P. Jia, A. Betts and X. Wu 2011. New evidence for Bronze Age agricultural settlements in the...

New evidence for Bronze Age agriculturalsettlements in the Zhunge’er (Junggar) Basin,China

Peter Weiming Jia1, Alison Betts1 and Xinhua Wu2

1University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia, 2Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing, China

The Zhunge’er (Junggar) Basin in northern Xinjiang was a key crossroads in antiquity for the dispersal ofideas and technological innovations from the Eurasian steppe into the heartland of central China. TheBronze Age chronology of the Zhunge’er Basin is chiefly based on relative dating and little is known aboutsubsistence strategies, although the strong tradition of nomadic and transhumant pastoralism amongmodern populations suggests that there may have been a high degree of mobility. The visibility of ancientcemeteries and the need to salvage graves before they are looted have resulted in a lack of focus onsettlements, with a consequent assumption that in antiquity agriculture played a limited role. Thisassumption has been challenged by rescue excavations at the Jimusa’er (Jimsar) Luanzagangzi site,which indicate that agriculture may have been a significant component of Bronze Age subsistencestrategies. Small-scale soundings at settlement sites provide well-stratified sequences of material forabsolute dating which can be used to place the artifacts recovered from graves in a more securechronological context.

Keywords: China, Bronze Age chronology, agricultural settlements, nomadic pastoralism

IntroductionThe Zhunge’er (Junggar) Basin in northern Xinjiang

was a crossroads in antiquity for the dispersal of

ideas and technological innovations from the Eurasian

steppe into the heartland of central China. Of the two

desert basins that make up Xinjiang, the larger in the

south, the Talimu (Tarim) Basin, belongs to Central

Asia on the basis of its oasis settlements, while the

smaller northern Zhunge’er Basin is the easternmost

extension of the Eurasian steppe. Little systematic

archaeological fieldwork has been carried out in

Xinjiang and the work that has been done focuses on

the Talimu Basin. With its dry climate, organic

material from as early as the Bronze Age is remarkably

well preserved in the Talimu Basin (Mallory and

Mair 2000; Kuz’mina 2008; Xinjiang Institute of

Archaeology 2003), while the Zhunge’er Basin has a

moister climate contributing to poor preservation of

organic material.

Archaeological research in the Zhunge’er Basin has

mainly involved excavation of cemeteries, which are

abundant in both the oases and the high summer

pastures. Such excavations have produced a broad

outline of the basin in the Bronze Age, revealing

a range of external cultural influences from the

Mongolian Altai and southern Siberia, the Eurasian

steppes, and the Gansu corridor in the southeast

leading to China (Debaine-Francfort 1988, 1989; An

Zhimin 1992; Chen Kwang-Tzuu and Hiebert 1995;

Mair 1998; Mallory and Mair 2000; Kuz’mina 2008;

Jia et al. 2009; Jia and Betts 2010). The strongest links

are with the north and west, suggesting a movement

of people, or at least cultural influence, from the

Eurasian steppes (Mallory and Mair 2000; Kuz’mina

2008). The high visibility of ancient graves, parallels

with the Bronze Age nomadic cultures of the steppe,

and the strong tradition of nomadic and transhumant

pastoralism among modern populations have con-

tributed to an almost exclusive focus on the excava-

tion of cemeteries rather than settlements. This trend

is paralleled in salvage work as cemeteries are

threatened by looting because of their complete

vessels and museum-quality artifacts. Some ceme-

teries, such as those at Qiemu’erqieke, Dalongkou,

Sazicun, Weisheng, and Xikanerzi, were excavated

as part of structured research projects (Xinjiang

Institute of Archaeology 1981; Xinjiang Institute of

Archaeology et al. 1994; Li Xiao 1992; Jia and Betts

2010; Qitai Cultural Centre 1982), but not all were

well dated or fully published. Other cemeteries were

excavated as rescue operations by local heritageCorrespondence to: Alison Betts, Department of Archaeology, Universityof Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. Email: [email protected]

� Trustees of Boston University 2011DOI 10.1179/009346911X13140904382057 Journal of Field Archaeology 2011 VOL. 36 NO. 4 269

officers, adding to the pool of partially published

and poorly dated remains from the region. As a

result, local museums contain extensive collections of

intact ceramic vessels and associated metal and other

artifacts that provide limited information. Heritage

authorities know the locations of settlement sites,

but because they are not threatened by looting, their

excavation is not considered a priority. This has

led to the erroneous assumption that the prehistoric

population of the Zhunge’er Basin in the Bronze Age

was primarily nomadic. Finally, the relative chronology

is poorly understood—there are few absolute dates—

and little is known about prehistoric economies.

The environment of the Zhunge’er Basin is con-

sidered to be marginal for human subsistence and

high mobility has seemed like a good response to

environmental conditions. The Ku’erbantonggute

(Gurbantunggut) Desert lies at the center of the

basin, which funnels the natural routes through the

basin along the foothills of the surrounding mountain

ranges (FIG. 1). To the north lie the high mountains of

the Altai (Altay). The way to the Eurasian steppes to

the west is partly barred by the smaller Tarbagatai

Range. On the south the basin is rimmed by the

Tianshan (Tangri Tagh) Mountains. The eastern

route to China runs between the northern foothills

of the Altyn Tagh and the Gobi Desert to Gansu. The

central desert is low-lying at around 200 masl, while

the mountains rise up to 4000 m in height, their peaks

covered in permanent glaciers. Seasonal ice caps form

in winter providing spring snowmelt, which feeds

streams that drain into the desert sands. Rainfall is

extremely low in the desert—from around 350 mm on

the northern slopes of the Tianshan Mountains to

600 mm in parts of the far west. Above 2000 m on the

upper slopes of the Tianshan Mountains there is a

band of pine forest. Below this, where the rainfall

decreases, the trees give way to mountain grassland.

