Lijiagou and the earliest pottery in Henan Province, China.
Wang, Youping ; Zhang, Songlin ; Gu, Wanfa 等
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
Introduction
Current research into Chinese prehistory suffers from a dearth of
information concerning the cultural and social changes that occurred
during the transition from the Terminal Pleistocene to the early
Holocene period (e.g. Bar-Yosef & Wang 2012; Liu & Chen 2012; Qu
et al. 2013; Wagner et al. 2013; Wang et al. 2013). This period is
crucial to our understanding of the transition from mobile
hunter-gatherer groups to sedentary communities of foragers, as it is
widely agreed to be the time when cultivation of millet, in the north,
and rice, in the south, most likely began. The sites of the first
hunter-gatherers to practise cultivation are as yet unknown, but within
two or three millennia the new subsistence strategy resulted in the
domestication of millet and rice (e.g. Crawford 2006; Zhang & Hung
2008,2012; Bettinger et al. 2010; Liu et al. 2010; Z. Zhao 2010, 2011;
Bar-Yosef 2011; Cohen 2011; Fuller et al. 2011; Liu & Chen 2012;
Yang et al. 2012; Wagner et al. 2013). While excavations of sites dating
to this period considerably increase our understanding of the complex
processes that led to the emergence of farming in China, they are few in
number. Sites of this date that have been excavated in northern China
include Donghulin, Zhuanian and Nanzhuangtou (e.g. Cohen 2011; Liu &
Chen 2012).
During the Late Pleistocene in northern China, the world of
foraging societies was different from that of the southern regions. All
across the area from the western semi-desert regions and the highlands
of Qinghai and Tibet through the lowlands and plateaus of the Yellow
River, Inner Mongolia and north-eastern China were mobile groups of
foragers who were the creators of the microblade industries.
Microblades, a term researchers in East Asia adopted from the
American literature (e.g. Morlan 1967; Inizan 1991; Inizan et al. 1992),
are very small blades (generally less than 10mm wide), and it is often
assumed that their production technique evolved from the earlier Upper
Palaeolithic knapping of larger blades (see online supplementary
material for a description of the operational sequence and typology of
microblades). While visually they look similar, the operational
sequences for obtaining these microlithic bladelets are different.
Therefore, the shift from the common reduction sequences of blades to
the making of these small bladelets requires additional technical
knowledge.
The study of microblade assemblages has benefited from in-depth
investigations conducted in Siberia, Korea, the Japanese archipelago and
western North America (e.g. Kobayashi 1970; Flenniken 1987; West 1996;
Lu 1998; Seong 1998; Bleed 2001, 2002, 2008; Elston & Kuhn 2002;
Goebel et al. 2003; Nakazawa et al. 2005; Kuzmin et al. 2007; Bae 2010;
Elston et al. 2011).
A cross-continental review would place the microblade assemblages
in a well-established chronological scheme that would allow us to posit
questions concerning the origins and dispersal of the makers and their
skills. The current challenge in China is to trace the entire sequence
of microblade industries made by mobile foragers that first appeared in
the archaeological record c. 28-26 000 years ago (e.g. Zhang et al.
2011; Nian et al. 2014) and to trace their fate in view of the
establishment of farming communities.
Within this chrono-cultural context, this paper reports two
discoveries from the site of Lijiagou. First, it demonstrates a
relatively close chronological relationship between the late
hunter-gatherer makers of microblade industries and early farmers in
China's central plain. Second, it announces the discovery of
previously unknown pottery production by foragers, a cultural attribute
known from southern China from some 20-18 800 years ago (e.g. Boaretto
et al. 2009; Wu et al. 2012). The making of pots is archaeologically
recorded among other hunter-gatherer societies across the world,
demonstrating independent invention in more than one geographic region
(Jordan & Zvelebil 2009).
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
The site and its environment
The site of Lijiagou (N 34[degrees]33,55", E
113[degrees]3T25") is located on the left bank of the Chunban
River, a tributary of the Huai River system and about 100km from Jiahu
(Figure 1). The site was discovered in 2004 during a survey of the
Palaeolithic landscape around Zhengzhou City, led by the Zhengzhou
Municipal Institution of Archaeology. Following the discovery of the
site, excavations were conducted jointly by the Zhengzhou Municipal
Institution and the School of Archaeology and Museology of Peking
University over four months in autumn 2009 and spring 2010.
The site is located in the central plain of China on a tributary of
the Huai River, one of the most important river basins for the
investigation of early plant domestication (e.g. Zhang & Hung 2012,
2013). The best-known regional site that offers sound evidence for early
farming in this basin is Jiahu. Jiahu produced evidence for probable
rice cultivation, partly in wet fields, as well as evidence for the
gathering of wild rice, wild soybeans, acorns and water chestnuts,
suggesting that gathering wild plants continued alongside cultivation.
Jiahu also provided evidence for both domesticated pigs and hunted game,
including more than one species of deer, cattle and rabbit. It is also
known for the discovery of a large collection of musical flutes (e.g.
