Longshan culture (Chalcolithic China, Jade Age, Lungshanoid horizon) evolved from the Yangshao culture in the Lower Yellow River Valley and the Majiabang culture in the Lower Yangzi River Valley.
[1]
It is characterized by the presence of dark grey and black polished pottery.
[1]
The culture was named after Mount Long in Shandong
[2]
, and major sites have been uncovered in modern Shaanxi, Shanxi, Henan, Hebei, Hubei, and Shandong.
[1]
Longshan people used ground stone and chipped stone tools used for agriculture and carving.
[1]
Millet was the main agricultural staple, and evidence of domesticated rice was found in more than on site.
[3]
Settlements feature circular ground-level homes with wattle and daub walls, and large square homes built on platforms. Hang-tu earth walls and adobe bricks were also used in settlement construction.
[1]
Longshan culture was the precursor of the Zhou dynasty in Shaanxi, the state of Qi in Shandong, and Yue and Wu in the Yangzi River Delta.
[2]
Population and political organization
There is evidence that the Longshan people lived in hierarchical societies. Symbolic jade and other prestige goods including thin walled stemmed cups have been found in elite Longshan burials.
[1]
Lineages or ranked patronages may have been important in Longshan society, and walled towns with surrounding villages could have been chiefdoms.
[3]
Scholars believe that violent conflicts increased during the Longshan period, which could be a sign of competition for power.
[4]
More research is necessary to estimate the population of Longshan sites.
[5]
[1]: (Underhill 2001, 156) Underhill, Anne. 2001. “Longshan.” In East Asia and Oceania (Encyclopedia of Prehistory, Volume 3), edited by Peter Peregrine and Melvin Ember. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. 156-159. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/BUI9EC3T
[2]: (Perkins 1999, 295) Perkins, Dorothy. 1999. Encyclopedia of China: History and Culture. New York: Routledge. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/UXEGQFPU.
[3]: (Underhill 2001, 158) Underhill, Anne. 2001. “Longshan.” In East Asia and Oceania (Encyclopedia of Prehistory, Volume 3), edited by Peter Peregrine and Melvin Ember. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. 156-159. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/BUI9EC3T
[4]: (Underhill 2001, 159) Underhill, Anne. 2001. “Longshan.” In East Asia and Oceania (Encyclopedia of Prehistory, Volume 3), edited by Peter Peregrine and Melvin Ember. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. 156-159. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/BUI9EC3T
[5]: (Underhill 2001, 157) Underhill, Anne. 2001. “Longshan.” In East Asia and Oceania (Encyclopedia of Prehistory, Volume 3), edited by Peter Peregrine and Melvin Ember. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. 156-159. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/BUI9EC3T
| 50 S |
| Longshan |
| Taosi |
| Lungshan | |
| Chalcolithic China | |
| Jade Age | |
| Lungshanoid horizon |
| NO_VALUE_ON_WIKI |
| Erlitou |
| continuity |
| Preceding: Yangshao (cn_yangshao) [continuity] | |
| Succeeding: Erlitou (cn_erlitou) [continuity] |
| quasi-polity |
| [5,000 to 20,000] people | 3000 BCE 2601 BCE |
| [14,000 to 56,000] people | 2600 BCE 1900 BCE |
| [1,500 to 2,000] km2 |
| unknown |
| unknown |
| unknown |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| unknown |
| inferred absent |
| inferred present |
| inferred present |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| inferred present |
| absent |
| inferred absent |
| unknown |
| absent |
| present |
| inferred absent |
| present |
| present |
| present |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| inferred present |
| inferred present |
| inferred present |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| inferred absent |
| unknown |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| unknown |
| inferred present |
| unknown |
| inferred absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| unknown |
| absent |
| inferred absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| Year Range | Longshan (cn_longshan) was in: |
|---|---|
| (3000 BCE 1900 BCE) | Middle Yellow River Valley |
"Other evidence, such as the association of fortified sites with prestigious buildings and artifacts and specialized production activities, also supports this hypothesis (Liu 2004, pp. 104- 105; Underhill et al. 2008). Of these fortified sites, Taosi (陶寺) in Shanxi is the most impressive (Fig. 1)."
