This chapter covers an exceptionally long and complex period. It starts with the incipient social and economic processes that began during the pre-Neolithic periods some 20,000 years ago and eventually led to the transition to agriculture and sedentary lifeways some 8,500 years ago and ends some 4,000 years ago, when state-level societies began to emerge in different regions of China. The Chinese Neolithic, so defined, includes a vast number of societies, each evolving in its unique local environment and developing unique cultural, economic and social forms. Thus, even an entire book could not describe them all or do justice to their variations, let alone a brief summery chapter such as this. Writing this chapter, more than any other chapter in this book, requires that I select not only what data to include in it but, even more fundamentally, which issues are crucial to include in such a chapter and which to omit. This sort of selection is subjective, of course: topics that I deem important may be less important to other scholars and vice versa. Interested readers are, therefore, advised to seek more comprehensive treatments in recently published books on the archaeology of ancient China (e.g., Liu and Chen 2012; Shelach-Lavi 2015; Zhongguo 2010).
Despite popular but contested claims that the origins of Chinese written language trace back to the late Neolithic period (e.g., Keightley 2006) and even earlier (Li et al. 2003), the earliest documents in which longer combination of characters convey complex messages of any historic value discovered so far in China are the oracle bones (Chinese: jia-gu-wen), dated to the late second millennium BCE (see Bagley this volume). Thus, studying the prehistoric societies of Neolithic China is based on the painstaking collection, sorting and analysis of archaeological data. While this data can be studied using different approaches, with different theoretical and methodological tools, my own approach is anthropologically based. In this chapter, I therefore emphasize issues that are relevant to our understanding of the human society and the processes of change it underwent. Alongside the presentation of relevant archaeological data, I also discuss some of the outstanding questions that are still unresolved or await further research. Rather than focusing on the Yellow River basin, which is sometime considered the “cradle of Chinese civilization”, I choose in this chapter to emphasize the cultural diversity of societies from different regions of China and to examine the extent to which these societies were in contact with each other.
Because of the compressed nature of this chapter, I use simplified, and admittedly quite simplistic, geographical and chronological terminology. ‘China,’ itself an anachronistic term for the Neolithic period but used here as a convenient shorthand, is divided, for the purpose of my discussion, into the north (the Wei and Yellow River basins region and areas to their north), center (the middle and lower Yangtze basin), south (areas south of the Yangtze River basin) and west (areas currently in Sichuan and Yunnan) (see Figure 1.1 for the location of all sites mentioned in this chapter). Chronologically, the Neolithic is commonly divided into numerous spatio-temporal entities (or archaeological ‘cultures’), but is here divided into the pre-Neolithic (ca. 18,000–6,500 BCE); Early Neolithic (ca. 6,500–5,000 BCE), Middle Neolithic (ca. 5,000–3,500 BCE) and Late Neolithic (ca. 3,500–2,000 BCE) (Table 1.1).
The deep background: processes during the pre-Neolithic period
The transition to agriculture is a global phenomenon and one of the most significant processes in the history of humankind. It not only transformed the relationship between humans and their natural environment and the nature of human adaptation but also profoundly and fundamentally altered human social relations and culture. Everything that typifies our society today, or the historical era for that matter, including dense concentrations of populations, cities, states, food surpluses that support non-productive activities, advanced technologies and professional specializations, could only have developed within the context of an intensive agriculture economy.
