prehistoric transition to agriculture in northeast china
TRANSCRIPT
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).
Before Farming 2008/4 article 12 3
The transition to farming in northeast China: a model & application: Jia
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)
4 Before Farming 2008/4 article 2
The transition to farming in northeast China: a model & application: Jia
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
Before Farming 2008/4 article 12 5
The transition to farming in northeast China: a model & application: Jia
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
6 Before Farming 2008/4 article 2
The transition to farming in northeast China: a model & application: Jia
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)
Before Farming 2008/4 article 12 7
The transition to farming in northeast China: a model & application: Jia
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)
8 Before Farming 2008/4 article 2
The transition to farming in northeast China: a model & application: Jia
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
Before Farming 2008/4 article 12 9
The transition to farming in northeast China: a model & application: Jia
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
10 Before Farming 2008/4 article 2
The transition to farming in northeast China: a model & application: Jia
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)
Before Farming 2008/4 article 12 11
The transition to farming in northeast China: a model & application: Jia
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)
12 Before Farming 2008/4 article 2
The transition to farming in northeast China: a model & application: Jia
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%
Before Farming 2008/4 article 12 13
The transition to farming in northeast China: a model & application: Jia
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)
14 Before Farming 2008/4 article 2
The transition to farming in northeast China: a model & application: Jia
Figure 18 The reverse group
Figure 19 Resistant groups
Before Farming 2008/4 article 12 15
The transition to farming in northeast China: a model & application: Jia
Figure 20 Different locations of taking off point
Figure 21 Various directions of transition to farming
16 Before Farming 2008/4 article 2
The transition to farming in northeast China: a model & application: Jia
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.
Before Farming 2008/4 article 12 17
The transition to farming in northeast China: a model & application: Jia
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
18 Before Farming 2008/4 article 2
The transition to farming in northeast China: a model & application: Jia
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
Before Farming 2008/4 article 12 19
The transition to farming in northeast China: a model & application: Jia
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.
20 Before Farming 2008/4 article 2
The transition to farming in northeast China: a model & application: Jia
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.
Before Farming 2008/4 article 12 21
The transition to farming in northeast China: a model & application: Jia
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.