the chinese jade age: between antiquarianism and archaeology

Copyright © 2006 SAGE Publications (www.sagepublications.com)ISSN 1469-6053 Vol 6(2): 202–226 DOI: 10.1177/1469605306064241

Journal of Social Archaeology A R T I C L E

202

The Chinese Jade AgeBetween antiquarianism and archaeology

PAOLA DEMATTÈ

Liberal Arts, Rhode Island School of Design, USA

ABSTRACTRecent and abundant archaeological discoveries of Neolithic jade inChina have prompted Chinese scholars and archaeologists alike todiscuss the concept of the Jade Age as a way to better understand localprehistoric development. This concept, originally proposed in a 2000-years-old text, would add an extra ‘Age’ to the Western Three Agesystem. While this move has not received much positive attention inthe West, archaeological and technological evidence from Chinashows that the Jade Age may be a useful analytical category.

KEY WORDSChinese Neolithic ● Hongshan ● Jade ● Liangzhu

■ INTRODUCTION

With the recoveries in several parts of China of numerous jades frommiddle-to-late Neolithic contexts (ca. 4500–2000 BC), Chinese scholarshave resumed an idea raised in an ancient text (the Yuejue Shu) concern-ing the existence in China of a Jade Age between the Stone and the Bronze

203Demattè The Chinese Jade Age

Ages (Chang, 1986: 8–9; Mou and Wu, 1990; Qu Shi, 1991; Wu, 1990; contraXie, 1994). If accepted, the notion of a Jade Age would create a ChineseFour Age system (Stone, Jade, Bronze, Iron) to be contrasted with the ThreeAge system (Stone, Bronze, Iron) devised in the nineteenth century byDanish archaeologists C.J. Thomsen (1836) and J.J.A. Worsaae (1843). TheThree Age system far from being a nineteenth century scientific innovationis itself rooted in ideas current in classical antiquity, like those expressed inLucretius’ De Rerum Natura (Daniel, 1943, 1950: 38; Gräslund, 1981). Bothclassifications can therefore be said to be steeped in their own intellectualtradition, even though both are also substantiated by empirical observation.

The theory of a Chinese Four Age system has been received with skep-ticism by Western sinologists, who see this as a deviation from objectivearchaeological analysis towards a mytho-nationalist agenda (Rawson,1995). The dismissal of the ‘Jade Age’ as mythic rather than scientific is partof a practice of erasure from contemporary theory of non-Westerntraditions of historical inquiry. This article does not advocate the immanent‘existence’ of the category ‘Jade Age’, but shows that while neither classifi-cation is a scientific reality, both have some practical usefulness within theirrespective cultural contexts. At issue is the necessity to highlight thepresence of alternative frameworks for interpretation beyond thosedeveloped within the Western intellectual tradition, and to draw attentionto the danger of transposing culture-bound concepts. If more weight is givento non-Western analytical categories, the past can be understood differently.Since indigenous discourse is increasingly important in archaeology(Schmidt and Patterson, 1996; Watkins, 2000), this is also an opportunity todevelop inclusive theoretical frameworks.

■ TRADITIONAL AGE CLASSIFICATIONS: BET WEENHISTORY AND LEGEND

The Yuejue Shu, an eclectic Chinese compilation attributed to Yuan Kang(fl. first century AD), reports that during the Warring States period(fifth–third centuries BC), while entertaining a conversation on swords, theKing of Chu questioned the savant Feng Huzi on the ‘spiritual’ qualities ofswords’ iron. Feng Huzi explained:

At the times of Xuanyuan, Shennong and Hexu, weapons were made ofstone to cut trees and build palaces. At death, they were sacredly buried. Thesages followed a spiritual principle. By the time of Huangdi, weapons weremade of jade to fell trees, build palaces and mine the earth. Jade was also amaterial with spiritual qualities. And again the sages followed that [spiritualprinciple]. At death they were sacredly buried. At the time of emperor Yuweapons were made of bronze to build imperial cities and channel the

204 Journal of Social Archaeology 6(2)

Yellow and Yangzi rivers to flow regularly into the eastern sea. The worldwas regulated like the palace. Was this not the power of the sages? Today,with the making of iron weapons we can intimidate three armies; the worldon hearing this does not dare not to submit. This is the spiritual aspect ofiron weapons. The king has the sages’ moral power. (Yuejue Shu, ‘Waizhuan,Ji Baojian’ 1966: 3, vol. 2 juan 11)

Feng Huzi is not trying to convince his interlocutor that one period is betterthan another: he relates a sequence pointing out that each material wasspiritually congruent with the era in which it was used. The speech haspolitical and philosophical objectives, but the Yuejue Shu develops a techno-chronology, linking it to a socioevolutionary framework derived fromtraditional Chinese historiography. Stone tools are associated withShennong, the mythical inventor of agriculture. Jade is linked to Huangdi,the Yellow Emperor, a legendary king credited with the establishment ofpolitical organization in the pre-dynastic period, while bronze is tied to Yu,traditionally the founder of China’s first dynasty, Xia (ca. 2000–1600 BC).1

Finally, iron is acknowledged as a contemporary material. Interestingly, theYuejue Shu techno-chronology is confirmed by the Chinese archaeologicalrecord. Polished stone tools and weapons are present from the earlyNeolithic (ca. 8000 BC); jade use surges in the late Neolithic (3000–2000BC) and is associated with increasing urbanism of the pre-dynastic period(Demattè, 1999a); bronze appears ca. 2500 BC and becomes prevalent withthe Erlitou horizon (ca. 2100–1800 BC) thought to represent the Xia period(Linduff, et al. 2000; Liu and Chen, 2003); iron is documented around700–500 BC, shortly before the time of Feng Huzi (Wagner, 1993).

From this sequence it is clear that, for the author of the Yuejue Shu, theJade Age was not a mythical golden age, but a historical phase to beanalyzed within an evolutionary framework. By the first century in China,the idea of progress was discussed in philosophical literature, and the pastwas analyzed in historical terms for social, political and technical develop-ments. This interest in cultural change is found also in the earlier writingsof Late Zhou (fifth–third centuries BC) philosophers who argued on themerits or shortcomings of social development (Graham, 1990: 67–110;Puett, 1998). According to these texts, high antiquity was dominated by asequence of rulers, who introduced new technologies to tame nature orpeople (fire, fishing, agriculture, statecraft). Varying according to philo-sophical affiliation, the progression from the mythical ‘beginning’ to latersovereigns is seen either as a progression towards civilization or as a deca-dence from a state of natural happiness. The Zhuangzi, a Taoist text,describes the decline in morality from the ideal of high antiquity:

In the age of Shennong, the people lay down in simple innocence, and roseup in quiet security. They knew their mothers, but did not know their fathers.They dwelt along with the elks and deer. They ploughed and ate; they woveand made clothes; they had no idea of injuring one another: this was the


grand time of Perfect virtue. Huangdi, however, was not able to perpetuatethis virtuous state. He fought with Chiyou in the wilds of Zhuolu till theblood flowed over a hundred li. When Yao and Shun arose, they institutedtheir crowd of ministers. Tang banished his lord. King Wu killed Zhou. Sincethat time the strong have oppressed the weak, and the many have tyrannizedover the few. From Tang and Wu downward, [the rulers] have all beenpromoters of disorder and confusion. (Zhuangzi, ‘Daozhi’ 1959, vol. 2:429–30)2

By contrast, the Legalist text Hanfeizi praises the development of politicalcontrol:

