UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A review of Lungshanoid sites using cluster analysis and multidimensional scaling Lo, Shyh-Charng 1977

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-UBC_1977_A8 L06.pdf [ 7.96MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0058401.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0058401-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0058401-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0058401-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0058401-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0058401-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0058401-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

A REVIEW OF LUNGSHANOID SITES USING CLUSTER ANALYSIS AND MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCALING  SHYH-CHARNG LO B.A., National Taiwan University, 1 9 7 0  A Thesis Submitted i n P a r t i a l F u l f i l l m e n t of The Requirements f o r the Degree of Master of Arts in The Dept. of Anthropology and Sociology  We accept t h i s thesis as conforming t o t h e required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA February,  1977  Shyh-charng Lo, 1 9 7 7  In presenting  t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the  requirements f o r an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y available f o r reference  and study.  I further agree  that permission f o r extensive copying of t h i s thesis f o r scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s representatives.  I t i s understood that  copying or publication of t h i s thesis f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission.  Department The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075  Wesbrook Place  Vancouver, Canada V6T  1 W 5  Abstract  Lungshanoid cultures are distributed i n approximately the same area as the Yangshao Culture and the C l a s s i c Lungshan Culture i n the north as well as along the southeast coast of China including Central and Southwest Taiwan. A l l these cultures represent a mixed or t r a n s i t i o n a l culture between Yangshao and Lungshan.  In the past decades, a  great number of these s i t e s have been found, excavated and c l a s s i f i e d into several cultures with d i f f e r e n t l o c a l names, such as the Ch'u-chia-ling  culture, the Liang-chu culture,  the T'an-shih-shan culture, the Ta-wen-k'ou culture and the Ch*ing-lien-kang culture. 2nd to 4th millennia  These s i t e s date from the  B.C..  Cluster analysis i s employed to review the present c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of these Lungshanoid cultures.  Nineteen  s i t e s scattered throughout Southeast China are chosen as the OTU or data units and 80 characters the variables i n t h i s Q mode t e s t .  are i s o l a t e d as  Seven c l u s t e r emerged  as a r e s u l t of t h i s s t a t i s t i c a l analysis.  Cluster I, I I ,  III and IV f i t into the t r a d i t i o n a l Ch*u-chia-ling  culture,  Liang-chu culture, T^an-shih-shan culture and Ta-wen-k^ou  • • • 111  culture.  However, the previous Chiang-pei type of the  Ch*ing-lien-kang culture i s shared by c l u s t e r V and VIIi the Feng-pi-t*ou s i t e and t r a d i t i o n a l Chiang-nan type of the Ch'ing-lien-kang culture are grouped into c l u s t e r VI. The configuration from the multidimensional s c a l i n g on the f i r s t and second vectors seems that the patterning of the s i t e s on these two vectors agree with the c l u s t e r s represented by the dendrogram.  E s p e c i a l l y , the v e r t i c a l  dimension can be seen as a s h i f t i n pottery character and v a r i a t i o n of implements. The probable meaning of these c l u s t e r s , such as d i f f e r e n t time periods, d i f f e r e n t people, d i f f e r e n t languages, or even d i f f e r e n t technologies, has also been b r i e f l y discussed.  This study presents the f i r s t attempt at the  application of c l u s t e r i n g and scaling techniques to Chinese archaeological data.  More detailed study of these s i t e  reports are necessary.  iv  TABLE OF CONTENTS  Abstract  i i  Table of contents Acknowledgement  iv '  v  Chapter 1 . Introduction  1  2. The Lungshanoid Cultures 3. The D i f f i c u l t y of C l a s s i f i c a t i o n  6 16  , 4. General Idea of Cluster Analysis and Multidimensional  Scaling  35  5. The Use of Cluster Analysis and Multidimensional  Scaling  40  6. Discussion  51  7. Conclusion  6l  Bibliography  66  Appendix A. O r i g i n a l Reports of 1 9 S i t e s  72  B. Attribute L i s t  73  C. Chinese Character f o r Proper Names and Technical Terms  77  V  Acknowledgement  My thanks are due to Professors Richard Pearson and Patricia Hitchins for their continuous encouragement and advice through the last two years, their many suggestions on the early drafts, and their kind and patient help i n rendering the manuscript into readable English, and to Professor E. G. Pulleyblank for his suggestions and comments. I also wish to thank Professor Richard Matson, from whom I learned cluster analysis and multidimensional scaling.  Without this knowledge the present study could  not have been undertaken. S. C. Lo  1  Chapter 1 Introduction  In the past decade, the importance of Southeast China i n Par Eastern archaeology has increased markedly. One of the reasons for this interest i s that more and more archaeological evidence has been discovered thereby making available more material with which to compare, analyze, and study the prehistory of the area.  After the  pollen analysis at Jih-yueh-Van was done by Tsukada Matsuo in  1964-65  (Tsukada  1966),  and the excavation at Spirit  Cave i n Thailand by Chester F. Gorman i n 1969)»  Carl 0. Sauer^s  (1952)  1967-68  (Solheim  theory on a Southeast Asian  Agricultural heartland began to attract renewed attention. For an i l l u s t r a t i o n of this development we can refer to Chang's work  (1970i 175-185)»  i n which he sets down the  archaeological and botanical evidence for the beginnings of agriculture i n East and Southeast Asia and, on this basis, argues for agricultural origins there. Thus, the increased importance i n i t i a l l y attributed to the whole of  2  Southeast Asia by Carl 0. Sauer has stimulated further archaeological research i n the southeastern regions of China. In addition, a number of CI 4 dates for this area have been published during the last four years (LIA 1972a, 1972b, 197^)•  Some of these are so early that archaeo-  logists have had to shift their original theories and make adjustments for the new data.  K.C. Chang, for  instance, insisted several years ago that the neolithic culture i n South and Southeast China was the result of the rapid extension of "Chung-yuan culture" of the North China Nuclear Area (Chang 1969).  But now, he seems to have  dramatically modified his view on this matter. tance, i n a recent article (197^»  3^-38)t  For ins-  he proposes a  cultural relationship among North China, South China and Southeast Asia along the following l i n e s i (1) Various cultures developed i n different parts of the Far East during the neolithic age.  A l l of them developed  their own culture to adapt to their different  environments.  Owing to contact, they were similar to some degree (p. 36), (2) Since a continued cultural development —  from the  Yangshao culture to the Lungshan culture and to the Shang  3  civilization —  only occured i n North China, the Yellow  River Valley was the earliest nuclear area i n the Far East (pp. 3 6 - 3 7 ) . ( 3 ) However, the Lungshanoid cultures i n South China probably developed from Cord-marked pottery as another cultural category. Some aspects of this culture were derived from the Yangshao culture, while the Lungshanoid cultures made some cultural contributions to North China. The peoples of the Lungshanoid cultures seemed to be among the ancestors of the Malayopolynesians (p. 3 7 ) . (4) It i s obvious that the new evidence i n Thailand i s extremely important i n the prehistory of Indochina but "they don't have to be made to bear —  ineffectively  —  upon the origin of distant China" (p. 3 7 ) • In his a r t i c l e  N i n Current Anthropology ( 1 9 7 3 ) » Chang also clearly points out thati "the Pan-p'o dates of North China (ZK-38, ZK-121, ZK1 2 7 ) and Tainan date of Taiwan ( S I - 1 2 2 9 ) show that by at least 4000 B.C. two ceramic cultures existed side by side i n North and Southeast China. Neither can be said to represent the i n i t i a l form of i t s ceramic tradition, and neither can at this time be seen as derivative of the other" ( 1 9 7 3 * 5 5 ) .  4  He also notes i n the same article "the possibility i s certainly strengthened that the Lungshanoid horizon f i r s t "began to form i n the Lower Yangtze Valley and i t s adjacent coastal areasj i n any event, the Miao-ti-kou II Culture has now further diminished i n stature as the ancestral culture of a l l other Lungshanoid cultures. ... As a horizon, the Lungshanoid could s t i l l have come about, on the foundation of prior culture i n the Lower Yangtze Valley (possibly a southern cord-marked pottery culture not dissimilar to the one represented by the Hsien-jen Cave remains i n Wan-nien, Kiangsi), as the result of a strong and stimulating cultural impact from the Yangshao Culture" (1973« 5 2 7 ) . In other words, i t i s quite obvious that an another "Nuclear Area" seems to have emerged i n Southeast China.  