Zhang et al. 1999; Zhao & Zhang 2011; Zhang & Hung 2013).
According to new analysis by Zhang and Hung (2013), Jiahu represents the
earlier phase of the well-known and well-spread Peiligang culture, the
classic early village farming complex of northern China. Zhang and Hung
suggest that this early phase should be named after the early period of
Jiahu as 'Jiahu 1 culture' and that during this phase there
appears to be long-distance contact with the Pengtoushan-Bashidang
culture in the mid-Yangtze River area. According to the lists of 14C
dates assembled by Zhang and Hung (2013: 52-53), the early Neolithic
culture of Jiahu phase 1 dates to c. 7500/7000-6600 cal BC. Therefore,
tracing the presence of the last foragers and the emergence of farming
in the Huai River basin presents a challenge to archaeologists. The main
difficulty is the deep sequence of alluvial deposits that accumulated
during the Late Pleistocene and early Holocene, and which buried the
prehistoric sites in the Huai River basin, as well as in other parts of
the central plain.
Systematic surveys of natural sections created by erosion that
occurred during historical and recent times, as well as by widespread
agricultural activities and quarrying for clays for the production of
bricks, have revealed the presence of buried sites of Middle and Upper
Palaeolithic date (Wang & Qu 2014). This is the case at the Lijiagou
site that was found in a gully formed by the collapse of a coal mine
below the surface. Local farmers modified the gully as a deep ditch to
facilitate the irrigation of their fields by a flow of water from the
Chunban River. The new exposures uncovered a series of archaeological
horizons embedded in early Holocene deposits that overlay the
Pleistocene Malan yellow soil.
Our excavations at Lijiagou were limited to the widening of the
farmers' trench and by the trees planted on the top of the river
terraces of the Chunban River. While we were unable to expand the
surface of the excavations and could not affirm the size of this
prehistoric site, we believe that the excavations represent a pioneering
effort to close the cultural and chronological gap between
hunter-gatherer societies in this region and the later settlements of
sedentary communities identified as the Jiahu 1 and Peiligang cultures.
The excavation, stratigraphy and material culture
The excavations on both sides of the gully (Figure 2) were
undertaken within a grid system of lm x lm divisions. All spits were
50mm thick and were sieved in water. Flotation of a large number of
samples was systematically done, but unfortunately no plant remains were
recovered. Minute quantities of charcoal specks were found in the
different layers and were used for dating.
An area of slightly over 100[m.sup.2] was exposed on both sides of
the gully. The two sides are referred to as the north and south areas,
and were some 5-6m apart (Figure 2). The main sections of these two
areas exposed similar stratigraphy from the late Palaeolithic to the
Neolithic (Figure 3). The stratigraphy of the south area (Figure 3a) was
sub-divided into seven layers (detailed in Table 1).
The pottery assemblage from the south area included rare pottery
fragments attributed to the Peiligang culture, found in layer 2 (Zhang
et al. 2008). Many fragments of a previously unknown style of
sand-tempered pressed-decorated pottery, named 'Lijiagou
culture' after the site, were also discovered in layer 5.
Radiocarbon dates (Table 2) indicate that this pottery probably preceded
the earliest phase of the Jiahu sequence by a relatively short time
(Zhang & Li 1996; Zhang & Hung 2012, 2013). The sediments in
layer 5 are similar in nature to those of layers 5 and 6 in the north
area where radiocarbon dates were obtained (Table 2). Most finds from
layer 6 were distributed in a semi-circular area enclosed by several
blocks of quartzite, interpreted as the remains of a brush hut (Figure
4). The lithic assemblage was typical of a microblade industry and
contained a range of artefacts including 'boat-shaped' and
conical cores as well as numerous microblades (see Figures 5 & 6;
Table 3a). An elongated cobble with one polished edge and the profile of
a typical adze' was also discovered in layer 6; one end of the adze
shows an extensive longitudinal scar that might be related to hafting
(Figure 6). Based on several other excavated sites in the Zhengzhou
region, the small assemblage of quartz core and flake' artefacts
discovered in layer 7 probably date to the range of the late Marine
Isotope Stage 3 c. 50-35 ka cal BP (Xia et al. 2008; Wang et al. 2013).
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
The stratification of the north area (Figure 3b) was sub-divided
into eight layers, as detailed in Table 4. Layers 5 and 6a are
attributed to the newly discovered Lijiagou culture, and they included:
core and flake artefacts; microblades; animal bones (Tables 3a & b
and 5); fragments of pottery (Figure 7b) and a grinding stone (Figure
8). Layer 6b consisted of the same type of sediment as 6a but contained
a microblade industry that corresponded to layer 6 in the south area.
Layer 7 contained a few of the same type of 'core and flake'
quartz items as those found in layer 7 in the south area. This industry,
known from other sites in the region, is attributed to the late Middle
Palaeolithic (Qu et al. 2013).
