罗泰：中国早期文明中“城市”的发展阶段_ENGLISH.doc

Craig Morris Division of Anthropology, American Museum of Natural History K. Anne Pyburn Department of Anthropology, Indiana University Colin Renfrew McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge University Jeremy A. Sabloff UniVersity of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology Elizabeth C. Stone Department of Anthropology, Stony Brook University, New York Bruce G. Trigger Department of Anthropology, McGill University 克雷格莫里斯美国自然历史博物馆人类学部，K.安妮Pyburn美国印第安纳大学人类学系，科林伦弗鲁麦当劳研究所的考古研究，剑桥大学杰里米A. Sabloff宾夕法尼亚大学博物馆的考古和人类学伊丽莎白C.石纽约州立大学石溪分校人类学系，布鲁斯G.触发麦吉尔大学（McGill University）人类学系，The Ancient City New Perspectives on Urbanism in the old and New World Edited by Joyce Marcus and Jeremy A. Sabloff This publication results from an Arthur M. Sackler Co11oquitiumof the National Academy of Sciences, “Early Cities: New Perspectives on Pre-industrial Urbanism,” held May 18-20, 2005, at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington, DC. Publication of this volume is made possible in part by generous supportfrom the National Academy of Sciences and the University of Pennsylvania. A School for Advanced Research Resident Scholar Book Santo Fe, New Mexico古城旧的和新的世界城市化的新视角编辑 乔伊斯马库斯和Jeremy A. Sabloff本出版物结果阿瑟赛克勒Co11oquitium的，美国国家科学院，“早期的城市：前工业化城市化的新视角”，2005年5月18日至20日举行，在华盛顿特区的美国国家科学院。该卷的出版成为可能，部分由美国国家科学院和美国宾夕法尼亚大学的慷慨支持。一所学校为高级科研居民学术书圣菲，新墨西哥208K. C. Nauriyal, for allowing me to visit Dholavira to see the ongoing excavations and discuss their recent findings. Special thanks to all the colleagues who have participated in the research at Harappa and have helped to collect and analyze data: the late Dr. G. F. Dales, Dr. Richard Meadow, Dr. Rita Wright, Dr. M. Rafique Mugbal, Mrs. Barbara Dales, Dr. Heather M-L. Miller, Dr. William Betcher, Dr. Qassid Mallab, Dr. Laura Miller, Sharri Clark, Aasiin Dogar, Nadeem Ghouri, Randy Law, Brad Chase, and all the other team members. Finally, I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their comments, which have helped to make this chapter more coherent. KC Nauriyal，让我去参观Dholavira看到了正在发掘和讨论他们最近的发现。特别感谢所有的同事都参加的研究在哈拉帕和帮助收集和分析数据的：已故的博士GF山谷，博士理查德草甸，博士丽塔赖特，博士M.拉菲克Mugbal，夫人芭芭拉山谷，博士希瑟ML。米勒，威廉贝彻博士，博士Qassid20期MATLAB，劳拉米勒博士，Sharri克拉克，Aasiin Dogar，纳迪姆Ghouri，兰迪法“，布拉德大通，和所有其他的团队成员。最后，我想感谢匿名审稿人的意见，这有助于使这一章更连贯。 My ongoing research at Harappa and on the Indus Valley Civilization has been supported by numecous organizations: the National Science Foundation, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the National Geographic Society, the Smithsonian Institution, the American School of Prehistoric Research (Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University), the University of Wisconsin, www. HARAPPA.com, and private donors. 我在哈拉帕和印度河流域文明的正在进行的研究已经得到了numecous组织：美国国家科学基金会，国家人文基金会，美国国家地理学会，史密森学会，美国史前研究学院（皮博迪博物馆的考古与民族学，哈佛大学），美国威斯康星大学，www。 HARAPPA.com和私人捐助者。209eleven 十一Stages in the Development of “Cities” in Pre-Imperial China Lothar von FalkenhausenWhen inquiring into the archaeology of an area of the world in which English is not the scholarly language of reference, such as China, we are well advised to start by making every effort to comprehend the terminology used in the scholarly literature from which we derive our information. This is especially important when the results of our investigation are intended to serve, as is the case in this book, for cross-cultural comparison. If we are, for instance, to find out how ancient Chinese cities differ from, or correspond to, those of other early civilizations, we must first make sure that the semantic range of the word, or words, conventionally rendered as “city” capture phenomena that correspond at least more or less to those we are used to designating as “cities” elsewhere. It is relevant to take note, in this connection, of the polysemy of the Chinese word (Ch) cheng城, which is most commonly used to tender such terms as (English) city; (German) Stadt; (Russian) gorod; (French) ville; and (Latin) urbs. Each of these Indo-European lexical items, of course, has its own distinct and highly evocative etymology, and so does cheng, which means both “city” and “city wall.” The former meaning is undoubtedly derived from the latter, via a third, related meaning of “fortress.” Of the Indo-European terms listed, only gorod (related to the English word garden, which designated, originally, a “guarded” enclosure) has a somewhat comparable semantic