Table 1.1 The chronological and geographic framework of this chapter and some of the main associated Neolithic archaeological ‘cultures’
| North China | Central China | South China | West China |
|
| Pre-Neolithic (ca. 18,000-6,500 BCE) | | | | |
| Early Neolithic (ca. 6,500–5,000 BCE) | Dadiwan (大地湾); Peiligang (裴李岗); Cishan (磁山); Houli(后李); Xinglongwa (兴隆洼) | Pengtoushan (彭头山); Shangshan (上山); Kuahuqiao (跨湖桥); Chengbeixi (城背溪) | Dingsishan (顶蛳山); Keqiutou (壳坵头) | |
| Middle Neolithic (ca. 5,000–3,500 BCE) | Early and Middle Yangshao (仰韶); Beixin (北辛); Early Dawenkou (大汶口); Zhaobaogou (赵宝沟); Hongshan (红山) | Lower Zaoshi (皂市下层); Hemudu (河姆渡); Majiabang (马家浜); Tangjiagang (汤家岗); Daixi (大溪); Songze (松泽) | Keqiutou (壳坵头) | |
| Late Neolithic (ca. 3,500–2,000 BCE) | Late Yangshao; Late Dawenkow; Longshan (龙山); Xiaoheyan (小河沿); Majiayao (马家窑); Banshan (半山);Machang (马厂) | Liangzhu (良渚); Qujialing (屈家岭); Shijiahe (石家河) | Dingsishan Phase IV; Xiantouling (咸头岭): Shixia (石峡); Yangliang (涌浪); Tanshishan-Niubishan (昙石山–牛鼻山) | Baodun (宝墩) |
Contrary to popular perceptions, ‘agriculture’ is not a one-time invention or historical event. In fact, archaeological and ethnographic studies challenge the notion of a clear-cut division between hunter-gatherer and agricultural societies. Contrary to their image as passive recipients of natural resources, some hunter-gatherer societies have also engaged in ‘resource management’ (Bellwood 2005: 12); the intentional burning of natural vegetation to stimulate the growth of desired plants, weeding and landscape modification, and selective intervention in the populations of plants and animals. On the other side of the same coin, societies that are often viewed as fully evolved agriculturalists continued to rely to a great extent on the procurement and consumption of wild resources. Thus, this chapter subscribes to the view that the transition to agriculture was a long process and that societies along this trajectory combined varying degrees of economic strategies, interactions with and modifications of the environment, social mechanisms and technologies (Smith 2001; Zeder 2015). Current research suggests that even the domestication of plants, considered one of the hallmarks of agriculture, was a much longer process than previously envisioned and sometimes took thousands of years (Fuller et al. 2014; Gross and Zhao 2014).
Research on the long-term processes that eventually led to the flourishing of fully evolved sedentary agricultural societies is, thus, fundamental for our understanding of the history of human society in general and of its varied manifestations in different regions of the world. China is among the handful of centers where agriculture developed independently and from which it spread to other regions. However, it is also the only center for which we are unable to fully reconstruct the entire trajectory from hunter-gatherer societies to agricultural communities (Bettinger et al. 2007; Shelach and Teng 2013). In spite of many recent advances in the identification and dating of early domesticated plants and animals (Flad et al. 2009; Liu 2015; Liu et al. 2015; Zhao 2011), few sites dating to the crucial transitional period are currently known. The social and archaeological context and consequences of those processes also remain poorly understood, as does the respective economic importance of domesticated food sources in different regions and during different phases of the trajectory. It is not even generally agreed upon whether there was a single process of transition to agriculture that encompasses north and central China (Cohen 2011), two or three independent centers of domestication in North China, the Yangtze River basin and the tropical South (Liu et al. 2015; Zhao 2011), or even multiple centers (Shelach 2000).
What do we know, then, about the long-term background of the development of sedentary agricultural societies in different parts of China? Sites of the late Pleistocene to early Holocene are not much different from earlier sites. They are typically small, with little evidence of long-term residency or investment in permanent structures. Nanzhuangtou in Hebei Province, perhaps the best-known early Holocene site in north China, is a relatively small open-air site. Excavations here located the remains of fireplaces, but the shape and make-up of habitations is unclear, and investment in them was probably minimal (Hebei 2010). In central and south China, most known occupations are cave sites. Yuchanyan is a good example of a late Pleistocene site in this region. The area of this limestone cave is quite small – it is 12–15 m long and 6–8 m wide – suggesting that it was occupied by a small group of people. Fireplaces discovered inside the cave are the only clear indication of human modifications (Boaretto et al. 2009).