Radiocarbon dates
Table 2 lists the five radiocarbon dates obtained from charcoal
samples from the south and north areas, together with calibrated dates
BC (Reimer et al. 2004). For comparison, readers should consult the
dates from Jiahu phase I that are now believed to represent the earliest
Neolithic culture in central China, preceding the Peiligang culture and
dated to 7500/7000-6600 BC (see Zhang & Hung 2013: 48 and Table 2).
The Lijiagou dates allow us to conclude that the pottery discovered in
layer 5, in both areas, and layer 6a in the north area, is earlier than
the Jiahu 1 culture (Zhang & Hung 2013). Due to the run-off effects
in the accumulation of layer 4 in the north area that affected the top
of layer 5, it is quite possible that the date of 7070 BC-6810 BC (95.4%
probability; BA-091417) is intrusive. We therefore suggest that the
Lijiagou culture dates to c. 8300-8000 cal BC and precedes the Jiahu I
culture by about 500-1000 years. Additional readings from both sites
may, of course, indicate a shorter time gap.
[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]
The microblade industry
Microblade industries are known from a large area in northern China
(e.g. Lu 1998; Qu et al. 2013). The earliest microblade sites, currently
dated to c. 28-22 ka cal BP, were excavated in Shaanxi and Shanxi
provinces, next to the Yellow River, and include Longwangchan (Zhang et
al. 2011) and the cluster of Shizitan sites (Shizitan Team 2002). The
cluster of Xiachuan sites is located at a higher elevation on the loess
plateau in Shanxi (Tang 2000; Qu et al. 2013). The optically stimulated
luminescence dates, with their [+ or -] 2.0/2.1 standard deviation,
obtained at the Youfang site in the northern Nihewan area (Nian et al.
2014), fall within the same period. Later dates are known from more
recent sites in Xiaochuan, Shizitan (Shi & Song 2010) and farther
north, at Shuidonggou site 12 (Yi et al. 2013).
The microblade assemblage at Lijiagou is best preserved in layer 6
in the south area (Table 3a & b and Figure 4). The base of the
layer, immediately above the Malan loess formation, contained a dense
activity area forming an elliptical distribution about 3.5m long and
2.5m wide (Figure 4). It contained numerous cores, flakes, bladelets,
chopping tools, grinding stones and animal bones (Table 5). There were
also quartzite blocks (up to 0.3-0.4m in diameter) brought from an
outcrop along the river bank some 50m away. The larger ones seem to have
been used as the outline of a small brush hut; one or two served as
anvils. Most of the lithic products are made of flint, chert, quartz or
quartzite, including a few scrapers and an apparently discarded adze
with a unifacial polished cutting edge found at the southern end of the
activity area.
[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]
Microblades were abundant in this context and can be classified
into several categories including micro cores, micro flakes and
bladelets. The micro cores are 'boat-shaped' and conical
(Figure 5). Numerous flakes resulted from core preparations and the
reshaping of other artefacts; many seem not to have been used and are
counted as debitage. The flint tools consisted mainly of scrapers,
retouched flakes, rare burins and a few bifacial points made from flint
and quartzite (Figure 6). This layer also contained a few chopping tools
made of quartzite. Worthy of special mention is a rare adze, which is
the only polished tool (Figure 6). Similar polished tools associated
with microblade assemblages of Terminal Pleistocene--early Holocene age
are rare, found only in Donghulin and Nanzhuangtuo (Zhao et al. 2006).
In addition to the stone tools and the imported blocks mentioned above,
there is evidence for the use of other raw materials such as sandstone
and quartzite, which was considered to be largely for an expedient
industry of flakes and irregular items.
[FIGURE 6 OMITTED]
Two pottery fragments were found with this microblade assemblage.
Both were plain, with no decoration, limestone-tempered and fired at a
low temperature (Figure 7a). The shape of the pots seems to have been
rounded, similar to early pots in southern China.
The faunal assemblage of this layer (Table 5) was dominated by
Cervus axis (chital deer), Carpreolus sp. (roe deer), Equus sp. (horse
family), Sus sp. (wild pig), Bos sp. (cattle), Nyctereutes procyonoides
(racoon), Vulpes vulpes (fox), Lepus capensis (cape hare), rodentidae
(voles) and a few fragments of ostrich egg shells. The deer species are
indicative of a forested area where wild boar were probably present,
while the carnivores, hare and ostrich indicate open grassland. Cattle
bones were generally broken into smaller fragments, perhaps suggesting
that they were boiled for grease. Most of the large ungulate bones were
concentrated in the eastern part of the excavated area. Apparently, this
was either the place of butchering and processing or simply the
'discard zone' where the waste was dumped.
The remains of the Lijiagou culture
The cultural remains uncovered in layers 5 and 6a in the north area
include numerous pottery fragments with a few additions in the south
area; these were attributed to a new ceramic style called the
'Lijiagou culture'. The discovery of pottery in the central
plain of China earlier than Jiahu 1 is surprising. It is known that
hunter-gatherers had been making pots for a long time in southern China.
