 |
Chinese Academy Of Social Sciences, Gansu Archaeological Team, Lanzhou, Gansu Province, PR CHINA
(Huaxia Archaeology
(China) 1992(2):81-88. Formatted by G. W. Leir. Translated/edited by B. Gordon)This paper discusses the rich data on the relationship between a hunting-gathering economy and primitive agriculture, the author thinking the former supplements the latter and further utilizes natural conditions. Economic growth was decided not only by natural resources and climate, but by primitive agriculture. Hunting-gathering was a very old economy of great importance to ancient people.
In primitive society, a fishing-hunting economy may be only one order of activity leading to agriculture. Besides agricultural production, fishing and hunting is also an economic activity for maintaining survival. As such, the often major importance of primitive fishing and hunting requires additional description.
Hunting and fishing generally represents one kind of primitive production, itself part of human history, as seen in fish and pig domestication. Chinese Early to Late Neolithic sites display close relations between geography and the natural environment, expanding simultaneously into agriculture.
We know ancient agricultural lifestyle rose from hunting and fishing, as the latter were many and varied. Initially, people used clubs and stones, with community strength involving on natural (p.8l. col 1) zoological and botanical lines; i.e., a quite reliable subsistence and origin. At that time the main human activity was the struggle with nature in the fishing-hunting stage. Then, the appearance of primitive agriculture established a reliable base, while social growth was another milestone, announcing that society entered a new age. Before agriculture, chipped stone tools developed into ground tools, with widespread earthenware and animal domestication. People gradually diversified, and as a result of agricultural production and growth, settled into a stable lifestyle, enhancing living standards and promoting agricultural prosperity. We find this one question in archaeological material, namely primitive sites show some degree of agricultural growth from a fishing-hunting economy. Moreover, as agriculture developed, it need not replace the fishing and hunting economy. Contrarily, agricultural growth may have promoted it, and when we research primitive economies, we certainly cannot assume a fishing-hunting stage followed natural rules (p.8l. col 2) leading to agricultural growth, as a fishing-hunting economy may have been larger in one archaeological site, which certainly did not represent at that time agricultural backwardness. We must excavate, analyse and clarify fishing and hunting within the primitive economy, correctly understanding its meaning as a form of ancient production.
As archaeological material is limited in Palaeolithic fishing and hunting sites, we only can extrapolate fishing, gathering and hunting as main activities. But in Neolithic sites, direct-viewing of rich cultural remains display not only agriculture, but a simultaneous rich fishing-hunting economy. We agricultural archaeologists find diverse form in the manufacture of fine hunting and fishing tools. They show hunting, fishing and agriculture as economic forms which advanced together under cultural and environmental restraints, and mutually affecting human behavior and playing an important role in cultural growth.
As the Yellow River valley was China's ancient cradle of civilization, agriculture appeared very early, with the widest influence. The cultural sequence is complete from Palaeolithic to Neolithic, comprehensively displaying a change from fishing-hunting to agriculture. Thus, we may ignore the oldest sites, and discuss Early Neolithic fishing-hunting economy in relation to the environment and primitive agriculture.
Primitive agriculture is quite developed in Early Neolithic Cishan culture (1), whose sites with massive grain piles may be compared using soil analysis. If agriculture substituted for the fishing and hunting stage, then ancient Cishan man (p.82. col 1) was the first to rely on hunting and fishing to nourish life. But the opposite occurs because Cishan sites have many hunting and fishing tools: stone balls 132, projectile points 10, bone fishspears 16, bone arrowheads 73, bone fish shuttles 11 and freshwater mussel-shell arrowheads 1 - totalling 243. Actually, fishing and hunting were unrestricted, and their tool manufactures extremely fine.
Under fishing tools, bone fishspears were logically made, with common sharply ground uni- and bilaterally barbed heads (Fig.1, #1), better to catch fish. Barbing was a technological leap and significant breakthrough remaining for a long time. There were also small bilaterally winged bone arrowheads (Fig.1, #3, 5). All may have been used for hunting or fishing. Their manufacture may be approximated as a sharp tip and round tapered base (Fig.2, #'s 2, 4). From their quantity, the utilization ratio is very high for hunting (p.82 col 2) and its Early Neolithic shape was continuously popular as an ancient hunting tool.
Fig.1. Barbed and winged bone fishspears.
|
Fig.2. Barbed, unbarbed, winged and socketted bone fishspears and bone fishhooks.
 |
Stone balls and projectiles in primitive hunting activity are handy tools. As Cishan sites had >140, ca. 50 % fishing-hunting tools, this hunting method was widely applied.
