Food, pots and socio-economic transformation: The beginning and intensification of pottery production in North China

Archaeological Research in Asia 12 (2017) 1–10

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Archaeological Research in Asia journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ara

Full length article

Food, pots and socio-economic transformation: The beginning and intensification of pottery production in North China

MARK

Gideon Shelach-Lavi⁎, Dongdong Tu The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Early pottery North China Transition to agriculture Chinese Neolithic

Ceramic is one of the most transformative and enduring technologies in human history. This paper addresses the development of pottery production in North China since its appearance during the late Pleistocene, and through its development and use first by hunter-gatherer societies and then by the early sedentary village communities. We analyze the economic and social context for the beginning of pottery production in North China and argue that pottery was a transformative agent in the dramatic dietary and social changes that occurred prior to and during the transition to agriculture. At the same time, pottery technology and pottery production were also transformed by this trajectory, especially during the relatively rapid transition to large-scale sedentary villages that took place in North China. A model is developed to chart the feedback processes that embody this trajectory.

1. Introduction

2. The origins of ceramic vessels

Ceramic is one of the most transformative and enduring technologies in human history. Though much has changed over the years in the way people select and prepare the raw materials, form the shapes of vessels, and fire them, the basic technology – or more precisely, its fundamental principle, which is the transformation of clay through exposure to extreme heat – remains the same technology that was applied to the production of the earliest pottery some 20,000 years ago. Today, in spite of the enormous advances made in the procuring and manufacturing of innumerable materials of varied qualities and purposes, ceramic technology remains widely used in the production of cooking, serving and storage vessels, as well as a variety of modern purposes, including in electronics, the automotive and aircraft industries, in armored parts and more. Ceramic is also transformative in nature, not only because it is perhaps the first major human technique of artifact production in which the material itself is chemically transformed, but also because ceramic vessels (pottery) were an integral part of the economic, dietary and social transformations undergone by humankind. It will be argued below that pottery was a transformative agent in the dramatic dietary changes that occurred with the transition to agriculture; yet, at the same time, that it was also transformed by it. The focus of this paper is North China, where these processes occurred locally, but references will be made to other parts of China and East Asia as well.

The association of the beginnings of pottery production with the transition to agriculture, or the ‘Neolithic Revolution’ as it was traditionally referred to, has deep roots in archaeological and historical thinking. Sir John Lubbock was perhaps the first to make such a connection explicit, in his book Pre-Historic Times (Lubbock, 1865; quoted in Jordan and Zvelebil, 2010b: 46), and this became the leading paradigm through the influential writing of V. Gordon Childe (e.g. Childe, 1939). In the Levant, the beginning of pottery production some one thousand years after agricultural villages were already well-established was interpreted as evidence that this new industry was an outcome of the transition to agriculture. Although the timing and context of the beginning of pottery production in the Levant is currently being revised (Biton et al., 2014), the production of pottery was traditionally understood as catering to needs arising from the new economy and dietary habits of Neolithic communities (Garfinkel, 1999). For areas where agriculture did not develop locally, such as Europe, the parallel diffusion of agriculture and pottery is still a recurrent theme in archaeological writings (Barker, 2006: 405). Since the latter part of the 20th century, however, increasing numbers of researchers started to pay attention to evidence which suggests that not only agriculturalists, but also hunter-gatherers, produced pottery. This phenomenon is known from ethnographic studies (Nelson, 2010) and supporting archaeological evidence from different parts of the world has accumulated quickly (Jordan and Zvelebil, 2010a). By the 1960s and 1970s, pottery from Jomon period sites in

⁎

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (G. Shelach-Lavi), [email protected] (D. Tu).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ara.2017.10.001 Received 18 May 2017; Received in revised form 11 October 2017; Accepted 16 October 2017 Available online 27 October 2017 2352-2267/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Archaeological Research in Asia 12 (2017) 1–10

G. Shelach-Lavi, D. Tu

Fig. 1. Location of sites mentioned in the paper: 1, Houtaomuga 后套木嘎; 2, Daxinjing 大新井; 3, Xiaohexi 小 河西; 4, Yushushan 榆树山; 5, Xiliang 西梁; 6, Baiyinchanghan 白音长汗; 7, Chahai 查海; 8, Xinglongwa 兴隆洼; 9, Donghulin 东胡林; 10, Zhuannian 转年; 11, Yujiagou 于家沟; 12, Nanzhuangtou 南庄头; 13, Shizitan 柿 子滩; 14, Cishan 磁山; 15, Houli 后李; 16, Bianbiandong 扁 扁洞; 17, Lijiagou 李家沟; 18, Peiligang 裴李岗; 19, Lingjing 灵井; 20, Jiahu 贾湖; 21, Xianrendong 仙人洞; 22, Yuchanyan 玉蟾岩.

which those vessels were used. We use this data to consider different explanations for the genesis of pottery production and how it affected, and was affected by, changing dietary habits and economic preferences. North China is defined here as the region of the Yellow River basin and areas to its north. Northeast China, is a sub-region within North China: the area which was previously known as Manchuria, and which comprises the provinces of Liaoning and Jilin and the eastern part of Inner Mongolia (Fig. 1).

Japan were dated much earlier than the introduction of agriculture into this region during the first millennia BCE (Crawford, 2011). In fact, Jomon sites provided the earliest evidence of pottery worldwide known at the time. Subsequent research pushed back the dates of incipient Jomon sites and the potsherds found in them to c. 16,000 cal BP (Cohen, 2013; Habu, 2004; Kaner and Taniguchi, 2017). Subsequently, early pottery was found in pre-agriculture strata throughout East Asia, including South and North China, Korea, and the Russian Far East, and it became clear that, during the Last Glacial Maximum and up to the Early Holocene, low-level pottery production was practiced by societies throughout this region (Cohen, 2013; Kaner and Taniguchi, 2017; Kuzmin, 2006; Shelach, 2012; Zhuang, 2015). Low-level pottery production, or expedient pottery, to use the terminology of Sturm et al. (2016: 651), implies the use of low-investment technology and the production of a small number of pots, usually for a specific task and to be used for a short period of time. Evidence of such production and use of pottery by prehistoric hunter-gatherer societies was also discovered in Europe and other parts of the world (Jordan and Zvelebil, 2010a). These discoveries catalyzed reconsiderations of longheld views about the way social, technological and economic changes and dietary preferences are interconnected, and compelled some scholars to question the a priori association between the advent of pottery production and agriculture (Jordan and Zvelebil, 2010b). Below we survey evidence of the development of pottery production in North China, with an emphasis on Northeast China, as well as the purposes for