This observation was established by the dates of 20-19 000 cal BP
attributed to pottery in Xianrending and Diatonghuan caves in Jiangxi
Province (Wu et al. 2012), and some of a later date (18-17 000 cal BP)
in Yuchanyan cave in Hunan Province (Boaretto et al. 2009). However, due
to the close proximity in age of the large assemblage of sherds from
layers 5 and 6a in the north area at Lijiagou to the early Neolithic of
the Jiahu 1 culture, where evidence for cultivation is indicated by
plant remains (Zhang & Hung 2012), we attributed the Lijiagou
assemblage to the pre-Neolithic period of this region.
Layers 5 and 6a in the north area, where the deposits are thicker
than the later or earlier layers, probably demonstrate a much longer
duration of human activity compared with the preceding occupation by the
microblade makers. For example, during the 2009 season, more than 200
fragments of pottery were uncovered within an area of 10[m.sup.2]. This
particular pottery signifies the uniqueness of this cultural layer.
[FIGURE 7 OMITTED]
The stone tools of the 'Lijiagou culture' contexts are
slightly different from those in the previous layer (Figure 9). Rare
conical microblade cores were found in this context, and most of the
other items are made of chert and quartzite and are scarcely retouched
(Table 3a & b). This assemblage of expedient tools was made of
indurated sandstone and quartzite, and their exact use is not yet known.
Worth noting is the presence of a rare, broken, bone awl bearing a short
series of incisions near the proximal end. In addition, several
fragments of grinding tools were recovered. One complete rectangular
item with a round edge made from grey sandstone is presented in Figure
8.
The faunal remains of the Lijiagou culture layers (Table 5) are the
same as those of the microblade industry layer 6b, suggesting that the
natural environment remained the same over several centuries. The list
includes Pere David's deer (Elaphurus davidianus), chital deer
(Cervus axis), Chinese water deer (Hydropotes inermisov) or musk deer
(Moschus) and a feline species (felidae). Among the deer, Pere
David's and Chinese water deer suggest that a wetland landscape
characterised the immediate vicinity of the site, as they often graze in
marshy areas and open grassland. Roe deer are indicative of open forest,
as are chital deer and wild boar. The wild cattle may represent mixed
forest and grassland, and ostrich a more open landscape. Apparently, the
area around Lijiagou at that time was a mosaic environment, providing
rich resources for exploitation that allowed foragers to become
sedentary.
[FIGURE 8 OMITTED]
The most important discovery in layers 5 and 6a was the pottery. It
comprised 200 fragments, some of which fit together to reconstruct a
vessel (Figure 7b). These hand-made vessels of clay, mixed with sandy
temper, were fired at high temperatures, resulting in a light yellow or
red colour. The most common form of what is now called the
'Lijiagou culture' is a straight, barrel-shaped vessel. The
outer surface of the pots shows several different decorations, mostly
pressed on the ceramics before firing. The patterns include cord-marked
decorations and incisions. Some sherds are better fired than others,
indicating that these ceramics were already of better quality than the
rare sherds uncovered with the earlier microblade industry. Finally, the
shapes and styles of the Lijiagou pottery are entirely different from
the later Jiahu 1 and Peiligang cultures. We hypothesise that the
technology of firing pots at higher temperatures appeared in this region
around 10 000 years ago and could be the result of the movement of
people from southern China, or cultural communication with regions where
pottery making was practised earlier.
Remains of the Peiligang culture
There was later occupation at Lijiagou in the Peiligang phase. The
sherds of Peiligang culture were uncovered mainly in layers 2 and 3 in
the south area, with some layer 3 fragments having accumulated due to
the erosion of earlier Peiligang-age deposits. Typologically, the
Peiligang sherds in layer 2 are similar to those of many sites of this
culture that are well documented in Henan Province (e.g. Zhang et al.
2008). We note also that the assemblage of layer 2 is similar to the
contexts from the Tanghu site (Xinzheng City county), a large Peiligang
site that lies about 25km from Lijiagou.
[FIGURE 9 OMITTED]
Conclusion
The importance of the Lijiagou site is twofold; the microblade
assemblage provides a wealth of information and is one of the few
reported and dated assemblages from the area south of the Yellow River
basin. However, the discovery of this assemblage, together with rare
fragments of an unknown pottery type that preceded the Lijiagou culture,
is hugely significant and deserves additional field research.
The microblade assemblage retrieved from layer 6 in the southern
area is dominated by 'boat-shaped' and conical-shaped cores,
and reveals the connections between Lijiagou and other sites in the
central plain of China, such as Dagang in Wuyang county (Henan province;
Zhang & Li 1996), Limgjing near Xuchang City (Henan Province; Li
2010) and the Shizitan sites in Ji County (Shanxi Province; She &
Song 2010) near the Yellow River. The reduction sequence and the final
shape and size of bladelets at Lijiagou are similar to detachment
techniques of bladelets common in other microblade assemblages in
northern China (e.g. Yi et al. 2013). They are generally obtained by
pressure flaking from preheated cores. The dates of this assemblage fall
within the later period of the microblade cultural sequence that
originated before the Late Glacial Maximum and continued through the
early Holocene (e.g. Qu et al. 2013).
