A preliminary study of independent "dog pit burial" in the ruins of The Great Paddy Field in Wushan, Chongqing
Deng Xiao, Liu Xiaoliang (School of History and Society, Chongqing Normal University)
Abstract: At the dashuitian site in Wushan County, Chongqing, which belongs to the Daxi culture, people have found independent "dog pit burial", which is a form of respect for dogs as independent individuals and buried with them, which is extremely rare in primitive society. The appearance of this burial ceremony may be the embodiment of the primitive animal worship of the local ancestors, reflecting the complexity and diversity of the primitive religious thinking of the Daxi people, and is an important material for the study of ancient witch culture.
Keywords: Big Creek culture; dog pit burial; animal worship
"A hundred flowers blooming, full of stars" is an important feature of the origin of Chinese national civilization, and the Daxi culture around the Three Gorges area is undoubtedly one of the important sources of The Yangtze River civilization in the Neolithic period. In the Ruins of Daxi in Wushan, we have found many cases of burial of people with fish and other objects, and this phenomenon is more common in the tomb sites of primitive society. Those buried objects, when prepared for the deceased's afterlife, belong to the category of "worship of the dead" in the sense of religion; and in the tombs of the Dashuitian ruins, which also belong to the Daxi culture period, we also find a sacrificial pit with dogs as the main burial object, is the pit used for dogs to sacrifice gods, or is it specially prepared for the sacrifice of dogs? The discussion of this question is related to whether the Daxi people have already had the concept of "animal worship" and whether they have produced a corresponding witchcraft culture. The author intends to discuss it based on existing archaeological excavation materials, combined with the views of predecessors, and using ethnological materials.
1. The ruins of the great paddy field and the dog pit tomb
The Dashuitian Ruins are located between the Daxi Ruins and the People's Hospital Site, a representative relic of the Daxi culture in the Chongqing Reservoir Area. [1] Its specific location is in Wubai Village, Quzhi Township, Wushan County, located on the secondary terraces on the north bank of the Yangtze River, about 1,000 meters from the Linjiawan ruins in the north, about 200 meters from the Dongguaobao site in the south, close to the Yangtze River in the east, and a gentle slope terrace in the west, with a distribution area of about 12,000 square meters. It is about 28 kilometers west of the Daxi ruins.
Excavation area and surrounding environment of the Dashuitian site
Ash Pit No. 276 of Dashuitian Ruins (Daxi Culture)
Tomb No. 299 of Dashuitian Ruins (Daxi Culture)
From March to September 2014, the Chongqing Municipal Institute of Cultural Heritage and the Wushan County Cultural Relics Management Institute jointly carried out archaeological excavations on the Dashuitian site, with a total excavation area of 1,300 square meters, and most of the 3rd to 10th floors of the exploration party and its superimposed remains belong to the Daxi cultural relics. In this excavation, 212 tombs, 208 ash pits, 1 artifact pit and 1 house from the Daxi period were found. Most of the excavated relics are pottery and stone tools, and more jade and bone tools have been found, including 21 pieces of black slate ornaments, including human and animal-shaped ornaments, ring ornaments, shell-shaped ornaments, pulley ornaments, etc., and 21 pieces of jade have also been unearthed. These relics and relics reflect the living conditions of the ancestors of the Dashuitian site in the Daxi period.
"Ash pits" are often used to dispose of garbage, but are also used for special sacrifices. An independent "dog pit burial" was found in the "ash pit" of the Dashuitian site. The "dog pit burial" has a regular shape and a unique burial method. As for its role, in the archaeological excavation report published in January 2017, the authors believe that it "may be related to sacrifices or primitive religious rituals".[1]
The "dog pit burial" is located in the southwestern exploration of the Dashuitian site T0911 (on the inner side of the site farther away from the Yangtze River), numbered H79 (see Figure 1). The layer it is located in is "superimposed under the 3rd layer, breaking the 4th layer", which is the upper part of the Daxi cultural layer. The ash pit is nearly circular in plan, "1.23 to 1.34 m in diameter and 0.12 m in depth",[1] and the northeast corner is broken by M64.
Figure 1 Dog pit burial[1]
At the bottom of the pit " a dog skeleton was found, with its head to the north and its side" [1]. The dog skeleton lies on its side, the back is raised, the head is north and east (facing the direction of the Yangtze River), the two forelimbs and two hind limbs are closed, and the limbs are extended to the east of the ash pit. In the middle of the ash pit, a layer of snail shell is distributed. The distribution plan of the snail shell is slightly semi-circular, and the eastern edge is connected to the head, neck and back of the dog skeleton. In short, the head of the dog skeleton in the ash pit lies facing north facing the Yangtze River, with its back against a layer of semi-circular spiral shell.
