

1978

Xin

long

12

9°4

0’1

2”

42

°56

’24

”3

00

0S

ettle

men

t V

illag

e2

25

02

48

25

7H

ou 1

994

Xin

xin

gd

on

g1

30

°02

’24

”43

°3

00

0S

ettle

men

t V

illag

e2

80

34

14

30

1Ji

lin K

aogu

suo

et a

l. 19

92b

Xis

ha

n1

23

°16

’48

”4

0°1

6’1

2”

46

50

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

15

44

31

49

63

07

Xu

et a

l. 19

92X

ish

uiq

ua

n11

8°5

5’1

2”

42

°19

’48

”6

00

0S

ettle

men

t V

illag

e2

20

10

31

63

Ch

ine

se A

cad

em

y IM

T 1

98

2X

ituan

shan

126°

30’

43

°48

’36

”2

50

0B

uri

als

46

90

14

23

17

3To

ng 1

987

Yab

uli

12

8°3

1’4

8”

44

°55

’12

”5

00

0S

ettle

men

t V

illag

e1

30

47

24

Hei

long

jiang

Kao

gusu

o 19

88b

Yan

gjia

quan

II

12

0°5

0’2

4”

37°1

8’4

44

0S

ettle

men

t V

illag

e1

41

76

28

Bej

ing

Uni

vers

ity e

t al

. 20

00Y

ao

jing

zi12

3°36

’4

4°3

0’3

6”

70

00

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

52

67

12

77

Jilin

Kao

gusu

o et

al

1992

aY

ingg

elin

g I

12

8°5

5’1

2”

43

°46

’12

”4

00

0S

ettle

men

t V

illag

e0

20

79

Hei

long

jiang

Kao

gudu

i 19

81Y

ingg

elin

g II

12

8°5

5’1

2”

43

°46

’12

”3

00

0S

ettle

men

t V

illag

e1

71

26

26

Hei

long

jiang

Kao

gudu

i 19

81Y

ua

nb

ao

go

u12

4°54

’4

4°2

2’1

2”

60

00

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

18

22

32

5Ji

lin K

aogu

suo

1989

Zha

ngjia

bao

A1

24

°08

’24

”41

°18’

35

00

Ca

ve

31

05

83

92

Liao

ning

Kao

gusu

o 19

94a

Zh

ao

ba

og

ou

12

0°0

2’2

4”

42

°29

’24

”7

00

0S

ettle

men

t V

illag

e9

60

52

65

21

3C

hin

ese

Aca

de

my

19

97

aZ

he

nxi

ng

I12

9°45

’4

5°1

6’4

8”

60

00

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

20

02

0H

eilo

ngjia

ng K

aogu

suo

et a

l. 20

01Z

he

nxi

ng

II

129°

45’

45

°16

’48

”2

50

0S

ettle

men

t V

illag

e6

12

44

26

Hei

long

jiang

Kao

gusu

o et

al.

2001

Zhe

nxin

g II

I12

9°45

’4

5°1

6’4

8”

18

00

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

74

34

18

Hei

long

jiang

Kao

gusu

o et

al.

2001

Zh

en

xin

g I

V12

9°45

’4

5°1

6’4

8”

12

00

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

86

31

53

2H

eilo

ngjia

ng K

aogu

suo

et a

l. 20

01Z

he

nxi

ng

V12

9°45

’4

5°1

6’4

8”

90

0S

ettle

men

t V

illag

e0

12

02

14

Hei

long

jiang

Kao

gusu

o et

al.

2001

Zh

izh

ush

an

I11

8°5

8’1

2”

42

°15

’36

”6

00

0S

ettle

men

t V

illag

e1

90

32

14

3C

hin

ese

Aca

de

my

IMT

19

79

Zhi

zhus

han

II11

8°5

8’1

2”

42

°15

’36

”3

96

5S

ettle

men

t V

illag

e9

04

13

Ch

ine

se A

cad

em

y IM

T 1

97

9Z

hu

sha

n12

6°57

’4

4°2

4’3

6”

25

00

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

43

01

24

50

Jilin

Wen

wud

ui 1

985

Zuo

jiash

an I

12

5°0

1’1

2”

