Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Early Pottery in South China
TRACEY L-D LU
introduction
In this paper, ‘‘early pottery’’ is defined as ceramics dated to approximately10,000 years ago or earlier, which have been discovered from the Japanese Archi-pelago, the Russian Far East, the Yellow and the Yangzi River Valleys, to SouthChina (Tables 1 and 2). Pottery discovered in the Japanese Archipelago are datedto between 15,000 and 12,000 years ago (Tsutsumi 2000), or even up to 17,200b.p. (Kuzmin 2006); those found in the Russian Far East are dated between13,300 and 12,300 years ago, or 16,500–14,100 b.p. (Kuzmin 2006; Zhushchi-khovskaya 1997). Potsherds found in North China are dated to between 12,000and 10,000 years ago (Guo and Li 2000; Zhao et al. 2003), those found in theYangzi River Valley are dated probably up to 18,000 years ago (Boaretto et al.2009), and pottery found in South China is dated to approximately 12,000 yearsago (Institute of Archaeology CASS et al. 2003). It seems that pottery was manu-factured by di¤erent groups in di¤erent natural and cultural contexts at the end ofthe Pleistocene or the beginning of the Holocene1 in various places of East Asia,although it is not clear whether pottery was invented in one center or in multi-centers.
There are many hypotheses on the origin of pottery, including the ‘‘architec-tural hypothesis,’’ the ‘‘culinary hypothesis,’’ which proposes that pottery wasinvented for cooking cereals and/or shells, the ‘‘resources intensification’’ hypoth-esis, and the ‘‘social/symbolic elaboration’’ theory (Rice 1999 : 5–14). However,prehistoric pottery manufactured in di¤erent natural and cultural contexts usuallydi¤ers in terms of morphology, function, and symbolic meanings. Thus, it is nec-essary to carry out an in-depth and contextualized analysis in order to understandthe impetus for, and the consequences of, this technological development in dif-ferent regions.
In North China, potsherds dated between 12,000 and 10,000 years ago havebeen found in three archaeological sites, namely Hutouliang and Nanzhuangtouin Hebei Province, and Donghulin near the present Beijing City (Table 1; Guoand Li 2000; Yan 2000; Zhao et al. 2003). Detailed reports of these sites have notbeen published. However, based on available data, the archaeological assemblagesof the three sites apparently are not the same.
Tracey L-D Lu is a Professor in the Anthropology Department of The Chinese University ofHong Kong Shatin, N.T. Hong Kong.
Asian Perspectives, Vol. 49, No. 1 ( 2011 by the University of Hawai‘i Press.
Ta
ble
1.
Ea
rly
Po
tter
yF
ou
nd
inth
eY
ello
wa
nd
the
Ya
ng
ziR
iver
Va
lley
s
site
loc
ati
on
type
of
ves
sel
form
ing
met
ho
ds
thic
kn
ess
of
wa
lls
inc
lusi
on
sc
olo
r
dec
ora
tio
n
an
dm
ark
s
14C
da
te
(b.p
.)*
ass
oc
iate
d
ar
ch
ae-
olo
gic
al
dis
co
ver
ies
sou
rces
Huto
uli
ang
114� 90 E
,40� 1
00 N
Po
tsh
erds
on
ly,
flat
bo
tto
m
No
dat
aN
odat
aSan
dY
ello
wis
hre
dP
lain
or
nai
l-pre
ssed
mar
k
11,8
70G
1720
**
Fla
ked
stone
too
ls,
mic
robla
des
Guo
and
Li
2000;
Tan
g1997
Dongh
ulin
115� 5
40 E
,39� 3
70 N
Pots
her
ds,
po
t?Sla
b buildin
g?
No
dat
aC
rush
edquar
tzB
row
nis
hre
dM
ainly
pla
in,
occ
asio
nal
lyw
ith
relief
10,3
50
–9960
Fla
ked
and
gro
un
dst
on
eto
ols
,bone
imple
men
ts,
anim
alre
mai
ns
and
shel
ls,
buri
al,
hea
rths
Zhao
etal
.2003
Nan
zhu
ang-
tou
115� 3
60 E
,39� N
Po
tan
dja
r,so
me
wit
hch
arco
al
No
dat
a0.8
–1
cmC
rush
edsh
ell
and
quar
tz
Gra
yor
bro
wn
Co
rd-m
ark,
relief
,occ
asio
nal
lyin
cisi
on
10,5
00
–9700
Sto
ne,
wood
and
gro
und
org
anic
arti
fact
s,an
imal
bones
and
shel
ls
Guo
and
Li
2000
(Con
tinued
)
Xia
nre
n-
dong,
Dia
oto
ng-
hu
an
117� 1
30 E
,28� 4
40 N
Pots
her
ds,
rou
nd-
and
flat
-bott
om
ves
sels
Sla
b buildin
g,
then
coil
ing
0.7
– 1.2
cmC
rush
ed,
un-s
ieved
quar
tzo
rfe
ldsp
ar
Dar
k,
reddis
hor
gra
yis
hbro
wn
Mar
ks
of
pla
nts
,notc
hin
glips,
and
pu
nct
u-
atin
gfr
om
the
insi
de
out
13,5
00
–11,8
00
#Sto
ne
and
bone
arti
fact
s,ri
cephyto
lith
,an
dsh
ells
Mac
Nei
shet
al.
1998;
Zhan
g2000
Yuch
anyan
111� 3
00 E
,25� 3
00 N
Po
tsh
erds
reco
n-
stru
cted
toa
fu
Sla
b buildin
g?
Up
to2
cmC
har
coal
,cr
ush
edquar
tzan
dsa
nd
Mix
eddar
kbro
wn
and
red
Co
rd-m
ark
on
inte
rior
and
exte
rior
sides
13,5
03
–11,2
52,
or
appro
xi-
mat
ely
18,0
00?
Sto
ne
and
bone
arti
fact
s,ri
ce,
anim
albones
,an
dsh
ells
,et
c.
Boar
etto
etal
.2009;
Yuan
2000
*C
alib
rate
dby
apply
ing
Cal
ib3
pro
gra
m(S
tuiv
eret
al.
1998).
**
This
isa
ther
molu
min
esce
nce
dat
e,te
sted
by
the
labora
tory
inth
eC
hin
ese
Univ
ersi
tyof
Hong
Kong
(Tan
g1997).
#D
ates
sugge
sted
by
Mac
Nei
shet
al.
1998.
Ta
ble
2.
Ea
rly
Po
tter
yF
ou
nd
inS
ou
thC
hin
a
site
loc
ati
on
type
of
ves
sel
form
ing
met
ho
ds
thic
kn
ess
of
wa
lls
inc
lusi
on
sc
olo
r
dec
ora
tio
n
an
dm
ark
s
abs
olu
te
da
te
(b.p
.)*
ass
oc
iate
d
arc
ha
e-
olo
gic
al
dis
co
ver
ies
sou
rces
Niu
lan-
dong
113� 2
70 E
,24� 2
00 N
Pots
her
ds,
round-
bott
om
fuan
dpot?
Han
dpin
chin
g?
0.3
–1.1
cmC
rush
edqu
artz
and
san
dm
easu
red
up
to0.9
cm
Dar
kbro
wn
tobla
ckC
ord
-mar
kor
pla
in10,0
00
–9000
Sto
ne
and
bone
arti
fact
s,ri
cephyto
lith
,an
dsh
ells
Yin
gde
Cit
yM
use
um
etal
.1999
Mia
oyan
110� 1
60 E
,25� 1
60 N
Pla
in pots
her
ds
No
dat
aN
odat
aC
har
coal
and
coar
sely
cru
shed
qu
artz
Gra
yish
bro
wn
Pla
in;
som
ebea
rch
arco
alre
sidue
on
the
surf
ace
Cir
ca 15,0
00?
Fla
ked
peb
ble
too
ls,
shel
ls,
and
anim
albones
.
Chen
1999
Zen
g-
piy
an110� 1
50 E
,25� 1
80 N
Pots
her
ds,
round-
bott
om
fuon
lyin
phas
eI;
fuan
dpot
inphas
eII
Pin
chin
g/
dra
win
gU
pto
2.9
–3.6
cmat
the
earl
yst
age
Cru
shed
calc
ite
and
quar
tzof
var
yin
gsi
zes
Gra
yish
bro
wn
Cord
-mar
kon
inte
rior
and
exte
rior;
appliqué
and
inci
sion
late
rocc
urr
ed
12,0
00
–10,0
00
Sto
ne
and
bone
arti
fact
s,buri
als,
and
shells
Fu
2004;
Inst
itute
of
Arc
hae
olo
gy
CA
SS
etal
.2003
(Con
tinued
)
Day
an110� 1
40 E
,25� 1
70 N
Fir
edcl
ayan
dpla
inpots
her
ds;
aro
und-
bott
om
fu.
Pin
chin
g2
–3
cmC
rush
edca
lcit
ean
dquar
tzof
var
yin
gsi
zes
Red
or
gra
yish
bro
wn
Pla
in;
one
bea
rsch
arco
alre
sidue
on
the
surf
ace
Cir
ca 12,0
00
–10,0
00
Fla
ked
peb
ble
too
ls,
gro
un
dbone
arti
fact
s,buri
als,
shel
ls.
