鲁北商周社会变迁研究
|
摘要
本文旨在对考古材料以实践理论为研究视角,通过对鲁北地区商周时期的考古材料的分析,从陶器生产、聚落分布和墓葬制度等三个相互关联的维度比较鲁北地区商周不同时期社会组织的再生产过程；借助现代政治学中常用的理论模型——央地关系模型(core/periphery relation model),探讨商周鲁北社会组织存在的异同,社会变迁过程具有的基本特点及动力机制。在此基础上希望能够还原商周时期鲁北地区社会组织的变迁过程。
如何重新定位考古学研究中的社会变迁问题是本文理论框架中核心问题。通过反思文化进化理论的理论流变,还原社会变迁在考古学研究中的建构过程。文化进化理论为解释社会变迁提供了极为有效的理论框架：不但将人类社会置于“变化”中,还为解释社会变迁的过程、方式和动力问题提供了理论基础。然而,文化进化理论本身存在的理论缺陷,特别是其单线式“进步性”(progressive)的发展观点,阻碍考古学家解释国家产生之后人类社会所继续经历的社会变迁过程。
通过引入实践理论(a Theory of Practice),将社会组织再生产过程中出现的偏移现象同社会变迁概念结合在一起。社会变迁不再仅仅理解为状态之间的变化,而可以通过社会组织中存在的变化来解释社会变迁。实践理论强调社会结构的结构化过程,结构并非只为静态的特定形式,而是社会系统的重要属性,并内嵌在以时空为基础的实践再生产过程中不断的发生变化。社会变迁不但可以体现为新的社会结构的建立、新制度出现与发展,且在稳定的状态下可再反复出现的状态。
陶器作为古代人类社会中最为重要的生活用具,在人类社会再生产过程具有重要作用。尽管商周时期陶器的社会意义和重要性,与新石器时代特别是龙山时期相比已大为降低,但陶器特别是陶鬲,在商周社会系统中仍是最为重要、最为普遍的生活用具。陶鬲一直存在于商周社会发展过程中,其变化过程和规律也是所有商周陶器研究中展开最为细致研究的器物之一。尽管陶鬲在商周等不同社会组织条件下使用的功能和方式,即社会情境还具有一定的相似性,但是商式鬲和周式鬲的制作方式变化,该制作方式的变化与社会组织的再生产过程的关系如何,将是解释商周社会变迁的重要证据之一。按照目前的研究模型,通过测量陶器的数据可以用来解释特定社会条件下陶器生产、交换和流通过程中涉及的生产组织及其特征,更有助于探讨社会组织内陶器制作的实践的生产与再生产过程。
通过比较聚落和聚落群中的陶器,可看出晚商时期鲁北地区的社会组织中陶器的标准化程度极高,且不同遗址之间表现出明显的相关性,这说明晚商聚落可能采用了大规模、集中化、高密度的组织化生产模式；商末周初时期的聚落中陶器的标准化程度明显降低,且不同聚落之间的相关性程度极低,不同聚落之间陶器生产的本地化特征明显,一定程度上表明该时期陶器生产是由不同聚落内按照自身需求而进行的生产,即组织内生产模式：西周中期之后,随着明显的陶器周式化过程,陶器标准化程度有所提升,不同聚落之间相关性提高,说明陶器生产可能在一定程度上恢复了组织化生产模式。
将陶器生产置于鲁北商周聚落之中,可进一步讨论商周时期社会组织陶器标准化程度同地方社会组织的变迁过程之关联性问题。将鲁北商周陶器生产组织置于聚落与聚落群的层面之上,可以理解商周时期陶器生产模式的转变,对于鲁北地区的社会组织在商周时期的社会变迁过程具有重要推动作用。由于商文化的陶器生产采用了组织化生产模式,其对于社会网络的依赖程度较高,生产组织所需的各种资源通过社会网络在不同组织内流动,且产品也通过社会网络分配到不同社会组织内部,也就不难理解鲁北地区商文化聚落自中商时期已经发展处一定程度聚落群,并到晚商时期在鲁北地区存在诸多大型的聚落群遗址。组织化生产模式依赖的社会网络一旦受到外来因素的影响,必然导致社会组织的实践的再生产过程出现断裂。换句话说,西周初期至中期,周人通过在原商人聚落群中不断建立小型聚落,以此作为瓦解原有社会组织的主要策略。
将仪式化(ritualization)概念作为墓葬研究的出发点,认为墓葬中陶器存在于一个特定的“仪式化”情景之内,使其具有特定的社会意义。通过比较商周墓葬中发现的陶鬲,特别是“仿铜鬲”的标准化分析,商周墓葬中陶鬲的制作、生产和使用存在一定程度的差异性。晚商鲁北地区墓葬中陶鬲的数据同遗址发现陶鬲的标准化程度相似,其制作工艺和过程也没有明显区别,甚至不同规则墓葬中陶鬲也没有表现出任何差异性,说明晚商时期墓葬中陶鬲有可能通过墓葬“仪式化”过程赋予其特定社会意义;而西周墓葬陶鬲相较于遗址中的陶鬲具有较高的标准化程度,且墓葬中陶鬲制作工艺和尺寸明显不同与聚落中发现的陶鬲,从一定程度上说明陶鬲的生产过程已经具有“仪式化”特征。
As the most important concept in the archaeological research, social change intertwines with the process of complex society. It provides the basic theoretical framework for archaeologists to interpret the process, the mechanism, the constitution, and the characteristics of human society. Above all, the culture evolution perspectives focus on the structural and dimensional transition process within the social change. To date, it calls into the questions of change in archaeological research, which may include the analysis of the stratified society, property, and economic-political systems. The majority research done in archaeology has emphasized on materials and data to reveal, describe, and interpret the changes. In1970s, the culture evolution perspectives have been employed by Chinese archaeologists to fit into the core framework of questioning the process of social complex, as well as the origins of Chinese civilizations. However, the concept of social change has never been reexamined and reconsidered in the discussion of historic archaeological issues. Through the development of human societies, the origins of states lead to the stability of social systems, in which the framework of stratified societies, property, or economic-political systems will be inappropriate for further discussion. Nevertheless, the theory of practice reexamines the definition of social structure. Instead of comprising the structure as the rules and laws of human activities, the people in social systems should be seen as the agent. The agent's practice not only follows the rules and laws of social systems to put their strategies to work, but also redefines the social structures in every respect of their behaviors. According to the theory of practice, the question for relationship between social change and cultural change, should not postulate that changes of material culture are the results of obedience to a set of rules without taking account of behavior of social units, as well as the implementation of social organization. It means the development of societies should not interpret as a linear process, but treat as a reproduction of organization with a process of "structuring structures". Therefore, the process of social change, on one hand, can be seen as the unusual outcome of the reproduction of organization. On the other hand, it could treat as a process of "continual correction and adjustment" in the reproduction of organization.
Studies of the Shang and the Western Zhou archaeological materials have implied the difference of sociopolitical and socioeconomic systems between Shang and the Western Zhou. Not only from the culture evolution perspective, but also from the theory of practice, the transition from Shang to Western Zhou calls into questions of social change. Through the perspectives of culture evolution, the fact that the Shang and the Western Zhou mean two independent political systems is gained into the process of changes inherently between different cultures. Followed the principle of the theory of practices, the reproduction of social groups from the Shang to the Western Zhou period follows separately their own rules and laws, as well as the traditional guidelines. The process of "structuring structure" within the reproduction of social organizations has been toward its own possibilities, which it called the Habitus. The roles and meanings of habitus within the process of structuring structure could be understood by reexamining the material cultures and social structures. Nevertheless, the transition from the Shang to the Western Zhou not only involves the process of social changes, but also remains into the archaeological materials. Only if the reproduction of organization produce and reproduce the social structure, it will refer to another structuring process of structures in those transitions during the Shang and the Western Zhou period.
As the most important and visible utilities in daily life, reexamining the ceramic production will provide clues of the reproduction of organization, especially on the mechanisms and characteristics of changes. To date, the studies of chronology and typology are the fore and most parts of the Shang and Zhou archaeology. It provides better understandings on the political systems, expansion of cultures, and impact of the Shang and Zhou population. Tons of settlements and cultural remains of Shang and Zhou period disperse across the whole area of the North Shandong region. By evaluating the available archaeological data of the North Shandong region, new understandings and evidences will gain into the process of culture transition, as well as the social change.
Through the analysis of ceramic standardized production during the Shang and Zhou period, various models of the organization of production could separate between the Shang and Zhou population in the North Shandong region. In the Late Shang period, the ceramic production follows the high level of standardization, and different settlements also connect within a high level of cooperation. The organization of production must operate under a large scale, concentrated, and high intensity conditions. In between late Shang and early Western Zhou period, the standardization of ceramic production stays at a low level. Moreover, local characteristics of pottery indicate the manufacturing of ceramic fulfilling separately within different settlements. From the Middle Western Zhou period, the standardization of ceramic goes back to a high level, in which the manufacturing process of ceramic should involve the organization of production.
In order to satisfy the demand of the organization of production, especially to maintain the operation of settlements, the Shang people employ the multiple settlements as the main pattern of organizations. It also divides and connects various functional ones into the multiple settlements with a mechanism of cooperation. In between late Shang and early Western Zhou period, the Zhou newcomers had the impact through the perception of a mighty military expansion into local population in the North Shandong region. The new military settlement and walled-settlement set up in that region just destroy the reproduction of local organization, and force a process of social change at that time. It also breaks the multiple settlements of Shang people into some small settlements without strong connections in between. The evidence, including the discontinuity of typology of ceramics, as well as the insulating settlement patterns, suggests that a social network had been replaced and rebuilt by the recognition of spatiality of Zhou newcomers in the North Shandong region, that is, a lager single settlement combined various functional departments.
By reevaluating the archaeological data from the concept of ritual, the pottery from the burials, a special context, could obtain various social meanings. The ritualization of potteries from the ceremony context, however, providing the burial objects with social meaning, has deserved further discussion. There are two particular methods providing the burial object with specific social meaning. The burial object could manufacture under a special process of ritualization, in which the social meaning intertwine with objects. Secondly, instead of manufacturing ritually, the burial object only obtains its social meaning unless it meets the complex social and identity of the occupants in the burial. By analysis and comparing the li tripod pottery in the burial between the Shang and the Western Zhou period, the process of manufacturing, producing, and using ceramic in the burial context is distinctive from each other. The li tripod pottery found at the late Shang period can hardly tell the difference of standardization, or the process of manufacture, production, and usage. It might obtain its social meaning through the ritualization of burials, and meets the complex social and identity of the Shang occupants. During the Western Zhou period, the li tripod pottery from the burial context manufactures with a high level of standardization. More importantly, the standardization, the type, and the size of the li tripod potteries from the burial context are so different from the one found at the settlements. The social meaning of burial objects might gain into the process of manufacturing itself. In a word, the burial objects in the Late Shang period emphasize the identity of the occupants, while it pay more attention to the connection with the Zhou center areas in the Western Zhou period with the context of burials.
如何重新定位考古学研究中的社会变迁问题是本文理论框架中核心问题。通过反思文化进化理论的理论流变,还原社会变迁在考古学研究中的建构过程。文化进化理论为解释社会变迁提供了极为有效的理论框架：不但将人类社会置于“变化”中,还为解释社会变迁的过程、方式和动力问题提供了理论基础。然而,文化进化理论本身存在的理论缺陷,特别是其单线式“进步性”(progressive)的发展观点,阻碍考古学家解释国家产生之后人类社会所继续经历的社会变迁过程。
通过引入实践理论(a Theory of Practice),将社会组织再生产过程中出现的偏移现象同社会变迁概念结合在一起。社会变迁不再仅仅理解为状态之间的变化,而可以通过社会组织中存在的变化来解释社会变迁。实践理论强调社会结构的结构化过程,结构并非只为静态的特定形式,而是社会系统的重要属性,并内嵌在以时空为基础的实践再生产过程中不断的发生变化。社会变迁不但可以体现为新的社会结构的建立、新制度出现与发展,且在稳定的状态下可再反复出现的状态。
陶器作为古代人类社会中最为重要的生活用具,在人类社会再生产过程具有重要作用。尽管商周时期陶器的社会意义和重要性,与新石器时代特别是龙山时期相比已大为降低,但陶器特别是陶鬲,在商周社会系统中仍是最为重要、最为普遍的生活用具。陶鬲一直存在于商周社会发展过程中,其变化过程和规律也是所有商周陶器研究中展开最为细致研究的器物之一。尽管陶鬲在商周等不同社会组织条件下使用的功能和方式,即社会情境还具有一定的相似性,但是商式鬲和周式鬲的制作方式变化,该制作方式的变化与社会组织的再生产过程的关系如何,将是解释商周社会变迁的重要证据之一。按照目前的研究模型,通过测量陶器的数据可以用来解释特定社会条件下陶器生产、交换和流通过程中涉及的生产组织及其特征,更有助于探讨社会组织内陶器制作的实践的生产与再生产过程。
通过比较聚落和聚落群中的陶器,可看出晚商时期鲁北地区的社会组织中陶器的标准化程度极高,且不同遗址之间表现出明显的相关性,这说明晚商聚落可能采用了大规模、集中化、高密度的组织化生产模式；商末周初时期的聚落中陶器的标准化程度明显降低,且不同聚落之间的相关性程度极低,不同聚落之间陶器生产的本地化特征明显,一定程度上表明该时期陶器生产是由不同聚落内按照自身需求而进行的生产,即组织内生产模式：西周中期之后,随着明显的陶器周式化过程,陶器标准化程度有所提升,不同聚落之间相关性提高,说明陶器生产可能在一定程度上恢复了组织化生产模式。
将陶器生产置于鲁北商周聚落之中,可进一步讨论商周时期社会组织陶器标准化程度同地方社会组织的变迁过程之关联性问题。将鲁北商周陶器生产组织置于聚落与聚落群的层面之上,可以理解商周时期陶器生产模式的转变,对于鲁北地区的社会组织在商周时期的社会变迁过程具有重要推动作用。由于商文化的陶器生产采用了组织化生产模式,其对于社会网络的依赖程度较高,生产组织所需的各种资源通过社会网络在不同组织内流动,且产品也通过社会网络分配到不同社会组织内部,也就不难理解鲁北地区商文化聚落自中商时期已经发展处一定程度聚落群,并到晚商时期在鲁北地区存在诸多大型的聚落群遗址。组织化生产模式依赖的社会网络一旦受到外来因素的影响,必然导致社会组织的实践的再生产过程出现断裂。换句话说,西周初期至中期,周人通过在原商人聚落群中不断建立小型聚落,以此作为瓦解原有社会组织的主要策略。
将仪式化(ritualization)概念作为墓葬研究的出发点,认为墓葬中陶器存在于一个特定的“仪式化”情景之内,使其具有特定的社会意义。通过比较商周墓葬中发现的陶鬲,特别是“仿铜鬲”的标准化分析,商周墓葬中陶鬲的制作、生产和使用存在一定程度的差异性。晚商鲁北地区墓葬中陶鬲的数据同遗址发现陶鬲的标准化程度相似,其制作工艺和过程也没有明显区别,甚至不同规则墓葬中陶鬲也没有表现出任何差异性,说明晚商时期墓葬中陶鬲有可能通过墓葬“仪式化”过程赋予其特定社会意义;而西周墓葬陶鬲相较于遗址中的陶鬲具有较高的标准化程度,且墓葬中陶鬲制作工艺和尺寸明显不同与聚落中发现的陶鬲,从一定程度上说明陶鬲的生产过程已经具有“仪式化”特征。
As the most important concept in the archaeological research, social change intertwines with the process of complex society. It provides the basic theoretical framework for archaeologists to interpret the process, the mechanism, the constitution, and the characteristics of human society. Above all, the culture evolution perspectives focus on the structural and dimensional transition process within the social change. To date, it calls into the questions of change in archaeological research, which may include the analysis of the stratified society, property, and economic-political systems. The majority research done in archaeology has emphasized on materials and data to reveal, describe, and interpret the changes. In1970s, the culture evolution perspectives have been employed by Chinese archaeologists to fit into the core framework of questioning the process of social complex, as well as the origins of Chinese civilizations. However, the concept of social change has never been reexamined and reconsidered in the discussion of historic archaeological issues. Through the development of human societies, the origins of states lead to the stability of social systems, in which the framework of stratified societies, property, or economic-political systems will be inappropriate for further discussion. Nevertheless, the theory of practice reexamines the definition of social structure. Instead of comprising the structure as the rules and laws of human activities, the people in social systems should be seen as the agent. The agent's practice not only follows the rules and laws of social systems to put their strategies to work, but also redefines the social structures in every respect of their behaviors. According to the theory of practice, the question for relationship between social change and cultural change, should not postulate that changes of material culture are the results of obedience to a set of rules without taking account of behavior of social units, as well as the implementation of social organization. It means the development of societies should not interpret as a linear process, but treat as a reproduction of organization with a process of "structuring structures". Therefore, the process of social change, on one hand, can be seen as the unusual outcome of the reproduction of organization. On the other hand, it could treat as a process of "continual correction and adjustment" in the reproduction of organization.
Studies of the Shang and the Western Zhou archaeological materials have implied the difference of sociopolitical and socioeconomic systems between Shang and the Western Zhou. Not only from the culture evolution perspective, but also from the theory of practice, the transition from Shang to Western Zhou calls into questions of social change. Through the perspectives of culture evolution, the fact that the Shang and the Western Zhou mean two independent political systems is gained into the process of changes inherently between different cultures. Followed the principle of the theory of practices, the reproduction of social groups from the Shang to the Western Zhou period follows separately their own rules and laws, as well as the traditional guidelines. The process of "structuring structure" within the reproduction of social organizations has been toward its own possibilities, which it called the Habitus. The roles and meanings of habitus within the process of structuring structure could be understood by reexamining the material cultures and social structures. Nevertheless, the transition from the Shang to the Western Zhou not only involves the process of social changes, but also remains into the archaeological materials. Only if the reproduction of organization produce and reproduce the social structure, it will refer to another structuring process of structures in those transitions during the Shang and the Western Zhou period.
As the most important and visible utilities in daily life, reexamining the ceramic production will provide clues of the reproduction of organization, especially on the mechanisms and characteristics of changes. To date, the studies of chronology and typology are the fore and most parts of the Shang and Zhou archaeology. It provides better understandings on the political systems, expansion of cultures, and impact of the Shang and Zhou population. Tons of settlements and cultural remains of Shang and Zhou period disperse across the whole area of the North Shandong region. By evaluating the available archaeological data of the North Shandong region, new understandings and evidences will gain into the process of culture transition, as well as the social change.
Through the analysis of ceramic standardized production during the Shang and Zhou period, various models of the organization of production could separate between the Shang and Zhou population in the North Shandong region. In the Late Shang period, the ceramic production follows the high level of standardization, and different settlements also connect within a high level of cooperation. The organization of production must operate under a large scale, concentrated, and high intensity conditions. In between late Shang and early Western Zhou period, the standardization of ceramic production stays at a low level. Moreover, local characteristics of pottery indicate the manufacturing of ceramic fulfilling separately within different settlements. From the Middle Western Zhou period, the standardization of ceramic goes back to a high level, in which the manufacturing process of ceramic should involve the organization of production.
In order to satisfy the demand of the organization of production, especially to maintain the operation of settlements, the Shang people employ the multiple settlements as the main pattern of organizations. It also divides and connects various functional ones into the multiple settlements with a mechanism of cooperation. In between late Shang and early Western Zhou period, the Zhou newcomers had the impact through the perception of a mighty military expansion into local population in the North Shandong region. The new military settlement and walled-settlement set up in that region just destroy the reproduction of local organization, and force a process of social change at that time. It also breaks the multiple settlements of Shang people into some small settlements without strong connections in between. The evidence, including the discontinuity of typology of ceramics, as well as the insulating settlement patterns, suggests that a social network had been replaced and rebuilt by the recognition of spatiality of Zhou newcomers in the North Shandong region, that is, a lager single settlement combined various functional departments.
By reevaluating the archaeological data from the concept of ritual, the pottery from the burials, a special context, could obtain various social meanings. The ritualization of potteries from the ceremony context, however, providing the burial objects with social meaning, has deserved further discussion. There are two particular methods providing the burial object with specific social meaning. The burial object could manufacture under a special process of ritualization, in which the social meaning intertwine with objects. Secondly, instead of manufacturing ritually, the burial object only obtains its social meaning unless it meets the complex social and identity of the occupants in the burial. By analysis and comparing the li tripod pottery in the burial between the Shang and the Western Zhou period, the process of manufacturing, producing, and using ceramic in the burial context is distinctive from each other. The li tripod pottery found at the late Shang period can hardly tell the difference of standardization, or the process of manufacture, production, and usage. It might obtain its social meaning through the ritualization of burials, and meets the complex social and identity of the Shang occupants. During the Western Zhou period, the li tripod pottery from the burial context manufactures with a high level of standardization. More importantly, the standardization, the type, and the size of the li tripod potteries from the burial context are so different from the one found at the settlements. The social meaning of burial objects might gain into the process of manufacturing itself. In a word, the burial objects in the Late Shang period emphasize the identity of the occupants, while it pay more attention to the connection with the Zhou center areas in the Western Zhou period with the context of burials.
引文
1 Jay Weinstein.2010. Social change (Third Edition). Lanham:Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. pp 10
2 国家概念对于考古学研究来说,逐渐成为·种万能解释框架,将国家看作是人类社会发展的终极产物,随着人类社会的不断完善与发展,国家必然出现且代表着社会发展的最高阶段。近年来,西方学术界对于国家和社会两元结构的论断开始反思,这也是为何西方学术界后现代思潮席卷全球的主要诉求。
1 实践理论(The Theory of Practice)于20世纪70年代由法国社会学家布迪厄(Pierre Bourdieu)提出,近年来其适用范围几乎涵盖了整个社会科学领域。其一系列著作,如“Outline of a Theory of Practice"、 "The Logic of Practice "等将“社会结构的结构化过程”作为分析出发点,并开始对传统社会科学分析中占有主导地位的结构主义分析模式进行批判和重塑。同时,英国社会学家吉登斯(Anthony Giddens)的结构化理论(Structuration),同实践理论密切相关。他的主要著作,'Central Problems in Social Theory"和'The Constitution of Society:Outline of Theory of Structuration"等,同样从结构化角度,对社会结构和社会组织的关系加以讨论和分析。
2 Jen Webb, Tony Schirato, and Geoff Danaher.2002. Understanding Bourdieu. London:SAGE publisher, Ltd. Pp45-62.
3 近来,有学者指出鲁北地区的大辛庄遗址的上限可以追溯到早商时期,即二里岗上层文化。参见：方辉、王惠明、党浩：《中商文化墓地在海岱地区首次发现》,《中国文物报》,2003年12月3目第1版。方辉：《大辛庄遗址的考古发现与研究》,《山东大学学报》,2004年7月12日第1版。方辉、陈雪香、党浩、房道国：《济南市大辛庄商代居址与墓葬》,《考古》,2004年第7期。
1 图片来源：Google Earth,2012年4月11日照片。照片视角海拔376公里。
2 表节选自陈雪香：《山东地区商文化聚落形态演变初探》,《华夏考古》,2007年第一期。第103页。
3 1930年中央研究院历史语言研究所李济、吴金鼎等发掘著名的城子崖遗址时,就发现了晚商文化陶鬲。1933年山东古迹研究会在山东南部调查发现邾国青铜器,并对滕县安上村遗址进行了发掘。1936年祁延霈调查山东益都县苏埠屯村出土的铜器,得知县民众教育馆收藏的15件商代铜器山自两座墓葬,铜器铭文有“亚丑”,使传世“亚丑”铭文铜器有了归宿。30至40年代在齐鲁大学任教的加拿大学者明义士和英国学者林仰山,他们共同调查过益都苏埠屯遗址。林仰山在济南、邹平和周村等地进行考古调查,发现了大辛庄、路家洼等遗址。
1随着考古材料的不断积累,商周考古的着眼点开始从更为宏观角度,理解和解释商周的社会认同(social identity)问题,即如何定义商人和商文化的关系、周人和周文化的关系问题成为学术界热点问题。特别是从族群关系(ethnic groups) 、社会组织[social organization)和政治空间(political space)等多维角度,重新定义商文化和周文化,试图更为全面的理解商周,乃至整个中华文明的形成过程。李旻未出版博士论文‘"Conquest, Concord, and Consumption: Becoming Shang In Eastern China.";李峰：《西周的政体——中国早期的官僚制度和国家》,三联书店2010年版。Oavid Keightley,1983. The Late Shang State: When, Where and What? In The Origins of Chinese Civilization, David Keightley (ed.), pp523-564. Berkeley: University of California Press. Lothar von Falkenhausen.1993. Issues in Western Zhou Studies: A Review Article. Early China 18: 139-226.
