CHINESE NEOLITHIC BURIAL PATTERNS: Problems of Method and Interpretation

Society for the Study of Early China

CHINESE NEOLITHIC BURIAL PATTERNS: Problems of Method and InterpretationAuthor(s): RICHARD PEARSONSource: Early China, Vol. 13 (1988), pp. 1-45Published by: Society for the Study of Early ChinaStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23351320 .

Accessed: 06/09/2013 15:21

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Society for the Study of Early China is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toEarly China.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 129.171.178.62 on Fri, 6 Sep 2013 15:21:24 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ssec

http://www.jstor.org/stable/23351320?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


®^=1SI=^

ARTICLES

CHINESE NEOLITHIC BURIAL PATTERNS Problems of Method and Interpretation

RICHARD PEARSON

There are various means for reconstructing social life in the

Neolithic. Regional settlement patterns, house structures, trade

networks, and landscape analysis are all of primary value. They show

traces of people's daily life and the impact of that daily life on

the environment. In addition, burial patterns may provide a separate line of evidence. Burial studies have been the subject of much

debate in North American and British archaeology, providing a

meeting ground for many current theories and approaches in archae

ology and cultural anthropology. In this paper, I summarize the

major inferences used in the study of Chinese Neolithic burials, comment on the issues surrounding them, and suggest possible new

directions of analysis.1

Generally, Chinese archaeologists believe that Neolithic

societies progressed from a matrilineal or matriarchal clan

organization through a transitional patrilineal or patriarchal clan

stage to a patrilineal monogamous family stage. The archaeologists

basically assume that with increased productivity social inequality occurs. With the increase in basic productive power, the unit of

production was reduced. The monogamous family was the basic group in

the latter stage. With greater productivity males gained economic

power and social supremacy; with the economic power of males came

inheritance through males and their accumulation of private property and wealth.

In particular, the Chinese archaeologists have retained the

theory that a stage of social development was dominated by the

matrilineal clan; descent was recognized only through the mother

because no systematic form of marriage existed. At a later stage, with the assumption of male economic power, descent was recognized

through the patrilineal line. It took some time for the clan system of labor to break down into the monogamous family unit of labor; thus for a time there was a transitional period of patrilineal clans. These basic ideas have been adopted in consistent fashion

from Morgan (1877). Engels also followed this system in his

treatment of preclass society (1972).



Chinese Neolithic Burial Patterns

INFERENCES DERIVED FROM NEOLITHIC BURIALS

What are the steps of inference by which the reconstruction of

Neolithic society has proceeded? What middle-range theory guides the

interpretation of the Neolithic remains by Chinese archaeologists?

Many of the assumptions are shared by archaeologists all over the

world, but others reflect particular theoretical orientations, which

will be brought out in the discussion that follows this section.

I present the major interpretive steps beginning with

cemeteries, proceeding to burial treatment, posture, and type of

burial, and finally considering grave goods. Locations of sites

discussed and their chronological position in the Neolithic are

presented in Figures 1 and 2.

Contiguous burials represent social groups. In the Early Neolithic, these are thought to be clans, but in the later

Neolithic, communities. Obvious problems in this area center around

the contemporaneity of groups of burials if synchronic social

relationships are to be explored. The usual method of establishing

temporal control has been to link burials into groups based on the

stylistic similarities of vessel forms (Zhang 1985:19).

Spatial subgroups Mithin the cemetery reflect social sub

grouping. Archaeologists designated five separate areas in the

second excavation of the Liulin cemetery. They believed that the

entire cemetery belonged to one clan, while each of the five groups

might belong to a single family or several closely related families

within the clan (Zhang 1979; Pearson 1981:1083). Zhang (1979:93) states that the division of the clan graveyard into family areas shows that the family economy had become independent from that of

the clan. He does warn, however, that the burials within each family

group are not all contemporary, and therefore differences in wealth

of burials could reflect temporal as well as status differences.

Within the Liulin cemetery, Luo and Zhang (1979:129) noted other

patterns that suggest some grouping by age and sex. Five graves to

the north of T208 were occupied by girls in their twenties, and

seven of the fourteen graves of T403 were occupied by males in their

sixties. There were also some groupings of children's graves. Later

sites, such as Xixiahou, display a linear arrangement of burials.

The spatial arrangements per se do not appear unequivocal. It

is interesting that no features of group membership, such as shared

pottery motifs or specific kinds of ornaments, have yet been

determined to mark these subgroups. Luo and Zhang (1979:123) state

that in the final period of the Dawenkou cemetery, the large graves

appear concentrated in the northern part of the cemetery (including



Richard Pearson

1 Yongchonq 5 Jiongzhai 2 Mochenq, Liuwan 6 Shijia 3 Qinweijio, Yongqing 7 Yuonjunmioo 4 Banpo 8 Oowenkou

9 Xixiahou 13 Shixia 10 Liulin, Oadunzi 14 Panlonqchenq 11 Yuduncun 15 Zhenqzhou 12 Caoxieshan

Fig. 1. Map of sites mentioned in the text.




1000 B.C.

2000 B.C.

3000 B.C.

4000 B.C.

5000 B.C.

Gansu, Qinghai Shaanxi East Coast, Southeast

LIUWAN, YONGCHANG (Latest Yangshao)

QINWEIJIA (Qijia)

DAWENKOU SHIXIA UPPER (Shixia)

(Dawenkou)

XIXIAHOU UPPER (Dawenkou)

JIANGZHAI (Middle Yangshao)

SHIJIA (Early Yangshao)

DADUNZI UPPER XIXIAHOU LOWER DAWENKOU MIDDLE (Dawenkou) YUI)UNCUN

(Majlabang)

YUANJUNMIAO (Early Yangshao)

BANPO (Early Yangshao)

LIULIN CAOXIESHAN (Dawenkou) (Maj iabang)

DAWENKOU LOWER (Dawenkou)

Fig. 2. Chronological position of Neolithic sites in text (site in upper case, culture in lower case).



Richard Pearson

M10, 47, 64, 72) and in the middle portion, slightly to the east

(M25, 60, 117, 126. 127, etc.).

Orientation of burials. Consistent orientation of burials

within a cemetery and in restricted geographical areas has been

recorded but not particularly noted in interpretive studies.

Grave size reflects social status. In the Dawenkou cemetery, different sizes of burial pits were grouped into small, medium, and

large. Shi (1983:32) has reviewed the data on the Dawenkou burials,

dividing them into three classes based on size and linking them

directly to differences in wealth. The correlation of grave size

with other indicators of wealth at Dawenkou is general, according to

Kingscott (1983:186 ff.), but not completely direct. Her analyses

yielded four status groups based on grave goods—high, high intermediate, intermediate, and low. Three of the seven large graves were located in the high status group, and others were in the two

intermediate status groups. None of the large graves was in her low

status group.

Elaboration of the coffin reflects higher social status. This

can be seen in the analysis of Dawenkou. Special wooden grave lids

and chambers were constructed in some of the pits (Shandongsheng 1974:5-7). These varied in complexity from a lid made of undressed

logs that covered the pit and rested on a cross piece to chambers of

fitted logs sitting in the middle of a much larger grave pit. These

coffin frames were used for marking status, indicating clear

differences in political and economic status according to Shi (1983:33). About 10 percent of the Dawenkou burials had these

internal frames. They provided, according to Shi, the antecedent of

the system used in the Warring States Period, when the Zhou king had

seven sets of nested frames and the local lords had five.

Number of burials in each grave. Single burials appear the

most usual in the Chinese Neolithic. Rarely were graves prepared but

left empty, as at Dawenkou (Shandongsheng 1974:7). It is inferred

that these were prepared for members whose bodies could not be

returned for burial.

Multiple burials have been the subject of great interest. In

the Late Yangshao site of Macheng (in Liuwan, Qinghai) and Dawenkou, double burials of males and females were discovered. Shi (1983:34,

35) and many authors before him infer that the male and female

burials represent a stage in the later part of the Neolithic in

which the immolation of wives, mistresses, and female slaves

indicated the holding of slaves by patriarchal families. In the Macheng burials, Liuwan, there were two to six people in each of the

graves, apparently husband and wife with female slaves. Shi




(1983:36) suggests that the burial of so much property, including humans, indicates a strong belief in immortality, in which offerings and slaves would facilitate existence in a future life. In all the

literature this is a rare statement concerning belief, as I shall

discuss below. In the Qinweijia cemetery, Yongqing, Gansu, there

were sixteen adult male and female multiple burials: in all of them

the males were the main burials, and the females were immolated and

added, according to Shi (1983:40). The burial position of the males

was dorsal extended; the females were on their sides with legs bent.

The Yuanjunmiao site, Shaanxi, offers a particularly well

documented case of multiple burials. Although some burials are

single, primary burials, many combine primary and secondary interments. Special grouping is interpreted somewhat differently in

this case. Zhang (1985) states that the site is divided into two

sections, each the burial ground of one clan, while the entire site

is the burial ground of one tribe. The site, which belongs to the

Yangshao Culture, Banpo Type, contains fifty-one graves, arranged in

six rows.

According to Keightley (1985:20) twenty-eight collective

burials contained 64 percent of all people buried in the cemetery. The number of people placed in each collective burial ranged from

two to twenty-five, the average being four plus. Zhang postulates that these all belonged to one kin group, representing a tomb of one

family. According to Zhang, there is no sign in any grave that the

husband held authority. In addition, there are three collective

tombs of adult females and children, where the females could be

regarded as the mothers of the children. The other tombs contain

males and females. Of these, Zhang states (1985:29):

The collective tombs in which the males are more numerous

than females do not conform to the situation one would

predict in a patriarchal family, in which there are more

females than males. Although collective tombs in which

there are more females than males conform numerically to

the characteristic composition of a patriarchal family, there is no sign in any of the graves indicating that the

husband held authority.

Zhang concludes that the cemetery is that of a group in the

matriarchal stage (1985:30).

The number of males and females interred together is quite low

in many sites where this practice is found. Among the 197 graves in

the Liulin cemetery, Jiangsu, three held males and females together —No. 102 (male and female both fifty-five years or older), No. 144

(adult male with female secondary burial), and No. 97 (an adult male



Richard Pearson

and adult female). From the Dadunzi site, 300 graves were located in

the second excavation; only four cases of joint male and female

burials occurred. The generally low frequency of these burials will

be discussed below.