The Lijiagou cultural contexts demonstrate a paucity of microblade
elements, probably indicating that their production had decreased
drastically. Whether microblades were produced in Neolithic farming
communities in the region is unknown. However, two hypotheses can be put
forward. First, the artisans who knew the techniques and produced these
mini-bladelets abandoned their production, perhaps because there was no
need for these artefacts; second, fine sieving was not practised during
the excavation of early Neolithic sites. In addition, the makers of the
microblades were originally members of bands of foragers. The
establishment of sedentary farming communities limited the ability of
hunter-gatherers to move around according to their needs, and they
abandoned the region. Thus, by the time of the Lijiagou culture, around
8500-8200 cal BC, major social changes were taking place in the Huai
River basin.
Interestingly, the grinding stone found in the Lijiagou culture
context continued the tradition of plant food preparation demonstrated
at Shizitan 14, dating to the Late Glacial Maximum (e.g. Liu et al
2013); Shizitan 9, dating to the Terminal Pleistocene (Liu et al 2011);
and Donghulin, dating to the early Holocene (Liu et al. 2010). Starch
analysis revealed the exploitation of acorns and small grasses, and
apparently these plants continued to be part of the diet of
hunter-gatherers for many millennia. However, for the central plain of
China the uniqueness of the Lijiagou microblade context, and in
particular the Lijiagou culture, is the discovery of pottery-making,
which had not yet been found at late Palaeolithic sites in this vast
region.
The archaeological evidence from Lijiagou helps us to identify the
socio-economic changes that occurred prior to the appearance of the
Jiahu 1 culture and, in particular, the widespread Peiligang culture.
Together with evidence from the Dagang site, it may indicate that the
farmers of the Jiahu 1 culture were immigrants from elsewhere and that
the Jiahu 1 culture did not emerge from local traditions. In addition,
the unknown pottery assemblage, marked by cord-deco rated vessels now
found in northern China, shows that pottery technology was not limited
to southern China as previously thought. Future investigations will help
to determine whether the Lijiagou culture, dated to the early Holocene,
is the last phase of a long sequence of foragers that heralds the
establishment of later Neolithic farming villages in the central plain
of China.
For supplementary material, please visit
http://dx.doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2015.2
doi: 10.15184/aqy.2015.2
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by a grant from the China National
Philosophy and Social Science Foundation (no. 11&ZD120). We thank
our colleagues from the Zhengzhou Municipal Institute of Cultural Relics
and Archaeology, School of Archaeology and Museology at Peking
University, for their assistance in completing this phase of research.
O. Bar-Yosef thanks the American School for Prehistoric Research
(Peabody Museum), Harvard University, for supporting his joint research
in China.
References
BAE, K. 2010. Origins and patterns of the Upper Paleolithic
industries in the Korean peninsula and movement of modern humans in East
Asia. Quaternary International 211:103-12.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2009.06.011
BAR-YOSEF, 0.2011. Climatic fluctuations and early farming in West
and East Asia. Current Anthropology 52(S4): S175-93.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/659784
BAR-YOSEF, O. & Y.P. WANG. 2012. Paleolithic archaeology in
China. Annual Review of Anthropology 41: 319-35.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-092611-145832
BETTINGER, R.L., L. BARTON & C. MORGAN. 2010. The origins of
food production in north China: a different kind of agricultural
revolution. Evolutionary Anthropology 19: 9-21.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/evan.20236
BLEED, P. 2001. Trees or chains, links or branches: conceptual
alternatives for consideration of stone tool production and other
sequential activities. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 8:
101-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A: 1009526016167
--2002. Cheap, regular, and reliable: implications of design
variation in Late Pleistocene Japanese microblade technology, in R.G.
Elston & S.L. Kuhn (ed.) Thinking small: global perspectives on
microlithization: 95-102. Arlington (VA): American Anthropological
Association.
--2008. Skill matters. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
15: 154-66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10816-007-9046-0
BOARETTO, E., X. WU, J. YUAN, O. BAR-YOSEF, V. CHU, Y. PAN, K. LIU,
D. COHEN, T. JIAO, S. LI, H. GU, P. GOLDBERG & S. WEINER. 2009.
Radiocarbon dating of charcoal and bone collagen associated with early
pottery at Yuchanyan Cave, Hunan Province, China. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the USA 106: 9595-600.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0900539106
COHEN, D.J. 2011. The beginnings of agriculture in China: a
multiregional view. Current Anthropology 52(S4): S273-93.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/659965
CRAWFORD, D.W. 2006. East Asian plant domestication, in M.T. Stark
(ed.) Archaeology of Asia: 77-95. Malden: Blackwell.
ELSTON, R.G. & L. KUHN (ed.). 2002. Thinking small: global
perspectives on microlithization. Arlington (VA): American
Anthropological Association.
ELSTON, R.G., H. DONG & D. ZHANG. 2011. Late Pleistocene
intensification technologies in northern China. Quaternary International
242: 401-15.