1 李峰：《西周的政体——中国早期的官僚制度和国家》,三联书店2010年版。
2 Anne Underhill,2000. Craft Production and Social Change in Northern China. New York: Kluwer Academic Plenum Publishers.
3 晁福林：《夏商西周的社会变迁》,北京师范大学出版社1996年版。
4 刘莉著,陈星灿等译,《中国新时期时代：迈向早期国家之路》,北京：文物出版社2007年版。
5 陈朝云：《商代聚落体系及其社会功能研究》,科学出版社2006年版。徐宏：《先秦城市考古学研究》,北京燕山出版社2000年版。
6 周书灿：《济南大辛庄商代遗址的性质问题》，《中原文物》2011年第1期。
7 李伯谦：《大辛庄甲骨文与商王朝对东方的经营》,《文史哲》2003年第4期。
8 方辉：《商王朝对东方的经略》,《海岱地区青铜时代考古》,山东大学出版社,2007年版。
9 参见任相宏：《山东长清县仙人台周代墓地及相关问题初探》,《考古》1998年第9期。任相宏、张光明：《高青陈庄遗址M18出土豊簋铭文考释及相关问题探讨》,《管子学刊》2010年第2期。邵望平：《考古学上所见西周王朝对海岱地区的经略》,《燕京学报》第十期。魏成敏：《陈庄西周城与齐国早期都城》,《管子学刊》2010年第3期。靳桂云、郑同修等：《西周早期王朝的东方军事重镇：山东高青陈庄遗址的古植物证据》,《科学通报》2011年第35期。
1 峭巍：《央地关系模型在考古学中的应用：现状与趋势》,《东岳论丛》2011年第06期。
1 Lewis Morgan.1963. Ancient Society. Cleveland:Meridan Books.
2 Elman Service.1962. Primitive Social Organization. New York:Random House.
3 Julian Steward.1955. Theory of Culture Change:The methodology of mulitlinear evolution. Brbana:University of Illinois press, pp 13
4 M. Schiffer.1981. Some issues in the philosophy of archaeology, American Antiquity 46:899-908. Colin Renfrew.1969. Trade and culture process in European prehistory, Current Anthropology 10: 151-69[英]科林伦福儒、保罗巴恩主编,陈胜前译：《考古学：关键概念》,中国人民大学出版社2012年版。
1 Johannes Fabian.1983. Time and the Other:How anthropology makes its object. New York:Columbia University Press.
2 Johannes Fabian.1983. Time and the Other:How anthropology makes its object. New York:Columbia University Press.
3 Charles Lyell T 1830年出版的《地质学原理》。间接引用自Johannes Fabian.1983. Time and the Other:How anthropology makes its object. New York:Columbia University Press.
4 Charles Lyell T 1830年出版的《地质学原理》。间接引用自Johannes Fabian.1983. Time and the Other:How anthropology makes its object. New York:Columbia University Press.
5 Johannes Fabian.1983. Time and the Other:How anthropology makes its object. New York:Columbia University Press.
6 Johannes Fabian.1983. Time and the Other:How anthropology makes its object. New York:Columbia University Press.
Michael Shanks, and Christopher Tilley.1987. Social Theory and Archaeology. Albuquerque:University of New Mexico Press.
1 Johan nes Fabian.1983. Time and the Other:How anthropology makes its object. New York:Columbia University Press.
2 Julian Steward.1972. Theory of Culture Change:The methodology of multilinear evolution. Urbana:University of Illinois Press.
3 Herbert Spencer.2009. First Principles, New York:Cambridge University Press. First published at 1862.
Johannes Fabian.1983. Time and the Other:How anthroDoloav makes its obiect. New York:Columbia University Press.
2 Herbert Spencer.2009. First Principles. New York:Cambridge University Press, pp 218. First published at 1862.
3 Edward Tylor.1958. Primitive Culture (1871). New York:Harper Torchbooks.
1 Lewis Morgan.1963. Ancient Society. Cleveland:Meridan Books.
2 卡内罗著、王丽译：《文化进化论的古典创建》,《史林》,2004年第一期。
3 Herbert Spencer.2009. First Principles. New York:Cambridge University Press, pp 218. First published at 1862.
4 卡内罗著、王丽译：《文化进化论的古典创建》,《史林》,2004年第一期。
5 Julian Steward.1972. Theory of Culture Change:The methodology of multilinear evolution. Urbana:University of Illinois Press.
1 Marshall Sahlins, and Elman Service.1960. Evolution and Culture. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press. Marshall Sahlins.1985. Islands of History. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
2 Julian Steward.1955. Theory of culture change:the methodology of mulitlinear evolution. Brbana:University of Illinois press;令见Marshal Sahlins, and Elman Service.1960. Evolution and Culture. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press.
3 Eric Wolf.1994. Facing power-Old slights, New questions. American Anthropologists 92:586-696.
4 Marshall Sahlins.1978. Culture and Practical Meaning. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
5 Edward Tylor.1958. Primitive Culture (1871). New York:Harper Torchbooks.
6 Herbert Spencer.1899. The principles of sociology (Vol.1). New York:Appleton and Company.
1 E. Sterud.1973. A Paradigmatic View of Prehistory, in Colin Renfrew (ed.), The Explanation of Culture Change: Models in Prehistory., London:Duckworth.
2 Leslie White.1960. Foreword in Evolution and Culture. Marshall Sahlins, and Elman Service (eds.) Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
3 Elman Service.1975. Origins of the State and Civilization. New York:Norton.
4 Marshall Sahlins.1978. Culture and Practical Meaning. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Allen Johnson, and Timothy Earle.1987. The Evolution of Human Societies:From foraging group to agrarian state. Stanford:Stanford University Press.
1 Marshall Sahlins.1978. Culture and Practical Meaning. Chicago:University of Chicago Press. Marshall Sahlins, and Elman Service.1960. Evolution and Culture. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press.
2 Marshall Sahlins.1978. Culture and Practical Meaning. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
3 Marshall Sahlins, and Elman Service.1960. Evolution and Culture. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press.
4 Marshall Sahlins, and Elman Service.1960. Evolution and Culture. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press.
1 Antonio Gilman.1996. Explaining the Upper Paleolithic Revolution. In Contemporary Archaeology in Theory, edited by R. Preucel and I. Hodder. London, Blackwell. Ofer Bar-Yosef.1998. On the Nature of Transition:The middle to Upper Palaeolithic and the Neolithic revolution. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 8:141-163.
2 Barbara Bender.1989. The Roots of Inequality, In Domination and Resistance, edited by D. Miller, M. Rowlands, and C. Tilley. Unwin Hyman, London.
3 Kent Flannery.1972. The cultural evolution of civilizations, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 3: 399-426
4 Robert Hall.1977. AThropolocentric Perspective for Eastern United States Prehistory. American Antiquity 41: 499-518
5 当然,过程考古学家在讨论中,大多需要对不同概念进行区分或者说进行分别的讨论,即生计经济行为(substantial economy)和政治经济行为(political economy)等两个概念。只有政治经济行为本身,才能导致交换和控制等制度化行为的出现,进而实现社会组织形式由低级到高级的进化过程。相关讨论参见：Allen Johnson, and Timothy Earle.1987. The Evolution of Human Societies:From Foraging Group to Agrarian State. Stanford:Stanford University Press.
6 Kent Flannery.1972. The Cultural Evolution of Civilizations, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 3: 399-426
1 Kent Flannery.1972. Culture History vs. Culture Process. In Contemporary Archaeology:A guide to Theory and Contributions, edited by M. Leone. Carbondale:SIU Press.
2参见Matthew Johnson.2009. Archaeological Theory:An Introduction.2nded. Oxford:Blackwell. Trigger, Bruce G.2006. A History of Archaeological Thought.2nded. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
3 Colin Renfrew.1996. Peer Polity Interaction. In Contemporary Archaeology in Theory, edited by R. Preucel and I. Hodder. Blackwell. London.
4 Stephen Shannan.1996. Cultural Transmission and Cultural Change. In Contemporary Archaeology in Theory, edited by R. Preucel and I. Hodder. Blackweli, London
s Timothy Earle.1996. Specialization and the Production of wealth:Hawaiian Chiefdoms and the Inka Empire. In Contemporary Archaeology in Theory, edited by R. Preucel and I. Hodder. Blackwell, London
6 Douglas Bird, and James O'Connell.2006. Behavioral Ecology and Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 14:143-188.
7 Robert Dunnell.1980. Evolutionary theory and archaeology. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 3:35-99.
8 Douglas Bird, and James O'Connell.2006. Behavioral Ecology and Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 14:143-188.
1 Robert Leonard.2001. Evolutionary Archaeology. In Archaeological Theory Today, edited by Ian Hodder. Polity Press, Cambridge.
2 Robert Leonard.2001. Evolutionary Archaeology. In Archaeological Theory Today, edited by Ian Hodder. Polity Press, Cambridge.
3 Robert Dunnell.1978. Style and Function:A Fundamental Dichotomy. American Antiquity 43(2):192-202.
Stephen Shennan.1996. Cultural Transmission and Cultural Change. In Contemporary Archaeology in Theory, edited by R. Preucel and I. Hodder. Blackwell, London.
5 Steven Mithen.1989. Evolutionary Theory and Post-processual Archaeology. American Antiquity 63(240):483-495.
1 Robert Preucel, and Alex Bauer.2001. Archaeological Pragmatics. Norwegian Archaeological Review 34:85-96.
1 Craig Calhoun.2002. Introduction, in Craig Calhoun, and Joseph Gerteis (eds.). Contemporary sociological theory, Malden:Blackwell Publishing.
1 Craig Calhoun, and Joseph Gerteis (eds.) 2002. Contemporary sociological theory, Maiden:Blackwell Publishing.
2 Anthony Giddens.1984. The Constitution of Society. Cambridge:Polity Press.中文翻译参见：[英]安东尼·吉登斯著、李康等译：《社会的构成》,三联书店1998年版。
3 Pierre Bourdieu.1990. The Logic of Practice. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.翻译参见：[法]布迪厄著、蒋梓骅译：《实践感》,译林出版社2003年版。
4 Anthony Giddens.1984. The Constitution of Society. Cambridge:Polity Press.中文翻译参见：[英]安东尼·吉登斯著、李康等译：《社会的构成》,三联书店1998年版。
s Anthony Giddens.1979. Central Problems in Social Theory. London:Macmillan.
1 Anthony Giddens.1979. Central Problems in Social Theory. London:Macmillan.
2 Jeffery Alexander.1990. Analytic Debates:Understanding the relative autonomy of culture. In Jeffery Alexander, and Steven Seidman (eds.) Culture and Society:Contemporary debates. Cambridge:The University of Cambridge Press.
3 Claudia Strauss, and Naomi Quinn.1997. A Cognitive Theory of Culture Meaning. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
1 关于文化中包含的主观与客观的对立,一直都是西方人类学研究的内在理论预设。文化一方面是作为秩序的存在和感知的重要形式而存在的,另一方面文化需要被感知与被理解才能发挥其内在秩序的能力。相关讨论参见Marshall Sahlins的著作((Culture and Practical Reason》第二章。
2 Marshall Sahlins.1978. Culture and Practical Meaning. Chicago:University of Chicago Press, pp X
3 Edward LiPuma.1993. Culture and the Concept of Culture in a Theory of Practice. In Bourdieu:Critical perspectives. Edward Lipuma, Mcishe Postone, and Craig Calhoun (eds.). Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
4 Marshall Sahlins.1978. Culture and Practical Meaning. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
5 Bruce Trigger.1996. A History of Archaeological Thought.2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
1 Bruce Trigger.1996. A History of Archaeological Thought.2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
2 后过程主义考古学对于考古理论的反思和批判,尽管立足点多有不同,但其主要理论诉求仍是如何通过考古材料,思考和解释古代社会发展中的问题。参见：Ian Hodder.1982. Theoretical Archaeology:A Reactionary View. In Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, edited by I. Hodder. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; Robert Preucel.1995. The Postprocessual Condition. Journal of Archaeological Research 3:147-175.
3 Matthew Johnson.2009. Archaeological Theory:An Introduction.2nd ed. Blackwell, Oxford.
4 Stephen Plog.1976. Measurement of Prehistoric Interaction between Communities, in Kent Flannery (ed.) The Early Mesoamerican Village. London:Academic Press; Henry Wright.1977. Toward an Explanation of the Origin of the State, in Explanation of Prehistoric Organizational Change. J. Hill ed. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
1 Jeffery Alexander.1990. Analytic Debates:Understanding the Relative Autonomy of Culture. In Jeffery Alexander, and Steven Seidman (eds.) Culture and Society:Contemporary debates. Cambridge:The University of Cambridge Press.
2 Pierre Bourdieu.1990. The Logic of Practice. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.翻译参见：[法]布迪厄著、蒋梓骅译：《实践感》,译林出版社2003年版。
1 王铭铭：《吉登斯现代社会论丛·译序》，《社会的构成》,安东尼·吉登斯著、李康等译,三联书店1998年版。
2 Anthony Giddens.1979. Central Problems in Social Theory. London:Macmillan.
3 Anthony Giddens.1979. Central Problems in Social Theory. London:Macmillan.
4 Edward LiPuma.1993. Culture and the Concept of Culture in a Theory of Practice. In Bourdieu:Critical perspectives. Edward Lipuma, Mcishe Postone, and Craig Calhoun (eds.). Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
5 Charles Taylor.1993. To Follow a Rule.... In Bourdieu:Critical perspectives. Edward Lipuma, Mcishe Postone, and Craig Calhoun (eds.). Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
6 Anthony Giddens.1984. The Constitution of Society. Cambridge:Polity Press.
1 Jeffery Alexander, and Steven Seidman (eds.) Culture and Society:Contemporary debates. Cambridge:The University of Cambridge Press.
2 Anthony Giddens.1979. Central Problems in Social Theory. London:Macmillan. Pierre Bourdieu.1963. The Attitude of the Algerian Peasant toward Time, in J. Pitt-Rivers (ed.), Mediterranean Countrymen. The Hague:Mouton.
3 Anthony Giddens.1984. The Constitution of Society. Cambridge:Polity Press.
4 Anthony Giddens.1979. Central Problems in Social Theory. London:Macmillan.
1 Anthony Giddens.1979. Central Problems in Social Theory. London:Macmillan.
2 Pierre Bourdieu.1977. The Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
3 Anthony Giddens.1979. Central Problems in Social Theory. London:Macmillan.
4 Anthony Giddens.1979. Central Problems in Social Theory. London:Macmillan.
5 Anthony Giddens.1979. Central Problems in Social Theory. London:Macmillan.
6 Anthony Giddens.1979. Central Problems in Social Theory. London:Macmillan.
7 Anthony Giddens.1979. Central Problems in Social Theory. London:Macmillan.
1 Pierre Bourdieu.1977. The Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
2 Anthony Giddens.1979. Central Problems in Social Theory. London:Macmillan.
1 尽竹文明、国家和社会复杂化三个问题很少同时出现在文明起源研究中,但是三个概念本身具有的相似性使得文明起源研究很难明确将上述三个概念进行分割。文明、国家与社会复杂化的概念自产生时便相互作为理论预设而存在。
2 Ronald Cohen.1978. State origins:a Reappraisal, in Henri J. Claessen and Peter Skalnik (eds.) The Early State. Hague:Mouton Publishers.
1 也有学者认为关于国家概念,还可以从不同国家形式的共有特征方面入手加以探讨。
2 M. Fried.1967. The Evolution of Political Society. New York:Random House.
3 Henry Wright, and Gregory Johnson.1975. Population, Exchange, and Early State Formation in Southwest Iran. American Anthropology 77(2):267-289.
4 Elman Service.1975. Origins of the State and Civilization. New York:Norton.
5 Elman Service,1978, Classical and Modern Theories of the Origins of Government, in Ronald Cohen and Elman Service (eds). Origins of the States:The anthropology of political evolution. Philadelphia:ISHI Inc.
6 陈淳：《文明与早期国家探源——中外理论、方法与研究之比较》,上海世纪出版集团,2007年
1 RH McGuire.1983. Breaking Down Cultural Complexity:Inequality and Heterogeneity. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 6:91-142.
1 Tong Enzheng.1995. Thirty Years of Chinese Archaeology (1949-1979). In Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice of Archaeology, edited by P. L. Kohl and C. Fawcett. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. Liu Li.2005. The Chinese Neolithic:Trajectories to early states. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. Rowan Flad and Pochan Chen. In Prep. Ancient Central China:An Archaeological Study of Centers and Peripheries along the Yangzi River. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
2 K. C. Chang.1986. Archaeology of Ancient China. Yale University Press, New Haven. Gideon Shelach.2009. Prehistoric Societies on the Northern Frontiers of China:Archaeological perspectives on indentity formation and economic change during the First Millennium BCE. London:Equinox.苏秉琦：《关于重建中国史前史的思考》,《考古》1991年第12期。
1 Ernest Gellner.1964. Thought and Change. London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
2 Elman Service.1975. Origins of the State and Civilization. New York: Norton.
1 参见Herrlee Creel(顾立雅).1970. Origins of Statecraft in China:The Western Chou Empire (Vol.1). University of Chicago Press, Chicago.许倬云：《西周史》,三联书店2001年版。李峰：《西周的政体：中国早期的官僚制度和国家》,三联书店2010年版。
2 傅罗文(Rowan Flad).《贞人：关于早期中国施灼占卜起源与发展的一些思考》。荆志淳等主编,《多维视域：商王朝与中国早期文明研究》,北京：科学出版社,2009年版。
3 李伯谦,《从殷墟青铜器祖徽所代表族氏得地理分布看商王朝的管辖范围与统辖措施》,荆志淳等主编,《多维视域：商王朝与中国早期文明研究》,北京：科学出版社,2009年版,第138-151页。
4 田吕五：《古代社会形态研究》,天津：天津人民出版社1980年版。田昌五、藏知非：《周秦社会形态研究》,西安：西北大学出版社1996年版。
5 从古文献、出土文献、考古材料等反映出的商周政治系统不同制度和结构,晁福林已经提出在夏商西周时期发生的社会变迁,参见晁福林：《夏商西周的社会变迁》,北京师范大学出版社1996年版。
1 Rowan Flad.2011. Salt Production and Social Hierarchy in Ancient China:An archaeological investigation of specialization in China's Three Gorges. New York:Cambridge University Press.
2 很多学者,如Prudence Rice, John Clark, Timothy Earle都提出过不同的生产组织的模型,但本文的研究目的不在于比较不同的生产组织,而是要分析生产组织自身具有的特点以及不同参数在反应生产组织及其再生产中的作用,因此研究着重分析Costin和Flad两人对于生产组织及其参数所进行的讨论。
1 Rowan Flad.2011. Salt Production and Social Hierarchy in Ancient China:An archaeological investigation of specialization in China's Three Gorges. New York:Cambridge University Press.
'Cathy Costin.1991. Craft Specialization:Issues in defining, documenting, and explaining the organization of production. Archaeological Method and Theory 3:1-56
3 该模型示意图翻译自Cathy Costin.1991. Craft Specialization:Issues in defining, documenting, and explaining the organization of production. Archaeological Method and Theory 3:1-56, figure 1.另外,对于参数的不同解释和翻译方式,参见Rowan Flad,2011. Salt Production and Social Hierarchy in Ancient China:An archaeological investigation of specialization in China's Three Gorges. New York:Cambridge University Press, ppl7:Figure2.1.
1 Rowan Flad.2011. Salt Production and Social Hierarchy in Ancient China:An archaeological investigation of specialization in China's Three Gorges. New York:Cambridge University Press.
2 Rowan Flad.2007. Rethinking the Context of Production through an Archaeological Study of Ancient Salt Production in the Sichuan Basin, China. Archaeological papers of the American Anthropological Association 17(1):108-128 Takeshi Inomata.2001. The Power and Ideology of Artistic Creation:Elite craft specialists in Classic Maya society. Current Anthropology 42:321-349
3 Brandon Lewis.1996. The Role of Attached and Independent Specialization in the Development of Socio-Cultural Complexity. Research in Economic Anthropology 17:357-388.
4 John Clark, and William Parry.1990. Craft Specialization and Cultural Complexity. Research in Economic Anthropology 12:289-346.
1 表格及数据均来自Dean Arnold.1985. Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. Table 5.3
1 Cathy Costin, and Melissa Hagstrum.1995. Standardization, Labor Investment, Skill, and Organization of Ceramic Production in Late Prehistoric Highland Peru. American Antiquity 60:619-639.
2 Rowan Flad.2011. Salt Production and Social Hierarchy in Ancient China:An archaeological investigation of specialization in China's Three Gorges. New York:Cambridge University Press.
1 Pierre Bourdieu.1977. The Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. Anthony Giddens.1979. Central Problems in Social Theory. London:Macmillan.
2 Dean Arnold.2000. Does the Standardization of Ceramic Pastes really Men Specialization? Journal of Archaeological method and theory 7(4):333-375
3 Rowan Flad.2002. Ritual or structure? Analysis of Burial Elaboration at Dadianzi, Inner Mongolia. Journal of East Asian Archaeology 3(3-4):23-52
4 Charles Stanish.2003. Ancient Titicaca:The evolution of complex society in the Titicaca Basin of Peru and Bolivia. Berkeley:University of California Press.