Fu
2004
Liy
uzu
i109� 2
40 E
,24� 1
80 N
Pots
her
ds,
on
eves
sel
foot
No
dat
a0.2
–0.9
cmN
/AR
edan
dbla
ckC
ord
-mar
kC
irca 10,0
00
Sto
ne
and
bone
arti
fact
s,sh
ells
.
He
1988;
Yuan
1993
Din
g-
sish
an108� 3
00 E
,22� 6
70 N
Pots
her
ds,
round-
bott
om
fu
No
dat
a1
cmþ
Coar
seca
lcit
epar
ticl
es
Gra
yish
yel
low
surf
ace,
dar
kor
dar
kbro
wn
inte
rior
Cord
-mar
kan
dap
pliqué
Cir
ca 10,0
00
Tek
tite
and
sandst
on
eto
ols
Fu
2004
*D
ates
sugge
sted
by
the
exca
vato
rsof
the
asse
mbla
ges
asra
dio
carb
on
dat
ing
inlim
esto
ne
area
sis
pro
ble
mat
ic.
Discovered on a terrace of the Sanggan River in Hebei Province, North Chinain the 1990s, the Hutouliang ceramics are fragments of flat-bottomed vessels firedin very low temperatures and without decoration, associated with microblades,microcores, flaked stone implements, ornaments made of shell and antler, bonesof wolf, wild horse, boar, deer, ox, wild goat, and several species of rodents, aswell as the remains of three hearths (Guo and Li 2000). The potsherds have beenproposed to represent fragments of containers dated to around 11,000 years ago(Guo and Li 2000).
Found in the late 1980s and dated to approximately 10,000 to 9000 years ago,the Nanzhuangtou potsherds consist of two di¤erent types of pottery, althoughboth are fired at low temperatures. The first type is crumbled and grayish withcrushed tiny pieces of shell and quartz as inclusions, and cord-mark or appliqué asdecorations, while the second type comprises yellowish brown potsherds of rela-tively more solid walls without decoration (Guo and Li 2000). Other findings atNanzhuangtou include stone grinding slabs and rollers, ground bone arrowheads,drills, and the remains of deer, rodent, wolf, bird, fish, tortoise and shells, as wellas two pits and two hearths (Guo and Li 2000). Charcoal remains have beenfound on the surface of some potsherds (Guo and Li 2000), indicating a possiblecooking function.
Stone and organic artifacts similar to those found in Nanzhuangtou, plus flakedstone tools and shells, large quantities of deer bones and shells, traces of a hearth,and a burial, were found in Donghulin in the 1990s (Zhao et al. 2003). Probablybuilt by slab building with quartz grains as tempering agent, the plain Donghulinpotsherds have been dated to approximately 10,000 years ago (Zhao et al. 2003).
Apparently, potsherds found in the above three sites in North China are asso-ciated with two di¤erent stone toolkits. While the Hutouliang pottery is asso-ciated with the microblade tradition dated from the terminal Pleistocene to theMiddle Holocene in North China, the Japanese Archipelago, and NortheastAmerica (i.e., Gai 1991; Smith 1974), the Nanzhuangtou and Donghulin pot-sherds are discovered together with grinding slabs and rollers, as well as otherstone and organic implements, but without the microblades. Obviously, early pot-tery was produced by prehistoric groups using di¤erent toolkits, although it is notclear at this stage whether the di¤erent toolkits indicate di¤erent subsistence strat-egies.
A similar phenomenon can also be observed in Japan, where early potterydecorated with appliqué is associated with two major lithic traditions, namelythe microblade tradition and the bifacial-flake tradition, the latter sometimeswith edge-ground axes (Ikawa-Smith 1976 : 513). In North China’s context, themicroblade tradition is a toolkit primarily for hunting-gathering activities, butmicroblades with grinding slabs and rollers may indicate a broad spectrum subsis-tence strategy with the possibility of developing into cereal cultivation (Lu 1998).However, while the Hutouliang lithic assemblage seems to suggest that the groupprimarily lived on hunting and gathering, the presence of pottery, if really servingas a storage facility, might suggest a certain degree of sedentism. As the Hutou-liang excavation report has not been published, further discussion is not possibleat this stage.
Grinding slabs and rollers, on the other hand, were often used by people col-lecting and/or cultivating grass seeds in prehistoric North China (Lu 1999, 2006).
asian perspectives . 49(1) . spring 20106
Although details of the Nanzhuangtou and Donghulin sites are not yet available,the toolkits found in the two sites suggest that grass exploitation might have beenpart of the subsistence strategies, while the burial at Donghulin with grave goodsindicates the possibility of sedentism.
Early pottery has also been found in Xianrendong and Diaotonghuan in JiangxiProvince, Yuchanyan in Hunan Province, and Shangshan in Zhejiang Province,all located in the Yangzi River Valley (Table 1; Jiang and Liu 2006; Yan 2000).The potsherds of Xianrendong and Diaotonghuan are dated to more than 12,000years ago (Zhang 2000), the Yuchanyan potsherds, previously dated to between12,320G 120 and 14,810G 230 years ago (Yuan 2000), have now been dated to18,000 years ago (Boaretto et al. 2009), and the Shangshan potsherds are dated toapproximately 10,000–9000 years ago ( Jiang and Liu 2006).
Xianrendong, Diaotonghuan, and Yuchanyan are all cave sites, and the stonetoolkits found in these sites consist of both pebble tools and small flaked toolsmade of quartz, flint, and crystal. Large quantities of terrestrial animal, fish, andbird remains have been found in the three sites, as well as rice phytoliths (Yuan2000; Zhang 2000; Zhao 1998). Zhao (1998) has argued that the early Xianren-dong and Diaotonghuan occupants were rice collectors, and the succeeding oc-cupants became rice cultivators, while Yuan (2000) also argues for rice cultivationat Yuchanyan.
Shangshan, on the other hand, is an open site located on a small mound in theYangzi Delta. Discovered in 2001 and excavated since then, the site has yieldedpits, postholes, flaked stone tools, stone balls, grinding slabs, and pottery vesselswith rice husks as inclusions ( Jiang and Liu 2006). It has been argued that Shang-shan was a sedentary site and rice was domesticated ( Jiang and Liu 2006). It seemsthat early pottery found in the Yangzi River Valley were produced and used byprehistoric groups, who were probably rice collectors and/or cultivators.
While early pottery found in the Yellow and the Yangzi River Valleys mighthave facilitated grass seed processing and consumption, which in turn acceleratedextensive grass-seed collection as a prelude to cultivation (Lu 1999, 2005), potteryfound in the Russian Far East might have related to fishing and fish oil processing,and those found in the Japanese Archipelago might have been used for cookingvarious food ingredients and processing nuts (Ikawa-Smith 1976; Tsutsumi 2000).In summary, early ceramics were manufactured and used, more or less contem-poraneously, by groups living on diversified subsistence strategies in geographicregions from cold-temperate, temperate, and subtropical to tropical ecozones inprehistoric East Asia after the Last Glacial Maximum, and served various functions(Lu 2005), manifesting the diversity of human cultures adapting to di¤erentenvironments.
It is also worth noting that the early pottery in North China and the JapaneseArchipelago occurred after the florescence of the microblade tradition, the latterexemplifying not only a technical development of e‰ciently utilizing naturalresources for tool making, but also a broad-spectrum subsistence strategy, includ-ing the collection of nuts and/or wild grasses, in the period between the terminalPleistocene and the early Holocene (Ikawa-Smith 1976; Lu 1999, 2005). InNorth China, early pottery is also associated with grinding slabs and rollers. Allthese are important cultural changes in the transitional period from the terminalPleistocene to the early Holocene in East Asia (Lu 1999, 2005). Further, the
lu . early pottery in south china 7
occurrences of early pottery in so many geographically and climatically di¤erentregions in East Asia may suggest prehistoric human diaspora and/or culturalexchanges, which is an issue requiring considerable in-depth typological studiesand NAA analysis of pottery in the future.
Undoubtedly, early ceramics found in all the above sites are very important,and those found in the Yellow and the Yangzi River Valleys might have relatedto the origin of agriculture. However, details of the aforementioned archaeologi-cal sites in the Yellow and the Yangzi Valleys have not been published. There-fore, this article will focus on the natural and cultural contexts, the chronology,and the characteristics of the early pottery found in South China dated to approx-imately 12,000–10,000 years ago, and the driving force and significance of the or-igin of pottery in respect to the prehistoric cultural developments in South Chinaand adjacent areas. Although pottery in South China may not be the earliest interms of absolute dates, it illustrates the process of the origin and development ofpottery in the prehistoric epoch in this region in terms of both manufacturingtechnique and typological evolution. Thus an analysis of the early pottery inSouth China will provide new insights for our understanding of the origin anddevelopment of pottery in East Asia.
the natural context
In this article, South China refers to the present administrative areas south of theFive Mountain Range, consisting of the present Guangdong, Guangxi, Fujian,and Hainan Provinces, and the two special administrative regions of Hong Kongand Macau (Zhang and Fu 1997) (see Fig. 1). Generally speaking, this is a sub-tropical to tropical landmass, with a precipitation of over 1600 mm, and very richand diversified natural resources (Zhang and Fu 1997). Geographically, both thenorthern and central areas of South China are hilly with limestone bedrocks andcaves, but the southern part is quite flat. The Pearl River, which is the majorwater resource in this area, runs through the southern part of South China (Fig.1). In the northern part, there are several small rivers and streams, like the ZiRiver and the Hongshui River, which are tributaries of the Yangzi and the PearlRiver, respectively (Fig. 1). These rivers are channels for human diaspora and cul-tural exchange within South China and between South China and adjacent areas.