Mainland  Chinese archaeologists, i n spite of their own fixed ideology have stated that i t i s "notable" that the radiocarbon dates of the Neolithic Culture i n Southeast China are not later than those fdr the Chung-yuan (An 1 9 7 2 1 40, Wu  1973*  56-7).  This paper has been written primarily as a pilot study to test the traditional classification of Lungshanoid sites in this area by using cluster analysis and multidimensional scaling.  5  TABLE 1 Some Important Radiocarbon Dates from China  Sample  Archaeological Site  Associated Culture  B.C. (573014-0 half-life)  Yang-shao  4115*110  North China Zk-38  Pan-p'o (Shensi)  Zk-121  -  -  3955*105  ZK-122  -  -  3890+105  ZK-127  -  -  3635*105  -  3730*105  -  3535*105  ZK-134 ZK-76  Hou-kang (Honan) -  ZK-110  Miao-ti-kou (Honan)  -  3280*100  ZK-185  Ta-ho-ts'un (Honan)  -  3075*100  ZK-111  Miao-ti-kou (Honan) Wang-wan (Honan) Hou-kang (Honan)  ZK-126 ZK-133  Miao-ti-kou II 2 3 1 0 1 9 5 Lung-shan 2000*95 I960*90  Southeast China ZK-39  Hsien-jen Tung (Kiangsi) Lungshanoid(?) 8 9 2 0 * 2 4 0  ZK-90  Ta-tun-tzu (Kiangsu)  Ch ing-lien-kang3835*105  SI-1229  Kuei-jen (Taiwan)  Cord-marked  ZK-55  Sung-tse (Kiangsu)  Ch ing-lien-kang3395±105  ZK-49  Chtien-shan-yang (Chekiang) Liang-chu P'ao-ma-ling (Kiangsi) Lungshanoid Huang-chien-shu (Honan) Ch'u-chia-ling Ch'u-chia-ling (Hupei) -  ZK-51 ZK-91 ZK-124 ZK-125 ZK-242 ZK-98  -  ,  3639*60  ,  -  Chueh-mu-chiao (Chekiang) Liang-chu Tan-shih-shan (Fukien) Lungshanoid  2750+100 2335*95 2270+95 2195*100 22454160 1990+95 1140*90  Sample S I - 1 2 2 9 from Chang ( 1 9 7 3 p . 5 2 5 ) . and the rest of the samples selected from LIA (Laboratory of the Institute of Archaeology) 1 9 7 2 ( p . 5 6 - 5 8 ) , 1 9 7 4 ( p . 3 3 3 - 3 3 8 ) .  6  Chapter 2  The Lungshanoid Cultures  The great number of N e o l i t h i c s i t e s i n China which have been discovered i n the l a s t one or two decades have been c l a s s i f i e d i n t o several d i f f e r e n t l o c a l cultures, such as the Ta-wen-k»ou culture, the Ch'u-chia-ling culture, and the Ch'ing-lien-kang culture (KKYCS  1961).  A l l these cultures somehow share a s i m i l a r i t y to Lungshanl i k e s i t e s i n the north; that i s , they represent a mixed or t r a n s i t i o n a l culture between Yangshao and Lungshan. K.C. Chang (1959) terms the culture at these s i t e s Lungshanoid.  According to Chang  (19681  144), these Lung-  shanoid cultures are d i s t r i b u t e d i n approximately the same area as the Yangshao Culture and the C l a s s i c Lungshan Culture i n the north as well as along the southeast coast of China including Centralsand Southwest Taiwan.  As a  matter of f a c t , the name "Lungshanoid" i s the by-product of h i s e a r l i e r hypothesis of the rapid expansion of advanced v i l l a g e farmers from the North China Nuclear Area south-  7  eastward to new frontiers  (19681  130).  Despite some  revision of this hypothesis, the term i s s t i l l quite meaningful today. In order to further understand the term Lungshanoid, Yangshao and Lungshan culture must be discussed f i r s t . Yangshao, the earliest well-established cultural stage of Northern China, i s named after the site of Yang-shaots»un, i n Mien-chih Hsien, Western Honan which, i n 1 9 2 1 , was excavated by the Swedish geologist J.G. Andersson. The associated painted pottery has long been regarded as one of the very important diagnostic features of Yangshao culture.  The distribution of this culture extends from  Southern Shansi, Western Honan, and Central-Eastern Shensi to Eastern Kansu, Central Shansi, and Northern Honan (Chang  19681  88-89).  In 1928, seven years after the ex-  cavation of Yang-shao-ts*un,  the Lungshan culture was dis-  covered by Wu Chin-ting at Ch*eng-tzu-yai, near the town of Lung-shan i n the heart of Shantung province. Its thin, hard, lustrous black pottery was dramatically different from the painted red sherds at Yang-shao-ts^un.  Only seve-  r a l years after the excavation at Ch^eng-tzu-yai i n 1 9 3 1 » the Black Pottery culture (Lungshan) was found to have a  8  distribution not only i n Eastern Honan and Shantung, but also i n the area along the Pacific coast from Pohai Bay to Hang-chow Bay i n Northern Chekiang (Chang 19681 122-124). Since the i n i t i a l discovery of these two different cultures, the interrelationship between the two of them has been energetically discussed. Chinese archaeologists during the  General 1930 s t  speaking,  regarded the  Painted Pottery culture (Yangshao) of western Honan, Shansi, Shensi, and Kansu, and the Black Pottery culture (Lungshan) of Eastern Honan and Shantung, as a pair of opposing but parallel cultures of the late Neolithic period immediately preceding the rise of Shang c i v i l i z a t i o n (Chang  19681  124,  1969*  3-4).  However, this -Two  Culture"  framework faced a dilemma when Lungshan-like gray pottery was discovered i n the Weishui Valley of Shensi i n  1943»  In attempting to resolve this problem, the discoverer of Lungshan-like cultures, Prof. Shih Chang-ju, added a third culture —  Gray Pottery Culture —  to the Chinese  Neolithic Cultures i n his subsequent publication (Shih 1952:  65-75),  Mizuno Seiichi  On the other hand, two Japanese scholars, (1956)  and Sekino Takashi  (1956),  were the  f i r s t to suggest that i t was quite possible for the black pottery of the Lungshan culture to have developed from  9  the painted pottery of the Yangshao cultures.  In other  words, they would rather believe that these two cultures belonged to one single culture of two different time periods than contemporary cultures i n two different geographical areas.  Nevertheless, both of them s t i l l accepted  Prof. Shih's Gray Pottery Culture as a separate entity. Finally, i n 1 9 6 1 the authors of Hsin Chung-kuo t i K'ao Ku Shou Huo (The Archaeology of New China) stated that new discoveries i n the last decade had forced a change i n viewpoint* the hypothesis that the Lungshan cultures of the Chung-yuan were developed out of the Yang-shao culture had been generally accepted by archaeologists? no longer were they regarded as cultures of different origins (pp. 20-21).  K.C. Chang expanded on this hypothesis.  Having  carefully studied many aspects of Yang-shao and Lungshan culture such as settlement patterns, cultivation patterns, principal domestic animals, pottery techniques, burials, community patterns, art, cult and ceremonial practices, Chang formulated his "Lungshanoid" hypothesis which could contend with the problem of mixed cultures (or Lungshanl i k e cultures).  He viewed Lungshanoid cultures as the  results of expansion of advanced village farmers from the North China Nuclear Area to new frontiers.  To him,  10  Yangshao cultures represented the establishment stage of v i l l a g e farming and the Lungshan cultures represented the formation stage of l o c a l cultures 1969*  (1968*  128-131,  9-11).  A l l these Lungshanoid cultures have polished stone implements that include rectangular adzes, perforated knives, and s i c k l e s .  The pottery at a l l these s i t e s  i s a mixture of red, gray and black wares, and i n decoration there i s a mixture of impressed, and painted patterns.  incised,  The pottery shapes, although  d i f f e r e n t i n d e t a i l , share several basic forms 1 t i n g tripods with s o l i d legs; tou with cut-out r i n g feet; kui-type j a r s , and the wide occurrence of l i d s ( F i g . 1 ) (Chang  1968t  128-129)*  145-146).  Also according to Chang  (19681  there were 15 items i n Lungshanoid cultures  very d i f f e r e n t from t y p i c a l Yang-shao c u l t u r a l elements* ( 1 ) permanent settlement; r e l a t i v e l y permanent occupation; ( 2 ) probable i r r i g a t i o n , use of f e r t i l i z e r and a fallow f i e l d system; ( 3 ) c a t t l e and sheep i n sharply increased number i n addition to pigs and dogs; (4) far-reaching expansions into the eastern p l a i n s , Manchuria, Central and South China, i n d i c a t i n g population pressure from  11  permanent settlement and greater productivity (?) ( 5 ) emergence of many regional styles;  ( 6 ) more asymme-  t r i c a l edges than symmetrical; more rectangular cross sections i n d i c a t i n g extensive use of carpenters* tools (adzes, c h i s e l s , a n t l e r wedges);  (7) semilunar and double-holed,  or sickle-shaped stone knives and s h e l l s i c k l e s , a f i n d ing which indicates more extensive use of havesting tools; ( 8 ) beginning of wheel-made pottery i n d i c a t i v e of i n t e n s i fied craft specialization;  (9) scapulimancy which indicates  i n t e n s i f i e d occupational s p e c i a l i z a t i o n ;  ( 1 0 ) appearance  of "hang-^u" v i l l a g e walls and weapons indicating^ a neces s i t y f o r f o r t i f i c a t i o n and means f o r offensive action; (ll)growing number of otherwise d i f f e r e n t i a t e d burials,which possibly indicates more r i g i d l y constituted classes, ( 1 2 ) concentration of jade a r t i f a c t s at i s o l a t e d spots i n one s i t e i n d i c a t i n g more intensive statusJ d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , (13) a r t not conspicuously associated with domestic possible association with theocratic c r a f t s ( ? )  crafts;  (14) ceremo-  n i a l wares (eggshell forms and f i n e , well-made cups, f r u i t stands and shallow dishes),  ( 1 5 ) evidence of an i n s t i -  t u t i o n a l i z e d ancestor c u l t ;  ceremonials f a r beyond the  merely a g r i c u l t u r a l type, possibly associated with s p e c i a l ized groups of people.  