5 Vordon Childe.1951. Social Evolution. London:Watts.
1 栾丰实：《海岱地区史前文化的发现与研究》,《21世纪中国考古学与世界考古学》,中国社会科学出版社2002年版。高广仁、邵望平：《中华文明的发祥地之一——海岱历史文化区》,《史前研究》1984年第1期。
2 方辉：《大辛庄甲骨文的几个问题》, 《文史哲》2003年第4期。
3 严文明：《东夷文化的探索》,《文物》1989年第9期。栾丰实：《试论仰韶时代东方与中原的关系》,《考古》1996年第4期。方辉：《二里头文化与岳石文化》,《中原文物》1987年第1期。
4 王芬、卢建英：《“2005中国口照龙山时代与早期国家国际学术研讨会”综述》,《文史哲》2006年第2期。方辉、文德安等：《鲁东南沿海地区聚落形态变迁与社会复杂化进程研究》,《东方考古(第4集)》,2008年版。
1 Liu Li.2005. The Chinese Neolithic: Trajectories to early states. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
2 陈淑卿：《山东地区商文化编年与类型研究》, 《华夏考古》2003年第1期。上青：《海岱地区周代墓葬研究》,山东大学出版社2002年版。高广仁：《海岱地区的商代文化遗存》,《考古学报》2000年第2期。
3 陈雪香：《山东地区商文化聚落形态演变初探》,《华夏考古》2007年第1期。方辉：《商时期鲁北地区海盐业的考古学研究》,《考古》2004年第4期。王青、朱继平：《山东北部商周盔形器的用途与产地再论》，《考古》2006年第4期。
4 徐宏：《对山东地区商代文化的几点认识》,《纪念山东大学考古专业创建二十周年文集》,山东大学出版社1992年版方辉：《商王朝对东方的经略》,《海岱地区青铜时代考古》,山东大学山版社2007年版。刘莉、陈星灿：《城：夏商时期对自然资源的控制问题》,《东南文化》2000年第3期。钱汇益： 《山东周代文化格局与文化变迁研究》,南开大学博士后出站报告。
5 方辉：《大辛庄甲骨文的几个问题》,《文史哲》2003年第4期。方辉：《大辛庄遗址的考古发现与研究》,《山东大学学报》2004年第1期。
1 淑卿：《山东地区商文化编年与类型研究》, 《华夏考古》2003年第1期。
2 由于笔者无法通过测量得到大辛庄陶鬲的各项数据来测算标准差和变异系数等数据,因此本文所使用到的大辛庄陶鬲数据均来：邢琪：《大辛庄商代制陶工艺研究》,山东大学硕士论文。
3 燕生东、魏成敏等：《桓台西南部龙山、晚商时期的聚落》,《东方考古(第2集)》,科学出版社,2005年版。
4 燕生东、魏成敏等：《桓台西南部龙山、晚商时期的聚落》,《东方考古(第2集)》,科学出版社,2005年版。
5 燕生东、魏成敏等：《桓台西南部龙山、晚商时期的聚落》,《东方考古(第2集)》,科学出版社,2005年版。
6 山东考古考古研究所：《山东阳信县李屋遗址商代遗存发掘简报》,《考古》2010年第3期。
7 按照北沈马遗址发掘人员及相关出版物可以,遗址中包含着三部分文化因素：商文化因素、周文化因素和地方特色文化因素等。其中某些遗迹中发现的大口陶鬲很明显具有周原地区西周初年陶鬲的特征。参
1 文杰：《中国古代制陶工艺研究》,科学出版社1996年版。周仁、张福康、郑永圃：《我国黄河流域新石器时代和殷周时代制陶上艺的科学总结》,《考古学报》1964年第1期裴明相：《郑州商代二里岗期陶器制作中的几个问题》,《华夏考古》1991年第4期。
1 济：《殷墟陶器研究》,上海人民出版社2007年版。
2 李文杰：《中国古代制陶工艺研究》,科学出版社1996年版。
3 李文杰：《中国古代制陶工艺研究》,科学出版社1996年版。
4 李文杰：《中国古代制陶T艺研究》,科学出版社1996年版。裴明相：《郑州商代二里岗期陶器制作中的几个问题》，《华夏考古》1991年第4期。
5 李文杰：《中国古代制陶工艺研究》,科学出版社1996年版。
6 李文杰：《中国古代制陶工艺研究》,科学出版社1996年版。
1 Rowan Flad,2011, Salt production and social hierarchy in ancient China:an archaeological investigation of specialization in China's Three Gorges. New York:Cambridge University Press. Cathy Costin.1991. Craft Specialization:Issues in defining, documenting, and explaining the organization of production. Archaeological Method and Theory 3:1-56
2 Cathy Costin.1991. Craft Specialization:Issues in defining, documenting, and explaining the organization of production. Archaeological Method and Theory 3:1-56 Philip Arnold.1991. Dimensional standardization and production scale in Mesoamerican ceramics. Latin American Antiquity 2:363-370.
3 丰实：《东夷考古》,山东大学出版社1996年版。
1 Rowan Flad,2011, Salt production and social hierarchy in ancient China:an archaeological investigation of specialization in China's Three Gorges. New York:Cambridge University Press, pp45
2 Philip Arnold.1991. Dimensional standardization and production scale in Mesoamerican ceramics. Latin American Antiquity 2:363-370.
3 Pierre Bourdieu. The Logic of Practice. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. Pp 100.翻译参见[法]布迪厄著、蒋梓骅译：《实践感》,译林出版社2003年版。
1 Rowan Flad.2011. Salt Production and Social Hierarchy in Ancient China:An archaeological investigation of specialization in China's Three Gorges. New York:Cambridge University Press.
2 Takeshi Inomata.2001. The Power and Ideology of Artistic Creation:Elite craft specialists in Classic Maya society. Current Anthropology 42:321-349
1 相宏、张光明：《高青陈庄遗址M18出土豊簋铭文考释及相关问题探讨》,《管子学刊》2010年第2期。
2 Rowan Flad.2011. Salt Production and Social Hierarchy in Ancient China:An archaeological investigation of specialization in China's Three Gorges. New York: Cambridge University Press.
1 徐基：《济南大辛庄商文化遗存的再认识》,《中国商文化国际学术讨论会论文集》,中国大百科全书出版社1998年版。高广仁：《海岱区的商文化遗存》,《考古学报》,2002年第2期。王锡平：《试论山东地区的素面陶鬲》,《中国考古学年会第九次年会论文集》,文物出版社1997年版。
2 周仁、张福康、郑永圃：《我国黄河流域新石器时代和殷周时代制陶工艺的科学总结》,《考古学报》1964年第1期
1 Rowan Flad.2011. Salt Production and Social Hierarchy in Ancient China:An archaeological investigation of specialization in China's Three Gorges. New York:Cambridge University Press. Cathy Costin.1991. Craft Specialization:Issues in defining, documenting, and explaining the organization of production. Archaeological Method and Theory 3:1-56
1 于单个绳纹多为不规则形,因此很难按照某种特定的计算公式对其面积进行计算。文章中所使用的绳纹面积的估算将绳纹看作是矩形,即绳纹面积=绳纹宽度×绳纹长度。
1 于前埠遗址的陶片出自同一地层的三个不同灰坑,因此有必要对前埠遗址陶片绳纹数据进行后续研究和分析。
1周书灿：《西周王朝经营四土研究》,中州古籍出版社2000年版。
2蓝秋霞：《山东地区西周陶器研究》,2009年山东大学硕士学位论文。燕生东：《渤海南岸地区商周时期盐业考古研究》2009年北京大学博士论文
1 E. Soja.1983. The Spatiality of Social Life:Towards a transformative retheorisation. In Derek Gregory and John Urry (ed.), Social Relations and Spatial Structures. London:Macmillan. Pp97
2 前考古学研究中,通过GIS(地理信息系统)、archaeomagnetism(考古地磁学)、全蕧盖调查等研究方式,均不同程度上将空间与社会结构作为两个相对独立变量加以分析和考察。
3 Rowan Flad.2011. Salt Production and Social Hierarchy in Ancient China:An archaeological investigation of specialization in China's Three Gorges. New York:Cambridge University Press.
4 Derek Gregory and John Urry (ed.) 1983. Social Relations and Spatial Structures. London:Macmillan.
5 Anthony Giddens.1979. Central Problems in Social Theory. London:Macmillan.
1 Derek Gregory, and John Urry.1983. Introduction. In Derek Gregory, and John Urry (ed.), Social Relations and Spatial Structures. London:Macmillan.
2 John Urry.1983. Social Relations, Space, and Time. In Derek Gregory, and John Urry (ed.), Social Relations and Spatial Structures. London:Macmillan.
3 Tuan Yi-fu.1990. Torophilia:A study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes, and Values. New York:Columbia University Press.
4 E. Soja.1983. The Spatiality of Social Life:Towards a transformative retheorisation. In Derek Gregory and John Urry (ed.), Social Relations and Spatial Structures. London:Macmillan. Rowan Flad.2011. Salt Production and Social Hierarchy in Ancient China:An archaeological investigation of specialization in China's Three Gorges. New York:Cambridge University Press.
5 Robert Preucel, and Lynn Meskell.2008. A companion to Social Archaeology. Maiden:Blackwell Publishers.
1 Robert Preucel, and Lynn Meskell.2008. A companion to Social Archaeology. Maiden:Blackwell Publishers.
2 周书灿：《西周王朝经营四土研究》,中州古籍出版社2000年版。
1 于临淄城的始建时间问题,学者们一直存在诸多争议,但目前研究倾向于临淄城大城的修建在西周晚期。但根据1964-1966年齐城勘探试掘资料可知,在河崖头、东古和阚家寨分布有西周早期的遗迹和遗物,但主要堆积则为西周中期。参见齐力：《临淄齐故城勘探纪要》,《文物》1972年第5期。
2 魏成敏：《陈庄西周城与齐国早期都城》,《管子学刊》2010年第3期。靳桂云、郑同修等：《西周早期王朝的东方军事重镇：山东高青陈庄遗址的古植物证据》, 《科学通报》2011年第35期。
3 任相宏、张光明：《高青陈庄遗址M18出土豊簋铭文考释及相关问题探讨》,《管子学刊》2010年第2期。
4 方辉：《大辛庄甲骨文的几个问题》,《文史哲》2003年第4期；方辉：《大辛庄遗址的考古发现与研究》,《山东大学学报》2004年第1期。
5 陈雪香： 《山东地区商文化聚落形态演变初探》, 《华夏考古》2007年第1期。
6 燕生东： 《渤海南岸地区商周时期盐业考古研究》,2009年北京大学博士论文
1 Timothy Pauketat.2001. Practice and history in Archaeology:An emerging paradigm. Anthropological Theory 1:73-98. Julia Hendon.1999. Multiple Sources of prestige and the social evolution of women in Prehistoric Mesoamerican. In J. Robb (ed.), Material Symbols:Culture and Economy in Prehistory. Carbondale:Southern Illinois University Press. Pp 257-276.
2[英]安东尼·吉登斯著、李康等译：《社会的构成》,三联书店1998年版。
3 Robert Santley, and Rani Alexander.1992. The political economic of core-periphery systems. In Ed Schortman, and Patricia Urban (ed.). Resources, Power and Interaction. New York:Plenum Press.
4 Julia Hendon.1999. Multiple Sources of Prestige and the Social Evolution of Women in Prehistoric Mesoamerican. In J. Robb (ed.), Material Symbols:Culture and Economy in Prehistory. Carbondale:Southern Illinois University Press.
1 齐文涛：《概述近年来山东出土的商周青铜器》,《文物》1972年第5期。张光明：《山东桓台史家遗址发掘收获的再认识》,《夏商周文明研究——97山东桓台中国殷商文明国际学术研讨会》,中国文联出版社1999年版。夏名采、刘华国：《山东青州市苏埠屯墓群出土的青铜器》,《考古》1996年第5期。方辉：《大辛庄遗址的考古发现与研究》,《山东大学学报：哲学社会科学版》2004年第1期。
1 燕生东：《渤海南岸地区商周时期盐业考古研究》,2009年北京大学博士论文
1 关于商代小型聚落与地方社会组织的探讨,参见陈朝云：《商代聚落体系及其社会功能研究》,科学出版社2006年版。
2 晚商时期鲁北地区聚落中陶器的标准化程度较高,且不同聚落群之间出土陶器残片腹片厚度标准差分布先对集中,由此可以判断陶器生产的集中化程度高、生产强度大等特点,说明陶器生产可能由全职专业人员制作和生产陶器。
3 宋艳波、燕生东：《鲁北地区商代晚期遗址出上的动物遗存》,北京大学震旦古代文明中心编：《古代文明研究通讯》,2007年第三十五期。
1 参见魏成敏、燕生东：《博兴县寨卞商周时期遗址》,《考古学年鉴2003年》，文物出版社2004年版。
2 方辉：《从考古发现谈商代末年的征夷方》,《东方考古(第一集)》,科学出版社2004年版。陈雪香：《山东地区商文化聚落形态演变初探》,《华夏考古》2007年第1期。
1 Denise Catalina Fong. Ceramic Variability of Shang Society at Huanbei in Anyang, China. A Thesis of the Degree of Master of Arts. The University of British Columbia.
2 数据来源：大辛庄陶器数据来自于邢琪：《大辛庄商代制陶工艺研究》,2012年山东大学硕士学位论文；洹北商城数据来源：Denise Catalina Fong. Ceramic Variability ofShang Society at Huanbei in Anyang, China. A Thesis of the Degree of Master of Arts. The University of British Columbia.
1 方辉：《商周时期鲁北地区海盐业的考古学研究》,《考古》2004年第1期。
2 邵望平：《考古学上所见西周王朝对海岱地区的经略》,《燕京学报》第十期。
1 任相宏、曹艳芳等：《淄川北沈马遗址的发掘与研究》，《淄川考古》,齐鲁书社2006年版。
2 魏成敏：《陈庄西周城与齐国早期都城》,《管子学刊》2010年第3期。
3 靳桂云、郑同修等：《西周早期王朝的东方军事重镇：山东高青陈庄遗址的古植物证据》,《科学通报》2011年第35期。
1 任相宏、曹艳芳等：《淄川北沈马遗址的发掘与研究》,《淄川考古》,齐鲁书社2006年版。
1 关于联裆鬲与分档鬲的区分方式和制作过程,详见李文杰：《中国古代制陶工艺研究》,科学出版社1996年版。
1 其主要特征如图所示,陶豆的豆柄、陶簋的中部开始出现较为明显的一圈突棱；陶鬲的口径明显要小于腹径、且口沿出开始出现一道凹弦纹。上述特征同周原等西周中心区域陶鬲特征极为接近。在此,特别感谢北京大学刘旭的告知。陶器组合出土自临淄阚家寨遗址。
1 徐宏：《先秦城市考古学研究》,北京燕山出版社2000年版。
2 方辉：《商周时期鲁北地区海盐业的考古学研究》,《考古》2004年第1期。
1 摘自李水城、兰玉富等：《鲁北-胶东盐业考古调查记》,《华夏考古》2009年第1期。
2 王青、朱继平：《山东北部商周盔形器的用途与产地再论》,《考古》2006年4期。
3 崔剑锋等：《山东寿光市双王城遗址古代制盐工艺的几个问题》,《考古》2010年3期。
4 曹元启：《试论西周至战同时代的盔形器》,《北方文物》1996年第3期。
1 摘自李水城、兰玉富等：《鲁北-胶东盐业考古调查记》,《华夏考古》2009年第1期。
2 参见王青：《<管子)所载海盐生产的考古学新证》,《东岳论丛》2005年第6期；王青、朱继平：《山东北部商周时期海盐生产的几个问题》,《文物》，2006年4期；王青：《淋煎法海盐生产技术起源的考古学探索》,《盐业史研究》2007年第1期；李慧竹、王青：《山东北部海盐业起源的历史与考古学探索》,《管子学刊》2007年第2期。
3 彭鹏：《鲁北莱州湾沿岸商周时期制盐工艺初探》,《南方文物》2012年第1期。
1 摘自李水城、兰玉富等：《鲁北-胶东盐业考古调查记》,《华夏考古》2009年第1期
2 摘自李水城、兰玉富等：《鲁北-胶东盐业考古调查记》,《华夏考古》2009年第1期。
1 Anne Underhill.2002. Craft Production and Social Change in Northern China. New York:Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
2 Liu Li.2005. The Chinese Neolithic:Trajectories to early states. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
3 刘莉、陈星灿：《城：夏商时期对自然资源的控制问题》,《东南文化》2000年第三期第45至60页。
4 刘莉、陈星灿：《城：夏商时期对自然资源的控制问题》,《东南文化》2000年第三期第45至60页。
5 Rowan Flad.2008. Divination and Power:A Multi-regional View of the Development of Oracle Bone Divination in Early China. Current Anthropology 49(3):403-437.
1 山东省考古研究所等：《山东寿光市双王城盐业遗址2008年的发掘》,《考古》2010年第3期。
2 山东大学东方考古研究中心、寿光市博物馆：《山东寿光市大荒北央西周遗址的发掘》,《考古》,2005年12期。
3 山东大学考古系、山东省文物考古研究所、东营市历史博物馆：《山东东营市南河崖西周煮盐遗址》《考古》2010年3期。
4 燕生东、兰玉富：《鲁北沿海地区先秦盐业遗址2007年调查简报》,《文物》2012年第7期。
5 王青、朱继平：《山东北部商周盔形器的用途与产地再论》，《考古》2006年第4期。
6 燕生东：《渤海南岸地区商周时期盐业考古研究》,2009年北京大学博士研究生学位论文宋艳波：《桓台唐山、前埠遗址出土的动物遗存》，《东方考古(第5集)》,科学出版社2009年。
1 李慧冬、赵光国：《从南河崖看鲁北商周海盐考古现状》,《管子学刊》2010年第2期。
1 燕生东：《渤海南岸地区商周时期盐业考古研究》,2009年北京大学博士学位论文
2 山东省考古研究所等：《山东阳信县李屋遗址商代遗存发掘简报》,《考古》2010年第3期
1 Robert Bagley.1999. Shang Archaeology. In Cambridge History of Ancient China:From the Origins of Civilization to 221 B.C., edited by M. Loewe and E. L. Shaughnessy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
2 方辉：《大辛庄甲骨文的几个问题》,《文史哲》2003年第4期。方辉等：《中商文化墓地在海岱地区首次发现》,中国文物报,2003-12-3(1)方辉：《大辛庄遗址的考古发现与研究》,山东大学学报.2004年第1期。方辉、陈雪香、党浩、房道国：《济南市大辛庄商代居址与墓葬》,《考古》2004年第7期。陈雪香、史本恒、方辉：《济南大辛庄遗址139号商代墓葬》,《考古》2010年第10期。王青： 《海岱地区周代墓葬研究》,山东大学出版社2002年版。
3 任相宏、张光明： 《高青陈庄遗址M18出土豊簋铭文考释及相关问题探讨》,《管子学刊》2010年第2期。
4 方辉：《大辛庄遗址的考古发现与研究》,山东大学学报2004年第1期。方辉：《商王朝对东方的经略》,《海岱地区青铜时代考古》,山东大学出版社,2007年版。
5 K. C. Chang.1980. Shang Civilization. Yale University Press, New Haven.
1 Gideon Shelach.2009. Prehistoric Societies on the Northern Frontiers of China:Archaeological perspectives on indentity formation and economic change during the First Millennium BCE. London:Equinox.
2 Lotharvon Falkenhausen.1995. Reflections on the Political Role of Spirit Mediums in Early China:The Wu officials in the Zhou Li. Early China 20:279-300.
1 山东省文物考古研究所、青州市博物馆：《青州市苏埠屯商代墓发掘报告》,《海岱考古》第·辑,1989年版。
1 山东省考古研究所：《山东高青县陈庄西周遗存发掘简报》,《考古》2011年第2期。
2 任相宏、张光明：《高青陈庄遗址M18出土豊簋铭文考释及相关问题探讨》,《管子学刊》2010年第2期。魏成敏：《陈庄西周城与齐国早期都城》,《管子学刊》2010年第3期。方辉：《高青陈庄铜器铭文与城址性质考》，《管子学刊》2010年第3期。王戎：《“高青陈庄西周遗址发掘专家座谈会”侧记》,《东岳论丛》2010年第7期。
3 方辉：《岳石文化》,山东文艺出版社2004年版。
4 方辉：《商王朝对东方的经略》,《海岱地区青铜时代考古》,山东大学出版社,2007年版。
5 王青：《海岱地区周代墓葬研究》,山东大学出版社2002年版第128页。
1 Lothar von Falkenhausen.1995. The Regionalist Paradigm in Chinese Archaeology. In Nationalism, Politics, and the Practices of Archaeology. Philip Kohl, and Clare Fawcett (eds.) Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
1 Ian Hodder.1982. Theoretical Archaeology:A reactionary view. In Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, Ian Hodder (ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
3 Timothy Insoll.2004. Archaeology, Religion, Ritual. Routledge, London
Robert Preucel.2006. Archaeological Semiotics. London:Blackwell.
5 Catherine Bell.1992. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. Oxford, Oxford University Press.pp54
1 Lothar von Falkenhausen.2008. Archaeological Perspectives on the Philosophicization of Royal Zhou Ritual. In Perceptions of Antiquity in China, Edited by Dieter Kuhn, and Helga Stahl. Heidelberg:Edition Forum.
K.C. Chang. Study of the Neolithic Social Groupings:Examples from the New World. American Anthropologist 60:298-334.
3 Bryan Pfaffenberger.1992. Social Anthropology of Technology.Annual Review of Anthropo/ogy 21:491-516.
4 Bryan Pfaffenberger.1992. Social Anthropology of Technology.Annual Revew of Anthropo/ogy 21:491-516.
1 Catherine Bell.1992. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
2 Catherine Bell.1992. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
3 Catherine Bell.1992. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
1 从特定情景内人工制品的功能角度解读其社会意义和价值的讨论近年来成为考古学家研究墓葬随葬品的热点研究范式,参见Liu Li.2003. The Production of Minds as well as Hands:Production of prestige goods in the Neolithic and early state periods of China. Asian Perspectives 42:1-40; William Walker.2001. Ritual Technology in an Extra natural World. In Archaeological Perspectives on Technology. Michael Schiffer (ed.). Albuquerque:University of New Mexico Press. 2 Bryan Pfaffenberger.1992. Social Anthropology of Technology. Annual Review of Anthropology 21:491-516.3 参见Zachary Hruby.2007. Ritualized Chipped-Stone Production at Piedras Negras, Guatemala. In Rethinking Craft Specialization in Complex Societies:Archaeological Analysis of the Social Meaning of Production. Zachary Hurby, and Rowan Flad (ed.). Arlington:American Anthropological Association. Marianan Nikolaidon.2007. Ritualized Technologies in the Aegean Neolithic?:The crafts of adornment. In The Archaeology of Ritual. Evangelos Kyriakidis (ed.). Los Angeles:Costen Institute of Archaeology, University of California.