Since the 1980s, many scholars have been working on the prehistoric environ-ment and human exploitation of natural resources in this area. Pollen analysishas been conducted at the Niulandong, Miaoyan, Zengpiyan, and Dingsishanarchaeological sites, as well as in other natural deposits in Guangdong, Guangxi,and Hainan Provinces (i.e., Chen 1999; Lu 2003a; Yuan et al. 1999; Zheng2000). Stalagmitic analysis has been conducted in several caves in northern SouthChina. Animal remains discovered in several caves also provide useful information.
The results of these analyses indicate that, after the Last Glacial Maximum, theclimate in South China gradually became mild and warm (Liu 1997; Lu 2003a,2008; Zheng 2000). There was a sudden cool change at around 11,000 years agocomparable to the Younger Dryas in Europe, but the temperature increased andreached a similar level to that of the present by 10,000 years ago (ibid.). Ever-green and deciduous trees, various species of fern, and the grass family have beenfound in both natural and archaeological deposits dated from 12,000 years on-
asian perspectives . 49(1) . spring 20108
ward, many of which bear edible seeds, nuts, stems, leaves, or roots, or can beused for medical treatments or textile manufacturing (Lu 2003a, 2008; Zheng2000).
Remains of tubers, including taro [Colocasia sp. (L.) Sohott], have been dis-covered in cultural deposits dated from 12,000 to 7000 years ago in the Zengpi-yan cave by flotation and starch residue analysis, although a more precise identifi-cation of wild or domesticated species is not feasible (Lu 2003b; Zhao 2003).Flotation and pollen analysis suggest that there were more than 20 genera and/orspecies of plants, including Asian plum (Prunus mume Sieb et Zucc), Alchornea,hickory (Carya sp.), wild grape (Vitis sp.), Castanopsis, bamboo (Bambuscideae),legumes (Leguminosae), crucifers (Cruciferae), several other species of the grassfamily (Gramieae), pine (Pinus sp.), acorn (Quercus sp.), soapberry and soapnuts(Sapindus sp.), tree ferns (Cibotium sp.), and a few species of ferns available toprehistoric peoples (Lu 2003b, 2009a; Zhao 2003). These plants would have pro-vided edible parts, being tubers, fruits, leaves, or seeds, in di¤erent seasons to pre-historic people in South China.
Zooarchaeological studies conducted at Niulandong, Miaoyan, and Zengpiyanalso manifest very rich animal species in the region. Based on published data, themost commonly found species in archaeological deposits in South China areseveral species of deer and freshwater shellfish (Yingde City Museum et al. 1999;Institute of Archaeology CASS et al. 2003; Zhang et al. 1999) (Table 3). At
Fig. 1. Archaeological sites mentioned in the text: 1. Xianrendong, Diaotonghuan; 2. Yuchanyan;3–5. Dayan, Zengpiyan, and Miaoyan, all in the present Guilin City; 6. Niulandong; 7. Liyuzui;8. Dingsishan.
lu . early pottery in south china 9
Ta
ble
3.
Fa
un
ao
fth
eT
erm
ina
lP
leis
toc
ene
inN
ort
her
nS
ou
thC
hin
a
spec
ies
eng
lish
na
me
zen
gpi
ya
ni
zen
gpi
ya
nii
mia
oy
an
niu
lan
do
ng
ha
bita
ta
nd
ch
ara
cte
rist
ics
Inver
tebra
teU
nio
nid
aeFre
shw
ater
clam
sR
iver
s,st
ream
s,an
dpon
ds
Unio
dougl
asia
eþ
þþ
Cuneo
psis
subc
eltifo
rmis
sp.
þC
uneo
psis
zhe
npi
yane
nsi
ssp
.þ
Lam
prot
ula
obov
ata
sp.
þL
ampr
otula
leai
þþ
þL
ance
olar
iagr
ayan
aþ
þþ
Lan
ceol
aria
fruhs
torfer
iþ
Pse
udo
don
resu
pinat
us
þM
arga
ritian
asp
.þ
þC
orb
iculidae
Cla
ms
Cor
bicu
laob
trunca
tasp
.sp
.þ
Cor
bicu
laoa
bunca
þV
ivip
arid
aeFre
shw
ater
shel
lsC
ipan
gopa
ludi
na
chin
ensi
sþ
þC
ipan
gopa
ludi
na
chin
ensi
sfiu
min
alis
þþ
þ
Cip
ango
palu
dina
chin
ensi
slo
ngis
pira
þþ
þ
Bel
lam
yasp
.þ
þþ
Viv
ipar
us
sp.
þþ
Dec
apoda
Cra
bþ
Riv
ers,
stre
ams,
and
pon
ds
Tota
lin
tert
ebra
te10
10
14
Ver
tebra
teP
isce
sFis
hþ
þR
iver
s,st
ream
s,an
dpon
ds
Cypri
nid
aeC
arps
þþ
Chel
on
iaT
rionych
idae
Soft
shel
ltu
rtle
sþ
þR
iver
s,st
ream
s,ponds,
and
wet
land
(Con
tinued
)
Aves
Bir
ds
þþ
Ard
eidae
Ard
easp
.H
eron
þA
nat
idae
Anse
rsp
.G
oose
þP
has
ianid
aeþ
Gal
lus
sp.
Wild
chic
ken
þP
hasi
anus
sp.
Ph
easa
nt
þC
ora
chfo
rmes
Eury
stom
us
cf.
orie
nta
lis
Eas
tern
bro
ad-
bille
dro
ller
þ
Aves
indet
.þ
Mam
mal
iaM
amm
als
Inse
ctiv
ora
Inse
ctiv
ore
sC
roci
dura
ssp
.þ
Riv
ers,
stre
ams,
ponds,
and
wet
land
Chir
opte
raB
ats
Cav
esIa
ioþ
Hip
posi
dero
sar
miq
erþ
Pri
mat
esH
ylob
ates
sp.
Gib
bon
þSubtr
opic
alfo
rest
,lo
wla
nd,
and
hills
Mac
aca
mula
tta
Short
-tai
lm
acaq
ue
sp.
sp.
þ"
"
Roden
tia
Apo
dem
usFie
ldm
ou
seþ
Var
ious:
step
pe,
dry
land,
etc.
Mic
rotu
sbr
andt
ioid
esþ
Mic
rom
yscf.
Min
utu
sE
ura
sian
har
ves
tm
ouse
þ
Rat
tus
sp.
Rat
þþ
þH
um
anco
mm
ensa
lR
attu
scd
uar
dsi
þN
iviv
ente
rfu
lves
cens
Ches
tnu
tw
hit
e-bel
lied
rat
þ
Hys
trix
brac
hynra
subr
ista
taþ
þsp
.þ
Subtr
opic
alar
ea
(Con
tinued
)
Ta
ble
3(C
ontinued
)
spec
ies
eng
lish
na
me
zen
gpi
ya
ni
zen
gpi
ya
nii
mia
oy
an
niu
lan
do
ng
ha
bita
ta
nd
ch
ara
cte
rist
ics
Ath
eruru
ssp
.R
atþ
þR
hizom
yssi
nen
sis
Bam
boo
rat
þþ
sp.
sp.
Subtr
opic
albam
boo
stan
ds
Lep
ori
dae
Var
ious:
step
pe,
fore
stL
epus
sp.
Har
eþ
þþ
þM
amm
alia
Mam
mal
sC
arniv
ora
þþ
Can
idae
Ailuro
poda
mel
anol
euca
fove
alis
Gia
nt
pan
da
þB
amboo
and
fore
st
Urs
us
thib
etan
usB
lack
bea
rþ
þM
ois
tdec
iduo
us
fore
stA
rcto
nyx
collar
isH
og
bad
ger
þþ
þFo
rest
up
to3500
mel
evat
ion.
Wei
ght
714
kg
Viv
erra
sp.
Ori
enta
lci
vet
þFo
rest
,bush
/mea
dow
s.W
eight
5–
11
kg.
Lutr
asp
.R
iver
ott
ers
þFre
shw
ater
river
san
dst
ream
sP
anth
era
tigr
isT
iger
þþ
Fo
rest
tosa
van
na.
Pan
ther
asp
.L
eopar
dþ
Var
ious
Vulp
essp
.F
ox
þH
illy
/fore
star
eas
Must
ela
sp.
Po
leca
tþ
þþ
Ste
ppe
Viv
erri
cula
mal
acen
sis
foss
ilis
Ras
seþ
Fo
rest
,bush
/mea
dow
s.W
eight
2–
4kg
Pag
um
asp
.M
asked
pal
mci
vet
þ(S
ub)t
ropic
alfo
rest
Fel
iste
mm
inck
iG
old
cat
þV
ario
us
Fel
ism
icro
dus
Sm
all
wild
cat
sp.
sp.
sp.
þN
ycte
reute
spr
ocyo
noi
des
Rac
coo
ndo
gþ
þþ
sp.