12  A great number of Lungshanoid sites have been found and excavated i n the last two decades and also generally been classified into several cultures with local names, such as the Ch*u-chia-ling culture, the Liang-chu culture, the T'an-shih-shan culture, the Ta-wen-k'ou culture and the Ch ing-lien-kang culture. ,  Since the number of sites  classified into the Ch'ing-lien^kang culture i s so great —  i n Kiangsu province alone there are more than 6 5 sites  —  and as the study has been so intensive, Wu Shan-ching,  a Chinese scholar i n mainland, recently has suggested that the Ch'ing-lien-kang culture should be subdivided into a Chiang-pei (northern bank of Yang-tzu River) type and a Chiang-nan (southern bank of Yang-tzu River) type (Fig.2,3). He also suggested that the Chiang-pei type can be classified into four stages, the earliest being Ch'ing-lien-kang, followed by L i u - l i n , Hua-t*ing, and Upper Ta-wen-k»ou. The Chiang-nan type can be divided into three stages, namely, Ma-chia-pin, Pei-yin-yan-ying and Sung-tse (Wu 1973* 45-55).  13  Liang-chu Culture Pig. 1  Artifacts of the Ch*u-chia-ling Culture, the Ch'ing-lien-kang Culture and the Liang-chu Culture, ( a l l from Hsin Chungkuo t i k»ao-ku Shou-huo, 1 9 6 l , p. 2 9 ) .  i  Fig. 2  Stages of Artifacts (Chiang-nan type), (From Wu 1973* 5 0 ) .  Fig. 3  Stages o f A r t i f a c t s (From Wu 1973* 50).  (Chiang-pei type).  M  16  Chapter 3  The Difficulty of Classification  The position of classification i n the study of archaeology has i t s undeniable importance, since archaeologists cannot avoid the step of classification whenever they deal with archaeological studies at any level.  As a matter of fact, archaeology has been treated  more as a discipline of science during the past decade. No archaeologist i s pleased to be described as an "old archaeologists" who treats archaeology as art.  In addition,  R.C. Dunnell argues that "Classification i s the systematic foundation of science"  (1971»  87).  Thus, the importance  of classification i n archaeology i s very obvious. However, no classificatory system i s without some inherent shortcomings.  F i r s t of a l l , the meaning of the  term "classification" has not always been clearly defined when used by archaeologists. (1971:  44),  According to R.C. Dunnell  classification i s only a kind of arrangement  which archaeologists usually treat as "classification",  17  and the other kind of arrangement i s grouping (Fig. 4 ) .  ARRANGEMENT descriptive  definitive  GROUPING  IDENTIFICATION  GROUPS  GROUPS  CLASSIFICATION CLASSES  MATCHED WITH CLASSES historical  ahistorical  I 1 STATISTICAL NUMERICAL CLUSTERS  TAXONOMY  internal  external  KEYS  I TAXONOMY  non-dimensional  1 PARADIGMS  dimensional  Figure 4. Kinds of arrangement. (From Dunnell 1 9 7 1 « 4 4 ) .  Dunnell*s definitions for the&e&tertaslis/i;"Classification w i l l "be restricted to arrangement i n the ideational realm and defined as the creation of units of meaning by stipulating redundancies (classes). Grouping will be used to denote arrangement i n the phenomenological realm and defined as the creation of units of things (groups). Grouping and classification are articulated with one another  18  by means of identification, the process of using classes to assign phenomena to groups, essentially matching a system of classes with a body of phenomena to create groups which are analogous to classes" (1971* 4 4 ) .  The reason Dunnell states for making such a distinction i s also clear. He writes* "In the course of day to day l i v i n g , a distinction between classes and groups i s not necessary, for no new information i s being conveyed within a singly cultural system and evaluation i s not overtly conducted; however, for the purposes of scientific inquiry and the evaluation of i t s results, i t i s necessary to make such a distinction. Without i t evaluation i s impossible. The lack of such a distinction i n much of the archaeological literature has created a ;great deal of the confusion i n evidence and represents the transfer of a commonsense approach to scientific inquiry" ( 1 9 7 1 * 4 4 - 4 5 ) . To bridge the gap between the "old archaeologists" and the "new archaeologists" and to encourage archaeologists to be more explicit, Dunnell has very deliberately defined most of the terminology used i n archaeology so that archaeologists can communicate efficiently.  Besides  clarifying the terminology from time to time throughout his book, he also points out the limitations and charac-  19  t e r i s t i c s of each different classification.  Only when  classificatory problems are f u l l y resolved, w i l l archaeology be able to reach the realm of science. Nevertheless, the reason for this d i f f i c u l t y i n classification (or arrangement) i s also that archaeologists are easily led into subjectivity when making decisions on classification. problem.  Most archaeologists are aware of the  A.C. Spaulding s "Statistical Techniques for 1  the Discovery of Artifact Types" clearly illustrates this point.  In this a r t i c l e , he states that i f artifact  types really do exist, then they can be discovered by s t a t i s t i c a l methods  (1953*  305).  In order to gain some knowledge of the use of c l a s s i fication i n Chinese archaeology, I have selected a number of examples dealing with both artifacts and larger cultural units.  L i Chi^s Hsiao-t*un. vol. I l l , Fascicle I, part I,  was the f i r s t work done.  In this work, the author tried  to use !a consistent format for organizing the material from one site. The primary scheme used by L i Chi  (1956* 36-37)  in  his classification of pottery vessels from Hsiao-Vun i s as followsi  20  1 . The ceramics were coded using a three digit number. The shape of the bottom portion i s described by the f i r s t digit.  Vessels with pointed or rounded bottoms  are set i n the categories with the ordinal number from 000  to  099t  vessels with f l a t bottoms i n that of  100  and 199» "the vessels with ringfeet with the ordinals between 2 0 0 and 2 9 9 , the vessels with tripods with the ordinals between  300  and  399»  the vessels with four legs  with the ordinals between 4 0 0 and 4 9 9 , "the covers of the vessels with the ordinals between 9 0 0 and 9 9 9 . 2. According to the shape of the highest part of the vessels within the categories divided above, the value of 1 - 9 9 (the second and third digit) i s set out under the following orderi the vessels with bigger mouth and shallower depth are given a smaller value while those with smaller mouth and deeper body are given a larger value; i n the meantime the angle of wall and bottom, and the construction of vessel*s l i p are also divided by several detailed criteria* the outward flaring rim i s given a smaller value, while the inward curving rim i s given a higher value. It i s obvious that L i Chi has set very firm and objective c r i t e r i a to classify and seriate the pottery vessels.  21  Dr. L i (1956J 37) comments concerning the illustrations of the pottery vessels which are arranged under the rules described above that "perhaps some of those extremely similar i n shape are divided into two different groups but some of those quite different i n shape are grouped into one cluster". For example, both forms of pottery of 5P and 1 5 N , which are similar i n shape are divided into 005 and 015 groups (Fig. 5 ) (Li 1956t Corpus of Yin-hsu  Pottery I ) , the same situation of 16G and 46D are also divided into 016 and 046 groups (Fig. 5»6) (Corpus of Yin-hsu Pottery I and II); while 107P and 107E or 107M quite different i n shape are grouped into the 107 cluster (Fig. 7 ) (Corpus of Yin-hsu Pottery III), 279F and 279K  into the 279 cluster (Fig. 8) (Corpus of Yin-hsu Pottery XI), 295D and 295G into the 295 group (Fig. 9 ) (Corpus of Yin-hsu Pottery XII), 309E and 309P or 309K or 309G into  the 309 cluster (Fig. 10) (Corpus of Yin-hsu Pottery XIII), and so on.  Nonetheless, K.C. Chang comments that L i Chi*s  work i s "too Scientific" (Chang  1957).  It i s true, since  the c r i t e r i a he uses ?are without much cultural significance, his classification of Hsiao-Vun Pottery i s too close to natural science to be useful to a social science.  Fig. 5  Examples of Typological Grouping from Hsiao-Vun. 5P and 15N are placed i n separate categories (From L i , C. 1956)  ^  Fig. 6  Examples of Typological Grouping from Hsiao-Vun. l6G (see F i g . 5 ) and 46D are placed i n separate categories (From L i , C. 1956).  *f  rOTA  Fig. 7  IK  1078  1K  6  l0B  Examples of Typological Grouping from Hsiao-t/'un. 107P and 1 0 7 E or 107M are placed i n one category (From L i , C. 1956).  *•  n+uryst  HPKMIOOI  Fig. 8  BUM-*  YH358  Examples of Typological Grouping from Hsiao-t'un. 279F  and 279K are placed i n one category (From L i ,  1956).  C.  ^  *C«  St4  2878  fc  6  29K I  ft  29 W I  fc<4>  HPKM 3 I80 Fig. 9  Examples of Typological Grouping from Hsiao-t'un. 295D and 295G are placed i n one category (From L i , C. 1956).  294E '  27  •  O W) CD  +>  d  O  m  +» 1 O  cd  CD  a  o  c •H w -d B CD o o u  •H CO  a  rH ft  •1 •pi  CD  t.  P.  o u  o  •H  OS  o as. ON  bD O  O H O O.  >»  u O  EH At  <M  ON O CN  t(1o>  •CJ  o  g  g i  rH ft  S CO  § o X M cn ON  o H  t»0  •H  • NO UN ON  iH •  o  at  •H Hi O  '  28  On the other hand, two years before Dr. Li*s publication, Prof. Sung Wen-hsun's early work i n the c l a s s i fication of the stone implements from the Yuan-shan shell mound was somewhat successful i n overcoming the d e f i c i encies noted above. The stone implements of the Yuan-shan shell mound which he classified were the specimens i n the Dept. of Archaeology and Anthropology, National Taiwan University, collected before 1 9 5 0 but without any s t r a t i graphic control.  This collection from the Yuan-shan shell  mound i s the largest one i n Taiwan.  The whole frame of  his deliberated hierarchical classification or taxonomy is as follows (Sung  1954-55)»  I. Edged stone tool 1 . End-edged tool A. Large thin shovel-shape tool a. Large polished shovel b. Large polished shovel with neck c. Large chipped shovel d. Large horned shovel B. Large f l a t axe-shape tool and hoe-shape tool a. Large convex hoe b. Large spoon-shape hoe c. Large f l a t hoe with neck  29  C. Various large adze-shape tools a. Large polished adze b. Large chipped adze c. Large columnar adze D. Medium and small axe-shape, shovel-shape, hoe-shape tool a. Polished stone shovel with neck b. Partly polished stone hoe with neck c. Chipped stone axe d. Rough polished columnar stone axe e. Small rough polished shovel f. Small polished axe E. Medium and small adze and chisel a. Columnar adze b. Columnar chisel c. Plat chisel d. Thin chisel e. Chipped columnar chisel f. Resharpened chisels F. Stepped celta. Stepped columnar adze b. Stepped columnar chisel c. Stepped f l a t chisel G. Shouldered celt  30  2. Lateral-edged tool a. Shouldered lateral-edged tool b. Irregular shape lateral-edged tool 3. Double-edged itool a. Double-edged sounding stone 4. All-edged tool A. Spearhead B. Arrowhead a. Stone arrowhead with f l a t bottom. b. Stone arrowhead with concave and perforated bottom c. Stone arrowhead with f l a t and perforated bottom d. Stone arrowhead with convex and perforated bottom C. Razor shape all-edged tool II. Stone implement without edge 1. Hammer-shaped tool 2. Ball-shaped tool 3. Sinker 4. Lid-shaped tool 5. Tools of no definite shape 6. Other a. Perforated slender tool b. Rectangular columnar tool c. Quadrilateral f l a t tool d. Rectangular thin tool  31 It i s obvious that his hierachy was built with "function" and shape, such as the presence or absence of the utilized edge and i t s varying position, as the prime c r i t e r i a . Consequently, his classification with functional, or "use" c r i t e r i a was more strongly connected to human activity than that of Dr. Li's work.  Prof. Sung did not take  the next step of many current archaeologists, namely grouping the artifacts into tool kits or activity sets. The artifaotural classifications which we have discussed so far are based on a few c r i t e r i a such as vessel shape, position of cutting edges, or size. These are "dimensions" i n Dunnell*s terminology (1971*71)» It i s not very satisfactory to use this Jype of c l a s s i f i cation for larger units such as cultural phases of culturetypes.  The classification of the Lungshanoid cultures  for instance, i s not the same sort of thing as the classfication of stone implements of pottery vessels. It should be more complex since various aspects are involved,in the concept of culture.  During the last two or three decades,  these problems have very rarely been discussed.  Quite  often, the newly excavated sites have been classified into already established local Lungshanoid cultures.  32  To determine the concept of culture and to determine the methodology used i n the classificatory systems proposed for these Lungshanoid cultures are two of my original research goals. The methodology used i n the traditional c l a s s i f i c a tions of Lungshanoid sites has never been clearly discussed as yet.  It appears that there are no unquestionable  or specific c r i t e r i a to check how each site f i t s into the general classification; sites are viewed only i n a very general way during the process of classification. Different cultures were named after the original sites i n the various regions of South China.  Consequently,  the sites geographically close to each other were easily classified into the same group or culture phase.  Although  they perhaps w i l l deny that they have been overly arbitrary i n their decision-making, the archaeologists responsible for this classification have used a rather high degree of subjectivity.  Not only the Ta-wen-k^u culture, the  Ch*u-chia-ling culture, the Ch'ing-lien-kang culture are so treated, but also the most recent classification of the Gb^ing-lien-kang culture into Chiang-pei, Chiang-nan and their various stages was done with unclear:,criteria or methodology (Wu  1973)•  In other words, although the  33  process of classification employed here looks like that of the Midwestern taxonomic method developed by W.C. Mckern (1939)* the diagnostic t r a i t s used i n this particular Lungshanoid classification are fairJ^Qbsisure. For instances, basket weaving implements, wooden oars, wooden pestles and mortars, and a high percentage of black ware seem to be regarded as the diagnostic traits for the Liang-chu culture, while eggshell painted pottery and spindle whorls of painted pottery seem to serve as the diagnostic traits for the Ch'u-chia-ling culture. But most of the time the vague phrase "from the point of view of the cultural characteristic" ( t i t widely employed.  JnUfi  ftttyis  However, the basic concepts of culture  underlying these classifications seemingly are the total traits of the artifacts.  In other words, they use a nor-  mative approach and treat culture as a body of shared ideas, values and beliefs — the "norms" of a human group as i n Flannery's description of culture history.  This i s one  of the differing views of culture summarized by Flannery (1967: 1 0 3 ) .  Since the time that culture was defined as man's extrasomatic adaptation to his total sociological and  34  ecological environment (White 1959* 15) i the necessity of a d i f f e r e n t kind of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n has become more urgent.  Because a r t i f a c t s are considered to be the  product of human a c t i v i t i e s , only a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n which r e f l e c t s the use of a r t i f a c t s and the pattern of human behavior behind t h e i r manufacture i s meaningful.  In  other words, an ideal c l a s s i f i c a t i o n should be neither too subjective nor too objective to r e f l e c t the a r t i f a c t s * c u l t u r a l or s o c i a l meaning.  Since i t should deal with  the objects i n c u l t u r a l terms, c l u s t e r analysis seems genuinely h e l p f u l i n attempting to a t t a i n t h i s aim of classification.  The main reason f o r t h i s l i e s i n the fact  that the process of c l u s t e r analysis involves two fundamental stepsi subjectively s e l e c t i n g out as many as possible of the features which have c u l t u r a l s i g n i f i c a n c e i n many aspects of culture, and objectively viewing the features with equal weighting during the process of s t a t i s t i c computing.  35  Chapter 4 General Idea of Cluster Analysis and Multidimensional  Scaling  Cluster analysis i s a kind of s t a t i s t i c a l clustering. According to R.C. .Bunnell's  (1971«  95)  classification, i t  belongs to the category of non-elassificatory arrangement (Fig. 4 ) . Cluster analysis i s also a kind of hierachical grouping technique.  This techniqueswas f i r s t developed  in biological taxonomy by Robert R. Sokal and Peter H. A. Sneath  (1963).  Basically they tried to use numeric values  to describe the characters and then to/ calculate a taxonomic distance between organisms.  Not long after this idea deve-  loped i n biology, i t was borrowed by archaeologists to analyse their numerous data.  With the help of computers,  many archaeologists, such as Matson and True or Binford  (1966)  and H i l l  (1970)  (1970,  1974),  have successfully used  this technique to attempt to illuminate some d i f f i c u l t aspects of archaeology — behavior, for instance.  the social structure and human No wonder Michael R. Anderberg  stated that "Cluster Analysis may be used to reveal  36  structure and relations i n the data. discovery"  (1973*  4).  According to Sokal and Sneath Anderberg  (1973*  It i s a tool of  11)*  (1963* 1 2 0 ) ,  and  M.R.  "data units" are the logical  fundamental units i n a large majority of individual organisms and can be looked at i n terms of "subject", "observation",  "case", "element", "object", or "event".  Consequently, i n archaeological applications, stone a r t i facts, pottery type, design element, or even the archaeological site can frequently be used as data units or OTU (operational taxonomic units). The other basic term i n the use of cluster analysis i s "variable".  The  distance  of the difference or the degree of the resemblance among the data units must be consistently described i n terms of their characteristics, attributes, class memberships, t r a i t s , and other such properties. descriptors are called "variables".  Collectively, these The resemblance of  data units completely depends on the values of a l l the variables.  One very important and basic axiom i n this  technique of analysis i s that every character i s treated as having equal weight.  (variable)  Thus, i t i s possible  to describe the data unit by calculating the value of the  37  presence and the absence of each variable i n that unit. According to the coded value of the presence and absence of each variable i n every single data unit, we can decide the degree of resemblance of any pair of data units. The degree of resemblance of any pair of data units can be described by a concrete figure — fficient.  a similarity coe-  According to Sokal and Sneath (1963* 129-130),  and Anderberg (1973* 89), there are many formulas to calculate different similarity coefficients. After figuring out the similarity coefficients, not only are we able to do cluster analysis with them, but one can also do multidimensional scaling using these figures.  The value of  these coefficients i s always between 0.0 and 1.0. The higher the value of the similarity coefficients the more resemblance between the pair of data units.  In addition  to the similarity coefficient, the degree of the resemblance among the data units also can be described by the distance of the difference among the data units.  The distance of  the difference of data units i s calculated by the formula of 1.0-coefficient.  Accordingly, the lower the value of  the distance the higher the degree of the resemblance among data units.  38  After the correlation coefficients are figured out, the next step i s to group a l l the data units into clusters depending on these coefficients or distances. This step i s also open to many methods. There are single linkage (nearest neighbor), complete linkage (farthest neighbor), simple average, group average (unweighted pair group), Lance-Williams flexible, and Ward's method (Matson and True  l»9?4i  55-61).  However, not a l l of them are commonly  used i n the f i e l d of archaeology. characteristics.  Each method has different  Whatever method i s going to be used,  a half matrix of coefficients or distance should be prepared first.  The f i r s t linkage of any method should be the  smallest distance or the highest coefficient.  Then the  nearest neighbor should be chosen to make a new half matrix, i f the single linkage method i s used; while the farthest neighbor should be chosen i n cases of complete linkage.  The main procedure i s to use these two methods  alternately until a l l data units are linked together. The average method differs from the above only i n using the average instead of the nearest or farthest neighbor. After the points of linkage are chosen, a dendrogram for these linkage clusters can be drawn on the basis of these linkage points.  39  On the other hand, basing the analysis on a matrix of correlation coefficients, the distance between two points (data units) also can be scaled i n several dimensions.  The distances among data units can be easily  expounded on a pair of coordinates (two dimensions).  But,  when there are more than 3 characters (variables), the scaling of the distance Ibetween two data units becomes more and more complicated.  In Euclidean hyperspace, the  distance between two points (i.e. data units) i s determined by a l l their dimensions (i.e. characters). Thus, the distance between 2 points i n four dimensional space i s defined as dJ=(W -W^)+(X -X^)%(Y -Y^)+(Z^-Z^j . L  v  i  1  In an  n-space, a hyperspace of n dimensions, therefore, the maximum  distance w i l l be n (based on characters with maximal  values of unity).  These multidimensional distances are  scaled independently by each pair of dimensions.  Sometimes  the distribution of data units i n each separate configuration based on two dimensions i s helpful i n interpreting certain phenomena i n archaeology. Neither similarity coefficients nor multidimensional scaling can be calculated by hand efficiently.  Fortunately,  nowadays the well-developed computer can execute these complicated processes i n a few seconds.  40  Chapter 5 The Use of Cluster Analysis and Multidimensional Scaling  The use of these techniques i n Chinese archaeology has not teen attempted "before.  I believe these methods  contribute a more objective but s t i l l , c u l t u r a l l y s i g n i f i cant approach to the procedure of classification.  From  the general description of these techniques above, i t i s quite obvious that the variables (or features) are probably the most important links i n the process of analysis, because the resemblance of data units completely depends on the values of the variables, the cluster of data units also depends on the value of the a l l of the variables i n each data unit.  Thus, the choice of variables to test the  resemblance and to make the cluster i s the crucial factor. This procedure of choosing variables i s , i n my opinion, the concrete expression of the values of social science, since we have to make a somewhat subjective decision i n selecting variables which have cultural and/or social meaning.  After choosing the variables, a l l the remaining  41  procedures are completely objective and fixed within the realm of natural science. A pilot study of these techniques i n Chinese archaeology on 19 Lungshanoid sites chosen for their relative importance i s presented here (Pig. 1 1 ) . These sites and their traditional classification are l i s t e d below (KKYCS 1961,  K.C. Chang  1968,  Wu  1973*  I. The Ch^u-chia-ling Culture1 No. 1 3 (Ch'u-chia-ling) No. 14 (Shih-chia-ho) II. The Liang-chu Culture* No. 1 0  (Ch'ien-shan-yang)  No. 11 (Shui-t'ien-pan) No. 1 2 (Liang-chu) No. 1 8 (Lao-ho-shan) III. The T'an-shih-shan Culturet No. 1 6 (T'an-shih-shan) IV. The Ta-wen-k*ou Culture* No. 1 5 (Ta-wen-k'ou) No. 1 7 (Kang-shang-ts'un) V. The Ch'ing-lien-kang Culture* Va. Chiang-pei type  45-61).  4-2  Fig. 1 1 Location of 1 9 Lungshanoid Sites I t Erh-chien-ts'un 2, Tai-kang-shih 3$ Ch'ing-lien-kang 4, Ta-tun-tzu 5, L i u - l i n 6, Hua-ting 7, Ma-chia-pin 8, Pei-yin-yan-ying 9» Sung-tse 1 0 , Ch'ien-shan-yang 1 1 , Shui-t»ien-pan 1 2 , Liang-chu 1 3 , Ch'u-chia-ling 14, Shih-chia-ho 1 5 , Ta-wen-k*ou 1 6 , T'an-shih-shan 1 7 , Kang-shang-ts»un 18, Lao-ho-shan 1 9 , Feng-pi-t'ou  43  No. 1 , (Erh-chien-ts^n) No. 3» (Ch'ing-lien-kang) No. 4, (Ta-tun-tzu) No. 5 . (Liu-lin) No. 6, (Hua-t»ing) Vb. Chiang-nan type No. 2, (Tai-kang-shih) No. 7 , (Ma-chia-pin) No. 8, (Pei-yin-yan-ying) No. 9 t (Sung-tse) VI. The Feng-pi-t'ou site (Site No. 1 9 ) . The study was carried out i n the following manner. Eighty characters were, selected for the 1 9 selected sites which are scattered throughout Southeast China.  These  characters vwere scored as; .present or /absent for each archaeological site.  The characters are mainly pottery  and l i t h i c traits; no f l o r a l , faunal, or locational data were used.  The main reason for this i s that the degree  of description i n each individual site report i s different. Some of them are too detailed for our purposes while others are too general. However, by using 80 characters, I f e l t that the sample would be sufficiently large to minimize any distortion of site relationships that might  44  follow from including possibly interdependent characters (Appendix B). The use of a combined program written by R.G. Matson, Dept. of Anthropology and Sociology, the University of British Columbia, (for the main program), J.J. Wood, Dept. of Anthropology, Northern Arizona University,  (for the sub-  routine of hierachical grouping), and R.J. Sampson, (for the subroutine to print dendrogram), permits the quick and accurate calculation of Jaccard's coefficient of distance among each pair of sites and the efficient grouping of similarity.  The results of the cluster analysis (simple  average) appear i n the form of a dendrogram (Fig. 1 2 ) . "There i s no necessary implication of •genetic* relationship i n the dendrogram; i t should be interpreted merely as an indicator of taxonomic distance, not as a family tree" (Matson & True  1970i  1202).  The dendrogram exhibits  the following patterns* (cluster I) sites 14, 1 3 ; (cluster II) sites 18, 1 2 , 1 1 , 1 0 ; (cluster III) site 1 6 ; (cluster IV) sites 1 7 , 1 5 ; (cluster V) sites 6, 5 , 4; (cluster VI) sites 1 9 , 8, 9 t 7, 2; and (cluster VII) sites 3 and 1 . Cluster I, II, III and IV show exactly the same results as that of traditional classifications. In other words,  45  VA  o  CA NO  o CA  oo  VA CA  VA  O 00 CO  VA O  •4O  o  CA ON CA  o•  o  ^-  o\  VA CM  VA VA  00  CA  CM  • O  o  •  o  O•  VII  ON CM O CM  ^* VA  o  O  •  VA  •  ON IN. O iH  O  •  1 3  VI  7 9 8 19 4 5 6 15  IV  17 16  -Hi-  10 11  ll  12 18 13 14  Pig. 12  Dendrogram of simple average linkage cluster analysis on a matrix of Jaccard s distances. ,  46  cluster I f i t s into the Ch'u-chia-ling culture, cluster II f i t s into the Liang-chu culture, cluster III f i t s into the T»an-shih-shan culture and cluster IV f i t s into the Ta-wen-k*ou culture.  Nevertheless, the traditional Chiang-  pei type of the Ch^ing-lien-kang culture i s shared "by cluster V and VII i n the dendrogram of the cluster analysis.  On  the other hand, the Feng-pi-t»ou site i n Southeast Taiwan and the traditional Chiang-nan type of the Ch'ing-lien-kang culture are ^grouped into a single cluster (VI). The multidimensional scaling of these sites has also been carried out.  This complicated process also depends  on the manipulation of a computer.  The computer program  written for these multidimensional scalings i s based on Torgerson's method  (1952, 1958).  "£»  ••  .r.aliai^u®, a  "In this technique, a matrix of the products of the distance from the centroid or origin of the configuration i s calculated from a distance matrix. This product matrix then canlbe solved for the eigenvectors. The resulting factor matrix i s the solution configuration, with the f i r s t factor being the most important axis, the second the next most important, and so on" (Matson & True 1 9 7 4 : 6 4 ) . The solution configurations do not quite f i t the traditional classification.  The percentage of trace of the f i r s t 4  47  factors (4 dimensions) are as follows* 10.94$,  8.94$, (Fig. 13, 14).  22.63$, 17.33$,  Figure 13 i s a plot of  the configuration on the most important vectors ( f i r s t and second dimensions).  It seems that the patterning of  the sites on these two vectors agree with the clusters represented by the dendrogram. The vertical dimension, i n particular, (vector 1) can be seen as a shift i n pottery character and variation of implements.  It i s  quite clear that cluster II (sites 10, 11, 12, 18), i n which the pottery i s predominantly black ware and various kinds of impression or incision, i s distributed i n the top of the configuration.  Cluster V (sites 4, 5 , 6 ) ,  on the other hand, i n which the pottery character i s dominated by red ware appears at the bottom of the configuration.  In^addition, cluster II i s rich i n wooden  implements but lacks bone implements; cluster V i s completely the reverse.  Although the Cl4 date of  3835  B.C.  (LIA 1974* 3 3 4 ) for point 4 (Ta-tun-tsu site) i s the earliest date among a l l the Lungshanoid sites, i t seems indefensible to interpret Vector 1 as the temporal dimension since point 1 6 (the T'an-shih-shan site) i s dated 1140 B.C.  (LIA  1974(5)* 3 3 7 )  and point 10 (Ch»ien-shan-  yang site) i s dated to 2750 100 B.C.  (LIA  1972(5)*  57).  48  •12  •  18  10  .11  >14  •  13  u  o  #19  * 8 *2  +1 *7 AL5  * 4  W5  cluster VII  +  cluster VI  *  « Yectorj cluster Plot of site distributions duster obtained by multidimensional scaling (Vectors 1 and 2 ) . cluster cluster y  Pig. 1 3  c l u s t e r  V Vi IV * * II © I ©  1 1 1  49  •18  ©11 tf6  +L •12  A15  *|4  u  o +> o  M5 ?  *2  +3  *9  #8 *19  o  10  013  A17 <?L4 cluster cluster cluster cluster cluster cluster cluster  VII VI V IV III II I  + ^  % 6  A  & o ©  Vector 3 Fig. 14  Plot of site distributions obtained by multidimensional scaling (Vector 3 and 4).  50  The i s o l a t i o n of s i t e 16 i n the dendrogram i s shown when plotted on vector 3 and 4 i n Figure 14.  51  Chapter 6  Discussion  What do the clusters presented here mean? they are the result of the research method —  No doubt  they may  provide a new classification or R.C. Dunnell*s  (1971*  87-  1 1 0 ) non-classificatory arrangement of the Lungshanoid sites.  Thus, the seven clusters can stand for seven new  categories of the 1 9 Lungshanoid sites.  Since both the  method and the results of this classification are different from those of the previous studies, some additional comments w i l l be made. The different methods of classification have been discussed above, thus the discussion here should emphasize the results of cluster analysis including i t s similarities and differences with traditional classification.  Cluster  I, II, III and IV f i t into the Ch'u-chia-ling culture, the Liang-chu culture, the T'an-shih-shan culture and the Tawen-lc'ou culture.  This means that traditional c l a s s i f i -  cation of those sites i s maintained i n the cluster analysis  52  and vice versa.  Although the remaining clusters are  different from the traditional ones, they s t i l l reveal some degree of similarity to traditional classification. However, there must be some importance to the fact that the Feng-pi-t»ou site i s put into the same cluster with the traditional Chiang-nan type of the Chfing-lien-kang culture and the traditional Chiang-pei type of Ch ing-lien,  kang culture i s divided into two clusters.  The position  of Feng-pi-t*ou and the Chiang-nan types of the Ch'inglien-kang culture i n the same cluster has at least two possible explanationsi  (1) The similarity i n their cultural  traits was ignored because of the geographical distance and p o l i t i c a l isolation of Chinese archaeologists mainland and i n Taiwan.  on the  (2) Some mistakes may be present  i n the process of the cluster analysis carried out here, probably i n the original selection of attributes. The reasons for the traditional Chiang-pei type of the Cl^inglien-kang culture being divided into two clusters can also be interpreted i n two ways* (1) The difference or distance of cluster VII and cluster V i n cultural traits really exists.  (2) Some mistakes have been made during the process  of doing the cluster analysis, probably i n attribute selection.  However, because of the close f i t of clusters  53  I, II, III, and IV with those of the traditional c l a s s i f i cation, the selection of attributes appears to have substantial validity. As a matter of fact, the meaning of the clusters can be further discussed with additional implications. following questions can be asked«  The  Do the clusters stand  for different time periods, different peoples, different languages, different races, or even different technologies? Some of these alternatives are quite obvious, while some are not.  After the publication of C14 dates i n 1 9 7 2 and  1 9 7 4 , the different and/or somewhat overlapping time periods of the clusters i n the Lungshanoid horizon were made clear. Since the T'an-shih-shan site i s dated at 1140+90 B.C. (LIA  1974),  cluster III should be considered the latest  of those clusters presented i n this paper with C14 dates. The earliest clusters should be cluster V and VI, because the Ta-tun-tzu site of cluster V i s dated to 3 8 3 5 * 1 0 5 B.C. (LIA 1 9 7 4 ) and the Sung-tse site of cluster VI i s dated to  3395*105  B.C. (LIA 1 9 7 2 ) .  Cluster II, i n which the rice  husks of Ch'ien-shan-yang site are dated to 2750±100 B.C. (LIA  1972),  should be considered later than cluster V and  VI but earlier than cluster I and III (Table 2 ) .  54  TABLE  2  The Grouping Clusters With Some CI 4 Dates B.C.(5730*40  half-life  Cluster  No. of Site  Name of Site  I  13 14  Ch'u-chia-ling Shih-chia-ho  2195*100  II  10  2750*100  18  Ch•i en-shan-yang Shui-1•i en-pan Liang-chu Lao-ho-shan  III  16  T•an-shih-shan  1140+90  IV  15  11 12  17  4  V  5 j  VI  6  2 7  8 9  19 VII  1 -3  Ta-wen-k'ou Kang-shang-ts•un Ta-tun-tzu Liu-lin Hua-ting Tai-kang-shih Ma-chia-pin Pei-yin-yan-ying Sung-tse Peng-pi-t ou 1  Erh-chien-ts•un 6h» ing-lien-kang  3835*105  3395+105  1460*80  55  The second question i s also very important but f a i r l y d i f f i c u l t to answer. Have the different clusters anything to do with different ethnic groups and their associated languages?  In other words, were the different clusters  produced by discrete groups of people speaking different languages?  The answer to this question might shed light  on the meaning of the clusters presented here.  In view  of the different dialects spoken i n this area today, i t i s easy to accept the idea that many languages were present during the Lungshanoid horizon.  Consequently, i t quite  possible that the different clusters may represent people speaking different languages.  Sometimes i n one cluster  even more than one language may have been used.  In ancient  Chinese history, especially during the Spring and Autumn Annals and Warring States Periods, the cultures of Wu, Yueh and Ch»u have for a long time been noted as distinctive from the Chting-yuan cultures.  It i s very probable that  cluster I was related to the ancestors of the Ch'u people. According to the research done by Prof. Wen Chung-i  (1967»  1 - 2 1 , 1 6 7 ) , most of the Ch u people were indigenous, except f  for some of the ruling class who immigrated from north China.  Prof. Wen considers these to be a branch of the  "Southern People", perhaps one of the "Indonesian" groups  1  56  i n earlier times.  Cluster II (the Liang-chu culture)  was largely ancestral to the subsequent Yueh culture and cluster IV (the Ta-wen-k*ou culture) which geographically overlapped the area of the Shantung Lung-shan culture f a l l s into the area occupied by the so-called Eastern Yi people according to historical texts (Chang 19681 1 5 9 ) . According to Prof. E.G. Pulleyblank, (personal communication), Eastern Y i , Wu, and Yueh may have been Mon-khmer language speaking people, and Ch'u may have been one of the Miao-Yao speakers. To deal with ethnic groupings i n this prehistoric context raises the discussion to a more d i f f i c u l t l e v e l . First of a l l , the definition of "different ethnic groups" i s not an easy one to make. If this definition rests on linguistic considerations, the discussion w i l l be the same as above.  I f the definition i s based on social  structure, i t w i l l be extremely d i f f i c u l t to see the relevance between the cluster and the ethnic groups. However, when we focus on the subsistence pattern, there are some hints for us to assume the possibility that some different clusters may represent different ethnic groups.  Since natural resources, such as the f l o r a and  57  the fauna, or even the soil type and climate, vary i n different geographic areas (see'Fig. 1 5 » 1 6 ) , i t i s obvious that the people of the different clusters employed somewhat different technologies to pursue their different subsistence patterns.  Cluster II, which i s especially  rich i n rice husks, basket-weaving implements, wooden oars, wooden pestles and mortars i s a good example of technological adaptation to local environment.  