[1]
"A preliminary report on a recently discovered site named Shimao (石峁) in Shenmu County, Shaanxi Province, suggests that it covered an area of 400 ha, was surrounded by a wall made of stone, and had an inner area divided into three enclosures. Such parameters would make it the largest and most labor-intensive site of the late third millennium BC in China, but because data on this site are currently found only in journalistic sources (including its inclusion in the list of the “Top 10 archaeological finds in China” for 2012), those reports cannot yet be corroborated. Especially worrisome is the dating of the site to the Longshan and Xia dynasties without any supporting radiocarbon data that would convincingly locate it in this period."
[2]
[1]: (Shelach and Jaffe 2014, 339)
[2]: (Shelach and Jaffe 2014, 341)
"The cultural landscape of the third millennium B.C., which has been defined by Yan Wenming (1992b) as the Longshan era (Longshan shidai, 2600-2000 B.C.) and by K. C. Chang as the Lungshan or Lungshanoid horizon (Chang 1977: 144-184, 1986: 238), is often indicated as the beginning of Chinese civilization, complex political organization, and, possibly, writing. Due to the incipient emergence of copper and bronze technology, and its chronological position between the end of the Neolithic and the beginning of the Bronze Age in the Xia-Shang, it has also been suggested that Longshan be termed Chalcolithic (Yan Wenming 1986). The existence of a sophisticated technology for the production of jade artifacts and the comparative wealth of jade finds dating to this period and slightly earlier have prompted some scholars to suggest that the term "Jade Age," a term first found in the text Yuejueshu "Waijuan Ji Baojian" (juan II, vol. 2) (1966: 3), may also be appropriate. 1 The concepts of stone, bronze, and iron ages were devised within the tradition of Western prehistory, and as they are problematic even within that framework, they should not be uncritically applied to other parts of the world." [1]
[1]: (Demattè 1999, 120-121)
"The cultural landscape of the third millennium B.C., which has been defined by Yan Wenming (1992b) as the Longshan era (Longshan shidai, 2600-2000 B.C.) and by K. C. Chang as the Lungshan or Lungshanoid horizon (Chang 1977: 144-184, 1986: 238), is often indicated as the beginning of Chinese civilization, complex political organization, and, possibly, writing. Due to the incipient emergence of copper and bronze technology, and its chronological position between the end of the Neolithic and the beginning of the Bronze Age in the Xia-Shang, it has also been suggested that Longshan be termed Chalcolithic (Yan Wenming 1986). The existence of a sophisticated technology for the production of jade artifacts and the comparative wealth of jade finds dating to this period and slightly earlier have prompted some scholars to suggest that the term "Jade Age," a term first found in the text Yuejueshu "Waijuan Ji Baojian" (juan II, vol. 2) (1966: 3), may also be appropriate. 1 The concepts of stone, bronze, and iron ages were devised within the tradition of Western prehistory, and as they are problematic even within that framework, they should not be uncritically applied to other parts of the world." [1]
[1]: (Demattè 1999, 120-121)
"The cultural landscape of the third millennium B.C., which has been defined by Yan Wenming (1992b) as the Longshan era (Longshan shidai, 2600-2000 B.C.) and by K. C. Chang as the Lungshan or Lungshanoid horizon (Chang 1977: 144-184, 1986: 238), is often indicated as the beginning of Chinese civilization, complex political organization, and, possibly, writing. Due to the incipient emergence of copper and bronze technology, and its chronological position between the end of the Neolithic and the beginning of the Bronze Age in the Xia-Shang, it has also been suggested that Longshan be termed Chalcolithic (Yan Wenming 1986). The existence of a sophisticated technology for the production of jade artifacts and the comparative wealth of jade finds dating to this period and slightly earlier have prompted some scholars to suggest that the term "Jade Age," a term first found in the text Yuejueshu "Waijuan Ji Baojian" (juan II, vol. 2) (1966: 3), may also be appropriate. 1 The concepts of stone, bronze, and iron ages were devised within the tradition of Western prehistory, and as they are problematic even within that framework, they should not be uncritically applied to other parts of the world." [1]
[1]: (Demattè 1999, 120-121)