Riv
erval
ley,
fore
st,
and
step
pe
Mel
esm
eles
Bad
ger
þFo
rest
and
den
sely
veg
etat
edar
eas
Art
iodac
tyla
Bovi
nae
Buba
lus
sp.
Bu¤
alo
þþ
þM
ois
tbush
/fore
stB
ison
sp.
Ox
þ
(Con
tinued
)
Cer
vus
uni
colo
rSam
bar
þþ
Var
ious.
Pre
fer
wooded
area
.W
eight
109
–260
kg
Cer
vus
nip
pon
Sik
adee
rþ
þFo
rest
/gra
ss.
Wei
gh
t26
–33
kg
Cer
vus
sp.
AL
arge
dee
rþ
þW
oo
dla
nd
of
tem
p.–
subtr
opic
al.
Wei
ght
45
–109
kg
Cer
vus
sp.
BM
ediu
m-s
ized
dee
rþ
þ
Cer
vus
sp.
CSm
all-
size
ddee
r1
þþ
Cer
vus
sp.
DSm
all-
size
ddee
r2
þL
ijia
ngo
ceru
ssp
ecio
sus
Lijia
ng
dee
rþ
Hyd
ropo
tes
sp.
Chin
ese
wat
erdee
rþ
(Sub)t
ropic
alri
ver
/lak
esid
eor
gra
ssy
mounta
ins
Pse
uda
xis
sp.
þM
untiac
us
muntjak
Muntj
acþ
þFo
rest
/den
seveg
etat
edar
eas
wit
hw
ater
Cap
rinae
indet
.þ
Cap
rico
rnis
sum
atra
ensi
sSum
antr
ase
row
þsp
.R
ugged
mounta
ins/
fore
stri
dge/
bush
Sus
scro
faW
ild
boar
þFo
rest
Sus
sp.
þþ
þþ
Tota
lver
tebra
te23
24
16
37
Tota
lsp
ecie
s33
*34
*30
**
37
**
*
Sourc
es:
Chen
1999;
Inst
itute
of
Arc
hae
olo
gy
CA
SS
etal
.2003;
Zhan
get
al.
1999.
*O
nly
spec
ies
found
inth
efi
rst
and
seco
nd
phas
esof
Zen
gpiy
anar
elist
edher
e.A
tota
lof
47
spec
ies
of
shell,
20
spec
ies
of
bir
d,
37
spec
ies
of
mam
mal
,plu
sfi
sh,
etc.
,hav
ebee
nfo
und
inth
ew
hole
stra
tum
atZ
engp
iyan
,to
taling
108
spec
ies.
**
Ther
ear
efo
ur
laye
rsin
Mia
oyan
but
the
cult
ura
lch
ronolo
gy
isno
tre
port
ed.
The
spec
ies
list
edher
ear
efr
om
the
whole
stra
tum
.*
**
Only
mam
mal
shav
ebee
nre
port
edfo
rth
eN
iula
ndong
Cav
e.
Ta
ble
4.
Co
mpa
rin
gP
ott
ery
Ves
sels
an
dA
sso
cia
ted
Arc
ha
eolo
gic
al
Rem
ain
sin
the
Ya
ng
ziR
iver
Va
lley
an
dS
ou
thC
hin
a
the
ya
ng
ziri
ver
va
lley
sou
thc
hin
a
site
s/d
ate
pott
ery
type
s
ass
oc
iate
d
arc
ha
eolo
gic
al
rem
ain
ssi
tes/
da
tepo
tter
yv
esse
ls
ass
oc
iate
da
rch
aeo
log
ica
l
rem
ain
s
Xia
nre
ndon
gC
ave,
pre
-cer
amic
,18,0
00
–14,0
00
b.p.
?
Not
pre
sent
Fla
ked
peb
ble
tools
,sm
all
lith
icflak
es,
pie
rced
shel
lan
dgro
und
bone
imple
men
ts
Day
anC
ave,
Phas
eI;
Upper
Pal
aeolith
ic,
15,0
00
b.p.
?
Not
pre
sen
tF
laked
unif
acia
lpeb
ble
too
ls,
smal
lam
ount
of
anim
albones
and
fres
hw
ater
shel
ls
Xia
nre
ndon
g,
13,0
00
b.p.
?T
ransi
tional
?
No
rest
ora
ble
ves
sels
Peb
ble
and
smal
llith
icflak
es,
gro
und
bon
ean
dpie
rced
shel
lto
ols
,ri
cephyto
lith
,sh
ells
,an
imal
bones
,et
c.
Day
anP
has
eII
,13,0
00
–12,0
00
b.p.
;tr
ansi
tion
alper
iod
Tw
opie
ces
of
fire
clay
Peb
ble
tools
,gro
und
bone
and
pie
rced
shel
lto
ols
,sh
ells
,w
ild
anim
albones
,tw
oflex
edbu
rial
sw
ith
ou
tgra
ve
go
ods
Yuch
anyan
Cav
e,13,0
00
–12,0
00
or
18,0
00
b.p.
?
Round-b
ott
om
fu,
wal
lsu
pto
2cm
thic
k;
incl
usi
ons—
char
coal
and
quar
tz;
cord
-mar
kon
inte
rio
ran
dex
teri
or
Peb
ble
and
smal
llith
icflak
es,
gro
und
bon
ean
dpie
rced
shel
lim
ple
men
ts,
rice
husk
and
ph
ytolith
,sh
ells
,an
imal
bones
,et
c.
Day
an,
Phas
eII
I,Z
engpiy
anP
has
eI,
Mia
oyan
,12,0
00
–11,0
00
b.p.
?
Round-b
ott
om
fuby
han
dpin
chin
g,w
alls
up
to3.6
cmth
ick;
cord
-mar
k‘‘w
iped
out’’
Peb
ble
tools
,gro
und
bone
and
pie
rced
shel
lto
ols
,sh
ells
,w
ild
anim
albones
and
pla
nts
;ri
cephyto
lith
Shan
gsh
an,
open
site
,Z
hej
iang,
10,0
00
–8000
b.p.
?
Fu,
pot,
big
bas
ins
wit
hflar
ing
up
fro
ma
smal
lan
dflat
bott
om
;so
me
wit
hco
rd-m
ark,
stam
pin
g,
and
inci
sio
n
Fla
kes
and
peb
ble
tools
,so
me
gro
und
too
ls;
rem
ains
of
pile
hole
s,ri
cephyto
lith
,gra
ins,
etc.
Zen
gpiy
anP
has
eII
,D
ingsi
shan
Phas
eI,
10,0
00
–9000
b.p.
Fu
and/o
rro
und-
bott
om
po
t;sl
abbuildin
g;in
clusi
on-
calc
ite;
cord
-mar
k;
appliqué
and
inci
sion
Peb
ble
tools
,gro
und
bone
and
pie
rced
shel
lto
ols
,sh
ells
,w
ild
anim
albones
;te
kti
teflak
esfo
und
inD
ingsi
shan
(Con
tinued
)
Pen
gto
ush
anan
dB
ashid
ang
9000
–8000
b.p.
Pla
nt
asin
clusi
on;
fuan
dro
un
d-b
ott
om
po
t,st
and,
pla
te,
bow
l,bas
in,
dis
h,
and
trip
od
ves
sels
;han
dpin
chin
gan
dsl
abbu
ildin
g
Fla
ked
and
gro
und
ston
eto
ols
,ri
cegra
ins,
dom
esti
cate
d(?
)pig
,ox,
and
chic
ken
,w
ild
anim
alan
dfi
shbo
nes,
ho
use
s/vi
llag
e,bu
rial
sw
ith
sto
ne
or
po
tter
yas
gra
ve
goods;
pro
tect
ive
dit
ch
Day
anP
has
eIV
,Z
engpiy
anP
has
eII
I,9000
–8000
b.p.
Fu
and/o
rro
und-
bott
om
pot;
calc
ite
and
quar
tzas
incl
usi
ons;
cord
-m
ark;
appliqué
and
inci
sion;
rela
tivel
yhig
hfi
ring
tem
per
ature
Peb
ble
tools
,occ
urr
ence
of
gro
un
dst
one
axe
and
adze
,gro
un
dbone
and
pie
rced
shel
lto
ols
;w
ild
anim
albo
nes
and
fres
hw
ater
shel
ls
Zao
shi
and
Hujiaw
uch
ang
8000
–7000
b.p.
Fin
epott
ery;
whit
e,gra
yis
hw
hit
e,an
dpai
nte
dpott
ery;
pla
tew
ith
ring
foo
t,po
ts,
fu,
bas
in,
dis
h,
bo
wl,
lid
and
stan
d
Gro
und
stone
axes
,kniv
es,
adze
s,ch
isel
s;ri
cere
mai
ns,
dom
esti
cate
d(?
)pig
,w
ater
bu
¤al
o,
go
at;
wild
anim
alan
dfi
shbones
,sh
ells
,house
s;kiln?
Zen
gpiy
anP
has
eIV
,D
ingsi
shan
Phas
esII
and
III,
8000
–7000
b.p.