The river valleys support large stands of elms. While

much of the land comprises desert or high mountains,

there are areas in the valleys, along the slopes of the

ranges, and in the oases with favorable conditions for

grazing, dry farming, and irrigation agriculture.

In 2007, during a tour of the area by one of us

(PWJ) and local heritage officials, a settlement site

called Luanzagangzi was discovered on the north-

eastern slopes of the Tianshan mountains near the

town of Jimusa’er (FIGS. 1, 2). A salvage sounding

under the auspices of the Xinjiang Team of the

Archaeological Institute of the Chinese Academy of

Figure 1 Map of Xinjiang showing Bronze Age sites in the Zhunge’er (Junggar) Basin.

Jia et al. Bronze Age agricultural settlements in Zhunge’er Basin, China

270 Journal of Field Archaeology 2011 VOL. 36 NO. 4

Social Sciences revealed almost 4 m of occupation

deposits rich in charcoal and fragments of pottery,

bone, and other artifacts (FIG. 3). Abundant botanical

remains indicate that agriculture was an important

part of the economy, while starch analyses provide

evidence for plant use previously unknown in the

prehistoric periods. Absolute and relative dating in-

dicate that Luanzagangzi may have seen two main

phases of occupation, an early phase around 1400–

1000 CAL B.C. and a later one from 1000–800 CAL B.C.

Painted ceramics from the lowest levels at Luan-

zagangzi can be linked to ceramics from two pre-

viously excavated sites in the region, providing a

stronger chronology for the northeastern Tianshan in

the Bronze Age.

If Luanzagangzi is not unique, the sounding at this

site provides evidence for long-lived settlement sites

in the Zhunge’er Bronze Age, suggesting that agri-

cultural communities coexisted with more mobile

groups. The site illustrates the potential of research

on settlements to provide secure chronologies and

address issues concerning subsistence strategies and

the transfer of agricultural technologies. Test exca-

vation is an inexpensive option that can provide

stratified ceramic sequences, and, combined with

absolute dating, may be used to establish a chronol-

ogy for otherwise poorly dated artifacts recovered

from cemeteries. Xinjiang is a key area for under-

standing the relationship between China and the west

in the later prehistoric periods. Important ideas and

technologies were transmitted across the region and

Luanzagangzi offers encouragement that large-scale

excavation is not necessarily required to obtain

significant results.

Modern Subsistence EconomyToday, villages on the northern slopes of the

Tianshan Mountains are located on river terraces in

the foothills or on floodplains. The northern slopes of

the range have higher rainfall and less extreme

temperatures than on the south side where the lower

slopes border the edge of the Gobi Desert. Rainfall

near the mountain slopes is around 350 mm (Yan

Shun et al. 2004), within the practical range for dry

agriculture. Irrigation agriculture is practiced on the

river deltas at the edge of the desert (Xinjiang Bureau

of Geographical Survey 1995). The population today

is mainly composed of Chinese Muslims (Hui)

with a small number of Turkic-speaking Kazakhs.

The Hui are settled farmers, growing wheat, barley,

beans, and vegetables. The Kazakhs are partially

nomadic, practicing short-range transhumance, and

breeding sheep, goats, cattle, and horses. The Hui

also engage in herding to a limited degree and the

Kazakhs have some small-scale agriculture. This mix

of subsistence strategies may provide a model for

earlier times. It is possible that settled or semi-settled

peoples coexisted with more mobile populations

moving in from the Eurasian steppes as the

Kazakhs did around 100 years ago. Bronze Age sites

are located in areas similar to the modern villages,

favoring river terraces.

LuanzagangziLuanzagangzi is located in Jimusa’er County, at the

southeastern edge of the Zhunge’er Basin on the

northern slopes of the Tianshan Mountains at 1486

masl. The site is about 1 km west of the village of

Miaowanzi and 2 km southeast of Quanzijie town-

ship (FIG. 4). The Wutanggou River runs about 500 m

to the west of Luanzagangzi and at its highest point

Figure 3 Luanzagangzi sounding after excavation.

Figure 2 View from Luanzagangzi to the southwest showing

the Tianshan Mountains.


Journal of Field Archaeology 2011 VOL. 36 NO. 4 271

the site lies 8 m above the riverbed. Salvage excava-

tions at Luanzagangzi were carried out in June and

July 2007. Road construction had cut through a

section of the site exposing it to erosion, and there was

a slight depression in the ground surface. Rainwater

was collecting in the depression and running down

onto the road, creating a gulley about 1.5 m deep and

2 m high that cut back into the ancient occupation

levels revealing at least 2 m of occupation deposits.

These cultural layers were rich in charcoal and

fragments of pottery, bone, and other artifacts. A

sounding of 162.5 m was excavated close to the

erosion gulley to determine the nature of the site.

Excavation methodsExcavation methods followed Chinese field excavation

regulations. The site is named JQLYT1 (J: Jimusa’er,

Q: Quanzijie, L: Luanzagangzi, Y: represents the

Chinese word for site, T: test pit, 1: number of pit).