The Cishan fishing-hunting economy developed another aspect involving faunal remains of birds, fish and mammals of some 20 species: macaque monkey, badger, Mongolian rabbit, leopard, painted-face fox, northeast mole rat, wild pig, wild goose, turtle, grass carp, libang shorthorn, river deer, roe deer, weird deer, red deer, sika, etc. Specimen appraisal also suggests fish, turtle and freshwater clams of five major categories, none artificially bred.
Cishan well-developed fishing, hunting and agriculture needed a superior natural environment. Its archaeological sites on the North China plain approached the piedmont, with large dense forest along the broad Ming River in Hebei province and a temperature 2-3 deg. higher than now (2), allowing some tropical or subtropical animals. Inhabitants used these advantageous natural conditions, allowing a well-developed fishing-hunting stage.
Peiligang culture was in the area south of the Yellow River, a mountain culture having developed agriculture, with fishing-hunting having high economic importance. Henan Province Changge Shiguyi (3) have important Peiligang archaeological sites where Early Neolithic culture developed over a longer time. Simultaneously, Peiligang and Yangshao cultural periods were closely related (Peiligang periods 1-4, Yangshao periods 5-8). Hunting and fishing aspects are quite obvious in Shiguyi archaeological sites, with excavated arrowheads 32, stone & clay balls 16 and stone netsinkers 1. All suggest natural conditions for a hunting-fishing base.
Through Peiligang fishing-hunting research, we may see that hunting and fishing and agriculture formed a bigger comprehensive economy in Early Neolithic Cishan culture.
As the Neolithic entered Yangshao culture, each aspect of society grew, with village archaeological sites larger and stabler, generally from several 10,000 to several 100,000 sq. m. Settled life was advantageous for agricultural growth, simultaneously strengthening settlement and allowing gradual population increase for generations.
Cishan sites (4) of Yangshao culture prospered to the village stage, the Guanzhong Wei water basin being China
's most developed area. Yangshao culture developed under superior natural conditions, with the main rivers of the north Guanzhong area and Beishan Mountains, nearby south Qinling sierra and broad plain and the wide Wei River. Geologically, Guanzhong belongs to south Hubei with very thick loess cover, allowing fast growing primitive agriculture.Agriculture was the base of Cishan life, allowing fundamental change in the social economy. Altogether, Cishan sites produced 735 agricultural tools - stone axes, adzes, shovels, hoes, knives, chisels and mortar & pestles, clay knives, etc; i.e., many tools for developing wasteland, harvesting, grain processing, etc., with clear division of labor. For more efficiency, common large stone tools generally are all compound, with moderate numbers having handles and sharp cutting edges for conveniece. Stone pestles are part of complete sets with mortars. Life was very crude and simple, passing through quite regular primitive tribal activities (p.83, col 2) involving common work. Cishan crops were mainly millet, a traditional North China crop.
Cishan sites had many preserved storage pits. Of 115, one circular bag-shaped pit was 52 cm deep, with a decaying 18 cm thick rice husk level. With expanding levels, volume constantly rose in this type of storage pit.
This might reflect agricultural growth at that time, which advanced jointly with hunting and fishing, such that there were several 10,000 fishing-hunting tools.
1 - Hunting and fishing tool manufacture was also advanced, with Cishan sites having 1211 tools, greatly surpassing agricultural ones. They include 6 stone angled spear points for hunting, while fishing tools include 288 bone arrowheads, fishspears and 30 fishhooks, stone netsinkers 320, stone bolas? and rope-notched clay balls 567. The Cishan people knew each type of hunting and fishing tool manufacture for best results on animals and fish.
Bone arrowheads include regular round shafts (Fig.2, #12), narrow tapered-winged tips (Fig.2, #13), unilateral barbs (Fig.2, #11), bilateral barbs (Fig.2, #10) and diamond section in big ones (Fig.2, #'s 3-6). Stone arrowheads are thin and wide with bilaterally ground sharp edges (Fig.3, #'s 1-3), some side-notched (Fig.3, #6) for easy attachment, plus a few small stone ones (Fig.3, #'s 4, 5, 7, 8). Common stone netsinkers are comparably made from olive-shaped, spherical, linear and elliptical split pebbles bifacially grooved for line attachment (Fig.4, #'s 1-4). Fishspears are bilaterally barbed with round base with collar for socket attachment (Fig.2, #2) or with round tapered base with nubbins (Fig.2, #1). Large flat pentagonal stone spearheads were ground for hunting (Fig.3, #9 & 10), while others were unground (Fig.3, #11)(p.84. col 2)
Fig. 3. Miscellaneous arrowheads and pentagonal spearheads.
 |
Fig. 4. Bifacially grooved pebbles, copper fishhooks and bilaterally tanged points.
 |
Cishan hunting and fishing tools include typical extremely finely ground and barbed bone fishhooks with hook parallel to the body (Fig.2, #'s 7-9), plus excavated ones with undulating shaft for line attachment (Fig. 4, # 5-7), showing advances in fishing technology.