Fu,
rou
nd-b
ott
om
pot;
tech
niq
ues
sim
ilar
topre
vio
us
on
es;
wal
lsth
inner
;on
lyco
rd-m
ark
pre
sent
Peb
ble
and
gro
und
tools
,gr
ound
bone
and
pie
rced
shel
lto
ols
;w
ild
anim
albon
esan
dsh
ells
;fo
ur
squ
atti
ng
buri
als
wit
ho
ut
gra
ve
goo
ds
bu
tw
ith
sto
nes
(Zen
gpiy
an);
vari
ous
buri
als
atD
ings
ishan
wit
hlim
ited
gra
ve
goods
Tan
gjia
gan
g6600
–6200
b.p.
Fu,
pot,
urn
,bas
in,
pla
te,
hig
h-f
oote
dcu
p,
bo
wls
,tr
ipo
dves
sel,
stan
dan
dlid
Fla
ked
and
gro
und
ston
eax
es,
adze
s,ch
isel
s,sp
ades
,ab
rader
s,sp
indle
whorl
s;buri
als
wit
hpott
ery
asm
ajor
gra
ve
goods
Day
anP
has
eV
,Z
engpiy
anP
has
eV
,7000
–6000
b.p.
Fin
epott
ery;
fu,
pot,
pla
tes
wit
hri
ng
foot,
bow
ls,
bas
ins,
stan
ds
Gro
und
ston
eto
ols
;ei
ght
flex
edbu
rial
sw
ith
sto
ne,
bo
ne,
and
shel
lto
ols
asgra
vegoods
inD
ayan
;n
opott
ery
bu
ried
wit
hth
edea
d
Dax
i6400
–5300
b.p.
Fu
,pot,
jar,
bas
in,
bow
l,pla
te,
etc.
Open
site
s;gro
und
stone
tools
;ho
use
s,buri
als
wit
hgra
ve
goods
Din
gsi
shan
Ph
ase
IV,
Xia
ojin
Phas
eII
,6000
–5000
b.p.
Gra
yis
hw
hit
ece
ram
icD
om
esti
cate
dri
ce.
Wel
l-gr
ound
sto
ne
too
ls.
Ric
egra
ins
and
phyto
lith
Sourc
es:
Fu
2004;
Hunan
Inst
itute
of
Arc
hae
olo
gy
1993,
1999;
Jian
gan
dL
iu2006.
Miaoyan, more than 65 percent of animal bones are remains of several species ofdeer, dominated by sika deer and sambar (Zhang et al. 1999 : 187). The quantityof shell remains increased substantially in Dayan, Zengpiyan, and other depositsdated to after 12,000 years ago, suggesting that shellfish became an importantfood resource for human beings (Table 4). It seems that there were abundant ter-restrial animals and freshwater shellfish as resources for people living in SouthChina after the Last Glacial Maximum.
To summarize, the natural context of early pottery in South China was a sub-tropical to tropical environment with rich and diversified natural resources. Theprehistoric residents in this area could have exploited plant and animal species liv-ing in di¤erent habitats and available in di¤erent seasons. Based on the author’sexperiments, if a person relied on plant roots (taro, yam, and bamboo shoots,etc.) and shellfish as his/her staple food, he/she only needed to spend about 2–3hours daily on subsistence activities, and any return from hunting would be anextra bonus (Lu 2006). It seems that people living in South China from the ter-minal Pleistocene to the early Holocene were ‘‘a¿uent foragers’’ supported byabundant and relatively easy access to diversified natural resources, the seasonalityof which would have been quite stable.
the archaeological context
Based on archaeological discoveries to date, the peopling of South China can betraced back to at least the Pleistocene era (Xie 2006). The archaeological remainsdated from the Middle to the Upper Pleistocene in South China are characterizedby pebble tools made by direct percussion (He 1988), which belonged to thepebble tool industry in the vast areas from the Yangzi River Valley to mainlandSoutheast Asia and lasted well into the Holocene in South China.
Archaeological data presented in this article come primarily from several ar-chaeological sites discovered since the 1980s, and dated from the terminal Pleisto-cene to the early Holocene in South China, namely the cave sites of Dayan, Liyu-zui, Niulandong, Miaoyan, and Zengpiyan in the north, and the shellmidden siteDingsishan in the south (Table 2). All of the cave sites are situated in hilly areas,whereas Dingsishan is located on top of a terrace along the Yong River near thepresent Nanning City, Guangxi Province. Based on the stratigraphies and findingsof these sites, a chronology of the local archaeological cultures in this area can beproposed.
The terminal Pleistocene of about 15,000 years ago can be illustrated by thebottom deposit of Dayan, in which unifacial pebble tools produced by direct per-cussion and a small amount of animal bones and freshwater shells have been dis-covered. In the succeeding layers dated to between 13,000 and 12,000 years ago,pebble tools still dominated, but grinding occurred as a new technique and wasinitially used to produce bone and shell implements, associated with two piecesof fired clay. A small amount of animal bone and shell have also been found.This phase is defined as a transitional period from the Palaeolithic to the Neo-lithic, characterized by the occurrence of grinding techniques and fired clay (Fu2004). Flaked pebble tools and ground bone and pierced shell implements havebeen found in layers dated to 12,000 and 10,000 years ago in both Dayan and the
asian perspectives . 49(1) . spring 201016
bottom layer of Zengpiyan, as well as substantial amount of animal and shell re-mains, and early pottery (Fu 2004) (Table 2).
Thus the toolkit associated with early pottery in South China and adjacentareas consists of pebble tools, ground bone tools, and pierced shell implements.This toolkit dominated the prehistoric cultures in this region from approximately12,000 to 7000 years ago (Table 4). The author’s preliminary use-wear analysisindicates that the bone drills might have been used to deal with plant and othersoft materials (Lu 2003c). Meanwhile, the occurrence of pierced shell implementsis also worth noting. Based on ethnographic data in Japan, MacNeish proposedthat the pierced shell implements might have been used to cut grass, even rice(MacNeish 1998 : 19). Recently, rice and millet remains, as well as shell reapingknives, have been found in Taiwan, and a similar function has been assigned tothe shell knives (Tsang 2005). Rice phytoliths have been found in Zengpiyan andthe early phases of Dayan, but it remains unclear whether rice was collected forfood or for other purposes, and the function of the pierced shell implementsrequires further investigation. Nevertheless, these new implements must havebeen made in that period to meet new demands for subsistence strategies and/orother purposes.
Remains of plants, nuts, and animal bone indicate that the prehistoric groups atthis time were mainly hunters and gatherers (Fu 2004; He 1988; Yuan 2000).Two burials have been found in Phase II of the Dayan assemblage, contempora-neous to the fired clay (Fu 2004). No grave goods have been discovered. On theother hand, several natural stones had been placed on the skull and the limbs ofthe dead (Fu et al. 2001), which may indicate some beliefs or rituals not compre-hensible to us at present. This type of burial has also been found in Zengpiyandated to 8000–7000 years ago (Table 4).
Grave goods did not occur in the Guilin area in South China until around7000–6000 years ago (Table 4). Whether the presence of grave goods indicatesreduced mobility, conceptual changes about death and afterlife, or the emergenceof the notion of private ownership, or all of the above; and whether such changeswere the results of local development or cultural contact with other areas, remainunclear. Whatever the case, no grave goods have been found prior to 8000 b.p. inthe Guilin area. While grave goods have been found in Phase V of the Dayanassemblages, which is dated to about 7000 years ago, the quantity and quality ofthese grave goods between burials are not significant.
Further, archaeological data to date suggest that the toolkits and other remainsfound in South China from 12,000 to 7000 years ago were without much changeexcept the occurrence of ground stone tools (Table 4), although the techniques ofmaking these tools as well as making pottery somehow developed during thislong span of time. In Dayan and Zengpiyan, no special treatments, decorations,or any other special labor/e¤orts have been detected on any stone or organicimplements dated prior to 7000 years ago. Thus, none of them can be identifiedas bearing special meanings or symbols, which, if present, may indicate the exis-tence of individuals holding special social status. The artifacts found in Dayan andZengpiyan seem to have been produced by regular methods including direct per-cussion and/or grinding, and have been used for practical purposes by members ofthese groups. Therefore, there seems to be no visible evidence for the occurrence
lu . early pottery in south china 17
of stratified societies in South China before 7000 years ago, when early potterywas manufactured in this region.
In summary, the above archaeological data indicate that, up to the MiddleHolocene or 7000 years ago, the prehistoric societies in northern South Chinawere not stratified, and the early pottery dated to between 12,000 and 10,000years ago was made by egalitarian societies living in caves and subsisting throughhunting and gathering.
early pottery in south china
The origin and development of pottery from fired clay to shaped vessels in prehis-toric South China can be best illustrated by the stratigraphy and associated dis-coveries in Dayan and Zengpiyan (Table 4). As mentioned above, two pieces offired clay have been found in Phase II of the Dayan assemblage, one piece beingcylindrical and another one dish-like with a concave surface (Fu 2004). Althoughnot vessels, they apparently had been manipulated by human beings into certainshapes and had been fired. Details of these two pieces have not been published,but they apparently manifest an attempt to combine clay, water, and fire to pro-duce a new material, and should be viewed as a prelude to the origin of pottery.
