A Dictionary of Archaeology

material culture at a number of archaeological sites in Lower Nubia which are later than the A GROUP and earlier than the towns and temples of the Egyptian New Kingdom. C-Group assemblages are particularly characterized by black-topped handmade pottery bearing incised white decoration. The archaeological entity probably corresponds to the geographical zone of Wawat, which is frequently mentioned in contemporary Egyptian texts. Unfortunately, most of the physical evidence concerning the C-Group culture derives from cemeteries such as those at Aniba, FARAS and Dakka, rather than from settlements. It has therefore proved difficult, despite the extensive archaeological survey undertaken during the UNESCO Nubian campaign of the 1960s, to identify the overall C-Group settlement pattern. Similarly, such factors as their social and political organization (probably tribal), their economy (probably based on cattle-herding) and their commercial and religious links with Egypt tend to be primarily deduced from funerary data. It has been suggested that the Egyptian domination of Lower Nubia from the early 12th dynasty onwards may have prevented the C Group from establishing closer links with the Kushite kingdom of Kerma.

M. Bietak: Studien zur Chronologie der Nubischen C- Gruppe (Vienna, 1968); T. Säve-Söderbergh, ed.: Middle

Nubian sites: Scandinavian Joint Expedition to Nubia 4/1 (Uddevalla, 1989), 6–14; D. O’Connor: ‘Early states along the Nubian Nile’, Egypt and Africa, ed. W.V. Davies (London, 1991), 145–65.

IS

chacmool Type of stone sculpture representing a reclining human figure with a bowl or plate held on its stomach, usually found at the entrance to Postclassic temples in Mesoamerica, such as

CHICHÉN ITZÁ, QUIRIGUA, TENOCHTITLAN and

Tula (see TOLTECS).

M.E. Miller: ‘A re-examination of the Mesoamerican chacmool’, Art Bulletin 67 (1985), 7–17.

PRI

Chaco Canyon see ANASAZI; PUEBLO BONITO

Chagar Bazar Extensive settlement of the prehistoric HALAF period (c.5500–4500 BC) located in northern Mesopotamia, about 30 km northwest of TELL BRAK in Syria. The site was excavated by Max Mallowan during the 1930s, revealing deep Halaf stratigraphy, with a number of painted sherds of the SAMARRA period (c.5600–5000 BC) in the lowest levels. The settlement appears to have been abandoned for about 1500 years between the end of

CHALDAEANS 145

the Halaf period and the first phase of the Early Dynastic. By the reign of the AMORITE ruler Shamshi Adad I (c.1813–1781 BC), the construction of an impressive ceremonial centre suggests that Chagar Bazar had become an important administrative centre in the Old ASSYRIAN empire.

M.E.L. Mallowan: ‘Excavations at Tell Chagar Bazar and an archaeological survey of the Habur region, 1934–5’, Iraq 3 (1936), 1–86; ––––: ‘Excavations at Tell Chagar Bazar and the archaeological survey of the Habur region, second campaign, 1936’, Iraq 4 (1937), 91–117; ––––:

‘Excavations at Braq and Chagar Bazar’, Iraq 9 (1947), 1–258.

IS

Chalcatzingo Site of the Early-to-Middle Formative period (c.2000–1000 BC), located in Morelos, Mexico. The town of Chalcatzingo, incorporating early public architecture built of stone and earth, played an important role in trade between the Gulf coast and highland Mexico. Monument 1, a petroglyph showing an elaborately attired person seated in a cave, has been compared to OLMEC art

from LA VENTA.

D.C. Grove, ed.: Ancient Chalcatzingo (Austin, 1987).

PRI

Chalchuapa Sizable Maya site of the Middle and Late Preclassic periods (c.800 BC–AD 300), located in the highlands of El Salvador. The growth of the settlement was truncated by the eruption of Ilopango volcano in the 3rd century AD.

R.J. Sharer, ed.: The prehistory of Chalchuapa, El Salvador, 3 vols (Philadelphia, 1978).

PRI

Chaldaeans (Akkadian: Kaldu) Ancient Near Eastern people who, like the ARAMAEANS, were originally nomadic. Since they also spoke a West Semitic dialect similar to Aramaic, there has been some debate as to whether they may simply have been a southern branch of the Aramaeans (Dietrich 1970). They are first mentioned in the ASSYRIAN annals of the 9th century BC, when Shalmaneser III waged war against three Chaldaean tribes in southern Iraq (Bit-Amukani, Bit-Dakuri and BitYakin). Their origins are uncertain: by the time they appeared in the late Assyrian texts of the 9th century BC, however, they were settled in the area of southern Mesopotamia surrounding the lower courses of the Tigris and Euphrates, roughly corresponding to SUMER. Although they were still organized in tribes ruled by sheikhs, they led sedentary lives, owning herds of cattle and horses, and

146 CHALDAEANS

controlling the profitable trade-routes with the Gulf.