Each layer was classified based on the color, texture,

and context of the fill. All artifacts recovered during

the excavations were bagged and recorded. Plans and

sections were drawn and photographs of the excava-

tions were taken. Sediment from the excavation was

sieved using a three-sieve system (2-, 10-, and 20-mm

mesh). Selected samples from the excavated deposits

were collected for large seed, phytolith, pollen, and

starch analyses. One 5 L sample for seeds was taken per

layer. Three liter random samples were collected for

flotation from each of Layers 4 to 10. The flotation

sediment was sieved through 0.5 mm mesh. Charcoal

samples were collected for radiocarbon analysis from

Layers 4 to 10. No carbon samples were collected from

Figure 4 Locations of Luanzagangzi and Jimusa’er.



Layers 1, 2, and 3 as there was no charcoal in these

layers. Eight AMS radiocarbon dates were processed at

the 14CHRONO Centre, The Queens University of

Belfast (TABLE 1).

StratigraphyTen layers were identified in the sounding (FIG. 5).

Below the topsoil (1) was a hard yellowish layer (2)

that contained no traces of occupation. At a depth of

about 0.5 m, sherds and charcoal flecks began to

appear and the fill (3) became softer and grayer in

color. Another 20 cm down the fill became still softer

and light yellow-gray in color. This layer (4) contained

sherds and charcoal and yielded a radiocarbon date of

975–953 CAL B.C. (UBA-9066). Below this lay a thick

deposit (5) almost 0.5 m in depth containing burned

earth, ash, chunks of charcoal, and numerous sherds.

A radiocarbon date of 1112–1099 CAL B.C. (UBA-

9065) was obtained from charcoal.

Traces of a pit or gulley (G1) were found sealed

under Layer 5 resting in a depression. The deposit

within the depression was a yellowish-gray color and

contained charcoal yielding a radiocarbon date of

1003–969 CAL B.C. (UBA-9067), in addition to sherds.

There appears to be a stratigraphic division below

Layer 5 based on soil stratigraphy (FIG. 5). Layer 6

was around 30 cm deep and contained black ash,

burned earth, sherds, and charcoal, which yielded a

radiocarbon date of 1111–1102 CAL B.C. (UBA-9064).

Below Layer 6 was an ashy layer (7) containing many

chunks of burned clay. At its lowest point was a thin,

black ash lens 2 cm thick and charcoal from this lens

produced a radiocarbon date of 1113–1099 CAL B.C.

(UBA-9063). Below the ash the sediment became

yellowish again (8), though it was still soft with a high

proportion of ash as well as chunks of charcoal and

sherds. A radiocarbon date of 1251–1243 CAL B.C.

(UBA-9062) was obtained from charcoal. By Layer 9,

Table 1 Radiocarbon dates for Luanzaganzi. All are from charcoal.

Laboratory code 14C dates Calibrated date (B.C.) (95.4%) Calibrated date (B.C.) (68.3%)

UBA-9060 2917¡23 1210–1019 1189–1180UBA-9061 3000¡24 1372–1343 1304–1211UBA-9062 2948¡24 1261–1110 1251–1243UBA-9063 2883¡24 1189–1180 1113–1099UBA-9064 2870¡23 1125–975 1111–1102UBA-9065 2877¡26 1188–1182 1112–1099UBA-9066 2777¡23 999–890 975–953UBA-9067 2819¡23 1038–1034 1003–969

Figure 5 Section of the Luanzagangzi sounding showing 10 layers.



which was over 0.5 m in depth, it was more difficult

to identify traces of occupation. Layer 9 contained a

few small pebbles and some sherds and charcoal,

which generated a radiocarbon date of 1304–1211

CAL B.C. (UBA-9061). The lowest occupation layer

(10) was 80 cm deep. The deposits here were hard and

yellow with flecks of charcoal and some sherds. At

the base was a concentration of sherds and large

chunks of charcoal, which yielded a radiocarbon date

of 1189–1180 CAL B.C. (UBA-9060). Below Layer 10

was clean, yellow sediment with no traces of occupa-

tion debris.

There was no evidence of any structure in the

sounding. The only recognizable feature was the

shallow depression visible in the north, east, and

south sections culminating in the pit or gulley labeled

G1 (FIG. 5). It is possible that the burned clay in Layer

7 represents building material and may indicate a

structure of some kind.

Artifacts were abundant and include sherds,

groundstone tools, bronze fragments, and bone tools.

Groundstone artifacts were present throughout all

phases as well as on the surface. The most common

items were broken querns and handstones fashioned

from carefully selected sandstone (FIG. 6: 6, 7). Other

tools included a centrally pierced stone ‘‘hoe’’ (FIG. 6:

5), a stone chopping tool, and a stone ball. The few

bone tools included an animal knucklebone (possibly

sheep), another piece worked in the shape of a

knucklebone (FIG. 6: 1, 2), a bone hook (FIG. 6: 3), and

an artifact made of antler. Four bronze artifacts were

recovered: two sharp tips broken off from unidenti-

fied tools, the tip of a small knife, and one but-

ton (FIG. 6: 4). All were recovered from the exposed

section, at the equivalent level of Layers 7 or 8.

Animal bones recovered from the sounding are under

analysis.