In the highest antiquity, men were few while birds and beasts werenumerous. People could not control birds, animals, insects and snakes. A sagetook action using the trees to build nest-houses to avoid danger. People likedit and made the sage rule the empire. It was called the Nest-builder clan.People ate fruit, gourds, grasshoppers and shellfish. The stench and decayedfood were harmful to the people’s stomachs and often made them sick. Asage took action using flints to produce fire and cook the food. People likedit and made the sage rule the empire. It was called the Flintman clan.(Hanfeizi, ‘Wudu’ juan 19/49, 1974, vol. 2: 1040)

Similar cultural-evolutionary concerns were current among Greek philoso-phers, from Epicurus to Democritus, and in more mythologized forms evenin Homer and Hesiod (Cole, 1967; Gatz, 1967; Oates, 1957: ‘Letter ofEpicurus to Herodotos’). Even closer to the Yuejue Shu is the analysis ofthe past found in the De Rerum Natura by the Roman Epicurean philoso-pher and poet Titus Lucretius Caro (first century BC) (cf. Chang, 1986: 4).In his poem, Lucretius wrote:

The ancient weapons were hands, nails, and teeth and stones and branchesalso broken from the forest trees, flames and fire, as soon as they wereknown. Later was discovered the power of iron and bronze.3 The use ofbronze was known before iron, because it is more easily worked and there isgreater store. With bronze men tilled the soil of the earth, with bronze theystirred up the waves of war and sowed devastating wounds and seized cattleand lands; for when some were armed, all that was naked and unarmedreadily gave way to them. Then by small degrees the sword of iron gainedground, and the fashion of the bronze sickle became a thing of contempt;then with iron they began to break the soil of the earth, and the struggles ofwar now become doubtful were made equal. (De Rerum Natura Book V:1282–1285, 1975: 476–9 v. 1281)

While some have seen Lucretius’ theory as a guess or a scheme ‘based onphilosophical speculation’ (Daniel, 1950: 15), others have proposed that theThree Age progression was a familiar idea in Classical thought, part of awider evolutionary approach to the past found also in Herodotos, Plutarchand Pausanias (Myres, 1946). The existence in China and Europe of similarorganizing principles for the past with the perception of a different set of


‘ages’ suggests that these traditional classifications were based both onempirical observation and historical analysis, and that they influencedhistorical thinking in their respective cultural areas.

In Europe, ideas from classical antiquity concerning technologicalprogress and historic change were rediscovered in the sixteenth century,and through the works of eighteenth-century antiquarians served as inspi-ration to the Three Age system of Thomsen and Worsaae (de Mortillet,1883: 1–7; Evans, 1872: 3–4; Myres, 1946; Rhind, 1856). Differently, in China,the Yuejue Shu’s Four Ages were never utilized in archaeological classifi-cation, despite a local antiquarian tradition that since the twelfth centuryproduced catalogues of excavated antique bronzes and jades (Chang, 1986:8–12; Poor, 1965). These diverse approaches to antiquarian classificationwere caused by different historical circumstances. While in northernEurope archaeologists were striving to build a chronology in a pre-literatecontext, in China, thanks to the profusion of paleographic and historicsources, archaeologists already had a long chronology upon which to pinmost excavated artifacts (von Falkenhausen, 1993). Since it was often theinscriptions that attracted Chinese scholars to enter artifacts in antiquariancatalogues, it was relatively easy to assign them to a dynastic period.

This emphasis on the written word was responsible for the scarce atten-tion prehistoric archaeology attracted in China until recently. Since the1980s increased recoveries of pre-historic material and the growth of anational pride have prompted Chinese archaeologists to investigate the pre-literate origins of their civilization (Xia, 1985). It is in this context that thediscoveries of Neolithic jades contributed to the resurrection of the YuejueShu idea of a Jade Age within a four-age system. Among Chinese scholars,the debate on the Jade Age is still in its formative stages and views are notunanimous. Xie Zhongli (1994) rejects the idea as futile, whereas others seeit as a way to understand the local character of the Neolithic and to high-light the peculiarities in the development of Chinese civilization (Chang,1986: 4–5; Mou and Wu, 1990; Qu, 1991: 1–30; Wu, 1990; You, 2002: 78–80).Overall, while there is an element of national pride, the Jade Age conceptis not used to advocate the creation of a native system of archaeologicalclassification that would replace the Three Age system.

In the West, the attempt to discuss the Jade Age or the validity of theconcept was (with few exceptions: Childs-Johnson, 2002) met with ridiculeor silence, suggesting that ‘the Chinese’ are intellectually naïve or nation-alistic. Rawson (1995: 28) in particular dismissed the Jade Age, arguing thatStone, Bronze and Iron Ages are scientific categories that signal materialadvances in tools and weapon manufacture impacting farming or fighting.Such an analysis proposes a ritual-utilitarian divide as a rationale for age-naming, ignoring the sociopolitical impact of new technologies andassociated economies. This understanding contrasts with current interpret-ations of the Three Age system that see it as a practical classification of


uncertain accuracy and limited geographic application, within which ‘ages’represent various phenomena.

■ NAMING AGES

From the writing of Thomsen and Worsaae it is clear that the Three Agesystem was intended neither to periodize the past based on the materialswith which tools were fashioned, nor to work as a theory of social evolu-tion (Daniel, 1943: 14–5).4 To organize the pre-historic artifacts of theMuseum of Northern Antiquities, Thomsen developed the system as amuseum classification chronology basing it on empirical observations fromarchaeological evidence and stylistic analysis of artifacts (Daniel, 1943: 8;Gräslund, 1981: 46–8; Trigger, 1989: 75–8). Only later, with the stratigraphicexcavations of Worsaae (1843), the stone, bronze, iron sequence was demon-strated archaeologically in the Scandinavian record.

When the system was later refined, the emphasis shifted away fromchronology to economic and sociopolitical concerns (Daniel, 1943: 16–22).The Marxist economic and social approach to the codification of ages orstages was developed by G.V. Childe when the Three Age system startedto come under criticism as a simple chronological framework. Childesupported the retention of the concept of ‘ages’, and actually divided thevarious ages into modes, according to the use which was made of thematerial (Childe, 1944). He also problematized the concept of ‘ages’, indi-cating that the sheer presence of an iron object does not make an Iron Age,since that in itself does not indicate the presence of an industry with animpact on the society. For Childe, it was the development of an industrywith all its correlates (in the case of metals: quarrying, smelting, alloying)which was worthy of attention. He focused on the economic impact withhis functional-economic interpretation of Thomsen’s ages, proposing theyeach should be regarded as economic stages which had revolutionizedsociety (Childe, 1935: 7–9, 1936: 39). Childe and others indicated also thatage names do not necessarily reflect a widespread use of the named materialin production tools and that the earliest use of new materials (particularlymetals) was often limited to ornaments or symbols of status.

As archaeological discourse developed, each age started to includedifferent and at times contradictory traits. While these inclusions havehelped us to better understand some phases of the past, they have also beenperceived as problematic and stifling (cf. for example Thomas (1993) on‘The Neolithic’).

These flexible criteria for age-naming can be applied to define the JadeAge. Like the bronzes of the early Bronze Age, and the irons of the earlyIron Age, the earliest Chinese jades (ca. 6000–5000 BC) are items of status


or ornaments manufactured with a slightly modified stone technology(Yang, 2004) that in later phases (ca. 4000–2000 BC) turned into special-ized jade technology. Abandoning flaking for abrasion, the new industryincreased production and typological varieties expanding to tools, weapons,and ceremonial objects. This transformation happened along with othermomentous changes in the economic and ideological structure of thesocieties that experienced it. As jade production soared, settlements grewin size and complexity, socioeconomic and gender inequality expanded, andsymbolic signing systems, that gave way to writing, proliferated (Demattè,1999a). While the causal relationships of these events is difficult to disen-tangle, there is evidence that jade, as a material and as an industry, mayhave contributed to economic and ideological changes, lending support tothe concept of ‘Jade Age’.