In the 8th century BC, Chaldaean sheikhs took control of BABYLONIA. Merodach-Baladan II, the sheikh of Bit-Yakin (c.721–710 BC), appears to have temporarily succeeded in uniting the various Chaldaean tribes, but eventually the Assyrian rulers Sargon II and Sennacherib recaptured Babylonia and the SEALAND in the early 7th century BC. The second period of Chaldaean domination came after the death of the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal, when the sheikh Nabopolassar regained control of Babylon and established the Neo-Babylonian dynasty (c.625–539 BC). It is a measure of the Chaldaeans’ political and economic abilities that his illustrious successor, Nebuchadnezzar II, was able to raise Babylon to its greatest period of prosperity.

M. Dietrich: Die Aramäer Südbabyloniens in der Sargonidenzeit (700–648) (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1970); J. Oates: Babylon, 2nd edn (London, 1986), 110–35.

IS

Cham Austronesian language spoken in the powerful polities which developed in coastal Vietnam in the 1st millennium AD. The language has its closest parallels in island Southeast Asia, and some uncertainty surrounds the timing and nature of the initial settlement of Austronesian speakers in an area otherwise dominated by speakers of Austroasiatic languages.

The Cham ceremonial centre of Caban, located near Qui Nhon in Vietnam, was probably occupied between AD 800 and 1200 (although there are no inscriptions therefore the dating is uncertain). According to their own inscriptions, the Chamspeaking occupants of the coastal tract of central Vietnam divided themselves into at least four regional polities: Amaravati, Vijaya, Kauthara and Panduranga. Each polity constructed major temple sanctuaries as well as walled enclosures. Caban, strategically located beside the confluence of two streams, may have been the centre of Vijaya. The site consists of a rectangular enclosure (1400 × 1100 m), orientated on the cardinal points of the compass, the centre of which is dominated by a large sanctuary structure.

Po Nagar was a Cham ceremonial centre within the polity of Kauthara, south Vietnam. The six surviving sanctuaries at Po Nagar were built between the 7th century AD and AD 1256 as foci for the worship of Siva. Like other Cham polities, Kauthara succumbed in the 13th century AD to the southward expansion of the Vietnamese.

Chau Xa, a small (c.25 ha) rectangular Cham settlement in the area of Amaravati, Vietnam, is

surrounded by brick walls, a berm and moat, with traces of an extension wall to the south. Another fortified Cham centre in the Amaravati region was Tra Kieu, dating to the 1st millennium AD; it was excavated in the 1920s by J.Y. Claeys, who uncovered sanctuary foundations and a defensive wall. It has been suggested that Tra Kieu was the historic centre of Simhapura.

M.H. Parmentier: Inventaire descriptif de monuments Cams de l’Annam (Paris, 1918); J.Y. Claeys: ‘Configuration du site de Tra-Kieu’, BEFEO 27 (1927), 469–82.

CH

chamber tomb General term for all those collective tombs of the Neolithic and early Bronze Age period in Europe that have extant stone or rock-cut chambers. In fact, many earthen long barrows also originally had chambers, but these were of wood – recent excavations suggest that posts of monumental size were sometimes used – and have long since decayed. The usual features of a built chamber tomb include: the chamber(s) itself, with drystone or MEGALITHIC walls that support capstone(s) or

Figure 10 chamber tomb Archetypal threedimensional reconstruction showing the different elements of a chamber tomb under its mound. Source: R. Joussaume: Dolmens for the dead (London, 1987), fig. 1.

corbelled roofs; an entrance, which may lead directly into the chamber or into a connecting passage; a covering mound of stone or earth, sometimes strengthened or retained with drystone walling; embellishments to the exterior of the tomb, such as a façade of megaliths, a forecourt in front of the entrance,or a kerb of stone slabs around the base of the mound. Chamber tombs in Europe, which in the main housed collective burials, are commonly divided into two main groups:

and PASSAGE GRAVES.

R. Joussaume: Dolmens for the Dead, trans. A. and C. Chippindale (London, 1988).

RJA

Chan Chan Capital of the protohistoric Chimu kingdom, located in the Moche Valley, northern Peru, and dating to the Late Intermediate Period (AD 900–1438). The city consists of 11 huge walled enclosures (ciudadelas) which contain elaborate meeting, living, and storage facilities, and multiroomed, platform-like burial structures, which originally contained huge quantities of sacrifices and goods. The ciudadelas are surrounded by smaller walled compounds, large areas of humble dwellings where craftworkers, farmers, labourers, and others lived, walk-in wells, sunken fields, and cemeteries, protected by a large wall on the north.

M.E. Moseley and K. Day, eds: Chan Chan: Andean desert city (Albuquerque, 1982); M.E. Moseley and A. CordyCollins eds: The northern dynasties: kingship and statecraft in Chimor (Washington, D.C., 1990).