The usual burial position of lying on the back, legs extended,

seems to shom relative political autonomy. Early burials in the

Qingliangang culture area are prone, as in the early site of

Yuduncun. Keightley points out that the prone burial position, in

the Shang, was the position for sacrificial victims (1985:14, 15).

A slightly bent posture is inferred to be a subservient

political position. Of particular interest is the burial position of females in the multiple interments, in sites such as Dawenkou

The bent legs of the females indicate to Song, Li, and Du that

these are the burials of slaves (1983:318, 319). They dismiss the

possibility that these are simultaneous burials of husband and wife

who died of illness because in contemporary ethnographic cases those

who died from epidemics are given isolated treatment. Although there

is no visible sign of killing, it is thought that these victims may have been strangled or put to death in some way that left them

intact, allowing them to serve the males with whom they were buried.

It is thought that they were slaves and possibly concubines rather

than the first wives. The same conclusions are reached by Luo and

Zhang (1979.127), who describe burials from the Yangshao Liuwan

site, Qinghai. They also comment that in Dawenkou the crouched body found in the middle of each of this type of burial could not be a

spouse. The bending of the legs may have occurred because the individuals were bound.

A dissenting view on the paired burials is provided by Cai

(1979:152) who states that the master-slave theory for the Dawenkou

burials assumes strong class differentiation and also simultaneous

burial. He states that in Dawenkou No. 13, the female burial was

seven centimeters higher than that of the male, suggesting that the

grave pit was dug on two successive occasions and the burials are

not contemporary. In another burial, No. 1 of the Late Dawenkou

period, the dual burials do not appear simultaneous on stratigraphic

grounds. Thus, the inference that the double burials are married

couples is supported in these two cases.

Location of burial. It is of interest that Qingliangang culture burials and some Liangzhu burials of the Yangzi delta

region occur at ground level and are covered by an earth mound, rather than being placed in a grave pit. The same custom of laying the burial at ground level occurs in later, mounded tombs in Chinese

history and seems to represent one strand of Han burial practices. In some cases the ground has been prepared by scraping or burning.




Secondary burial and its meaning. Secondary burials are a

great puzzle in Chinese Neolithic archaeology, partly given the

variability of the forms. Scholars have been preoccupied with the

fact that certain categories of people are grouped togethei—all male, all female, or mixed—and that grave goods appear in different

arrangements in the groupings. There seems to be no explanation for

the fact that the burials are secondary, not primary.

Cases of multiple burials of the same sex are thought to

represent clans, matrilineal or patrilineal, in which cases all

females or males, respectively, are related by blood. Grouping of

secondary burials of both sexes has been interpreted as evidence

for the family group, a subdivision within the clan, and, as such, it is said to indicate the dissolution of the clan. Wang (1982:48) states that the societies that have left secondary burials of both

sexes involve contradictions and seem to be in a period of shift

from matriliny to patriliny. However, not all authors agree. A

dissenting view of the large secondary burials at Yuanjunmiao is

that they represent the burials of large patrilineages, including married couples within the lineages (Wang 1982:48).

Grave goods. Some of the most extensive social interpretations are built on the presence of abundant grave goods, many of which are

utilitarian, functional objects. It should not be taken for granted that all Neolithic burials feature such large quantities of

"practical" goods. Burials from the Philippines, in the A.D.

thirteenth to the fifteenth century for instance, are preponderantly filled with nonuti1itarian ritual objects (Langrick 1985). A similar

situation occurs in the Yayoi burials of Japan, in which ritual

objects and weapons predominate in the burials. Keightley has

related the burials of everyday, utilitarian objects to a belief

system in which life after death is considered a continuation of the

present life, rather than a transformation (1985:86).

Numbers of grave goods are used to infer relative Health,

directly related to status. This measure of relative wealth may be

expressed as the total number of grave goods, either counting all

the objects in a burial or indicating a particular class, such as

ceramic vessels. Some cases have used the raw totals, but others,

the average (cf. Zhang 1984:31). The number of objects in the graves is also considered to reflect the general level of productivity in

the society (Zhang 1984:30).

The distinction is made between tools of production and

ornaments. Proportions of tools are used to infer the nature of the

prehistoric economy. In his discussion of the Liulin site, Dawenkou

culture, Zhang (1979:88) based his treatment of productivity,



Richard Pearson

society, and economic conditions on the tools of production. He

noted the various technologies represented by the tools—stone

polishing, drilling, and so on. He also noted the presence of

functional categories of tools, that is, adzes but no plows. From

the Dawenkou culture he noted that the pottery shows the

predominance of hand building and some use of the slow wheel. Luo

and Zhang (1979:105) noted that in the Middle Period of the Dawenkou

site the variety of tools for production increased, the range of

tools diversified, and the techniques of manufacture improved.

The tools of production are used to infer the division of

labor. Tools found m'th males and females respectively are thought to reflect their occupational status during their lifetimes. Luo

and Zhang (1979:125) inferred the diversity of production based on

work tools, from the Dawenkou burials. Seventy-six burials contained

work tools: twelve contained agricultural tools, including axes

( fu), adzes (ben), sickles (lian), spades (chan), and knives (dao). Six had fishing and hunting tools only: pointed knives (biao), arrow

heads, and fishhooks. Eighteen had weaving and sewing tools only,

including spindle whorls, needles, and awls. A number of graves had

combinations of tools; four had agricultural plus weaving and

sewing, three had fishing and hunting plus weaving and sewing. A

remaining fifteen graves had tools for daily tasks,including small

stone adzes (ben), chisels (zao), and whetstones. Luo and Zhang infer that these data show not only specialization of tasks but also

the continuing importance of agricultural work.

Differences in the numbers of production tools form the basis

of inferences about participation in labor and economic power. In

his analysis of the Liulin cemetery, Zhang (1979:89, 90) counted the

numbers of tools found in male and female burials, respectively. Tools in male burials comprised 70 percent of the total number of

tools, while those in the graves of females accounted for 30

percent. A total of sixty-six males and fifty-one females was

identified in the second excavation. No male-identified burials had

spindle whorls. The distribution of other tools showed the

following: adzes (ben), seven males, one female; axes, nine males,

six females; deer-tooth hook-shaped tools, eleven males, two

females. Zhang interpreted this community as belonging to the early

period of the patrilineal society; although women did not use tools

as much as men, women occupied an important position in agriculture.

In his analysis of the Dadunzi burials, Zhang noted that in

two graves of adult males (M4, M32) the axe (fu), adze (ben), and

chisel (zao) were found. There were also pieces of used raw

material. This combination, which seems to show craft production in

stone and bone, is found only with male graves. Zhang interpreted this situation to indicate that men and women were engaged in



10 Chinese Neolithic Burial Patterns

agricultural labor; fishing, hunting, and important craft work, however, were carried out by men. We should note that many agricul tural and craft tasks are not represented by the types of tools of

production found in the graves.

Differences in the numbers of grave goods provide the bases for inferences on social equality. Not only the mean numbers of

objects are of interest to archaeologists in the study of the

Neolithic burials. The dispersion of the grave goods—the spread between rich and poor—indicates some degree of complexity or

social differentiation of the society. An examination of this

variability can be achieved in different ways. Zhang (1979:92) examines the burials from the second excavation of Liulin. He

established four groups, based on the occurrence of stone tools.

Pottery was also considered, although only as an optional criterion.

Group 1 had more than two stone tools and up to six pottery vessels.

Group 2 had one stone tool and up to three to five pottery vessels.

Group 3 had no stone tools and one to two pottery vessels, and Group 4 had no grave goods. Group 1, which comprised 28 percent of the

sample, owned 66 percent of all the pottery vessels and 75 percent of all the stone tools. Group 2 comprised about 25 percent of all of

the sample, Group 3, about 35 percent, and Group 4, 13 percent. Because there was some difference in the wealth of burials, mainly in the area of daily necessities, Zhang infers that private property existed but was not extensive. A similar kind of analysis of burials

from Dadunzi, to examine the degree of variability in wealth,

yielded results close to those of Liulin.

High numbers of total grave goods, or ornaments, found with

one sex show the high social status of that sex compared to the

other. In his analysis of the Yuanjunmiao Vangshao cemetery, Zhang (1985:31) stated that out of ten male single or collective graves six graves contained fewer than four burial vessels each; only four

graves have more than six pieces, and the owners are over forty

years old. In ten women's graves, single and collective, there is a

higher proportion of graves with more than six burial vessels in

each. Zhang concludes that clearly women's social position is

generally higher than that of men.

Greater numbers of grave goods with females indicate that the

society was matri 1 ineal. Conversely, when the majority of grave

goods was found with males, archaeologists inferred a patrilineal

organization or one transitional to patriliny. In the discussion of

Liulin and Dadunzi, Zhang concluded that the burials were patrili neal. However, he commented that, although the shift to patriliny had taken place, women still owned considerable property, and their

status had not changed much.



Richard Pearson 11

Elaborate Yangshao burials of female children indicate,

according to Zhang (1985:31-33) the high status of women and

matrilineal descent. The burials of Yuanjunmiao contain a number of

cases of richly adorned young girls, as do other Yangshao sites. It

is thought that these are the daughters of women of higher rank—

that such social distinctions already occurred within the matri

archal clan stage, although many authors still consider this stage communal. The fact that the girls are given rich burials according to the customs for adults is the basis for inferring the importance of women and matrilineal descent.

It is usual for Banpo-type children's burials to occur in jars around the dwelling area. Only a few children were buried in

cemeteries, and these were always female (where sex could be

determined). An example provided by Zhang (1985:33) is M429, from

Yuanjunmiao, a burial of two girls. The bottom of the grave was

covered with red burnt clay. There were six pottery vessels in the

grave, and one of the two girls had 758 bone beads. Zhang states

that, if we interpret burials M405 No. 12 and M420 as girls (because

immature, the skeletons could not be definitively sexed), they

provide two more examples of girls wearing adult ornaments and

receiving elaborate burial treatment. Is such elaborate burial

treatment in fact identical to that received by adults, or does it

constitute a separate class of exceptional ceremonial child burials?

Other Yangshao children's burials have been classed as female

because they contain the same kinds of grave goods as those buried

with females, such as bone beads and bone spoons from the Jiangzhai site (Zhang 1984:28).