44

°04

’12

”6

75

5S

ettle

men

t V

illag

e6

11

311

Jilin

Un

ive

rsity

19

89

Zuo

jiash

an I

I1

25

°01

’12

”4

4°0

4’1

2”

50

00

Set

tlem

ent

Vill

age

20

21

5Ji

lin U

niv

ers

ity 1

98

9Z

uojia

shan

III

12

5°0

1’1

2”

44

°04

’12

”4

00

0S

ettle

men

t V

illag

e1

33

48

28

Jilin

Un

ive

rsity

19

89

*Mor

e av

aila

ble

data

can

be

foun

d in

Jia

200

7. *

* S

ee b

iblio

grap

hy i

n Ji

a 20

07.



References

Ames, KM & Maschner, HDG. 1999. Peoples of

Northwest Coast: their archaeology and

prehistory. London: Thames and Hudson.

Ammerman, AJ & Caval l i -Sforza, LL 1971.

Measuring the rate of spread of early farming in

Europe. Man 6:674-687.

Ammerman, AJ & Cavalli-Sforza, LL 1979. The

wave of advance model for the spread of

agriculture in Europe. In Renfrew, C & Cooke, KL

(eds) The transformations mathematical

approaches to cultural change. New York:

Academic Press:275-291.

Arnold 1996 – author please add details

Bellwood, P 2002. Farmer, foragers, languages,

genes: the genesis of agricultural societies. In

Bellwood, P & Renfrew, C (eds) Examining the

farming/ language dispersal hypothesis.

Cambridge: McDonald Inst i tute for

Archaeological research:17-27.

Bettinger, RL, Barton, L, Richerson, PJ, Boyd, R,

Wang, H & Won, C 2007. The transition to

agriculture in northwestern China. In Madsen,

D, Chen, Fa-Hu & Gao, X (eds) Late Quaternary

climate change and human adaptation in arid

China. Amsterdam: Elsevier:83-97.

Banpo Museum, Shanxi archaeological institute &

Lintong Museum 1988. Jiangzhai - Excavation

report of a Neolithic site. Beijing: Relics Press.

Barker, G 2006. The agricultural revolution in

prehistory, why did foragers become farmers?

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cane, S 1984. Desert camp: A case study of stone

artefacts and aboriginal behaviour in the Western

Desert. PhD dissertation, Australian National

University, Canberra, Australia.

Chan, YW 2006. The raw material acquisition,

manufacturing and functions of stone adzes-

cultural development of Neoli thic Sha Ha .

Master ’s thesis, Chinese Universi ty of

Hongkong, Hongkong, China.

Chen, C 2004. Archaeological theories. Shanghai:

Fudandaxue Press.

Chinese Academy & Xian Museum 1963. Xian

Banpo – a sett lement site of a prehistoric

community. Beijing: Relics Press.

Colledge, S, Conolly, J & Shennan, S 2004.

Archaeobotanical evidence for the spread of

farming in the eastern Mediterranean. Current

anthropology, 45. Supplement, August-October:

S35-S55 (Including comments from worldwide

scholars).

Crawford, GW 1995. Scheduling and Sedentism

in the Prehistory of Northern Japan. In Rocek,

TR & Bar-Yosef, O (eds) Seasonal i ty and

Sedentism: Archaeological Perspectives from

Old and New World. Washington: Smithsonian

Institution Press:109-128.

Fitzhugh, B 2000. Risk and invention in human

technological evolut ion. Journal of

anthropological archaeology 20:125-167.

Heilongjiang Kaogudui, 1979. The Mishanxian

Xinkailiu Site. Kaoguxuebao, 4.

Higham, C 1995. The transition to rice cultivation

in Southeast Asia. In Price, TD & Gebauer, AB

(eds) Last Hunters-First Farmers. New Mexico:

School of American Research Press:127-155.

Imamura, K 1996. Prehistor ic Japan - New

perspectives on insular East Asia. Honolulu,

Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press.

Jia, WP 2007. Transition from foraging to farming

in northeast China. Oxford: BAR International

Series 1629.

Liu, L 2004. The Chinese Neolithic, Trajectory to

early state. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Lu 2002? Author please add details

Madsen, DB & Elston, RG 2007. Variation in late

Quaternary central Asian climates and the nature

of human response. In Madsen, D, Chen, Fa-Hu

& Gao, X (eds) Late Quaternary climate change

and human adaptat ion in ar id China .

Amsterdam: Elsevier:69-78.

Madsen, DB & Simms, SR 1998. The Fremont

complex: a behavioural perspective. Journal of

world prehistory 12(3):255-325.

Marlowe, F 2002. Why the Hadza are still hunter-

gathers. In Kent, S (eds) Ethnicity, hunter-gathers,

and the “other” . Washington: Smithsonian

Institution Press:247-275.

Matson, RG & Coupland, G 1995. The prehistory of

Northwest Coast. New York: Academic press.

Mawoung, G Ngima 2006. Perception of hunting,

gathering and fishing techniques of the Bakola

of the coastal region, southern Cameroon.

African study monographs, 33:49-69.

Odell, GH 2004. Lithic analysis. New York: Kluwer

academic/Plenum.

Read, DW 1990. The uti l i ty of mathematical

constructs in building archaeological theory. In

Voorrips, A (ed) Mathematics and information

science in archaeology: a flexible framework. Vol.

3 Studies in modern archaeology. Bonn: Holos

Verlag:29-60.

Rindos, D 1984. The origins of agriculture, an

evolutionary perspective. Florida: Academic

press Inc.

Rowley-Conwy, P 1984. Postglacial foraging and

early farming economies in Japan and Korea: a

west European perspective. World archaeology,

16:28-42.

Shi 2005? Author please supply details

Trigger, BG 2003. Artefacts & Ideas, Essay in

Archaeology. New Brunswick, USA: Transaction

Publisher.

Unger-Hamilton, R 1988. Method in microwear

analysis: Prehistoric sickles and other stone

tools from Arjoune, Syria. Oxford: BAR:245.



Wallis, L & O’Connor, S 1998. Residues on a

sample of stone points from the West Kimberley.

In Ful lagar, R (ed) A close look - Recent

Australian studies on stone tools. Sydney:

Archaeological Computing Laboratory, University

of Sydney:149-178.

Wang, X 2002. Microwear analysis on stone tools

of the Neolithic cultures between 8200 and

6500BP in southeast Inner Mongol ia .

Postdoctoral report, Chinese Academy of Social

Sciences, Beijing.

Wang, X 2004. Usewear analysis of microblades

from the Zhaobaogou site- on the subsistence

economy of the Zhaobaogou culture. In Tang, C

& Chen, X (eds) Taoli Chenxiji—Qingzhu An

Zhimin Xiansheng Bashi Shouchen. Hong Kong:

Centre of Chinese Archaeology and Art, The

Chinese University of Hong Kong.

Yan, W 2000a. The origin of rice agriculture, pottery

and cities. In Yan, W & Yoshinori, Y (eds) The

origin of rice agriculture, pottery and cities.

Beijing: Relics Press:8-14.

Yan, W 2000b. The eastern expansion of

agriculture in ancient China and its impact on

early social development in Japan. In Yan, W,

The origin of agriculture and civilization: Beijing:

Science Press:44-46.

Zhao, Z 2005. Floatation results of Xinglonggou

and the origin of dry-land agriculture in north

China, Dongya Guwu, A:188-199.

Zhao, Z 2008. Research of the origins of millets -

new datum from plant archaeology and

ecological analysis. Journal of Chifeng Academy

-Special edition of studies on Hongshan culture,

1:35-38.

Zvelebil, M 1998. Agricultural frontier, Neolithic

origins, and the transition to farming in the Baltic

basin. In Zvelebil, M, Dennell, R & Domanska, L

(eds) Harvesting the sea, farming the forest, the

emergence of Neolithic societies in the Baltic

region. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press:9-27.

Zvelebil, M & Rowley-Conwy, P 1984. Transition to

farming in northern Europe, a hunter-gatherer

perspective. Norwegian Archaeological Review,

17 (2):104-128.

Zvelebil, M & Rowley-Conwy, P 1986. Foragers and

farmers in Atlantic Europe. In Zvelebil, M (ed)

Hunters in transition, Mesolithic societies of

temperate Eurasia and their transition to farming.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press:67-93.

Documents

Prehistoric Transition to Agriculture in Northeast China