3. The evolution of pottery production in China The earliest dated pottery known thus far was found at cave sites in the Yangzi River valley: Pottery bearing strata at the Yuchanyan (玉蟾 岩) cave in Hunan Province were dated to between 18,300 and 15,400 cal BP (Boaretto et al., 2009). In another cave site, the Xianrendong (仙人洞) cave in Jiangxi Province, an even earlier date was obtained – c. 20,000 cal BP – making potsherds found in those strata the earliest evidence of pottery production anywhere in the world (Cohen et al., 2016; Wu et al., 2012). Complete vessels are difficult to reconstruct from the small potsherds collected at these sites, but they represent coarse, soft, low-fired pottery. The pottery walls are quite thick (0.7–1.2 cm). The clay usually include large pieces of quartz and charcoal. Some of the pots are decorated with cord marks (Fig. 2). Some of the sherds have scorch marks, suggesting they were used for cooking. The small number of potsherds found in each of the sites suggests 2

Archaeological Research in Asia 12 (2017) 1–10

G. Shelach-Lavi, D. Tu

as changes in social relations. It should be noted that in North China, sites from the late Pleistocene to early Holocene, where remains of early pottery were found, are not much different from earlier sites. They are typically small, with little evidence of long-term residency or investment in permanent structures. Nanzhuangtou, for example, is a relatively small open air site containing no evidence of permanent structures. Excavations have located the remains of fireplaces, but the shape and makeup of habitations is unclear and investment in them was probably minimal (Hebeisheng Wenwu et al., 2010). 4. The rapid transformation and intensification of pottery production in North China Although the archaeological record of the late terminal Pleistocene and early Holocene in North China is partial at best (Shelach-Lavi, 2015), it appears that the production of crude pottery continued at a low-level up until the establishment of sedentary communities during the 9th and 8th millennia BP. Starting in the late 9th millennium BP, sites associated with such regional cultures as the Xinglongwa (兴隆洼, in Northeast China) Peiligang (裴李岗), Cishan (磁山), Houli (后李) and Dadiwan (大地湾) became larger than previously known from North China and they contain clear evidence of permanent structures. This transition to a sedentary way of life and larger village communities was relatively rapid. In Northeast China, for example, this transition is embodied in sites of the Xiaohexi (小河西) and Xinglongwa periods. At sites associated with the Xiaohexi period and provisionally dated to the 9th (perhaps even late 9th and early 8th) millennia BP, we find crude and crumbly pot-sherds tempered with large quartzite grains, similar to those found in Nanzhuangtou, although in larger numbers. Most sites associated with this tentatively defined period, such as the Xiaohexi-type sites Yushushan (榆树山), Daxinjing (大新井) and Xiliang (西梁), are all located in the Aohan Banner of eastern Inner Mongolia (Suo, 2005; Zhao et al., 2014). However, some researchers also identify this period with the earliest phase (phase 1) at the site of Chahai (查海) in western Liaoning (Yanjiusuo, 2012) and Xiaohexi-type pottery have been identified at other sites in this area (Shelach et al., 2016). Unlike the sites of earlier periods, Xiaohexi sites yielded clear evidence of domestic structures, including rectangular or oval semisubterranean houses, and ash pits, suggesting a transition to more sedentary life-ways (though not necessarily fully sedentary society). Very few Xiaohexi period sites have been excavated to date and the area excavated in each of them is very limited; thus, it is very difficult to reconstruct the layout of these sites or estimate the size of the Xiaohexi communities. Most Xiaohexi period potsherds discovered during a survey we conducted in the Fuxin area of Liaoning, as well as in previous excavations, are undecorated, although some appliqué, as well as narrow bands of diagonal incisions, especially near the mouth of the pots, are known (Fig. 4). An indication of the increased production and use of pottery during the Xiaohexi period, as compared with the terminal Pleistocene and early Holocene, is apparent from the results of our Fuxin survey. Within the 105 km2 area surveyed, we identified no less than six individual sites, in which no fewer than 288 Xiaohexi potsherds were found (Shelach et al., 2016). More recently, we test excavated one of those site and from an excavated area of 17 m2 that represent a single hut, we recovered some 333 sherds, some of them quite large; This is a far greater quantity than all the sherds found at the Nanzhuangtou site. In addition to pottery, Xiaohexi sites are also rich in large bifacial stone tools, which are sometime identified as hoes, as well as grinding stones and blade tools (Zhao et al., 2014). By the late 9th, or more probably the early 8th millennium BP, during the establishment of large-scale sedentary villages in different parts of North China, the quality and quantity of pottery increased dramatically (Fig. 5) (Liu, 2004; Shelach-Lavi, 2015). In Northeast China, this phase is identified with the Xinglongwa period. Sites such as

Fig. 2. Early pottery from Yuchanyan (after Yanjiusuo, 2010:95).

episodic small-scale production. In North China, the earliest pottery found so far is later than that found in the south, with modest amounts of potsherds found at very late (or terminal) Pleistocene and early Holocene sites, such as Nanzhuangtou (南庄头) in Hebei Province and Donghulin (东胡林) in the Beijing area (Hao et al., 2008; Hebeisheng Wenwu et al., 2010) (Table 1). Findings at those sites, which are located north of the Yellow River basin, suggest a production mode that is not unlike the one known from the Yangzi River area. Nanzhuangtou, the best known site of this period, which is dated to c. 11,500 to 11,000 cal BP (Yang et al., 2012), is estimated to cover an area of some 20,000 m2, but only a small portion has been excavated and, thus, this estimate may be exaggerated. As with earlier Pleistocene sites, archaeologists did not find structures at Nanzhuangtou, but excavations carried out in the 1980s and again in 1997 located the remains of fireplaces. Artefacts recovered from the site include stone tools (including a few grinding stones) and bone tools, as well as 44 potsherds (Baoding Diqu Wenwu, 1992; Hebeisheng Wenwu et al., 2010). As in the south, these are also coarse sherds, which indicate that pottery was produced in open fires and fired at low temperatures of less than 900 degrees Celsius (Zhou et al., 2010). However, the walls of these pots are not as thick and they were sometime decorated with appliqué and incisions, suggesting perhaps an increase in sophistication (Fig. 3). The recently discovered site of Houtaomuga (后套木嘎) in Jilin province, Northeast China, which is provisionally dated to 11,000 BP, (Wang et al., 2012) may be part of the same horizon of sites. Slightly later and further to the south, within the Yellow River basin in Henan province, potshards dated to c. 9000 BP were found in strata that include also microblades and grinding stones at the sites of Lijiagou (李家沟) and Lingjing (灵井) (Li et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2015). At those sites too, no remains of structures were found (see Table 1). Throughout North China during this time (late Pleistocene and early Holocene), alongside the production of pottery, gradual socio-technological changes are indicated by the appearance of technologies and cultural habits, which had already emerged during the peak of the last Glacial Age, some 20,000 years ago and gained momentum during the Early Holocene. Those technologies include the production of tiny stone artefacts (microblades) and grinding stones, as well as the more common appearance of body ornaments (Qu et al., 2013; Sun et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2011). Collectively, these new technologies, pottery included, and the artefacts produced using these technologies, suggest changes in human economic behaviour: the development of new methods for the procurement and processing of resources and changing habits of consumption, including a focus on new food resources, as well 3