field. Also of relevance is the etymological connection of (Ch) cheng (reconstructed archaic pronunciation: ijag）城 city to the exactly homophonous cheng 成 to establish, which mirrors that of (German) Stadt (as well as German Staat, English state; and French etat) to (German) steben; (English) to stand; Latin stare; and so on). In modern scholarship, the word cheng regularly turns up in connection with attempts to render into Chinese such larger concepts as (Greek) “polis”; (Latin) “civitas”; (German) “Stadtstaat”; and (English) “urbanism.” Because, under the influence of Western anthropology, the presence of “cities” has come to be regarded as a leading indicator for the onset of “civilization” in China (Chang 1962, 1976:22-46; Okamura 2000; Shao Wangping 2000; Yang 2004a; Zhongguo 2003), Chinese archaeologists- linguistically conditioned to equate “cities” with “walls” -have focused their search for the origins of civilization in China single-mindedly on walled enclosures. By comparison with other civilizations of the ancient world, however, sizable and Important-looking walled settlements appear relatively late in the Chinese archaeological record. This has caused some psychological discomfort among scholars intent on establishing as early as possible an origin for Chinese civilization, and some have therefore embraced a very broad definition of “city” (Shao Wangping 2000:203-206, 216- 219; Yang 2004a). I believe, however, that in order to understand the genesis of urbanism in early China, the equation of “cities” with walled settlements should probably be abandoned. More basically, as I will argue, it might be useful to question the linkage of “cities” and “civilization” in the case of China. China, I believe, presents us with a situation in which full-fledged and sophisticated state-level sociopolitical organization existed for many centuries in a spatial environment that lacked many crucial features of urbanism seen elsewhere. Full cities-and the crucial distinction between the urban and rural spheres-emerged only during the time of transition preceding the foundation of the first unified empire in 221 BC. The surrounding walls of pre-Imperial Chinese settlements, where present, consist of stamped eath ( hangtu), a durable but not particularly conspicuous material (figure 11.1). Stamped earth is also used for the platforms on which important buildings stood. The buildings themselves are highly impermanent, consisting mainly of a wooden frame, walls made of wattle and daub, stamped earth, or adobe bricks, and a thatched roof. Instead of thatch, wooden shingles may have been used on occasion. Roof tiles are first seen in the ninth century BC, and fired bricks appear only at the very end of the Bronze Age. Throughout pre-Imperial times, both tiles and bricks are restricted to very prominent buildings. Stone boulders are sometimes used as fill for the foundation pits of large wooden columns, and aprons of scattered pebbles surround some stamped-earth foundations; aside from this, stone is never used as a building material. Until the middle of the first millennium BC, the vast majority of dwellings and other buildings at early settlements were semi-subterranean huts topped with simple thatched-roof structures. Such buildings, the forerunners of which can be traced back to the beginnings of settled life in China, enjoyed an even shorter use-life than the wood-framed structures on their platforms. Hence, even settlements that were occupied only for a brief time tend to present the archaeologist with an impenetrable maze of intersecting pits. Some of these pits are the remains of deliberately constructed dwellings or storage buildings; many others are makeshift rubbis pits. Deliberately constructed buildings, as well, usually degenerated into rubbish pits at a secondary stage of their use-life. Stamped-earth foundations of aboveground buildings are often pockmarked to the point of near disappearance by pits dug into them after the buildings were abandoned. The foundations, in turn, often sit on top of filled-in pits from preceding episodes of settlement. Postholes, when preserved, can indicate the alignment of walls and structural supports, but more often than not, such alignments are obscured by successive phases of construction. Despite the technical challenges these sites pose to their excavators, seven decades of fieldwork have now generated a fair amount of evidence