The Liangzhu culture of the lower Yangtze (Lake Tai basin, China, ca. 3300–2300 BC) left a ~290-ha walled city, a massive earthen palace platform at Mojiaoshan, socially graded cemeteries with elaborate jade assemblages, and the earliest large-scale dam system in China. Whether this record documents an early state — a polity with institutionalized, centralized coercive or sovereign power — or a complex but non-state society (a complex chiefdom or ritual-theocratic order) remains an open, actively contested question. The affirmative classification rests on contested indicators: a four-tiered settlement-hierarchy benchmark has been shown to be regionally relative and non-diagnostic, and monumental public works can plausibly be organized by ritual rather than coercive state institutions. Both readings remain actively maintained in the literature (Song 2011; Renfrew & Liu 2018; UNESCO 2019; Han 2023 versus Wang 2012; Xu & Zhang 2019), and the most recent empirical and quantitative work (2023–2026) has added evidence and models without settling the classification.

Background

The Liangzhu culture flourished from about 3300 to 2300 BC in the Lake Tai (Taihu) basin of the lower Yangtze River, China. Its central settlement, now called Liangzhu Ancient City, comprises an earthen-walled inner city of roughly 290 hectares, a large rammed-earth platform at Mojiaoshan interpreted as a palace foundation, elite cemeteries at Fanshan and Yaoshan containing finely worked jades — including cong (prismatic tubes with corner-mask designs) and bi (perforated discs) that later Chinese ritual canons treated as canonical implements — alongside socially graded cemeteries, and a peripheral system of earthen dams and canals for flood control and irrigation that is among the earliest large-scale hydraulic works known in China (Renfrew & Bin Liu 2018; UNESCO 2019).

Whether this record reflects a state is a question about political form, not about richness of evidence. In the evolutionary typology standard in processual archaeology (the band–tribe–chiefdom–state scheme), a chiefdom is a regional, kin-ordered polity with ranked social order but no specialized government, while a state is a society divided into classes or strata and ruled by a centralized, institutionalized ('supra-societal') coercive power standing above kin groups. Archaeologists have tried to recognize this distinction from material remains. The most influential operational criterion was the four-tiered settlement hierarchy: a settlement system with four size-ranked levels was taken to imply three levels of decision-making above the local community, the administrative signature of a state. Chinese scholarship also uses the indigenous concept of the 'ancient state' (guguo), which has no agreed definition and is weakly integrated with international chiefdom/state frameworks.

The affirmative position is long-standing. Song Jianzhong (2011) concluded that Liangzhu and the roughly contemporaneous northern site of Taosi (a 280-ha walled town with a sharply stratified cemetery of over 1300 burials) had 'reached and surpassed the threshold of early state formation', citing the walled cities, elite cemeteries, altars, and the Mojiaoshan platform as evidence of stratification, centralized power, and ritual systems. Renfrew and Bin Liu (2018) argued that the large-scale public works and remarkable grave goods at Liangzhu 'are products of what may be the earliest state society in East Asia' — a deliberately hedged endorsement. In 2019 UNESCO inscribed the Archaeological Ruins of Liangzhu City on the World Heritage List, describing it as 'the centre of power and belief of an early regional state', and Han Jianye (2023) has since restated the case in English: Liangzhu was an early state with regional sovereign power.

The critical position attacks both the classification and the standard behind it. Wang Zhenzhong (2012) showed that the four-tiered settlement-hierarchy criterion is regionally relative — sites assigned the same tier label vary in area by orders of magnitude across regions (Taosi ≈ 2,800,000 m² versus the largest non-capital Shang site in the Huan River survey ≈ 35,000 m²) — and that historically documented polities of undisputed statehood (the Shang and Western Zhou) exhibit only two- or three-tier regional hierarchies. He proposed instead that state formation is indicated by the pairing of (1) social classes or strata, read from mortuary assemblage richness and dwelling differentiation, and (2) a public coercive power standing above society, read from city walls, palaces, shrines, and large coordinated constructions. Yet each of these proxies is itself interpretively contestable: monumental walls and towers can be built for ritual or local purposes without a state apparatus (the Pre-Pottery Neolithic tower of Jericho is the standard counterexample), and mortuary richness maps onto social class only through assumptions. Xu and Zhang (2019) pressed the critique further, arguing that dynasty-centric and nationalist narratives have inflated state origins backward; their two-stage model places the coexisting polities of ca. 3500–1800 BC — including Liangzhu, Taosi, and Shimao — at a chiefdom-like, pre-state stage, with the Erlitou culture (the early Bronze Age archaeological culture of the central-plain Yellow River region, often identified with the legendary Xia dynasty, ca. 1800–1500 BC) as the first large-territory state-level dynasty in East Asia. Their paper itself concedes that, because archaeological remains are fragmentary, 'any conclusion regarding the origin of the state' carries relativity and unverifiability. In parallel, Jaffe, Campbell, and Shelach-Lavi (2022) argue for the neighboring site of Shimao that recognition of 'states' in early China is still driven by linear dynastic historiography rather than by systematic, cross-culturally validated criteria.

The disagreement is therefore substantive as well as methodological: it is at once a question about a particular society — did Liangzhu cross the state threshold a millennium or more before Erlitou, or was it a complex chiefdom or ritual-based polity? — and a question about whether any defensible archaeological criteria can decide such a classification. Recent work deepens rather than resolves it: Guan (2023) attributes Liangzhu's 'early state formation' to ideological and religious mobilization; Li and Guo (2025), quantifying burial-wealth inequality across the Yangtze plains and testing the 'hydraulic civilization' hypothesis (the proposal that large irrigation works necessitate centralized despotic control), describe the Liangzhu ruler as combining political-military and ritual power that 'potentially' generated a complex bureaucracy, while new excavation-level studies of stone procurement (Shen et al. 2026) and of worked human bone from canal and moat deposits at the bottom of the burial spectrum (Sawada et al. 2025) keep adding evidence about stratification and organization without settling the classification.