Archaeological Research in Asia 12 (2017) 1–10

G. Shelach-Lavi, D. Tu

Table 1 Sites with early pottery from north China. Site

Archaeological data

Date

Publications

Nanzhuangtou南庄头, Xushui Country, Hebei Province

An open site on the alluvial plain. Features: Ash pits, ditches and hearths. Artefacts include grinding slabs and hand stones, chipped stone flakes, bone and antler implements. A small number of potsherds identified as flat-bottomed pots and bowls. The potsherds are porous, low temperature fired, and tempered with shell fragments or quartz. Some are decorated with simple patterns. Faunal remains include chicken, bird, rabbit, wolf, dog, pig, buffalo, various types of deer, turtle, fish, and shellfish. Evidence for dog domestication. An open site locating on a third-level terrace of the northern bank of Qingshui (清水) River. Features: hearths, burials and ash pits. Artefacts: chipped stone tools, microbleads, ground stone tools, grinding slabs and hand stones, bone and shellfish implements. Porous, low temperature fired and sand tempered potsherds. Pottery is made using coiling and slab techniques. Some were decorated with impressed patterns. Faunal remains are dominated by deer bones, followed by pigs and badgers. The pigs are probably not domesticated. An open air site locating on a second-level terrace of the Bai (白) River Abundant stone tools and animal bones were discovered, with a small number of potsherds. The stone artefacts include chipped stone tools, microbleads, ground stone tools, grinding slabs and hand stones, and mortar. An open site located on a second-level terrace of the Sanggan (桑 干) River. Three culture stratum. The lower strata contains microblades and ornaments without potsherds. A small number of potsherds were recovered from the middle strata, associated with ornaments made from shells and bird bones. The pottery is brown sand tempered. An open air site locating on the second-level terrace of the Chunban (椿板) River. Two excavation zones: the north area and the south area. Layers 5 and 6 of both areas are attributed to the pre-Peiligang culture of Lijagou. These layers produced many potsherds, together with heavy duty stone tools, grinding slabs, chipped stone artefacts and a small quantity of microblades. The ceramic assemblage is dominated by round bottomed vessels. The potsherds are brown, low temperature fired, and sand tempered. The decorations include impressed, incised and cord patterns. Layer 5 of the site is disturbed but attributed but contained 58 potsherds, as well as stone artefacts, including microblades and microcoras, and bone needles.

Radiocarbon dates ca. 11,500–11,000 cal BP

Hebeisheng Wenwu et al. (2010) Baoding Diqu Wenwu (1992) Yuan and Li (2010) Yang et al. (2012)

Radiocarbon dates ca. 11,000–9000 cal BP

Beijing et al. (2006) Yuan (2008)

Two uncalibrated radiocarbon dates: 9200 BP and 9800 BP.

Yu (2002)

One potsherd was dated directly to ca. 11,000 BP (not calibrated).

Yanjiusuo (2010)

The strata containing early pottery is dated to 10,200–8000 cal BP.

Zhengzhoushi and Beijing Daxue (2013a), and b Wang et al. (2015)

From carbonized materials found on the pottery and other materials associated with Layer 5: ca. 9800 cal BP. Phase 1 is dated to ca. 8000–7600 cal BC (from a human skull without clear context). Phase 2 is dated to ca. 7700–7100 cal BC.

Li et al. (2017)

Divided into four phases Potsherds dated to 13,000–11,000 cal BP, but no references to the radiocarbon samples are provided. No radiocarbon dates have been published. Based on typology it is estimated that Xiaohexi sites are earlier than 8200 BP.

Wang et al. (2012).

Donghulin 东胡林 Mentougou, Beijing City

Zhuannian 转年 Huairou County, Beijing City

Yujiagou 于家沟 Yangyuan County, Hebei Province

Lijiagou 李家沟 Xinmi City, Henan Province

Lingjing 灵井 Henan

Bianbiandong扁扁洞 Yiyuan Country, Shandong Province

Houtaomuga 后套木嘎 Daan City, Jilin Province

Xiaohexi 小河西 culture: Sites include Xiaohexi 小河西, Yushushan 榆树山, Xiliang 西梁 and Daxinjing 大新井.

A cave site located on the slope of the Beiweizi (北围子) hill. A small number of hearths and ash pits were discovered. The artefacts include grinding slabs and hand stones, microblades, chipped flakes, bone and antler implements. Potsherds are brown, low temperature fired. The majority are plain, made by coiling technique. Round-bottomed bowl and cauldron were identified. Animal remains include shellfish and other aquatic resources. An open air site located on the bank of the Xinhuangpao (新荒泡) River. Features: ash pits and burials. The pottery is low temperature fired, porous and tempered with shells. Simple shapes and stamp pattern decorations. All are open air sites located along the Mengke (孟克) River, Aohan Banner, Inner Mongolia..Ellipse semi-subterranean houses. Shallow hearths and storage pits were uncovered within the houses. Artefacts include bone implements, stone tools and ceramic vessels. Stone tools are dominated by chipped stones including stone balls, hoes, choppers and spades, along with a small amount of ground stones, grinding stones- slabs and hand stones, mortars, pestles and microblades. Pottery is low fired and tempered with sand. The majority of pottery is plain but some appliqué and narrow bands of diagonal incisions are known. Simple. Bucket-shaped pots are common.