■ GEOGRAPHIC LIMITATIONS OF THE THREE-AGESYSTEM

Since the Three Age system was developed and perfected based on thepeculiarities of the European and Near Eastern archaeological record, thischronology is not easily applicable to other parts of the globe (Daniel, 1943:53). Some have suggested that a strict Three Age system is limiting even inthe archaeology of the Levant (Rosen, 1997: 151).

In the New World, where bronze and iron were introduced only aftercontact, archaeological periodization is not related to the materials used fortool production, and other categories are adopted to assess the localchronology (Willey and Sabloff, 1993: 204–7). The Three Age system is simi-larly unsuitable for most of sub-Saharan Africa, where there is no well-defined bronze or copper age before the introduction of iron (Phillipson,1993: 158–60). In fact, in parts of Africa there were iron-making hunter-gatherers, because iron technology had spread faster than agriculture. Thisevidence sharply contrasts with Childe’s economic stages, which place theintroduction of agriculture much earlier than that of iron-making. Com-parable dissonance with the Three Age system is apparent in East Asia,where the concepts of Bronze and Iron Ages are inadequate to understandKorean and Japanese contexts (Barnes, 1993: 17–18). In China, where thearchaeological sequence is not so different from those of Europe and theNear East as to warrant the complete rejection of the Three Age system,its uncritical use has created a monolithic ‘Neolithic’.

The limited applicability of the Three Age system beyond the Near Eastand Europe shows that, although useful in these contexts, this analyticalframework reflects local peculiarities rather than an immanent scientificreality. Such evidence questions the wisdom of ignoring non-Western


logical categories, since these may be more appropriate to understand localdevelopments.

■ THE RITUAL VERSUS UTILITARIAN FALLACY:MINERALOGICAL QUALITIES AND ‘CULTURAL VALUES’

Scholars who reject the idea of a Jade Age incorrectly maintain that jadetools and weapons were made for ritual display because they do not showwear and are too fragile to be useable. Evidence suggests otherwise.

The term ‘jade’, like its Chinese counterpart ‘yu’, can be used to refer toa variety of semi-precious stones. In the West, it indicates either nephriteor jadeite, but in traditional Chinese terminology it may be vaguer, so thata number of beautiful stones resembling jade can be termed ‘yu’. Today,only nephrite and jadeite are considered true jades (zheng yu), while otherstones, such as serpentine or bowenite, are classified as hemi- or pseudo-jades. Since jadeite was introduced into China only in the eighteenthcentury, jade used in China during the pre-historic and early historic periodsis limited to nephrite (though there are objects fashioned in hemi- orpseudo-jade). Wen and Jing (1997: 109) describe nephrite as ‘a compactvariety of the tremolite actinolite series . . . minerals in the calcic amphi-bole group’, with a ‘specific nephrite microstructure that is characterized bymicroscopic randomly-oriented bundles of felted and twisted fibers’, addingthat ‘although nephrite may be based on tremolite or actinolite, theconverse is not necessarily true’. While nephrite and tremolite-actinolitehave a similar mineral composition, nephrite has in addition a compactmicrostructure (the result of intense geological pressure) that makes itrarer, harder and smoother than standard tremolite-actinolite. While softerthan jadeite or diamond on the Mohs scale, due to the structure of its inter-locked fibers, nephrite is actually more difficult to cut than these hardmaterials (Beck, 1984: 143–52). Nephrite is appreciated also for its color.This ranges from near white to dark green (almost black), based on the ironcontent, which varies along the tremolite-actinolite series. Little or no irongives a white or near white appearance to the stone (tremolite), whereas ahigher percentage produces darker tones (actinolite). Most jades are greenor yellow, and when polished become shiny and in some cases translucent.Because of these qualities, nephrite has been used by many populations tomanufacture usable tools. Studies of Maori jades indicate that this material,far from being regarded as simply ‘beautiful’ and ‘ritual’, was made intovery effective tools to fell trees and build canoes (Beck, 1984: 101–7).

Hardly any study of wear has been carried out on Chinese jade toolsbeyond visual inspection. Based on summary examinations of select‘museum quality’ pieces, some researchers have concluded that jade tools


and weapons are either unsharpened and unusable or sharpened butunused. This circumstantial evidence has led scholars to term jade tools andweapons ‘ritual’, implying that such items are not used. There are twoproblems with this conclusion.

The first is that there is no obvious connection between an artifact’s ritualdesignation and its lack of use. Objects employed in rituals were made tobe used: for example ritual axes might be used to slaughter sacrificialvictims or chop fire wood like at the Olmec site of La Venta (Tabasco),where axes with wear were recovered as buried ceremonial offerings(Drucker et al., 1959: 135–45, pl. 23–5). While it is likely that some jadeshad only a ceremonial use, others (axes, blades) could be employed also ineveryday activities. That due to their technological sophistication andeconomic value they were possessed only by the upper classes, who usedthem rarely, does not make them ‘ritual’. Tools and weapons from upperclass burials often do not show evidence of wear whether they are made ofjade, bronze or even iron, because wear is related to the status of the ownerrather than to the nature of the material. The jade axe of a chief may nothave chopped wood, because the chief did not chop wood, not because jadecannot cut wood. Ultimately, the separation between weapons/tools versusritual/symbolic objects is very murky, and the very existence of a clear-cutritual and utilitarian distinction is a fallacy (Lesure, 1999).

The second problem is that, as Hayashi (2003) has shown, wear andbreakage are present on Neolithic and Bronze Age jade artifacts, andphotographic evidence of excavated jade tools with chipped edges andreworked hafting holes has been published (Anhui, 2000: pl. 9, 26; Tang,1998, vol. 3: pl. 14, 16, 17, 44–51, 141–6, 174, 283–4, 302).

While more specialized studies are needed to document wear on jades,whether or not Chinese jade tools were routinely used in production activi-ties is not entirely relevant. The dualistic focus on use/non-use sidesteps adiscussion on the economic and ideological impacts the introduction of anew technology has on a society beyond warfare and food production. InChina at the apogee of the Bronze Age during the Shang dynasty, bronzewas mostly used to make ritual vessels for ancestral offerings while agri-cultural tools continued to be made of stone, so that agricultural produc-tion was little influenced by the introduction of bronze (Bagley, 1999: 136).Still, the bronze industry transformed Shang society with its need for rawmaterials, casting technology, and specialized labor force. With its associ-ation with ritual practice, the bronze industry contributed also to theconsolidation of the prevailing ideology. Jade may have had a similar impacton some prehistoric Chinese societies. The beautiful stone was in demand,its hardness required the development of a new technology, and its rarityand production costs limited its distribution. It is likely that during the LateNeolithic (3000–2000 BC) or ‘Jade Age’, these technological and economicforces shaped a jade value system and a new ideology. We do not know


what Neolithic people thought about jade, but at a certain point in late pre-history jade begun to embody a variety of desirable qualities.