"The cultural landscape of the third millennium B.C., which has been defined by Yan Wenming (1992b) as the Longshan era (Longshan shidai, 2600-2000 B.C.) and by K. C. Chang as the Lungshan or Lungshanoid horizon (Chang 1977: 144-184, 1986: 238), is often indicated as the beginning of Chinese civilization, complex political organization, and, possibly, writing. Due to the incipient emergence of copper and bronze technology, and its chronological position between the end of the Neolithic and the beginning of the Bronze Age in the Xia-Shang, it has also been suggested that Longshan be termed Chalcolithic (Yan Wenming 1986). The existence of a sophisticated technology for the production of jade artifacts and the comparative wealth of jade finds dating to this period and slightly earlier have prompted some scholars to suggest that the term "Jade Age," a term first found in the text Yuejueshu "Waijuan Ji Baojian" (juan II, vol. 2) (1966: 3), may also be appropriate. 1 The concepts of stone, bronze, and iron ages were devised within the tradition of Western prehistory, and as they are problematic even within that framework, they should not be uncritically applied to other parts of the world." [1]
[1]: (Demattè 1999, 120-121)
"The earlier part of this trajectory is associated with the so-called Henan and Shanxi Longshan (龙山) cultures, also known by other more localized names and dating to c. 3000-1900 BC." [1] "Even in the area of the middle Yellow River, the trajectory is not the same for all subregions. Taosi seems to have undergone a process of decline; sometime around 2000 BC the large rammed-earth enclosure was destroyed, and stone and bone debris found in the area of the public buildings suggest that it was converted into a workshop for craft production (Liu 2004, pp. 110-111). However, Taosi was not abandoned altogether, and evidence, including radiocarbon dates, suggests that it remained occupied until around 1700 BC (Zhongguo 2003, pp. 566, 838)." [2]
[1]: (Shelach and Jaffe 2014, 338)
[2]: (Shelach and Jaffe 2014, 343)
Chang (1999) suggests the entity of China, but other expert input is needed. "When the chronologies of the various cultural types and systems are carefully traced, it becomes apparent that by approximately 4000 B.C. some of the adjacent regional cultures had come into contact as an inevitable result of expansion and that a number of ceramic styles began to assume a sphere-wide instead of merely a region-wide distribution. For example, among pottery vessel types, the ding and the dou are found in every region, often in large numbers, suggesting the wide distribution of a style of cooking formerly prevailing only in the Dawenkou and Daxi cultures. The perforated slate rectangular and semilunar knives represent another horizon marker, as do some pottery and jade art motifs that, as pointed out earlier, may reflect deeper substratal commonalities than recent contact. With the definition of "interaction spheres," for the first time we can discuss the issue of the name "China." I suggest that from this point on, as the regions with which we are concerned came to be joined together in archaeological terms and exhibit increasing similarities, the interaction sphere may be referred to as "Chinese." " [1]
[1]: (Chang 1999, 58-59)
"Thus, when I say, for example, that the Yangshao tradition was followed by the Longshan tradition, it should not be taken to imply that the break between the two is clear and discrete, or that all people changed in exactly the same ways at precisely the same time. Nor should such a statement imply that there was a population replacement between the two traditions. More important, such a statement should not be taken to imply that the peoples of either tradition knew they were living in any sort of unity with other people who we, from our perspective today, suggest they shared a common archaeological tradition." [1]
[1]: (Peregrine and Ember 2001, xx)
(Relationship): "Thus, when I say, for example, that the Yangshao tradition was followed by the Longshan tradition, it should not be taken to imply that the break between the two is clear and discrete, or that all people changed in exactly the same ways at precisely the same time. Nor should such a statement imply that there was a population replacement between the two traditions. More important, such a statement should not be taken to imply that the peoples of either tradition knew they were living in any sort of unity with other people who we, from our perspective today, suggest they shared a common archaeological tradition."
[1]
(Entity): "Such remains obviously indicate a society at a stage of development between that of the Yangshao culture, which until the 1950s was the only known Neolithic culture earlier than the Longshan, and the later Shang civilization."
[2]
[1]: (Peregrine and Ember 2001, xx)
[2]: (Chang 1999, 59)
(Relationship): "This was the Three Dynasties, the Xia, Shang, and Zhou. These three states arose from the Longshan base to a still higher social level."