Sun et al. (2014)

Suo (2005) Zhao et al. (2014)

houses were excavated, ranging in size from about 15 m2 to about 150 m2 (Yanjiusuo, 2012). This suggests the establishment of villages in which large populations (of up to 200–300 people) lived together over a long period of time. Similar contemporaneous trends are seen in the Yellow River basin, at sites such as Peiligang (裴李岗), Cishan (磁山) and Jiahu (贾湖), and in the Shandong peninsula during the Houli (后

Xinglongwa and Baiyinchanghan (白音长汗), located at the eastern part of Inner Mongolia, and at Chahai in western Liaoning. Those sites are typically 1–2 ha in size and are enclosed by a narrow ditch inside of which a large number of rectangular houses are neatly arranged (Yanjiusuo, 2012; Yanjiusuo, 2004; Shelach-Lavi, 2015; Gongzuodui, 1985). At the Chahai site, for example, more than 45 contemporaneous 4

Archaeological Research in Asia 12 (2017) 1–10

G. Shelach-Lavi, D. Tu

Fig. 3. Potsherds from Nanzhuangtou (after Hebeisheng Wenwu et al., 2010: 372).

uses fire for cooking and heating recognizes the natural process through which clay, once it is exposed to heat, becomes solid. Thus, we assume that the beginning of pottery production was not determined by an invention per se, or by the discovery of a natural process, so much as by some kind of need for the type of vessels that could be produced by this technology. According to one model, compellingly advocated by Hayden (2010), this was a social rather than an economic need. Like his views on the domestication of plants (Hayden, 2009), he associates the appearance of pottery with feasting and other strategies employed by ambitious individuals in their quest to gain prestige and power. As pointed out by critics of this model, however, known early pottery was very crude and could not have competed with existing technologies, such as basket weaving, as prestigious serving utensils (Pearson, 2005). There is no archaeological evidence to suggest that early pottery was a prestige item and, if indeed the decisive qualities that the early producers of pottery were after are related to the processing of food, then it is difficult to justify its function in the context of feasting rather than daily use. What are, then, the decisive qualities of pottery, which made it attractive to hunter-gatherer societies in spite of being crumbly and heavier than other types of containers (such as baskets) and, thus, not very suitable for transportation? In other words, why invest energy in the production of an artifact which you will not be able to carry with you once you leave the site of production and which will probably only be used for a short period of time? At a purely rational level, the decision to produce ceramic vessels can be understood as the balance between the costs of production (in time and energy), the use-life of the vessel, and the advantages it has over other existing technologies. As ethnographic studies and experimental archaeology have shown, the production of ceramic vessels in open fires is not very time consuming. Nor was such production very costly (Erkens et al., 2004). Thus, it is possible for hunter-gatherer societies, even if they do not stay in one place for long, to produce and use pottery. However, what are the advantages of producing pottery over using other types of containers, such as baskets? While it is well-documented that it is possible to boil liquids and cook food in baskets using stone (or indirect) boiling (Driver and Massey, 1957), this technique is less energy effective than direct boiling

李) period (Shelach-Lavi, 2015; Wang, 2013). The quantity of pottery produced during this period increased dramatically and the earlier open firing technique of pottery production was transformed with the introduction of more complex techniques suggested by kilns discovered at the Peiligang and Jiahu sites (Yanjiusuo, 2010:127–129). 5. Why pottery? The fast accumulating data on the early production of pottery in China and elsewhere in East Asia can be used in considering many fundamental issues in the evolution of human society and culture and the advancement of new technologies. For example, the almost contemporaneous beginnings of low-level pottery production among hunter-gatherer societies throughout East Asia reopens one of the oldest debates in the history of modern archaeology: did the invention of new technologies happen in one place, from which they diffused to all other regions, or could they have arisen separately many times in different local contexts (Schortman and Urban, 1998). Both models have been proposed to explain the invention and spread of pottery technology in East Asia and beyond. While some scholars emphasize the rapid spread of this technology and point to ethnographic analogies for the spread of new technologies among hunter-gatherer societies, others highlight differences in specific technological features and vessel shapes as evidence of local invention (see reviews in Cohen, 2013; Jordan and Zvelebil, 2010b; Kaner and Taniguchi, 2017; Zhang, 2002). In this paper, we address a different issue, which, like the indigenous vs. diffusion debate, combines specific questions about the societies that first used and developed pottery with a more general issue relevant to our understanding of the dynamics of invention, acceptance and development of new technologies. Like many before us, we are asking why, at a certain point in their socio-cultural trajectory, some societies started to produce and use pottery, for what purposes was it initially used, how was such usage(s) possibly instrumental in reshaping the society, its dietary traditions and the way it interacted with its environment, and what, in the long run, were the changes that the new technology itself underwent. The underlying assumption of our discussion is that a society which 5

Archaeological Research in Asia 12 (2017) 1–10

G. Shelach-Lavi, D. Tu

Fig. 4. Potsherds dated to the Xiaohexi period from the Fuxin area, Liaoning Province, northeast China.

of liquids in ceramic vessels placed on or above a fire, especially in cold environments where the stones lose energy when moved from the fire to the container (Nelson, 2010; Sturm et al., 2016). Direct boiling is also much more suitable when prolonged cooking is desired. Because the firing of pottery is a process that consumes energy resources and because each vessel was not used for long – it either broke or was left behind when the group moved to another location – conserving energy does not seem to be a major factor in considering whether to produce pottery. However, the desire for thorough and prolonged cooking, which is difficult to accomplish in organic containers, may have played a critical role in the decision-making of the early pottery-producing groups. Following this logic, it has been suggested that the beginning of pottery production is associated with the desire to process hard-to-digest resources such as cereals or legumes. For example, it was argued that, in South China, early pottery was mainly used for the cooking of wild and early domesticated (or in the process of domestication) rice (Zhao and Wu, 2000). Such propositions directly link pottery production and the process of plant domestication.

Another model suggests that during the height of the glacial age, when large game animals became scarce, pottery was used to maximize the extraction of protein and fat from hunted animals thorough extended cooking of the animal carcasses and bones (Wu et al., 2012). This development is sometime also associated with the expansion of the dietary breadth through the hunting of small animals and birds, as well as fishing (Prendergast et al., 2009). In a similar vein, it has been argued that the processing of aquatic resources such as fish and shellfish was the main motivation for the production of early pottery (Jordan and Zvelebil, 2010b). Currently, there is little direct evidence to indicate the function of early pottery in China. Recent chemical analyses of food residue extracted from early Japanese potsherds (dated to the incipient Jomon period) suggest that those pots were used to process aquatic resources, perhaps to produce a kind of ‘fish chowder’ (Craig et al., 2013). Such a thorough analysis of food residue from pottery found in China has yet to be systematically performed, but it appears that early pottery was used for the processing of a variety of resources. As noted, residue analysis has not been systematically performed on the earliest pottery found in 6

Archaeological Research in Asia 12 (2017) 1–10

G. Shelach-Lavi, D. Tu

Fig. 5. Typical Early Neolithic pottery from different regions of north China: Ceramic vessels from the Dadiwan, Peiligang, Cishan, Houli, and Xinglongwa cultures (after Yanjiusuo, 2010: 116; 131; 143; 152; 159).