KB

Ch’ang-sha (Changsha) see CH’U

Chanhu-Daro Three mounds dating to the 3rd millennium BC, located on the Indus river, 130 km south of MOHENJO-DARO in Pakistan. Excavated by Mackay in the 1930s, the site has been divided into three phases: Mature HARAPPAN and two post-Harappan periods (Jhukar and Jhangar). The Harappan architectural remains include rectangular structures built on mud-brick platforms and oriented with regard to a major street. Although the site had been much disturbed by brick robbing, excavations and surface survey have revealed extensive traces of Harappan manufacturing processes. Vidale (1989: 171, 181) has suggested that Chanhu-Daro was a small regional centre of the Harappan civilization whose inhabitants were involved in the manufacture of a number of important commodities, many of which were then transferred to Mohenjo-Daro and other urban

centres of the INDUS CIVILIZATION.

CHAOS THEORY, CHAOLOGY 147

E.J.H. Mackay: Chanhu-Daro excavations 1935–36 (New Haven, 1943); M. Vidale: ‘Specialized producers and urban elites: on the role of craft industries in Mature Harappan urban contexts’, Old problems and new perspectives in the archaeology of South Asia, ed. J.M. Kenoyer (Madison, 1989), 171–81.

CS

Chansen Substantial moated site of the 1st millennia BC and AD, located in the Central Plain of Thailand. The cultural sequence has been divided into six phases, the first two of which are late prehistoric (800 BC–200 AD). The second has yielded an ivory comb decorated with a goose, two horses and Buddhist symbols reflecting early contact with India. The material from the second and third phases (200–650 AD) includes tin amulets, pottery stamps, decorated bronze bells and the stone moulds used to cast jewellery. These correspond to the finds from many other sites of a similar date which were in exchange contact with Indian merchants. This is further confirmed at Chansen by the presence of pottery which originated in Sri Lanka. In phase 5, a moat was constructed round the site, with a diameter of 640 m, associated with a rectangular reservoir. The increased quantity of pottery, and its parallels with sites of the DVARAVATI CULTURE, suggests that in its final two phases, the population grew and the site took its place as one of many large moated sites ascribed to the first civilization in the valley of the Chao Phraya River.

B. Bronson and G.F. Dales: ‘Excavations at Chansen, Thailand, 1968, 1969: a preliminary report’, Asian Perspectives 15/1 (1973) 15–46.

CH

chaos theory, chaology Branch of mathematics and science concerned with systems whose diachronic development (although governed by such deterministic equations as Newton’s Law of Motion) is essentially unpredictable. A key characteristic of chaos theory is that it can help us to explain how major systemic changes can be sparked off by apparently minor changes in system variables. The term chaos was first used, in its scientific sense, by T.-Y. Li and J.A. Yorke (1975). Chaos theory is neither a scientific ‘law’ nor one particular view of the world – rather it is a collection of mathematical, numerical and geometrical techniques, which, according to Ali Çambel (1993: 16) manages to combine both determinism and chance within the same paradigm.

‘Chaos’ means the condition of ‘unpredictability’, in that complex systems of the type

148 CHAOS THEORY, CHAOLOGY

described above may quickly develop in unpredictable ways, although some features of the system can be statistically defined. An alternative means of defining and analysing complex systems is CATASTROPHE THEORY, which was developed by the French mathematician René Thom in 1972, and utilized as a means of explanation by some archaeologists in the late 1970s (particularly Colin Renfrew).

Archaeological applications of chaos theory have tended to revolve around environmental change. T.K. Park (1992), for instance, argues that relatively minor changes in weather may have resulted in the major social change apparent in the Nile valley during the late 4th and early 3rd millennia BC, and in the Jordan Rift in the 9th millennium BC. He points out that many early civilizations appear to have developed within the context of ‘flood recession agriculture’, with its ‘potential for high returns per unit of labour’, but that the emergence of social and economic stratification might be ultimately determined by ‘the chaotic pattern of the floods’. Thus the inherent uncertainties of flood recession agriculture (i.e. the tendency for there to be occasional disastrously high or low floods) do not promote stability but instead encourage the development of both socio-economic stratification and diversification into other means of subsistence, such as foraging or pastoralism. Park (1992: 107) therefore suggests that the ‘model of harmonious and balanced ecosystems’ should be replaced by a model of ‘continuously changing adaptations to a more chaotic environment’.

T.-Y. Li and J.A. Yorke: ‘Period three implies chaos’,

American Mathematical Monthly 82 (1975), 985–92; J. Gleick: Chaos: making a new science (New York, 1987); T.K. Park: ‘Early trends towards class stratification: chaos, common property, and flood recession agriculture’, American Anthropologist 94 (1992), 90–117; A.B. Çambel:

Applied chaos theory: a paradigm for complexity (San Diego and London, 1993).

IS

Charavines Neolithic village of the earlier 3rd millennium BC, situated on the edge of Lake Paladru in Isère, France. The site is now underwater and has yielded some of the best-preserved organic evidence of the French Neolithic. The village was occupied in two phases from about 2800 BC, and consisted of rectangular houses grouped together in rows. The approach to the settlement from the landward side was closed by a palisade. The structural timbers of the houses were remarkably well-preserved underwater, as were a range of wooden implements.

A. Bocquet and A. Houot: ‘La vie au Néolithiques: Charavines, un village au bord d’un lac il y a 5000 ans’,

Histoire et Archéologie, Les Dossiers, vol. 64 (1982).