FLENNIKEN, J.J. 1987. The Paleolithic Dyuktai pressure blade
technique of Siberia. Arctic Anthropology 24(2): 117-32.
FULLER, D.Q., E. ASOUTI & M.D. PURUGGANAN. 2011. Cultivation as
slow evolutionary entanglement: comparative data on rate and sequence of
domestication. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 21: 131-45.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00334-011-0329-8
GOEBEL, T, M.R. WATERS & M. DIKOVA. 2003. The archaeology of
Ushki Lake, Kamchatka, and the Pleistocene peopling of the Americas.
Science 301 : 501-505. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1086555
INIZAN, M.-L. 1991. Le debitage par pression: des choix culturels.
25 ans d'etudes technologiques en prehistoire. Bilan et
perspectives. XI rencontres internationales d'archeologie et
d'histoire d'Antibes: 567-78. Antibes: APDCA.
INIZAN, M. L., M. LECHEVALLIER & P. PLUMET. 1992. A
technological marker of the penetration into North America: pressure
microblade debitage. Its origin in the Paleolithic of North Asia and its
diffusion, in P.M. Vandiver, J.R. Druzik, G.S. Wheller & I.C.
Freestone (ed.) Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology III Volume 267:
661-81. Pittsburgh, (PA): Materials Research Society.
JORDAN, P. & M. ZVELEBIL (ed.). 2009. Ceramics before farming:
the dispersal of pottery among prehistoric Eurasian hunter-gatherers.
Walnut Creek (CA): Left Coast.
KOBAYASHI, T. 1970. Microblade industries in the Japanese
archipelago. Arctic Anthropology 7(2): 3-58.
KUZMIN, Y.V., S.G. KEATES & C. SHEN (ed.). 2007. Origin and
spread of microblade technology in north-eastern Asia and North America.
Burnaby: Archaeology Press, Simon Fraser University.
LIU, L. & X.C. CHEN. 2012. The archaeology of China from the
Late Palaeolithic to the Early Bronze Age. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
LIU, L., J. FIELD, R. FULLAGAR, D. ZHAO, X.C. CHEN & J. YU.
2010. A functional analysis of grinding stones from an early Holocene
site at Donghulin, north China. Journal of Archaeological Science 37:
2630-39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2010.05.023
LIU, L., W. GE, S. BESTELA, D. JONES, J. SHI, Y. SONG & C.
CHEN. 2011. Plant exploitation of the last foragers at Shizitan in the
middle Yellow River Valley, China: evidence from grinding stones.
Journal of Archaeological Science 38: 3524-32.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2011.08.015
LIU, L., S. BESTEL, J. SHI, Y. SONG & X.C. CHEN. 2013.
Paleolithic human exploitation of plant foods during the last glacial
maximum in north China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
of the USA 110: 5380-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1217864110
LU, T.L. 1998. The microblade tradition in China: regional
chronologies and significance in the transition to Neolithic. Asian
Perspectives 37: 84-112.
MORLAN, R.E. 1967. The pre-ceramic period of Hokkaido: an outline.
Arctic Anthropology 4(1): 164-220.
NAKAZAWA, Y., N. IZUHO, J. TAKAKURA & S. YAMADA. 2005. Toward
an understanding of technological variability in microblade assemblages
in Hokkaido, Japan. Asian Perspectives 44: 276-92.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/asi.2005.0027
NIAN, X., X.G. GAO, F. XIE, H. MEI & L.-P. ZHOU. 2014.
Chronology of the Youfang site and its implications for the emergence of
microblade technology in north China. Quaternary International 347:
113-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.05.053
QU, T.L., O. BAR-YOSEF, Y.P. WANG & X.H. WU. 2013. The Chinese
Upper Paleolithic: geography, chronology, and techno-typology. Journal
of Archaeological Research 21: 1-73.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10814-012-9059-4
REIMER, P.J., M.G.L. BAILLIE, E. BARD, A. BAYLISS, J.W. BECK, C.
BERTRAND, P.G. BLACKWELL, C.E. BUCK, G. BURR, K.B. CUTLER, P.E. DAMON,
R.L. EDWARDS, R.G. FAIRBANKS, M. FRIEDRICH, T.P. GUILDERSON, K.A.
HUGHEN, B. KROMER, F.G. MCCORMAC, S. MANNING, C. BRONK RAMSEY, R.W.
REIMER, S. REMMELE, J.R. SOUTHON, M. STUIVER, S. TALAMO, F.W. TAYLOR, J.
VAN DER PLICHT & C.E. WEYHENMEYER. 2004. IntCal04 terrestrial
radiocarbon age calibration, 0-26 cal kyr BP. Radiocarbon 46: 1029-58.
SEONG, C. 1998. Microblade technology in Korea and adjacent
north-east Asia. Asian Perspectives 37: 245-78.
SHI, J.M. & Y.H. SONG. 2010. The excavation of Locality S9 of
the Shizitan site in Jixian County, Shanxi. Archaeology 10: 7-17.
SHIZITAN TEAM. 2002. The excavation of the Paleolithic site
Shizitan (Loc. S14), Ji County, Shanxi Province. Archaeology 4: 1-28.