7

Archaeological Research in Asia 12 (2017) 1–10

G. Shelach-Lavi, D. Tu

period was not very large. The quality and sheer quantity of pottery rose dramatically during the transition to fully sedentary and relatively large villages that took place throughout North China during the late 9th and early 8th millennia BCE. As discussed above, already in the preliminary phases of this transition in Northeast China, during the socalled Xiaohexi culture, a dramatic increase in pottery production can be documented. Furthermore, the quantity and quality of pottery again rose dramatically during the subsequent Xinglongwa period. It was only then, within a relatively short period of a few hundred years, that pottery acquired its important economic function in the processing of food. What part of the food produced using pottery during the Xiaohexi and Xinglongwa periods came from domesticated resources? There is little evidence pertaining to the Xiaohexi period, though preliminary results from our recent test excavation at one Xiaohexi period site suggest that most, if not all, the resources consumed at this site were wild. More is known from Xinglongwa period sites, which are often associated with domesticated resources such as millet (Zhao, 2004, 2011). Indeed, among more than 10,000 carbonized seeds recovered by flotation at the Xinglonggou Locality 1, dated to Xinglongwa period, some 15% were millet. The rest of the remains, however, belonged to undomesticated plants, including acorn, edible seeds such as Chenopodium album and Artemisia annua L., as well as Astragalus membranaceus, a well-known traditional Chinese medicinal herb (Liu et al., 2015). It is interesting to note that most of the carbonized millet seeds were recovered from only two houses (Gongzuodui, 2004; Zhao, 2004), thus there may have been variability in the types of food consumed by different families within this prehistoric village. A less extensive study of plant remains from the Chahai site draws a similar picture. Among the 162 carbonized seeds recovered from six houses at this site, 97 are identified as millet seeds, though 26 of these may be undomesticated types. Similar to the Xinglonggou site, all domesticated seeds were concentrated at one house, with the rest containing undomesticated resources only (Yanjiusuo, 2012: 623–634). Animal remains at the Chahai site also represent a mix of wild animals, mostly different kinds of deer, as well as pigs, which may have already been domesticated, but could also have been wild or in the process of domestication (Yanjiusuo, 2012: 625–630). At Baiyinchanghan (白音长汗), 328 (87%) of the 377 animal bones recovered from Xinglongwa strata belonged to different types of deer and only 15 (4%) to pigs. Here too, pigs may not have been fully domesticated (Yanjiusuo, 2004: 546–553). Thus, even during the early period when relatively large sedentary villages existed in Northeast China, it seems that a large portion, probably more than 50%, of the population's diet came from wild resources. Analyzing the long trajectory of pottery production and the use of pottery to process food, it is possible to conclude that it was not just its association with the process of domestication which made this technology transformative. Rather we should look at the interrelations between this new technology, the processing of new types of foods (including, but not exclusively, domesticated resources) and changing patterns of human mobility and sedentism. This trajectory embodied a series of feedback effects between the different variables mentioned above: types of food resources, human mobility patterns, human group size, the invention and adaptation of new technologies and the interaction between humans and their environment, including the domestication of plants and animals. It may be argued that, even if during the initial stages of its production the net amount of food processed using pottery was not great, its transformative effects were substantial. Although we lack the data vital to a comprehensive analysis of pottery's functions, it may be hypothesized that at crucial points, such as periods of economic stress, or when large amount of hard-to-process resources were collected, the production and use of pottery may have been instrumental in allowing human groups to decrease their mobility and experiment with new kinds of resources and dietary preferences. During the early Holocene, acorns, and probably other nuts and seeds, were

China, but in North China, food residue has been extracted from grinding stones, which presumably were also used to process food. Starch extracted from grinding stones excavated at Shizitan (柿子滩) locality 14 and dated to the peak of the glacial age has been identified as belonging to a range of plants, including beans, tubers and different types of grasses, such as Paniceae, the wild ancestor of millet (Liu et al., 2013). The same species were also identified on grinding stones from locality 9 of the same site, dated to the early Holocene, but the results from this locality, as well as from Donghulin, suggest that acorn was the predominant food source processed there (Liu, 2015; Liu et al., 2010). Additional evidence from this period, starch residue extracted from potsherds found at Donghulin and Zhuannian (转年), was identified as both acorn and millet residue (Yang et al., 2014). Because the above noted analyses all extracted starch residue, remains of animal resources were not identified. It stands to reason, however, that the proximity of pottery to bones of various species indicates that some of the vessels were also used to process (cook) animal resources (Prendergast et al., 2009). An unpublished analysis of residue on early pottery from our research at the Fuxin area suggests that pots were similarly used in the processing of both plant and animal resources. 6. Early pottery, changing dietary habits and the transition to agriculture It is reasonable to conclude that, in the words of Jordan and Zvelebil (2010b: 44), early pottery containers were “multi-purpose food-preparation vessels.” However, the fact remains that most of the resources identified as having been processed in those vessels were undomesticated plants and animals. Moreover, while some of those resources are plants that were later domesticated, such as millet, most of the identified plants and animals, such as acorn or deer, were never domesticated. Thus, in contradiction to the commonly held view, it is possible to dissociate the invention of pottery from the transition to agriculture. We do not subscribe to this view, however, but rather believe that the two processes – the transition to agriculture and the beginning and evolution of pottery production – are interrelated in more complex ways than previously assumed. As noted above, early pottery appeared in North China as part of a techno-cultural complex, which also included the production of microblades, grinding stones and body ornaments (beads of different kinds). The co-appearance of these artifacts together with the remains of animal bones and, to a lesser extent, plants remains, at terminal Pleistocene and early Holocene sites suggests the development of a new adaptive strategy that was based on the exploitation of a broad spectrum of natural resources (Shelach-Lavi, 2015: 64–66). Ceramic vessels, as well as grinding stones, helped in the processing of certain resources such as seeds and nuts, which are not only difficult to digest but sometimes also mildly toxic. Grinding and prolonged cooking of those resources made them suitable for a human diet. Slow cooking in pottery to detoxify acorn, one of the most commonly identified food resources in the early pottery-producing sites of North China, is well documented among mobile hunter-gatherer societies (Erkens et al., 2004; Sturm et al., 2016: 650). In addition, exploitation of these new resources, some of which, like acorn, are highly concentrated and productive, enabled human groups to decrease their mobility and increase the size of their band. Although these groups had not yet become sedentary, remaining in one place for longer time periods and interacting with larger number of individuals created social tensions; hence the appearance of ornaments and other evidence (burials?) of social mechanisms that helped reduce intra- and inter-group tensions. What was the net economic impact of pottery at this stage? Not great, perhaps. The archaeological evidence suggests sporadic production of a very small number of vessels at each site. Being crumbly, the life span of each vessel was probably relatively short and, thus, the quantity of food processed with ceramic vessels during this initial 8