[1]
(Entity): "It is against the background of these socioeconomic developments in different parts of China during the fourth and early third millennia BC that we now come to our examination of the trajectory of the middle Yellow River basin. As already mentioned, we are focusing on this region because it is here that both traditional and modern scholarship has identified the origins of the state. However, as suggested below, this may not be the only place where similar trajectories can be observed. The earlier part of this trajectory is associated with the so-called Henan and Shanxi Longshan (龙山) cultures, also known by other more localized names and dating to c. 3000-1900 BC. It continues with the Erlitou culture c. 1900-1550 BC, Erligang (二里岗 or Early Shang) c. 1600-1300 BC, and Yinxu (殷墟 or Late Shang) c. 1300-1050 BC."
[2]
[1]: (Chang 1999, 64)
[2]: (Shelach and Jaffe 2014, 338)
"In most regions, population growth during the Late Neolithic was coupled with the clustering of sites and the formation of site hierarchies. The few sites that were fortified stood at the top of the settlement hierarchy. More than 20 walled sites, some very large in scale, are known from the lower and middle Yellow River area. The relatively regular spacing of these sites, at a distance of some 30-50 km from one another (Guojia 2006, 2007; Liu 2004), suggests that they were central nodes of small-scale polities each covering some 1,500-2,000 km2. Other evidence, such as the association of fortified sites with prestigious buildings and artifacts and specialized production activities, also supports this hypothesis (Liu 2004, pp. 104- 105; Underhill et al. 2008)."
[1]
"The late Longshan period, that is, the latter part of the third millennium and the earlier part of the second millennium B.C., was the period of the legendary wan guo (ten thousand states), a term often seen in the later, classical period. The surge in interactions among these many states made the Longshan one of the most active periods in ancient Chinese history."
[2]
[1]: (Shelach and Jaffe 2014, 339)
[2]: (Chang 1999, 64)
Inhabitants. "Population density reached its peak in the late Neolithic" period; largest settlment pre-Taosi phase approximately 100 ha, [1] [2] so if we estimate 50-200 inhabitants per hectare, then it would have been occupied by between 5,000 to 20,000. "In the early Taosi phase, the largest site reached 280 ha in size," [3] so if we estimate 50-200 inhabitants per hectare, then it would have been occupied by between 14,000 and 56,000 people.
[1]: (Liu 2005: 27) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/Q77FKW2H?.
[2]: (Xie, Daudjee, Liu, Sebillaud 2019: 6) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/Q77FKW2H?.
[3]: (Liu 2005: 172) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/Q77FKW2H?.
Inhabitants. "Population density reached its peak in the late Neolithic" period; largest settlment pre-Taosi phase approximately 100 ha, [1] [2] so if we estimate 50-200 inhabitants per hectare, then it would have been occupied by between 5,000 to 20,000. "In the early Taosi phase, the largest site reached 280 ha in size," [3] so if we estimate 50-200 inhabitants per hectare, then it would have been occupied by between 14,000 and 56,000 people.
[1]: (Liu 2005: 27) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/Q77FKW2H?.
[2]: (Xie, Daudjee, Liu, Sebillaud 2019: 6) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/Q77FKW2H?.
[3]: (Liu 2005: 172) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/Q77FKW2H?.
in squared kilometers "In most regions, population growth during the Late Neolithic was coupled with the clustering of sites and the formation of site hierarchies. The few sites that were fortified stood at the top of the settlement hierarchy. More than 20 walled sites, some very large in scale, are known from the lower and middle Yellow River area. The relatively regular spacing of these sites, at a distance of some 30-50 km from one another (Guojia 2006, 2007; Liu 2004), suggests that they were central nodes of small-scale polities each covering some 1,500-2,000 km2. Other evidence, such as the association of fortified sites with prestigious buildings and artifacts and specialized production activities, also supports this hypothesis (Liu 2004, pp. 104- 105; Underhill et al. 2008)."
[1]
In Zhengzhou there were sites during the Longshan that were 3 square kilometers at the center. Note: Don’t know how far these sites controlled.
[2]
[1]: (Shelach and Jaffe 2014, 339)
[2]: (Feinman, Gary. North China Workshop 2016)
levels.