The position of tools in the graves indicates ownership by the

person to whom they are spatially the closest. Shi (1983:35) notes

that in the multiple burials from Dawenkou, one grave contained a

male and female, the latter with a five- or six-year-old child by her right elbow; the grave goods were on the side of the male,

indicating the subordinate status of women. He regarded the female

and child as slaves or property, although the female could also

have been the wife. Keightley (1985:44 ff.) points out that some

objects were buried on or extremely close to the body while others

were buried at some distance from the body, such as in the corners

of the graves or in the fill above the burials. The latter objects

may actually have been used by the mourners in the funerary ceremonies. Therefore, they are not actually the belongings of the

deceased, in the same way as personal ornaments. This could have

been the case for cups and vessels used for wine or other

ceremonies.




Items such as pig skulls and mandibles signal the appearance of private property; they Mere units of exchange. Zhong (1976) stresses the point that domesticated animals were private property, that private ownership had already emerged in the final stage of

primitive society, and that it was closely related to the exchange of commodities. As the division of labor was more distinct, the

materials for production were owned by the individual family and not

the communal clan, leading to the distinction between rich and poor

(Zhong 1976:152). Cai (1979:155) points out that in the Late Period of Dawenkou, only six of twenty-five burials contained pig skulls or

mandibles. In his opinion, this indicates that by the Late Period,

pigs were neither symbols of wealth nor media for exchange but had

been replaced by commodities such as ivory and jade.

Zhang (1984) through the use of comparative ethnographic

examples, indicates that the basic economic unit in matrilineal

society is not the communal family but the conjugal pair. Thus,

the economy of the married pair is naturally separate from the

public economy of the village or clan, and its property falls

within the domain of private ownership. Private ownership was

accompanied by inequality, such as that expressed by the particu

larly rich burials of female children at Banpo and other sites such

as Jiangzhai and Yuanjunmiao. By examining the variation in the mean

number of pottery vessels in the Yuanjunmiao, Jiangzhai, and Shijia sites, Zhang concluded that the wealthier graves had between three

and one-half and five times as many vessels as the poorer ones and

that unequal distribution of wealth in these matrilineal societies

was quite significant (1984:30). Even in the Early Dawenkou site of

Caoxieshan, Jiangsu, sacrificed lower jaw bones of deer seem to

indicate the beginning of transportable wealth (Shi 1983:29).

Zhang (1984:40) states that in the Late Neolithic the exchange of goods required a standardized kind of primitive money; domesti

cated animals, particularly pigs, served this function. In the

Longshan Culture, the most commonly used monetary item was painted or black pottery.

Presence of weapons or armor in graves indicates warfare in

the Late Neolithic, while ornaments of scarce materials such as

jade indicate regional exhange networks. Pieces of what appears to

be armor have been found in sites such as Yongchang, Gansu, and an

arrowhead was found embedded in the thigh of a skeleton from

Dadunzi. Authors such as Song, Li, and Ou (1983:330) have inferred

from these a stage of chiefs and warriors, or military democracy, in

the patrilineal clan period. They cite the presence of the yue battle axe in the Shixia site, Guangdong, and the spoked stone mace

head from the Qijia Culture. Zhong has written that the jade found



Richard Pearson 13

in the Jiangsu sites was exchanged from such areas as Taishan in

Shandong (1976:166).

DISCUSSION

Western archaeologists have found some of the above inferences

problematic, particularly when they have been able to test their

assumptions against ethnographic accounts of the people whose

burials were studied.

The Meaning of Spatial Subgroupings

Many archaeologists have stressed that the spatial subgroupings within cemeteries must represent social subgroups. O'Shea (1984:259) found that while spatial grouping occurred in three Pawnee sites he

examined, the correlation of the spatial grouping with other factors

indicating corporate groups varied. In one of the three sites, the

grouping appeared to distinguish wealth rather than corporate group, as if the corporate groups may have declined in importance. This

means that we must not always assume that spatial grouping has only one invariable referent, even within one ethnic group.

Horizontal and Vertical Distinctions

O'Shea grouped status distinctions into three categories— vertical, horizontal, and special status. In his analysis of the

burial customs of the Pawnee, Arikara, and Omaha, he found that

"the detection of vertical differentiation was successful because it

was expressed in forms that were readily visible to archaeological

investigation" (1984:252). He noted:

Even if a horizontal marker is recovered, it must be

correctly interpreted. Unlike the exotic and valuable

tokens that denote positions of rank, the tokens that mark

horizontal categories should be common and locally derived. Such tokens may be very difficult to isolate

from the background of grave inclusions.

While descent and residence have received much attention in

the Chinese studies, a preponderant emphasis has been placed on

differences in wealth and status. Are these the most important distinctions in Neolithic communities, and are they always

represented unequivocally? What about the other dimensions along which societies are organized, in contrast to those of higher and




lower social status? These could be ritual positions, society

membership, or age grading.

Multiple Burials and Secondary Burials

We are left with a number of puzzles concerning multiple burials. They are difficult to interpret because of uncertainties

in assigning grave goods to specific individuals, varying

proportions of males and females that confuse the assignment of sex

roles, and variations in posture, that may indicate different

horizontal or vertical statuses within the group. In some sites the

frequency of multiple burials is far greater than in others. In each

case, does this type of burial have the same meaning? O'Shea

(1984:53) excluded graves containing multiple interments, for which

the grave associations were not well defined. Binford (1972:401) found in the analysis of the Galley Pond site that the presence of

only three multiple burials was difficult to interpret, and he

postponed discussing them until further analysis.

Multiple burials are in some cases also secondary burials. As

I mentioned, most researchers seem concerned with the fact that

secondary burials often contain more than one individual, rather

than the fact that there is a different method of burial. In the Chinese Neolithic cases, the special treatment seems never to be

universal, and its frequency varies greatly in particular sites

(Wang 1983:44). Who were the persons given this treatment? Were

they simply all people who died at some distance from the site?

What bones were chosen for reburial, and how were they grouped?

Secondary burial occurs when an individual cannot be carried back

to the cemetery and must be given a temporary burial. However, other rituals, such as periodic communal ossuary burial, at a

"Feast of the Dead," can also be the case. Wang Ning-sheng (1986) has criticized the interpretation that the Yangshao burials are

evidence of matrilineal society. He states that the collective

Yangshao burials are comprised of those who died in a village at

about the same time, regardless of their kinship relations. Wang raises many points about other aspects of Yangshao burials and the

impossibility of deriving kinship and descent from burial evidence,

which are relevant to this portion of the discussion.

Both Binford and O'Shea draw attention to the fact that, in

secondary burials, not all bones are buried for the second time in

the same manner. Sometimes bones are omitted or treated differently. In the Galley Pond analysis. Binford conducted an analysis of the

skeletal parts and produced a rank ordering, indicating the relative

value placed on the different anatomical categories and their place in representing the individual. He found that "the skeletons had a



Richard Pearson 15

variable history of interment and that loss or neglect of certain

skeletal parts characterized their treatment during this period" (1972:401). He found different patterns of rearticulation of the

bones, which seem to relate to different statuses. He postulated that the skull and the other body parts were cared for by different

persons and that the skull was afforded treatment that prevented rodents from gnawing it, whereas the body parts inevitably exhibit

rodent gnawing. Thus, many variations of secondary burial patterning are of potential interest. What is the situation in the Chinese

cases?

Beyond these more technical issues, however, are broader

concerns that affect the very basis of the interpretation of

burials. These issues can be brought out as a series of questions;

1. Can we proceed from variations in burial assemblages

directly to the reconstruction of burial organization? Does cemetery

organization equal social organization (Hodder 1982a:195-199)? Are

social relations transformed when expressed in burial rituals? Can

we study burial beliefs in addition to burial behavior?

2. Is the most important dimension along which social

distinctions are expressed vertical? Does the most significant means of expression relate to energy expenditure (more counts of

things, more effort exerted in burial treatment)?

3. How is the division of labor related to social inequality? If males have more objects in their graves, are they economically superior? If their economic role can be demonstrated to be greater, does this mean that their society is patrilineal? Must we interpret

wealthy young females' burials as strong evidence for matriliny?

4. Do grave goods symbolize property? How can we distinguish

privately owned property from communal property?

5. How can Marxist theories of social evolution be applied to preclass societies? How can we advance our knowledge of social

organization using a Marxist approach?

Behavior and Belief

From the inferences drawn in the first section, we can see that

the interpretations focus on burial behavior, rather than belief or

ritual. In particular, importance is laid on the type of burial

practice and the inventory of burial goods. These basic facts from

the excavation are usually the easiest to monitor from large-scale excavations.




From the original inspiration of Ian Hodder, a group of

writers has questioned the possibility of such a direct relationship between social organization and burial pattern, stating that the

historical and cultural patterns of each group transform the

relationships through symbolic expression (Hodder 1982b). Binford

himself (1972:235) did not stipulate that the relationship was

absolutely direct (O'Shea 1984:7).

Differences in numbers of objects, in burial arrangements, or

in the specific combinations of objects may have different meanings in different contexts. In many cases we are concerned only with the

fact that some burials have one object, not another, or that some

burials have more of the same object than other burials. We search

the burial assemblages for their structure, termed by Hodder to be

"system, organization, distribution, pattern, and style" (1982b:5) rather than looking for a code or set of rules. Thus, in the Chinese

and western studies that share common assumptions of cultural

materialism, archaeologists do not seek to discover beliefs or ideas

because they are too subjective. Their linkage to the material

archaeological record cannot be proven from archaeological studies.

Hodder acknowledges that, if we were to assume that each culture had

an entirely unique set of attitudes toward death, we could never

interpret their content from archaeological data; he stresses that we must be prepared to look for patterns that differ from culture to

culture, looking for the interaction of symbols and how these

translate the social organization. The burial pattern is not a

direct behavioral reflection of the social pattern.

It is structured through symbolically meaningful codes

which can be manipulated in social strategies. . . .

Excavated objects are immediately cultural, not social, and they can inform on society only through an adequate

understanding of cultural context (1982b:10).

These points are reiterated by Gilman (1983:146) in his comments on

Alekshin's survey of Soviet burial studies.