TANG, C. 2000. The Upper Palaeolithic of north China: the Xiachuan
culture. Journal of East Asian Archaeology 2: 37-49.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156852300509781
WAGNER, M., P. TARASOV, D. HOSNER, A. FLECK, R. EHRICH, X. CHEN
& C. LEIPE. 2013. Mapping of the spatial and temporal distribution
of archaeological sites of northern China during the Neolithic and
Bronze Age. Quaternary International 290-91: 344-57.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2012.06.039
WANG, Y.P. & T.L. QU. 2014. New evidence and perspectives on
the Upper Paleolithic of the Central Plain in China. Quaternary
International 347: 176-82.
WANG, Y.P., S.L. ZHANG, G.W. GU, S.Z. WANG, J.N. HE, J.F. ZHANG
& T.L. QU. 2013. The lithic assemblage of Lijiagou site. Acta
Archaeologica Sinica 32: 411-20.
WEST, F.H. (ed.). 1996. American beginnings. Chicago (IL):
University of Chicago Press.
WU, X., C. ZHANG, P. GOLDBERG, D. COHEN, Y. PAN, T. ARPIN & O.
BAR-YOSEF. 2012. Early pottery at 20,000 years ago in Xianrendong Cave,
China. Science 336: 1696-700. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1218643
XIA, Z.K., D. LIU, Y.P WANG & T. QU. 2008. Environmental
background of human activities during MIS3 stage recorded in the
Zhijidong cave site, Zhengzhou. Quaternary Sciences 28: 96-102.
YANG, X., Z. WAN, L. PERRY, H. LU, Q. WANG, C. ZHAO, J. LI, F. XIE,
J. YU, T. CUI, T. WANG & Q. GE. 2012. Early millet use in northern
China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 109:
3726-730. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1115430109
YI, M., L. BARTON, C. MORGAN, D. LIU, F. CHEN, Y. ZHANG, S. PEI, Y.
GUAN, H. WANG, X. GAO & R. L. BETTINGER. 2013. Microblade technology
and the rise of serial specialists in north-central China. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 32: 212-23.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2013.02.001
ZHANG, C. & H.-C. HUNG. 2008. The Neolithic of southern China:
origin, development, and dispersal. Asian Perspectives 47: 299-329.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/asi.0.0004
--2012. Later hunter-gatherers in southern China, 18 000-3000 BC.
Antiquity 86: 11-29.
--2013. Jiahu 1: earliest farmers beyond the Yangtze River.
Antiquity 87: 46-63.
ZHANG, J.-F., X.-Q. WANG, W.-L. QIU, G. SHELACH, G. HU, X. FU,
M.-G. ZHUANG & L.-P, ZHOU. 2011. The Paleolithic site of Longwanchan
in the middle Yellow River, China: chronology, paleoenvironment and
implications. Journal of Archaeological Science 38:1537-50.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2011.02.019
ZHANG, J.H. & Z.Y. LI. 1996. Preliminary report on the
excavation of Dagang microlithic site in Wuyang County, Henan Province.
Acta Anthropologica Sinica 15: 105-13.
ZHANG, J., G. HARBOTTLE, C. WANG & Z. KONG. 1999. Oldest
playable musical instruments found at Jiahu early Neolithic site in
China. Nature 401: 366-68.
ZHANG, S.L., Y.J. ZIN, Y.Y. HU & F.H. YAN. 2008. Excavation of
Peiligang culture remains on the Tanghu site in Xinzheng City, Henan.
Archaeology 5: 3-20.
ZHAO, C., T. WANG, X. WU, M. LIU, X. YUAN, J. YU & J. GUO.
2006. Donghulin, Zhuannian, Nanzhuangtou, and Yujiagou sites, in
Institute of Archaeology (ed.) Prehistoric archaeology of south China
and South-east Asia: collected papers of an international academic
workshop, celebrating 30 years of the excavations of Zengpiyan cave:
116-27. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe.
ZHAO, H.L. 2011. An experimental study of flaking microblades. Acta
Anthropologica Sinica 30: 22-31.
ZHAO, Z. 2010. New data and new issues for the study of origins of
rice agriculture in China. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences
2: 99-105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12520-010-0028-x
--2011. New archaeobotanic data for the study of the origins of
agriculture in China. Current Anthropology 52: 295-306.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/659308
ZHAO, Z. & J. ZHANG. 2011. Report on the 2001 flotation results
from the site of Jiahu. Chinese Archaeology 10: 196-202.
Received: 3 February 2014; Accepted: 1 April 2014; Revised: 21
April 2014 Youping Wang [1], *, Songlin Zhang [2], Wanfa Gu [2], Songzhi
Wang [2], Jianing He [1], Xiaohong Wu [1], Tongli Qu [1], Jingfang Zhao
[1], Youcheng Chen [1] & Ofer Bar-Yosef [3]
[1] School of Archaeology and Museology, Peking University, 5
Yiheyuan Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100871 China
[2] Zhengzhou Municipal Institute of Cultural Relics and
Archaeology, Zhengzhou, Henan, China
[3] Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, 11 Divinity
Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
* Author for correspondence (Email:
[email protected])
Table 1. Stratigraphy of south area at Lijiagou.