After the occurrence of the two fired clay objects, potsherds occurred in PhaseIII in Dayan and Phase I in Zengpiyan, representing the earliest ceramics in SouthChina to date. Pottery of this initial period is characterized by very thick andcrumbled walls up to between 2.9 and 3.6 cm, with un-sieved, often coarse,crushed calcite or quartz as tempering agent, and a cracked surface without in-tended decoration (Fig. 2). The potsherds are built by hand-pinching, and werefired in temperatures of approximately 600–700 �C, with the earliest ones foundin Zengpiyan fired at probably below 250 �C (Fig. 2; Wu et al. 2003). The ear-liest pottery is often plain, but traces of pressed marks of plant stems have beenfound on certain parts of the surface, which might have been remains of the‘‘wiping o¤ ’’ or ‘‘smoothing o¤ ’’ e¤orts made by the prehistoric potters’ hands,signs that these marks were not intended decoration. All of these characteristicsindicate a very initial stage of pottery manufacturing. Based on cross-comparisonbetween potsherds found in the Yangzi River Valley and those in South China, aswell as results of radiocarbon dating, the early pottery manufactured in SouthChina is dated to approximately between 12,000 to 11,000 years ago (Institute ofArchaeology CASS et al. 2003).
The quantity of potsherds found in this early stage is often very limited, andonly one type of round-bottom pot can be reconstructed, known as a fu or potin Chinese archaeology (Fig. 2; Institute of Archaeology CASS et al. 2003). Todate, this type of vessel is the dominant utensil found in all the aforementionedarchaeological assemblages by 7000 years ago in South China. It was not untilaround 7000–6000 years b.p. that other types of pottery vessels occurred in SouthChina, such as jars, plates with a high ring foot, basins, and bowls, the latter threeusually used for serving food. This typological assemblage is quite di¤erent fromthat in the neighboring Yangzi River Valley, where fu also occurred by 12,000years ago or earlier as the only vessel (Yuan 2000), but various pots, bowls, dishes,and plates occurred by 8500 years ago (Pei 2000). This ceramic monomorphismin South China will be discussed further in the following sections.
asian perspectives . 49(1) . spring 201018
Fig. 2. Early pottery found in Zengpiyan, South China. Top: potsherds found in Zengpiyan dated toapproximately 12,000 years ago (not to scale). Bottom: restored fu found in Zengpiyan dated to ap-proximately 12,000 years ago (scale–1 : 3). (Courtesy of Institute of Archaeology CASS et al. 2003)
While potsherds found in Phase III in Dayan and Phase I in Zengpiyan (Table4) represent the initial phase of pottery manufacturing in South China, potsherdsfrom the ensuing Phase II of the Zengpiyan assemblage bear some advanced char-acteristics. Slab building occurred as a new technique for vessel construction inthis period, and became the major technique for pottery manufacturing in thesucceeding Neolithic cultures in the region. The pottery walls were often thin-ner, and the grains of the tempering agent became smaller, although crushedcalcite was still the major material of the latter. The concept of decoration alsomade its appearance during this period, as the marks on pottery surfaces were nolonger ‘‘wiped o¤ ’’ by the potters; further, they seem to be in a relatively regularpattern.
Potsherds with similar characteristics have also been found in other areas innorthern Guangdong and southern Guangxi, such as in the Niulandong andDingsishan sites (Fig. 1), representing the second phase of ceramic developmentin South China. Low relief was present in Dingsishan (Table 4) as a clear indica-tion of decoration. However, when comparing these potsherds found in SouthChina to those found in the Pengtoushan and Bashidang assemblages in the mid-dle Yangzi River Valley, the former still have thicker and more crumbled walls,the inclusions are coarser, and the firing temperature lower. Based on culturalcomparison and radiocarbon dating, the second phase of ceramic development inSouth China should be between approximately 10,000 and 9000 years ago.
In summary, archaeological data to date suggest that pottery was manufacturedin South China by 12,000 years ago. As the process from fired clay to shaped ves-sels is clearly illustrated in Dayan, and the potsherds found in Dayan and Zeng-piyan bear the most ‘‘primitive’’ characteristics of ceramics, it seems that SouthChina is one of the places where pottery was indigenously made.
After its initial appearance, pottery manufacturing expanded to adjacent areas,and the techniques developed further in the ensuing Neolithic cultures, illustratedby relatively thinner walls, the application of the slab building method, sievedinclusions, comparatively higher firing temperature, and probably the initial oc-currence of decoration. However, the typological diversity and technological de-velopment of pottery in South China seem to have di¤ered from that in theYangzi River Valley until 7000 years ago, when the cultural influences of the lat-ter seem to have arrived in South China (Table 4). While di¤erent ceramic devel-opments in terms of typological diversity, decoration motifs and manufacturingtechniques in South China and the Yangzi River Valley further suggest that pot-tery was made independently in South China, the causes of this di¤erence shouldbe examined further.
discussion
Undoubtedly, the origin of pottery is a significant technological development.It may also indicate changes in other aspects of prehistoric cultures. Recentarchaeological discoveries in South China have provided novel informationto help us understand not only the chronological origin and development ofpottery, but also the impetus, the manufacturing process, and the natural andcultural contexts of this event. Meanwhile, more questions arise from these newdiscoveries.
asian perspectives . 49(1) . spring 201020
Chronology
In South China, the majority of early potsherds are from cave sites, and all of thecave sites are located in limestone areas, which is problematic for radiocarbon dat-ing. Samples from all the sites listed in Table 4 have been subjected to 14C dating,and some of the results have been published (Table 5), but many of them are notconvincing. For example, a shell sample from trench No. 5, Layer 3 [T5 (3)] inNiulandong gave a result of 16,000 years b.p., but a bone sample from the samelayer only yields an absolute date of 7910 years b.p. (Table 5). Similar discrepan-cies can be observed in other dates that were run on bones and shells in Niulan-dong (Table 5). In another site, Miaoyan, dating was run on shell samples only,and some of the dates are not in sequence. While three samples from Layer 2 pro-duce a time range between 13,547 and 12,707 years b.p., one sample from theunderlying Layer 3 gives a younger date of 12,630 b.p. (Table 5).
Radiocarbon dating in limestone areas has been troublesome since its first ap-plication. In an attempt to solve this problem, the laboratories of the Institute ofArchaeology CASS, and the Archaeology Department, Beijing University con-ducted detailed sample gathering and testing in South China in the mid-1980s.The outcome is that 14C dates run on freshwater shells often produce much olderreadings than the true age of the samples, mainly due to the ‘‘contamination ofdead radiocarbon’’ (Yuan 1993). On the other hand, dating on grass, charcoal,and bones of animals fed on terrestrial resources may be close to their true ages;however, dating on bones of animals fed on water resources is also problematic(Yuan 1993). As the researchers were not certain about the standard di¤erencesbetween results tested on shells and that on other materials, no fixed value ofadjustments were provided, although it was proposed that dates on shell samplescould be a few hundred to 2500 years older then they actually were (Yuan1993). Up to that time, there were no reliable solutions for the problem of radio-carbon dating in limestone areas (Yuan 1993).
As discussed above, the dates’ testing on shells in Niulandong is more than7000 years older than that on bones, which means that the deviation on shellsamples could be much greater than 2500 years if the dates on bones are to betrusted (Table 5). Further, not all bones are reliable. As large amounts of shellhave been found in all of the cave sites in South China, it is highly probable thatfreshwater shellfish were a staple food of prehistoric human groups living in lime-stone areas from the beginning to the Middle Holocene. Based on the aforemen-tioned research outcome, bones of humans ingesting freshwater species can beproblematic, as they tend to yield dates older than their true age. On the otherhand, terrestrial animal bones may be more reliable (Yuan 1993).
Given the relative reliability of radiocarbon dates run on terrestrial animalbones, the six dates from Layers 3–8 in Trench No. 5 in the Niulandong assem-blage may be accurate. These six dates and their corresponding layers are con-sistent, and the dates are in a good sequence (Table 6). However, with the un-certainty of dating in limestone areas in mind, the excavators of Niulandongproposed that Phase I belonged to the Upper Palaeolithic epoch, and should bebetween 12,000 and 11,000 years ago; Phase II should be Mesolithic and datedbetween 11,000 and 10,000 years ago; and Phase III should be Neolithic anddated between 10,000 and 8000 years ago (Yingdeshi Bowuguan deng 1999). As
lu . early pottery in south china 21
Ta
ble
5.
Ra
dio
ca
rbo
nD
ate
so
fS
om
eA
rch
aeo
log
ica
lS
ites
inS
ou
thC
hin
a(h
alf
-lif
e5730
)
test
ing
sam
ples
an
dm
eth
od
s
site
cu
ltu
ral
pha
se
or
lay
erbo
ne
shel
ls
lab.
an
d14C
da
tes
b.p.