2. Even in Cishan painted pottery design, people and fish were closely related. Besides fishing tools, there were also large colored fish in pottery design, mainly vivid and geometric colored zoological and botanical designs, including mostly zoomorphic patterns of mainly fish, deer, birds and other beasts. Fish pattern is mainly representative, numerous, variable and vividly lifelike, commonly with scales and displaying relations between people and fish.
Why did Cishan people mainly draw fish? Because fishing occupied a certain portion of outdoor activity. Near the archaeological sites, the Chan River and its many well-established branches constituted a branching river system with rich aquatic resources where fishing was an established base. These colored pottery designs not only reflect hunting and fishing activity, but display artistic energy, simultaneously manifesting human ideology and mental outlook.
3 - Cishan animal bone is extremely rich in archaeological ashpits, storage pits and stove pits in houses. Domestic animal bone includes mainly pig, dog, cow, sheep and horse, while wild animal bone includes mottled deer, river deer, bamboo rat, hare, short-tailed rabbit, fox, antelope, badger, racoon, fox, field mouse, etc. As some animals were not easy prey and some were large, hunting may have been communal, one of other large scale activities. Everywhere, people used resources from water to land, from bog to forest.
In Jiangzhaiyi archaeological sites (5), fish, bird and mammal skeletons total 3542. They are 96.78% mammalian, including 29 species of insect-eating, gnawing, rabbit-like and hooved animals, etc. In this hunting-fishing culture, fishermen mostly used unbarbed (Fig. 4, #'s 8,9) and barbed fishspears (Fig.4, #'s 10,11).
Late Neolithic material is extremely rich along the lower Yellow River, less so upstream. Longshan culture replaced primitive agriculture. Along with continuous tool improvement, social forces were not greatly enhanced and fishing-hunting grew broadly, but agriculture was the main activity. Though tools retained percussion with the rise of fine grinding, percussion declined, tools being replaced by those made from freshwater mussel, jade and copper.
The Longshan culture in the horizon above the Yangshao horizon had very enhanced agriculture. Massive production of advanced agricultural tools led to the opening of wasteland for crop harvesting. Kesheng Village has farm animal jawbone agricultural tools (6) and Taosi site has broad flat stones and triangular stone plows (7). The main harvesting tools were regular and half-moon-shaped stone knives, stone and freshwater mussel sickles, etc.
Agricultural growth did not promote population increase. Rather, the main symbol of Longshan culture, whether upper Yellow River Qijia culture or Yellow River Longshan culture, was the discovery of many house foundations. If Henan
's Tangyinzi sites of 1400 sq. m area are included, there are a total of 62 house foundations in the lower Anyang Hougang archaeological sites, with a total of 38 foundations of 600 sq. m area. Construction suggests gradual growth of an original half-burrow type construction. Village expansion saw crowded foundations, a sign of long time settlement, one of a series of changes explaining new social growth. Each aspect suggests Peiligang and middle Yangshao cultures progressed compared to early Cishan culture. Agricultural growth also promoted continuous expansion of the fishing-hunting economy.The Late Neolithic fishing-hunting economy held a pivotal status in the social economy. Complete hunting and fishing tools were made from stone, bone, freshwater mussel, jade, copper, etc. They were not only practical, but their manufacture fine, and their shape beautiful, explaining the handicraft industry had bigger growth, while fishing-hunting tool making also had a certain scale.
In Henan
's Zhejiang Wanggang archaeological sites (10), excavated bone hunting and fishing tools predominate, with particularly advanced arrowhead technology using animal limb bones. These are split lengthwise, then ground narrow and barlike (p.87, col 1) with similar sharply pointed tips and bases, and variable sections - triangular, diamond (Fig.5, #'s 8,11) and round (Fig.5, #'s 9,10), plus some flat triangular (Fig.5, #4). Archaeological wild animal bone is uncommon, with some species very rare, like giant panda, Sumen rhinoceros, Asian elephant, antlerless deer (Moschus chinensis), water deer, axis deer, etc., that now live in places like Bengali east of Burma, Malaysia, Indonesia, Sumatra and Kalimantan. The Wanggang sites were subtropical or tropical and these animals were hunted then.Fig. 5. Socketted copper winged and bone lancelate arrowheads.