Botanical remainsThe initial laboratory examination by Andrew

Fairbairn shows that carbonized crop seeds were

present in every sample, including foxtail millet

(Setaria italica), wheat (Triticum aestivum/durum)

(FIG. 7), and barley (Hordeum vulgare var. nudum)

(FIG. 8). In a separate study, samples for starch

residue analysis were extracted from three ground-

stone artifacts (a broken quern and two broken

hammerstones) from Layers 5, 7, and 8. Samples were

collected through the ‘‘saturation/extraction’’ techni-

que, using a pipette and ultra-pure water. All slides

were observed using a Zeiss Axioskop light penetra-

tion microscope with DIC effect. A few unusual

starch granules were noted (FIG. 9). These are rela-

tively large and do not resemble any known cereal

starches. They have been identified by Florence Chau

as Cistanche deserticola, a holoparasitic member of

the Orobanchaceae family of plants, used today as a

valued ingredient in Chinese medicine.

CeramicsLarge numbers of pottery sherds were collected

(TABLE 2), but there were no complete vessels. The

sherds vary significantly in color, texture, shape, and

surface decoration through time from Layer 3 to

Layer 10, although only a few sherds were recovered

from the levels above Layer 5. In the lower levels

(Layers 6–10), painted sherds were abundant. The

bases of the vessels may have been predominantly

rounded as no recognizable base sherds were

recovered. This contrasts with Layers 5 and above

where the sherds are unpainted and flat base sherds

Figure 6 Artifacts from the Luanzagangzi sounding. 1)

Knucklebone; 2) Worked bone; 3) Bone hook; 4) Bronze

fragments, unstratified; 5) Stone hoe, broken; 6) Stone quern,

broken; 7) Handstone, broken.

Figure 7 Wheat seeds recovered from Layer 5 (Triticum

aestivum/durum). Photograph by Andrew Fairbairn.



were identified. Four phases have been identified

based on the stratigraphic profile and ceramic classi-

fication. Of the three phases with occupation debris,

Phase I includes Layers 8–10; Phase II includes Layers

6 and 7; and Layers 3–5 and G1 comprise Phase III.

The dominant vessel shapes in the Phase I deposits

are double-handled jars with rounded bodies and

straight necks (FIG. 10: 1, 2), jars with plastic decoration

in the form of applied clay bands with incised dots on

the necks and near the handles (FIG. 10: 3–8, FIG. 11: 8, 16),

and single-handled cups (FIG. 11: 12). Other shapes

include painted and plain bowls (FIG. 11: 2, 3), painted

and plain jars (FIG. 11: 13, 17), and jars with incised

decoration (FIG. 11: 4, 7, 11). Some body sherds are up to

15 cm in diameter, indicating that the original vessels

were quite large. Some sherds are covered in red or

black slip. Many sherds have red painted designs,

predominantly net patterns, on both the exterior and

interior of some vessels (FIG. 11). There are also small

numbers of gray sherds with dots incised directly on

the body of the vessel. Similar decoration appears on

some red sherds, but the style, technique, and shape

are not the same.

The double-handled jar reconstructions shown in

Figure 10 are based on parallels with vessels from

other sites in the area such as the Dalongkou burials

(Xinjiang Institute of Archaeology et al. 1994) and

Xiaoxigou site (Han Yaoping and Yan Shun 1992)

as only sherds with a single handle were recovered.

There are two types of this jar, both with plastic,

banded decoration at the shoulder. One has a

straight, narrow neck opening to an everted, flaring

rim (FIG. 10: 1). The exterior surface appears black-

ened from direct contact with fire, possibly indicating

its use as a cooking pot. A single clay band with in-

cised dots is applied to the vessel within the handles.

The second type is larger with a wider, inward-

sloping neck and a vertical rim (FIG. 10: 2).

In Phase II there are fewer painted sherds. These

show more simplistic designs involving straight,

mostly vertical lines (FIG. 12: 4, 5), and no examples

of applied plastic decoration are represented in this

phase. Shapes include plain bowls (FIG. 12: 1, 7), bag-

shaped jars (FIG. 12: 2, 3), and a handled jar without

applied decoration (FIG. 12: 6). Incised decoration is

illustrated on a single body sherd (FIG. 12: 8).

Phase III contained only a few coarse sherds

(FIG. 13) representing undecorated vessels with thick

walls. A single flat base was found in this phase, in

the depression (G1), which implies a change in this

late stage from round-bottomed to flat-bottomed

vessels.

ChronologyThe stratification in the sounding at Luanzagangzi is

something of a surprise to regional archaeologists.

Based on AMS radiocarbon dates, the chronology

indicates that this site, with its 3.8 m of deposits,

was continuously or sporadically used for around

400 years before being abandoned. The broad dating

for use of the site spans ca. 1300 to 900 CAL B.C.

(TABLE 1). On the basis of the ceramic evidence,

Luanzagangzi had two main stages of occupation: an

early stage characterized by painted vessels (Phases I

and II) and a later one (Phase III) with plain coarse

ware vessels. This fits with the apparent stratigraphic

division between Layers 5 and 6; however, the

radiocarbon data are less clear here. The samples

obtained from the depression fill (G1) and from

Layer 4 fit with a date of ca. 1000–900 CAL B.C. for the

late stage, but the date from Layer 5 matches those

for Layers 6 and 7, falling generally in the range of

1100 to 1000 CAL B.C. The charcoal samples from

Layer 5 came from large chunks and this discrepancy

in dates could perhaps be explained by the use of

older wood. The rest of the radiocarbon dates for the

early stage of occupation indicate a range from

around 1300 to 1000 CAL B.C.