Inscriptions on oracular bones or bronzes from the Shang and Zhoudynasties show that the jade pictograph was associated with monetary valueor ritual activities (Wang, 1998; Zhang, 1998). Later and longer texts (fromcirca the seventh century BC to the first centuries AD) liken jade’s quali-ties to the moral ideals of the perfect ruler or the spiritual powers of immor-tals. Jade is seen as an embodiment of higher morality (de), as a symbol ofbeauty, power, protection and even immortality (Strassberg, 1986). Anaccount in the Shuowen Jiezi, a first century BC dictionary, lists themineralogical qualities of jade and compares them with those of the idealgentleman:

Jade, the most beautiful among the stones, embodies five virtues. Itssmoothness is warm, which is the virtue of humanity. Its translucence showsthe core, which is the virtue of justice. Its sound reverberates and is heard faraway, which is the virtue of wisdom. Its hardness can hurt, which is the virtueof courage. Its sharpness and purity do not provoke envy, which is the virtueof honesty. (Shuowen Jiezi – ‘Yu’, 1930, vol. 5: 112b)

■ ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE OF CHINESE PRE-HISTORIC JADE

Throughout the Neolithic (and particularly in its late phase), jades are quiteubiquitous in the Chinese archaeological record. Centers of jade use areknown from both the coastal cultures in the north (Xinglongwa, Hongshan),center (Dawenkou, Haidai Longshan) and south (Majiabang-Songze-Liangzhu); and from inland or southern areas, like the middle Yangzi Rivervalley (Daxi, Shijjiahe, Qujialing); the middle to upper Yellow River valley(Yangshao, Miaodigou II, Taosi); Guangdong province; and the Sichuanbasin (Liu, 2003; Tang, 1998; Wen and Jing, 1997; Zhang, 2000) (Figure 1).Jade was used to fashion a variety of objects, and geographic distributionwas responsible for great variation in terms of quantity, quality and typesof jades (though some similarities are apparent among jade products ofcontiguous cultures; Liu, 2003).

Notwithstanding its wide distribution, jade production started earlier andwas more advanced among the Neolithic coastal cultures than it was ininland or southern China (Wen and Jing, 1997: 113). The debate on the ‘JadeAge’ is therefore particularly meaningful in relation to this area, becausehere jade production may have impacted the social, political, and ideologi-cal spheres.

Jade manufacture is attested early in both the northern and southernsections of the Chinese coast. The oldest nephrite artifacts recovered are


ornaments and tools from a few early middle Neolithic (ca. 6500–5000 BC)Xinglongwa sites in northeastern China: Baiyinchanghan (Inner Mongolia,2004) and Xinglonggou (Liu, 2004: 58–74) in Inner Mongolia, and Chahaiin Liaoning (Liaoning, 1994). Farther south, in the lower Yangzi Rivervalley, early jades have been found at Majiabang and Songze sites (ca.5000–4000 BC) (Wen and Jing, 1997; Liu, 2003), as well as in phase four ofHemudu (Liu, 1993: 38). Following this initial stage of jade manufacturingthat still owed something to stone technology, in the middle-to-lateNeolithic, the east coast cultures of Hongshan, Dawenkou and Liangzhuprogressed to a true jade industry with specialized technology (see later)(Wen and Jing, 1997).

Hongshan developed ca. 4700–2900 BC in the Liao River valley in north-eastern China. In its later phases, Hongshan is characterized by settledvillages, cemeteries, ceremonial centers, and evidence of pottery, stone andjade industries (He, 2000: 49–73). Jades are found both in small and largeburials, but larger interments have greater quantities and higher qualitystones. Jade was the most widely used funerary gift, though the overallnumber of offerings per grave was not high, ranging from one to 20 pieces.A rich Hongshan tomb, M21 at mound 1 in the complex of Niuheliang II,contained 20 pieces of jade, mostly ornaments (Liaoning, 1997). MostHongshan jades are figurines of birds, turtles, silkworm cocoons, and coiled

Figure 1 Map of China with jade centers: (A) Xinglongwa; (B) Dawenkou,Haidai Longshan; (C) Majiabang, Songze, Liangzhu; (D) Daxi, Quijialing, Shijiahe;(E) Yangshao,Taosi; (F) Guangdong; (G) Sichuan. (Drawn by Seth Mandel)


pendants known as ‘pig dragons’. Other artifacts include body ornaments,such as hook-and-cloud plaques, animal-faced combs and hoof-shapedtubes (Figure 2). While much improved by the introduction of specializedprocesses and tools, jade technology at Hongshan does not appear to havedeveloped to a level of mass production. Jade output was limited in sizeand production remained mostly confined to ornaments.

Figure 2 Hongshan jades: (A) pig dragons; (B) hoof-shaped head ornament;(C) comb-like head ornament; (D) disks; (E) cloud ornament; (F) turtles; (G) bat;(H) pendants; (I) bracelet


A second center of pre-historic jade use in China is in the Shandong-Jiangsu area and includes Dawenkou culture (4300–2600 BC) and its laterdevelopment Haidai Longshan (2600–2000 BC) (Figure 1). Dawenkou is amiddle-to-late Neolithic culture characterized by settled agriculturalvillages and increasing social stratification. Common in Dawenkou burialsare ritual pottery vessels (sometimes bearing early pictographs) and to alesser degree stone or jade tools (mostly axes). Jades have been recoveredfrom tombs M10 (axe), M25 (adze) and M47 (ornament) at the type site ofDawenkou (Shao, 1995; Shandong, 1974: 22–3). Remains of HaidaiLongshan show increased complexity in burials and settlements and stylis-tic continuity in ritual vessels and jade production. Late Dawenkou andHaidai Longshan jades bear many similarities and consist mainly of slab-like pieces (Figure 3). In Haidai Longshan contexts jades generally appearin small caches of tools, weapons, tablets, disks, plaques and ornaments.Burial M202 at Zhufeng (Linqu, Shandong) contained five pieces: two axes,a knife, a cylinder and a hairpin (Shao, 1995, 2002: 44; Institute of Archae-ology, 1990: 588, 590–1). Jade workmanship shows a degree of sophistica-tion: blades are thin and highly polished, and ornaments exhibit openworkand inlays with semi-precious stones.

Contemporaneous with Dawenkou, but culturally closer to Liangzhu, isthe jade-rich culture datable to ca. 3500–3000 BC unearthed at Lingjiatan(Hanshan,Anhui). Here archaeologists have brought to light unusual burialjade assemblages (Zhang, 1999) comprising plaques with solar patterns orbird designs, human figurines, turtles, pig dragons, as well as tools andweapons (Anhui, 1989, 2000; Yang, 1999). The Huating site (Jiangsu), whichcombines elements of Liangzhu and Dawenkou, is similarly rich as ityielded 150 sets of jades, including cong tubes, huang pendants and otherornaments (Zhang, 1999; Nanjing Museum, 1996).

By the late Neolithic the most important center of jade production wasassociated with the Liangzhu culture (ca. 3000–2000 BC), in the lowerYangzi River valley and coastal areas of southern Jiangsu and northernZhejiang (Sun, 1993) (Figure 1). A number of large cemeteries rich in burialjades within what may be ceremonial structures have been discovered intwo regional clusters: the Yangzi delta (Zhejiang) with the sites of Yaoshan,Fanshan and Mojiaoshan; and the Taihu lake area (Shanghai, Jiangsu), withSidun and Zhaolingshan. At Fanshan, 11 tombs yielded over 1100 objectsincluding jades, lacquers with jade inlays, pottery vessels, stone tools andivories. In each tomb, jades vary from a few dozen to several hundred, butmake up 90 per cent of burial goods. Out of 128 burial objects unearthedat Sidun tomb M3, 115 were jades. Jades uncovered in Liangzhu burialsinclude ornaments, necklaces and small pendants, weapons and tools andobjects believed to have been part of ceremonial paraphernalia, such as bidisks and cong cylinders (Figure 4). Many are finely cut, have a shinypolished surface and are decorated with a recurring mask motif made up


of sunken and relief lines or openwork (Nanjing Museum et al., 1990), anda few carry pictographs (Demattè, 1999b). The Liangzhu jade industry hadreached a high level of sophistication: jades are of superior quality in termsof material and workmanship and the large caches from wealthy burialssuggest that they were made with mass producing processes.