1 Katherine Spielmann.1998. Ritual Craft Specialists in Middle Range Societies. In, Craft and Social Identity (Vol. 8), edited by Cathy L Costin, and Rita P. Wright. Arlington, VA:American Anthropological Association.
2 Liu Li.2003. The Production of Minds as well as Hands:Production of prestige goods in the Neolithic and early state periods of China. Asian Perspectives 42:1-40
3 William Walker.2001. Ritual Technology in an Extranatural World. In Archaeological Perspectives on Technology. Michael Schiffer (ed.). Alburquerque:University of New Mexico Press.
4 Zachary Hruby.2007. Ritualized Chipped-Stone Production at Piedras Negras, Guatemala. In Rethinking Craft Specialization in Complex Societies:Archaeological Analysis of the Social Meaning of Production. Zacha ry H u rby, and Rowan Flad (ed.). Arlington:American Anthropological Association.
5 Marianan Nikolaidon.2007. Ritualized Technologies in the Aegean Neolithic?:The crafts of adornment. In The Archaeology of Ritual. Evangelos Kyriakidis (ed.), Los Angeles:Costen Institute of Archaeology, University of California.
1 Bryan Pfaffenberger.1992. Social Anthropology of Technology. Annual Review of Anthropology 21:491-516.
2 H. P. Schwarcz, R. Grun, and etc.1988. ESR Data for the Hominid Burial Site of Qafzeh in Israel. Journal of Human Evolution 17:733-737 Paul Pettit.2011. The Palaeolithic Origins of Human Burial. London, Routledge.
3 Stutz Nilsson.2008. Capturing Mortuary Ritual:An Attempt to Harmonize Archaeological Method and Theory. In, Religion, Archaeology, and the Material World, edited by Lars Fogelin. Carbondale:Center for Archaeological Investigations. Nilsson Stutz.2008. Capturing Mortuary Ritual:An Attempt to Harmonize Archaeological Method and Theory. In, Religion, Archaeology, and the Material World, edited by Lars Fogelin. Carbondale:Center for Archaeological Investigations. Robert Chapman.2005. Mortuary Analysis:A Matter of Time? In Interacting with the Dead:Perspectives on Mortuary Archaeology for the New Millennium. Edited by G. F. M. Rakita, J. E. Buikstra, L. A. Beck and S. R. Williams. Gainsville, University of Florida Press.
1 Rowan Flad.2002. Ritual or Structure? Analysis of Burial Elaboration at Dadianzi, Inner Mongolia. Journal of East Asian Archaeology 3:23-52.
James Brown.1981. The Search for Rank in Prehistoric Burials. In Robert Chapman, Ian Kinnes, and Klavs Randsborg (eds.), The Archaeology of Death. Cambridge and New York:Cambridge University Press. Joseph Tainter.1978. Mortuary practices and the study of prehistoric Social Systems. In Michael B. Schiffer (editor), Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 1:105-141. New York:Academic Press. Lewis R. Binford.1971. Mortuary practices:their study and potential. In James A. Brown (editor), Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices, Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology 25:6-29. Washington, D.C.:Society for American Archaeology. Marshall Sahlins.1972. Stone Age Economics. New York:Aldine Publishing Co.
3 Christopher Peebles.1971. Moundville and Surrounding Sites:Some structural considerations of mortuary practices. In James A. Brown (editor), Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices, Memoirs for the Society of American Archaeology 25:68-91. Washington, DC:Society for American Archaeology.
4 Rowan Flad.2002. Ritual or Structure? Analysis of Burial Elaboration at Dadianzi, Inner Mongolia. Journal of East Asian Archaeology 3:23-52.
5 变量来源主要依据目前出版的不同考古报告中对于商周时期墓葬资料统计过程中使用的各个变量。
1 山东省文物考古研究所、青州市博物馆：《青州市苏埠屯商代墓发掘报告》,《海岱考古》第一辑,1989年版。
1 邢琪：《大辛庄商代制陶上艺研究》,2012年山东大学硕士学位论文。
2 数据来源：大辛庄遗址数据来自邢琪：《大辛庄商代制陶工艺研究》,2012年山东大学硕士学位论文；
3 数据来源：中国社会科学院考古研究所：《殷墟发掘报告(1958-1961)》,文物出版社1987年版.
4 数据来源：中国社会科学院考古研究所：《安阳殷墟花园庄东地商代墓葬》,科学出版社2007年版。
5 数据来源：中国社会科学院考古研究所：《安阳殷墟郭家庄商代墓葬》,中国大百科全书出版社1998年版。
6 数据来源：安阳市文物考古研究所：《安阳殷墟徐家桥郭家庄商代墓葬》,科学出版社2011年版。
1 安阳市文物工作队：《安阳徐家桥村殷代遗址发掘报告》,《华夏考古》1997年第2期,第46-55页。
2 Denise Catalina Fong. Ceramic Variability of Shang Society at Huanbei in Anyang, China. A Thesis of the Degree of Master of Arts. The University of British Columbia.
3 数据来源：北京大学考古系：《天马-曲村(1980-1989)》，科学出版社2000年版。
4 数据来源：洛阳市文物工作队：《洛阳北窑西周墓》,文物出版社1999年版。
5 数据来源：北京市文物研究所：《琉璃河西周燕国墓地》,文物出版社1995年版。
6 数据来源：陕西省考古研究所：《周原：2002年度齐家制玦作坊和礼村遗址考古发掘报告》,科学出版社2011年版。
1 栾丰实：《大汶口文化：从原始到文明》,山东文艺出版社2012年版。
2 资料尚未发表,陶器现存于淄博临淄区博物馆中。
1 数据来源：山东省文物考古研究所：《曲阜鲁国故城》，齐鲁书社1982年版。
2 Liu Li.2003. The Production of Minds as well as Hands:Production of prestige goods in the Neolithic and early state periods of China. Asian Perspectives 42:1-40.
1 Liu Li.2003. The Production of Minds as well as Hands:Production of prestige goods in the Neolithic and early state periods of China. Asian Perspectives 42:1-40.
1 邢琪：《大辛庄商代制陶上艺研究》,2012年山东大学硕士学位论文。
2 邢琪：《大辛庄商代制陶上艺研究》,2012年山东大学硕士学位论文。
3 安阳市文物工作队：《安阳徐家桥村殷代遗址发掘报告》,《华夏考古》1997年第2期。
1 济青公路文物考古队：《山东临淄后李遗址第一、二次发掘简报》,《考古》1992年第11期。济青公路文物考古队：《山东临淄后李遗址第三、四次发掘简报》,《考古》1994年第2期。
1 魏成敏：《陈庄西周城与齐国早期都城》,《管子学刊》2010年第3期。
2 魏成敏：《陈庄西周城与齐国早期都城》,《管子学刊》2010年第3期。
3 中国社会科学院考古所编：《殷周金文集成(第8卷)》,中华书局1987年版。
1 Gideon Shelach.2009. Prehistoric Societies on the Northern Frontiers of China:Archaeological perspectives on indentity formation and economic change during the First Millenium BCE. London:Equinox.
2 李峰：《西周的政体：中国早期的官僚制度和国家》,三联书店2010年版,第303-308页。
1、方辉、王惠明、党浩：《中商文化墓地在海岱地区首次发现》,《中国文物报》,2003年12月3日第1版。
2、方辉：《大辛庄遗址的考古发现与研究》,《山东大学学报》,2004年7月12日第1版。
3、方辉、陈雪香、党浩、房道国：《济南市大辛庄商代居址与墓葬》,《考古》,2004年第7期。
4、陈雪香：《山东地区商文化聚落形态演变初探》,《华夏考古》2007年第1期
5、山东大学东方考古研究中心：《大辛庄遗址1984年秋试掘报告》,《东方考古(第4集)》,科学出版社2008年版。
6、任相宏：《济南大辛庄龙山、商遗址调查》,《考古》,1985年第8期。
7、山东大学历史系考古专业：《1984年秋济南大辛庄遗址试掘述要》,《文物》,1995年第6期。
8、张光明等：《桓台史家遗址发掘获重大成果》,《中国文物报》,1997年5月18日第1版。
9、燕生东、魏成敏等：《桓台西南部龙山、晚商时期的聚落》,《东方考古》第2集,科学出版社2005年版。
10、山东省文物考古研究所、青州市博物馆：《青州市苏埠屯商代墓葬发掘报告》,《海岱考古》第一辑,山东大学出版社1989年版
11、山东大学东方考古中心、寿光市博物馆：《山东寿光市大荒北央西周遗址的发掘》,《考古》2005年第12期。
12、燕生东、张振国、佟佩华等：《山东阳信县里屋遗址商代遗存发掘简报》《考古》2010年第3期。
13、德州行署文化局文物组等：《山东济阳刘台子西周早期墓发掘简报》,《文物》1981年第9期。
14、德州行署文化局文物组等：《山东济阳刘台子西周墓地第二次发掘》,《文 物》1985年第2期。
15、山东省考古研究所：《山东济阳刘台子西周六号墓清理报告》,《文物》1996年第12期。
16、山东省考古研究所：《山东济南王府遗址发掘报告》,《山东省高速公路考古报告集(1997)》,科学出版社,2000年版,133-208页。
17、济青公路文物考古队宁家埠分队：《章丘宁家埠遗址发掘报告》,《济青高速东路考古发掘报告集》,齐鲁书社1993年版。
18、山东省考古研究所：《山东高青县陈庄西周遗存发掘简报》,《考古》201 1年第2期。
19、任相宏、曹艳芳等：《淄川北沈马遗址的发掘与研究》,《淄川考古》,齐鲁书社,2006年版。
20、刘莉、陈星灿：《城：夏商时期对自然资源的控制问题》,《东南文化》,2000年第3期.
21、方辉：《商周时期鲁北地区海盐业的考古学研究》,《考古》2004年第1期。
22、陈雪香、方辉：《从济南大辛庄遗址浮选结果看商代农业经济》,《东方考古》(第4集),科学出版社。
23、钱益辉、方辉等：《大辛庄商代石器原料来源和开发战略分析》,《第四纪研究》,2006年第4期。
24、山东省考古研究所等：《山东寿光市双王城盐业遗址2008年的发掘》,《考古》2010年第3期。
25、周书灿：《济南大辛庄商代遗址的性质问题》,《中原文物》2011年第1期。
26、李伯谦：《大辛庄甲骨文与商王朝对东方的经营》,《文史哲》2003年第4期。
27、方辉：《商王朝对东方的经略》,《海岱地区青铜时代考古》,山东大学出版社,2007年版。
28、任相宏：《山东长清县仙人台周代墓地及相关问题初探》,《考古》1998年第9期。
29、任相宏、张光明：《高青陈庄遗址M18出土豊簋铭文考释及相关问题探讨》《管子学刊》2010年第2期。
30、邵望平：《考古学上所见西周王朝对海岱地区的经略》,《燕京学报》第十 期。
31、魏成敏：《陈庄西周城与齐国早期都城》,《管子学刊》2010年第3期。
32、靳桂云、郑同修等：《西周早期王朝的东方军事重镇：山东高青陈庄遗址的古植物证据》,《科学通报》2011年第35期。
33、[意]卡内罗著、王丽译：《文化进化论的古典创建》,《史林》,2004年第一期。
34、王铭铭：《吉登斯现代社会论丛·译序》,《社会的构成》,安东尼·吉登斯著、李康等译,三联书店1998年版。
35、苏秉琦：《关于重建中国史前史的思考》,《考古》1991年第12期。
36、傅罗文(Rowan Flad):《贞人：关于早期中国施灼占下起源与发展的一些思考》。荆志淳等主编,《多维视域：商王朝与中国早期文明研究》,北京：科学出版社,2009年版。
37、李伯谦：《从殷墟青铜器祖徽所代表族氏得地理分布看商王朝的管辖范围与统辖措施》,荆志淳等主编,《多维视域：商王朝与中国早期文明研究》,北京：科学出版社,2009年版。
38、穆朝娜：《关于陶器生产方式之探析》,《文物春秋》2000年第5期
39、栾丰实：《海岱地区史前文化的发现与研究》, 《21世纪中国考古学与世界考古学》,中国社会科学出版社,2002年版。
40、高广仁、邵望平：《中华文明的发祥地之———海岱历史文化区》,《史前研究》1984年第1期。
41、严文明：《东夷文化的探索》,《文物》1989年第9期。
42、栾丰实：《试论仰韶时代东方与中原的关系》,《考古》1996年第4期。
43、陈淑卿：《山东地区商文化编年与类型研究》,《华夏考古》2003年第1期。
44、高广仁：《海岱地区的商代文化遗存》,《考古学报》2000年第2期。
45、周仁、张福康、郑永圃：《我国黄河流域新石器时代和殷周时代制陶工艺的科学总结》,《考古学报》1964年第1期。
46、李玉林：《吴城商代龙窑》,《文物》1989年第1期。
47、郭胜斌、罗仁林：《岳阳县对门山商代遗址发掘报告》,《湖南考古辑刊》1994年版。
48、湖南省博物馆等：《湖南岳阳费家河商代遗址和窑址的探掘》,《考古》1985 年第1期。
49、李素婷、李一丕、丁新功、牛慧珍、侯彦峰：《河南荥阳市关帝庙遗址商代晚期遗存发掘简报》,《考古》2008年第7期。
50、孙德海、罗平、张远：《磁县下七垣遗址发掘报告》,《考古学报》1979年第2期。
51、唐云明：《邢台曹演庄遗址发掘报告》,《考古学报》1958年第4期。
52、河北省文化局文物工作队：《1958年邢台地区古遗址、古墓葬的发现与清理》《文物》1959年第9期。
53、中国社科院考古所沣西队：《1984-1985年沣西西周遗址、墓葬发掘报告》,《考古》1987年第1期。
54、种建荣、张敏、雷兴山：《岐山孔头沟遗址商周时期聚落性质初探》,《文博》,2007年第5期。
55、陕西省考古研究所宝鸡工作站：《陕西岐山赵家台遗址试掘简报》,《考占与文物》,1994年第2期。
56、宋艳波、燕生东：《鲁北地区商代晚期遗址出土的动物遗存》,北京大学震旦古代文明中心编：《古代文明研究通讯》,2007年第三十五期。
57、周仁、张福康、郑永圃：《我国黄河流域新石器时代和殷周时代制陶工艺的科学总结》,《考古学报》1964年第1期。
58、魏成敏：《陈庄西周城与齐国早期都城》,《管子学刊》2010年第3期。
59、李水城、兰玉富等：《鲁北-胶东盐业考古调查记》,《华夏考古》2009年第1期。
60、王青、朱继平：《山东北部商周盔形器的用途与产地再论》,《考古》2006年4期第61-68页。
61、崔剑锋等：《山东寿光市双王城遗址古代制盐工艺的几个问题》,《考古》2010年第3期。
62、曹元启：《试论西周至战国时代的盔形器》,《北方文物》1996年第3期,第22-26页。
63、王青：《(管子>所载海盐生产的考古学新证》,《东岳论丛》2005年第6期。
64、王青：《淋煎法海盐生产技术起源的考古学探索》,《盐业史研究》2007 年第1期。
65、李慧竹、王青：《山东北部海盐业起源的历史与考古学探索》,《管子学刊》2007年第2期。
66、彭鹏：《鲁北莱州湾沿岸商周时期制盐工艺初探》,《南方文物》2012年第1期。
67、安阳市文物工作队：《安阳徐家桥村殷代遗址发掘报告》,《华夏考古》1997年第2期。
68、山东省文物考古研究所、青州市博物馆：《青州市苏埠屯商代墓发掘报告》,《海岱考古》第一辑,1989年版。
69、王戎：《“高青陈庄西周遗址发掘专家座谈会”侧记》,《东岳论丛》2010年第7期。
70、方辉：《高青陈庄铜器铭文与城址性质考》,《管子学刊》2010年第3期。
71、王锡平：《试论山东地区的素面陶鬲》,《中国考古学年会第九次年会论文集》,文物出版社1997年版。
72、魏峭巍：《央地关系模型在考古学中的应用：现状与趋势》,《东岳论丛》2011年第06期。
1、晃福林：《夏商西周的社会变迁》,北京师范大学出版社1996年版。
2、李峰：《西周的政体——中国早期的官僚制度和国家》,三联书店2010年版。
3、李峰著、徐峰译,《西周的灭亡——中国早期国家得地理和政治危机》,上海古籍出版社,2007年版
4、刘莉著、陈星灿等译：《中国新时期时代：迈向早期国家之路》,文物出版社,2007年版。
5、[英]科林伦福儒、保罗巴恩主编,陈胜前译：《考古学：关键概念》,中国人民大学出版2012年版。
6、[法]布迪厄著、蒋梓骅译：《实践感》,译林出版社2003年版。
7、陈淳：《文明与早期国家探源——中外理论、方法与研究之比较》,上海世纪出版集团,2007年
8、田昌五：《古代社会形态研究》,天津：天津人民出版社,1980年版。
9、田昌五、藏知非：《周秦社会形态研究》,西安：西北大学出版社,1996年版。
10、钱汇益：《山东周代文化格局与文化变迁研究》,南开大学博士后出站报告。
11、[英]安东尼·吉登斯著、李康等译：《社会的构成》,三联书店1998年版。
12、王青：《海岱地区周代墓葬研究》,出东大学出版社2002年版。
13、李文杰：《中国古代制陶工艺研究》,科学出版社1996年版。
14、河南省文物考古研究所：《郑州商城》,文物出版社2001年版。
15、戴向明：《陶器生产、聚落形态与社会变迁——新石器至早期青铜时代的垣曲盆地》,文物出版社2010年版。
16、中国社会科学院考古所编：《殷周金文集成(第8卷)》,中华书局1987年版。
17、杨升南：《商代经济史》,贵州人民出版社1992年版。
18、陆小荣主编：《陶瓷工艺学》,湖南大学出版社2005年版。
19、张锐主编：《陶瓷工艺学》,化学工业出版社2007年版。
20、李济：《殷墟陶器研究》,上海人民出版社2007年版。
21、陈振中：《先秦手工业史》,福建人民出版社2008年版。
22、王迅：《东夷文化与淮夷文化》,北京大学出版社1994年版。
23、徐宏：《先秦城市考古学研究》,北京燕山出版社2000年版。
24、陈朝云：《商代聚落体系及其社会功能研究》,科学出版社2006年版。
25、杜正胜：《古代社会与国家》,允晨文化公司(台北)1992年版。
26、许倬云：《西周史》,三联书店2001年版。
27、中国社会科学院考古研究所：《殷墟发掘报告(1958-1961)》,文物出版社1987年版.
28、中国社会科学院考古研究所：《安阳殷墟花园庄东地商代墓葬》,科学出版社2007年版。
29、中国社会科学院考古研究所：《安阳殷墟郭家庄商代墓葬》,中国大百科全书出版社1998年版。
30、安阳市文物考古研究所：《安阳殷墟徐家桥郭家庄商代墓葬》,科学出版社2011年版。
31、北京大学考古系：《天马-曲村(1980-1989)》,科学出版社2000年版。
32、洛阳市文物工作队：《洛阳北窑西周墓》,文物出版社1999年版。
33、北京市文物研究所：《琉璃河西周燕国墓地》,文物出版社1995年版。
34、陕西省考古研究所：《周原：2002年度齐家制玦作坊和礼村遗址考古发掘报告》,科学出版社2011年版。
35、山东省文物考古研究所：《曲阜鲁国故城》,齐鲁书社1982年版。
1、Jay Weinstein.2010. Social Change (Third Edition). Lanham:Rowman& Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
2、Anne Underhill,2000. Craft Production and Social Change in Northern China. New York:Kluwer Academic Plenum Publishers.
3、Lewis Morgan.1963. Ancient Society. Cleveland:Meridan Books.
4、Elman Service.1962. Primitive Social Organization. New York:Random House.
5、Julian Steward.1955. Theory of Culture Change:The methodology of mulitlinear evolution. Brbana:University of Illinois press.
6、M. Schiffer.1981. Some Issues in the Philosophy of Archaeology, American Antiquity 46:899-908.
7、Colin Renfrew.1969. Trade and Culture Process in European Prehistory, Current Anthropology 10:151-69.
8、Johannes Fabian.1983. Time and the Other:How anthropology makes its object. New York:Columbia University Press.
9、Michael Shanks, and Christopher Tilley.1987. Social Theory and Archaeology. Albuquerque:University of New Mexico Press.
10、Herbert Spencer.2009. First Principles. New York:Cambridge University Press. First published at 1862.
11、Lewis Morgan.1963. Ancient Society. Cleveland:Meridan Books.
12、Marshall Sahlins, and Elman Service.1960. Evolution and Culture. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
13、Marshall Sahlins.1985. Islands of History. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
14、Eric Wolf.1994. Facing Power-Old slights, New questions. American Anthropologists 92:586-696.
15、Marshall Sahlins.1978. Culture and Practical Meaning. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
16、Herbert Spencer.1899. The Principles of Sociology (Vol. I). New York:Appleton and Company.
17、Eric Sterud.1973. A Paradigmatic View of Prehistory, in Colin Renfrew (ed.), The Explanation of Culture Change:Models in Prehistory, London:Duckworth.
18、Leslie White.1960. Foreword in Evolution and Culture, in Marshall Sahlins and Elman Service (eds.) Evolution and Culture. Chicago:University of Chicago Press
19、Elman Service.1975. Origins of the Stale and Civilization. New York:Norton.
20、Allen Johnson, and Timothy Earle.1987. The Evolution of Human Societies: From foraging group to agrarian stale. Stanford:Stanford University Press, pp 2-4
21、Kent Flannery.1972. The Cultural Evolution of Civilizations, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 3:399-426
22、Barbara Bender.1989. The Roots of Inequality. In Domination and Resistance, edited by D. Miller, M. Rowlands, and C. Tilley, pp.83-95. Unwin Hyman, London.
23、Antonio Gilman.1996. Explaining the Upper Paleolithic Revolution. In Contemporary Archaeology in Theory, edited by R. Preucel and I. Hodder, pp. 220-239. London, Blackwell.
24、Robert Hall.1977. A Thropolocentric Perspective for Eastern United States Prehistory, American Antiquity 41:449-588.
25、Kent Flannery.1972. Culture History vs. Culture Process. In Contemporary Archaeology:A guide to Theory and Contributions, M. Leone (eds.) Carbondale: SIU Press, pp.102-107.
26、Matthew Johnson.2009. Archaeological Theory:An Introduction.2nd edition. Oxford:Blackwell.
27、Bruce Trigger.2006. A History of Archaeological Thought.2nd edition. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, pp.211-313
28、Colin Renfrew.1996. Peer Polity Interaction. In Contemporary Archaeology in Theory, R. Preucel and I. Hodder (eds.) pp.114-142. Blackwell, London.
29、Stephen Shannan.1996. Cultural Transmission and Cultural Change. In Contemporary Archaeology in Theory, R. Preucel and I. Hodder (eds.) pp. 282-296. Blackwell, London.
30、Timothy Earle.1996. Specialization and the Production of Wealth:Hawaiian Chiefdoms and the Inka Empire. In Contemporary Archaeology in Theory, R. Preucel and I. Hodder (eds.) pp.165-189. Blackwell, London
31、Douglas Bird, and James O'Connell.2006. Behavioral Ecology and Archaeology, Journal of Archaeological Research 14:143-188.