RJA

chariot pit-burials (China) see SHANG-TS’UN-

LING

Charsada (anc. Pushkalavati, Peukolaotis) Multi-mound urban site dating from the 6th century BC to the 7th century AD, located along the Swat river near modern Peshawar, Pakistan. Charsada was excavated in 1958 by Mortimer Wheeler. Its four phases – pre-Alexander,

Alexander, NORTHERN BLACK POLISHED WARE

(NBPW) and Gandharan – include abundant evidence of international contacts, such as links with the Persian empire in the pre-Alexander period (c.530–327 BC). In the late 4th century BC, as the local capital of a small polity, Charsada was heavily fortified with ditches and ramparts. However, in 327 BC it was conquered by Alexander the Great and occupied for a brief time by Greek armies. In the ensuing NBPW period (300–150 BC) a local ceramic form, the ‘lotus bowl’, emerged.

R.E.M. Wheeler: Charsada (Oxford, 1962).

CS

Chasséen Cultural complex of the Middle Neolithic of France, broadly contemporary with – and related to – the other major cultural complexes of west-central Europe in the mid Neolithic, the

MICHELSBERG and the CORTAILLOD. In the north

of France it succeeds the first farming culture, the LINEARBANDKERAMIK, while in the south it succeeds groups transitional from the first potteryusing CARDIAL WARE cultures.

The Chasséen is named after the type-site Chassey-le-Camp (Cote-d’Or), and most authorities recognize the following cultural traits: fine, smooth-surfaced pottery, commonly round-based pottery with carinated rims, that is usually undecorated, except for a special class of highly decorated ritual ceramics called VASE SUPPORTS; a lithic industry that emphasizes blade technology; the use of honey-coloured flint over a wide area and the frequent occurrence of obsidian (implying extensive exchange networks); the occurrence of small polished stone balls or billes; association with ditched enclosures; in the south of France, the replacement of largely cave and rock-shelter sites with open-air settlements; the increasing use of interfluvials and plateau regions for farming, in contrast to earlier LBK valley bottom sites, and an apparent emphasis on wheat and barley crop grow-

ing with concomitant increase in the number of sickles and querns.

Culture or material culture complex? The Chasséen was first closely defined as a culture by Arnal (1950), and though the finer points of Arnal’s subdivision of the Chasséen were quickly discarded as unworkable, the concept of a distinct and unitary Chassey culture took root. In many ways this was a logical way of interpreting the evidence: apart from the similarities between the material cultures evidenced in different regions, the middle Neolithic also saw the first evidence for prolonged contact between northeast France (the initial Neolithic of which was associated with an offshoot of the LBK phenomena) and the south and west, which developed their first farming communities more slowly and in contact with the other first farming cardial or Impressed Ware cultures of the Mediterranean. As the concept of the Chasséen became central to the understanding of the French Neolithic, archaeologists began to give the concept universal core features, and to assume that the material culture similarities implied a deeper ethnic homogeneity (an approach now characterized as the CULTURE HISTORY approach to archaeology). A central question in early discussions of the Chasséen culture was therefore where the ‘culture’ came from, or which region of France it formed in. Some authorities pointed to the similarity between some Chasséen decorative motifs and those on the square-mouthed pottery tradition in North Italy, others suspected local evolution in Languedoc.

More recently, however, there has been a shift of emphasis in understanding the Chasséen. Like other cultural phenomenon in prehistory (e.g. the

BEAKER PHENOMENON) it is now seen as an

agglomeration of cultural traits over time, which may not have been invented in the same region or in the same period, and which do not necessarily imply an ethnic identity. It is clear, for example, that the most distinctive ceramic manifestation of the Chasséen, the vase supports, are concentrated in certain areas (particularly Languedoc and Brittany), occur less frequently in other ‘Chasséen’ areas, and may not occur at all in other regions. Furthermore, in northern France the Chasséen at many sites is now recognized as having features of the Michelsberg cultural complex – at Jonquières there are both repoussé buttons and baking plates (Michelsberg) and vase supports (Chasséen) – which suggests that the term ‘ChasséoMichelsberg’ might be more accurate than a term suggesting a single culture. Furthermore, research has begun to identify assemblages of an early Middle Neolithic character that do not seem to

CHAUVET CAVE 149

belong to the full Chasséen: Guilane (1970) has identified one such in western Languedoc, while Escalon de Fonton (1980) has identified another at Fontbrégoua in the Var.

J. Arnal: ‘A propos de la “néolithisation” de l’Europe occidentale’, Zephyrus 1 (1950), 23–7; J.P. Thévenot: ‘Eléments Chasséens de la céramique de Chassey’, Revue Archéologique de l’Est, 20 (1969), 7–95; J. Guilane, ed.: Les civilizations Néolithiques du Midi de la France

(Carcassonne, 1970); A. Gallay: Le néolithique moyen du Jura et des plaines de la Saône: contribution à L’etude des relations Chassey-Cortaillod-Michelsberg (1977); M. Escalon de Fonton: ‘Circonscription de Provence-Alpes- Côte-d’Azur’, Gallia Préhistoire 23 (1980), 525–47.