In addition,  i t also clearly illustrates that this cluster has i t s own long history of development of rice cultivation with the adaptation to the swampy lowlands.  In fact, the moist and  swampy lowlands led to the preservation of these implements which represented peoples• activities i n that time and space.  Cluster I, rich i n rice husks and water fowl,  appears to be an example of adaptation to a swampy lowland environment as well. Nevertheless, the dendrogram of cluster linkages (Fig. 12) indicates three major clusters: VI and VII i n one cluster, III, IV and V i n the second cluster, I and II i n the third cluster.  On the basis of this third cluster i n which  the two smaller clusters are rich i n rice husks, basketweaving, wooden implements, and water fowl, i t could be  58  Fig. 1 5 . Soil regions of China (Ma, Y.C., 1 9 5 7 a ) . VI, Korichnevyi soil and brown earth. VII. Yellow-korichnevyi s o i l . VIII. Red and yellow earth. IX. Red earth. X. Mountain steppe soil and mountain dark-korichnevyi s o i l . XI. Mountain brown earth and mountain korichnevyi s o i l . (From Wang 1 9 6 l « 17.).  I MONTANECONIFEROUSFOREST PREDOMINATED BY SPRJCE AND nn ''/"S^* I I MONTANE CONIFEROUS FOREST PREDOMINATED ^ • ET LARCH ~~ | 1 MONTANE CONIFEROUS FOREST PREDOMINATED BY SPRUCE •  KB tX.  j t MONTANE CONIFEROUS FOREST PREDOMINATED BY FIR |  i MIXED NORTHERN HARDWOOD FOREST PREDOMINATED BY BIRCH  3 | t MIXED NORTHERN HARDWOOD FOREST OF MAPLE. BASSWOPD AND BIRCH | 7. DECIDUOUS BROAD-LEAVED FOREST PREDOMINATED BY DECIDUOUS OAKS glfjS  I MIXED MESOPHYTIC FOREST  pllll  9L EVERGREEN BROAD-LEAVED FOREST OF EVERGREEN OAKS, SCHIMA AND LAURELS  IX ~ ~}. i"| IL I'il'li'MI L r i  THE MAIN TYPES OF NATURAL VEGETATION OF CHINA MONGOLIA. KOREA AND JAPAN  EVERGREEN BROAO-LEAVED FOREST Or EVERGREEN OAKS, SCHIMA AND LAURELS. *" "ASSONIANA IN SECONDARY STANDS EVESCF-EEN BROAD-LEAVED FOREST OF EVERGREEN OAKS, SCHIMA ANO LAURELS, WITH PINUS YUNNANENSIS IN SECONDARY STANDS THf , m S  Fig. 1 6 The Main Types of Natural Vegetation of China and Adjacent Regions (From Wang 1 9 6 l t 1 1 ) .  »««c W W ; vtc r. tvi |  60  concluded that the three major clusters are the result of environmental adaptation.  However, this hypothesis i s  weakened "by the fact that the other two clusters do not seem to reflect similar environmental adaptation, but are based on a wide variety of different characteristics. The relationship between these characteristics appeared to be too complicated for interpretation at this time. It i s also very interesting that clusters I and II are clearly distributed i n the upper half of Vector 1 , and cluster III, IV and V are distributed i n one end of Vector 2, while cluster VI and VII are distributed i n the other (Fig. 1 3 ) . The multidimensional scaling confirms the cluster analysis i n broad outline.  It i s obvious that  this pilot study employing cluster analysis and multidimensional scaling brings us some new and d i f f i c u l t phenomena to explain.  However, from another point of view, the com-  plexity and/or multidimensional nature of the Lungshanoid cultures i s also revealed by this method.  61  Chapter 7 Conclusion  In view of the complexity and multidimensional nature of Lungshanoid cultures, I feel i t i s meaningful to discuss further the position of the Lungshanoid cultures within Chinese Neolithic culture as a whole, especially i n the relationship with the Yangshao culture i n the Chung-yuan region and the Lungshan culture i n the eastern part of North China.  During the long debate on the relationship  between the Yangshao culture and the Lungshan culture i n the past two decades, the Lungshanoid cultures have gradually assumed greater importance.  In chapter 2, I men-  tioned that the debate almost reached a f i n a l conclusion when Hsin Chung-kuo t i K'ao-ku Shou Huo (The archaeology of New China) and Prof. K.C. Chang*s The Archaeology of Ancient China ( 1 9 6 3 and 1 9 6 8 ) were published.  This con-  clusion which suggested that Lungshan culture developed directly from Yangshao culture was strongly affected by the excavation of the Miao-ti-kou site, since the cultural  62  stratigraphy presented there shows that the Yangshao cultural elements were stratigraphically below those of the Lungshan cultural elements (KKYCS 1959).  Besides the  evidence of stratigraphy, the cultural features jiave also been examined carefully.  Thus, Prof. K.C. Chang suggests  (1968* 1 3 5 ) » "The •transitional• nature of the Miao-ti-kou II pottery i s of particular significance; i t has caused many scholars to embrace the view that the Honan Lungshan pottery could have been derived from the Yangshao." Now,  since the publication of C14 dates i n 1972 and 1974,  the theory  ' that Miao-ti-kou II i s the origin of a l l  the Lungshan cultures has totally been disproved. Particularly,the date for Miao-ti-kou I  of-3280*100  B.C.  and for Miao-ti-kou II of 2310*95 B.C. show the impossib i l i t y of their continuity or the "transitional" nature; the dates of Ta-tun-tzu of 3395*105  3835*105  B.C. and Sung-tse of  B.C. reference point out a new direction from  which to approach this issue. As a matter of fact, long before the CI 4 dates were published, some scholars such as Dr. L i Chi i n Taiwan and Prof. Su Ping-ch i on the mainland, had pointed out the imf  possibility of that theory.  The reason given by Dr. L i  63  (1963*  1-12)  i s based on the re-examination of the report  on Miao-ti-kou.  He pointed outi ( 1 ) the fundamental  difference both i n the method of f i r i n g and the general shapes of the ceramics of Miao-ti-kou I and II, ( 2 ) the people of Miao-ti-kou I culture seem to be much more sedentary than the Miao-ti-kou II people, ( 3 ) scapulimancy which perhaps was more important than black pottery i n the Lungshan culture features was not found i n Miao-ti-kou II. Dr. L i hints that the origin of the Lungshan culture should be i n the east.  Although Prof. Su  (1965»  51-82)  i n his  i  article, "Some problems concerning the Yangshao culture", did not definitely point out the transitional nature of Miao-ti-kou I I , he strongly suggested that the Ch'inglien-kang culture or the lower Ta-tun-tzu culture could be contemporary with the early Yangshao culture (Su  1965i  77).  In the same a r t i c l e , he also mentions that the later Yangshao culture of the Chung-yuan was strongly influenced by the Ch'ing-lien-kang —  Ta-wen-k'ou culture and the Ch*u-  chia-ling culture (p. 7 9 ) .  In other words, the Lungshanoid  cultures with their dynamic characteristics are treated as an antecedent culture of the Lungshan cultures, which in Kiangsu i s approximately as early as the Yangshao culture at the Pan-p'o site.  64  Generally speaking, the main purpose of this attempt to employ cluster analysis and multidimensional scaling, i s to test traditional classifications of Lungshanoid  sites  by a more objective means while s t i l l maintaining somewhat subjective aspects assumed to have social or cultural meaning.  In other words, using a great number of characters  (variables) as the determinants i n the process of c l a s s i f i cation with the computer i s viewed as more objective than the use of only a few, but the process of choosing characters i t s e l f i s subjective. A method including objective and subjective aspects i n the procedure i s optimal. Since a l l cluster analysis and multidimensional scaling are executed by the computer, the only thing l e f t for the archaeologist to do i s the choosing of characters as the variables of OTU (operational taxonomic units) or data units. This step i s not only very important but also very d i f f i c u l t , because the variables we choose should have as much cultural and/or social significance as possible.  When one wants to  deal with the published material on Chinese archaeology using this technique, one faces a serious problem i n terms of the nature of these site reports —  the different degree  of description i n each individual site report. Some of them are to detailed for our purposes while others are too  65  general making i t d i f f i c u l t for the researcher to isolate the variables for the comparison of each site.  Especially  when the presence and absence of variables show similar patterns at every site, with differences only i n frequencies, i t becomes extremely d i f f i c u l t to select a sufficient number of appropriate characters. It i s also d i f f i c u l t to determine when variation within a variable i s sufficiently significant to warrant the establishment of a distince variable. However, this research represents only the i n i t i a l step of s t a t i s t i c a l analysis of Lungshanoid sites i n China.  More detailed re-examination and study of these  site reports are necessary.  Nevertheless, this study  does make clear the possible contributions to Chinese archaeology of further analysis using computer techniques.  - END -  66  Bibliography  An, Chih-min 1972 "Lueh lun wo-kuo hsin-shih-ch'i shih-tai wen-hua t i nien-tai wen-t'i," (Discussion on the chronological problems of our country's neolithic culture), K'ao-ku 1972, vol. 6, pp. 35-44.  Anderberg, Michael R. 1973 Cluster Analysis for Applications, New York and London, Academic Press. Binford, Lewis R. and Sally R. 1966 "A preliminary analysis of functional variability i n the Mousterian of Levallois Facies", American Anthropologist, vol. 68, pp. 238-295.  