There are many implications for the study of Chinese Neolithic

burials. We must ask ourselves what the inclusion of pigs and jade axes in specific sites means, in addition to stating that people who

have them are of a different status than those who do not. Instead

of counting all objects and arriving at a total, we must attempt to

see different meanings of objects and their interaction. For

example, which vessels are found with which other ones? And how is

their combination of cultural significance?



Richard Pearson 17

The conclusions of M. Pearson advance a number of proposals (1982:112).

1. The symbolism of ritual communication does not necessarily refer to actual relations of power but to an idealized expression of

these relations.

2. Relations between living groups must be seen as relations

of influence and inequality where deceased individuals may be

manipulated for purposes of status aggrandizement between these

groups. Ideology as manifested in mortuary practices may mystify or

naturalize those relations of inequality between groups or classes

through the use of the past.

3. The relationship between the living and the dead should be

integrated in studies of mortuary practices; in particular the new

role of the deceased individual and the context of death as a

platform for social advertisement must be accounted for.

4. Social advertisement in death ritual may be expressly overt where changing relations of domination result in reordering status and consolidating new positions.

In following the line presented by the British symbolic or

structural archaeologists, not only must we reevaluate the relation

ships between the social reality and burial expression, but we must

also consider the status and aspirations of those who surround the

deceased, as well as the deceased individual, for it is those people whose social groups carry out the funeral rituals.

The role of the actual funerary objects also needs special consideration in the eyes of the symbolists. We need to ask why social badges take particular forms and how particular objects function in ritual sets. The objects are not merely the byproducts of certain social relations, but they play an active role. Pader

emphasizes the role of particular grave objects (1982:34, 35).

1. There is an inextricable recursive relationship between

ideology, action, and material culture; material culture is not

merely a residue; it influences social action and ideology as well.

2. Signs are not arbitrary; they are appropriate within

their context of use.

3. Form and content are inseparable; the content can only be

understood in terms of the type of communicative act of which it is

a part.




4. The same object, or combination of objects, may have a

different meaning, depending on the context.

5. What object is used, how it is used, and the fact that

something is used in a specific way are all significant points.

Some illustrations are in order. Keightley has pointed out

that the inclusion of the stemmed drinking cups in Oawenkou culture

sites, at the edge of the grave pit, may have signified a different

use from those found near the head of the grave. They may have been used in group ceremonies held at the time of burial (1985:44, 45).

Pig skulls and jaws also appear divided into two groups, located by the body or in the fill, often above the legs (1985:47). Keightley

suggests that the large numbers of Late Neolithic pottery vessels

found in some sites suggest that more than one social group was

providing them (1985:31-35). An example of the importance of

symbolism can be drawn from the Liangzhu burial jades. It is

significant not only that precious jade is found but also that the

jade has been worked into the cong with mask motif, even if we do

not know the full significance of the octagonal form or the mask

motif at this time.

O'Shea found evidence from North American Arikara burials of

different types of markers for chiefly status. At one site, however,

"chiefly rank was distinguished by burial in the central portion of

the cemetery and by the presence of an arrowmaker's kit and other

sociotechnic objects in a grave assemblage characteristic of the

upper stratum. By contrast, in another case, burial with a stone

pipe and an upper wealth level assemblage were the sole markers of

chiefly rank" (1984:271). Similarly bird beaks, which marked the

ritual office at the first site, at the second site designated a

special prestige position.

Expenditure of Energy

In the 1970s much analysis of burials followed Tainter's

postulate that the social rank identities that embody the greatest

degree of authority are expressed by the greatest expenditure of

energy. "When sets of mortuary data cluster into distinctive levels

of energy expenditure this occurrence will signify distinctive

levels of energy expenditure" (1978:125). Energy expenditure can be

manifested in the complexity of the body treatment, the construction

and placement of the interment facility, and the extent and

duration of the ritual mortuary treatment. (In the case of the

duration of the mortuary treatment, we may want to consider the

length and complexity of the practice of secondary burial, compared to other forms of burial.) Tainter concluded that the most basic



Richard Pearson 19

requirement for study is that the minimum requisite social

dimensions be modeled by objective and crossculturally valid

criteria. We can see how much this approach varies from that of

Hodder, M. Pearson, and Pader.

Chinese Neolithic studies have followed closely the idea of

energy expenditure from an independent theoretical basis, with the

examination of different kinds of movable property and resources

expended in burial. In particular, as we have mentioned before, counts of objects become key primary evidence for seeking relative

differences in status. Soviet studies, working from a similar

theoretical background, have attempted to refine the methods of

counting. Alekshin mentions three different types of counts: the

total number of objects of all kinds, the number of types of objects found, and the frequency of certain rare kinds of objects (Alekshin

1983:141). Alekshin writes that Soviet researchers believe that the

presence of burials lacking grave goods alongside burials with

standard grave-good assemblages does not indicate social differen

tiation; these could be due either to poor preservation of goods or

to the marking of a particular cause of death (1983:141). We must

question the significance of differences in counts, compared to

qualitative distinctions. Braun has reported a strong tendency for

qualitative distinctions in social positions to entail qualitative distinctions in burial treatment and for the more significant social

positions to be more redundantly signified in burial ritual programs (1981:405-410).

Slaves and Clients

Slavery figures in the discussion of the Late Neolithic.

Slavery can mean many things. Song, Li, and Du hold to the view

that the patriarchal slave system was a universal stage in history and a necessary transitional stage from primitive society toward

class society (1983:316). They point out that in the patriarchal slave system, slaves were few. They cite ethnographic examples from

southwest China—the Lahu, Wa, and Jingpo of Yunnan. Usually the

number of slaves was small, perhaps 3 to 6 percent of the total

population. In the terms of Song, Li, and Du the class relationships in patriarchal slavery were "primitive and hidden" (1983:316).

In addition, slavery has to be seen from the perspective of

preclass society because this is what we would find in the

Neolithic. The Mandari pastoralists of the southern Sudan exhibit a

system of slavery termed by Buxton to be a system of "clientship" (Buxton 1963:92-117). The Mandari have no centralized political system, the country being traditionally composed of a number of

small independent chiefdoms. Apart from the land-owning lineages,




there is a large nonrelated population of people who has split off from other lineages through defeat in war, quarrels, flights from

justice, or other means of escaping. There are myths that the close

clients of chiefs, who served them throughout their lifetime,

voluntarily accompanied the chief in death (1963:110).

Economic Role of Men and Homen

In the discussion above I indicated that the relationship between burial organization and social organization may be neither

direct nor quantitatively expressed. This casts doubt on the

interpretation of the superior role of women in the Early Neolithic.

Despite these qualifications, however, there seem to be general indications of the prominence of females from their burial

treatment. Recent crosscultural surveys have confirmed their

important economic role. My earlier paper (Pearson 1981) mentioned

the work of E. Boserup in this regard (1970). Her arguments have

been carried forward by Ember (1983) and Burton and White (1984).

Ember found that women contribute relatively less to

agriculture when it becomes intensive because their domestic work

and fertility have increased. She stated that time spent in

processing crops and preparing food increases because of intensive

agriculturalists' greater dependency on cereal crops. With greater

fertility among intensive agriculturalists, more time must also be

spent in child care. In horticultural societies, men may be involved

in other activities such as hunting, warfare, and trade (Ember

1983:287). In agricultural societies, men are not usually removed

from cultivation during peak work times.

Burton and White refined some of these ideas, concluding that

labor intensification is more likely to reduce female participation in agriculture if it requires high daily labor inputs for certain

peak seasons (1984:571). It is not that women are incapable of

plowing, but plow cereal agriculture seems to create those condi

tions in which very high amounts of male labor are required for

short periods of time. Their study also showed that a high

dependence on domesticated animals will result in sharply curtailed

female agricultural inputs, particularly with cattle. However, they noted that this conclusion did not hold up nearly as well for pig

raising and that there is less decline in female participation in

rice cultivation then than they would otherwise have expected

(1984:578). Changing roles of production in the development of the

Neolithic in China, that is, favoring the increased role of males, does seem probable, given the ethnographic evidence cited above,

rather than the burial data. Alekshin (1983) outlines Soviet

interpretations of Near Eastern society from the Neolithic to the



Richard Pearson 21

Bronze Age, in which counts of objects are thought to show the

decline of women's power and the rise of men's power. However, I

would agree with the appraisal of Gilman (1983:146), who states that

this trend seems plausible,

not because of the change noted in the burials themselves

(a change which might have other explanations) but because

the change is associated (as we know from other evidence) with the development of social and political institutions

in which men, but now not women, played dominant roles.

Matriarchal Clan, Patriarchal Family

Aberle (1961) stated that matriliny is most likely to develop on a horticultural base with women providing agricultural labor. The

composition of the work groups in horticulture, not simply the

division of labor, is critical (1961:706). Thus, matriliny occurs under certain kinds of social conditions and declines under others.

It is most likely to disappear in the face of increased

importance of large scale co-ordination of male labor; increased importance of property such as dofmesticates in

the hands of males; property, that is property which is

divisible and which can multiply; male control of the

major tools of production, and the regulation of economic

and political life through non-kinship ties. (1961:670)

Although this situation appears to apply to the Chinese Neolithic, from the archaeological record it is virtually impossible to be sure

because of the difficulty in both reading the symbolic burial record

and reconstructing kinship systems from archaeological data.

In the membership of any group, even the group represented by a

spatially segregated portion of a cemetery, many different consider

ations are taken into account before the decision is made to include

a specific member. Because different kinds of decisions concerning

age, sex, and vertical and horizontal status create crosscutting

groups, it is unlikely that descent groups are clearly represented.

Kinship relations are part of an institutional web that pertains to marriage rulings, residence, property, inheritance—the entire

social and economic relations (Godelier 1977:105).

Generally, the notion of exclusive, ideal forms of descent and

residence has undergone a good deal of revision by anthropologists who have changed from a normative point of view to a more pragmatic notion of residence and descent as flexible strategies that must

cope with demographic and other practical realities. Thus, even




though a member of a particular group may state that his or her

society is patrilineal and patrilocal, an ethnographer may find that

these rules are bent or broken in a majority of cases. Even though a society may have its ideal pattern, it may be difficult to detect

the ideal from a small sample of actual cases even in ethnography; the problems of the manner in which archaeologists infer a

particular pattern from archaeological evidence still remain (Allen and Richardson 1971).

There is no clear direct relation between the economic power of

females and matrilineal descent, and even within matrilineal

organization there are different types of organization. Fox

(1967:112-113) outlines three basic types.