The closest parallels for the ceramics from the early

stage are from the Dalongkou cemetery (Xinjiang

Institute of Archaeology et al. 1994), 30 km northwest

Figure 8 Ventral (left) and dorsal (right) views of asymme-

trical (lateral) naked barley grains (Hordeum vulgare var.

nudum) from Layer 9. Photograph by Andrew Fairbairn.



of Luanzagangzi, and the site of Banjiegou (Xinjiang

Museum 1981), 40 km to the northeast (FIG. 1). Similar

double-handled jars with applied plastic decoration at

the neck occur at Dalongkou cemetery (FIG. 14: 3). The

Dalongkou examples are round-bottomed, lending

weight to the suggestion that the Luanzagangzi vessels

are also rounded at the base. Similar painted designs

are found on vessels from the Banjiegou site (FIG. 14: 1).

There are also parallels in the stone tools, in particular

the stone hoes. Thus, the early stage at Luanzagangzi

likely belongs to the same archaeological tradition

as Banjiegou, forming a ‘‘Luanzagangzi-Banjiegou’’

tradition. Based on ceramic similarities with radio-

carbon-dated levels at Xintala on the southern slopes

of the Tianshan, it has been suggested that the type site

of Banjiegou may date to around 1500 CAL B.C. (Han

Jianye 2005). The evidence from Luanzagangzi indi-

cates that this estimate may be a little early.

The Luanzagangzi-Banjiegou tradition may dom-

inate the late Bronze Age in the mid-northern

Tianshan area. The major characteristics of this

tradition are the prevalence of round-bottomed

vessels, the high proportion of red painted net and

triangle designs, and the double-handled jars with

Figure 9 Starch granules (Cistanche deserticola) recovered from groundstone tools. Identification by Florence Chau.

Photograph by Peter Weiming Jia, taken with Zeiss Axioskop microscope under DIC effect.

Table 2 Distribution of ceramic types (number of sherds) by layer at Luanzagangzi.

Layer number 10 9 8 7 6 G1 5 4 3 2 1 Total

Double-handled jar 4 2 10 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20Cup with handle 2 4 2 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 14Vertical rim 24 6 3 0 0 0 2 2 3 0 0 40Everted rim 39 22 11 6 8 4 2 4 2 0 0 98Rim, red paint 15 5 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 22Applied clay band 32 15 25 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 78Incised design 3 3 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17Red painted net pattern 14 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18Red painted, other 45 14 16 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 79Flat base 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1



applied plastic decoration. The stone artifacts, while

less diagnostic, are also important. The early phase of

Sidaogou, a site some 60 km east of Luanzagangzi

(FIG. 1), contains similar painted designs but the vessel

shapes are different from those of the Luanzagangzi-

Banjiegou tradition. The double-handled, round-

bottomed jars from the early phase of Sidaogou find

their best parallels in the Nanshan-Tianshanbeilu

tradition (Jia et al. 2009) at sites in the Balikun

grasslands to the south and at the oasis of Hami on the

southern side of the Tianshan. The applied clay bands

with incised dots found at Luanzagangzi might have

some connections with ceramics from the Ka’ersang

site (FIG. 14: 2) located at Yiwu County, on the far

northeastern tip of the Tianshan, at the southern edge

of the Gobi Desert, near the Mongolian plateau

(FIG. 1). Shao Huiqiu (2007) has suggested that the clay

band tradition at Ka’ersang is linked to influence from

further east, the Bronze Age culture of Xindian

tradition found in Gansu, in the area of the upper

Yellow River. Gansu Province straddles a corridor

that runs through Xinjiang connecting Central Asia

with the areas of early cultural development in central

China along the middle reaches of the Yellow River.

The Xindian tradition (An Zhimin 1992: 324; Su

Xiuqing and Chen Honghai 1992; Archaeological

Institute, Chinese Academy of Social Science 1980)

was widespread across the lower reaches of a series of

tributaries of the Yellow River, and lasted around

700 years (1400–700 B.C.). The ceramics are character-

ized by vessels painted in black and red, often on white

slip. A second distinctive feature found on jars is the

application of clay bands across the upper shoulder or

lower neck, usually running between pairs of handles.

This Xindian tradition evolved from the late Chinese

Neolithic culture based along the upper Yellow River.

It is possible that the connection in prehistoric periods

between the Zhunge’er Basin, and in fact the whole of

Xinjiang, eastwards to central China might follow

multiple routes. The location of Ka’ersang might

indicate that one of these routes passed through the

Mongolian plateau.

Figure 11 Phase I miscellaneous vessels and painted

sherds. 12) Single-handled cup; 2, 3) Plain and painted

bowls; 13, 17) Plain and painted jars; 4, 7, 11) Jars with

incised decoration; 1, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13–15, 18) Red painted

sherds; 8, 16) Jars with plastic banded decoration.

Figure 12 Phase II miscellaneous sherds. 1, 7) Plain bowls;

2, 3) Bag-shaped jars; 4, 5) Red painted sherds; 6) Handled

jar; 8) Incised sherd.

Figure 13 Phase III miscellaneous sherds showing flat-

bottomed vessels. 1, 3) Flat-bottomed jar; 2) Bag-shaped jar.

Figure 10 Phase I ceramics. 1, 2) Double-handled jars; 3–8)

Jars with plastic banded decoration.