Layer Date Sediment type
1 modern brown sandy
2 Peiligang brown sandy
3 Peiligang grey and white sandy
4 Peiligang brown and yellow sandy
5 Lijiagou blackish upper, yellow
and brown lower sandy
deposit similar to layers
5 & 6 in north area
6 Lijiagou brown sandy with 'balls',
small carbon aggregates
common in loess
accumulation
7 Lijiagou Malan yellow soil
Layer Depth (m) Material remains
1 0.04-0.34 modern cultural
2 0.94-1.76 rare Peiligang pottery fragments
3 0.18-1.34 Peiligang pottery
4 0.14-0.78 Peiligang pottery
5 microblades; Lijiagou pottery
6 quartzite brush hut;
microblades; 'boat-shaped'
and conical cores; polished
adze with hafting scar; rare
pottery fragments. Plain
sand-tempered pottery
containing small limestone
particles
7 assemblage of quartz 'core and
flake' artefacts, probably late
Marine Isotope Stage 3
Table 2. Radiocarbon dates of the various deposits at the Lijiagou
site.
Lab number Material Sample location (14) C BP date
BA091418 charcoal south area Lijiagou 9090 [+ or -] 40
culture
BA091419 charcoal south area 9180 [+ or -] 35
microblade
culture
BA091420 charcoal south area 9160 [+ or -] 35
microblade
culture
BA091416 charcoal north area 7740 [+ or -] 40
BA091417 charcoal north area Lijiagou 8015 [+ or -] 35
culture
BA091494 charcoal north area Lijiagou 8950 [+ or -] 40
culture
Calibrated BC date
Lab number 1[sigma] (68.2%) 2[sigma] (95.4%)
BA091418 8310-8255 (68.2%) 8430-8370(4.6%)
8350-8230 (90.8%)
BA091419 8440-8300(68.2%) 8540-8510 (3.1%)
8480-8290 (92.3%)
BA091420 8430-8370 (25%) 8470-8280 (95.4%)
8350-8290 (42.6%)
BA091416 6610-6500 (68.2%) 6650-6480 (95.4%)
BA091417 7060-7000 (21.1%) 7070 -6810 (95.4%)
6970-6910 (22.9%)
6890-6830 (24.3%)
BA091494 8250-8180 (35.5%) 8280-8160 (44.2%)
8120-8090 (8.2%) 8140-7960 (51.2%)
8080-(8060 3.9%)
8050-7990 (20.6%)
Table 3. Lithics of the earlier microblade industry
and the Lijiagou culture.
A. Debitage and imported rocks at the Lijiagou site
Microblade Lijiagou
industry culture
Category No. % No. %
Cores 74 5.2 37 5.1
Microblade cores 22 1.6 7 1.0
Flakes 208 14.6 93 12.7
Broken flakes 80 5.6 42 5.8
Microblades 38 2.7 12 1.7
Blades 2 0.1 -- --
Chunks 730 51.3 361 49.5
Transported blocks 180 12.7 126 17.2
Tools 88 6.2 51 7.0
Total 1422 100.0 729 100.0
B. Tools from the Lijiagou site
Microblade Lijiagou
industry culture
Type No. % No. %
Side scrapers and retouched flakes 69 78.4 25 46.3
End-scrapers 5 5.7 2 3.7
Burins 4 4.5 -- --
Notches -- -- 3 5.5
Pointed flakes/blades 4 4.6 -- --
Small foliates 4 4.6 2 3.7
Choppers 1 1.1 3 5.5
Adzes 1 1.1 -- --
Grinding stones -- -- 2 3.7
Grinding stones fragments -- -- 7 13.0
Hammerstones -- -- 5 9.3
Anvils -- -- 5 9.3
Total 88 100.0 54 100.0
Table 4: Stratigraphy of the north area at Lijiagou.
Layer Date Soil type Material remains
1 modern/historical
2 modern/historical
3 modern/historical
4 Peiligang mixed sandy Peiligang sherds
sediment
runoff
5 Lijiagou core and flake artefacts,
microblades, animal bone,
pottery, grinding stone
6a Lijiagou core and flake artefacts,
microblades, animal bone,
pottery
6b Lijiagou microblade industry
7a Middle 'core and flake' quartz
Palaeolithic items
Table 5. Faunal assemblages of the microblade layers
and the Lijiagou culture.
Family Microblade industry Lijiagou culture
NISP n = 115 % NISP n = 136 %
Cervidae 54 46.96 85 62.5
Equidae 17 14.78 3 2.2
Bovidae 13 11.30 7 5.2
Suidae 3 2.61 5 3.7
Lepus -- -- 1 0.7
Carnivora 11 9.57 15 11.0
Rodentia 5 4.35 4 2.9
Aves 11 9.57 14 10.3
Mussels 1 0.87 2 1.5