(un
-ca
libr
ate
d)
sou
rce
Niu
landong
Phas
eI
T5
(7)
anim
albon
e,co
nven
tional
KW
G,
10,7
80G
220
Yin
gde
Cit
yM
use
um
etal
.1999
T5
(8)
anim
albon
e,co
nven
tional
KW
G,
11,3
20G
240
Ibid
.T
7(3
)an
imal
bon
e,co
nven
tional
KW
G,
12,4
10G
250
Ibid
.P
has
eII
T5
(5)
anim
albon
e,co
nven
tional
KW
G,
9320G
110
Ibid
.T
5(6
)an
imal
bon
e,co
nven
tional
KW
G,
10,3
20G
200
Ibid
.T
1(6
)sh
ell,
conve
nti
onal
BK
,18,1
05G
200
Ibid
.P
has
eII
I(1)
T5
(3)
anim
albon
e,co
nven
tional
KW
G,
7910G
100
Ibid
.T
5(3
)sh
ell,
conve
nti
onal
KW
G,
16,7
80G
300
Ibid
.T
5(4
)an
imal
bon
e,co
nven
tional
KW
G,
8940G
100
Ibid
.T
9(3
)bon
e,co
nven
tional
KW
G,
8150G
120
Yin
gde
Cit
yM
use
um
etal
.1999
Loca
lity
2,
shel
l,co
nven
tional
BK
,15,5
60G
150
Ibid
.T
1(4
)sh
ell,
conve
nti
onal
BK
,16,2
35G
100
Ibid
.T
3(2
)sh
ell,
conve
nti
onal
BK
,17,5
25G
200
Ibid
.T
9(3
)sh
ell,
conve
nti
onal
KW
G,
14,5
60G
350
Ibid
.P
has
eII
I(2)
T9
(2)
bon
e,co
nven
tional
KW
G,
7460G
100
Ibid
.L
oca
lity
1,
shel
l,co
nven
tional
BK
,10,4
40G
100
Ibid
.L
oca
lity
3,
shel
l,co
nven
tional
BK
,9310G
80
Ibid
.T
1(1
)sh
ell,
conve
nti
onal
BK
,11,8
70G
100
Ibid
.M
iaoyan
Lay
er6
Shel
l,m
ethod
unknow
nB
K,
20,9
20G
430
Chen
1999
Lay
er5
Shel
l,m
ethod
unknow
nB
K,
18,1
40G
320
Ibid
.Shel
l,co
nven
tional
ZK
,17,2
38G
237
Ibid
.L
ayer
4Shel
l,m
ethod
unknow
nB
K,
13,7
10G
270
Ibid
.L
ayer
3Shel
l,m
ethod
unknow
nB
K,
12,6
30G
450
Ibid
.L
ayer
2Shel
l,m
ethod
unknow
nB
K,
12,7
30G
370
Ibid
.Shel
l,co
nven
tional
ZK
,12,7
07G
155
Ibid
.Shel
l,co
nven
tional
ZK
,13,5
47G
168
Ibid
.
(Con
tinued
)
Liy
uzu
iP
has
eI
Shel
l,co
nven
tional
PV
,7820G
100
Yuan
1993
Phas
eII
,upper
Hum
anbone,
conven
tional
PV
,10,5
10G
150
Ibid
.H
um
anbone,
conven
tional
PV
,11,4
50G
150
Ibid
.P
has
eII
Shel
l,co
nven
tional
BK
,12,8
80G
220
Ibid
.Shel
l,co
nven
tional
PV
,18,5
60G
300
Ibid
.Shel
l,co
nven
tional
PV
,21,0
20G
450
Ibid
.P
has
eII
,lo
wer
Shel
l,co
nven
tional
BK
,23,3
30G
250
Ibid
.D
ingsi
shan
Phas
eII
Shel
l,co
nven
tional
ZK
,10,3
65G
113
Fu
2004
Abbre
via
tions
of
labora
tori
es:
BK
—L
abora
tory
of
Arc
hae
olo
gy
Dep
artm
ent,
Bei
jing
Univ
ersi
ty;
ZK
—L
abora
tory
of
Inst
itute
of
Arc
hae
olo
gy,
Chin
ese
Aca
d-
emy
of
Soci
alSci
ence
;P
V—
Lab
ora
tory
of
Inst
itute
of
Ver
tebra
teP
alae
onto
logy
and
Pal
aeoan
thro
polo
gy;
KW
G—
Lab
ora
tory
of
the
Guan
gzhou
Geo
-gr
aphic
Res
earc
hIn
stit
ute
.
potsherds have been found in Phase III, its presence in the present GuangdongProvince, or eastern South China, can be dated to 10,000 years ago. These datesmay also serve as a reference for other archaeological remains in South China.Based on structural analysis, potsherds found in Niulandong might have belongedto the second phase of early pottery in South China, contemporaneous to thatfound in Phase II of the Zengpiyan assemblage. The radiocarbon dates in Niulan-dong are consistent with this proposal.
When carrying out excavation at Zengpiyan in 2003, we designed the sam-pling strategy to collect three sets of samples—charcoal, bone, and shell—fromnarrow cross sections of the stratigraphy for 14C dating in order to tackle theproblem of dating in limestone areas, and we planned on sending the samplesfrom the same layers to two to three laboratories for testing to compare theresults. However, this plan could not be fully implemented due to the insu‰-ciency or poor quality of bones found in many cultural layers at Zengpiyan.Eventually, only samples of charcoal and shells have been dated, and the resultsand corresponding cultural layers and depth are listed in Table 7.
While these 14C dates illustrate a chronological framework for the Zengpiyanarchaeological assemblage from approximately 12,000 to 7000 years ago, thereare still problems. The first one is the discrepancy between the stratigraphic depthand the 14C dates of some samples. For example, a charcoal sample from LayerDT6 (27) tested by the laboratory of the Australian National University yields areading of 10,520G 280 years ago, but another charcoal sample tested by thesame laboratory from the layer beneath, DT6 (28), yields a much younger readingof 9130G 160 b.p. (Table 7). The results of some shell samples have the sameproblem. For instance, the reading of two shell samples in Layer DT4 (25) aremuch older than the shell sample from Layer 26 below (Table 7). Shells fromLayer DT6 (27) at the depth of 246–212 cm yield a chronological reading of10,996G 68 years bp, but another two samples from DT4 (20) at the depth of144–135 cm provided dates of almost the same age (Table 7). The second prob-lem is the discrepancy between dates resulting from shell samples and charcoalsamples. It is apparent that the dates obtained on shells are about 1000–2000 yearsolder than the majority of the charcoal samples (Table 7). If the dating results oncharcoal are more reliable (Yuan 1993), then the dates on shells are not accurate.
The above problems are not unique in Zengpiyan, as the recent 14C results atYuchanyan (Boaretto et al. 2009) show similar problems. For instance, two char-
Table 6. 14C Dates from Trench No. 5 of Niulandong, Guangdong
stratigraphic units radiocarbon dates (b.p.) calibrated dates (b.p.)* cultural phase
T5 (8) KWG, 11,320G 240 13764–13022 Phase IT5 (7) KWG, 10,780G 220 13004–12633 Phase IT5 (6) KWG, 10,320G 200 12777–11693 Phase IIT5 (5) KWG, 9320G 110 10685–10288 Phase IIT5 (4) KWG, 8940G 100 10215–9895 Phase III (1)T5 (3) KWG, 7910G 100 8994–8592 Phase III (1)
* Using Stuiver et al. 1998a, Calibration Program 4.3 at http://depts.washington.edu/qil, calibratedby the author.
asian perspectives . 49(1) . spring 201024
coal samples from Layer 3E of about 254 cm deep in Yuchanyan are dated to11,855G 50 and 12,735G 70 b.p. respectively, which are almost the same oreven younger than the dates obtained on charcoal and bone samples from about129 to 217 cm deep. Further, the charcoal sample RTB 5471 from the deepestlayer at 305–314 cm of T5 is dated to 12,825G 50 b.p., which is at least 2000–5000 years younger than several samples (Nos. RTB 5115, 5463, 5464, 5465,5466, and 5470) from layers at a depth of around 252 to 264 cm (for the originaldata, please see Table 3 in Boaretto et al. 2009). The author of this paper is not a14C dating expert and cannot provide a full analysis of this methodological issue,but it is obvious that samples dated on charcoal and/or bones in limestone areasare not without problems, and that 14C dating in limestone areas of Chinarequires much more study.
In addition, it must be emphasized that the archaeologists’ ability to recognizedi¤erent cultural layers and deposits is essential for the reliability of absolute dates,particularly in caves. The stratigraphy of cave deposits can be very complicated, asdeposits of di¤erent periods could have been accumulated at di¤erent locations atthe same horizontal level (or similar depth), as prehistoric peoples of di¤erenttimes might have occupied varying locations inside the cave. If such di¤erenceshave not been detected during excavation and sample gathering, it is possible thatthe samples perceived from the same cultural layer might in fact have been fromdi¤erent periods. Consequently, absolute dates tested on these samples could bemisleading. To reduce possible errors, sample gathering for absolute dating shouldbe conducted within a narrow cross section of one trench, and samples should becollected from as many layers as possible within this cross section.
