Major Patterns in the Neolithic Chronology of East Asia: Issues of the Origin of Pottery, Agriculture, and Civilization

Abstract

General chronological frameworks created recently for the Neolithic complexes of China, Japan, Korea, and far eastern Russia allow us to reveal temporal patterns of Neolithization, origin of food production, and the emergence of civilizations. Pottery originated in East Asia, most probably independently in different parts of it, in the terminal Pleistocene, about 14,800–13,300 BP (uncalibrated), and this marks the beginning of the Neolithic. Agriculture in the eastern part of Asia emerged only in the Holocene. The earliest trace of millet cultivation in north China can now be placed at ∼9200 BP, and rice domestication in south China is dated to ∼8000 BP. Pottery in East Asia definitely preceded agriculture. The term “civilization,” which implies the presence of a state level of social organization and written language, has been misused by scholars who assert the existence of a very early “Yangtze River civilization” at about 6400–4200 cal BP. The earliest reliable evidence of writing in China is dated only to about 3900–3000 cal BP, and no “civilization” existed in East Asia prior to this time.

Radiocarbon Chronology for Prehistoric Complexes of the Russian Far East: 15 Years Later

“…However, as was repeatedly demonstrated, the oldest site with direct evidence of millet agriculture in the region is dated to -4700-4600 BP (e.g. Sergusheva 2007Sergusheva , 2008Kuzmin et al 2009; also see Table 1). This refutes Vostretsov's (2006Vostretsov's ( , 2010 conclusion.…”

“…There are discordant aspects among the different models that I would like to note: 1) unsubstantiated claims for the age of prehistoric sites; 2) the emergence of maritime adaptation; 3) the beginning of agriculture; and 4) obvious discrepancies. A critique of some of these issues was presented before (Kuzmin , 2011Kuzmin et al 2009;Kuzmin and Rakov 2011).…”

“…Regarding the origin of millet agriculture in the Russian Far East, my current model is that it initially appeared in northern and northeastern China (Cishan site, Hebei Province; and Xinglonggou site, Inner Mongolia Province; see Kuzmin et al 2009) at around 9200-6300 BP. It then spread to the east and southeast, reaching the southern part of the Korean Peninsula (see Crawford and Lee 2003) and a CALIB 6.0.1 software was used (Reimer et al 2009) (± 2σ, all possible intervals combined and rounded to the next 10 yr).…”

Two Trajectories in the Neolithization of Eurasia: Pottery Versus Agriculture (Spatiotemporal Patterns)

“…The issues of Neolithization and the spatiotemporal features of the pottery/agriculture spread in Eurasia are among the most hotly debated in Old World archaeology (e.g. Jordan and Zvelebil 2009;Kuzmin et al 2009;Hartz et al 2011;Price and Bar-Yosef 2011). The term "Neolithic" was originally coined by Sir John Lubbock who indicated polished tools and to some extent pottery and agriculture as the main criteria of this period (Lubbock 1878).…”

North Eurasian Hunter-Gatherer Ceramics as an Archaeological Source: Reply to Kuzmin (2013)

“…In their critique of a diffusionist approach for understanding early pottery dispersals, Kuzmin et al (2009) focus on evidence from East Asia and Siberia, namely from the regions that have so far produced the oldest dates for ceramics (East Asia: ~13,700-13,300 BP; Transbaikal: ~12,200-10,500 BP; southern West Siberian Plain: possibly ~9900-9100 BP): "As for the vast terrain between these territories (several thousand kilometers), the earliest well-documented pottery assemblages are dated only to 8000 BP" (Kuzmin et al 2009:894). We think that this observation alone is not sufficient to conclude that "Therefore, the diffusionist approach […] seems to be unproductive in understanding the spread of pottery from (presumably) East Asia to other parts of Eurasia" (Kuzmin et al 2009:894).…”