1. That based on mother-daughter-sister roles and matrilocal

residence. Here the burden of control and continuity is to some

extent shifted onto the women, and in societies with this basis

usually the women have higher prestige and influence than in the

other types, which follow.

2. That based on brother-sister-nephew roles, with avuncu

local residence preferred or, failing this, some means whereby the

mother's brother can control his nephews. In this type the status of

women is usually lower, as control and continuity are monopolized by the men.

3. That based on the full constellation of consanguine matrilineal roles: mother-daughter, brother-sister, mother's

brother-sister's son. Here control and continuity are primarily in

the hands of the men, but the status of women need not be low.

Fox concludes that "the idea that power and authority were in the

hands of women in matrilineal systems is simply not true. The

problem is always how to combine continuity and recruitment through females with control by the men of the lineage" (1977:113). Similar points are made by many authors, including Godelier (1977:105).

In the modern Chinese case, women have minor roles as daughters or sisters but play important roles as wives and mothers. Thus, in

patrilineal society of this type, we would expect that women would

be buried in the cemetery of their husband and that their status in

that lineage, as people who came in at the time of marriage, might be marked. But not all patrilineal societies work in this way.

In patrilineal societies such as the Tallensi, Ghana, women

have important roles in the patrilineage, return to their patrilin eal residential unit on important occasions, and are returned home

at the time of death for burial (Fox 1967:114). This contrasts with



Richard Pearson 23

the Chinese system at present, where women are cut off from their

own patrilineage and become completely linked to their husbands'. In

the Tallensi case, the cemetery would include a totally different

grouping, including daughters and sisters, than the Chinese case.

From the point of view of archaeological inference, we do not know clearly the relationship between different kinds of kin

groupings and burial arrangements. Several possibilities exist for

explaining a spatially segregated group of female burials. The

females could be mothers and daughters, related matrilineally, who

are part of a matrilocal residence group; they could be women who

have been returned to their matrilineage for burial, in a patrilocal

marriage system; they could also be sisters, who have been returned

for burial to their patrilineage; or they could be members of a

bilateral group, in which male-female taboos were particularly

strong. Men and women can be given high status as fathers, mother's

brothers, mothers, or father's sisters in various systems of

residence and descent. Thus, much more consideration needs to be

given to empirical study of social relationships and their material

correlates in the Chinese Neolithic.

On the archaeological level, we cannot be sure that a parti cular material configuration has only one social correlate. Wang (1982:294) comes to this conclusion when he examines the Chinese

Neolithic structures, which can be used for a number of different

groupings or functions. Allen and Richardson (1971:51) state that

while the analysis of descent from the archaeological record, in any statistically significant way, is an unobtainable luxury, many other

problems in social structure, such as levels of political organi zation, religious paraphernalia and practices, settlement pattern, household organization, and economic cooperation spheres may be

analyzable from archaeological resources.

Richly adorned burials of young girls have also been cited as

evidence of the high status of women and matriliny. Burials from

the Yuanjunmiao site, M429 and M405 (12) and M420, as mentioned

above, are cited by Zhang (1985:31) as evidence that some girls were

given the burial treatment of adults and that they had inherited

high status from their mothers. Zhang mentions that the floor of

Burial M429 had burnt red clay. The authors of the site report

postulate that the burnt red clay was intended either to protect the

body or to symbolize a house where the spirit could rest peacefully. However, this red-colored earth is not found in other burials,

although some red coloring was found near the heel of Burial 440, a

female about age twenty (Beijing daxue 1983:19, 95). In addition, the inclusion of huge numbers of bone beads does not occur in other

burials; the only comparable case is a group of twenty-five bone

beads in Burial 457, a female thirty to thirty-five years old




(Beijing daxue 1983:102). Alternative hypotheses about these individuals having some special status or ritual position can be offered because the burials are distinctive from those of other adults. Therefore, the evidence for female high status can be read in different ways. Also, in his 1985 publication Zhang does not

single out Burial 458, a pit grave with ledge, surrounded by a rock lined pit, containing a male about fifty years old, with a large number of pottery vessels (Zhang 1985). It must be one of the

largest and most elaborate graves in the cemetery. The argument for

matriliny in this famous site needs reexamining from a number of

angles.

Evolution of Marxism

For a Marxist, the problem is in finding a theoretical

concept which takes into account the methods of his time

(scientific or otherwise) and in applying the analysis inherited from Marx as often as possible. Only on such

terms will historical materialism as a general world

conception not stultify into a petrified corpse of

dogmatic assumptions. (Godelier 1977:121)

By searching for the hidden logic of social structures and behavioral patterns we can . . . challenge both the

positivism of many Marxist historians and the narrow evolutionism of the 19th century. (Godelier 1977:122)

I have touched on the problems concerning the investigation of

status distinctions, property ownership, relative economic status, and consanguinity. If there are problems in interpreting the

archaeological facts, what about the theory itself? What about the

status of Marxist theory, as used by archaeologists and anthropol

ogists in the last decades of the twentieth century? I can only introduce a few brief points for consideration.

In particular, changes have occurred in western Marxists'

views of matriarchal and patriarchal stages of evolution, slavery, the nature of property in preclass society, and the role of surplus. With the passing of a century after the writings of Marx, Engels, and Morgan, huge amounts of ethnographic data concerning primitive societies have become available. Many exceptions, including those noted above, to the rule of evolution from matrilineal clan to

patrilineal family have been found. As Terray (1972:88) has pointed out, most anthropologists now believe that,

in the field of kinship and marriage, the consanguineous

family and group marriage have been relegated to the



Richard Pearson 25

category of ethnological errors; neither history nor

ethnography has produced any trace of them.

The major emphasis of Marx's analysis was on capitalism and

class society. Bloch states that in developing his arguments

concerning this type of society, Marx required a type of society

totally opposite from nineteenth-century Europe, yet very little was

known of prestate societies at that time. He postulated a type of

society that was classless and free from exploitation, for

rhetorical purposes. According to Bloch, he and other writers were

wrong about the early stage of the history of mankind and also found

themselves unable to deal with it theoretically (1983:18, 19). They

wrongly believed that kinship links are egalitarian and nonexploit ative and that matriliny implied matriarchy. Corporate groups, however, do not have group marriages; they have individual

marriages, and it is possible to know one's father and to reckon

descent. Engels wrongly believed that matriliny, as opposed to

patriliny, was associated with communal corporate descent groups and

that matriliny always implied a high status of women.

Slavery was thought to be inevitably linked to particular kinds

of technology and economy. As I noted above, slavery is a broad

concept with many different kinds of possible definitions. Slavery is found with hunters and gatherers such as the Carrier people of

British Columbia, as well as with coastal peoples. It appears to be

rarest, but not absent, with hunters and gatherers and most frequent with pastoralists. The complexity of the conditions of its occur

rence has left us with many problems to resolve.

Notions of property have been transformed as new anthropo

logical data have become available. The theories of Marx and Engels have argued that the origins of private property lie at the origin of the monogamous pairing family and the exploitation of women

(Bloch 1983:55). However, the economic systems of primitive peoples involve a wide variety of rights of different types. Completely

private property does seem to be as rare an occurrence as Marx

believed. Complete ownership by individuals of the means of

production, especially land, is almost totally unknown in tradi

tional societies (Bloch 1983:193). Although common ownership is

often the case, this does not imply free and equal access by

everyone. Zhang (1984), as noted above, stressed that the nature of

property was more complicated than previously thought and that

different types of property rights already existed in the Early Neolithic.

The notion of a surplus, long a key issue in economic anthro

pology, has important ramifications for archaeological interpre tation. It would be tempting to believe that surplus does not exist




in primitive societies, that it only appears with high levels of

productivity, and that initially the economy produced only enough for subsistence needs. The more common approach today is to find in

primitive societies two areas of economic activity, each with

different types of goods—subsistence and prestige. Even primitive economies have social wealth. They do not limit themselves to

producing subsistence goods but to producing a surplus used for the

functioning of social structures. The existence of a surplus does not automatically lead to enlarging the level of productive forces

(Godelier 1977:110). The two aspects of the economy are separated; the surplus social wealth does not necessarily enter into the

subsistence economy. There may be many forms of exchange in which either subsistence or social wealth is acceptable. It is possible that progress in productive forces entails an enlargement of

uneconomic, unproductive activities.

The precious objects, or prestige objects, of social wealth

should not be seen as capital because they were rarely a medium of

commercial exchange. In some cases, such exchanges of subsistence

goods for prestige goods may occur. But even in these cases, it is

not an everyday affair (Gould 1966:87). The precious or prestige

objects were used in social exchanges, in a separate kind of

circulation. When exchanges took place from one society to another, these objects could have a fixed or nearly standard price. But within each society they were used in the activities of social life.

Therefore, we must be careful to consider the true meaning of terms

such as exchange, surplus, and currency, for the concepts are rather

different from what we might expect.

Ethnoarchaeo logicaJ Comparisons

In assessing the reliability of archaeological indicators of

past behavior, modern ethnoarchaeological studies are often used.

The use of such analogies has been questioned on theoretical

grounds. There is a debate whether particular kinds of behavior

always leave the same kinds of material traces (Hodder 1982c;

Binford 1982). There may be very different reasons for the

appearance of a particular archaeological configuration. Each

analogy must be verified and crosschecked with corroborating intracultural, as well as crosscultural, data. We can certainly

question whether analogies can be drawn from the Neolithic to

modern Chinese society, with such immense differences in time and

scale.

I explored one topic, the spatial arrangement of burials, to

determine the range of variation among modern Han Chinese. Published

sources were located primarily through the Human Relations Area



Richard Pearson 27

Files. First, some diversity of customs within the Han Chinese customs was noted, from north to south. Second, the effect of non

Han Chinese culture may have created differences in burial customs.

The importance of geomancy is another complicating factor because we

do not know how important it may have been in the Neolithic. The few

cases below indicate considerable variation both in the strength of

expression of lineage relationships in the burial arrangements and

in the differences between the ideal and the actual behavior.