The Bronze Age in the Zhunge’er BasinTo put these finds in context, it is necessary to review

what is known of the Bronze Age in the Zhunge’er

Basin. During the period from around 2000–1000

CAL B.C., evidence from the Zhunge’er Basin reflects a

variety of influences (Jia et al. 2009), with the earliest

being the Tianshanbeilu Culture in the southeastern

corner of the basin. The painted decoration of this

tradition shows connections with the east through the

Siba Culture in Gansu (Jia et al. 2009: 179, fig. 8). A

little later in the southwestern basin, on the northern

slopes of the Tianshan, are the Banjiegou and early

Sidaogou sites, starting at around 1500 CAL B.C.,

which also yielded ceramics with painted decoration.

In the northwest, excavations at a series of ceme-

teries collectively termed Qiemu’erqieke (Shamirshak)

revealed pottery and burial practices that have pa-

rallels in the Okunevo culture of the Altai region of

southern Siberia and the Yenisei Valley (Xinjiang

Institute of Archaeology 1981; Lin Yun 2008; Jia and

Betts 2010). To the southwest, and a little later in date,

are the Sazicun and Adunqiaolu sites. These have

some connections with the steppic Andronovo (Mei

Jianjun and Shell 1999) and the more localized and

slightly later Karasuk cultures (Jia et al. 2009). The

vessels from all of these sites are predominantly

unpainted gray wares, decorated with incised and

punctate designs. These northern and western sites

imply the possible expansion of steppe cultures into

the Zhunge’er Basin from Eurasia through the natural

lowlands to the west and perhaps through patterns of

nomadic movement across the Altai. Pottery found at

Shuinichang imitates classic Karasuk forms, suggest-

ing that adaptation by incomers to the environment

and interaction with local groups may have resulted in

new cultural variants of the steppic Bronze Age in

Xinjiang (Guo Wu 2005; Han Jianye 2005). Cultural

influence or actual migration of people from the

Eurasian steppe, however, should not be taken to

assume a fully nomadic population and an absence of

settlements. Along the streams in the well-watered

lowlands around Tacheng in the far west are a number

of small settlement sites clearly visible from surface

pottery scatters and eroded sections on the river banks

(e.g., Li Xiao 1992). What can be seen then in the

Luanzagangzi-Banjiegou tradition is a local culture

blending eastern influences, as shown in the painted

pottery, with western influences as populations in the

northeastern Tianshan adapted new cultural traits

from the Eurasian steppe.

Agricultural sites in Xinjiang are significant for

another important reason. While Chinese scholars

are still divided on the issue, there is consensus

among western scholars that wheat was first domes-

ticated in western Asia. Wheat derived from the wild

progenitors einkorn (Triticum boeoticum) and emmer

(Triticum dicoccoides) was cultivated as early as 8200

CAL B.C. Domesticated wheat is present in archae-

ological contexts in the same region from at least

7250 CAL B.C. (Tanno and Willcox 2006; Heun et al.

1997). Wheat cultivation then spread eastward, rea-

ching central China several thousand years later (Li

Xiaoqiang et al. 2007), where the earliest reliable

evidence for wheat comes from finds around Gansu

and the Yellow River in northern China dated to the

late 4th to early 3rd millennia CAL B.C. Charred wheat

grains from the site of Donghuishan in the Hexi

corridor are dated to 3400/1900 CAL B.C. (BK92101)

(Li Shuicheng and Mo Duowen 2004; Flad et al.

2010) and wheat seeds from Xishanping on the Xi

River, in the upper part of the Yellow River drainage

system, are dated by associated charcoal to 2650 CAL

B.C. (Li Xiaoqiang et al. 2007).

From western Asia, domesticated wheat entered

Central Asia from northern Iran and first appears in

Neolithic sites along the northern foothills of the

Kopet Dagh in Turkmenistan around 6000 CAL B.C.

(Harris et al. 1993). It also appears at around the

same time at Mehrgarh in Baluchistan (Costantini

1981). This leaves a gap of well over a millennium

between the appearance of wheat in Central Asia

and Pakistan and its earliest recorded appearance

in China, during which time it must be assumed

that wheat agriculture gradually spread into China

through the only feasible route, across Xinjiang.

The lack of excavation of settlement sites and the

limited use of flotation techniques means that little is

known about this process. While the evidence from

Figure 14 Ceramics from other sites (various scales): 1)

Painted sherds from Banjiegou; 2) Jars with applied decora-

tion from Ka’ersang; 3) Round-bottomed jar from Dalongkou.



Luanzagangzi is too late to contribute meaningfully

to this debate, the results of our sounding show that a

search for earlier agricultural sites in Xinjiang might

well be fruitful.

ConclusionsThe sounding at Luanzagangzi provides important

data on the local subsistence economy of north-

eastern Tianshan from the mid-2nd into the early-1st

millennium CAL B.C. The botanical remains indicate

intensive dry-land agriculture in the late Bronze Age

and it is likely that this was associated with some

degree of permanent settlement. Even after damage

from erosion and road construction, at least 4000 sq

m of the site remain intact. No features or structures

were identified in the sounding, but this does not

imply a lack of permanent structures at the site. The

sounding also provides a well-stratified sequence of

absolute dates for comparison with other excavations

and museum collections.