Archaeological Research in Asia 12 (2017) 1–10

G. Shelach-Lavi, D. Tu

possible. 7. Conclusion: food, pots and socio-economic transformations In the sections above, we briefly described a trajectory common to many areas in China, whereby pottery production started among hunter-gatherer societies during the late Pleistocene. For a long time, up to 10,000 years and longer, pottery continued to be sporadically produced in small quantities at a low technological level throughout North and South China. The rapid transformation of pottery production in North China – a dramatic increase in the quantity of pots produced and used by each community and the development of a more technologically-advanced level of production – coincided with the transition to sedentary, large-scale village communities in several different regions of the Yellow River basin and areas to its north. One way of explaining this trajectory is that pottery was invented and used by hunter-gatherer societies as an exotic activity. The technology was known, but used only very sporadically to produce special kind of foods, such as soups. According to this explanation, the real potential of pottery was only realized after the transition to agriculture and sedentary ways of life, when it became the favored type of containers for cooking, serving and storing foods and drinks. A different explanation, the one which is advanced in this paper, is that pottery was an instrumental part of the complex process that resulted in the transition to a sedentary agriculturalist way of life. Even if pots were not often produced or used on a large scale, being one option for the processing of food possessed by hunter-gatherers, it allowed them to experiment with new types of resources and with the more efficient exploitation of known resources. Such an ability was part of a feedback cycle (Fig. 6): pottery, among other factors, allowed people to stay for longer period in one place. Staying longer in one place increased the motivation and possibility of exploiting resources such as nuts and seeds. Because they are less easy to process and digest, nuts and seeds were probably not first-choice foods, but it was possible to collected them in large quantities and, because they are more durable than fruits or meat, it was possible to store them for a long period of time. This in turn allowed people to remain longer in the same place and increase their group size. Changing dietary preferences also meant that people changed the way they interacted with their natural environment, a process that could lead to the domestication of some (but not all) of the plants and animals that they consumed. The crux of the argument presented here is that pottery was a transformative agent in the dramatic dietary changes that occurred with the transition to agriculture. Obviously, it was not the only such agent and perhaps even not the most important one, but it played an active role in this process. At the same time, pottery technology and the pottery production were also transformed by this trajectory, especially during the relatively rapid transition to large-scale sedentary villages that took place in North China. Current and future archaeological work in China should be designed to generate the kind of data that will enables us to test these and other models and to precisely date the different stages of the trajectory (or trajectories) of pottery evolution in China. Such data includes the dating of many more sites, especially the less well-known sites of the transition period, the use of different recovery methods to generate information not only on the type of food resources that existed at such sites and their vicinity, but also those actually processed by different people using pottery vessels, and of food processed by means of other artifacts.

Fig. 6. A feedback model of the development of ceramic technology in North China.

distributed in patchy but dense concentrations throughout North China (Ren and Beug, 2002). Under such conditions, a plentiful harvest could be obtained in a relatively short time. Using grinding stones and pottery to process such acorns, nuts and seeds would make them edible and because they are durable, such foods can be stored for a long period of time. Those surpluses helped local societies decrease their mobility, a desired outcome, not only for social reasons but also because it helped guard and monopolize these dense concentrations of resources. While resources such as acorns, were never domesticated, the societies which exploited them remained in one place for longer periods of time, thereby interacting with their environment more intensively and ultimately modifying it in ways that more mobile hunter-gatherer did not. Ultimately, such processes could result in more intensive consumption and, finally, the domestication of other plants, such as millet, and of the animals that were attracted to human refuse, such as pigs. It is also worth noting that although pottery technology existed for a long period of time – at least from the 12th millennium BP in North China, but probably even earlier – for many millennia, it was sparsely produced and used on a small scale. Its transformation into a dominant technology on a large scale and of improved quality occurred quite rapidly, within a span of probably no more than a few hundred years, as suggested for example, by our excavations of the Xiaohexi and Xinglongwa sites, as well as by evidence form early Neolithic villages throughout North China. This rapid process accompanied the equally rapid transition from small-scale and relatively mobile communities to larger-scale sedentary villages. Thus, it seems that the crucial factor for the rapid increase in the quantity, quality and importance of pottery was not its use in processing domesticated food, which even during the Xinglongwa period may not have been the most important food resource, but rather the opportunities and needs that arose with decreased mobility and increased group size. Staying in one place for a longer time made investment in pottery production more worthwhile, because each pot could be used for a longer period of time without considering the need to leave it behind once the group moves on or investing much effort in transporting it during the group's movement (Sturm et al., 2016). At the same time, a larger group, staying for a longer period of time in one place, needed a technology such as pottery, which enabled more efficient exploitation of resources, including plentiful and fast renewable resources such as seeds, in the immediate environment of their community. Again, intensification of pottery production and usage was both the outcome of this process, and also one of the reasons that the transition to sedentary village life was

Acknowledgements During the time we worked on this paper Prof. Shelach-Lavi was a member of the Mandel-Scholion Interdisciplinary Research Center and he is grateful for its support. Funding for part of this research was provided by the Israel Science Foundation (Grants no. 501/11 and 728/ 17). 9