Considerable variation can be seen in the manner in which

graves are spatially grouped. Ahern, in her study of the village of

Qibei, northern Taiwan, found that the most important factor was

the comfort of the deceased. If individuals' horoscopes were

compatible, they could be buried together (1973:186). Ahern found

that it was most common for husbands and wives to be buried

together, and the next most frequent association was father and

son. The final burial of an ancestor could be postponed until the

bones of another compatible temporarily buried ancestor could be

cleaned and made ready for the joint burial. This accounts for a

combination of a primary and secondary burial. The Qibei informants

found the custom of burying the whole lineage together in a vault

distasteful. Because not all lineage members get along in life, why should they get along in death?

Cormack (1935:121) found that lineages did have their own

burial ground and that there was a rigid order of precedence in

interment. The ancestor for whom the ground was purchased was

buried in the middle of the plot, his wife laid to the right side, and each son and grandson was laid out in order of precedence until

a circle was completed.

Hsu (1941:43-46) mentioned that in principle, entombment

should follow a certain order with respect to generation, age, and

sex. His informants stated that a senior person in generation and

age should be buried in an upper terrace; if the burials occur on

the same terrace, a senior should be entombed to the left of a

junior. Husband and wife should be side by side, with the husband to the left of the wife. However, in practice, these principles were generally superseded by geomantic concerns. In many cases,

each burial affected the fengshui or spiritual environment of

previous burials and the location of each new burial.

Gamble, in his discussion of Ding Xian (Ting Hsien) in North China, observed that a clan cemetery was used. When a new cemetery was established, some families exhumed their parents' bones and

buried them in the position of honor at the top of the new graveyard (1954:393). This action, however, depended on the will of the clan and the decision of the geomancer.




Hutson (1921:31) in his account of Chinese life in the Tibetan

foothills noted that "husbands and wives are laid close together, the side of the first grave being opened, and the side of the coffin

laid bare, that the newcomer may lie close." Where lineage organi zation is known to have been strong, burial of the corporate group occurs in a spatially defined area. The closest proximity is given to spouses, suggesting that this may account for the double burials of the Neolithic. Hutson's description (1921:31) of the reopening of

a grave for the inclusion of a spouse may indicate that we should

recheck the archaeological cases to see if the two skeletons are from two interments, rather than one. However, I do not feel that

the ethnoarchaeological data are particularly useful because there

is too much time and cultural distance between the groups being

compared.

NEW DIRECTIONS

How can we reconcile the different kinds of issues brought up in this discussion?

I have pointed out that there are substantial differences in Chinese and western models of society and its evolution and in the

way in which the functioning of the economy is visualized. From the western point of view, preconceived notions base on outdated theories of evolution of matriliny to patriliny will need to be

abandoned. At the same time, for the reasons covered above, it is

quite likely that early Neolithic societies in China were "matri

lineal," depending on how one uses this term.

Present attempts to study inheritance and descent from burial

data will not produce acceptable results because of the nature of

kinship and its linkage to material culture. Chinese Neolithic burials, however, may provide some important information on social

relationships because these burial customs do tend to "naturalize"

the relationships more than those of some other cultures. According to Hodder (1982a:209-210) material symbols in the burials can relate to social ranking in different ways, depending on the ideology of a

particular group. Social differentiation may be denied, domination

of one group may be supported, or the burial differentiation may

accurately reflect social differentiation. In this latter situation,

ideology tends to naturalize the actual social relations. To confirm

this, it is necessary to compare burial data with other cultural

aspects, such as architecture and personal adornment, because the

relationships between ideology and symbolization can take many forms. Not only in the Neolithic but also in modern times, Chinese

burial customs stress the inclusion of practical items of daily use



Richard Pearson 29

for the continuation of daily life in the afterworld, according to the status of the person in this existence. This system contrasts

completely with the ritual in the Japanese Yayoi burials, for

instance, in which grave goods of a ceremonial and ritual nature

included emblems and ornaments. Because of this "practicality" of

burial expression associated with the enduring view of the Chinese

that life after death is an extension of daily, practical living, we

can reconstruct some aspects of ancient Chinese society with

confidence.

We may be able to make progress in understanding the nature of

ancient Chinese groups. Whether these are actually lineages or some

other form of corporate group is not clear. We know that lineages are of great anthropological interest in the study of modern China,

particularly in the southeast, but lineages are thought to have

become prominent in the Song, as a consequence of profound social

changes at the end of the Tang (Watson 1982:617). Watson also

states that graves did not become the locus of corporate and

ancestral rites until the Song (1982:617). Lineages are also known

to be of great significance to the ruling elite in the Shang (Chang 1980:165). Can their existence in the Neolithic be taken for

granted? I do not believe that we have proven the existence of

lineages from burial studies that have been completed so far. In the

future we may be able to examine the sizes and boundaries of social

groups, and their interrelationships, through studies of similar

styles of ceramic vessels, motifs or pastes, and shared artifacts, both within and among the sites. These studies will require proper

sampling procedures and examinations of whole collections, rather than simply the use of random cases.

Hodder (1986:88) states,

Within Old World archaeology, the vista has at times

opened up, of working backwards over the long term to find the common cultural core from which European societies and cultures developed.

This is an appropriate goal for Chinese archaeology, one that has

received relatively little attention. One such objective might be

the discovery of enduring principles of group organization, as they can be recognized from archaeology. In the historic period of

China, for instance, great continuity of sumptuary regulations

covering the size of coffins and the energy expended in burials can

be documented from the Warring States and the Han periods. Clearly in these later periods there is a tight correlation between

expenditure of funerary wealth and social power. Social stratifi

cation is clearly marked. In the absence of such stratification in

the Early Neolithic, we can focus on other aspects of social




organization, such as the division of labor and the size and nature

of work groups, which may suggest common threads in long segments of

Chinese history.

Our ethnoarchaeological material showed that the mortuary expression of groups' cohesiveness varied widely. However, it also

showed that when people were buried together, in clearly defined

spatial groupings, they were in fact lineage members. The actual

lineal, blood relationship does not seem to be as important as

shared labor. Emily Ahern's studies from Taiwan show that conferring ritual burial treatment and preparing a tablet in the ancestral

shrine depend not so much on kinship links as on the contribution of labor, land, or children to the ongoing lineage group (Ahern 1973:120 ff.). The right to full participation is not simply ascribed to males by birth or females by marriage into the lineage. She found that those who do not inherit rice land from their

forebears do not have such a strong obligation toward them. This may lead to the omission of rites for the dead, such as the preparation of an ancestral tablet. This group who share land and work together

may possibly be a useful interpretative unit at the archaeological level.

To examine the division of labor, and the size and composition of local groups, the internal structure of each cemetery is

important. Distribution of tools and ornaments by age and sex

should be examined, not to determine who had the most, but to

establish patterns of shared characteristics. Both the use of

objects and their styles would be of interest. The presence and

absence of painted ceramics, and their similarity of motifs, could

be particularly interesting. Are decorated forms of pottery shared

by spatially separated burial groupings or by age and sex groups? What kinds of ornaments occur together, and what is their intra- and

intersite distribution? This type of study should be linked to a

regional approach to the Neolithic, in which groups of sites within one local region and their interrelationships are the topics of

research. In my estimation, such an approach would be more useful

than the study of single cemeteries from the different corners of

China, from which it is impossible to follow systemic relationships.

A second type of study, focusing on the structure of burial

assemblages, is devoted to the discovery of associated types of

vessels that may have been used as ritual sets. The object is to

determine whether particular artifacts, such as vessels, are

associated with each other more often than we would expect by random chance. Bronze Age sites, such as Panlongcheng and Zhengzhou,

display prescribed sets of ritual vessels considered essential in

the performance of certain rituals (Thorp 1980:52). From an

intensive study of Early Shang burials, Thorp (1985:30-36) found



Richard Pearson 31

that bronze vessels occurred in a basic syntax with several elaborations. The basic assemblage consisted of a pair of vessels,

jue and gu, that is a wine-mixing or pouring type and a wine service

type. This set was expanded in some cases to include a wine

preparation type and either a meat-cooking type or a wine storage

type. A further elaboration contained double sets of the jue and

gu. A final category, of the richest tombs, included bronze vessels

for meat cooking, grain steaming, grain service, water storage, and

wine storage, preparation, and service. In the simpler assemblages it is possible that some functions may have been met by ceramic

vessels (1985:35). Were there similar sets of artifacts in the

Neolithic? For the discussion below I rely heavily on discussions

with Peter Schumacher, Statistical Consulting and Research Labora

tory, Department of Statistics, University of British Columbia, and

his consulting report (Schumacher 1987).

In general, Chinese Neolithic burial assemblages became larger and more diverse in the later periods (Pearson 1981), but we do not

yet know much about the patterns that exist within these assemblages and their meaning. We might expect that as societies become more

complex, ritual behavior becomes more formalized and that this

pattern can be seen in the material objects used in the ceremonies.

In Bronze Age societies, it is common for priests and sumptuary rules to regulate the patterns of display. Can we determine the

beginnings of these patterns in the later stages of the Neolithic?

For a pilot project exploring this question, our first problem was to define what would constitute set behavior. Schumacher and I

decided on a working definition of set behavior: Set behavior

refers to the measurable tendency for certain kinds of vessels to

appear together in assemblages at a rate greater than we would

expect from their random cooccurrence, as if they were tightly associated in a ritual set. We constructed a hypothesis that burial

ritual required certain types of vessels to be buried together, in

order for a proper burial to occur. In defining the vessel types, the ritual function, that is, food serving dish, rather than

decorative style, is considered. From the evidence of Bronze Age sites cited above and from general descriptions of ancient

ceremonies (Chang 1976:131) it appears that a minimum set should

constitute containers for both food and drink and receptacles for

serving them. In defining set behavior we took the most conservative

view: a set constituted at least one vessel of each type or the

complete absence of the four types. Thus, multiple occurrences of

the same kind of vessel still constituted the same kind of set

behavior as single occurrences. I return to this point below.

I chose the well-known Dawenkou Middle Neolithic site of

Shandong and its three periods, Early, Middle, and Late, based on




the styles of artifacts and some stratigraphic interpretations

(Shandongsheng 1974). I postulated that a set of ritual vessels would include the ding tripod, dou footed serving vessel, hu liquid container, and bei cup. Table 1 presents the data from the three

periods giving the frequency of these four vessels and all other ceramic vessels, grouped together. I omitted multiple burials, burials with no ceramics, and ceramic objects such as lids and

spindle whorls, which were not vessels. For each period of Dawenkou, I counted the number of burials that have (1) at least one of each

artifact in the set or (2) none of the artifacts in the set; this

count is termed T.