The results clearly indicate the potential produc-

tivity of soundings at other settlement sites. Test

excavation is inexpensive and can provide stratified

ceramic sequences that, with absolute dating, may be

used to tie in a significant number of the poorly dated

artifacts recovered from cemeteries. Archaeological

research in the Zhunge’er Basin has focused on

burials, which may have led in part to an assumption

that the Bronze Age population was primarily no-

madic, drawing attention away from the important

information to be derived from excavation of set-

tlement sites. It is clear that this perception is at least

partially incorrect. Around the mid-2nd millennium

CAL B.C. the southwestern corner of the basin was

occupied by people with a mixed agricultural

subsistence strategy. Xinjiang must also have formed

part of the route by which elements of the Near

Eastern Neolithic package of domesticated crops and

animals were transferred to central China. The route

must have passed either from Central Asia over the

Pamirs into Kashgar, or through the Ili Valley along

the Tianshan, or from the Eurasian steppe through

the Zhunge’er Basin. The presence of a stratified

settlement site from the mid-2nd millennium CAL B.C.

along one of these potential routes suggests that the

search for an earlier agricultural settlement dating

to the 4th or 5th millennium CAL B.C. might not be

fruitless. Excavations at Luanzagangzi illustrate the

potential for focused research on aspects of economy

and cultural exchange.

AcknowledgmentsExcavations at Luanzagangzi were organized by the

Xinjiang Team of the Archaeological Institute of

the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, assisted by

staff from the Department of Archaeology at the

University of Sydney. Jia’s work in Xinjiang was

funded by Australian Research Council Discovery

Grant No. 0770997. The fieldwork was conducted

under a collaborative agreement between the Institute

of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences,

and the University of Sydney. The fieldwork, inclu-

ding excavation, flotation, and starch residue extrac-

tion, could not have been carried out without the kind

assistance of Xia Guo, Director of Bureau of Relics,

Jimusa’er County. Junfeng Ma and Ding Zhang from

the Bureau helped with the excavation, flotation, and

starch residue extraction. Yanli Zhong drew the

illustrations of the artifacts and compiled the Relics

Files for storage in the Bureau. The carbonized seed

remains were identified by Andrew Fairbairn at the

University of Queensland. Starch residue analysis was

carried out by Jia at the University of Sydney, using

the facilities of the Electronic Microscope Unit

(EMU). Judith Field kindly offered assistance regard-

ing the analysis. Identification of starches was con-

ducted at the University of Sydney by Florence

Chau. The charcoal samples were analyzed at the14CHRONO Centre, The Queens University of Bel-

fast. The authors are grateful to Paula Reimer, and to

James Mallory, Queens University Belfast, for his

advice and support. The authors would like to

acknowledge valuable comments from two anonymous

referees in relation to earlier drafts of the manuscript.

Throughout the text, place names within the People’s

Republic of China are given in Chinese Pinyin with the

common Turkic or Mongol spelling in brackets at the

first occurrence. Spelling of local names is not

consistent in English language publications and the

names here may vary from those published elsewhere.

Peter Weiming Jia (Ph.D. 2005, University of

Sydney) is a University of Sydney Research Fellow

in the Department of Archaeology at the University of

Sydney and a Member of the Centre for Chinese

Studies. He has been involved in East Asian prehistoric

archaeology since 1982 and is currently working on two

Australian Research Council-funded projects in China,

one on the Bronze Age in Xinjiang and the other on the

study of obsidian artifacts from northeast China.

Alison Betts (Ph.D. 1986, University of London) is

Associate Professor and Director of the University

of Sydney Central Asian Research Programme

(USCAP) and Convenor of the Archaeology and

Ancient History Group in the Centre for Chinese

Studies. She has been working in Central Asia for

15 years and has over 30 years of experience in the

study of prehistoric nomadic peoples in the arid regions

of the Middle East and Asia.

Xinhua Wu (Ph.D. 1997, Archaeological Institute of

Chinese Academy of Social Science) is Director of the

Xinjiang Team for the Archaeological Institute. He has



been involved in many aspects of Xinjiang historical

and prehistoric archaeology for the past 12 years.

ReferencesAn Zhimin. 1992. ‘‘The Bronze Age in Eastern Parts of Central

Asia,’’ in A. H. Dani and V. M. Masson, eds., History ofCivilizations of Central Asia, Vol 1: The Dawn of Civilization:Earliest Times to 700 B.C. Paris: UNESCO, 319–336.

Archaeological Institute, Chinese Academy of Social Science. 1980.‘‘Excavation at Zhangjiazui and Jijiachuan Sites,’’ Kaoguxuebao2: 187–219 (in Chinese).

Chen Kwang-Tzuu and F. T. Hiebert. 1995. ‘‘The Late Prehistoryof Xinjiang in Relation to its Neighbours,’’ Journal of WorldPrehistory 9: 243–300.

Costantini, L. 1981. ‘‘The Beginning of Agriculture in the KachiPlain: The Evidence of Mehrgarh,’’ in B. Allchin, ed., SouthAsian Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge Archaeology Press,29–33.

Debaine-Francfort, C. 1988. ‘‘Archeologie du Xinjiang des Originsaux Han,’’ Paleorient 14: 5–29.

Debaine-Francfort, C. 1989. ‘‘Archeologie du Xinjiang des Originsaux Han,’’ Paleorient 15: 183–213.

Flad, R., Shuicheng Li, Xiaohong Wu, and Zhijun Zhao. 2010.‘‘Early Wheat in China: Results from New Studies atDonghuishan in the Hexi Corridor,’’ The Holocene 20: 955–965.

Guo Wu. 2005. ‘‘Archaeological Studies of Tianshan RegionAround First Millennium B.C., Xinjiang,’’ unpublished Ph.D.dissertation, Academy of Social Science, Beijing (in Chinese).