 |
Central Xiao County Sanlihe archaeological sites (11) also had rich hunting and fishing resources with a very developed fishing industry due to natural conditions. Sanlihe sites are on the Shandong Peninsula's south Xiaolai Plain and neighboring Jiaozhou Bay on the Yellow Sea, which since ancient times had a maritime climate with flat fertile land extremely suitable for agriculture, but also rich aquatic resources very beneficial for fishing. Archaeological sites have abundant fishbone and scales, rare in Chinese Neolithic sites but explaining the position of the fishery in people's lives and important material in the study of China
's Neolithic fish resources. According to analysis by the Chinese Academy of Science, Institute of Oceanography, Sanlihe sites had fish, mainly ling, black shad, blue spot shark, etc. As shad and and blue spot shark are migratory seafish, fishing technology must have been advanced. The large amount of Late Neolithic fishscales show people had large-scale fish processing.Sanlihe Longshan and Cishan Yangshao fisheries differed. Cishan
's main trait is the close correspondence between fishing and its colored drawings on pottery, while Sanlihe's actual fish bone and scales explain its developed fishing industry. But both explain that people caught and ate fish, and that it was an important part of life.In the last stage of primitive society in Late Neolithic, some copperware symbolized huge transformation in social forces and production, symbolizing China
's history (p.87. col 2) as the change from barbarism to civilization. To the east in Feng Longshan archaeological sites (12) are many similar arrowheads – copper bilaterally winged, keeled and barlike, plus bone diamond and round sectioned, with comparatively sharp tips that are round to obtuse (Fig.5, #'s 1-3,5,7), plus some off-centered (Fig.5, #6). Copper was an extremely precious metal, its working different from bone or stone and needing specialists.From Early to Late Neolithic, China
's fishing industry gradually matured from arrows to fishspears to fishhooks, the fishing-hunting economy expanding proportionally to social growth under natural conditions. Plentiful water and land resources allowed hunting and fishing, and the growth of agriculture. As agriculture developed, fishing or hunting began to drop but still occupied a certain proportion, forming a unique economic and cultural model seen in several of the abovementioned archaeological sites which fully manifest this situation. The success of nearby sites or natural environments mainly rest on the analysis of their wild fauna.Different species of animal remains in archaeological sites and their neighbors suggest forest cover, while viviparous fish and pearl oysters indicate nearby large water resources. Animal remains of sika and river deer suggest ravines between flat land, mountain and plain, as well as between rivers, bush and thick patches of grass. The panda bear and bamboo rat especially explain nearby bamboo groves.
In reality, Longshan had a lush forest and grass natural environment. Site material shows a change to agriculture from a fishing-hunting economy, increasingly expanding with coexisting production methods, giving an impetus to social growth. Due to natural conditions, Longshan had a different economy with many unbalanced phenomena. As agriculture flourished daily more and more, sown areas unceasingly expanded, gradually reducing forests, with some wild animals not surviving and hunting quickly dropping. With continuous social growth from the Palaeolithic fishing-hunting stage, more and more scattered activity changed to agriculture.
(1) Hebei Province Cultural Features Administrative Office, Handan Preservation of Cultural Relics Institute: "Hebei Wuan Cishan sites". Archaeology 1981(3).
(2) Zhu Kezheng: "China's 5000 years of climatic change: Initial research". Archaeology 1972(l)
(3) Henan Province Cultural Features Research Institute: "Changge Shiguyi archaeological sites excavation report", China Archaeology 1987(l).
(4) Chinese Academy of Science, Institute of Archaeology, Shanxi Province Xi'an Cishan Museum: "Xi'an Cishan", Cultural Features Publishing House. 1963.
(5) Xi'an Cishan museum, "Jiangzhaiyi site", Cultural Features Publishing House. 1988.
(6) Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Institute of Archaeology, "New China's archaeological discovery and research", p.81, Cultural Features Publishing House. 1984.
(7) Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Institute of Archaeology, Shanxi work team, Linfen Area Cultural Bureau: "Shanxi Xiangfen County Buddhist Temple Archaeological Site Excavation Bulletin", Archaeology 1980(l)
(8) Anyang area Cultural Features Publishing House management committee: "Henan Tangyin Baiying Longshan culture archaeological sites", Archaeology 1980(3)
(9) Chinese Academy of Science, Institute of Archaeology Anyang work team: "Anyang Hougang excavation bulletin, Spring, 1972", Archaeology 1972(5)
(10) Henan Province Cultural Features Research Institute: "Under Zhejiang Sichuan Wanggang", Cultural Features Publishing House. 1989.
(11) Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Institute of Archaeology: "Xiao County, Sanli River", Cultural Features Publishing House. 1988.
(12) Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Institute of Archaeology. "Xia County Road", Cultural Features Publishing House. 1988. (p.88.)