In the same period of archaeological excavations on the mainland, the burial of dogs is not uncommon, and we can easily interpret it as the needs of the deceased in the afterlife. However, the practice of burying dogs in a pit specifically by humans and burying snails with them is relatively rare, and the purpose and significance of this practice seem to be necessary for serious discussion.
Second, primitive societies were buried with dogs
Scholars believe that dogs were domesticated by gray wolves in East Asia 15,000 years ago, and are one of the first animals to be domesticated by humans, and they once played the role of hunting assistants and life partners of ancestors. According to mainland zooarchaeologists, the earliest dogs were found in the ruins of Nanzhuangtou in Xushui, Hebei Province, about 10,000 years ago,[2] and later found in multiple pits at the Jiahu site[3]461, which is 9,000 to 7,800 years old. This suggests that in the late Paleolithic period, humans had already begun the process of making a living with dogs.
By the early Neolithic period, the custom of burying dogs with people became common. This phenomenon is also seen in the Haidai area, the Huai River Basin and the Han River Basin, of which the earliest discovery of the phenomenon of dog burial in the tomb is found in the southwest of Henan Province belongs to the Han River Basin of the Xiawanggang site of The Huaichuan River, in this 6000 years ago belonged to the Yangshao culture period tombs, five dogs were found to be buried[4]23. However, the burial method in which dogs are sacrificed for independence in this issue is basically missing.
From the middle of the Neolithic period to the Yongsan culture period, not only the phenomenon of dogs being buried with dogs is increasing, but also the burial method of sacrificing dogs is also seen. For example, in the tombs excavated at the Liu Lin site in Qiu County, Jiangsu Province, there are 8 tombs with 8 dogs buried with 8 dogs, and another dog is buried separately in the cemetery area[5]; in the tombs excavated and cleared from the Dadunzi site in Qiu County, Jiangsu Province, there are 9 martyred dogs, a total of 14, and 2 models of buried dogs with 2 tombs[6]; in Shandong Jiaoxian Sanlihe Site, Yanzhou Wangyin Site, Jiangsu Wujin Weidun Site, etc. There are found burial dogs. In most reports, the way dogs are buried is vague, but the excavation report of the Liu Lin site in Qiu County, Jiangsu Province, describes it more specifically: "The dog frames buried with them are lying on the legs of the human skeleton, and the head orientation is consistent with the human frame." [7] Exploring its placement, above its legs, seems to imply that the danger will come from the ground, while the common orientation indicates that it was in close partnership with the deceased. As a sacrificial burial, "a canine" was found buried in M179 at the Daxi site in Wushan,[8] and a pit near a Longshan cultural cemetery on Tuoji Island in Changdao County, Shandong Province.
By the Shang and Zhou Dynasties, it was popular to bury dogs in waist pits. For example, in the first phase of the upper stage of the Erligang culture, the skeleton of the buried dog was found in the waist pit of 4 tombs, and a skeleton of the dog was buried in the tomb of the Zhengzhou Shangcheng site.[10]16 This phenomenon, unlike previously placing dogs on the legs of the dead, seems to show hominid fears that future threats would come from underground.
The meaning of burying with different domestic animals is also different, depending on their value to people. For example, the value of pigs, sheep and other poultry is mainly the source of human diet; horses, cattle, etc. are mainly used as means of production; and the value of dogs is more reflected in the helpers and partners of the ancestors. Of course, in general, they are all human wealth, which is as Engels said: "The domestication of domestic animals and the reproduction of herds have created an unprecedented source of wealth... At the very beginning of history, we can already see everywhere that the herd is a special wealth of the head of the family. [11] 50-51 Since it is wealth, it is very normal for Neolithic ancestors who already have the idea of the afterlife to use them for burial, and some scholars have pointed out that burial with animals "is reflected in the private possession of property, which has surpassed the primitive people we think, which is what we call the universal appearance of domestic animals as symbols of wealth." ”[12]
In real life, primitive people would occasionally eat dog meat and dog skin when necessary, and enjoy their wealth like other domesticated animals. But from the religious significance of burial, the treatment of dogs is not so simple. Unlike pigs and fish, the meaning of burying with dogs goes beyond the basic meaning of providing food and clothing wealth for the deceased in the afterlife, because dogs are both their master's hunting companions and their masters' guardians because of their loyalty. This special status of companionship and guardian can be easily detected from the position where the dog is placed in the cemetery, whether it is placed above the legs or placed in the waist pit under the body. Some scholars have also discussed this, such as Guo Baojun's belief that martyrdom of dogs in the second-story platform and in the filling of soil "or guarding the gate, or raising dogs and horses... They are all arranged for the needs of bionic people"[13], which is related to the ancient concept of "Yellow Spring"; Yue Hongbin also believes that "the martyred dog in the waist pit seems to guard the entrance to the Huangquan Road for the deceased, while the martyr dog in the filled soil seems to be the guardian of the yin and yang passage for the deceased"[14]; Liu Dinghui directly pointed out that its "purpose is mainly to guard the tomb owner and drive away evil spirits for the tomb owner"[15]63. Similar views are reflected in articles published by Yang Hua[16], Huang Zhanyue[17], Wang Zhiyou[18], and the Hebei Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics[19]112. Obviously, the significance of the dog's burial in the cemetery is determined by its special status in the life of the ancient ancestors.