1. Taosi (280 ha)
2. More than 100ha (3)
3. Between 10 and 99 ha (23)
4. Smaller than 10 ha (27)
"It is argued that Taosi controlled a three- (Liu and Chen 2012, p. 221) or four-tier (He 2013) settlement hierarchy in the area between the Fen River and the Kuai River. A recent study counted 54 Taosi-period sites in this region; at least 3 of them, not including Taosi itself, are more than 100 ha in size, 23 are between 10 and 99 ha, and the rest are smaller (He 2013). Regardless of the exact number of hierarchical tiers (which in any case may be impossible to determine based on current data), the range in size, the more-or-less even distribution of the largest sites, and the association between labor investment and the largest site (Taosi) do suggest the development of a regional settlement hierarchy and the ability of the center(s) to recruit labor and accumulate resources."
[1]
"At the same time, there was an increase in the size of settlements. All the Longshan settlements in the Zhengzhou-Luoyang region can be classified into four different size groups: (1) from 40-100ha, (2) 15-40ha, (3) 5-15 ha, and (4) smaller than 5 ha. So far there are only 10 sites in the large size class, just 1 percent of the known sites, including two sites of the Wangwan Type north of the Songshan mountains: Cuoli in the Luoyang city area (50ha) and Miaodian in Jiyuan city (80ha); and two sites of the Meishan Type south of the Songshan mountains: Xinzhai (over 100ha) and Wadian in Yuxian county (40ha). Although the quantity of small sites also had increased in comparison to the late Yangshao period, the sizes of the other, smaller sites had not increased (Zhao Chunqing 1999). The six other large sites are: Taipu 太仆 in Shanxian county (70ha), Boluoyao 菠萝窑 in Mengjin county (40ha), Xi- wangcun 西王村 in Luoning county (45ha), Laofandian 老樊店 in Songxian county (50 ha), Dasima 大司马 in Wuzhi county (100 ha), and Yangxiang 杨香 in Qinyang county (75ha)."
[2]
"Settlement System. Scholars have focused on understanding individual sites rather than regions. Settlement hierarchies have been proposed for more than one region, primarily on the basis of large-scale reconnaissances. However, as noted above, a few systematic, regional surveys have begun. Relatively large settlements surrounded by walls Of rammed earth are present in several regions and are thought to represent political centers (such as Wangchenggang, Pingliangtai, Haojiatai, Mengzhuang, all in Henan; Dinggong, Bianxianwang, Jingyanggang in Shandong; Shijiahe in Hubei). For several areas, surveys and reconnaissances suggest three levels in the settlement hierarchies. It appears that good agricultural soils and water sources were important factors affecting site location. Regional surveys are beginning to reveal evidence for use of upland areas as well."
[3]
"Recent intensive surveys in Shandong and Henan have disclosed clusters of ruins of walled Longshan culture towns of different sizes, forming settlement hierarchies of at least two levels, some stretching over an area of several hundred square kilometers."
[4]
"From the network of small, largely self-sufficient villages of the middle Neolithic phase, the archaeological record of the Longshan era shows a hierarchical complex of territorial relationships gravitating around a single, increasingly large, political center. These hierarchical relationships probably included the creation of strong codependent ties between the center and its surrounding villages."
[5]
[1]: (Shelach and Jaffe 2014, 339)
[2]: (Zhao 2013, 242)
[3]: (Underhill in Peregrine and Ember 2001, 157)
[4]: (Chang 1999, 64)
[5]: (Demattè 1999, 136)
levels.
1. King"Issuing the calendar would have been the duty of the king. Associated ritual activities also would have taken place at the observatory. It is likely the king held ceremonies there by himself or entrusted officials to perform rituals on his behalf. This was not a public ritual building freely accessible to commoners."
[1]
2. Top adviser and/or priest and/or someone who administered building and maintenance projects e.g. Yao’s observatory inferred"The walls indicate social differentiation in Longshan society for more than one reason. The resources needed for building a large walled settlement were far more than those used in ordinary settlements, thus requiring a very powerful central authority to organize the necessary labor. In addition, there is evidence at some sites for sacrifice of humans in rituals associated with the construction of wall foundations. For instance, in the western walled portion of Wangchenggang, 13 sacrificial pits filled with at least 17 human skeletons were found. The original number would have been more than this because of selective excavation."