Archaeological Research in Asia 12 (2017) 1–10

G. Shelach-Lavi, D. Tu

Nelson, K., 2010. Environment, cooking strategies and containers. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 29 (2), 238–247. Pearson, R., 2005. The social context of early pottery in the Lingnan region of south China. Antiquity 79, 819–828. Prendergast, M.E., Yuan, J., Bar-Yosef, O., 2009. Resource intensification in the late upper Paleolithic: a view from southern China. J. Archaeol. Sci. 36 (4), 1027–1037. Qu, T., Bar-Yosef, O., Wang, Y., et al., 2013. The Chinese upper Paleolithic: geography, chronology, and techno-typology. J. Archaeol. Res. 21 (1), 1–73. Ren, G., Beug, H.-J., 2002. Mapping Holocene pollen data and vegetation of China. Quat. Sci. Rev. 21 (12 − 13), 1395–1422. Schortman, E.M., Urban, P.A., 1998. Culture contacts structure and process. In: Cusick, J.G. (Ed.), Studies in Culture Contact: Interaction, Culture Change, and Archaeology. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, pp. 102–125. Shelach, G., 2012. On the invention of pottery. Science 336 (6089), 1644–1645. Shelach, G., Teng, M., Goldsmith, Y., et al., 2016. Human adaptation and socio-economic change in northeast China: results of the Fuxin regional survey. J. Field Archaeol. 41 (4), 467–485. Shelach-Lavi, G., 2015. The Archaeology of Early China: From Prehistory to the Han Dynasty. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Sturm, C., Clark, J.K., et al., 2016. The logic of ceramic technology in marginal environments: implications for mobile life. Am. Antiq. 81 (4), 645–663. Sun, B., Wagner, M., Zhao, Z., et al., 2014. Archaeological discovery and research at Bianbiandong Early Neolithic cave site, Shandong, China. Quat. Int. 348, 169–182. Suo, X., 2005. Xiaohexi wenhua chulun [Preliminary discussion of the Xiaohexi culture]. Kaogu yu Wenwu 1, 23–26. Wang, L., Huo, D., Shi, X., Shi, B., 17 August 2012. Jilin Daan Houtaomuga yizhi fajue gude zhongyao shouhuo (Important discoveries in the excavation of the Houtaomuga site, Daan, Jilin). Zhongguo Wenwubao 8. Wang, F., 2013. The Houli and Beixin cultures. In: Underhill, A. (Ed.), A Companion to Chinese Archaeology. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 389–410. Wang, Y., Zhang, S., et al., 2015. Lijiagou and the earliest pottery in Henan Province, China. Antiquity 89, 273–291. Wu, X., Zhang, C., Goldberg, P., et al., 2012. Early pottery at 20,000 years ago in Xianrendong Cave, China. Science 336 (6089), 1696–1700. Yang, X., Wan, Z., Perry, L., Lu, H., Wang, Q., Zhao, C., Li, J., et al., 2012. Early millet use in northern China. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109 (10), 3726–3730. Yang, X., Ma, Z., et al., 2014. Starch grain evidence reveals early pottery function cooking plant foods in north China. Chin. Sci. Bull. 59 (32), 4352–4358. Yanjiusuo, Neimenggu Zizhiqu Wenwu Kaogu, 2004. Baiyinchanghan: Xinshiqi Shidai Yizhi Fajue Baogao Baiyinchanghan: An Excavation Report on the Neolithic Site. Kexue Chubanshe, Beijing. Yanjiusuo, Zhongguo Shehui Kexueyuan Kaogu, 2010. Zhongguo Kaoguxue: Xinshiqi Shidai Juan The Archaeology of China: the Neolithic Volume. Zhongguo Shehui Kexue Chubanshe, Beijing. Yanjiusuo, Liaoning Sheng Wenwu Kaogu, 2012. Chahai: Xinshiqi Shidai Juluo Yizhi Fajue Baogao [Chahai: Report on the Excavation of a Neolithic Site]. Wenwu Chubanshe, Beijing. Yanjiuyuan, Zhengzhoushi Wenwu Kaogu, Yanjiuzhongxin, Beijing Daxue Zhongguo Kaoguxue, 2013a. Henan Xinmi Lijiagou beiqu 2009 nian fajue baogao [Report on the 2009 excavations of the north area at the Lijiagou site, Xinmi Country, Henan Province]. Gudai Wenming 9, 177–207. Yanjiuyuan, Zhengzhoushi Wenwu Kaogu, Yanjiuzhongxin, Beijing Daxue Zhongguo Kaoguxue, 2013b. Henan Xinmi Lijiagou nanqu 2009 nian fajue baogao [Report on the 2009 excavations of the south area at the Lijiagou site, Xinmi Country, Henan Province]. Gudai Wenming 9, 208–239. Yu, J., 2002. Cong Beijing Zhuannian yizhi de faxian kan woguo huabei diqu xinshiqi shidai zaoqi wenhua de tezheng [The features of Early Neolithic culture of north China from the investigation of the Zhuannian site]. Beijing Wenwu yu Kaogu 5, 37–43. Yuan, J., 2008. The origins and development of animal domestication in China. Chinese Archaeology 8 (1), 1–7. Yuan, J., Li, J., 2010. Hebei Xushui Nanzhuangtou yizhi chutu dongwu yicun yanjiu baogao [Research report on the analysis of animal remains at the Nanzhuangtou site, Xushui Country, Hebei Province]. Kaogu Xuebao 3, 385–391. Zhang, C., 2002. The discovery of early pottery in China. Documenta Praehistorica 29, 29–35. Zhang, J., Wang, X., Qiu, W., et al., 2011. The Paleolithic site of Longwangchan in the middle Yellow River, China: chronology, paleoenvironment and implications. J. Archaeol. Sci. 38, 1537–1550. Zhao, Z., 2004. Cong Xinglonggou yizhi fuxuan jieguo tan Zhongguo beifang hanzuo nongye qiyuan wenti [A discussion of the origin of dryland agriculture in northern China based on flotation results of the Xinglonggou site]. In: Wenboxi, Nanjing Shifa Daxue (Ed.), Dongya kaogu. Wenwu Chubanshe, Beijing, pp. 188–199. Zhao, Z., 2011. New archaeobotanic data for the study of the origins of agriculture in China. Curr. Anthropol. 52, S295–S306. Zhao, C., Wu, X., 2000. The dating of Chinese early pottery and a discussion of some related problems. Documenta Praehistorica 27, 233–239. Zhao, B., Du, Z., Xue, Z., 2014. Xiaohexi wenhua jianxi [Analysis of the Xiaohexi culture]. Zhongguo Guojiabowuguan Guankan 1, 17–25. Zhou, L., Wang, T., Li, J., et al., 2010. Nanzhuangtou yizhi zaoqi taoqi shaocheng wendu yanjiu [Firing temperature analysis of early pottery from the Nanzhuangtou site]. Yankuang Ceshi 29 (2), 148–152. Zhuang, Y., 2015. Neolithisation in north China: landscape and geoarchaeological perspectives. Environ. Archaeol. 20 (3), 1–14.