In fact, human cognition of dogs is more important to its dual identity as hunting partner and guardian, and often ignores the value of ordinary wealth such as meat and fur. This seems to have universal significance, for example, in the many ethnic minorities on the mainland today, dogs are regarded as important partners in life, and the Hezhe people love their hounds who can pull sleds, "people love and care for them, and when the dogs die, they are buried or hung in trees to prevent wild beasts from devouring"; the leader of the Li people is called "Oba", which means "the person who leads the dog".[20]142. Among the Pumi and Lahu kucong people, the dogs are fed with new rice during the New Year's Festival, and people go back to feed the dogs when they are hungry, and after the dogs die, they also undergo a careful burial ceremony.[21]507 The ethnological evidence described above can deepen our understanding of dog burial.
From the above, although the burial of dogs was very common in primitive society and even in the Shang and Zhou Dynasties, we cannot simply regard the burial of dogs as the same as the burial of ordinary animals, because they are also rich in their functions for the ancestors, and it is these differences that make their burial meaning qualitatively different.
Third, on the significance of independent dog burial
Based on the previous primitive society's understanding of the value of dogs, it was impossible to kill dogs at will at that time, and burying dogs with dogs was mainly limited to their owners (according to the characteristics of dogs, they would not easily obey others). The dogs at the Dashuitian site are buried independently in ash pits, which, by their nature, may be a garbage pit, a storage pit (cellar), or a sacrificial pit; it can be either a natural earth pit or an artificial excavation. The main points discussed in this section are the manner in which it is buried and the purpose of burial.
First of all, it is not buried as garbage and burial objects. Examining the H79 ash pit of the Dashuitian site, the first is that the dog skeleton is very complete, in which the bones of the dog's skull, vertebrae, ribs, forelimbs and hind limbs are in a normal position, rather than scattered; we can rule out the possibility of being discarded after being eaten, because this is very different from the buried "dog eating dog" state in the Ash Pit of the Neolithic site, and the "dog bones" of the "dog eater" are mostly broken, and scattered in the waste. For example, the dog bones excavated at the Magnetic Hill site, whose skull and mandible have been smashed and mutilated, are obviously waste after humans eat meat. [22] 81 Second, the ash pit is located under the 3rd layer, breaking the 4th layer, the ash pit has no bones, and no connection with any other tombs has been found under the same layer, so it can be confirmed that it is not a burial dog, but a dog buried independently, and since the dog is buried independently, the pit should also be deliberately excavated.
Second, it was not buried as a sacrifice. In terms of burial method, the dog frame in ash pit H79 lies on its side, the back is raised, the head is north and east, and the two forelimbs and two hind limbs are closed. Its positional posture is similar to the complete dog frame excavated from the H25 ash pit at the baijia village site in Lintong, Shaanxi, "the head is west and north, lying on the side, the spine is arched, and the limbs are joined side by side, seemingly caused by bondage." [23] 14 The binding of animals and their burial alive is probably the main method of primitive human sacrifice. At the Yangshao period site of Baojiatang in Anyang, Henan, a complete pig skeleton at the bottom of the H5 pit and 10 complete pig skeletons at the bottom of the H25 pit are also "two forelimbs and two hind limbs are closed separately, as if they were bound and buried." [24] By analogy, the dog rack in the large paddy field ash pit H79 may also be the result of the dogs being tied up and buried alive. In terms of the use of sacrifice, burying animals "an house" is more common in the Neolithic age, for example, in the Cultural Relics of Dawenkou in Sanlihe, Jiaoxian County, 5 complete piglets were found buried, and the pig pit was buried near the site F202, scholars believe that this phenomenon has a certain relationship with the foundation laying or completion of the house[25]13; in Gansu Tianshui Xishanping Qijia Cultural Relics [26]264, Shandong Zou County Yedian Ruins [27]17 and other phenomena seem to be related to house architecture. In addition, from an ethnological point of view, the Kino people of the mainland still retain the tradition of sacrificing pigs and cattle when they hold the new house ceremony.[12] According to this, it is not impossible to bury the dog in the sacrificial pit at the expense of the dog, because an important function of the dog is to look after the house. In the Great Paddy Field site, Dog Pit H79 is on the south side of building F1 and appears to be related in location to the house building sacrifice. However, according to the layer, F1 is superimposed under the 4th layer and breaks the 5th layer, which is not on the same level as the H79 of the third layer, which indicates that its building is relatively older, which excludes its association with the dog pit H79. Apparently, dog pit H79 is completely independent, which seems to rule out the possibility that it was buried as a sacrificial object.