32、Robert Dunnell.1980. Evolutionary Theory and Archaeology. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 3:35-99.
33、Robert Leonard.2001. Evolutionary Archaeology. In Archaeological Theory Today, Ian Hodder (eds.) pp.65-97. Polity Press, Cambridge.
34、Steven Mithen.1989. Evolutionary Theory and Post-processual Archaeology. Antiquity 63(240):483-495.
35、Robert Preucel, and Alex Bauer.2001. Archaeological Pragmatics. Norwegian Archaeological Review 34:85-96.
36、Graig Calhoun and Joseph Gerteis (eds.) Contemporary Sociological Theory, Maiden:Blackwell Publishing.
37、Anthony Giddens.1979. Central Problems in Social Theory. London:Macmillan.
38、Jeffery Alexander.1990. Analytic Debates:Understanding the relative autonomy of culture. In Jeffery Alexander, and Steven Seidman (eds.) Culture and Society: Contemporary debates. Cambridge:The University of Cambridge Press.
39、Claudia Strauss, and Naomi Quinn.1997. A Cognitive Theory of Culture Meaning. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
40、Edward LiPuma.1993. Culture and the Concept of Culture in a Theory of Practice. In Bourdieu:Critical perspectives. Edward Lipuma, Mcishe Postone, and Craig Calhoun (eds.) pp14-35. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
41、Ian Hodder.1982. Theoretical Archaeology:A Reactionary View. In Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, I. Hodder (eds.), pp.1-16. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
42、Robert Preucel.1995. The Postprocessual Condition. Journal of Archaeological Research 3:147-175.
43、Henry Wright.1977. Toward an Explanation of the Origin of the Stale, in Explanation of Prehistoric Organizational Change. Jill Hill (ed.) University of New Mexico Press. Albuquerque.
44、Charles Taylor.1993. To follow a Rule.... In Bourdieu:Critical perspectives. Edward Lipuma, Mcishe Postone, and Craig Calhoun (eds.) ppl4-35. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
45、Anthony Giddens.1984. The Constitution of Society. Cambridge:Polity Press.
46、Pierre Bourdieu.1977. The Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47、Ronald Cohen.1978. State origins:a Reappraisal, in Henri Claessen and Peter Skalnik (eds.) The Early State, pp 31-75. Hague:Mouton Publishers.
48、Morton Fried.1967. The Evolution of Political Society. New York:Random House.
49、Henry Wright, and Gregory Johnson.1975. Population, Exchange, and Early State Formation in Southwest Iran. American Anthropology 77(2):267-289.
49、RH McGuire.1980. Breaking down Cultural Complexity:Inequality and Heterogeneity. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 6:91-142.
50、Tong Enzheng.1995. Thirty Years of Chinese Archaeology (1949-1979). In Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice of Archaeology, edited by P. L. Kohl and C. Fawcett. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
51、Rowan Flad and Pochan Chen. In Prep. Ancient Central China:An Archaeological Study of Centers and Peripheries along the Yangzi River. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
52、K. C. Chang.1986. Archaeology of Ancient China. Yale University Press, New Haven.
53、Gideon Shelach.2009. Prehistoric Societies on the Northern Frontiers of China: Archaeological perspectives on indentity formation and economic change during the First Millennium BCE. London:Equinox.
54、Bruce Trigger.1999. Shang Political Organization:A comparative approach. Journal of East Asian Archaeology 1, pp.43-62.
55、David Keightley.2000. The Ancestral Landscape: Time, Space, and Community in Late Shang China. Berkeley:Institute of East Asian Studies.
56、Robin Yatcs.1997. The City-stale in Ancient China. In The Archaeology of City-states:Cross-Cultural Approaches, Deborah Nichols and Thomas Charlton (eds.), Washington:Smithsonian Institution Press, pp.71-90
57、K.C. Chang.1980. Shang Civilization. Yale University Press, New Haven.
58、 Cathy Costin.1991. Craft Specialization:Issues in defining, documenting, and explaining the organization of production. Archaeological Method and Theory 3: 1-56
59、Rowan Flad.2007. Rethinking the Context of Production through an Archaeological Study of Ancient Salt Production in the Sichuan Basin, China. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 17(1): 108-128
60、Takeshi Inomata.2001. The Power and Ideology of Artistic Creation:Elite craft specialists in Classic Maya society. Current Anthropology 42:321-349
61、Brandon Lewis.1996. The role of Attached and Independent Specialization in the Development of Socio-cultural Complexity. Research in Economic Anthropology 17:357-388.
62、John Clark, and William Parry.1990. Craft Specialization and Cultural Complexity. Research in Economic Anthropology 12:289-346.
63、Cathy Costin, and Melissa Hagstrum.1995. Standardization, Labor Investment, Skill, and Organization of Ceramic Production in Late Prehistoric Highland Peru. American Antiquity 60:619-639.
64、Dean Arnold 2000. Does the Standardization of Ceramic Pastes really Men Specialization? Journal of Archaeological method and theory 7(4):333-375
65、Rowan Flad 2002. Ritual or structure? Analysis of Burial Elaboration at Dadianzi, Inner Mongolia. Journal of East Asian Archaeology 3(3-4):23-52
66、Charles Stanish.2003. Ancient Titicaca:The Evolution of complex society in the Titicaca Basin of Peru and Bolivia. Berkeley:University of California Press.
67、Vordon Childe.1951. Social Evolution. London:Watts.
67、Liu Li.2005. The Chinese Neolithic:Trajectories to Early States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
68、Philip Arnold.1991. Dimensional Standardization and Production Scale in Mesoamerican ceramics. Latin American Antiquity 2:363-370.
69、E. Soja.1983. The Spatiulity of Social Life:Towards a transformative retheorisation. In Derek Gregory and John Urry (ed.). Social Relations and Spatial Structures. London:Macmillan.
70、Derek Gregory, and John Urry (ed.) 1983. Social Relations and Spatial Structures. London:Macmillan.
71、John Urry.1983. Social Relations, Space, and Time. In Derek Gregory, and John Urry (ed.). Social Relations and Spatial Structures. London:Macmillan.P27
72、Robert Preucel and Lynn Meskell.2008. A Companion to Social Archaeology. Maiden:Blackwell Publishers.
73、Timothy Pauketat.2001. Practice and History in Archaeology:An emerging paradigm. Anthropological Theory 1:73-98.
74、Julia Hendon.1999. Multiple Sources of Prestige and the Social Evolution of Women in Prehistoric Mesoamerican. In J. Robb (ed.), Material Symbols: Culture and Economy in Prehistory. Carbondale:Southern Illinois University Press.
75、Robert Santley, and Rani Alexander.1992. The Political Economic of Core-periphery Systems. In Ed Schortman, and Patricia Urban (ed.), Resources, Power and Interaction. New York:Plenum Press. Pp 23-49.
76、Robert Bagley.1999. Shang Archaeology. In Cambridge History of Ancient China: From the Origins of Civilization to 221 B.C., edited by M. Loewe and E. L Shaughnessy, pp.124-231.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
77、Lothar von Falkenhausen.1995. Reflections on the Political Role of Spirit Mediums in Early China:The Wu officials in the Zhou Li. Early China 20: 279-300.
78、Lothar von Falkenhausen.1995. The Regionalist Paradigm in Chinese Archaeology. In Nationalism, Politics, and the Practices of Archaeology, Philip Kohl, and Clare Fawcett (eds.) pp 198-217. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
79、Robert Preucel.2006. Archaeological Semiotics. London:Blackwell.
80、Lothar von Falkenhausen.2008. Archaeological Perspectives on the Philosophicization of Royal Zhou ritual. In Perceptions of Antiquity in China, Edited by Dieter Kuhn, and Helga Stahl. pp 135-175. Heidelberg:Edition Forum.
81、K.C. Chang. Study of the Neolithic Social Groupings:Examples from the New World. American Anthropologist 60:298-334.
82、Bryan Pfaffenberger.1992. Social Anthropology of Technology. Annual Review of Anthropology 21:491-516.
83、Liu Li.2003. The Production of Minds as well as Hands:Production of prestige goods in the Neolithic and early state periods of China. Asian Perspectives 42:1-40;
84、Zachary Hruby.2007. Ritualized Chipped-Stone production at Piedras Negras, Guatemala. In Rethinking Craft Specialization in Complex Societies: Archaeological Analysis of the Social Meaning of Production. Zachary Hurby, and Rowan Flad (ed.), pp 68-87. Arlington:American Anthropological Association.
85、Marianan Nikolaidon.2007. Ritualized Technologies in the Aegean Neolithic?: The crafts of adornment. In The Archaeology of Ritual. Evangelos Kyriakidis (ed.), pp 183-208. Los Angeles:Costen Institute of Archaeology, University of California.
86、Katherine Spielmann.1998. Ritual Craft Specialists in Middle Range Societies. In, Craft and Social Identity (Vol.8), edited by Cathy L. Costin, and Rita P. Wright. Arlington, VA:American Anthropological Association. Pp.153-160.
87、H. P. Schwarcz, R. Grun, and etc.1988. ESR Data for the Hominid Burial Site of Qafzeh in Israel. Journal of Human Evolution 17:733-737
88、Paul Pettit.2011. The Palaeolithic Origins of Human Burial. London, Routledge.
89、Stutz Nilsson.2008. Capturing Mortuary Ritual:An Attempt to Harmonize Archaeological Method and Theory. In, Religion, Archaeology, and the Material World, edited by Lars Fogelin. Carbondale:Center for Archaeological Investigations. Pp.159-178.
90、Robert Chapman.2005. Mortuary Analysis:A Matter of Time? Interacting with the Dead. In Perspectives on Mortuary Archaeology for the New Millennium. G. F. M. Rakita, J. E. Buikstra, L. A. Beck and S. R. Williams. Gainsville (eds.), Miami:University of Florida Press
91、James Brown.1981. The Search for Rank in Prehistoric Burials. In The Archaeology of Death, Robert Chapman, Ian Kinnes, and Klavs Randsborg (eds.), pp.25-37. Cambridge and New York:Cambridge University Press.
92、Joseph Tainler.1978. Mortuary Practices and the Study of Prehistoric Social Systems. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol.1. Miehacl B. Schiffer (ed.), pp.105-141. New York:Academic Press.
93、Lewis R. Binford.1971. Mortuary Practices:Their study and potential. In James A. Brown (editor), Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices, Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology 25:6-29. Washington, D.C Society for American Archaeology.
94、Christopher Peebles.1971. Moundvillc and Surrounding Sites:Some structural considerations of mortuary practices. In Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices, Memories for the Society of American. James A. Brown (eds). New York:American Anthropological Association.
2 国家概念对于考古学研究来说,逐渐成为·种万能解释框架,将国家看作是人类社会发展的终极产物,随着人类社会的不断完善与发展,国家必然出现且代表着社会发展的最高阶段。近年来,西方学术界对于国家和社会两元结构的论断开始反思,这也是为何西方学术界后现代思潮席卷全球的主要诉求。
1 实践理论(The Theory of Practice)于20世纪70年代由法国社会学家布迪厄(Pierre Bourdieu)提出,近年来其适用范围几乎涵盖了整个社会科学领域。其一系列著作,如“Outline of a Theory of Practice"、 "The Logic of Practice "等将“社会结构的结构化过程”作为分析出发点,并开始对传统社会科学分析中占有主导地位的结构主义分析模式进行批判和重塑。同时,英国社会学家吉登斯(Anthony Giddens)的结构化理论(Structuration),同实践理论密切相关。他的主要著作,'Central Problems in Social Theory"和'The Constitution of Society:Outline of Theory of Structuration"等,同样从结构化角度,对社会结构和社会组织的关系加以讨论和分析。
2 Jen Webb, Tony Schirato, and Geoff Danaher.2002. Understanding Bourdieu. London:SAGE publisher, Ltd. Pp45-62.
3 近来,有学者指出鲁北地区的大辛庄遗址的上限可以追溯到早商时期,即二里岗上层文化。参见：方辉、王惠明、党浩：《中商文化墓地在海岱地区首次发现》,《中国文物报》,2003年12月3目第1版。方辉：《大辛庄遗址的考古发现与研究》,《山东大学学报》,2004年7月12日第1版。方辉、陈雪香、党浩、房道国：《济南市大辛庄商代居址与墓葬》,《考古》,2004年第7期。
1 图片来源：Google Earth,2012年4月11日照片。照片视角海拔376公里。
2 表节选自陈雪香：《山东地区商文化聚落形态演变初探》,《华夏考古》,2007年第一期。第103页。
3 1930年中央研究院历史语言研究所李济、吴金鼎等发掘著名的城子崖遗址时,就发现了晚商文化陶鬲。1933年山东古迹研究会在山东南部调查发现邾国青铜器,并对滕县安上村遗址进行了发掘。1936年祁延霈调查山东益都县苏埠屯村出土的铜器,得知县民众教育馆收藏的15件商代铜器山自两座墓葬,铜器铭文有“亚丑”,使传世“亚丑”铭文铜器有了归宿。30至40年代在齐鲁大学任教的加拿大学者明义士和英国学者林仰山,他们共同调查过益都苏埠屯遗址。林仰山在济南、邹平和周村等地进行考古调查,发现了大辛庄、路家洼等遗址。
1随着考古材料的不断积累,商周考古的着眼点开始从更为宏观角度,理解和解释商周的社会认同(social identity)问题,即如何定义商人和商文化的关系、周人和周文化的关系问题成为学术界热点问题。特别是从族群关系(ethnic groups) 、社会组织[social organization)和政治空间(political space)等多维角度,重新定义商文化和周文化,试图更为全面的理解商周,乃至整个中华文明的形成过程。李旻未出版博士论文‘"Conquest, Concord, and Consumption: Becoming Shang In Eastern China.";李峰：《西周的政体——中国早期的官僚制度和国家》,三联书店2010年版。Oavid Keightley,1983. The Late Shang State: When, Where and What? In The Origins of Chinese Civilization, David Keightley (ed.), pp523-564. Berkeley: University of California Press. Lothar von Falkenhausen.1993. Issues in Western Zhou Studies: A Review Article. Early China 18: 139-226.
1 李峰：《西周的政体——中国早期的官僚制度和国家》,三联书店2010年版。
2 Anne Underhill,2000. Craft Production and Social Change in Northern China. New York: Kluwer Academic Plenum Publishers.
3 晁福林：《夏商西周的社会变迁》,北京师范大学出版社1996年版。
4 刘莉著,陈星灿等译,《中国新时期时代：迈向早期国家之路》,北京：文物出版社2007年版。
5 陈朝云：《商代聚落体系及其社会功能研究》,科学出版社2006年版。徐宏：《先秦城市考古学研究》,北京燕山出版社2000年版。
6 周书灿：《济南大辛庄商代遗址的性质问题》，《中原文物》2011年第1期。
7 李伯谦：《大辛庄甲骨文与商王朝对东方的经营》,《文史哲》2003年第4期。
8 方辉：《商王朝对东方的经略》,《海岱地区青铜时代考古》,山东大学出版社,2007年版。
9 参见任相宏：《山东长清县仙人台周代墓地及相关问题初探》,《考古》1998年第9期。任相宏、张光明：《高青陈庄遗址M18出土豊簋铭文考释及相关问题探讨》,《管子学刊》2010年第2期。邵望平：《考古学上所见西周王朝对海岱地区的经略》,《燕京学报》第十期。魏成敏：《陈庄西周城与齐国早期都城》,《管子学刊》2010年第3期。靳桂云、郑同修等：《西周早期王朝的东方军事重镇：山东高青陈庄遗址的古植物证据》,《科学通报》2011年第35期。
1 峭巍：《央地关系模型在考古学中的应用：现状与趋势》,《东岳论丛》2011年第06期。
1 Lewis Morgan.1963. Ancient Society. Cleveland:Meridan Books.
2 Elman Service.1962. Primitive Social Organization. New York:Random House.
3 Julian Steward.1955. Theory of Culture Change:The methodology of mulitlinear evolution. Brbana:University of Illinois press, pp 13
4 M. Schiffer.1981. Some issues in the philosophy of archaeology, American Antiquity 46:899-908. Colin Renfrew.1969. Trade and culture process in European prehistory, Current Anthropology 10: 151-69[英]科林伦福儒、保罗巴恩主编,陈胜前译：《考古学：关键概念》,中国人民大学出版社2012年版。
1 Johannes Fabian.1983. Time and the Other:How anthropology makes its object. New York:Columbia University Press.
2 Johannes Fabian.1983. Time and the Other:How anthropology makes its object. New York:Columbia University Press.
3 Charles Lyell T 1830年出版的《地质学原理》。间接引用自Johannes Fabian.1983. Time and the Other:How anthropology makes its object. New York:Columbia University Press.
4 Charles Lyell T 1830年出版的《地质学原理》。间接引用自Johannes Fabian.1983. Time and the Other:How anthropology makes its object. New York:Columbia University Press.
5 Johannes Fabian.1983. Time and the Other:How anthropology makes its object. New York:Columbia University Press.
6 Johannes Fabian.1983. Time and the Other:How anthropology makes its object. New York:Columbia University Press.
Michael Shanks, and Christopher Tilley.1987. Social Theory and Archaeology. Albuquerque:University of New Mexico Press.
1 Johan nes Fabian.1983. Time and the Other:How anthropology makes its object. New York:Columbia University Press.
2 Julian Steward.1972. Theory of Culture Change:The methodology of multilinear evolution. Urbana:University of Illinois Press.
3 Herbert Spencer.2009. First Principles, New York:Cambridge University Press. First published at 1862.
Johannes Fabian.1983. Time and the Other:How anthroDoloav makes its obiect. New York:Columbia University Press.
2 Herbert Spencer.2009. First Principles. New York:Cambridge University Press, pp 218. First published at 1862.
3 Edward Tylor.1958. Primitive Culture (1871). New York:Harper Torchbooks.
1 Lewis Morgan.1963. Ancient Society. Cleveland:Meridan Books.
2 卡内罗著、王丽译：《文化进化论的古典创建》,《史林》,2004年第一期。
3 Herbert Spencer.2009. First Principles. New York:Cambridge University Press, pp 218. First published at 1862.
4 卡内罗著、王丽译：《文化进化论的古典创建》,《史林》,2004年第一期。
5 Julian Steward.1972. Theory of Culture Change:The methodology of multilinear evolution. Urbana:University of Illinois Press.
1 Marshall Sahlins, and Elman Service.1960. Evolution and Culture. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press. Marshall Sahlins.1985. Islands of History. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
2 Julian Steward.1955. Theory of culture change:the methodology of mulitlinear evolution. Brbana:University of Illinois press;令见Marshal Sahlins, and Elman Service.1960. Evolution and Culture. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press.
3 Eric Wolf.1994. Facing power-Old slights, New questions. American Anthropologists 92:586-696.
4 Marshall Sahlins.1978. Culture and Practical Meaning. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
5 Edward Tylor.1958. Primitive Culture (1871). New York:Harper Torchbooks.
6 Herbert Spencer.1899. The principles of sociology (Vol.1). New York:Appleton and Company.
1 E. Sterud.1973. A Paradigmatic View of Prehistory, in Colin Renfrew (ed.), The Explanation of Culture Change: Models in Prehistory., London:Duckworth.
2 Leslie White.1960. Foreword in Evolution and Culture. Marshall Sahlins, and Elman Service (eds.) Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
3 Elman Service.1975. Origins of the State and Civilization. New York:Norton.
4 Marshall Sahlins.1978. Culture and Practical Meaning. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Allen Johnson, and Timothy Earle.1987. The Evolution of Human Societies:From foraging group to agrarian state. Stanford:Stanford University Press.
1 Marshall Sahlins.1978. Culture and Practical Meaning. Chicago:University of Chicago Press. Marshall Sahlins, and Elman Service.1960. Evolution and Culture. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press.
2 Marshall Sahlins.1978. Culture and Practical Meaning. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
3 Marshall Sahlins, and Elman Service.1960. Evolution and Culture. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press.
4 Marshall Sahlins, and Elman Service.1960. Evolution and Culture. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press.
1 Antonio Gilman.1996. Explaining the Upper Paleolithic Revolution. In Contemporary Archaeology in Theory, edited by R. Preucel and I. Hodder. London, Blackwell. Ofer Bar-Yosef.1998. On the Nature of Transition:The middle to Upper Palaeolithic and the Neolithic revolution. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 8:141-163.
2 Barbara Bender.1989. The Roots of Inequality, In Domination and Resistance, edited by D. Miller, M. Rowlands, and C. Tilley. Unwin Hyman, London.
3 Kent Flannery.1972. The cultural evolution of civilizations, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 3: 399-426
4 Robert Hall.1977. AThropolocentric Perspective for Eastern United States Prehistory. American Antiquity 41: 499-518
5 当然,过程考古学家在讨论中,大多需要对不同概念进行区分或者说进行分别的讨论,即生计经济行为(substantial economy)和政治经济行为(political economy)等两个概念。只有政治经济行为本身,才能导致交换和控制等制度化行为的出现,进而实现社会组织形式由低级到高级的进化过程。相关讨论参见：Allen Johnson, and Timothy Earle.1987. The Evolution of Human Societies:From Foraging Group to Agrarian State. Stanford:Stanford University Press.
6 Kent Flannery.1972. The Cultural Evolution of Civilizations, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 3: 399-426
1 Kent Flannery.1972. Culture History vs. Culture Process. In Contemporary Archaeology:A guide to Theory and Contributions, edited by M. Leone. Carbondale:SIU Press.
2参见Matthew Johnson.2009. Archaeological Theory:An Introduction.2nded. Oxford:Blackwell. Trigger, Bruce G.2006. A History of Archaeological Thought.2nded. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
3 Colin Renfrew.1996. Peer Polity Interaction. In Contemporary Archaeology in Theory, edited by R. Preucel and I. Hodder. Blackwell. London.
4 Stephen Shannan.1996. Cultural Transmission and Cultural Change. In Contemporary Archaeology in Theory, edited by R. Preucel and I. Hodder. Blackweli, London
s Timothy Earle.1996. Specialization and the Production of wealth:Hawaiian Chiefdoms and the Inka Empire. In Contemporary Archaeology in Theory, edited by R. Preucel and I. Hodder. Blackwell, London
6 Douglas Bird, and James O'Connell.2006. Behavioral Ecology and Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 14:143-188.
7 Robert Dunnell.1980. Evolutionary theory and archaeology. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 3:35-99.
8 Douglas Bird, and James O'Connell.2006. Behavioral Ecology and Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 14:143-188.
1 Robert Leonard.2001. Evolutionary Archaeology. In Archaeological Theory Today, edited by Ian Hodder. Polity Press, Cambridge.
2 Robert Leonard.2001. Evolutionary Archaeology. In Archaeological Theory Today, edited by Ian Hodder. Polity Press, Cambridge.