Problem Statement

Determine the political form of Liangzhu society (ca. 3300–2300 BC, Lake Tai basin, lower Yangtze, China). Establish explicit, archaeologically operable, and cross-culturally defensible criteria for recognizing state-level political organization from material remains — addressing the known failures of the four-tiered settlement-hierarchy criterion and the non-diagnostic nature of monumental construction and mortuary richness taken alone — and apply those criteria systematically to the published Liangzhu evidence, including the settlement system of the Taihu basin, the ~290-ha walled city and its fortifications, the peripheral dam system, the Mojiaoshan palace platform, the Fanshan and Yaoshan cemeteries and the wider mortuary record, and the jade-production and exchange economy. The evidence may support, refute, or fail to decide the state-level classification. An affirmative resolution depends on which specific institutions Liangzhu's record evidences; a negative one on why the state-level reading fails in favor of a complex non-state society (for example a complex chiefdom or a ritual-theocratic polity); and an undecidable one on why each candidate indicator (settlement tiers, large-scale public works, burial stratification, craft specialization) cannot discriminate state from non-state organization in this case. The common objective uniting these outcomes is a settled, evidence-complete judgment of whether — and on what criteria — Liangzhu crossed the threshold into state-level political organization, at the natural generality of the political form of Liangzhu society rather than of any single criterion.

References

  1. Jianzhong Song (2011), 'Liangzhu Culture and Taosi Culture: formation of the south-north pattern of Chinese history', Chinese Archaeology 11(1), DOI 10.1515/char.2011.11.1.138, https://doi.org/10.1515/char.2011.11.1.138
  2. Colin Renfrew & Bin Liu (2018), 'The emergence of complex society in China: the case of Liangzhu', Antiquity 92(364):975–990, DOI 10.15184/aqy.2018.60, https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2018.60
  3. Zhenzhong Wang (2012), 'Indicators of State Formation: With a Discussion of the State Theory Based on the Four-Tiered Settlement Hierarchy', Social Sciences in China 33(2):153–163, DOI 10.1080/02529203.2012.677289, https://doi.org/10.1080/02529203.2012.677289
  4. Hong Xu & Yin Zhang (2019), 'An Archaeological Proposal of the Origin of State in China', Journal of Chinese Humanities 5(1):43–54, DOI 10.1163/23521341-12340071, https://doi.org/10.1163/23521341-12340071
  5. Yitzchak Jaffe, Roderick Campbell & Gideon Shelach-Lavi (2022), 'Shimao and the Rise of States in China', Current Anthropology 63(1):95–117, DOI 10.1086/719398, https://doi.org/10.1086/719398
  6. Weilong Guan (2023), 'Liangzhu culture and its challenges to traditional narratives of civilization emergence in China', Asian Archaeology 7(2):163–174, DOI 10.1007/s41826-023-00076-2, https://doi.org/10.1007/s41826-023-00076-2
  7. Jianye Han (2023), 'Liangzhu: An Early State with Regional Sovereign Power', chapter in The Making of the Chinese Civilization, Springer, pp. 185–193, DOI 10.1007/978-981-99-4213-8_10, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-4213-8_10
  8. Ningyuan Wang (2021), 'What Was Liangzhu?', chapter in Liangzhu Civilization, Springer, pp. 1–11, DOI 10.1007/978-981-16-5134-2_1, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5134-2_1
  9. Dongdong Li & Suwei Guo (2025), 'Inequality, power, population and hydraulic works: a quantitative approach unraveling the emergence of the earliest state in the prehistoric Yangtze Plain', npj Heritage Science 13:32, DOI 10.1038/s40494-025-01593-2, https://doi.org/10.1038/s40494-025-01593-2
  10. Xuke Shen, Chenglong Yu, Yu Chen, Guanyue Yu, Runze Yang & Mingjie Yi (2026), 'A Preliminary Study on the Social Organization Patterns of the Liangzhu Culture in the Northern Taihu Plain, China: Evidence From Petrographic and Provenance Analyses of Stone Masonry Remains at the Sidun Site', Geoarchaeology 41, DOI 10.1002/gea.70060, https://doi.org/10.1002/gea.70060
  11. Junmei Sawada, Kazuhiro Uzawa, Minoru Yoneda, Yasuo Hagihara, Yu Itahashi, Takashi Gakuhari, Shinji Kubota, Bin Liu, Ningyuan Wang, Minghui Chen, Yonglei Wang, Shu Song, Hiroki Kikuchi, Masashi Maruyama, Kenji Okazaki, Hirofumi Takamuku, Fumiko Saeki, Takashi Nara & Shin'ichi Nakamura (2025), 'Worked human bones and the rise of urban society in the neolithic Liangzhu culture, East Asia', Scientific Reports 15:31441, DOI 10.1038/s41598-025-15673-7, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-15673-7
  12. UNESCO World Heritage Centre (2019), 'Archaeological Ruins of Liangzhu City', World Heritage List entry No. 1592, https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1592/
  13. Zhang Jiaxin & Xue Yimei (2025), 'The Politics of Animals: Zooarchaeology, Core-Periphery Dynamics, and State Formation in the Liangzhu Culture', SSRN preprint, DOI 10.2139/ssrn.5953708, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5953708