Han Jianye. 2005. ‘‘Chronological and Typological Analysis ofXinjiang Bronze and Early Iron Age,’’ Xinjiang Wenwu 3: 57–91 (in Chinese).

Han Yaoping and Yan Shun. 1992. ‘‘Observations on the Jimusa’erXiaoxigou Site,’’ Xinjiang Wenwu 4: 16–23 (in Chinese).

Harris, D., V. Masson, Y. Berezkin, M. Charles, C. Gosden, G.Hillman, A. Kasparov, G. Korobkova, K. Kurbansakhatov,A. Legge, and S. Limbrey. 1993. ‘‘Investigating EarlyAgriculture in Central Asia: New Research at Jeitun,Turkmenistan,’’ Antiquity 67: 324–338.

Heun, M., R. Schafer-Pregl, D. Klawan, R. Castagna, M. Accerbi,B. Borghi, and F. Salamini. 1997. ‘‘Site of Einkorn WheatDomestication Identified by DNA Fingerprinting,’’ Science278: 1312–1314.

Jia, P., and A. Betts. 2010. ‘‘A Re-analysis of the Qiemu’erqieke(Shamirshak) Cemeteries, Xinjiang, China,’’ Journal of Indo-European Studies 38: 1–43.

Jia, P., A. Betts, and Wu Xinhua. 2009. ‘‘Prehistoric Archaeologyin the Zhunge’er (Junggar) Basin, Xinjiang, China,’’ Journal ofEurasian Prehistory 6: 167–198.

Kuz’mina, E. E. 2008. The Prehistory of the Silk Road.Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Li Shuicheng and Mo Duowen. 2004. ‘‘Analysis of the Date onCharred Wheat Seeds Found at Donghuishan,’’ Kaogu yuwenwu. 6: 51–60 (in Chinese)

Li Xiao. 1992. ‘‘The Cemetery Found at the Weisheng School,Tacheng,’’ Chinese Archaeology Year Book 1991. Beijing:Wenwuchubanshe, 328–329 (in Chinese).

Li Xiaoqiang, J. Dodson, Xinying Zhou, Hongbin Zhang, andR. Matsumoto. 2007. ‘‘Early Cultivated Wheat and Broadeningof Agriculture in Neolithic China,’’ The Holocene 17: 555–560.

Lin Yun. 2008. ‘‘Some Issues of Qie’ermuqieke Remains Found inNorthern Xinjiang – Referring to the Pottery Found in BuerjinCounty,’’ in Lin Yun, ed., Lin Yun Xueshuwenji. Beijing:Beijing Science Press, 143–161 (in Chinese).

Mair, V., ed. 1998. The Bronze Age Peoples of Eastern CentralAsia. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania MuseumPublications.

Mallory, J. P., and V. Mair. 2000. The Tarim Mummies. AncientChina and the Mystery of the Earliest Peoples from the West.London: Thames and Hudson.

Mei Jianjun and C. Shell. 1999. ‘‘The Existence of AndronovoCultural Influence in Xinjiang During the Second MillenniumB.C.,’’ Antiquity 73: 570–578.

Qitai Cultural Centre. 1982. ‘‘The Lithic Site and Cemetery Foundin Qitai, Xinjiang,’’ Kaoguxue jikan 2: 22–24 (in Chinese).

Shao Huiqiu. 2007. ‘‘Prehistoric Cultures, their Development,Distribution and Relationship with Neighbours,’’ unpublishedPh.D. dissertation, Jilin University, China. Accessed fromCNKI net on December 2, 2010. (http://epub.cnki.net/grid2008/detail.aspx?QueryID523&CurRec51).

Su Xiuqing and Chen Honghai. 1992. ‘‘The Excavation atHetaozhuang Shanjiatou Cemetery, Qinghai,’’ Wenwu 11: 26–31 (in Chinese).

Tanno, K., and G. Willcox. 2006. ‘‘How Fast Was Wild WheatDomesticated?’’ Science 311: 1886.

Xinjiang Bureau of Geographical Survey. 1995. Atlas of XinjiangUygur Autonomous Region, People’s Republic of China.Ulumuchi: Bureau of Geographical Survey.

Xinjiang Institute of Archaeology. 1981. ‘‘Summary of Excavationat Qiermu’erqieke Cemetery,’’ Wenwu 1: 176–186 (in Chinese).

Xinjiang Institute of Archaeology. 2003. ‘‘Excavation Report in2002 of Xiaohe Cemeteries,’’ Xinjiang Wenwu 2: 8–46 (inChinese).

Xinjiang Institute of Archaeology, Cangji Heritage ManagementCentre, and Jimusa’er Heritage Management Centre. 1994.‘‘Jimusa’er Dalongkou Burials,’’ Xinjiang Wenwu 4: 1–11 (inChinese).

Xinjiang Museum. 1981. ‘‘Qitai Banjiegou Neolithic Site,Xinjiang,’’ Kaogu 6: 552–553 (in Chinese).

Yan Shun, Mu Guijin, Kong Zhaochen, Ni Jian, and YangZhenjing. 2004. ‘‘Environmental Evolution and HumanActivity on the North Slopes of the Tianshan Mountains,China,’’ Journal of Glaciology and Geocryology 25: 403–410.



P. Jia, A. Betts and X. Wu 2011. New evidence for Bronze Age agricultural settlements in the...

Documents

Transcript of P. Jia, A. Betts and X. Wu 2011. New evidence for Bronze Age agricultural settlements in the...