Jade production is attested also in inland areas, though there jadesappear later and in smaller quantities. An important inland jade center isin the middle Yangzi River valley (Zhang and Shao, 2002) (Figure 1), and

Figure 3 (A) Dawenkou jades: axe, hooked disk, ornaments; (B) Longshanjades: axes, tablet, spear head, hooked disk, ornament


is associated with the late Neolithic Shijiahe (ca. 2600–2000 BC), a culturenamed after a large walled city in the area of Tianmen (Hubei) that mayhave had ties with the adjacent Dawenkou and Liangzhu horizons. Orna-mental jades featuring human or animal heads, birds, cicadas, pendants andbeads were discovered at Luojiabailing and Xiaojiawuji outside theShijiahe city walls, and at Liuhe and Gao’ershan (Zhongxiang) and

Figure 4 Liangzhu jades: (A) cong tubes; (B) bi disk; (C) axe with emblem; (D)emblem; (E) head ornament; (F) fixtures; (G) necklaces, pendants and bracelet


Sunjiagang (Lixian) (Hubei, 1994: 225–27; Shijiahe, 1999: 296–98, 314–37;Hayashi, 1998).

The evidence documented above suggests that, starting from the middle-to-late and increasingly in the late Neolithic, jade had become a significantpart of the socioeconomic structure and a shared cultural value among thecultures of the Chinese coast and neighboring areas (like the middle YangziRiver valley). These developments and the proximity of the culturesinvolved (particularly Dawenkou-Haidai Longshan, Liangzhu and Shijiahethat are close in time) may have contributed to the creation of the culturalkoine out of which sprung Chinese Bronze Age civilization.

■ JADE INDUSTRY

From its inception, jade technology was different and more complex thanthe one employed to create stone objects (Yang, 2004; Yuan, 2003). Due tothe compact texture of nephrite, chipping and flaking is unsuitable for effec-tive working of the material. Objects are shaped by grit abrasion as differ-ent tools (strings, drills, awls, lathes) carry a sand–water mixture, harder thannephrite (6 to 6.5 on the Mohs scale), that does the actual cutting. Sands ofdifferent coarseness were used for different stages of the process: largergrained for cutting, finer for polishing. This technique remained unchangedeven with the introduction of steel tools and is documented in recenthistoric times.

Notwithstanding their different levels of sophistication all the Neolithicjade industries dealt with similar technical and economic challenges. Threeaspects deserve attention: (1) procurement of material (location of jade andsand sources, quarrying or collecting, and transportation); (2) technologicaldevelopment (processing of sands and conveying tools); (3) labor special-ization.

Procurement

While in the past it was thought that jade sources were rare in China, andthat even during the Neolithic this material may have been imported fromKorea or Chinese Turkistan, there is now evidence that the costal areas inproximity of Hongshan, Dawenkou and Liangzhu were originally rich innephrite deposits (Wen and Jing, 1997: 105). Geological studies have shownthat jade sources within the Liangzhu territory are compatible with the typeof nephrite used to make Neolithic artifacts. One such place is Xiaomeil-ing (Liyang, Jiangsu) (Wen and Jing, 1997: 117). Others may have beenlocated in the Tianmu, Yili, and Maoshan ranges near the Lake Tai sitecluster (Jiang, 1999). Still, since sources were generally in mountainous


areas and nephrite stones were collected from river beds, jade was obtainedat a cost and it had to be transported for considerable distances. Hard sands(with high content of quartz) were available at least in the Liangzhu area,which is located on Yangzi River delta. Transportation was crucial to moveraw materials, and an exchange network had to be in place. In addition toland routes, trading took advantage of waterways, particularly in the lowerYellow and Yangzi River valleys and on the coastal areas where the networkof rivers or the gulf offered favorable conditions (Yu, 1995).

Technology

Neolithic jade workshops or wasters have been discovered in almost allareas where there is evidence of jade use (the exception is the Dawenkouarea): from Hongshan (Dongjiayingzi, Aohan, Inner Mongolia), toLongshan (Wenjiatun, Dalian, Liaoning), Shijiahe (Luojiabailing, Tianmen,Hubei) and Liangzhu (Liu, 2003). At Luojiabailing a structure with burnedfloor and jade and stone remains has been interpreted as a jade and stoneworkshop (Hubei, 1994: 211–17); at Liangzhu two wasters were identifiedin an alluvial area south of the Yangzi River at Mopandun (Dantu) andDingshadi (Jurong), in Jiangsu (Lu and Han, 2002; Nanjing Museum et al.,1985; Wang, 1984: 33) and more are known. The examination of manufac-turing traces on finished pieces, discards and by-products from workshopsand wasters has provided much information on the development of jadetechnology, showing how it progressed through time from simple chippingand polishing, to slicing, drilling, and eventually to incising and inlaying(Jiang, 1999; Lu and Han, 2002; Wu, 1994).

At least four tools were used to make Hongshan jades: the string, theawl, the hollow drill and possibly a slow rotating disk. The string was usedto shape the raw material, slice flat jades (such as disks) and open cuts (suchas the slit on the pig dragon) and openwork. Awls were employed to piercehanging holes on ornaments (pendants, pig-dragons) or cloth appliqués(hook and cloud plaques, animal figurines), while tubular drills wereadopted to open larger holes (such as the central ones in the pig-dragonsand slit-earrings). Finally, slow rotating disks were employed to cut linedecorations and prepare the surface for awl drilling. While some Hongshanjades carry peculiar boat-shaped V-cuts that can be associated with theaction of a lathe-operated disk, it is generally thought that such tools werenot in use during this period (Wu, 1994).

There are no detailed studies on Dawenkou and Longshan jade manu-facturing and little in terms of workshop remains. Nonetheless, lateDawenkou and Longshan technology appears to bear similarities with theone employed at Liangzhu, which has received more attention (Jiang, 1999;Lu and Han, 2002; Wu, 1994). The analysis of jade stones, discard pieces, andtools from the mining and workshop site of Dingshadi has helped outline


the processes used to transform raw material into finished product. The firststep after collection was a rough analysis of the quality of the material.Discarded stones show that this was accomplished by exposing the innercore of a jade stone with burning and/or abrasion. By heating a stone in fireand abruptly cooling it in cold water the artisans were able to crack thesurface exposing the core. Similarly, abrasion exposed the jade which is oftencovered by a rougher outer ‘skin’ or yupi (Lu and Han, 2002: 31–2).

Several pieces retain circular traces which are associated with stringcutting, while others exhibit V-shaped cuts consistent with the operation ofblades. Though strings have not been found (they likely were of perishablematerial), several stone blades have been recovered at Dingshadi (Lu andHan, 2002: 34, Figure 5). Cores of cong tubes from Dingshadi (and of bidisks recovered elsewhere) suggest that tubular drills were used at this andother Liangzhu sites. Lu and Han (2002: 38) have proposed that such drillsmay have been metallic, but no convincing evidence supports this theory.A more likely material for the tubular drill is bamboo, which is hollow,cheap, resistant, and comes in various sizes. Liangzhu craftsmen may alsohave employed awls to pierce small holes on pendants and sharp micro-blades to produce the fine line ‘mask’-decorations of cong tubes (Wu, 1994).Jiang (1999: 180–1) has suggested that fine line carving was carried out withshark teeth, flint micro-blades and awls, and natural hard stones (quartz,crystal or, possibly, diamond) like those recovered from Dingshadi,Mopandun and Huating (Lu and Han, 2002: 40, Figure 18; NanjingMuseum, 2001; Nanjing Museum, 1996: 108–9, 18, Figure 18; NanjingMuseum et al., 1985: 76, Figure 4), whereas physical evidence for the use ofcorundum and diamond in jade working has emerged in a replication study(Lu et al., 2005).

A debated issue is whether Liangzhu people used a lathe. Some believethey did (Nanjing Museum et al., 1990: i–xii; Wu, 1994), but others thinkthey only had a slow turning wheel for drilling or polishing (Jiang, 1999:179, 82; Lu and Han, 2002). Loehr (1975: 12–15) has proposed that severaljade bi disks attributed to the Liangzhu culture now at the Freer Galleryof Art (Washington, DC) were manufactured using wheel-saws or theswing-saw, a technique which he thought may have derived from thepotters’ wheel. Overall, the output and quality of Liangzhu jades suggeststhat its craftsmen used efficient rotating devices for some tasks.

The most important of all tools in jade working was quartzic sand, amaterial harder than nephrite. Granitic sand with a 30–40 per cent quartzcontent was found on the surface of a jade disk from Sidun tomb M1(Changzhou, Jiangsu) (Nanjing Museum and Zhen, 1981: 200; You, 2002:70). Sources of abrasive grit were readily available at Dingshadi becausethe site, like many in the area, is on an ancient riverbed; there archaeolo-gists also found slate tools made of a hard abrading stone that could havebeen used directly without abrasive sand. These blades were probably used


to burnish finished pieces. Polishing may have also been carried out withhides and very fine sands.

Specialization

The technology necessary to produce fine jades required skilled artisans. Itis unclear whether during earlier Neolithic phases (i.e. Hongshan) thosewho made jades were part of an independent and specialized labor force.In later periods (Liangzhu), the quantity and quality of jades manufacturedimplies that specialization had set in, though it is still unclear who the crafts-men were and what their status was. Wang Mingda (Forum, 1992: 538) hasproposed that jades were made by shamans and used to perform rituals,indicating that this craft was tightly connected with ritual leadership. Simi-larly, Jiang (1999: 184) and Liu (2003: 8–12), noting the connection betweencosmological knowledge and jade or other ritual materials, have suggestedthat élites may have been directly involved in jade production.

■ CONCLUSION: THE DEVELOPMENT OF A JADEIDEOLOGY

The issue of who the jade makers were has a bearing on the impact of jadeon the Chinese Neolithic and on the ‘Jade Age’ debate. In the parts of Chinawhere the jade industry was most advanced, the late Neolithic (ca3000–2000 BC) showed an exponential increase in social, cultural andeconomic complexity. Part and parcel of that growth was the emergence ofleading classes with their ideologies, rituals and iconographies. Jade playedan important role within these systems and may have been used by élitesto achieve and maintain social control. Evidence suggests that this happenedin stages starting from the early Neolithic of the coastal areas cultures.

In the earliest stages of the jade industry (early to middle Neolithiccontexts like Chahai, Xinglongwa and Majiabang), when this material wasnot widely available and the infrastructure for the new technology was notin place, sections of the territory appear to have been unable to acquirejade. Items of this material were probably limited to groups who were inproximity of jade sources and had learned to work it. Within these groups,jade and stone workmanship were probably not separated and little socio-economic differentiation was in place.

Evidence from middle-to-late Neolithic contexts (Hongshan, Dawenkou,Songze) shows that improvements in jade technology and expanding tradepopularized finished jades beyond the local groups. Mounting interest forthe stone probably put jade makers at an economic advantage, and asemerging élites, the manufacturers embodied jades with the idea of higher


socioeconomic standing. Jade became the material of choice for ritual itemsand acquired culture-specific typologies and iconographies. In Hongshanand Songze contexts, social differentiation of jade holders is evident inburial patterns, as is the development of an iconographic and ritual typologyof jades.

The late Neolithic evidence of Liangzhu shows that as jades embodiedauthority and status and were used to display and reinforce individuals’power, leaders started to amass large amounts of this material. At Liangzhu,large tombs with a substantial number of jades are fairly common, andwithin these burials jade quality and workmanship is generally high.Demands for large quantities of top quality jades probably prompted jadeélites to hire laborers, transforming the original jade manufacturers intooverseers governing jade iconography and ritual ideology. Scholars havealso speculated that jade may have contributed to the collapse of Liangzhu,because after circa 2000 BC the large ritual centers and jade rich burialstypical of this culture disappeared (Jiang, 1999). Perhaps, the interrelationof jade manufacturing with ritualism and political power led to an over-exploitation of sources, causing shortages of raw material and conflicts thatundermined the social structure. While too little is known about the causesof Liangzhu’s end to support this hypothesis, the difficulty in discoveringthe original Liangzhu nephrite deposits suggest that readily availablesources may have been exhausted in antiquity (Wen and Jing, 1997: 116).

As jade shaped what we now call the Chinese late Neolithic (ca.3000–2000 BC), the category ‘Jade Age’ can be useful to understand thedynamics of this phase. What makes an ‘age’ is how a material, a technology,an idea, or an institution defines a period. The achievement by the ancientChinese of the technological level necessary to work efficiently this hardstone, the birth of a jade industry, the acquisition by jade of the status ofvaluable, the institutionalization of jade shapes, the sublimation of jade intoa symbolic material embodying the loftiest human qualities and its trans-formation into an emblem of socioeconomic distinction, make jade aworthy candidate for age-naming, showing that the Yuejue Shu classificationwas no mythic construct. When, over 2000 years ago, the author of theYuejue Shu reported that in making weapons of a certain material the sagesfollowed the ‘spirit of the age’ and obtained ‘moral power’, he acknowl-edged that material advances do not come alone but are part of complexideological structures.

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank Nancy and Richard Lesure and the three anonymousreviewers for reading and commenting on a previous version of this article. Anymistakes remain the author’s sole responsibility.


Notes

1 The Xia dynasty is mentioned in textual sources. Its existence is questioned bymany Western scholars, but supported by Chinese experts. Archaeologicalevidence (mostly from the Erlitou site) has been variously interpreted (cf. Liuand Chen, 2003).

2 Adapted from Legge (1891, vol. 2: 171–2).3 Aeris would be better translated as ‘copper’, but in general aes, aeris indicated

both bronze and copper (cf. Oates, 1957: 188).4 For Thomsen it was actually a Five Age system, since it included an early stone

age, a later stone age, a bronze age, an early iron age and a later iron age(Trigger, 1989: 77).

References

Anhui Institute of Archaeology and Cultural Relics (1989) ‘Anhui HanshanLingjiatan xinshiqi shidai mudi fajue jianbao’ (Short Excavation Report on theLingjiatan Neolithic Cemetery, Hanshan, Anhui), Wenwu 4: 1–9.

Anhui Institute of Archaeology and Cultural Relics (2000) Lingjiatan yuqi. JadeUncovered from Liangjiatan. Beijing: Wenwu.

Bagley, R. (1999) ‘Shang Archaeology’, in M. Loewe and E.L. Shaughnessy (eds)The Cambridge History of Ancient China, pp. 124–231. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Barnes, G.L. (1993) China, Korea, Japan. The Rise of Civilization in East Asia.London: Thames and Hudson.

Beck, R.J. (1984) New Zealand Jade. Wellington, NZ: Reed.Chang, K.C. (1986) The Archaeology of Ancient China. New Haven: Yale University

Press.Childe, V.G. (1935) ‘Changing Methods and Aims in Pre-history’, Proceedings of the

Prehistoric Society 1: 1–15.Childe, V.G. (1936) Man Makes Himself. London: Watts & Co.Childe, V.G. (1944) ‘Archaeological Ages as Technological Stages’, Journal of the

Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 77: 7–24.Childs-Johnson, E., ed. (2002) Enduring Art of Jade Age China, 2 vols. New York:

Throckmorton.Cole, T. (1967) Democritus and the Sources of Greek Anthropology. Cleveland:

Western Reserve University Press.Daniel, G. (1943) The Three Ages. An Essay on the Archaeological Method.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Daniel, G. (1950) A Hundred Years of Archaeology. London: Duckworth.de Mortillet, G. (1883) Le Prehistorique Antiquité de l’Homme. Paris: C. Reinwald,

Bibliothèque des sciences contemporaines VIII.De Rerum Natura (1975) Titus Lucretius Caro. W.H.D. Rouse (trans.) Loeb Classical

Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Demattè, P. (1999a) ‘Longshan Era Urbanism’, Asian Perspectives 38(2): 119–53.Demattè, P. (1999b) ‘The Role of Writing in the Process of State Formation in Late

Neolithic China’, East and West 49(1–4): 241–72.Drucker, P., R.F. Heizer and R.J. Squier (1959) Excavations at La Venta, Tabasco,

1955. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.


Evans, J. (1872) The Ancient Stone Implements, Weapons, and Ornaments of GreatBritain. New York: Appleton and Company.

Forum (1992) ‘Zhongguo Wenming Qiyuan Yantaohui Jiyao’ (Forum on the Originsof Chinese Civilization), Kaogu 6: 526–49.

Gatz, B. (1967) Weltalter, Goldene Zeit und Sinnverwandte Vorstellungen.Hildesheim: G. Olms.

Graham, A.C. (1990) Studies in Chinese Philosophy and Philosophical Literature.Albany: SUNY Press.

Gräslund, B. (1981) ‘The Background to C.J. Thomsen’s Three Age System’, in G.Daniel (ed.) Towards a History of Archaeology, pp. 45–50. London and NewYork: Thames and Hudson.

Hanfeizi (1974) Hanfeizi Jishi, Q.Y. Chen (ed.), 2 vols. Hong Kong: Zhonghua.Hayashi, M. (1998) ‘Guangyu Shijiahe Wenhua Yuqi’ (On the Shijiahe Culture

Jades), in C. Tang (ed.) Dongya Yuqi East Asian Jade: Symbol of Excellence,pp. 287–97. Hong Kong: The Chinese University of Hong Kong.

Hayashi, M. (2003) ‘Studies of Ancient Chinese Jades’, Bulletin of the Sen-OkuHakuko Kan 19: 1–33.

He, X.W. (2000) Bo Qu Yan Chen Jian Zhengrong: Liaohe Liuyu Kaogu Faxian(Archaeological Discoveries in the Liao River Valley). Shenyang: Liaoning.

Hubei Institute of Archaeology and Cultural Relics and Institute of ArchaeologyCASS (1994) ‘Hubei Shijiahe Luojiabailing Xinshiqi Shidai Yizhi’ (The NeolithicSite at Luojiabailing, Shijiahe, Hubei), Kaogu Xuebao 2: 191–229.

Inner Mongolia Institute of Archaeology (2004) Baiyinchanghan. Beijing: Kexue.Institute of Archaeology CASS (1990) ‘Shandong Linqu Zhufeng Longshan

Wenhua Muzang’ (Longshan Culture Tomb at Zhufeng, Linqu, Shandong),Kaogu 7: 587–94.

Jiang, W.D. (1999) ‘Liangzhu Yuqi de Yuanliao he Zhizhuo’ (Materials and Produc-tion of Liangzhu Jades), in Zhejiang Sheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo (ed.)Liangzhu Wenhua Yanjiu, pp. 177–86. Beijing: Wenwu.

Legge, J. (1891) The Texts of Taoism, 2 vols. New York: Dover Publications.Lesure, R.G. (1999) ‘On the Genesis of Value in Early Hierarchical Societies’, in

J.E. Robb (ed.) Material Symbols: Culture and Economy in Pre-history,pp. 23–54. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Liaoning Institute of Archaeology and Cultural Relics (1994) ‘Liaoning Fuxin XianChahai Yizhi 1987–1990 Nian San ci Fajue’ (Three Excavations between1987–1990 at Chahai Site, Fuxin, Liaoning), Wenwu 11: 4–19.

Liaoning Institute of Archaeology and Cultural Relics (1997) ‘Liaoning Niuheliangdi er Didian Yi Hao Zhong 21 Hao Mu Fajue Jianbao.’ (Short Excavation Reporton Tomb 21, Mound 2 of Niuheliang 1, Liaoning), Wenwu 8: 4–8.

Linduff, K., R. Han and S.Y. Sun (2000) The Beginning of Metallurgy in China. NewYork: Edwin Mellen.

Liu, G.X. (2004) Dongbei Wenwu Kaogu Lunji (Collection of Northeastern Archae-ology and Cultural Relics). Beijing: Kexue.

Liu, J. (1993) Zhongguo Hemudu Wenhua. (Hemudu Culture of China). Hangzhou:Zhejiang Renmin.

Liu, L. (2003) ‘“The Products of Minds as Well as of Hands”: Production of PrestigeGoods in the Neolithic and Early State Periods of China’, Asian Perspectives42(1): 1–39.

Liu, L. and X.C. Chen (2003) State Formation in Early China. London: Duckworth.


Loehr, M. (1975) Ancient Chinese Jades. Cambridge, MA: Fogg Art Museum.Lu, J.F. and T. Han (2002) ‘Prehistoric Jade Working Based on the Remains at the

Site of Dingshadi’, in E. Child-Johnson (ed.) Enduring Art of Jade Age China,pp. 31–42. New York: Throckmorton.

Lu, P., N. Yao, J.F. So, G.E. Harlow, J.F. Lu, G.F. Wang and P.M. Chaikin (2005) ‘TheEarliest Use of Corundum and Diamond in Prehistoric China’, Archaeometry47(1): 1–12.

Mou, Y.K and R.Z. Wu (1990) ‘Shilun Yuqi Shidai’ (Discussing the Jade Age),Zhongguo Wenwu Bao 1 November: 3.

Myres, J.N.L. (1946) ‘Review of The Three Ages: an Essay in ArchaeologicalMethod, by Glyn Daniel’, English Historical Review September: 418–19.

Nanjing Museum (1996) ‘1989 Nian Jiangsu Xinyi Huating Yizhi de Faxian’ (The1989 Discovery of Huating, Xinyi, Jiangsu), in H.P. Xu (ed.) Dongfang Wenmingzhi Guang (The Light of Oriental Civilization), pp. 80–119. Haikou: HainanGuoji Xinwen.

Nanjing Museum (2001) ‘Jiangsu Jurong Dingshadi Yizhi di er ci Fajue Jianbao’(Short Report on the Second Excavation at Dingshadi, Jurong, Jiangsu), Wenwu5: 22–36.

Nanjing Museum and J. Zhen (1981) ‘Jiangsu Wujin Sidun Yizhi de Shijue’ (TestExcavation of Sidun, Wujin, Jiangsu), Kaogu 3: 193–200.

Nanjing Museum, et al. (1985) ‘Jiangsu Dantu Mopandun Yizhi Fajue Baogao’(Excavation Report of Mopandun, Dantu, Jiangsu), Shiqian Yanjiu 2: 71–84.

Nanjing Museum, et al. (1990) Liangzhu Wenhua Yuqi (Liangzhu Jades). Beijing:Wenwu.

Oates, W.J., ed. (1957) The Stoic and Epicurean Philosophers. New York: RandomHouse.

Phillipson, D.W. (1993) African Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Poor, R. (1965) ‘Notes on the Sung Dynasty Archaeological Catalogs’, Archives ofthe Chinese Art Society of America 19: 33–43.

Puett, M. (1998) ‘Sages, Ministers and Rebels: Narratives from Early ChinaConcerning the Initial Creation of the State’, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies58(2): 425–79.

Qu, S. (1991) Zhongguo Yuqi Shidai (The Chinese Jade Age). Shanxi: Renmin.Rawson, J. (1995) Chinese Jade. London: British Museum.Rhind, H.A. (1856) ‘On the History of Systematic Classification of Primeval Relics’,

Archaeological Journal 13: 208–14.Rosen, S.A. (1997) Lithics After the Stone Age. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira.Schmidt, P.R. and T.C. Patterson, eds (1996) Making Alternative Histories. Santa Fe,

NM: School for American Research.Shandong Province Cultural Relics Office and Jinan Museum (1974) Dawenkou.

Beijing: Wenwu.Shao, W.P. (1995) ‘Haidai xi Guyu Lüeshuo’ (Ancient Jades of the Haidai System),

in Institute of Archaeology CASS (ed.) Zhongguo Kaogu Luncong. Treatises onChinese Archaeology, pp. 131–41. Beijing: Kexue.

Shao, W.P. (2002) Haidai (North Coastal) Longshan Jades of Early China’, in E.Childs-Johnson (ed.) Enduring Art of Jade Age China, pp. 43–54. New York:Throckmorton.


Shijiahe Archaeological Team (1999) Tianmen Shijiahe Kaogu Fajue Baogao zhi yi:.Xiaojiawuji (Excavations at Shijiahe, Tianmen, vol. I: Xiaojiawuji). Beijing:Wenwu.

Shuowen Jiezi (1930) [Han: Xu Shen], in F.B. Ding (ed.) Shuowen Jiezi Gulin.Shanghai: Yixue.

Strassberg, R. (1986) ‘The Stone of Many Virtues: Some Views of Jade in China andthe West’, in Chinese Jade: The Image from Within, pp. 11–18. Pasadena, CA:Pacific Asia Museum.

Sun, Z.X. (1993) ‘The Liangzhu Culture: Its Discovery and its Jades’, Early China18: 1–40.

Tang, C., ed. (1998) Dongya Yuqi East Asian Jade: Symbol of Excellence. Hong Kong:The Chinese University of Hong Kong.

Thomas, J. (1993) ‘Discourse, Totalization and “The Neolithic’’’, in C. Tilley (ed.)Interpretative Archaeology, pp. 357–94. Providence/Oxford: Berg.

Thomsen, C.J. (1836) Ledetraad til Nordisk Oldkyndighed. Copenhagen: S.L.Møllers bogtr.

Trigger, B. (1989) A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

von Falkenhausen, L. (1993) ‘On the Historiographical Orientation of ChineseArchaeology’, Antiquity 67: 839–49.

Wagner, D.B. (1993) Iron and Steel in Ancient China. Leiden: E.J. Brill.Wang, Y.X. (1998) ‘A Few Revelations on the Oracle Inscriptions Regarding the

Shang Dynasty Precious Jades and Utility Jades’, in C. Tang (ed.) Dongya yuqiEast Asian Jade: Symbol of Excellence, pp. 18–25. Hong Kong: The ChineseUniversity of Hong Kong.

Wang, Z.G. (1984) ‘Liangzhu Wenhua “yu lian zang” Shulüe’ (On Liangzhu ‘JadeBurials’), Wenwu 2: 23–35.

Watkins, J. (2000) Indigenous Archaeology. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira.Wen, G. and Z.C. Jing (1997) ‘A Geoarchaeological Study of Chinese Archaic Jade’,

in R.E. Scott (ed.) Chinese Jades. Colloquies on Art and Archaeology in Asia No.18, pp. 105–22. London: School of Oriental and African Studies.

Willey, G.R. and J. Sabloff (1993) A History of American Archaeology. New York:Freeman.

Worsaae, J.J.A. (1843) Danmarks oldtid oplyst ved Oldsager. Copenhagen: Trykt hosL. Klein.

Wu, H. (1990) ‘A Great Beginning: Ancient Chinese Jades and the Origin of RitualArt’, in Chinese Jades from the Mu-Fei Collection, I–XVII. London: Bluett & Sons.

Wu, T.H. (1994) Renshi Gu Yu (Understanding Ancient Jade). Taibei: ZhonghuaMinguo Ziran Wenhua Xuehui.

Xia, N. (1985) Zhongguo Wenming de Qiyuan (The Origins of Chinese Civilization).Beijing: Wenwu.

Xie, Z.L. (1994) ‘Yuqi Shidai. Yige Xin Gainian de Fenxi’ (Jade Age. Analysis of aNew Interpretation), Kaogu 10: 832–6.

Yang, B.D. (2004) ‘Shilun Xian Yuqi Gongyi ji Yuqi Gongyi Zhi Qubian Yu Tedian’(Differences and Characteristics of the Pre-jade and Jade Industries), Kaogu 10:62–8.

Yang, H. (1999) ‘Hanshan Yuqi’ (Hanshan Jades), Zhongguo Wenwu Bao31 January: 1.


You, R.D. (2002) Gudai Yuqi Tonglun (Survey of Ancient Jades). Beijing:Zijincheng.

Yu, W.C. (1995) ‘Zhongguo Shuixia Kaogu de Chubu Chengguo’ (Initial Accom-plishments of Chinese Underwater Archaeology), paper presented at theconference Sunken Treasures: Underwater Archaeology in China. Los Angeles:University of California, Center for Pacific Rim Studies.

Yuan, Y.M. (2003) ‘“Yu-shi Fenhua” Shuo Panzheng’ (On the Differentiation ofStone and Jade), Zhongyuan Wenwu 5: 26–30.

Yuejue Shu (1966) [Han, Yuan Kang], in Baibu Congshu Jicheng, series 66, vol. 6–7.Taipei: Yiwen.

Zhang, C. (2000) ‘Daxi, Beiyinyangying he Xuejiagang di Shi Yu qi Gongye’ (Stoneand Jade Industries at Daxi, Beiyinyangying and Xuejiagang), Kaoguxue Yanjiu4: 55–76.

Zhang, D.S. (1999) ‘Shiqian Yu Liqi de Fazhan Xiansuo ji Qita’ (Clues to theDevelopment of Prehistoric Ritual Jades and Other Matters), Zhongguo wenwubao, 27 October: 3.

Zhang, Y.S. (1998) ‘Jade Rituals as Found in Bronze Inscriptions’, in C. Tang (ed.)Dongya Yuqi East Asian Jade: Symbol of Excellence, pp. 26–33. Hong Kong: TheChinese University of Hong Kong.

Zhang, Z.M. and X.H. Shao (2002) Changjiang Liuyu Gudai Meishu. Yushi Qi.(Ancient Art of the Middle Yangzi River Valley. Jade and Stone). Wuhan: HupeiJiaoyu.

Zhuangzi (1959) Zhuangzi Jishi in Guo Jingfan (ed.) Zhongguo Sixiang Mingzhu,vol. 5. Taipei: Shijie.

PAOLA DEMAT TÈ is an assistant professor of Chinese art and archae-ology at the Rhode Island School of Design. She has written on theorigins of Chinese writing, pre-dynastic urbanism, rock art in China, andChu funerary art.[email: [email protected]]

the chinese jade age: between antiquarianism and archaeology

Documents