[2]
3. Official astronomer"recording time at Yao’s observatory was entrusted to the official astronomers of names Xi 羲 and He 和.”2"
[1]
4. Lower Level Advisers (Inferred)
[1]: (He 2013, 268)
[2]: (Zhao 2013, 247)
Unknown. No evidence for military so one could infer that regularly paid professional soldiers were absent. Would there have been a full-time trained and paid personal retainer/bodyguard to a king?
No evidence for military so one could infer that regularly paid professional military officers were absent. Would there have been a full-time trained and paid personal retainer/bodyguard to a king?
Specialist lawyers require a culture of high degree of literacy not present at this time.
Specialist judges require a culture of high degree of literacy not present at this time.
Specialist courts require a culture of high degree of literacy not present at this time.
"The well-preserved Zhouli 妯娌 site in Mengjin county provides good information about internal settlement organization during the early Longshan period in central Henan. The Zhouli settlement is composed of three well-arranged segments: parallel residential and storage areas in the north, and a cemetery in the south. Within the residential area, which is protected by a 4m deep moat to the southwest, 15 round, semi-subterranean houses were excavated. Elaborate ones may be as big as 3sqm to 12sqm in area, with hearths, steps (at the entrance) and floors covered by pulverized stone or sand. To the west of the moat, an aggregation of more than 50 pits in a small area likely represents a common storage area." [1] Storage pits, although not confirmed to be used for food storage or to be public: "Within the walls are houses, kilns, tombs, and ash-pits, as well as evidence of violent deaths (human remains were found in disused storage pits) and human sacrifices of both adults and children at the foundation of large buildings (He Deliang 1993: 2)." [2]
[1]: (Zhao 2013, 239)
[2]: (Demattè 1999, 127)
"There also was an early-period city road system. A survey by the geologist Li Rongquan 李荣权 showed that the small southern gully Xiaonan Gou 小南沟, the large southern gully Danan Gou 大南沟, and southern gully Nan Gou 南沟 were all roads used during the city’s occupation. Due to flooding during subsequent eras, they became gullies (Li Rongquan, pers. comm., Sept. 2003). Therefore, it appears the early-period city road system ran from southeast to northwest in a linear design. The road stretched from the southern royal cemetery, northwest into the city, and ran between the palace area and lower elite residential area. From the northern and southern portions of the palace area it converged with a large road at Xiaonan Gou, after which it crossed through the residential area for commoners to the hypothesized ritual area (Zhongguo et al. 2005b). The road was not entirely straight or as developed as roads in later Chinese cities." [1]
[1]: (He 2013, 264)
"An exception to this is Tenghualuo (Liuyungang, Jiangsu), an apparently unwalled dwelling site complete with a canal and a pier, which covers an area of 10 ha (Anonymous 1996a)." [1] Not necessarily a canal used for transport, but since there was a pier, this can be inferred.
[1]: (Demattè 1999, 124)
Pat Savage: Barend ter Har distrusted this and other references claiming early origins of writing as being politically motivated to establish early Chinese invention. He says the first true writing isn’t attested until the Shang oracle bone script [1] [2] . "Not only did political chiefdoms, hierarchical settlements, and high shamanism begin in this period, but it may have witnessed the invention of true writing as well; many inscribed but yet to be deciphered pottery pieces have come to light (Fig. I.IO)." [3] "A recurring characteristic of Longshan walled settlements in Shandong appears to be the presence of incipient forms of writing; at four of the six sites (Chengziyai, Dinggong, Shijia, and ]ingyanggang) excavators have found inscribed pottery or bones." [4] "While there is an ongoing debate about the presence of writing in pre-Shang China, archaeological evidence indicates that simple recording systems occurred before the Longshan period, and that by the Longshan era some simple form of writing may have appeared (Dematte 1999). Particularly crucial are the discoveries of pictographic signs structurally similar to later Chinese characters in the area of the eastern coastal cultures (such as Dawenkou, Liangzhu, and Yueshi)." [5] However, anything written on perishable materials such as bamboo, for instance, unlikely to be preserved.
[1]: William G. Boltz. The origin and early development of the Chinese writing system. (American Oriental Society, 2003).
[2]: Keightley, D. N. The ancestral landscape: Time, space, and community in late Shang China (ca. 1200-1045 B.C.). (University of California Press, 2000).