RJA

‘Chasséo-Michelsberg’ see CHASSÉEN

Châtelperronian (Lower Périgordian) Stone industry of the Upper Palaeolithic, distinguished by the presence of curved

(Châtelperron points), found in central and southwest France. The status of the Châtelperronian industry has formed a key debate in Upper Palaeolithic studies. Although technologically it is a blade-based industry, and therefore Upper Palaeolithic in nature, it has many characteristics of the MOUSTERIAN assemblages of the Middle Palaeolithic that in Europe are closely associated with Neanderthal populations. Though not yet certain, it seems likely that the Châtelperronian (like the SZELETIAN of central Europe and the ULUZZIAN of Italy) was produced by local Neanderthal populations acculturated by contemporary anatomically modern humans who were responsible for the AURIGNACIAN cultural assemblage. At certain key sites (e.g. ROC DE COMBES) this contemporaneity is attested by the inter-stratifica- tion of Aurignacian and Châtelperronian layers. In some of the literature, the Châtelperronian is called the ‘Lower Périgoridan’ and linked with a later industry characterized by backed blades, the GRAVETTIAN or ‘Upper Périgordian’.

RJA

Chau Can see DONG SON CULTURE

Chauvet Cave Cave with mural art of the Upper Palaeolithic, located in the gorges of the Ardèche in south-east France. Discovered as recently as December 1994 by Jean-Marie Chauvet (after whom the cave is named) and others, the cave consists of a series of galleries and caverns over half a kilometre long decorated with single and grouped examples of paintings (red and, predominantly,

150 CHAUVET CAVE

black) and carvings of animals, and some hand stencils and signs. The cave will not be fully surveyed for some years, but estimates suggest Chauvet contains much higher concentrations of rhinoceroses and carnivores than most Upper Palaeolithic galleries: rhinos (provisional estimate of 22%), lions (17%), mammoths (16%), horses (12%), bison (9%), bears (5.5%) and reindeer (5%). There are also some interesting oddities: an anthropomorphic bison figure, recalling the anthropomorphized figure of the ‘Sorceror’ at LES TROIS-FRÈRES, and the first known Palaeolithic depiction of an owl. The technique at Chauvet is also surprising, with greater use of shading and infill than at comparable sites. Perspective is attempted in a number of drawings and, although the general effect is naturalistic, there seems a stronger than usual tendency to exaggerate or embolden an animal feature (especially horns) to strengthen the design; animal groups seem to be more strongly related to one another than at other sites, and may in some instances form compositions. Some of the panels also seem to be consciously balanced into two or three groupings of animals.

The first radiocarbon dates for Chauvet suggest a date for some of the art of around 30,000 BC (though the cave was revisited over thousands of years); this cuts across conventional understanding of the chronology of Upper Palaeolithic art – which would have placed the paintings after about 20,000 BC. If these dates are confirmed, Upper Palaeolithic mural art in a form as developed as that found at Lascaux must have been produced as early as some of the earliest mobiliary art and VENUS FIGURINES. As well as suggesting that still earlier examples of Palaeolithic art await discovery (perhaps among known but wrongly dated examples), such an early dating would deal a final blow to any simplistic evolutionary scheme of how the various styles in cave art developed across the millennia (see CAVE

ART).

Jean-Marie Chauvet et al.: Chauvet Cave: The discovery of the world’s oldest paintings, trans. P. Bahn (London, 1996).

RJA

Chavez Pass see GRASSHOPPER PUEBLO

Chavín Site located in the Mosna Valley (north central highlands, Peru), dating from 1000 to 400 BC. The centre of the first widespread religion and art style in Peru, Chavín has a series of large cutstone constructions decorated with reliefs of supernatural felines, birds, and other associates of the deities, the Smiling God and the Staff God, whose cults spread over Peru, carrying with them

the heddle loom, gold metallurgy, agriculture, hallucinogen use, and other traits.

R.L. Burger: Chavín and the origins of Andean civilization

(London, 1992).

KB

Chemagel Late Iron Age site in the Sotik region of the south-western Kenyan highlands, incorporating a group of large ‘SIRIKWA HOLES’ identified as unroofed cattle-pens with attached houses.

JS

Chenes see RIO BEC/CHENES

Chibuene see MANEKWENI

Chichén Itzá Large Terminal Classic and Early Postclassic Maya site (dating c.AD 800–1200) in the north-central Yucatan Peninsula, one of the largest

eroded

forecourt

smooth (living room)

uneven floor (small stock)

Figure 11 Chemagel Chemagel, an east African Iron Age settlement of the ‘Sirikwa hole’ type, as excavated in 1964. Source: J.E.G. Sutton: A thousand years of East Africa (BIEA, 1990), p. 44.

and wealthiest in Mesoamerica, perhaps best known for its complex architecture, its CENOTE and its huge ballcourt (see BALLGAME). The Chichén Itzá ballcourt is the largest in Mesoamerica, with a ‘playing field’ measuring some 146 m long and 36 m wide. The vertical sides of the court, 8 m in height, rise above a sloping, sculptured basal apron showing two teams of elaborately dressed players facing each other. The central figure is a decapitated player, with serpents of blood gushing from the headless neck. A large ball in front of the figure is decorated with a skull.