Conflicts of interest None. References Baoding Diqu Wenwu, Guanlisuo, 1992. Hebei Xushui Xian Nanzhuangtou yizhi shijue jianbao [preliminary report on the trail excavation at the Nanzhuangtou site, Xushui County, Hebei]. Kaogu 11, 961–986. Barker, G., 2006. The Agricultural Revolution in Prehistory. Oxford University Press, New-York. Beijing, Daxue, et al., 2006. Beijingshi Mentougou Donghulin shiqian yizhi [The Neolithic site of Mentougou, Beijing city]. Kaogu 7, 3–8. Biton, R., Gorn, Y., Goring-Morris, N.A., 2014. Ceramics in the levantine pre-pottery neolithic B: evidence from Kfar HaHoresh, Israel. J. Archaeol. Sci. 41, 740–748. Boaretto, E., Wu, X., Yuan, J., et al., 2009. Radiocarbon dating of charcoal and bone collagen associated with early pottery at Yuchanyan Cave, Hunan Province, China. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 106 (24), 9595–9600. Childe, V.G., 1939. Man Makes Himself, 3rd edition. Watts & Co., London. Cohen, D.J., 2013. The advent and spread of early pottery in East Asia: new considerations and new dates for the world's earliest ceramic vessels. J. Austronesian Studies 4 (2), 55–92. Cohen, D.J., Bar-Yosef, O., Wu, X., Patania, I., Goldberg, P., 2016. The emergence of pottery in China: recent dating of two early pottery cave sites in South China. Quat. Int. 441, 36–48. Craig, O.E., Saul, H., et al., 2013. Earliest evidence for the use of pottery. Nature 496 (7445), 351–354. Crawford, G.W., 2011. Advances in understanding early agriculture in Japan. Curr. Anthropol. 52 (S4), S331–S345. Driver, H.E., Massey, W.C., 1957. Comparative studies of North American Indians. Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. 47, 165–456. Erkens, J.W., King, J., Wohlgemuth, E., 2004. The prehistoric development of intensive green-cone pinon processing in eastern California. J. Field Archaeol. 29 (1–2), 17–27. Garfinkel, Y., 1999. Neolithic and Chalcolithic Pottery of the Southern Levant. Qedem. vol. 39 Institute of Archaeology, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Gongzuodui, Zhongguo Shehui Kexueyuan Kaogu Yanjiusuo Neimenggu, 1985. Neimenggu Aohan Qi Xinglongwa yizhi fajue jianbao [Preliminary report on excavations at the Xinglongwa site, Aohan Banner, Inner Mongolia]. Kaogu 10, 865–873. Gongzuodui, Zhongguo Shehui Kexueyuan Kaogu Yanjiusuo Neimenggu Diyi, 2004. Neimenggu Chifengshi Xinglonggou juluo yizhi 2002 ~ 2003 nian de fajue [Preliminary report on the 2002-2003 excavations at the Xinglonggou site, Chifengshi, Inner Mongolia]. Kaogu 7, 3–8. Habu, J., 2004. Ancient Jomon of Japan. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hao, S., Xue, J., Cui, H., 2008. Donghulin sihao ren muzang zhong de guohe [Fruit seeds found at grave no. 4, Donghulin]. Renleixue Xuebao 2008 (3), 249–255. Hayden, B., 2009. The proof is in the pudding: feasting and the origins of domestication. Curr. Anthropol. 50 (5), 597–601. Hayden, B., 2010. Foreword. In: Jordan, P., Zvelebil, M. (Eds.), Ceramics before Farming: The Dispersal of Pottery among Prehistoric Eurasian Hunter-Gatherers. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, pp. 19–27. Hebeisheng Wenwu, Yanjiusuo, Baodingshi Wenwu, Guanlisuo, Guanlisuo, Xushuixian Wenwu, et al., 2010. 1997 nian Hebei Xushui Nanzhuangtou yizhi fajue baogao (Report on the 1997 excavations at the Nanzhuangtou site, Xushui County, Hebei Province). Kaogu Xuabao 3, 361–392. Jordan, P., Zvelebil, M. (Eds.), 2010. Ceramics before Farming: The Dispersal of Pottery among Prehistoric Eurasian Hunter-Gatherers. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek. Jordan, P., Zvelebil, M., 2010b. Ex Oriente Lux: the prehistory of hunter-gatherer ceramic dispersals. In: Jordan, P., Zvelebil, M. (Eds.), Ceramics before Farming: The Dispersal of Pottery among Prehistoric Eurasian Hunter-Gatherers. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, pp. 33–90. Kaner, S., Taniguchi, Y., 2017. The development of pottery and associated technological developments in Japan, Korea, and the Russian Far East. In: Habu, J., Lape, P., Olson, J. (Eds.), Handbook of the Archaeology of East and Southeast Asia. Springer. Kuzmin, V.Y., 2006. Chronology of the earliest pottery in East Asia: progress and pitfalls. Antiquity 80, 362–371. Li, Z., Kunikita, D., et al., 2017. Early pottery from the Lingjing site and the emergence of pottery in northern China. Quat. Int. 441, 49–61. Liu, L., 2015. A long process towards agriculture in the middle Yellow River valley, China: evidence from macro- and micro-botanical remains. J. Indo-Pacific Archaeol. 35, 3–14. Liu, L., 2004. The Chinese Neolithic : Trajectories to Early States. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK / New York. Liu, L., Field, J., Fullagar, R., et al., 2010. What did grinding stones grind? New light on early Neolithic subsistence economy in the middle Yellow River valley, China. Antiquity 84, 816–833. Liu, L., Bestel, S., Shi, J., et al., 2013. Paleolithic human exploitation of plant foods during the last glacial maximum in North China. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 110 (14), 5380–5385. Liu, X., Zhao, Z., Liu, G., 2015. Xinglonggou: the structure of Neolithic life. In: Barker, G., Goucher, C. (Eds.), The Cambridge World History, Volume 2: A World with Agriculture, 12,000 BCE-500 CE. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Lubbock, J., 1865. Pre-historic Times, as Illustrated by Ancient Remains, and the Manners and Customs of Modern Savages. Williams and Norgate, London.

10