3 Robert Dunnell.1978. Style and Function:A Fundamental Dichotomy. American Antiquity 43(2):192-202.
Stephen Shennan.1996. Cultural Transmission and Cultural Change. In Contemporary Archaeology in Theory, edited by R. Preucel and I. Hodder. Blackwell, London.
5 Steven Mithen.1989. Evolutionary Theory and Post-processual Archaeology. American Antiquity 63(240):483-495.
1 Robert Preucel, and Alex Bauer.2001. Archaeological Pragmatics. Norwegian Archaeological Review 34:85-96.
1 Craig Calhoun.2002. Introduction, in Craig Calhoun, and Joseph Gerteis (eds.). Contemporary sociological theory, Malden:Blackwell Publishing.
1 Craig Calhoun, and Joseph Gerteis (eds.) 2002. Contemporary sociological theory, Maiden:Blackwell Publishing.
2 Anthony Giddens.1984. The Constitution of Society. Cambridge:Polity Press.中文翻译参见：[英]安东尼·吉登斯著、李康等译：《社会的构成》,三联书店1998年版。
3 Pierre Bourdieu.1990. The Logic of Practice. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.翻译参见：[法]布迪厄著、蒋梓骅译：《实践感》,译林出版社2003年版。
4 Anthony Giddens.1984. The Constitution of Society. Cambridge:Polity Press.中文翻译参见：[英]安东尼·吉登斯著、李康等译：《社会的构成》,三联书店1998年版。
s Anthony Giddens.1979. Central Problems in Social Theory. London:Macmillan.
1 Anthony Giddens.1979. Central Problems in Social Theory. London:Macmillan.
2 Jeffery Alexander.1990. Analytic Debates:Understanding the relative autonomy of culture. In Jeffery Alexander, and Steven Seidman (eds.) Culture and Society:Contemporary debates. Cambridge:The University of Cambridge Press.
3 Claudia Strauss, and Naomi Quinn.1997. A Cognitive Theory of Culture Meaning. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
1 关于文化中包含的主观与客观的对立,一直都是西方人类学研究的内在理论预设。文化一方面是作为秩序的存在和感知的重要形式而存在的,另一方面文化需要被感知与被理解才能发挥其内在秩序的能力。相关讨论参见Marshall Sahlins的著作((Culture and Practical Reason》第二章。
2 Marshall Sahlins.1978. Culture and Practical Meaning. Chicago:University of Chicago Press, pp X
3 Edward LiPuma.1993. Culture and the Concept of Culture in a Theory of Practice. In Bourdieu:Critical perspectives. Edward Lipuma, Mcishe Postone, and Craig Calhoun (eds.). Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
4 Marshall Sahlins.1978. Culture and Practical Meaning. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
5 Bruce Trigger.1996. A History of Archaeological Thought.2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
1 Bruce Trigger.1996. A History of Archaeological Thought.2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
2 后过程主义考古学对于考古理论的反思和批判,尽管立足点多有不同,但其主要理论诉求仍是如何通过考古材料,思考和解释古代社会发展中的问题。参见：Ian Hodder.1982. Theoretical Archaeology:A Reactionary View. In Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, edited by I. Hodder. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; Robert Preucel.1995. The Postprocessual Condition. Journal of Archaeological Research 3:147-175.
3 Matthew Johnson.2009. Archaeological Theory:An Introduction.2nd ed. Blackwell, Oxford.
4 Stephen Plog.1976. Measurement of Prehistoric Interaction between Communities, in Kent Flannery (ed.) The Early Mesoamerican Village. London:Academic Press; Henry Wright.1977. Toward an Explanation of the Origin of the State, in Explanation of Prehistoric Organizational Change. J. Hill ed. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
1 Jeffery Alexander.1990. Analytic Debates:Understanding the Relative Autonomy of Culture. In Jeffery Alexander, and Steven Seidman (eds.) Culture and Society:Contemporary debates. Cambridge:The University of Cambridge Press.
2 Pierre Bourdieu.1990. The Logic of Practice. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.翻译参见：[法]布迪厄著、蒋梓骅译：《实践感》,译林出版社2003年版。
1 王铭铭：《吉登斯现代社会论丛·译序》，《社会的构成》,安东尼·吉登斯著、李康等译,三联书店1998年版。
2 Anthony Giddens.1979. Central Problems in Social Theory. London:Macmillan.
3 Anthony Giddens.1979. Central Problems in Social Theory. London:Macmillan.
4 Edward LiPuma.1993. Culture and the Concept of Culture in a Theory of Practice. In Bourdieu:Critical perspectives. Edward Lipuma, Mcishe Postone, and Craig Calhoun (eds.). Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
5 Charles Taylor.1993. To Follow a Rule.... In Bourdieu:Critical perspectives. Edward Lipuma, Mcishe Postone, and Craig Calhoun (eds.). Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
6 Anthony Giddens.1984. The Constitution of Society. Cambridge:Polity Press.
1 Jeffery Alexander, and Steven Seidman (eds.) Culture and Society:Contemporary debates. Cambridge:The University of Cambridge Press.
2 Anthony Giddens.1979. Central Problems in Social Theory. London:Macmillan. Pierre Bourdieu.1963. The Attitude of the Algerian Peasant toward Time, in J. Pitt-Rivers (ed.), Mediterranean Countrymen. The Hague:Mouton.
3 Anthony Giddens.1984. The Constitution of Society. Cambridge:Polity Press.
4 Anthony Giddens.1979. Central Problems in Social Theory. London:Macmillan.
1 Anthony Giddens.1979. Central Problems in Social Theory. London:Macmillan.
2 Pierre Bourdieu.1977. The Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
3 Anthony Giddens.1979. Central Problems in Social Theory. London:Macmillan.
4 Anthony Giddens.1979. Central Problems in Social Theory. London:Macmillan.
5 Anthony Giddens.1979. Central Problems in Social Theory. London:Macmillan.
6 Anthony Giddens.1979. Central Problems in Social Theory. London:Macmillan.
7 Anthony Giddens.1979. Central Problems in Social Theory. London:Macmillan.
1 Pierre Bourdieu.1977. The Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
2 Anthony Giddens.1979. Central Problems in Social Theory. London:Macmillan.
1 尽竹文明、国家和社会复杂化三个问题很少同时出现在文明起源研究中,但是三个概念本身具有的相似性使得文明起源研究很难明确将上述三个概念进行分割。文明、国家与社会复杂化的概念自产生时便相互作为理论预设而存在。
2 Ronald Cohen.1978. State origins:a Reappraisal, in Henri J. Claessen and Peter Skalnik (eds.) The Early State. Hague:Mouton Publishers.
1 也有学者认为关于国家概念,还可以从不同国家形式的共有特征方面入手加以探讨。
2 M. Fried.1967. The Evolution of Political Society. New York:Random House.
3 Henry Wright, and Gregory Johnson.1975. Population, Exchange, and Early State Formation in Southwest Iran. American Anthropology 77(2):267-289.
4 Elman Service.1975. Origins of the State and Civilization. New York:Norton.
5 Elman Service,1978, Classical and Modern Theories of the Origins of Government, in Ronald Cohen and Elman Service (eds). Origins of the States:The anthropology of political evolution. Philadelphia:ISHI Inc.
6 陈淳：《文明与早期国家探源——中外理论、方法与研究之比较》,上海世纪出版集团,2007年
1 RH McGuire.1983. Breaking Down Cultural Complexity:Inequality and Heterogeneity. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 6:91-142.
1 Tong Enzheng.1995. Thirty Years of Chinese Archaeology (1949-1979). In Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice of Archaeology, edited by P. L. Kohl and C. Fawcett. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. Liu Li.2005. The Chinese Neolithic:Trajectories to early states. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. Rowan Flad and Pochan Chen. In Prep. Ancient Central China:An Archaeological Study of Centers and Peripheries along the Yangzi River. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
2 K. C. Chang.1986. Archaeology of Ancient China. Yale University Press, New Haven. Gideon Shelach.2009. Prehistoric Societies on the Northern Frontiers of China:Archaeological perspectives on indentity formation and economic change during the First Millennium BCE. London:Equinox.苏秉琦：《关于重建中国史前史的思考》,《考古》1991年第12期。
1 Ernest Gellner.1964. Thought and Change. London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
2 Elman Service.1975. Origins of the State and Civilization. New York: Norton.
1 参见Herrlee Creel(顾立雅).1970. Origins of Statecraft in China:The Western Chou Empire (Vol.1). University of Chicago Press, Chicago.许倬云：《西周史》,三联书店2001年版。李峰：《西周的政体：中国早期的官僚制度和国家》,三联书店2010年版。
2 傅罗文(Rowan Flad).《贞人：关于早期中国施灼占卜起源与发展的一些思考》。荆志淳等主编,《多维视域：商王朝与中国早期文明研究》,北京：科学出版社,2009年版。
3 李伯谦,《从殷墟青铜器祖徽所代表族氏得地理分布看商王朝的管辖范围与统辖措施》,荆志淳等主编,《多维视域：商王朝与中国早期文明研究》,北京：科学出版社,2009年版,第138-151页。
4 田吕五：《古代社会形态研究》,天津：天津人民出版社1980年版。田昌五、藏知非：《周秦社会形态研究》,西安：西北大学出版社1996年版。
5 从古文献、出土文献、考古材料等反映出的商周政治系统不同制度和结构,晁福林已经提出在夏商西周时期发生的社会变迁,参见晁福林：《夏商西周的社会变迁》,北京师范大学出版社1996年版。
1 Rowan Flad.2011. Salt Production and Social Hierarchy in Ancient China:An archaeological investigation of specialization in China's Three Gorges. New York:Cambridge University Press.
2 很多学者,如Prudence Rice, John Clark, Timothy Earle都提出过不同的生产组织的模型,但本文的研究目的不在于比较不同的生产组织,而是要分析生产组织自身具有的特点以及不同参数在反应生产组织及其再生产中的作用,因此研究着重分析Costin和Flad两人对于生产组织及其参数所进行的讨论。
1 Rowan Flad.2011. Salt Production and Social Hierarchy in Ancient China:An archaeological investigation of specialization in China's Three Gorges. New York:Cambridge University Press.
'Cathy Costin.1991. Craft Specialization:Issues in defining, documenting, and explaining the organization of production. Archaeological Method and Theory 3:1-56
3 该模型示意图翻译自Cathy Costin.1991. Craft Specialization:Issues in defining, documenting, and explaining the organization of production. Archaeological Method and Theory 3:1-56, figure 1.另外,对于参数的不同解释和翻译方式,参见Rowan Flad,2011. Salt Production and Social Hierarchy in Ancient China:An archaeological investigation of specialization in China's Three Gorges. New York:Cambridge University Press, ppl7:Figure2.1.
1 Rowan Flad.2011. Salt Production and Social Hierarchy in Ancient China:An archaeological investigation of specialization in China's Three Gorges. New York:Cambridge University Press.
2 Rowan Flad.2007. Rethinking the Context of Production through an Archaeological Study of Ancient Salt Production in the Sichuan Basin, China. Archaeological papers of the American Anthropological Association 17(1):108-128 Takeshi Inomata.2001. The Power and Ideology of Artistic Creation:Elite craft specialists in Classic Maya society. Current Anthropology 42:321-349
3 Brandon Lewis.1996. The Role of Attached and Independent Specialization in the Development of Socio-Cultural Complexity. Research in Economic Anthropology 17:357-388.
4 John Clark, and William Parry.1990. Craft Specialization and Cultural Complexity. Research in Economic Anthropology 12:289-346.
1 表格及数据均来自Dean Arnold.1985. Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. Table 5.3
1 Cathy Costin, and Melissa Hagstrum.1995. Standardization, Labor Investment, Skill, and Organization of Ceramic Production in Late Prehistoric Highland Peru. American Antiquity 60:619-639.
2 Rowan Flad.2011. Salt Production and Social Hierarchy in Ancient China:An archaeological investigation of specialization in China's Three Gorges. New York:Cambridge University Press.
1 Pierre Bourdieu.1977. The Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. Anthony Giddens.1979. Central Problems in Social Theory. London:Macmillan.
2 Dean Arnold.2000. Does the Standardization of Ceramic Pastes really Men Specialization? Journal of Archaeological method and theory 7(4):333-375
3 Rowan Flad.2002. Ritual or structure? Analysis of Burial Elaboration at Dadianzi, Inner Mongolia. Journal of East Asian Archaeology 3(3-4):23-52
4 Charles Stanish.2003. Ancient Titicaca:The evolution of complex society in the Titicaca Basin of Peru and Bolivia. Berkeley:University of California Press.
5 Vordon Childe.1951. Social Evolution. London:Watts.
1 栾丰实：《海岱地区史前文化的发现与研究》,《21世纪中国考古学与世界考古学》,中国社会科学出版社2002年版。高广仁、邵望平：《中华文明的发祥地之一——海岱历史文化区》,《史前研究》1984年第1期。
2 方辉：《大辛庄甲骨文的几个问题》, 《文史哲》2003年第4期。
3 严文明：《东夷文化的探索》,《文物》1989年第9期。栾丰实：《试论仰韶时代东方与中原的关系》,《考古》1996年第4期。方辉：《二里头文化与岳石文化》,《中原文物》1987年第1期。
4 王芬、卢建英：《“2005中国口照龙山时代与早期国家国际学术研讨会”综述》,《文史哲》2006年第2期。方辉、文德安等：《鲁东南沿海地区聚落形态变迁与社会复杂化进程研究》,《东方考古(第4集)》,2008年版。
1 Liu Li.2005. The Chinese Neolithic: Trajectories to early states. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
2 陈淑卿：《山东地区商文化编年与类型研究》, 《华夏考古》2003年第1期。上青：《海岱地区周代墓葬研究》,山东大学出版社2002年版。高广仁：《海岱地区的商代文化遗存》,《考古学报》2000年第2期。
3 陈雪香：《山东地区商文化聚落形态演变初探》,《华夏考古》2007年第1期。方辉：《商时期鲁北地区海盐业的考古学研究》,《考古》2004年第4期。王青、朱继平：《山东北部商周盔形器的用途与产地再论》，《考古》2006年第4期。
4 徐宏：《对山东地区商代文化的几点认识》,《纪念山东大学考古专业创建二十周年文集》,山东大学出版社1992年版方辉：《商王朝对东方的经略》,《海岱地区青铜时代考古》,山东大学山版社2007年版。刘莉、陈星灿：《城：夏商时期对自然资源的控制问题》,《东南文化》2000年第3期。钱汇益： 《山东周代文化格局与文化变迁研究》,南开大学博士后出站报告。
5 方辉：《大辛庄甲骨文的几个问题》,《文史哲》2003年第4期。方辉：《大辛庄遗址的考古发现与研究》,《山东大学学报》2004年第1期。
1 淑卿：《山东地区商文化编年与类型研究》, 《华夏考古》2003年第1期。
2 由于笔者无法通过测量得到大辛庄陶鬲的各项数据来测算标准差和变异系数等数据,因此本文所使用到的大辛庄陶鬲数据均来：邢琪：《大辛庄商代制陶工艺研究》,山东大学硕士论文。
3 燕生东、魏成敏等：《桓台西南部龙山、晚商时期的聚落》,《东方考古(第2集)》,科学出版社,2005年版。
4 燕生东、魏成敏等：《桓台西南部龙山、晚商时期的聚落》,《东方考古(第2集)》,科学出版社,2005年版。
5 燕生东、魏成敏等：《桓台西南部龙山、晚商时期的聚落》,《东方考古(第2集)》,科学出版社,2005年版。
6 山东考古考古研究所：《山东阳信县李屋遗址商代遗存发掘简报》,《考古》2010年第3期。
7 按照北沈马遗址发掘人员及相关出版物可以,遗址中包含着三部分文化因素：商文化因素、周文化因素和地方特色文化因素等。其中某些遗迹中发现的大口陶鬲很明显具有周原地区西周初年陶鬲的特征。参
1 文杰：《中国古代制陶工艺研究》,科学出版社1996年版。周仁、张福康、郑永圃：《我国黄河流域新石器时代和殷周时代制陶上艺的科学总结》,《考古学报》1964年第1期裴明相：《郑州商代二里岗期陶器制作中的几个问题》,《华夏考古》1991年第4期。
1 济：《殷墟陶器研究》,上海人民出版社2007年版。
2 李文杰：《中国古代制陶工艺研究》,科学出版社1996年版。
3 李文杰：《中国古代制陶工艺研究》,科学出版社1996年版。
4 李文杰：《中国古代制陶T艺研究》,科学出版社1996年版。裴明相：《郑州商代二里岗期陶器制作中的几个问题》，《华夏考古》1991年第4期。
5 李文杰：《中国古代制陶工艺研究》,科学出版社1996年版。
6 李文杰：《中国古代制陶工艺研究》,科学出版社1996年版。
1 Rowan Flad,2011, Salt production and social hierarchy in ancient China:an archaeological investigation of specialization in China's Three Gorges. New York:Cambridge University Press. Cathy Costin.1991. Craft Specialization:Issues in defining, documenting, and explaining the organization of production. Archaeological Method and Theory 3:1-56
2 Cathy Costin.1991. Craft Specialization:Issues in defining, documenting, and explaining the organization of production. Archaeological Method and Theory 3:1-56 Philip Arnold.1991. Dimensional standardization and production scale in Mesoamerican ceramics. Latin American Antiquity 2:363-370.
3 丰实：《东夷考古》,山东大学出版社1996年版。
1 Rowan Flad,2011, Salt production and social hierarchy in ancient China:an archaeological investigation of specialization in China's Three Gorges. New York:Cambridge University Press, pp45
2 Philip Arnold.1991. Dimensional standardization and production scale in Mesoamerican ceramics. Latin American Antiquity 2:363-370.
3 Pierre Bourdieu. The Logic of Practice. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. Pp 100.翻译参见[法]布迪厄著、蒋梓骅译：《实践感》,译林出版社2003年版。
1 Rowan Flad.2011. Salt Production and Social Hierarchy in Ancient China:An archaeological investigation of specialization in China's Three Gorges. New York:Cambridge University Press.
2 Takeshi Inomata.2001. The Power and Ideology of Artistic Creation:Elite craft specialists in Classic Maya society. Current Anthropology 42:321-349
1 相宏、张光明：《高青陈庄遗址M18出土豊簋铭文考释及相关问题探讨》,《管子学刊》2010年第2期。
2 Rowan Flad.2011. Salt Production and Social Hierarchy in Ancient China:An archaeological investigation of specialization in China's Three Gorges. New York: Cambridge University Press.
1 徐基：《济南大辛庄商文化遗存的再认识》,《中国商文化国际学术讨论会论文集》,中国大百科全书出版社1998年版。高广仁：《海岱区的商文化遗存》,《考古学报》,2002年第2期。王锡平：《试论山东地区的素面陶鬲》,《中国考古学年会第九次年会论文集》,文物出版社1997年版。
2 周仁、张福康、郑永圃：《我国黄河流域新石器时代和殷周时代制陶工艺的科学总结》,《考古学报》1964年第1期
1 Rowan Flad.2011. Salt Production and Social Hierarchy in Ancient China:An archaeological investigation of specialization in China's Three Gorges. New York:Cambridge University Press. Cathy Costin.1991. Craft Specialization:Issues in defining, documenting, and explaining the organization of production. Archaeological Method and Theory 3:1-56
1 于单个绳纹多为不规则形,因此很难按照某种特定的计算公式对其面积进行计算。文章中所使用的绳纹面积的估算将绳纹看作是矩形,即绳纹面积=绳纹宽度×绳纹长度。
1 于前埠遗址的陶片出自同一地层的三个不同灰坑,因此有必要对前埠遗址陶片绳纹数据进行后续研究和分析。
1周书灿：《西周王朝经营四土研究》,中州古籍出版社2000年版。
2蓝秋霞：《山东地区西周陶器研究》,2009年山东大学硕士学位论文。燕生东：《渤海南岸地区商周时期盐业考古研究》2009年北京大学博士论文
1 E. Soja.1983. The Spatiality of Social Life:Towards a transformative retheorisation. In Derek Gregory and John Urry (ed.), Social Relations and Spatial Structures. London:Macmillan. Pp97
2 前考古学研究中,通过GIS(地理信息系统)、archaeomagnetism(考古地磁学)、全蕧盖调查等研究方式,均不同程度上将空间与社会结构作为两个相对独立变量加以分析和考察。
3 Rowan Flad.2011. Salt Production and Social Hierarchy in Ancient China:An archaeological investigation of specialization in China's Three Gorges. New York:Cambridge University Press.
4 Derek Gregory and John Urry (ed.) 1983. Social Relations and Spatial Structures. London:Macmillan.
5 Anthony Giddens.1979. Central Problems in Social Theory. London:Macmillan.
1 Derek Gregory, and John Urry.1983. Introduction. In Derek Gregory, and John Urry (ed.), Social Relations and Spatial Structures. London:Macmillan.
2 John Urry.1983. Social Relations, Space, and Time. In Derek Gregory, and John Urry (ed.), Social Relations and Spatial Structures. London:Macmillan.
3 Tuan Yi-fu.1990. Torophilia:A study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes, and Values. New York:Columbia University Press.
4 E. Soja.1983. The Spatiality of Social Life:Towards a transformative retheorisation. In Derek Gregory and John Urry (ed.), Social Relations and Spatial Structures. London:Macmillan. Rowan Flad.2011. Salt Production and Social Hierarchy in Ancient China:An archaeological investigation of specialization in China's Three Gorges. New York:Cambridge University Press.
5 Robert Preucel, and Lynn Meskell.2008. A companion to Social Archaeology. Maiden:Blackwell Publishers.
1 Robert Preucel, and Lynn Meskell.2008. A companion to Social Archaeology. Maiden:Blackwell Publishers.
2 周书灿：《西周王朝经营四土研究》,中州古籍出版社2000年版。
1 于临淄城的始建时间问题,学者们一直存在诸多争议,但目前研究倾向于临淄城大城的修建在西周晚期。但根据1964-1966年齐城勘探试掘资料可知,在河崖头、东古和阚家寨分布有西周早期的遗迹和遗物,但主要堆积则为西周中期。参见齐力：《临淄齐故城勘探纪要》,《文物》1972年第5期。
2 魏成敏：《陈庄西周城与齐国早期都城》,《管子学刊》2010年第3期。靳桂云、郑同修等：《西周早期王朝的东方军事重镇：山东高青陈庄遗址的古植物证据》, 《科学通报》2011年第35期。
3 任相宏、张光明：《高青陈庄遗址M18出土豊簋铭文考释及相关问题探讨》,《管子学刊》2010年第2期。
4 方辉：《大辛庄甲骨文的几个问题》,《文史哲》2003年第4期；方辉：《大辛庄遗址的考古发现与研究》,《山东大学学报》2004年第1期。
5 陈雪香： 《山东地区商文化聚落形态演变初探》, 《华夏考古》2007年第1期。
6 燕生东： 《渤海南岸地区商周时期盐业考古研究》,2009年北京大学博士论文
1 Timothy Pauketat.2001. Practice and history in Archaeology:An emerging paradigm. Anthropological Theory 1:73-98. Julia Hendon.1999. Multiple Sources of prestige and the social evolution of women in Prehistoric Mesoamerican. In J. Robb (ed.), Material Symbols:Culture and Economy in Prehistory. Carbondale:Southern Illinois University Press. Pp 257-276.