Chichén Itzá has often been called ‘ToltecMaya’, because its architecture is a blend of Mexican and Maya traits. Some buildings are constructed in the PUUC Maya style, while others are built in what has been considered the TOLTEC style, with distinctive serpent columns, colonnades, CHACMOOL sculptures and benches with atlantean figures. Still other structures, such as the TZOMPANTLI (or ‘skull racks’), show more general similarities with central Mexican architecture.

Chichén Itzá was the site of one of the earliest major archaeological projects in the Maya lowlands from 1923 to 1937, under the sponsorship of the Carnegie Institution of Washington and directed by the famous Maya archaeologist Sylvanus G. Morley. Despite this long period of excavations, the chronological position of Chichén Itzá – especially the relation of the Mexican and Maya architectural phases – is still poorly understood. The traditional interpretation of the site (Tozzer 1957) is strongly based on Mesoamerican legends telling of the flight of QUETZALCOATL from Tula, and Chichén Itzá was thought to have had two sequential (and ethnically distinct) building occupation periods: Maya and then intrusive Toltec. More recent analyses (Lincoln 1986) have argued for a much greater ‘overlap’ or even contemporaneity between the two episodes of the site, forcing a still-incomplete reconsideration of the Early Postclassic period in the northern lowlands.

A.M. Tozzer: Chichén Itzá and its cenote of sacrifice: a comparative study of contemporaneous Maya and Toltec

(Cambridge, MA, 1957); C.E. Lincoln: ‘The chronology of Chichén Itzá: a review of the literature’, Late lowland Maya civilization: classic to postclassic, ed. J.A. Sabloff and E.W. Andrews V (Albuquerque, 1986) 141–96.

PRI

Ch’i-chia culture (Qijia) Early Neolithic culture in China, named after the type site at Ch’i- chia-p’ing, Kuang-ho-hsien, Kan-su. When Johan G. Andersson first reported it in 1923, he regarded

CH’IN 151

it as the earliest of the Neolithic cultures, but this view was later demonstrated to be incorrect, since Chi’i-chia culture has generally been found stratigraphically later than the YANG-SHAO culture. Several hundred sites have been excavated, yielding pottery with some characteristic types, such as the flat-bottomed narrow-necked kuan-jar, and occasional finds of copper artefacts. Some of the latter may actually be intrusive from the ChungYüan culture.

J.G. Andersson: ‘Researches into the prehistory of the Chinese’, BMFEA 15 (1943); Chang Kwang-chih: The archaeology of ancient China, 4th edn (New Haven, 1986), 280–6.

NB

Chichimecs Semi-nomadic hunting and horticultural peoples living on the northwestern fringes of ancient Mesoamerica. The Chichimecs were generally regarded as ‘barbarians’ by the settled peoples to the south. A series of migrations during the epi-Classic and Postclassic (c.AD 700–1521) periods brought the Chichimecs into the BASIN OF MEXICO, where they gradually integrated and intermarried with urban, farming peoples of the basin. Many Postclassic peoples, including the

TOLTECS, the Mexica or AZTECS and the TARA-

SCANS, claim to have had their origins among the Chichimecs.

P. Kirchoff et al., eds: Historia Tolteca-Chichimeca

(Mexico, 1976).

PRI

Chin ( Jin) An ancient state in China of considerable importance. It originally comprised the territory known as T’ang which was enfeoffed to a younger brother (Shu-yu) of Ch’eng Wang, third king of CHOU (1115–1078 BC). Following the reestablishment of the ROYAL DOMAIN in a small area between Chin and Cheng in 771 BC, Chin became a major power during the Ch’un-ch’iu period and supported the tottering rule of the kings of Chou. In Chan-kuo times Chin was divided into three states: Han, Chao, and Wei, however, the Chin ruling house retained a more or less nominal status until 349 BC. Archaeologically, Chin is best known for the major bronze manufacturing sites around HOU-MA, and the vast number of brush-written jade tablets (datable c.490 BC) containing ‘oaths of allegiance’ discovered amongst a complex of some 400 pits in which were buried ‘sacrificial’ animals (mainly sheep, some horses and cattle).

Li Hsüeh-ch’in Tung-Chou yü Ch’in-tai wen-hua, 1984 (trans. Chang Kwang-chih, 1985: Eastern Zhou (Chou)

152 CH’IN

and Qin (Ch’in) Civilizations); *anon., Hou-ma ming-shu

[The Hou-ma Oaths of Allegiance Jade Tablets], Shanghai, 1976.