A gradual change during this period is indicated, however, by the appearance of new technologies and cultural habits that started already during the peak of the last glacial age, some 20,000 years ago, and gained momentum during the Early Holocene. These technologies include the production of tiny stone artifacts (microblades), grinding stones, and ceramic containers, as well as the more common appearance of body ornaments (Qu et al. 2013; Sun and Wagner 2014; Wang 2005; Zhang et al. 2011). Collectively, the new technologies and the artifacts produced using these technologies suggest changes in human economic behavior, such as the development of new methods for procurement and processing of resources, and changing consumption habits, including a focus on new food resources and changes in social relations.
Microblades or microliths (Chinese: xishiqi) are tiny flake artifacts, usually no more than 2 cm in length. The evolution of this technology began earlier, but it become ubiquitous during the late Pleistocene and early Holocene, and evidence of microblades industries during this time have been found in most parts of north China. For example, one study of sites associated with the Xiachuan culture in southern Shanxi Province, dated to ca. 18,000 BCE, found that 95% of the stone tools were flaked blades and that the proportion of microliths among those tools is very high. This trend is also well represented in sites dated to the early Holocene and in other parts of north China (Bettinger et al. 2007; Chen 2007: 8–20). These tiny stone artifacts were probably embedded in wood or bone handles to form the cutting edge of composite tools such as knives, sickles or arrows (Figure 1.2) which could be used for harvesting and hunting, as well as the processing of food.
Grinding stones, or querns (Chinese: mopan), are large flat stone slabs, one side of which is sometimes slightly concave and smoothly polished. Although they appear in much smaller quantities, their history and distribution are quite similar to that of microliths. A few such
Figure 1.2 Typical stone artifacts of the late Pleistocene and early Holocene period: A. microlith and flint microlith cores of the Xiachuan culture; B. a bone handle into which a microblade is inserted from Donghulin; C. grinding slab (quern) from Locality 1 at Longwangchan.
objects were recently found in late Pleistocene and early Holocene contexts in north China. For instance, querns were found alongside microliths at the Longwangchan site, in Shaanxi, in a stratum dated to ca. 23,000 BCE (Figure 1.2C), as well as at different locations of the Shizitan site in Shanxi Province, dated more or less to the same period; and at sites such as Nanzhuangtou, and Donghulin in the Beijing area, dated to the beginning of the Holocene (Guo and Li 2002: 195–197; Hebei 2010; Liu et al. 2010; Liu et al. 2013; Shizitan 2010; Zhang et al. 2011).
Those technologic changes are not reflected in the lithic industry of central and south China, which continued the older Paleolithic traditions dominated by large coarse tools, the so called “core-and-flake assemblages” (Qu et al. 2013). The production of ceramic vessels, however, began earlier in these areas, and, in fact, this seems to be the first region of the world in which pottery was produced and used. Potsherds found at cave sites such as Xianrendong (ca. 20,000 BP or ca. 18,000 BCE) and Yuchanyan (18,300 to 15,400 BP, or ca. 16,000 to 13,500 BCE) (Boaretto et al. 2009; Wu et. al. 2012) suggest the sporadic production of coarse, low-fired ceramics during the peak of the last glacial age. Early ceramic production was also identified at cave sites further to the south, such as Miaoyan in Guangxi Province, but its exact dating is still disputed (Qu et al. 2013: 53). In the north, modest quantities of potsherds found at terminal Pleistocene and early Holocene sites such as Nanzhuangtou and Donghulin (Hao et al. 2008; Hebei 2010) suggest a production mode that is not unlike that known from the Yangtze River area.
What is the significance of these findings? Grinding stones and ceramics are traditionally associated with the processing of cereal grains and other domesticated food by agricultural societies. Scientific research, however, does not necessarily support such a connection. For, example, starch residue extracted from grinding stones excavated at Shizitan locality 14 and dated to the peak of the last glacial age has been identified as belonging to a range of plants including bean...