Third, the dog in the pit may be the sacrificer. In the H79 pit of dashuitian, a layer of spiral shells with a semi-circular plane is deliberately laid on the back of the dog, will they be the burial products of the dog? From this we think of people burying themselves with dogs or other animals. If the dog was particularly important to the local ancestors at that time, such as when it had served the Lord or brought great benefits to its owner, but at this time it was terminally ill, then the act of burying it alone and sacrificing for its burial was of great significance. It is worth noting that the shell of the snail was artificially broken, which may be due to the fact that the dog is difficult to bite its shell, when the dog has its own burial products, we found evidence of the existence of animal worship in the Neolithic Ring Three Gorges area.
Animal worship is a common phenomenon in primitive clans, which is closely related to the importance of the animal to people. In later generations, the Ba people and Chu people in the Three Gorges region had a tradition of animal worship, and the Ba snake that swallowed elephants, the white tiger that devoured people, and the phoenix bird with high altitude in the historical records were all used as objects of worship. Thus, it is not impossible for dogs to be considered gods because of the important role they once played. The witchcraft significance of burying dogs independently and making them enjoy their own burial items, the snails, like people, is very obvious, which shows that in the era of Daxi culture, the ancestors of the Three Gorges not only had the concept of soul and the worship of the dead, but also used it on animals by themselves and others.
Although the excavation report does not describe the snails further, it is clear that their burial was not arbitrary. The data show that the mainland snails are only distributed in the lakes of the Yunnan-Guizhou Plateau and the lower reaches of the Yangtze River, and the time when the primitive ancestors ate snails also appeared in the Neolithic Age, such as the mid-Neolithic remains of the Yuxi Sanhu Beiqiu site in Yunnan Province[28]; the ash pit H13 of the Xingyang Dianjuntai site in Henan Province has a large number of snails near the west and south walls, accounting for almost one-third of the lower part[29]; around the Liangzhu culture period of the Liangzhu culture period in Yuhang, Zhejiang Province, there are a large number of snail lion shells and frog shells that were discarded after eating. Mussel shells and other aquatic shellfish, which are also interspersed with the remains of fish bones.[30]38-45 Snails are not produced in the Three Gorges region, and when they were introduced from other places, there were no similar findings in other ash pits or tombs reported in the Dashuitian excavation report. In line with the general rule that things are scarce and expensive, the people of Dashuitian buried snails as dogs in the ash pit H79, which must have a deep meaning. The burial of dogs with precious food snails highlights the important position of dogs in the hearts of the ancestors.
There may be another explanation, that is, the dogs and snails in the ash pit H79 are both sacrificed, a method of pairing sacrifices. However, in the case that the object of sacrifice is not yet clear, and combined with the many examples of the prevalence of animal totems in the Three Gorges region, we still prefer that the H79 ash pit burial is a typical example of animal worship in this period. Regardless of the purpose of the H79 ash pit burial, the burial method of the pit already shows the complexity of the connotation and form of local primitive witchcraft.
In summary, the author draws the following three understandings: first, the burial of dogs is a common phenomenon in primitive society, but it is very different from other animals in terms of motivation and purpose; second, the phenomenon of H79 independent "dog pit burial" and accompanying burial items appearing at the Dashuitian site is extremely rare, indicating the special status of dogs in the local area at that time; third, the animal worship evidence provided by H79 independent "dog pit burial" indicates that the religious consciousness and form of witchcraft of daxi culture have become complicated.
bibliography:
Chongqing Municipal Institute of Cultural Heritage, Wushan County Cultural Relics Management Institute. Briefing on the excavation of Daxi cultural relics at the Dashuitian site in Wushan County, Chongqing[J]. Archaeology, 2017(1).
[2] YUAN Jing,LI Jun. Research report on animal remains excavated from Nanzhuangtou site in Xushui, Hebei Province[J]. Journal of Archaeology, 2010(3).