Ch’in (Qin) An ancient state located in the west of China (Shen-hsi and Kan-su) which was enfeoffed as one of the chu-hou (a princely state, the rulers of which were given the title kung, ‘Duke’) by the Chou king, P’ing Wang, for its services during the crucial period ultimately leading to the removal of the Chou capital in 771 BC to the east at Lo-yi (Lo-yang) – whence commences EASTERN CHOU. The Ch’in state was then established in the homeland of the CHOU. As a consequence, the still extant styles of Late Western Chou in both pottery and bronze strongly influenced Ch’in art and design in the ensuing centuries; but concurrently, local Ch’in art merged with the adopted forms so giving rise to the sometimes rather crude castings, particularly in such vessels as TING and KUEI, so characteristic of Ch’in bronzes during Ch’un-ch’iu times (771–481 BC). The innovative TUI appears in this period, while in Chan-kuo times (480–255 BC) such distinctive vessels as the Mou-vase and Hu- Hu-flask made their debut. Interestingly, the distribution of characteristic tomb structures of Ch’in, many hundreds of which have been discovered throughout China, provide a valuable potential in the study of the rise and expansion of this state. The story of Ch’in’s ascendancy and ultimate subjugation of the other Chinese states and their unification under Shih-huang-ti is well known. Although the Ch’in empire was short-lived (221–207 BC), it decisively established the imperial theme that was to prevail in China from Han (206 BC–AD 220) and continue practically up to the present.

Li Hsüeh-ch’in Tung-Chou yü Ch’in-tai wen-hua, 1984 (trans. Chang Kwang-chih, 1985: Eastern Zhou (Chou) and Qin (Ch’in) Civilizations); Ch’in-shih-huang-ling pingma yung-k’ang [The Terracotta Army of Ch’in Shih-huang-ti], 2 vols, 1988.

NB

China The present-day boundaries of China cover an area of about 9,600,000 sq. km: slightly less than Europe, slightly more than the USA. There is considerable variation in the topography, climate and vegetation, including the subarctic taiga of Manchuria, the arid deserts and steppes of Mongolia, the cold inhospitable wastes of the Tibetan plateau, the highly fertile Red Basin of Ssuch’uan, the temperate alluvial plains of the Yellow River Valley, the river-dissected tablelands of the

Note:

The chronology presented in the above table is generally based upon the orthodox system. Note that there is no Hsia period; this could be considered to lie somewhere in the 'Pre-Shang' section, while Shang comprises essentially the archaeological eras: Erh- li-t'ou, Erh-li-kang, and An-yang. These three sub-divisions of Shang are assessed with reference to both radiocarbon and orthodox dates, and then ‘rounded-off’ mathematically. Orthodox dates from the Chou conquest of Shang onwards are highlighted by bold figures. Each of the periods: Western Chou, Ch’un-ch’iu, and Chan-kuo, are mathematically sub-divided into equal parts. From Ch’in onwards, the dynastic divisions are highly simplified.

Table 10 China Chronology of China from the Shang period to modern times.

southeast and the semi-tropical hill-country of the Liang-kuang.

The major rivers flow more or less ‘horizontally’ across to the Pacific in a west–east direction, only to a small extent running through different major climatic and vegetational zones. There are various detailed geographical and cultural subdivisions of

China, although the country can be demarcated simply into Northern, Central and Southern China. The Yellow River Valley played a special role in the establishment of the formative eras of the Chinese civilization, following the advent of metallurgy and then writing (see EASTERN CHOU, WESTERN CHOU and SHANG.) Chang Kwang-chih (1986) has therefore made the useful proposal that China should be divided into three ecological areas: the Yellow River Valley, the ‘southern deciduous zone’, and the ‘northern forests and steppes zone’.

1. Prehistory. As a result of tremendous advances in archaeological discovery over the last few decades, the concept of the Chung-yüan (the central plains of the Yellow River Valley) as the fountainhead of Chinese civilization and culture has been challenged, and its significance will doubtless be open to some further degree of modification, but probably not in its entirety. The debate hinges on the question of what constitutes a ‘civilization’ and what is to be accepted as the starting point thereof. Neolithic cultures, and their Palaeolithic antecedents, throughout continental China are now seen to have contributed appreciably towards the ultimate development of civilization in the Chung-yüan, no less than the comparable contributions of their counterparts have in other cultural regions of the ancient world.

CHINA 153

By c.5000 BC several distinct regional Neolithic cultures had crystallized: YANG-SHAO,

TA-WEN-K’OU, MA-CHIA-PANG, HO-MU-TU and

TA-P’EN-KENG; during the ensuing two millennia, interconnections gradually developed between them (see map 20, showing the diagrammatic distribution of the principal Neolithic cultures). Foci of research and interpretation in Chinese archaeology now tend towards appraisals of the settlement patterns, the nature of building construction, social organization, religious practices, and various other aspects of daily life that can be determined from archaeological context, such as the extent of agriculture and domestication of animals, the variety of prey hunted or fished, and the technical levels of lithic and ceramic industries. Much of the better-preserved data naturally derive from funerary goods and are systematically studied in terms of the site stratigraphy, particularly with reference to ceramics, which offer significant variations in the materials employed, developments in mode of manufacture (in particular, the increasing use of the potters’ wheel), and developments in design and decoration. SERIATION of such site data, often allied with the results of radiocarbon (and occasionally thermoluminescence) dating, have provided chronological frameworks – of varying levels of dependability – which form the bases for comparisons between one

154 CHINA

site-area and another, or one cultural region and another.