[3]: (Chang 1999, 64)
[4]: (Demattè 1999, 127)
[5]: (Demattè 1999, 141)
"Not only did political chiefdoms, hierarchical settlements, and high shamanism begin in this period, but it may have witnessed the invention of true writing as well; many inscribed but yet to be deciphered pottery pieces have come to light (Fig. I.IO)." [1] "A recurring characteristic of Longshan walled settlements in Shandong appears to be the presence of incipient forms of writing; at four of the six sites (Chengziyai, Dinggong, Shijia, and ]ingyanggang) excavators have found inscribed pottery or bones." [2] "While there is an ongoing debate about the presence of writing in pre-Shang China, archaeological evidence indicates that simple recording systems occurred before the Longshan period, and that by the Longshan era some simple form of writing may have appeared (Dematte 1999). Particularly crucial are the discoveries of pictographic signs structurally similar to later Chinese characters in the area of the eastern coastal cultures (such as Dawenkou, Liangzhu, and Yueshi)." [3]
[1]: (Chang 1999, 64)
[2]: (Demattè 1999, 127)
[3]: (Demattè 1999, 141)
"While there is an ongoing debate about the presence of writing in pre-Shang China, archaeological evidence indicates that simple recording systems occurred before the Longshan period, and that by the Longshan era some simple form of writing may have appeared (Dematte 1999). Particularly crucial are the discoveries of pictographic signs structurally similar to later Chinese characters in the area of the eastern coastal cultures (such as Dawenkou, Liangzhu, and Yueshi)." [1]
[1]: (Demattè 1999, 141)
No data on whether the elite used relay stations to transmit messages faster. This might be considered unlikely as elsewhere relay stations evolved and were used in context of much larger states and bureaucracies where long distances needed to be traversed.
Little or no literacy so there would have been nobody to use a general postal service, if such had existed.
It is possible that the rulers at this time used messengers even over short distances for both convenience, the ability to transmit more than one message simultaneously and perhaps to enhance their status.
"Late Paleolithic Chinese roamed the grasslands of the great Northern Plain, gathering wild varieties of millet. Around 7000-6000 B.C.E. they began creating a village culture along the Yellow River, elevating their villages above the floodplain, often enclosing them with ditches or wooden palisades." [1]
[1]: (Adler and Pouwels 2018, 54-55) Philip J Adler. Randall L Pouwels. 2018. World Civilizations. Eighth Edition. Cengage Learning. Boston.
The Pao-tun in the late Longshan and Erlitou used "river pebbles on exterior wall faces to improve weathering." [1] The river pebbles were apparently to "improve weathering" so archaeologists did not believe they had a role strengthening the wall as a fortification. However, depending on how fast they were to the earth it would have been more difficult to climb up a pebbled wall.
[1]: (Sawyer 2011, 91)
Fortified towns. Ch’u-chia-ling had a wall and moat in 2800 bce, "their defensive needs [may have been] different from those of the so-called core Lungshan area in Hubei and Shandong." [1] Arguments that city walls were to protect against floods, not defensive because they were not maintained. [2]
[1]: (Sawyer 2011, 82)
[2]: (Otterbein 2004, 163) Otterbein, Keith. 2004. How War Began. University of Texas A&M Press.
Defences against gunpowder weapons not necessary until the invention of gunpowder, a few thousand years after this period.