Therefore, in addition to radiocarbon dating, typological and structural analysisof artifacts integrated with cross-cultural comparison, particularly on potteryitems, are also necessary for establishing the chronology of both ceramics and ar-chaeological cultures in limestone areas. The tentative chronology listed in Table4 is primarily based on comparisons between pottery found in South China and inthe Yangzi River Valley, particularly in open sites along rivers, such as the Peng-toushan and Bashidang sites (Table 4). The major criteria of such analysis andcomparison are pottery structures, formation methods, the thickness of walls,materials, and processing techniques of the tempering agents, the presence or ab-sence of intended decoration, firing temperatures, and other attributes that mayindicate di¤erent stages of pottery development. If similar attributes are found inarchaeological sites in both the Yangzi River Valley and South China, these sitesmay be dated to similar periods.2
The Impetus for the Origin of Pottery
As mentioned in the introduction of this article, several theories and hypotheseshave been proposed concerning the origin of pottery (Ikawa-Smith 1976; Lu1999; Rice 1999; Tsutsumi 2000). The occurrence of pottery in north China andthe Yangzi River Valley might have been related to wild grass collection andexploitation (Lu 1999), as early pottery found in the Yangzi River Valley (Xian-rendong and Yuchanyan) was in association with rice remains. Whether this isalso the case in South China (Niulandong and Zengpiyan) requires further study(Tables 1 and 2), as recent phytolith analysis conducted at Zengpiyan and Dayan
lu . early pottery in south china 25
Ta
ble
7.
Ra
dio
ca
rbo
nD
at
eso
fZ
eng
piy
an
(ha
lf-l
ife
5568
)
dep
th
(cm
)
lay
ers
ing
rid
DT
4
lay
ers
ing
rid
DT
6
lay
ers
ing
rid
BT
3
lay
ers
ing
rid
BT
6
ma
ter
ial
an
d
met
ho
d
lab
.a
nd
14C
da
tes
(b.p
.)
ma
teri
al
an
d
met
ho
d
lab.
an
d14C
da
tes
(b.p
.)
ca
libr
ate
d
b.c
.(6
8.2
%)
cu
ltu
ral
pha
se
Char
coal
Sh
ells
Ph
ase
I310
–280
DT
6(3
2)
Con
ven
tional
ZK
,11,2
55G
75
11,2
72
–11,1
40
300
–264
DT
6(3
1)
Con
ven
tional
ZK
,11,5
96G
91
11,6
02
–11,3
81
298
–252
DT
4(3
1)
Con
ven
tional
ZK
,11,0
00G
112
11,0
84
–10,9
15
DT
4(3
1)
Con
ven
tional
ZK
,11,2
35G
141
11,2
72
–11,1
40
DT
4(3
1)
AM
SB
A,
9380G
170
9150
–8950
274
–245
DT
6(2
9)
AM
SB
A,
11,9
60G
240
12,4
00
–11,5
00
263
–236
DT
6(2
8)
Con
ven
tional
ZK
,11,5
75G
112
11,5
99
–11,3
50
DT
6(2
8)
Con
ven
tional
ZK
,11,4
38G
85
11,4
22
–11,2
74
DT
6(2
8)
AM
SB
A,
9380G
180
9150
–8950
DT
6(2
8)
AM
SB
A,
9440G
280
9150
–8950
DT
6(2
8)
AM
SA
NU
,9350G
250
8900
–8250
DT
6(2
8)
AM
SA
NU
,9130G
160
8650
–8200
245
–221
DT
4(3
0)
AM
SB
A,
9770G
130
9400
–9050
246
–212
DT
6(2
7)
AM
SA
NU
,10,5
20G
280
10,9
50
–10,0
00
Phas
eII
DT
6(2
7)
Con
ven
tional
ZK
,10,9
96G
68
10,9
99
–10,9
08
228
–214
DT
6(2
5)
Con
ven
tional
ZK
,10,9
44G
132
11,0
51
–10,8
75
226
–202
DT
6(2
4)
AM
SA
NU
,9060G
220
8600
–7850
232
–208
DT
6(2
1)
Con
ven
tional
ZK
,10,5
53G
93
10,7
70
–10,4
46
217
–188
DT
6(1
9)
AM
SA
NU
,8770G
210
8200
–7600
215
–202
DT
4(2
8)
AM
SB
A,
9490G
190
9200
–8600
208
–196
DT
6(1
6)
AM
SA
NU
,9270G
220
8850
–8200
202
–180
DT
4(2
7)
AM
SB
A,
9180G
100
8530
–8490
Phas
eII
I206
–167
DT
4(2
6)
Con
ven
tional
ZK
,10,5
71G
63
10,8
02
–10,4
53
DT
4(2
6)
AM
SA
NU
,9730G
60
9280
–9140
DT
4(2
6)
AM
SB
A,
9210G
240
8800
–7900
(Con
tinued
)
198
–175
DT
6(1
5)
Con
ven
tional
ZK
,10,8
28G
99
10,9
51
–10,8
36
197
–190
DT
4(2
5)
Con
ven
tional
ZK
,10,7
99G
83
10,9
27
–10,8
33
DT
4(2
5)
Con
ven
tional
ZK
,11,0
93G
85
11,1
32
–10,9
83
176
–148
DT
6(1
3)
AM
SA
NU
,9490G
230
9250
–8550
172
–157
DT
4(2
4)
AM
SB
A,
8460G
290
7950
–7050
169
–165
DT
4(2
3)
AM
SB
A,
10919G
84
10,9
41
–10,7
27
165
–148
DT
4(2
2)
Con
ven
tional
ZK
,10,5
99G
100
10,8
47
–10,4
51
196
–162
DT
4(2
1)
Con
ven
tional
ZK
,10,6
10G
82
10,8
46
–10,4
60
DT
4(2
1)
AM
SB
A,
10,1
60G
80
10,1
50
–9600
144
–135
DT
4(2
0)
Con
ven
tional
ZK
,10,8
63G
77
10,9
43
–10,8
70
DT
4(2
0)
Con
ven
tional
ZK
,10,9
75G
84
11,0
25
–10,9
02
DT
4(2
0)
AM
SB
A,
8970G
80
8270
–8160
163
–149
DT
4(1
9)
Con
ven
tional
ZK
,10,7
55G
70
10,9
03
–10,8
07
DT
4(1
9)
AM
SB
A,
9040G
150
8450
–8150
141
–132
DT
4(1
8)
AM
SB
A,
8890G
160
8260
–7800
149
–131
DT
4(1
7)
Con
ven
tional
ZK
,10,6
28G
59
10,8
45
–10,6
98
DT
4(1
7)
Con
ven
tional
ZK
,10,9
49G
104
11,0
26
–10,8
83
DT
4(1
7)
AM
SB
A,
8870G
80
8210
–7940
142
–133
DT
4(1
6)
AM
SB
A,
9070G
250
8650
–7800
158
–122
DT
6(1
1)
Con
ven
tional
ZK
,10,7
38G
102
10,9
04
–10,7
44
Phas
eIV
131
–124
DT
4(1
5)
Con
ven
tional
ZK
,10,6
33G
56
10,8
43
–10,7
10
DT
4(1
5)
AM
SB
A,
9010G
80
8290
–8160
124
–98
DT
4(1
4)
AM
SB
A,
6500G
120
5610
–5590
115
–62
DT
4(1
3)
Con
ven
tional
ZK
,10,5
88G
56
10,8
17
–10,4
61
DT
4(1
3)
AM
SB
A,
9010G
150
8450
–7900
DT
4(1
3)
AM
SA
NU
,9570G
280
9800
–8450
BT
2(1
3)
Con
ven
tional
ZK
,10,0
95G
70
10,0
04
–9495
112
–59
DT
4(1
2)
AM
SB
A,
9040G
100
8420
–8390
DT
4(1
2)
Con
ven
tional
ZK
,10,6
40G
150
10,8
81
–10,4
48
DT
4(1
2)
AM
SB
A,
8740G
170
8200
–7550
81
–38
BT
2(6
)C
on
ven
tional
ZK
,8998G
74
8292
–7994
Phas
eV
49
–26
BT
3(7
)A
MS
BA
,8790G
170
8200
–7600
BT
3(7
)C
on
ven
tional
ZK
,8538G
63
7597
–7536
(Con
tinued
)
Ta
ble
7(C
ontinued
)
dep
th
(cm
)
lay
ers
ing
rid
DT
4
lay
ers
ing
rid
DT
6
lay
ers
ing
rid
BT
3
lay
ers
ing
rid
BT
6
ma
ter
ial
an
d
met
ho
d
lab
.a
nd
14C
da
tes
(b.p
.)
ma
teri
al
an
d
met
ho
d
lab.
an
d14C
da
tes
(b.p
.)
ca
libr
ate
d
b.c
.(6
8.2
%)
cu
ltu
ral
pha
se
43
–25
BT
3(6
)C
on
ven
tional
ZK
,8342G
64
7501
–7340
Phas
eV
48
–32
BT
3(4
)C
on
ven
tional
ZK
,7783G
61
6677
–6561
21
–12
BT
2(5
)C
on
ven
tional
ZK
,8602G
68
7709
–7573
18
–9
BT
3(5
)C
on
ven
tional
ZK
,7979G
65
7043
–6781
42
–31
BT
3(2
)C
on
ven
tional
ZK
,1655G
35
a.d
.344
–427
His
tori
c43
–37
BT
2(3
)C
on
ven
tional
ZK
,717G
41
a.d
.1259
–1298
36
–12
BT
2(2
)A
MS
AN
U,
1010G
90
a.d
.960
–1160
Sourc
e:In
stit
ute
of
Arc
hae
olo
gy
CA
SS
etal
.2003.
in Guangxi, and another site—Xiantouling—in Guangdong, seems to suggestthat rice was exploited in South China as fuel when early pottery was produced(Lu 2009a, b).
On the other hand, shells have b