The count of burials with apparent sets does not answer

directly the question of the existence of set behavior because it

is possible that all four types of vessels could occur together by chance, without any intention of creating sets. It is necessary, therefore, to characterize nonset behavior. This necessitates a

probability statement concerning the values of T itself. The

hypothetical model of nonset behavior has the following character istics. The vessels are independent of each other, their cooccur rence being determined by chance and also by their relative

frequencies. Also, the burials are independent. Finally, all burials are equally likely to contain a given artifact in a single trial. Because it is difficult to compute the value of T algebra ically, Schumacher used computer simulation.

He randomly generated tables according to the model of nonset

behavior, using Boyett's Algorithm (Boyett 1979) and the relative

frequency of the various vessel types for each period. For each table generated, the value of T was recorded. Thirty thousand tables were recorded, and from these an empirical distribution of T, the number of times T takes on various values, was created. The number of cases, out of 30,000, in which nonset behavior, one case, two cases, and so on, occurred, is shown in Table 2.

The statistical test for set behavior is the comparison of the observed value of T from the original data with the observed T under the model of nonset behavior. We calculated the P (probability) value for each burial period (Table 3). This is the chance of

having observed a value of T equal to, or more extreme than, the

one actually observed, under the model of nonset behavior. For

example, in the Early Period, the observed T is 14, and the chance of fourteen cases occurring under the model of nonset behavior is

929 + 447 +209+73+28+9+1, divided by 30,000, or 0.057.

Traditionally a P value of less than 0.05 or 5 percent has been taken to constitute sufficient evidence for a conclusion in favor of the alternative hypothesis, in this case the set



Richard Pearson 33

TABLE 1

Distribution of ding (Tripod Food Container), dou (Serving Vessel), hu (Liquid Container), and bei (Cup) in the Dawenkou Site, Shandong

Early Period (n = 71)

7 8

11 12 14 18 19 20 23 26 27 28 29 30 32 33 34 38 41 43 45 48 51 52 53 54 55 56 58 59 61 63 65 66 71

Pot Type Total

No.

All of

ding dou hu bei Others Artifacts

2 2 10 1 6 2 1 3 0 3 9 1 1 3 0 2 7 0 1 2 0 0 3

2 1 2 0 2 7 1 1 0 0 0 2

4 110 1 7

3 2 10 1 7

1 0 0 0 0 1

1 1 2 0 0 4

11116 10

0 0 10 1 2

2 1 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 1 2 6 1 0 0 2 9 2 0 1 0 4 7

0 2 0 0 0 2

1 1 0 0 5 7

0 0 0 0 2 2

10 10 0 2 2 0 3 0 1 6

0 0 10 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 1

0 0 0 0 1 1 2 110 2 6 5 9 3 5 2 24 110 0 1 3 2 0 0 0 3 5 3 1 3 0 2 9 3 2 3 2 5 15 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 3 0 3 9 1110 0 3 10 10 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 1




TABLE 1 (cont.)

Early Period (n = 71)

No. of

Pot Type Total Cases of

No. Set

Burial All of Behavior

No. ding dou hu bei Others Artifacts (T) 73 110 0 2 4 76 3 10 0 1 5 78 4 1 5 1 2 13 x

79 00002 2 x

80 0 1 3 0 0 4 81 1110 2 5 82 110 0 0 2 84 0 1 1 0 0 2

86 1 0 0 0 0 1

87 10 10 1 3

88 1 0 0 0 0 1 89 0 0 0 0 1 1 X 90 1 0 0 0 0 1 91 10 0 0 1 2

94 113 11 7 X 99 1 2 2 0 2 7

101 0 10 0 1 2 102 3 3 2 1 4 13 x 103 2 1 0 0 3 6

106 1 2 0 0 3 6

107 12 0 0 1 4

108 0 0 0 0 1 1 x 109 1 1 0 0 0 2

110 2 2 0 0 0 4 111 2 14 12 10 x 112 3 0 0 0 2 5 114 10 10 0 2 115 10 2 0 1 4

116 12 10 1 5 119 0 0 10 1 2 120 10 10 0 2 129 4 3 0 0 5 12 130 1 1 3 1 3 9 x 131 112 0 2 6 132 110 0 0 2

Total 98 65 73 14 100 350 14



Richard Pearson 35

TABLE 1 (cont.)

Middle Period (n = 17)

No. of

Pot Type Total Cases of

No. Set


No. ding dou hu bei Others Artifacts (T) 9 9 3 1 1 14 28 x

16 3 1 0 3 2 9 21 10 0 0 2 3 22 1 1 2 4 0 8 x 36 00002 2 x

42 1 0 0 0 0 1

44 0 0 10 1 2 46 0 0 1 0 0 1

49 110 14 7 67 6 1 2 2 2 13 x 75 5 1 4 2 9 21 x

93 0 1111 4 96 0 0 0 1 1 2 97 1 2 2 1 1 7 x 98 1 4 4 7 8 24 x

118 1110 2 5 121 10 2 0 5 8

Total 31 16 21 23 54 145 7




TABLE 1 (cont.)

Late Period (n = 24)

No. of

Pot Tvoe Total Cases of

No. Set


No. dina dou hu bei Others Artifacts (T) 2 0 0 3 0 2 5 3 2 0 2 7 8 19 4 1 1 1 2 5 10 X 5 0 1 1 2 1 5

10 5 4 14 13 45 81 X 15 1 1 2 1 1 6 X 17 2 1 1 3 5 12 X 24 4 1 2 2 7 16 X 25 1 3 6 19 9 38 X 47 4 5 7 27 13 56 X 60 1 2 17 8 4 32 X 64 0 0 2 8 0 10 72 0 0 4 4 11 19 77 0 0 0 1 2 3

100 1 1 2 2 1 7 X 104 2 0 3 1 5 11

105 0 0 2 2 0 4

117 1 0 23 18 7 49 122 2 1 2 1 1 7 X 123 1 1 2 0 6 10

124 1 4 2 1 1 9 X

125 3 1 4 4 5 17 X

126 2 12 17 3 27 61 X 127 1 1 1 1 1 5 X

Total 35 40 120 130 167 492 14

Source: Shandongsheng 1974:136-155.



Richard Pearson 37

TABLE 2

Frequencies of T According to the Model of Nonset Behavior

lets

:urr

nr

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13h 14

15

16

17

18 19

No. of Cases in 30.000 Simulations

Early Middle Late

1 3 8

16 196 93 1,386

371 4,318 1 919 7,724 27

1,883 7,723 242 3,064 5,336 1,197 4,154 2,639 3,701 4,781 882 6,519 4,647 214 7,760 3,847 20 5,863 2,758 4 3,101 1,767 1,200

929 320 447 59 209 8 73 2 28 9 1

Occurrence of all four types, or none of them.

^Sets occurring in burial samples.




Table 3

Summary of Results of 30,000 Simulations

Site Dawenkou Early Dawenkou Middle Dawenkou Late

Total no. artifacts 350

No. burials used 71

Observed T 14

P=Value (probability) 0.057

Comments Some evidence

of set behavior

145

17

7

0.30

No evidence of set behavior

492

24

14

0.01

Strong evidence

of set behavior

hypothesis. From Table 3, one can see that there is some evidence of set behavior in the Early assemblage, none for the Middle

assemblage, and strong evidence for the Late. In the Early

assemblages, six of the fourteen cases of set behavior consist of

empty sets, while in the Late assemblage there are no empty sets.

These results would lend support to the hypothesis that in the Late

Neolithic objects were deposited in sets to satisfy cultural

requirements. However, the trend is not progressive, from Early to

Late. Furthermore, the methods and assumptions require further

consideration.

The search for nonrandom associations of vessel types proceeds from some basic statements by A. Spaulding in his "The Dimensions of

Archaeology" (1960). Instead of the combination of vessels in

burials, Spaulding examined the combination of pottery character

istics on vessels. He investigated the number of cases of red grit

pottery jars which might be expected in 100 pots, if 50 were red, 35



Richard Pearson 39

were grit-tempered, and 30 were jars. If these characteristics have

no tendency to stick together, the expected number of red grit tempered jars should be 50/100 x 35/100 x 30/100 x 100 = 5.25

(1960:443). In our case, the calculation of the probability is made

much more complex by the difference in frequencies of each charac

teristic in each burial and by the large number of attributes, of

which we are choosing only four. We generated a probability statement for the value of T under these more complex conditions.

The formulation of a testable hypothesis of set behavior has

encouraged us to think more about the meaning of a burial set and

has stimulated us to look at the configurations of the burials. In

cases of multiple occurrences of vessels can we separate out

distinct functional sets by their spatial layout or their style or

ware? Were sets made of a particular color or paste? Or was

material, color, and paste restricted to certain functional types, as suggested for the Shang (Chang 1976:142). Were sets composed of

single containers and multiple vessels?

Cone lusions

I have reviewed the interpretation of Chinese Neolithic burials

from the perspectives of Chinese Marxism and western symbolic

archaeology . At least three other perspectives should be mentioned

for the interested reader: a structural historical approach to

mortuary behavior (Keightley 1985), a cluster analysis of grave

goods to show social groupings (Kingscott 1983), and an analysis of

energy expenditure and social complexity (Pearson 1981).

I found that attempts to determine relative power of males and

females, matriliny, patriliny, and rules of inheritance were flawed

because we cannot derive these from simple counts of grave goods or

layout of cemeteries. From a survey of horticultural societies around the world, it may well be true that Early Chinese Neolithic

societies were indeed matrilineal, but this cannot be established

from burial data. It is possible that the ideology of prehistoric and ancient China "naturalized" social relationships in burial

symbolism and that the social relations of the living were expressed without mystification in burial. However, from the symbolist point of view this must be established, not assumed.

I do not believe that a Marxist approach must be discarded, but I found that western Marxist anthropologists have diverged a great deal from Morgan and Marx in their approach to preclass societies.

Chinese archaeologists may wish to evaluate their approaches in the

light of these advances. At the same time, a shift toward the

examination of patterning within burials may be a useful method of




analysis. Complementarity of different use-types of vessels or of

motifs may bring us insight into ritual and social groupings. Studies that require the location of every object in every grave or

the painted motifs of every decorated vessel may not be possible from the standard archaeological reports and may require fresh

scrutiny of burial assemblages. Although I recognize the valuable

contributions of the symbolic approach in questioning earlier naive

interpretations, I personally find it too subjective. Perhaps there

are ways of regarding the meaning of motifs, vessel form, and

spatial arrangement that use the methods of science in archaeology and are testable on sets of independent data from the same site. I

have attempted to use such an approach in the final part of this

paper.

I am grateful to archaeologists in China for their commitment

to social archaeology and for their attempts to find new ways of

interpreting their rich heritage.

Department of Anthropology and Sociology

University of British Columbia

Vancouver BC, Canada V6T 2B2

NOTES

1. This article is a revised and expanded version of a paper

presented at the Conference on Early China and Social Science

Generalizations, Airlie House, Virginia, 21-27 June 1986, sponsored

by NAS/CSPRC and funded by NEH and the Wang Institute. It was

submitted in final form on 23 January 1988. I thank Peter

Schumacher, Statistical Consulting and Research Laboratory, Department of Statistics, University of British Columbia, for

undertaking the statistical analysis presented in the final portion of the paper. The statistical analysis was presented in preliminary form at the Conference on Ancient Chinese and Southeast Asian Bronze

Age Cultures, Kioloa, NSW Australia, 8-12 February 1988.

REFERENCES

Abbreviations

KG Kaogu SY Shiqian yanjiu KX Kaogu xuebao

KW Kaogu yu uenwu

HU Hennu



Richard Pearson 41

Aberle, 0. 1961. "Matrilineal Descent in Cross-Cultural

Perspective." In Matri lineal Kinship, ed. D. M. Schneider and

K. Gough. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pp. 655

730.

Ahern, E. 1973. The Cult of the Dead in a Chinese Village. Stanford:

Stanford University Press.

Alekshin, V. A. 1983. "Burial Customs as an Archaeological Source."

Current Anthropology 24.2:137-149.

Allen, W., and J. B. Richardson. 1971. "The Reconstruction of

Kinship from Archaeological Data: The Concept, the Methods, and

the Feasibility." American Antiquity 36.1:41-53.

Beijing daxue lishixi kaogu zhaoyanshi 7% 1983. Yuanjunmiao Yangshao mudi. -7C, § 4?^

Beijing: Wenwu Chubanshe.

Binford, L. 1972. An Archaeological Perspective. New York: Seminar

Press.

. 1982. "Meaning, Inference, and the Material Record." In

Ranking, Resource, and Exchange, ed. C. Renfrew and S. Shennan.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 160-163.

Bloch, M. 1983. Marxism and Anthropology.* The History of a Relation

ship. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Boserup, E. 1970. Woman's Role in Economic Development. London: Allen and Unwin.

Boyett, J. M. 1979. "Random R x C Tables with Given Row and Column

Totals." Applied Statistics 28:329.

Braun, D. 1981. "A Critique of Some Recent North American Mortuary Studies." American Antiquity 46.2:398-416.

Burton, M. L., and D. R. White. 1984. "Sexual Division of Labor in Agriculture." American Anthropologist 86.3:568-583.

Buxton, J. C. 1963. Chiefs and Strangers: A Study of Political Assimi lation Among the Mandari. Oxford: Clarendon Press.




Cai Fengshu ^ JSL*^- 1979. "Guanyu Oawenkou wenhua shiqi shehui

xingzhi di chubu tantao" -J j\ y$L Q >£4 t- ̂ ${

In Dawenkou wenhua taolun wenji, ed. Shandong daxue lishixi kaogu jiaoyanshi. Jinan: Qilu Shushe. Pp. 147— 156. Avtcz^tv-ttff

Chang, K. C. 1976. Early Chinese Civilization: Anthropological Perspectives. Cambridge; Harvard Yenching Institute Monograph Series. Vol. 23.

. 1980. Shang Civilization. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Cormack, J. G. 1935. Everyday Customs in China. Edinburgh: Moray Press.

Ember, C. 1983. "The Relative Decline in Women's Contribution to

Agriculture with Intensification." American Anthropologist 85.2:285-304.

Engels, F. 1972. The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and

the State. Ed. E. B. Leacock. London: Lawrence and Wishart.

Fox, R. 1967. Kinship and Marriage: An Anthropological Perspective. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.

Gamble, S. 1954. Ting Hsien: A North China Community. New York:

Institute of Pacific Relations.

Gilman, A. 1983. "Comment" on V. A. Alekshin, "Burial Customs as an

Archaeological Source." Current Anthropology 24.2:146-147.

Godelier, M. 1977. Perspectives in Marxist Anthropology. Trans. R.

Brain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gould, R. A. 1966. "The Wealth Quest Among the Tolowa Indians of

Northwest California." Proceedings of the American Philoso

phical Society 110.1:67-68.

Hodder, I. 1982a. Symbols in Action: Ethnoarchaeological Studies of Material Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

, ed. 1982b. Symbolic and Structural Archaeology. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

. 1982c. The Present Past. London, B. T. Batsford.



Richard Pearson 43

. 1986. Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpre tation in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hsu, F. L. K. 1941. Under the Ancestors' Shadow. New York: Columbia

University Press.

Hutson, J. 1921. Chinese Life in the Tibetan Foothills. Shanghai: Far Eastern Geographical Establishment.

Keightley, D. 1985. "Dead but Not Gone: The Role of Mortuary Practices in the Formation of Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Chinese Culture, ca. 8,000 to 1,000 B.C." Prepared for the

Conference, Ritual and the Social Significance of Death in

Chinese Society, Oracle, Arizona.

Kingscott (Underhill), Anne. 1983. "A Mortuary Analysis of the

Dawenkou Cemetery Site, Shangdong China." Master's thesis.

Dept. of Anthropology and Sociology, University of British

Columbia.

Langrick, H. 1985. "An Anthropological Perspective on the Role of

Chinese Trade Ceramics in the Prehistory of a Philippine Culture." Master's thesis, Dept. of Anthropology and Sociology,

University of British Columbia.

Luo Kun ^ fpL and Zhang Yongshan . 1979. "Cong Dawenkou

wenhua kan shizu zhidu di yanbian"

^ Zhongguoshi yanjiu 2:122-131. ^ ]t) '#L

Morgan, L. H. 1877. Ancient Society or Researches in the Lines of

Human Progress from Savagery Through Barbarism to Civilization.

New York: Holt.

0'Shea, J. 1984. Mortuary Variability: An Archaeological Investi

gation. Orlando, Academic Press.

Pader, E. J. 1982. Symbolism, Social Relations, and the Interpre tation of Mortuary Remains. BAR International Series 130.

Pearson, M. 1982. "Mortuary Practices, Society, and Ideology: An

Ethnoarchaeological Study." In Symbolic and Structural Archae

ology, ed. I. Hodder. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pp. 99-114.

Pearson, R. 1981. "Social Complexity in Chinese Coastal Neolithic

Sites." Science 213:1078-1086.




Schumacher, P. 1987. "Unpublished report on analysis of Chinese

burial data." File 87-06-59, Statistical Consulting and

Research Laboratory, and Laboratory of Archaeology, University of British Columbia.

Shandongsheng wenwu guanlichu and Jinanshi bowuguan J.

- 1974. Danenkou: Xinshiqi shidai mudi

fajue baogao. j\ G H.' 134*^ ci . Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe.

Shi Xingbang JG -7^ ^ . 1983. "Cong kaoguxue wenwu tantao woguo

siyouzhi he guojia di qiyuan wenti" <£

^ lU %- ^ /#• SV 1983.1:27-45.

Song Zhaolin , Li Jiafang ^ , and Du Yaoxi ^T±

. 1983. Zhongguo yuanshi shehuishi ^ . Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe.

Spaulding, A. 1960. "The Dimensions of Archaeology." In Essays in the Science of Culture, ed. G. E. Dole and R. Carneiro. New

York: Crowe11. Pp. 437-456.

Tainter, J. 1978. "Mortuary Practices and the Study of Prehistoric Social Systems." In Advances in Archaeological Method and

Theory. Vol. 1, ed. M. Schiffer. New York: Academic Press.

Pp. 105-141.

Terray, E. 1972. Marxism and Primitive Societies; Tho Studies by E.

Terray. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Thorp, R. L. 1980. "Burial Practices of Bronze Age China." In The

Great Bronze Age of China, ed. Wen Fong. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art and Knopf. Pp. 51-64.

. 1985. "The Growth of Early Shang Civilization: New Data

from Ritual Vessels." Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies

45.1:5-75.

Underhill, A. 1983. See Kingscott, Anne Underhill.

Wang Ningsheng j'£ ^^ . 1983. "Zhongguo kaogu faxianzhong di 'da

fangzi'." cj? g] ^ ^ X% £ • KX 1983.3:271



Richard Pearson 45

. 1986. "Yangshao Burial Customs and Social Organization: The

Theory of Yangshao Matrilineal Society and Its Methodology." Paper

presented at the Conference on Ancient China and Social Science

Generalizations. Airlie House, Virginia, 21-27 June. (Also in Early China 11-12.)

Wang Renxiang jE. 4—■■ 1982. "Woguo xinshiqi shidai di erci

hezang ji qi shehui xingzhi." (fj jj&T £ ^^

. KU 1982.3:43-50.

Watson, J. L. 1982. "Chinese Kinship Reconsidered: Anthropological

Perspectives on Historical Research." China Quarterly 92:589

622.

Zhang Zhongpei jj\fe• 1979. "Dawenkou wenhua Liulinqi yicun

shixi" . Ji1 in daxue

xuebao, Shehui kexue ban ^

1979.1:87-95.

. 1984. "Muquanzhi shiqi siyouzhi wenti di kaocha" -$• ^

#'j . SY 1984.1:26-35.

. 1985. "The Social Structure Reflected in the Yuanjunmiao Cemetery." Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 4:19-33.

Zhong Lu.^^ . 1976. "Cong Jiangsu yuanshi shehui houqi kaogu

ziliao kan siyouzhi di chansheng." AA )£•

■ KG 1976.3:165-167, 152.



CHINESE NEOLITHIC BURIAL PATTERNS: Problems of Method and Interpretation

Documents

Transcript of CHINESE NEOLITHIC BURIAL PATTERNS: Problems of Method and Interpretation