that can be used to reconstruct the development of proto-urban and urban settlements in pre-Imperial China. Limiting myself to the core area of the early royal dynasties-the Yellow, Huai, and Middle Yangzi river basins and the Shandong peninsula-I shall trace this development through three principal stages: (1) an Incipient Stage in the third millennium BC (Late Neolithic); (2) a Formative Stage from ca. 2000 to ca. 600 BC, comprising most of Chinas great Bronze Age (including the historically documented Shang ca. 1600-ca. 1046 BC and Western Zhou ca. 1046-771 BC periods); and (3) an Advanced Stage, from Ca. 600 BC to the Qin unification in 221 Bc, which is largely, but not entirely, coterminous with the Warring States period in traditional historiography (ca. 450-221 BC). This periodization is for the purpose of presentation only and does not imply a teleological view of the evolution of “cities,” which, over the course of this long time span and in the large territory that is China, was far less uniform and unilinear than my abbreviated narrative may suggest. Xu Hongs (2000) excellent synthesis of archaeologically attested “cities” from pre-Imperial China documents 40 “cities” from the incipient, 39 from the Formative, and 428 from the Advanced. Xu uses the term chengshi 城市, a neologism connecting the above-mentioned cheng with shi (market/market town). Even though Xus criteria for inclusion into his list of “cities” may need some revision-as further discussed below-and future discoveries will undoubtedly modify his numbers, these figures do suggest a tremendous and possibly quite sudden expansion of urbanism about the middle of the first millennium BC. As I shall argue, it was only at that time that cities became a phenomenon of truly central importance to Chinese civilization. Even though settlements with some urban characteristics existed before that time, it might be a mistake to regard their existence as the crucial factor that defined early China as a state-level civilization. Incipient Stage: Neolithic Proto-Urban Settlements Villages surrounded by moats and, sometimes, low walls occur early on in the various neolithic cultures and phases of the Yellow River basin. The fifth-millennium sites of Banpo in Xian (Shaanxi) (Zhongguo Kexueyuan 1963) and Jiangzhai in Lintong (Shaanxi) (Xian 1988), both belonging to the Banpo phase of the Yangshao cultureor, according to Su Bingqi and associates (1994), to the Banpo culture of the Yangshao period-are well-known examples. They each contain a half-dozen or so clusters of semi-subterranean huts, with several small round huts surrounding one slightly larger square hut in each cluster. Each cluster perhaps corresponds to an extended (exogamous?) family group, and the small huts to a nuclear family. The surrounding walls consist of randomly accumulated earth, rather than being made by the labor-intensive stamping technique characteristic of later city walls. By all indications, sites of the Banpo phase do not form a three-tiered settlement hierarchy, commonly stipulated to be a defining characteristic of urbanism, nor is there an analogous hierarchy of burials at nearby cemeteries. The exclusion of walled villages like Banpo and Jiangzhai from the urban (indeed even from the prow-urban) category is therefore fairly uncontroversial. Recent discoveries have, however, complicated our erstwhile picture of the fifth and fourth millennia BC as a pre-urban age. Large aboveground public buildings of possibly religious function have been found at some villages from the Yangshao culture, for example, at Dadiwan in Qiuan (Gansu) (Gansu 2006; Yang 2004b:2:46-49) and Xishan in Zhengzhou (Henan) (Yang Zhaoqing 1997; Yang 2004b:2:55-56). And to the surprise of its excavators, Xishan, which is associated with the fourth millennium BC Dahecun phase of the Yangshao culture, turned out to be surrounded by a substantial, stamped-earth wall of irregular contours. Settlements surrounded by massive stamped-earth walls of surprisingly early date have also been foundin southern China, for example, Chengtouslian in Li Xian (Hunan) (Hunan 1993; Yang 2004b:2: 94-95; figure 11,21) and Zoumalou in Shishou (Hunan) (Zhang Xuqiu 1994b; and figure 11.22), which belong to the fourth millennium BC Qujialing culture, and the even earlier Bashidang, also in Li Xian (Hunan) (Hunan 1996; Yang 2004b:2:79-81). It does not seem at present that these sites were lodged