2[英]安东尼·吉登斯著、李康等译：《社会的构成》,三联书店1998年版。
3 Robert Santley, and Rani Alexander.1992. The political economic of core-periphery systems. In Ed Schortman, and Patricia Urban (ed.). Resources, Power and Interaction. New York:Plenum Press.
4 Julia Hendon.1999. Multiple Sources of Prestige and the Social Evolution of Women in Prehistoric Mesoamerican. In J. Robb (ed.), Material Symbols:Culture and Economy in Prehistory. Carbondale:Southern Illinois University Press.
1 齐文涛：《概述近年来山东出土的商周青铜器》,《文物》1972年第5期。张光明：《山东桓台史家遗址发掘收获的再认识》,《夏商周文明研究——97山东桓台中国殷商文明国际学术研讨会》,中国文联出版社1999年版。夏名采、刘华国：《山东青州市苏埠屯墓群出土的青铜器》,《考古》1996年第5期。方辉：《大辛庄遗址的考古发现与研究》,《山东大学学报：哲学社会科学版》2004年第1期。
1 燕生东：《渤海南岸地区商周时期盐业考古研究》,2009年北京大学博士论文
1 关于商代小型聚落与地方社会组织的探讨,参见陈朝云：《商代聚落体系及其社会功能研究》,科学出版社2006年版。
2 晚商时期鲁北地区聚落中陶器的标准化程度较高,且不同聚落群之间出土陶器残片腹片厚度标准差分布先对集中,由此可以判断陶器生产的集中化程度高、生产强度大等特点,说明陶器生产可能由全职专业人员制作和生产陶器。
3 宋艳波、燕生东：《鲁北地区商代晚期遗址出上的动物遗存》,北京大学震旦古代文明中心编：《古代文明研究通讯》,2007年第三十五期。
1 参见魏成敏、燕生东：《博兴县寨卞商周时期遗址》,《考古学年鉴2003年》，文物出版社2004年版。
2 方辉：《从考古发现谈商代末年的征夷方》,《东方考古(第一集)》,科学出版社2004年版。陈雪香：《山东地区商文化聚落形态演变初探》,《华夏考古》2007年第1期。
1 Denise Catalina Fong. Ceramic Variability of Shang Society at Huanbei in Anyang, China. A Thesis of the Degree of Master of Arts. The University of British Columbia.
2 数据来源：大辛庄陶器数据来自于邢琪：《大辛庄商代制陶工艺研究》,2012年山东大学硕士学位论文；洹北商城数据来源：Denise Catalina Fong. Ceramic Variability ofShang Society at Huanbei in Anyang, China. A Thesis of the Degree of Master of Arts. The University of British Columbia.
1 方辉：《商周时期鲁北地区海盐业的考古学研究》,《考古》2004年第1期。
2 邵望平：《考古学上所见西周王朝对海岱地区的经略》,《燕京学报》第十期。
1 任相宏、曹艳芳等：《淄川北沈马遗址的发掘与研究》，《淄川考古》,齐鲁书社2006年版。
2 魏成敏：《陈庄西周城与齐国早期都城》,《管子学刊》2010年第3期。
3 靳桂云、郑同修等：《西周早期王朝的东方军事重镇：山东高青陈庄遗址的古植物证据》,《科学通报》2011年第35期。
1 任相宏、曹艳芳等：《淄川北沈马遗址的发掘与研究》,《淄川考古》,齐鲁书社2006年版。
1 关于联裆鬲与分档鬲的区分方式和制作过程,详见李文杰：《中国古代制陶工艺研究》,科学出版社1996年版。
1 其主要特征如图所示,陶豆的豆柄、陶簋的中部开始出现较为明显的一圈突棱；陶鬲的口径明显要小于腹径、且口沿出开始出现一道凹弦纹。上述特征同周原等西周中心区域陶鬲特征极为接近。在此,特别感谢北京大学刘旭的告知。陶器组合出土自临淄阚家寨遗址。
1 徐宏：《先秦城市考古学研究》,北京燕山出版社2000年版。
2 方辉：《商周时期鲁北地区海盐业的考古学研究》,《考古》2004年第1期。
1 摘自李水城、兰玉富等：《鲁北-胶东盐业考古调查记》,《华夏考古》2009年第1期。
2 王青、朱继平：《山东北部商周盔形器的用途与产地再论》,《考古》2006年4期。
3 崔剑锋等：《山东寿光市双王城遗址古代制盐工艺的几个问题》,《考古》2010年3期。
4 曹元启：《试论西周至战同时代的盔形器》,《北方文物》1996年第3期。
1 摘自李水城、兰玉富等：《鲁北-胶东盐业考古调查记》,《华夏考古》2009年第1期。
2 参见王青：《<管子)所载海盐生产的考古学新证》,《东岳论丛》2005年第6期；王青、朱继平：《山东北部商周时期海盐生产的几个问题》,《文物》，2006年4期；王青：《淋煎法海盐生产技术起源的考古学探索》,《盐业史研究》2007年第1期；李慧竹、王青：《山东北部海盐业起源的历史与考古学探索》,《管子学刊》2007年第2期。
3 彭鹏：《鲁北莱州湾沿岸商周时期制盐工艺初探》,《南方文物》2012年第1期。
1 摘自李水城、兰玉富等：《鲁北-胶东盐业考古调查记》,《华夏考古》2009年第1期
2 摘自李水城、兰玉富等：《鲁北-胶东盐业考古调查记》,《华夏考古》2009年第1期。
1 Anne Underhill.2002. Craft Production and Social Change in Northern China. New York:Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
2 Liu Li.2005. The Chinese Neolithic:Trajectories to early states. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
3 刘莉、陈星灿：《城：夏商时期对自然资源的控制问题》,《东南文化》2000年第三期第45至60页。
4 刘莉、陈星灿：《城：夏商时期对自然资源的控制问题》,《东南文化》2000年第三期第45至60页。
5 Rowan Flad.2008. Divination and Power:A Multi-regional View of the Development of Oracle Bone Divination in Early China. Current Anthropology 49(3):403-437.
1 山东省考古研究所等：《山东寿光市双王城盐业遗址2008年的发掘》,《考古》2010年第3期。
2 山东大学东方考古研究中心、寿光市博物馆：《山东寿光市大荒北央西周遗址的发掘》,《考古》,2005年12期。
3 山东大学考古系、山东省文物考古研究所、东营市历史博物馆：《山东东营市南河崖西周煮盐遗址》《考古》2010年3期。
4 燕生东、兰玉富：《鲁北沿海地区先秦盐业遗址2007年调查简报》,《文物》2012年第7期。
5 王青、朱继平：《山东北部商周盔形器的用途与产地再论》，《考古》2006年第4期。
6 燕生东：《渤海南岸地区商周时期盐业考古研究》,2009年北京大学博士研究生学位论文宋艳波：《桓台唐山、前埠遗址出土的动物遗存》，《东方考古(第5集)》,科学出版社2009年。
1 李慧冬、赵光国：《从南河崖看鲁北商周海盐考古现状》,《管子学刊》2010年第2期。
1 燕生东：《渤海南岸地区商周时期盐业考古研究》,2009年北京大学博士学位论文
2 山东省考古研究所等：《山东阳信县李屋遗址商代遗存发掘简报》,《考古》2010年第3期
1 Robert Bagley.1999. Shang Archaeology. In Cambridge History of Ancient China:From the Origins of Civilization to 221 B.C., edited by M. Loewe and E. L. Shaughnessy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
2 方辉：《大辛庄甲骨文的几个问题》,《文史哲》2003年第4期。方辉等：《中商文化墓地在海岱地区首次发现》,中国文物报,2003-12-3(1)方辉：《大辛庄遗址的考古发现与研究》,山东大学学报.2004年第1期。方辉、陈雪香、党浩、房道国：《济南市大辛庄商代居址与墓葬》,《考古》2004年第7期。陈雪香、史本恒、方辉：《济南大辛庄遗址139号商代墓葬》,《考古》2010年第10期。王青： 《海岱地区周代墓葬研究》,山东大学出版社2002年版。
3 任相宏、张光明： 《高青陈庄遗址M18出土豊簋铭文考释及相关问题探讨》,《管子学刊》2010年第2期。
4 方辉：《大辛庄遗址的考古发现与研究》,山东大学学报2004年第1期。方辉：《商王朝对东方的经略》,《海岱地区青铜时代考古》,山东大学出版社,2007年版。
5 K. C. Chang.1980. Shang Civilization. Yale University Press, New Haven.
1 Gideon Shelach.2009. Prehistoric Societies on the Northern Frontiers of China:Archaeological perspectives on indentity formation and economic change during the First Millennium BCE. London:Equinox.
2 Lotharvon Falkenhausen.1995. Reflections on the Political Role of Spirit Mediums in Early China:The Wu officials in the Zhou Li. Early China 20:279-300.
1 山东省文物考古研究所、青州市博物馆：《青州市苏埠屯商代墓发掘报告》,《海岱考古》第·辑,1989年版。
1 山东省考古研究所：《山东高青县陈庄西周遗存发掘简报》,《考古》2011年第2期。
2 任相宏、张光明：《高青陈庄遗址M18出土豊簋铭文考释及相关问题探讨》,《管子学刊》2010年第2期。魏成敏：《陈庄西周城与齐国早期都城》,《管子学刊》2010年第3期。方辉：《高青陈庄铜器铭文与城址性质考》，《管子学刊》2010年第3期。王戎：《“高青陈庄西周遗址发掘专家座谈会”侧记》,《东岳论丛》2010年第7期。
3 方辉：《岳石文化》,山东文艺出版社2004年版。
4 方辉：《商王朝对东方的经略》,《海岱地区青铜时代考古》,山东大学出版社,2007年版。
5 王青：《海岱地区周代墓葬研究》,山东大学出版社2002年版第128页。
1 Lothar von Falkenhausen.1995. The Regionalist Paradigm in Chinese Archaeology. In Nationalism, Politics, and the Practices of Archaeology. Philip Kohl, and Clare Fawcett (eds.) Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
1 Ian Hodder.1982. Theoretical Archaeology:A reactionary view. In Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, Ian Hodder (ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
3 Timothy Insoll.2004. Archaeology, Religion, Ritual. Routledge, London
Robert Preucel.2006. Archaeological Semiotics. London:Blackwell.
5 Catherine Bell.1992. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. Oxford, Oxford University Press.pp54
1 Lothar von Falkenhausen.2008. Archaeological Perspectives on the Philosophicization of Royal Zhou Ritual. In Perceptions of Antiquity in China, Edited by Dieter Kuhn, and Helga Stahl. Heidelberg:Edition Forum.
K.C. Chang. Study of the Neolithic Social Groupings:Examples from the New World. American Anthropologist 60:298-334.
3 Bryan Pfaffenberger.1992. Social Anthropology of Technology.Annual Review of Anthropo/ogy 21:491-516.
4 Bryan Pfaffenberger.1992. Social Anthropology of Technology.Annual Revew of Anthropo/ogy 21:491-516.
1 Catherine Bell.1992. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
2 Catherine Bell.1992. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
3 Catherine Bell.1992. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
1 从特定情景内人工制品的功能角度解读其社会意义和价值的讨论近年来成为考古学家研究墓葬随葬品的热点研究范式,参见Liu Li.2003. The Production of Minds as well as Hands:Production of prestige goods in the Neolithic and early state periods of China. Asian Perspectives 42:1-40; William Walker.2001. Ritual Technology in an Extra natural World. In Archaeological Perspectives on Technology. Michael Schiffer (ed.). Albuquerque:University of New Mexico Press. 2 Bryan Pfaffenberger.1992. Social Anthropology of Technology. Annual Review of Anthropology 21:491-516.3 参见Zachary Hruby.2007. Ritualized Chipped-Stone Production at Piedras Negras, Guatemala. In Rethinking Craft Specialization in Complex Societies:Archaeological Analysis of the Social Meaning of Production. Zachary Hurby, and Rowan Flad (ed.). Arlington:American Anthropological Association. Marianan Nikolaidon.2007. Ritualized Technologies in the Aegean Neolithic?:The crafts of adornment. In The Archaeology of Ritual. Evangelos Kyriakidis (ed.). Los Angeles:Costen Institute of Archaeology, University of California.
1 Katherine Spielmann.1998. Ritual Craft Specialists in Middle Range Societies. In, Craft and Social Identity (Vol. 8), edited by Cathy L Costin, and Rita P. Wright. Arlington, VA:American Anthropological Association.
2 Liu Li.2003. The Production of Minds as well as Hands:Production of prestige goods in the Neolithic and early state periods of China. Asian Perspectives 42:1-40
3 William Walker.2001. Ritual Technology in an Extranatural World. In Archaeological Perspectives on Technology. Michael Schiffer (ed.). Alburquerque:University of New Mexico Press.
4 Zachary Hruby.2007. Ritualized Chipped-Stone Production at Piedras Negras, Guatemala. In Rethinking Craft Specialization in Complex Societies:Archaeological Analysis of the Social Meaning of Production. Zacha ry H u rby, and Rowan Flad (ed.). Arlington:American Anthropological Association.
5 Marianan Nikolaidon.2007. Ritualized Technologies in the Aegean Neolithic?:The crafts of adornment. In The Archaeology of Ritual. Evangelos Kyriakidis (ed.), Los Angeles:Costen Institute of Archaeology, University of California.
1 Bryan Pfaffenberger.1992. Social Anthropology of Technology. Annual Review of Anthropology 21:491-516.
2 H. P. Schwarcz, R. Grun, and etc.1988. ESR Data for the Hominid Burial Site of Qafzeh in Israel. Journal of Human Evolution 17:733-737 Paul Pettit.2011. The Palaeolithic Origins of Human Burial. London, Routledge.
3 Stutz Nilsson.2008. Capturing Mortuary Ritual:An Attempt to Harmonize Archaeological Method and Theory. In, Religion, Archaeology, and the Material World, edited by Lars Fogelin. Carbondale:Center for Archaeological Investigations. Nilsson Stutz.2008. Capturing Mortuary Ritual:An Attempt to Harmonize Archaeological Method and Theory. In, Religion, Archaeology, and the Material World, edited by Lars Fogelin. Carbondale:Center for Archaeological Investigations. Robert Chapman.2005. Mortuary Analysis:A Matter of Time? In Interacting with the Dead:Perspectives on Mortuary Archaeology for the New Millennium. Edited by G. F. M. Rakita, J. E. Buikstra, L. A. Beck and S. R. Williams. Gainsville, University of Florida Press.
1 Rowan Flad.2002. Ritual or Structure? Analysis of Burial Elaboration at Dadianzi, Inner Mongolia. Journal of East Asian Archaeology 3:23-52.
James Brown.1981. The Search for Rank in Prehistoric Burials. In Robert Chapman, Ian Kinnes, and Klavs Randsborg (eds.), The Archaeology of Death. Cambridge and New York:Cambridge University Press. Joseph Tainter.1978. Mortuary practices and the study of prehistoric Social Systems. In Michael B. Schiffer (editor), Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 1:105-141. New York:Academic Press. Lewis R. Binford.1971. Mortuary practices:their study and potential. In James A. Brown (editor), Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices, Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology 25:6-29. Washington, D.C.:Society for American Archaeology. Marshall Sahlins.1972. Stone Age Economics. New York:Aldine Publishing Co.
3 Christopher Peebles.1971. Moundville and Surrounding Sites:Some structural considerations of mortuary practices. In James A. Brown (editor), Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices, Memoirs for the Society of American Archaeology 25:68-91. Washington, DC:Society for American Archaeology.
4 Rowan Flad.2002. Ritual or Structure? Analysis of Burial Elaboration at Dadianzi, Inner Mongolia. Journal of East Asian Archaeology 3:23-52.
5 变量来源主要依据目前出版的不同考古报告中对于商周时期墓葬资料统计过程中使用的各个变量。
1 山东省文物考古研究所、青州市博物馆：《青州市苏埠屯商代墓发掘报告》,《海岱考古》第一辑,1989年版。
1 邢琪：《大辛庄商代制陶上艺研究》,2012年山东大学硕士学位论文。
2 数据来源：大辛庄遗址数据来自邢琪：《大辛庄商代制陶工艺研究》,2012年山东大学硕士学位论文；
3 数据来源：中国社会科学院考古研究所：《殷墟发掘报告(1958-1961)》,文物出版社1987年版.
4 数据来源：中国社会科学院考古研究所：《安阳殷墟花园庄东地商代墓葬》,科学出版社2007年版。
5 数据来源：中国社会科学院考古研究所：《安阳殷墟郭家庄商代墓葬》,中国大百科全书出版社1998年版。
6 数据来源：安阳市文物考古研究所：《安阳殷墟徐家桥郭家庄商代墓葬》,科学出版社2011年版。
1 安阳市文物工作队：《安阳徐家桥村殷代遗址发掘报告》,《华夏考古》1997年第2期,第46-55页。
2 Denise Catalina Fong. Ceramic Variability of Shang Society at Huanbei in Anyang, China. A Thesis of the Degree of Master of Arts. The University of British Columbia.
3 数据来源：北京大学考古系：《天马-曲村(1980-1989)》，科学出版社2000年版。
4 数据来源：洛阳市文物工作队：《洛阳北窑西周墓》,文物出版社1999年版。
5 数据来源：北京市文物研究所：《琉璃河西周燕国墓地》,文物出版社1995年版。
6 数据来源：陕西省考古研究所：《周原：2002年度齐家制玦作坊和礼村遗址考古发掘报告》,科学出版社2011年版。
1 栾丰实：《大汶口文化：从原始到文明》,山东文艺出版社2012年版。
2 资料尚未发表,陶器现存于淄博临淄区博物馆中。
1 数据来源：山东省文物考古研究所：《曲阜鲁国故城》，齐鲁书社1982年版。
2 Liu Li.2003. The Production of Minds as well as Hands:Production of prestige goods in the Neolithic and early state periods of China. Asian Perspectives 42:1-40.
1 Liu Li.2003. The Production of Minds as well as Hands:Production of prestige goods in the Neolithic and early state periods of China. Asian Perspectives 42:1-40.
1 邢琪：《大辛庄商代制陶上艺研究》,2012年山东大学硕士学位论文。
2 邢琪：《大辛庄商代制陶上艺研究》,2012年山东大学硕士学位论文。
3 安阳市文物工作队：《安阳徐家桥村殷代遗址发掘报告》,《华夏考古》1997年第2期。
1 济青公路文物考古队：《山东临淄后李遗址第一、二次发掘简报》,《考古》1992年第11期。济青公路文物考古队：《山东临淄后李遗址第三、四次发掘简报》,《考古》1994年第2期。
1 魏成敏：《陈庄西周城与齐国早期都城》,《管子学刊》2010年第3期。
2 魏成敏：《陈庄西周城与齐国早期都城》,《管子学刊》2010年第3期。
3 中国社会科学院考古所编：《殷周金文集成(第8卷)》,中华书局1987年版。
1 Gideon Shelach.2009. Prehistoric Societies on the Northern Frontiers of China:Archaeological perspectives on indentity formation and economic change during the First Millenium BCE. London:Equinox.
2 李峰：《西周的政体：中国早期的官僚制度和国家》,三联书店2010年版,第303-308页。
1、方辉、王惠明、党浩：《中商文化墓地在海岱地区首次发现》,《中国文物报》,2003年12月3日第1版。
2、方辉：《大辛庄遗址的考古发现与研究》,《山东大学学报》,2004年7月12日第1版。
3、方辉、陈雪香、党浩、房道国：《济南市大辛庄商代居址与墓葬》,《考古》,2004年第7期。
4、陈雪香：《山东地区商文化聚落形态演变初探》,《华夏考古》2007年第1期
5、山东大学东方考古研究中心：《大辛庄遗址1984年秋试掘报告》,《东方考古(第4集)》,科学出版社2008年版。
6、任相宏：《济南大辛庄龙山、商遗址调查》,《考古》,1985年第8期。
7、山东大学历史系考古专业：《1984年秋济南大辛庄遗址试掘述要》,《文物》,1995年第6期。
8、张光明等：《桓台史家遗址发掘获重大成果》,《中国文物报》,1997年5月18日第1版。
9、燕生东、魏成敏等：《桓台西南部龙山、晚商时期的聚落》,《东方考古》第2集,科学出版社2005年版。
10、山东省文物考古研究所、青州市博物馆：《青州市苏埠屯商代墓葬发掘报告》,《海岱考古》第一辑,山东大学出版社1989年版
11、山东大学东方考古中心、寿光市博物馆：《山东寿光市大荒北央西周遗址的发掘》,《考古》2005年第12期。
12、燕生东、张振国、佟佩华等：《山东阳信县里屋遗址商代遗存发掘简报》《考古》2010年第3期。
13、德州行署文化局文物组等：《山东济阳刘台子西周早期墓发掘简报》,《文物》1981年第9期。
14、德州行署文化局文物组等：《山东济阳刘台子西周墓地第二次发掘》,《文 物》1985年第2期。
15、山东省考古研究所：《山东济阳刘台子西周六号墓清理报告》,《文物》1996年第12期。
16、山东省考古研究所：《山东济南王府遗址发掘报告》,《山东省高速公路考古报告集(1997)》,科学出版社,2000年版,133-208页。
17、济青公路文物考古队宁家埠分队：《章丘宁家埠遗址发掘报告》,《济青高速东路考古发掘报告集》,齐鲁书社1993年版。
18、山东省考古研究所：《山东高青县陈庄西周遗存发掘简报》,《考古》201 1年第2期。
19、任相宏、曹艳芳等：《淄川北沈马遗址的发掘与研究》,《淄川考古》,齐鲁书社,2006年版。
20、刘莉、陈星灿：《城：夏商时期对自然资源的控制问题》,《东南文化》,2000年第3期.