In the Guchengzhai site, "The moat, which used water from the Qinshui river, was another important defensive barrier around the site. Its width ranges from 34m to 90 m. Coring/probing (zuantan 钻探) determined that the now buried moat is over 4.5m deep in the eastern section, but the river bed is still visible today." [1] "Haojiatai, whose walled enclosure covers an area of 6.5 ha, is also built on an elevated platform and is further protected by an external ditch, most likely a defensive moat." [2] "Some of the walled settlements have surrounding ditches that may have served as moats. One of the functions of the walls probably was defense." [3]
[1]: (Zhao 2013, 245)
[2]: (Demattè 1999, 126)
[3]: (Underhill in Peregrine and Ember 2001, 157)
Tamped-earth walls [1] Rammed-earth walls. "So far, about 30 cities with massive defensive hangtu walls dating to the Longshan era have been identified. Several others are under excavation, and new ones are being identified with regular frequency. While most of the best known are located in the middle-lower Yellow River Valley (in the Henan-Shandong there are about ten), several others are found throughout China, such as in the Hunan- Hubei area, in Inner Mongolia, and in Sichuan. What is most relevant is that all appear to be arranged in significant regional clusters (Fig. 4; Appendix 1)." [2] "Of these fortified sites, Taosi (陶寺) in Shanxi is the most impressive (Fig. 1). Its walls are up to 10 m wide, and at the peak of the site’s expansion they would have enclosed an area of some 280 ha." [3]
[1]: (Sawyer 2011, 47-8)
[2]: (Demattè 1999, 123)
[3]: (Shelach and Jaffe 2014, 339)
"Haojiatai, whose walled enclosure covers an area of 6.5 ha, is also built on an elevated platform and is further protected by an external ditch, most likely a defensive moat." [1] "Some of the walled settlements have surrounding ditches that may have served as moats. One of the functions of the walls probably was defense." [2]
[1]: (Demattè 1999, 126)
[2]: (Underhill in Peregrine and Ember 2001, 157)
No evidence settlements defended by consecutive rings of walls. However, walls were surrounded by moats or ditches. "Some of the walled settlements have surrounding ditches that may have served as moats. One of the functions of the walls probably was defense." [1]
[1]: (Underhill in Peregrine and Ember 2001, 157)
Sling stones used for hunting could have been used for warfare. Known from the Zhou period, when: "The conscripted foot soldiers wore sheepskin jackets and used slings and bows with bronze-tipped arrows." [1] ’ Sling stones used for hunting could have been used for warfare. "Polished stone tools are abundant at Wangwan III sites. It appears that specific forms of tools were made for particular functions, such as shovels for digging, knives, and lian 镰 sickles for harvesting, and grinding stones and slabs for processing millet. No doubt the wide use of sickles greatly increased crop yields while pits plastered with lime provided good storage for cereals. There were other specialized tools as well such as axes, adzes, chisels, and zuan 钻 drills for woodwork; mao 矛 spears projectile points, arrowheads ,and sling stones (danwan 弹丸) for hunting; barbs (gou 钩), net weights (wangzhui 网坠), and darts (yubiao 鱼镖) for fishing; anvils (paizi 拍子) for pottery-making; and needles and spindle whorls for preparing cloth. These various implements clearly show that agriculture was supplemented by hunting and gathering." [2]
[1]: (Meyer 1994, 132) Milton Walter Meyer. 1994. China: A Concise History. Second Edition, Revised. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Lanham.
[2]: (Zhao 2013, 249)
At Miaodigou II (Early Longshan) sites in Central Henan "Several different kinds of stone and bone tools have been found that indicate an agricultural subsistence economy supplemented by hunting and gathering. The stone tools include fu 斧 axes, ben 锛 adzes, chan 铲 shovels, and zu 镞 arrowheads. The bone tools include zhui 锥 awls, zhen 针 needles, zu arrowheads, and yucha 鱼叉 spears for fishing. " [1]
[1]: (Zhao 2013, 238)
Gunpowder not invented for another couple of thousand years.
Composite bow not known to have been developed at this early time. First evidence for the composite bow comes from the Late Shang.
First reference to swords in the Erligang period.
Daggers were imported from an outside culture, first seen in the Shang. [1] however doubts about validity of this source. Bronze knives. "The earliest dated bronze object in China, a knife cast from a mold found in Gansu province, is from about 3000 BC". [2] . However, Gansu is too far west to code present for this polity
[1]: (Peers 2011, 400)
[2]: (Bavarian 2005) Bavarian, Behzad. July 2005. Unearthing Technology’s Influence on the Ancient Chinese Dynasties through Metallurgical Investigations, California State University. Northridge. http://library.csun.edu/docs/bavarian.pdf
Axes for subsistence, but could probably have been used for warfare. At Miaodigou II (Early Longshan) sites in Central Henan "The stone tools include fu 斧 axes, ben 锛 adzes, chan 铲 shovels, and zu 镞 arrowheads. The bone tools include zhui 锥 awls, zhen 针 needles, zu arrowheads, and yucha 鱼叉 spears for fishing." [1]
[1]: (Zhao 2013, 238)
We would expect the earliest defenses to not have been made of metal and so unlikely to have been preserved
we would expect the earliest defenses to not have been made of metal and so unlikely to have been preserved