at the top of a complex settlement hierarchy (with a corresponding burial hierarchy), as one would expect in an urban or proto-urban context, but this impression may be due to insufficient fieldwork. Technologically, in any case, the mode of construction of the large building foundations and of the walled enclosures is ancestral to those attested by proto-urban and urban sites of later periods. From the third millennium BC, we now know approximately two dozen stamped-earth walled enclosures pertaining to various local phases of the Longshan culture. One example is the site of Pingliangtai, Huaiyang (Henan) (Henan 1983; Xu Hong 2000:15; Yang 2004b:2:60-61; figure 11.23). Its enclosure is square in shape (185 by 185 m, making for a surface area of some 3.5 ha), and it is oriented to the cardinal directions. The two gates piercing the walls are not aligned with each other: The more prominent of the two gates is the south gate, which is situated in the exact center of the south wall. Its guard buildings, constructed of adobe bricks, testify to a concern with restricted access. Excavation and subsurface sounding inside the enclosure have revealed an as yet undetermined number of rectangular multiroom buildings with adobe walls, standing on low stamped-earth platforms and oriented to the cardinal directions. Their spatial layout has not yet been reported. Though modest by modern standards, such architecture was imposing by comparison with the predominant semi-subterranean dwellings. Buildings constructed in this way may have served as elite residences and/or for religious practices connected with the cult of ancestors, used since about 3000 BC to legitimize a kin-based social hierarchy (Liu Li 2000). Given the continuing importance of ritual display in the exercise of political authority, palace and temple functions were to remain united in elite architecture throughout the Bronze Age. Even though we cannot be sure whether such temple/palaces were, in their time, restricted to walled settlements, their prominent presence at Pingliangtai adds greatly to the impression that Pingliangcai was a privileged space-a “gated community” for an elite social stratum that kept itself and its activities self-consciously apart from the common fray. Given the relatively small size of the Pingliangtai enclosure (about four soccer fields), most of the non-elite population that sustained this elite stratum must have lived elsewhere. Whether there was any non-elite settlement in the “suburban” areas around the enclosure (as there was later around walled sites during the Bronze Age) is so far unknown, and we know nothing about the settlement pattern in the wider surroundings of the site, Data from comparable settlements elsewhere in North China are, however, beginning to show indications of three-tiered settlement-cumburial hierarchies. Pingliangtai seems to have been one in a network of elite-activity centers spread across much of what was to become the core area of the early Chinese dynasties.The evidence is still quite fragmentary on neolithic settlement systems in China. Liu Li (1994, 2004) provides important theoretical considerations, but they are proleptic rather than firmly based in presently available data. Xu Hong (2000:31-47) courageously and judiciously summarizes the incomplete data available at the time of his writing; for lesser treatments of the same subject in English, see DeMatte 1999 and Yang 2004a. Full-coverage survey data are now gradually being generated, for example, by the Sino-foreign archaeological collaboration projects at Gongyi in central Henan (Chen Xingcan et al. 2003; Liu Li et al. 2002-2004), Liangchengzhen in coastal southwestern Shandong (Fang Hui et al. 2004; Underhill et al. 1998; Zhongmei 1997), and Chifeng in Inner Mongolia (Chifeng 2003; Shelach 1999). One should caution that the Longshari period walled enclosures differ from one another in many respects. Xu Hong (2000) wisely treats them under separate regional rubrics. Their predominant functions may not have been the same in each case. Reflecting an increasingly violent political climate, some sites may have been walled for defense purposes (Zou Heng 1987); in other cases, the main goal in constructing a wall may have been to define the sacred space of a ceremonial center (Wheatley 1971). Because most of the settlements in question remain unexcavated, the main criteria by which one might classify them are