Chang, K. C. 1957 " L i Chit Hsiao-t'un t'ao-ch'i shang chi", (Li Chii A classified and descriptive account with a corpus of a l l the main types of the pottery of the Yin and Pre-Yin period). Bulletin of the Dept. of Archaeology and Anthropology. National Taiwan University, vol. IX-X, p. 153. 1959 "Hua-nan yuan ku min-tsu wen-hua-shih t ' i kang", (An outline of ancient people's culture h i s t o r y i n south China) Bulletin of the Institute of Ethnology"Academia Sinica, no. 7.  67  1968 1969  1970  1973  1974  The Archaeology of Ancient China. New Haven and LondonJ Yale Univ. Press. "Hsin-shih-ch'i shih-tai Chung-yuan wenhua t i k*uo chang", (The extension of nuclear area culture i n neolithic), The Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica, vol. XLI, part 2, pp. 317-349. "The beginnings of agriculture i n the Far East" Antiquity, vol. XLIV, no. 175, pp. 175185. "Radiocarbon dates from China: Some i n i t i a l interpretations", Current Anthropology, vol.14, no. 5, pp. 525-528. "Comments on the interrelationship of North China, South China, and Southeast Asia i n ancient times", Journal of the Hong Kong Archaeological Society, vol. V, pp. 34-38.  Davis, J. C. 1973 Statistics and Data Analysis i n Geology. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Dunnell, Robert C. 1971 Systematics i n Prehistory, London: CollierMacmillan. Flannery, Kent V. 1972 "Culture history v. cultural process: A debate in American archaeology", Contemporary Archaeology, Mark P. Leone (ed,), Southern I l l i n o i s University Press, pp. 102-107.  68  H i l l , James N. 1970 "Broken K Pueblo: Prehistoric social organization i n the American southwest", University of Arizona Anthropological Papers, no. 18. KKYCS, "K'ao-ku Yen-chiu Suo" (the Institute of Archaeology, Academia Sinica) 1959 "Miao-ti-kou and San-li-Ch'iaoJ*, Archaeological Excavations at the Yellow River Reservoirs Report, no. 2, Peking: Science Press. 1961 Hsin Chung-Kuo T i K'ao Ku Shou Huo (Archaeology i n New China), Peking: Wen-wu Press. L i , Chi 1956  1963  "Hsiao-t'un" Archaeologia Sinica no. 2, vol. 3, fascicle 1, part 1. Taipei: Institute of History & Philology, Academia Sinica. "Hei-t&ao wen-hua tsai Chung-kuo shang-ku-shih so chan t i ti-wei," (Position of the Black Pottery culture i n the history of ancient China), Bulletin of the Dept. of Archaeology and Anthropology National Taiwan University, no. 2122, pp.  1-12.  LIA (Laboratory of the Institute of Archaeology, Academia Sinica) 1972a  "Report on C14 Dates (l)"K'ao-ku vol. 1. pp.  1972b  "Report on C14 Dates (2)" K'ao-ku vol. 5 . pp.  1974  52-56. 56-58.  "Report on C14 Dates ( 3 ) " K'ao-ku vol. 5 . pp.  333-338.  69  Matson, R.G. and True, D.L. 1970 "Cluster analysis and multidimensional scaling of archaeological sites i n Northern Chile," Science, vol. 1 6 9 , pp. 1 2 0 1 - 1 2 0 3 . 1974 "Site relationships at Quebrada Tarapaca, Chile: A comparison of clustering and scaling techniques", American Antiquity, vol. 39» no. 1, pp. 51-74.  McKern, W.C. 1939 "The midwestern taxonomic method as an aid to archaeological culture study", American Antiquity, vol. 4, no. 4, pp.  301-313.  Mizuno, Seiichi 1956 "Prehistoric Chinas Yang-shao and Pu-chaochai", Proceedings of the Eighth Pacific Science Congress and the Fourth Far Eastern Prehistory Association, vol. I, fascicle 1 . Sauer, Carl 0. 1952 Agricultural Origins and Dispersals. New York: American Geographic Society. Sekino, Takeshi 1956 "On the black and grey pottery of ancient China", Proceedings of the Eighth Pacific Science Congress and the Fourth Far Eastern Prehistory Association, vol. I, fascicle 1 . Sokal, Robert R. and Peter H. Sneath 1963 Principles of Numerical Taxonomy, San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.  70  Solheim II, W.G. 1969 "Reworking Southeast Asian prehistory", Paideuma, Band XV, pp. 125-139. 5  Spaulding, A.C. 1953 "Statistical techniques for $heIdiscovery~df artifact types", American Antiquity, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 305-313.  Su, Ping-ch»i 1965 "Kuan yu Yangshao wen-kuo t i jo-kan wen-fi", (Some problems concering the Yangshao culture), K'ao-ku Hsueh-pao 1 9 6 5 , vol. 1, pp. 51-82. Peking: Wen-wu Press. Sung, Wen-hsun 1954-55 "Pen hsi chiu tsang Yuan-shan shih ch*i", (Stone implements from Yuan-shan shell mound collected "before 1950) (Parts 1-3), Bulletin of the Dept. of Archaeology and Anthropology, National Taiwan University, no. 4, pp. 28-38, nO. 5, pp. 44-58, no. 6, pp. 34-45.  Tsukada, M. 1966  "Late pleistocene vegetation and climate i n Taiwan (Formosa)", Proc. Nat. Acad. S c i . , vol. 5 5 . PP. 543-548.  Wang, Chi-wu 1961 "The forests of China", Maria Moors Cabot Foundation Publication Series, no. 5 . Harvard University.  71  Wen, Chung-i 1967 "Ch'u wen-hua t i yen-chiu," (Aspects of the culture of Ch'u), Monograph of the Institute of Ethnology, no. 1 2 , Taipei: Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica. White, Leslie A. 1959 The Evolution of Culture. New York: McGrawHill. Wu, Shan-ching 1973 "Lueh lun Ch'ing-lien-kang wen hua," (Discussion on Ch^ng-lien-kang culture), Wen-wu, 1973 vol.  6, pp.  45-61.  72  APPENDIX  A  Original Reports of 19 Sites  Site No.  1. K'ao-ku. 1962(3). 2.  K'ao-ku. 1962(3).  3.  K'ao-ku,Hsueh-pao. 1955(9) and K'ao-ku T'ung-hsun. 1958(10).  4.  K'ao-ku Hsueh-pao. 1964(2).  5.  K»ao-ku Hsueh-pao. 196l(l) and 1965(2).  6.  Wen-wu Tsan-k&ao T'zu-liao  7.  K'ao-ku. 1961(7).  8.  K'ao-ku Hsueh-pao. 1958(1).  9.  K * ao-ku Hsueh-pao. 1962(2).  1956(7).  10.  K'ao-ku Hsueh-pao. 1960(2).  11.  K'ao-ku Hsueh-pao. 1960(2).  12.  Chekiang Neolithic Culture Illustration. 1958.  13.  K'ao-ku T'ung-hsun. 1956(3).  14.  K*ao-ku T'ung-hsun. 1956(3).  5«  Wen-wu. 1959(10).  1  16.  K'ao-ku Hsueh-pao. 1955(10).  17.  Wen-wu. 1959(10).  18.  K'ao-ku Hsueh-pao. 1958(2).  19.  Chang, K.C.  Fengpitou,^Tapenkeng.  and the Prehistory of Taiwan. 1 9 6 9 .  APPENDIX B Attribute List 1. predominance of sandy red ware 2. sandy red ware 3. predominance of sandy grey ware 4. sandy grey ware 5. predominance of fine red ware 6. fine red ware 7. predominance of black ware 8. black ware 9. predominance of grey ware 10. grey ware 11. painted pottery 12. black pottery with red painting 13* eggshell pottery 14. eggshell painted pottery 1 5 . spindle of painted pottery 1 6 . pottery spindle ^17. pottery ball 18. pottery pestle and/or mortar 19. pottery paddle and/or pad 20. pottery bracelet and/or ring 21. pottery net sinker  74  2 2 . white pottery 23. ting 24. tou (without the cut-out holes) 2 5 . tou (with the cut-out holes) 26.  jar  27. pot 28. bowl 2 9 . basin 3 0 . dish 31. beaker 32. c i s t e r n (crock) 33. I i 34. k u i 35. tsun 36.1  fu  37. l i p spouted water vessel 38. pointed bottom water vessel 39. long neck b o t t l e (or j a r ) 40. cord impression 41. mat  impression  42. check impression 43. basket impression 44. small dots  punctuated  4 5 . incised by comb and/or f i n g e r n a i l 46. engraving 4 7 . applique decoration 48. net impression 49. s h e l l impression 5 0 . stone axe (cylinder, without hole) 5 1 . stone axe ( f l a t , with hole) 5 2 . stone adze 5 3 . stone c h i s e l 5 4 . stone k n i f e 5 5 . stone k n i f e with holes 5 6 . stone pestle and/or mortar 5 7 . grindstone (or whetstone) 5 8 . stone spindle 5 9 . stone net sinker 6 0 . stone plough 61. stone b a l l 6 2 . stone arrowhead 6 3 . semilunar stone k n i f e 64. stone axe with shoulder 6 5 . stone adze with step (step adze) 6 6 . stone hoe 6 7 . shoe-shaped stone k n i f e  6 8 . ring of jade or agate 6 9 . oyster shell implement 70. basket weaving (implement) 7 1 . wooden oar 72. wooden pestle and/or mortar 7 3 . bone needle 7 4 . bone ornament 7 5 . bone arrowhead 7 6 . bone awl 7 7 . bone knife 7 8 . bone harpoon 7 9 . bone chisel 80. head east and/or south (burials)  77 APPENDIX C CHINESE CHARACTERS FOR PROPER NAMES AND TECHNICAL TERMS  -JxL  An Chih-min  Q  Chekiang  ji_  Chiang-pei  3-i *t,  Chiang-nan  >*. $$)  Huang-chien-shu  -| ^  Ch'u  g  y  £  ^ ^  ^  Chueh-mu-chiao  -fl ^  Chung-yuan  %  K  \^  ^  Feng-pi-t»ou / > | L ] |  it  Hang-chow Bay hang-Vu  jjj^ -j-lj  ^  Hou-kang  )% (£)  Hsien-jen Tung  K»ao-ku  /g) -t * f  ^ £  K» ao-ku Hsueh-pao  ^ 4  K'ao-ku T'ung-hsun ^ £  Kiangsu Kuei-jen  JJjf|» ^  kui  li  ft  L i Chi Liang-chu  Honan  Liu-lin ^  /j/L A. Ms)  ^  "fr  Lao-ho-shan  ^  Hsiao-t»un  Kang-shang-ts•un Kansu  & H £ ?8  ^  Kiangsi ^ i .  Erh-chien-ts'un J=- ^ j "  Pukien  ^  Jih-yueh-t»an  Ch'ien-shan-yang Ch'u-chia-ling  ^  ^ t , /y  Hua-t'ing-  \ j£  f  £fj ij> ig) $.|)  K»ao-ku Shou Huo  Ch'eng-tzu-yai  Ch ing-lien-kang  Hsin Chung-kuo t i  Lung-shan Ma-chia-pin  4*  ^  78  Miao-ti-kou  Tainan  % ft& f  Miao-Yao  Mien-chih Hsien  Pan-p'o  T*an-shih-shan  ^  Mizuno Seiichi  gj,^^.  ^  iL>  tou  £  Tsukada Matsuo J r g ^ # j g  P • ao-ma-ling  ^  Pei-yin-yan-ying  jig ^  ^  *|  Wan-nien Wang-wan ,^  Wen Chung-i  Shang  i ^ .  tsun  Wei-shui  Sekino Takeshi ff[ Shansi  ^  |£  -^L  Pohai Bay  p  ^ ^  —  Wen-wu  zl» r&  Wen-wu Tsan-k'ao  Shantung d*  ^ ^  | i ^.  T zu-liao f  Shensi  Wu  Shih-chia-ho Shih Chang-ju  ^  Shui-t'ien-pan  ^jc #  Su Ping-chti Sung-tse  j | -#a  jij  ^  Wu Chin-ting  % £  Wu Shan-ching  % ^%  Yin-hsu Yuan-shan  ^2  ^  j^j JU  Yang-shao-ts'un 4<j> -^f£  Sung Wen-hsun Ta-ho-ts'un  ^  >>j ^.j"  Ta-tun-tzu  ^  :J-  Ta-wen-k'ou T'ai-kang-shih  X  >iL J-^ ^  a  Yang-tzu River Yi Yueh  £  ,  ^  


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items