Henan Institute of Cultural Relics. Wuyang Jia Lake[M]. Beijing:Science Press,1999.]
[4] Henan Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics, et al. Xiawanggang[M]. Beijing:Cultural Relics Publishing House,1991.]
Jiangsu Provincial Cultural Relics Task Force. The first excavation of the Neolithic site of Liu Lin in Pixian County, Jiangsu Province[J]. Journal of Archaeology, 1962(1).
Nanjing Museum. Excavation report of Dadunzi site in Sihu Town, PiXian County, Jiangsu Province[J]. Journal of Archaeology, 1964(2).
Nanjing Museum. The second excavation of the Neolithic site of Liu Lin in PiXian County, Jiangsu Province[J]. Journal of Archaeology, 1965(2).
Sichuan Provincial Museum. The third excavation of The Daxi site in Wushan[J]. Journal of Archaeology, 1981(4).
Gao Guangren,Shao Wangping. Ghosts and Dogs and Animals in the Prehistoric Era of China[M]//Research on Chinese Archaeology——Proceedings of Mr. Xia Nai's 50th Anniversary of Archaeology. Beijing:Cultural Relics Publishing House,1986.]
Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Miaodigou and Sanli Bridge[M]. Beijing:Science Press,1959.]
[11] Engels. The origin of the family, private property and the state[M]. Beijing:People's Publishing House,1972.]
Wang Jihuai. Analysis of livestock burial in prehistoric remains[J]. Huaxia Archaeology, 1996(1).
GUO Baojun. Excavation report of Yin Ruins in 1950[J]. Chinese Journal of Archaeology,1951(5).
YUE Hongbin. Talking about the "Huangquan Concept" of Merchants—— Starting from the Decoration of Animal Face Patterns on The Copper Bell of Yin Ruins[N]. China Cultural Relics Daily, 2006-08-18.
Liu Dinghui. Study on dog martyrdom customs in the Shang Dynasty[D]. Zhengzhou:Zhengzhou University,2011.]
Yang Hua. On the Folk Culture of Waist Pit Tombs in the Pre-Qin Period of the Yellow River Basin: The Relationship between Theory and the Same Type of Tomb Customs in the Yangtze River Basin[J]. Huaxia Archaeology, 2008(1).
Huang Zhan. The Investigation of Human Martyrdom in the Tomb of Yue Yinshang—— On Martyrdom and Sacrifice of Animals[J]. Archaeology, 1983(10).
Wang Zhiyou. Waist pit burial customs in the Shang and Zhou dynasties[J]. Journal of Huazhong University of Science and Technology (Social Science Edition), 2006(6).
Hebei Institute of Cultural Relics. Ruins of the Shang Dynasty in Taixi, Gaocheng[M]. Beijing:Cultural Relics Publishing House,1985.]
Song Zhaolin. Primitive social history of China[M]. Beijing:Cultural Relics Publishing House,1983.]
[21] Tang Qi. Dictionary of Chinese National Customs[M]. Nanchang:Jiangxi Education Press,1988.]
Chen Wenhua. Agricultural Archaeology[M]. Beijing:Cultural Relics Press,2002.]
Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Baijia Village, Lintong[M]. Chengdu:Bashu Book Society,1994.]
Anyang Team, Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Yangshao Cultural Site of Baojiatang, Anyang[J]. Journal of Archaeology, 1988(2).
Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. SanliHe, Jiaoxian[M]. Beijing:Cultural Relics Publishing House,1988.]
[26] Gansu Team, Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Qi family culture burial pit in Xishanping, Tianshui City, Chinese Archaeological Yearbook[M]. 1989．
[27] Shandong Provincial Museum, et al. Zouxian Yedian[M]. Beijing:Cultural Relics Publishing House,1985.]
Chen Taimin. Shell hill ruins around "Yuxi Three Lakes"[J]. Journal of Yuxi Normal University, 2014(1).
Zhengzhou Museum. Excavation report of Xingyang Dianjuntai site in 1980[J]. Central Plains Cultural Relics, 1982(4).
ZHAO Ye. Exploring the Bian Family Mountain[J]. Oriental Museum, 2007(24).
Fund Project: National Social Science Foundation project "Research on Ancient Witch Culture in the Three Gorges Area" (16XZJ002).
About author:Deng Xiao, male, is a professor at the School of History and Society of Chongqing Normal University. Liu Xiaoliang, male, is a master's student at the School of History and Society, Chongqing Normal University.
Originally published in Journal of China Three Gorges University (Humanities and Social Sciences Edition), No. 1, 2019