Current research is now gradually being influenced by the proposed division of China into seven or eight cultural regions (see Su Ping-ch’i and Yin Wei-chang 1981), but most of these investigations have so far been concerned with Neolithic antecedents. Towards the close of the Neolithic era (i.e. at the advent of the various LUNG-SHAN and CH’I-CHIA cultures), with the loom of the ‘historical’ era embracing traditional text accounts of the San-tai (the ‘Three Dynasties’: HSAI, SHANG, and Chou) on the horizon, there has arisen considerable debate regarding the alleged existence of the Hsia dynasty as detailed in literary accounts. Many arguments have been advanced which seek to identify the early 2nd millennium ERH-LI-T’OU culture of the Chung-yüan as Hsia, and the following ERH-LI- KANG culture as either Hsia or Early Shang.

The earliest dependable evidence of metallurgical production that has come to light derives from Lung-shan sites in the Chung-yüan, such as T’AO-SSU. The current excavations of sophisticated copper mining complexes at T’UNG-LING, sections of which have been radiocarbon dated to c.1500 BC, have provided supplementary evidence relevant to the beginnings of metallurgy in China, now assessed to have been somewhat earlier than 2000 BC.

In recent years, further investigations into the nature of the centrifugal diffusion of metallurgical technology from the Chung-yüan into the peripheral ‘barbarian’ regions has been rewarding. In these regions both technological and artistic adaptations and modifications of the Chung-yüan bronze casting methods were in progress. At the same time, there was also an intermingling of the local foundry practices with alien technologies and art infiltrating these regions from cultural spheres far outside the modern boundaries of China. A reverse flow of the new technologies towards the Chung-yüan was to take place late in Chou times. This avenue of study has thrown further light on the independent nature of the origins of metallurgy in the Chung-yüan. However, it has also provided instructive commentary on the way in which several of the non-metal-using cultures in these regions were later to achieve the level of ‘states’ and, in their development of local bronze founding industries, sought to emulate aspects of the Chungyüan culture (often on the basis of long outdated art-forms).

G.B. Cressey: China’s geographic foundations (New York, 1951); Su Ping-ch’i and Yin Wei-chang: ‘Kwan-yü k’ao- ku-hsüeh wen-hua ti chü-hsi-lei-hsing wen-t’i’ [Problems

regarding the classification of archaeological cultural regions], WW 5 (1981), 10–17; Chang Kwang-chih: The archaeology of ancient China, 4th edn (New Haven, 1986); N. Barnard: ‘Thoughts on the emergence of metallurgy in pre-Shang and Early Shang China and a technical appraisal of relevant bronze artifacts of the time’, BMM 19 (1993), 3–48.

2 History: Shang and Chou. The Shang dynasty comprised about 30 kings whose seats of power were located variously in the eastern and northern parts of northern Ho-nan, northern An-hui, and western Shan-tung; the capital is said to have been shifted five times in this general area. Traditional literary accounts show that the rule of Shang lasted from 1766 to 1122 BC, and that the last move of the capital, in c.1375 BC, was to Yin (now AN-YANG). This move was instigated by P’an-keng, the 24th king of the dynasty. Sometimes the term Yin is applied to the ensuing period, although the name does not actually appear with reference to Shang until after the Chou conquest (1122 BC).

The Shang people of the

INSCRIPTIONS actually refer to themselves as Shang, and reference is also made to Ta-yi-Shang (‘the great city, Shang’), and T’ien-yi-Shang (the ‘heavenly city, Shang’) which some believe to have been a major city located elsewhere, prior to the move. This period, conventionally rounded off as 1400–1122 BC, constitutes the archaeo-historical era of Late Shang. Most of what is known about Early Shang (2000–1650 BC) and Middle Shang (1650–1400 BC), over and above the results of archaeological discovery, derives from the less dependable traditional literature. The exotic picture of the Shang period presented by the literary sources is of Arthurian proportions and validity, and it contrasts vividly with the extensive array of archaeological evidence. It should be realized, too, that even the reign-lengths used to reconstruct the Shang dynastic tables, derive only from literary sources compiled a millennium or more later, such as the Shih-chi (‘memoirs of the historian’), the BAMBOO ANNALS, and the Han-shu, a situation that also holds largely for WESTERN CHOU. These reign lengths are therefore no less open to question.

It is evident from the content of the 100,000 or so fragments of incised ORACLE BONE, and tortoise plastrons, that have come to light since 1899 (when they were first recognized as Shang period documents) that the Late Shang administration system comprised a ‘network’ of walled towns under the Shang king’s suzerainty. The imposition of his suzerainty was apparently effected by a combination of military might and, possibly, the manifold varieties of ritual ceremonies. Oracle-bone entries