21、方辉：《商周时期鲁北地区海盐业的考古学研究》,《考古》2004年第1期。
22、陈雪香、方辉：《从济南大辛庄遗址浮选结果看商代农业经济》,《东方考古》(第4集),科学出版社。
23、钱益辉、方辉等：《大辛庄商代石器原料来源和开发战略分析》,《第四纪研究》,2006年第4期。
24、山东省考古研究所等：《山东寿光市双王城盐业遗址2008年的发掘》,《考古》2010年第3期。
25、周书灿：《济南大辛庄商代遗址的性质问题》,《中原文物》2011年第1期。
26、李伯谦：《大辛庄甲骨文与商王朝对东方的经营》,《文史哲》2003年第4期。
27、方辉：《商王朝对东方的经略》,《海岱地区青铜时代考古》,山东大学出版社,2007年版。
28、任相宏：《山东长清县仙人台周代墓地及相关问题初探》,《考古》1998年第9期。
29、任相宏、张光明：《高青陈庄遗址M18出土豊簋铭文考释及相关问题探讨》《管子学刊》2010年第2期。
30、邵望平：《考古学上所见西周王朝对海岱地区的经略》,《燕京学报》第十 期。
31、魏成敏：《陈庄西周城与齐国早期都城》,《管子学刊》2010年第3期。
32、靳桂云、郑同修等：《西周早期王朝的东方军事重镇：山东高青陈庄遗址的古植物证据》,《科学通报》2011年第35期。
33、[意]卡内罗著、王丽译：《文化进化论的古典创建》,《史林》,2004年第一期。
34、王铭铭：《吉登斯现代社会论丛·译序》,《社会的构成》,安东尼·吉登斯著、李康等译,三联书店1998年版。
35、苏秉琦：《关于重建中国史前史的思考》,《考古》1991年第12期。
36、傅罗文(Rowan Flad):《贞人：关于早期中国施灼占下起源与发展的一些思考》。荆志淳等主编,《多维视域：商王朝与中国早期文明研究》,北京：科学出版社,2009年版。
37、李伯谦：《从殷墟青铜器祖徽所代表族氏得地理分布看商王朝的管辖范围与统辖措施》,荆志淳等主编,《多维视域：商王朝与中国早期文明研究》,北京：科学出版社,2009年版。
38、穆朝娜：《关于陶器生产方式之探析》,《文物春秋》2000年第5期
39、栾丰实：《海岱地区史前文化的发现与研究》, 《21世纪中国考古学与世界考古学》,中国社会科学出版社,2002年版。
40、高广仁、邵望平：《中华文明的发祥地之———海岱历史文化区》,《史前研究》1984年第1期。
41、严文明：《东夷文化的探索》,《文物》1989年第9期。
42、栾丰实：《试论仰韶时代东方与中原的关系》,《考古》1996年第4期。
43、陈淑卿：《山东地区商文化编年与类型研究》,《华夏考古》2003年第1期。
44、高广仁：《海岱地区的商代文化遗存》,《考古学报》2000年第2期。
45、周仁、张福康、郑永圃：《我国黄河流域新石器时代和殷周时代制陶工艺的科学总结》,《考古学报》1964年第1期。
46、李玉林：《吴城商代龙窑》,《文物》1989年第1期。
47、郭胜斌、罗仁林：《岳阳县对门山商代遗址发掘报告》,《湖南考古辑刊》1994年版。
48、湖南省博物馆等：《湖南岳阳费家河商代遗址和窑址的探掘》,《考古》1985 年第1期。
49、李素婷、李一丕、丁新功、牛慧珍、侯彦峰：《河南荥阳市关帝庙遗址商代晚期遗存发掘简报》,《考古》2008年第7期。
50、孙德海、罗平、张远：《磁县下七垣遗址发掘报告》,《考古学报》1979年第2期。
51、唐云明：《邢台曹演庄遗址发掘报告》,《考古学报》1958年第4期。
52、河北省文化局文物工作队：《1958年邢台地区古遗址、古墓葬的发现与清理》《文物》1959年第9期。
53、中国社科院考古所沣西队：《1984-1985年沣西西周遗址、墓葬发掘报告》,《考古》1987年第1期。
54、种建荣、张敏、雷兴山：《岐山孔头沟遗址商周时期聚落性质初探》,《文博》,2007年第5期。
55、陕西省考古研究所宝鸡工作站：《陕西岐山赵家台遗址试掘简报》,《考占与文物》,1994年第2期。
56、宋艳波、燕生东：《鲁北地区商代晚期遗址出土的动物遗存》,北京大学震旦古代文明中心编：《古代文明研究通讯》,2007年第三十五期。
57、周仁、张福康、郑永圃：《我国黄河流域新石器时代和殷周时代制陶工艺的科学总结》,《考古学报》1964年第1期。
58、魏成敏：《陈庄西周城与齐国早期都城》,《管子学刊》2010年第3期。
59、李水城、兰玉富等：《鲁北-胶东盐业考古调查记》,《华夏考古》2009年第1期。
60、王青、朱继平：《山东北部商周盔形器的用途与产地再论》,《考古》2006年4期第61-68页。
61、崔剑锋等：《山东寿光市双王城遗址古代制盐工艺的几个问题》,《考古》2010年第3期。
62、曹元启：《试论西周至战国时代的盔形器》,《北方文物》1996年第3期,第22-26页。
63、王青：《(管子>所载海盐生产的考古学新证》,《东岳论丛》2005年第6期。
64、王青：《淋煎法海盐生产技术起源的考古学探索》,《盐业史研究》2007 年第1期。
65、李慧竹、王青：《山东北部海盐业起源的历史与考古学探索》,《管子学刊》2007年第2期。
66、彭鹏：《鲁北莱州湾沿岸商周时期制盐工艺初探》,《南方文物》2012年第1期。
67、安阳市文物工作队：《安阳徐家桥村殷代遗址发掘报告》,《华夏考古》1997年第2期。
68、山东省文物考古研究所、青州市博物馆：《青州市苏埠屯商代墓发掘报告》,《海岱考古》第一辑,1989年版。
69、王戎：《“高青陈庄西周遗址发掘专家座谈会”侧记》,《东岳论丛》2010年第7期。
70、方辉：《高青陈庄铜器铭文与城址性质考》,《管子学刊》2010年第3期。
71、王锡平：《试论山东地区的素面陶鬲》,《中国考古学年会第九次年会论文集》,文物出版社1997年版。
72、魏峭巍：《央地关系模型在考古学中的应用：现状与趋势》,《东岳论丛》2011年第06期。
1、晃福林：《夏商西周的社会变迁》,北京师范大学出版社1996年版。
2、李峰：《西周的政体——中国早期的官僚制度和国家》,三联书店2010年版。
3、李峰著、徐峰译,《西周的灭亡——中国早期国家得地理和政治危机》,上海古籍出版社,2007年版
4、刘莉著、陈星灿等译：《中国新时期时代：迈向早期国家之路》,文物出版社,2007年版。
5、[英]科林伦福儒、保罗巴恩主编,陈胜前译：《考古学：关键概念》,中国人民大学出版2012年版。
6、[法]布迪厄著、蒋梓骅译：《实践感》,译林出版社2003年版。
7、陈淳：《文明与早期国家探源——中外理论、方法与研究之比较》,上海世纪出版集团,2007年
8、田昌五：《古代社会形态研究》,天津：天津人民出版社,1980年版。
9、田昌五、藏知非：《周秦社会形态研究》,西安：西北大学出版社,1996年版。
10、钱汇益：《山东周代文化格局与文化变迁研究》,南开大学博士后出站报告。
11、[英]安东尼·吉登斯著、李康等译：《社会的构成》,三联书店1998年版。
12、王青：《海岱地区周代墓葬研究》,出东大学出版社2002年版。
13、李文杰：《中国古代制陶工艺研究》,科学出版社1996年版。
14、河南省文物考古研究所：《郑州商城》,文物出版社2001年版。
15、戴向明：《陶器生产、聚落形态与社会变迁——新石器至早期青铜时代的垣曲盆地》,文物出版社2010年版。
16、中国社会科学院考古所编：《殷周金文集成(第8卷)》,中华书局1987年版。
17、杨升南：《商代经济史》,贵州人民出版社1992年版。
18、陆小荣主编：《陶瓷工艺学》,湖南大学出版社2005年版。
19、张锐主编：《陶瓷工艺学》,化学工业出版社2007年版。
20、李济：《殷墟陶器研究》,上海人民出版社2007年版。
21、陈振中：《先秦手工业史》,福建人民出版社2008年版。
22、王迅：《东夷文化与淮夷文化》,北京大学出版社1994年版。
23、徐宏：《先秦城市考古学研究》,北京燕山出版社2000年版。
24、陈朝云：《商代聚落体系及其社会功能研究》,科学出版社2006年版。
25、杜正胜：《古代社会与国家》,允晨文化公司(台北)1992年版。
26、许倬云：《西周史》,三联书店2001年版。
27、中国社会科学院考古研究所：《殷墟发掘报告(1958-1961)》,文物出版社1987年版.
28、中国社会科学院考古研究所：《安阳殷墟花园庄东地商代墓葬》,科学出版社2007年版。
29、中国社会科学院考古研究所：《安阳殷墟郭家庄商代墓葬》,中国大百科全书出版社1998年版。
30、安阳市文物考古研究所：《安阳殷墟徐家桥郭家庄商代墓葬》,科学出版社2011年版。
31、北京大学考古系：《天马-曲村(1980-1989)》,科学出版社2000年版。
32、洛阳市文物工作队：《洛阳北窑西周墓》,文物出版社1999年版。
33、北京市文物研究所：《琉璃河西周燕国墓地》,文物出版社1995年版。
34、陕西省考古研究所：《周原：2002年度齐家制玦作坊和礼村遗址考古发掘报告》,科学出版社2011年版。
35、山东省文物考古研究所：《曲阜鲁国故城》,齐鲁书社1982年版。
1、Jay Weinstein.2010. Social Change (Third Edition). Lanham:Rowman& Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
2、Anne Underhill,2000. Craft Production and Social Change in Northern China. New York:Kluwer Academic Plenum Publishers.
3、Lewis Morgan.1963. Ancient Society. Cleveland:Meridan Books.
4、Elman Service.1962. Primitive Social Organization. New York:Random House.
5、Julian Steward.1955. Theory of Culture Change:The methodology of mulitlinear evolution. Brbana:University of Illinois press.
6、M. Schiffer.1981. Some Issues in the Philosophy of Archaeology, American Antiquity 46:899-908.
7、Colin Renfrew.1969. Trade and Culture Process in European Prehistory, Current Anthropology 10:151-69.
8、Johannes Fabian.1983. Time and the Other:How anthropology makes its object. New York:Columbia University Press.
9、Michael Shanks, and Christopher Tilley.1987. Social Theory and Archaeology. Albuquerque:University of New Mexico Press.
10、Herbert Spencer.2009. First Principles. New York:Cambridge University Press. First published at 1862.
11、Lewis Morgan.1963. Ancient Society. Cleveland:Meridan Books.
12、Marshall Sahlins, and Elman Service.1960. Evolution and Culture. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
13、Marshall Sahlins.1985. Islands of History. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
14、Eric Wolf.1994. Facing Power-Old slights, New questions. American Anthropologists 92:586-696.
15、Marshall Sahlins.1978. Culture and Practical Meaning. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
16、Herbert Spencer.1899. The Principles of Sociology (Vol. I). New York:Appleton and Company.
17、Eric Sterud.1973. A Paradigmatic View of Prehistory, in Colin Renfrew (ed.), The Explanation of Culture Change:Models in Prehistory, London:Duckworth.
18、Leslie White.1960. Foreword in Evolution and Culture, in Marshall Sahlins and Elman Service (eds.) Evolution and Culture. Chicago:University of Chicago Press
19、Elman Service.1975. Origins of the Stale and Civilization. New York:Norton.
20、Allen Johnson, and Timothy Earle.1987. The Evolution of Human Societies: From foraging group to agrarian stale. Stanford:Stanford University Press, pp 2-4
21、Kent Flannery.1972. The Cultural Evolution of Civilizations, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 3:399-426
22、Barbara Bender.1989. The Roots of Inequality. In Domination and Resistance, edited by D. Miller, M. Rowlands, and C. Tilley, pp.83-95. Unwin Hyman, London.
23、Antonio Gilman.1996. Explaining the Upper Paleolithic Revolution. In Contemporary Archaeology in Theory, edited by R. Preucel and I. Hodder, pp. 220-239. London, Blackwell.
24、Robert Hall.1977. A Thropolocentric Perspective for Eastern United States Prehistory, American Antiquity 41:449-588.
25、Kent Flannery.1972. Culture History vs. Culture Process. In Contemporary Archaeology:A guide to Theory and Contributions, M. Leone (eds.) Carbondale: SIU Press, pp.102-107.
26、Matthew Johnson.2009. Archaeological Theory:An Introduction.2nd edition. Oxford:Blackwell.
27、Bruce Trigger.2006. A History of Archaeological Thought.2nd edition. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, pp.211-313
28、Colin Renfrew.1996. Peer Polity Interaction. In Contemporary Archaeology in Theory, R. Preucel and I. Hodder (eds.) pp.114-142. Blackwell, London.
29、Stephen Shannan.1996. Cultural Transmission and Cultural Change. In Contemporary Archaeology in Theory, R. Preucel and I. Hodder (eds.) pp. 282-296. Blackwell, London.
30、Timothy Earle.1996. Specialization and the Production of Wealth:Hawaiian Chiefdoms and the Inka Empire. In Contemporary Archaeology in Theory, R. Preucel and I. Hodder (eds.) pp.165-189. Blackwell, London
31、Douglas Bird, and James O'Connell.2006. Behavioral Ecology and Archaeology, Journal of Archaeological Research 14:143-188.
32、Robert Dunnell.1980. Evolutionary Theory and Archaeology. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 3:35-99.
33、Robert Leonard.2001. Evolutionary Archaeology. In Archaeological Theory Today, Ian Hodder (eds.) pp.65-97. Polity Press, Cambridge.
34、Steven Mithen.1989. Evolutionary Theory and Post-processual Archaeology. Antiquity 63(240):483-495.
35、Robert Preucel, and Alex Bauer.2001. Archaeological Pragmatics. Norwegian Archaeological Review 34:85-96.
36、Graig Calhoun and Joseph Gerteis (eds.) Contemporary Sociological Theory, Maiden:Blackwell Publishing.
37、Anthony Giddens.1979. Central Problems in Social Theory. London:Macmillan.
38、Jeffery Alexander.1990. Analytic Debates:Understanding the relative autonomy of culture. In Jeffery Alexander, and Steven Seidman (eds.) Culture and Society: Contemporary debates. Cambridge:The University of Cambridge Press.
39、Claudia Strauss, and Naomi Quinn.1997. A Cognitive Theory of Culture Meaning. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
40、Edward LiPuma.1993. Culture and the Concept of Culture in a Theory of Practice. In Bourdieu:Critical perspectives. Edward Lipuma, Mcishe Postone, and Craig Calhoun (eds.) pp14-35. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
41、Ian Hodder.1982. Theoretical Archaeology:A Reactionary View. In Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, I. Hodder (eds.), pp.1-16. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
42、Robert Preucel.1995. The Postprocessual Condition. Journal of Archaeological Research 3:147-175.
43、Henry Wright.1977. Toward an Explanation of the Origin of the Stale, in Explanation of Prehistoric Organizational Change. Jill Hill (ed.) University of New Mexico Press. Albuquerque.
44、Charles Taylor.1993. To follow a Rule.... In Bourdieu:Critical perspectives. Edward Lipuma, Mcishe Postone, and Craig Calhoun (eds.) ppl4-35. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
45、Anthony Giddens.1984. The Constitution of Society. Cambridge:Polity Press.
46、Pierre Bourdieu.1977. The Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47、Ronald Cohen.1978. State origins:a Reappraisal, in Henri Claessen and Peter Skalnik (eds.) The Early State, pp 31-75. Hague:Mouton Publishers.
48、Morton Fried.1967. The Evolution of Political Society. New York:Random House.
49、Henry Wright, and Gregory Johnson.1975. Population, Exchange, and Early State Formation in Southwest Iran. American Anthropology 77(2):267-289.
49、RH McGuire.1980. Breaking down Cultural Complexity:Inequality and Heterogeneity. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 6:91-142.
50、Tong Enzheng.1995. Thirty Years of Chinese Archaeology (1949-1979). In Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice of Archaeology, edited by P. L. Kohl and C. Fawcett. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
51、Rowan Flad and Pochan Chen. In Prep. Ancient Central China:An Archaeological Study of Centers and Peripheries along the Yangzi River. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
52、K. C. Chang.1986. Archaeology of Ancient China. Yale University Press, New Haven.
53、Gideon Shelach.2009. Prehistoric Societies on the Northern Frontiers of China: Archaeological perspectives on indentity formation and economic change during the First Millennium BCE. London:Equinox.
54、Bruce Trigger.1999. Shang Political Organization:A comparative approach. Journal of East Asian Archaeology 1, pp.43-62.
55、David Keightley.2000. The Ancestral Landscape: Time, Space, and Community in Late Shang China. Berkeley:Institute of East Asian Studies.
56、Robin Yatcs.1997. The City-stale in Ancient China. In The Archaeology of City-states:Cross-Cultural Approaches, Deborah Nichols and Thomas Charlton (eds.), Washington:Smithsonian Institution Press, pp.71-90
57、K.C. Chang.1980. Shang Civilization. Yale University Press, New Haven.
58、 Cathy Costin.1991. Craft Specialization:Issues in defining, documenting, and explaining the organization of production. Archaeological Method and Theory 3: 1-56
59、Rowan Flad.2007. Rethinking the Context of Production through an Archaeological Study of Ancient Salt Production in the Sichuan Basin, China. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 17(1): 108-128
60、Takeshi Inomata.2001. The Power and Ideology of Artistic Creation:Elite craft specialists in Classic Maya society. Current Anthropology 42:321-349
61、Brandon Lewis.1996. The role of Attached and Independent Specialization in the Development of Socio-cultural Complexity. Research in Economic Anthropology 17:357-388.
62、John Clark, and William Parry.1990. Craft Specialization and Cultural Complexity. Research in Economic Anthropology 12:289-346.
63、Cathy Costin, and Melissa Hagstrum.1995. Standardization, Labor Investment, Skill, and Organization of Ceramic Production in Late Prehistoric Highland Peru. American Antiquity 60:619-639.
64、Dean Arnold 2000. Does the Standardization of Ceramic Pastes really Men Specialization? Journal of Archaeological method and theory 7(4):333-375
65、Rowan Flad 2002. Ritual or structure? Analysis of Burial Elaboration at Dadianzi, Inner Mongolia. Journal of East Asian Archaeology 3(3-4):23-52
66、Charles Stanish.2003. Ancient Titicaca:The Evolution of complex society in the Titicaca Basin of Peru and Bolivia. Berkeley:University of California Press.
67、Vordon Childe.1951. Social Evolution. London:Watts.
67、Liu Li.2005. The Chinese Neolithic:Trajectories to Early States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
68、Philip Arnold.1991. Dimensional Standardization and Production Scale in Mesoamerican ceramics. Latin American Antiquity 2:363-370.
69、E. Soja.1983. The Spatiulity of Social Life:Towards a transformative retheorisation. In Derek Gregory and John Urry (ed.). Social Relations and Spatial Structures. London:Macmillan.
70、Derek Gregory, and John Urry (ed.) 1983. Social Relations and Spatial Structures. London:Macmillan.
71、John Urry.1983. Social Relations, Space, and Time. In Derek Gregory, and John Urry (ed.). Social Relations and Spatial Structures. London:Macmillan.P27
72、Robert Preucel and Lynn Meskell.2008. A Companion to Social Archaeology. Maiden:Blackwell Publishers.
73、Timothy Pauketat.2001. Practice and History in Archaeology:An emerging paradigm. Anthropological Theory 1:73-98.
74、Julia Hendon.1999. Multiple Sources of Prestige and the Social Evolution of Women in Prehistoric Mesoamerican. In J. Robb (ed.), Material Symbols: Culture and Economy in Prehistory. Carbondale:Southern Illinois University Press.
75、Robert Santley, and Rani Alexander.1992. The Political Economic of Core-periphery Systems. In Ed Schortman, and Patricia Urban (ed.), Resources, Power and Interaction. New York:Plenum Press. Pp 23-49.
76、Robert Bagley.1999. Shang Archaeology. In Cambridge History of Ancient China: From the Origins of Civilization to 221 B.C., edited by M. Loewe and E. L Shaughnessy, pp.124-231.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
77、Lothar von Falkenhausen.1995. Reflections on the Political Role of Spirit Mediums in Early China:The Wu officials in the Zhou Li. Early China 20: 279-300.
78、Lothar von Falkenhausen.1995. The Regionalist Paradigm in Chinese Archaeology. In Nationalism, Politics, and the Practices of Archaeology, Philip Kohl, and Clare Fawcett (eds.) pp 198-217. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
79、Robert Preucel.2006. Archaeological Semiotics. London:Blackwell.
80、Lothar von Falkenhausen.2008. Archaeological Perspectives on the Philosophicization of Royal Zhou ritual. In Perceptions of Antiquity in China, Edited by Dieter Kuhn, and Helga Stahl. pp 135-175. Heidelberg:Edition Forum.
81、K.C. Chang. Study of the Neolithic Social Groupings:Examples from the New World. American Anthropologist 60:298-334.
82、Bryan Pfaffenberger.1992. Social Anthropology of Technology. Annual Review of Anthropology 21:491-516.
83、Liu Li.2003. The Production of Minds as well as Hands:Production of prestige goods in the Neolithic and early state periods of China. Asian Perspectives 42:1-40;
84、Zachary Hruby.2007. Ritualized Chipped-Stone production at Piedras Negras, Guatemala. In Rethinking Craft Specialization in Complex Societies: Archaeological Analysis of the Social Meaning of Production. Zachary Hurby, and Rowan Flad (ed.), pp 68-87. Arlington:American Anthropological Association.
85、Marianan Nikolaidon.2007. Ritualized Technologies in the Aegean Neolithic?: The crafts of adornment. In The Archaeology of Ritual. Evangelos Kyriakidis (ed.), pp 183-208. Los Angeles:Costen Institute of Archaeology, University of California.
86、Katherine Spielmann.1998. Ritual Craft Specialists in Middle Range Societies. In, Craft and Social Identity (Vol.8), edited by Cathy L. Costin, and Rita P. Wright. Arlington, VA:American Anthropological Association. Pp.153-160.
87、H. P. Schwarcz, R. Grun, and etc.1988. ESR Data for the Hominid Burial Site of Qafzeh in Israel. Journal of Human Evolution 17:733-737
88、Paul Pettit.2011. The Palaeolithic Origins of Human Burial. London, Routledge.
89、Stutz Nilsson.2008. Capturing Mortuary Ritual:An Attempt to Harmonize Archaeological Method and Theory. In, Religion, Archaeology, and the Material World, edited by Lars Fogelin. Carbondale:Center for Archaeological Investigations. Pp.159-178.
90、Robert Chapman.2005. Mortuary Analysis:A Matter of Time? Interacting with the Dead. In Perspectives on Mortuary Archaeology for the New Millennium. G. F. M. Rakita, J. E. Buikstra, L. A. Beck and S. R. Williams. Gainsville (eds.), Miami:University of Florida Press
91、James Brown.1981. The Search for Rank in Prehistoric Burials. In The Archaeology of Death, Robert Chapman, Ian Kinnes, and Klavs Randsborg (eds.), pp.25-37. Cambridge and New York:Cambridge University Press.
92、Joseph Tainler.1978. Mortuary Practices and the Study of Prehistoric Social Systems. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol.1. Miehacl B. Schiffer (ed.), pp.105-141. New York:Academic Press.
93、Lewis R. Binford.1971. Mortuary Practices:Their study and potential. In James A. Brown (editor), Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices, Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology 25:6-29. Washington, D.C Society for American Archaeology.
94、Christopher Peebles.1971. Moundvillc and Surrounding Sites:Some structural considerations of mortuary practices. In Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices, Memories for the Society of American. James A. Brown (eds). New York:American Anthropological Association.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |