Xuan Zhang, Yukun Zhang, Lifeng Tan, Enrico R. Crema, Yanguo Tian, Ze Wang
{"title":"A comparative analysis of stone- and earth-wall settlement locations of the Lower Xiajiadian Culture in Aohan Banner, China","authors":"Xuan Zhang, Yukun Zhang, Lifeng Tan, Enrico R. Crema, Yanguo Tian, Ze Wang","doi":"10.1007/s12520-024-02125-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Settlement systems are often characterized by a mixture of different site types, each with potentially different locational properties reflected by differences in their functions and uses. Prehistoric settlements in China are commonly known for their wooden defense structures and rammed earth. However, from the late Neolithic period, ca. 2800 BCE, a new type of stone-wall site emerged in northern China, coexisting with earth-wall sites. Examining differences in the locational properties of stone-wall and earth-wall settlements is essential for understanding regional settlement patterns and human–environment interactions in prehistoric northern China. Studies of this topic have so far been limited to descriptive qualitative accounts, and formal statistical comparisons of their differences have yet to be carried out. This paper contributes to this research agenda by examining, via point process models (PPMs), stone-wall and earth-wall sites associated with the Lower Xiajiadian Culture (2000–1400 BCE) in the Aohan Banner, northern China. We fitted log-linear and generalized additive models (GAMs) and identified the relevance of key spatial covariates via information criterion importance for both site types. Our results highlight not only the spatial preferences of stone-wall and earth-wall sites but also some differences, suggesting a defensive function of the former site type.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":8214,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12520-024-02125-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Settlement systems are often characterized by a mixture of different site types, each with potentially different locational properties reflected by differences in their functions and uses. Prehistoric settlements in China are commonly known for their wooden defense structures and rammed earth. However, from the late Neolithic period, ca. 2800 BCE, a new type of stone-wall site emerged in northern China, coexisting with earth-wall sites. Examining differences in the locational properties of stone-wall and earth-wall settlements is essential for understanding regional settlement patterns and human–environment interactions in prehistoric northern China. Studies of this topic have so far been limited to descriptive qualitative accounts, and formal statistical comparisons of their differences have yet to be carried out. This paper contributes to this research agenda by examining, via point process models (PPMs), stone-wall and earth-wall sites associated with the Lower Xiajiadian Culture (2000–1400 BCE) in the Aohan Banner, northern China. We fitted log-linear and generalized additive models (GAMs) and identified the relevance of key spatial covariates via information criterion importance for both site types. Our results highlight not only the spatial preferences of stone-wall and earth-wall sites but also some differences, suggesting a defensive function of the former site type.
期刊介绍:
Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences covers the full spectrum of natural scientific methods with an emphasis on the archaeological contexts and the questions being studied. It bridges the gap between archaeologists and natural scientists providing a forum to encourage the continued integration of scientific methodologies in archaeological research.
Coverage in the journal includes: archaeology, geology/geophysical prospection, geoarchaeology, geochronology, palaeoanthropology, archaeozoology and archaeobotany, genetics and other biomolecules, material analysis and conservation science.
The journal is endorsed by the German Society of Natural Scientific Archaeology and Archaeometry (GNAA), the Hellenic Society for Archaeometry (HSC), the Association of Italian Archaeometrists (AIAr) and the Society of Archaeological Sciences (SAS).