The social context of early pottery in the

Lingnan region of south China

Research
Richard Pearson∗

Late Pleistocene and early post-Pleistocene communities in East Asia experimented with pottery
production and the domestication of plants and animals. What was the nature of the social
organisation of these early small-scale societies? Some North American writers consider pottery
making to be a ‘prestige technology’ sponsored by aggrandising individuals. However, examples
from south of the Nanling Mountains and other areas have simple tool assemblages and site
plans showing very little evidence of social differences. Judging from recent debates about social
agency, there are more appropriate explanations for the earliest pottery making, which focus on
the collective rather than the individual.
Keywords: early Holocene, South China, pottery, prestige technology, agency

Introduction
In the past few years archaeologists have confirmed that people in East Asia began to
experiment with sedentary living, pottery making and plant and animal domestication
as early as 14 000 years ago, and very definitely by 12 000 years ago. It appears that a
number of early sites in China, Japan and the Russian Maritime province show evidence
of a settled existence (sedentism), principally pottery, and pose many questions about their
social, economic, and environmental contexts. Generally, pottery appears to have been
invented in crude form about 15 000 years ago, during the end of the Palaeolithic. Keally
et al. (2004: 349) conclude that ‘the earliest pottery in East Asia and the whole Old World
is now reliably dated to about 13 700-13 300 b.p. (about 17 200-14 700 BP) in 3 regions:
(1) Japan, (2) lower and middle parts of the Amur River Basin in the Russian Far East and (3)
southern China’. At the end of this formative period, around 9000 years ago, it became more
sophisticated and widespread (Cao in press).
What was the impetus for the invention of pottery? In this paper I summarise very briefly
the information on early pottery sites of the Lingnan region (Guangdong and Guangxi
provinces), and introduce the concept of prestige technologies as a possible explanation
for the emergence of pottery making and domestication. Building on the substantial
contributions of Brian Hayden (1995, 1998) and Prudence Rice (1999), I connect this
explanation to changing trends in the use of agency theory by archaeologists (Robb 1999;
Dobres & Robb 2000).

∗
1890 West 17th Avenue, Vancouver V6J 2M9 BC Canada (Email: pearsonrj@shaw.ca)
Received: 2 January 2004; Accepted: 12 October 2004; Revised: 22 November 2004
antiquity 79 (2005): 819–828
819
 Early pottery in the Lingnan region of south China

Social origins of pottery making

Brian Hayden has proposed that ‘aggrandizing individuals seeking to promote their self-interest
have been responsible for the development of prestige technologies including the use of metals,
pottery and domesticated foods’ (1998: 18). These ‘aggrandisers’ depended on favourable
surplus economic conditions, and their prestige technology could be transformed to practical
technology. In 1995 Hayden stated that since there is no record of pottery making before
the development of complex hunter–gatherer and horticultural communities ‘it is tempting
to view the initial development of pottery as prestige technology’ (1995: 260). He proposed that
the ceramics were used as food containers for competitive display and consumption, but
at the same time, he left open the possibility that aggrandisers might use other media for
prestige food containers. If pottery were part of a prestige technology, Hayden postulated
that it should initially occur as serving or feasting utensils – plates, bowls, liquid containers,
or vessels for the preparation of prestige foods, which might involve boiling, brewing or
straining. Finally he predicted that in such cases there would be a rapid development to
specialised production of elaborately decorated forms involving large expenditures of labour
(1995: 261).
Prudence Rice (1999) adopted the general theoretical position of Hayden, identifying
unfired and low-fired clay to be part of early prestige technologies. She found the ‘aggrandiser’
theory approach of Hayden to be heuristic because it combined earlier culinary and symbolic
explanations with more robust (fewer post hoc adaptationalist) implications for the origins
and wider adoption of pottery. The culinary hypotheses were based on the idea of the
discovery that sun-baked or fired clay for lining baskets or fireplaces could be used for
rigid, relatively impermeable containers while the symbolic explanations focused on the
early appearance of objects other than vessels, such as figurines, ornaments, beads, and
spindle whorls. Rice found that the earliest pottery sites lack evidence for year-round
sedentism and housing, and often seem to be based on a settlement subsistence system
featuring semi-sedentary foraging and collecting, with seasonal movements from riparian
to interior camp sites (1999: 21). She concluded that from the viewpoint of feasting
and social models, it might be more appropriate to think in terms of pottery containers
for short-term ‘accumulation’ rather than long-term storage. The adoption of pottery
could have involved practical and prestige technologies in different areas and at different
times.
Although Rice concluded that there was no single evolutionary path for the development
or adoption of fired pottery, she seemed to favour the aggrandiser/competitive feasting
model. From it she constructed some expectations as to the characteristics of early pottery
containers used in feasting, and the sites where they are found (1999: 123). Early pottery
should appear in the context of seasonal occupations rather than fully sedentary settlement.
Early pottery vessels should appear (whether by invention or adoption) among complex
hunter–gatherer groups as part of emerging rank distinction. They would be expected
to consist of special-purpose vessels, associated with accumulating, storing, preparing or
serving special foods. Such foods might be carbohydrates in protein-rich environments
or fats and oils in areas with predominantly starchy diets. Vessel capacities (either size or
number of vessels) should be large, i.e. sufficient for storage, serving, and consumption

820
 Richard Pearson

of contents. Lastly, vessels used for feast foods might be expected to be decorated, bearing
stylistic information pertaining to the aggrandiser, his or her family and/or larger social
group.

Research
Perspectives of agency theory
Hayden’s aggrandiser model needs revision on theoretical grounds. Its particular picture
of the nature of agency in ‘transegalitarian’ societies affects the kinds of archaeological
expectations and explanations sought by archaeologists such as Rice. There are two major
approaches to power. The first focuses on the pursuit of power or prestige through
stratagems that are rational in given circumstances (individual mastery model), whereas
the second focuses on the creation of the actors’ subjectivity through the process of agency.
In the latter case, power is symbolically constituted and depersonalised, as a property
of symbolic systems and institutionalised structure. The first type, as found in Hayden’s
aggrandiser theory, can be seen as reductionist and personalistic, a kind of methodological
individualism. Saitta (1997: 263) states that it will be criticised for its strong reliance on
certain ethnographic records and its gendering of power holders as male. A more nuanced
view of agency assumes that power is depersonalised and symbolically constituted within a
specific society. The emphasis is placed on social reproduction into which material substances
are integrated. Decisions are made on the basis of many interlocking social and symbolic
structures having many purposes and motivations beyond the individual acquisition of
power.
Saitta (1999: 137) provides a powerful critique of prestige good models. In these
models he notes that elites extract appropriate surplus and that the elite–subordinate
relationship is exploitative. It is more likely that prestige goods are embedded in complex
structural relationships. They could be seen as ‘communal social entitlements required for
reproduction rather than instruments of elite power’ (1999: 137). Saitta notes that cases in
which there is a poor match with available evidence and old theoretical assumptions about
the natural acquisitiveness of the few impede our development of new perspectives (1999:
145).
Hegmon (2003: 220) notes that studies of the actions of leaders assume the universality
of striving for aggrandisement, but this is not accepted by all writers on the subject. Such
a picture of the individual aggrandiser is based on notions of the individual which come
from later capitalism (Hodder 2000: 23, 25), and there is a strong possibility of legitimising
modern social relationships by uncritically projecting them back in time. Johnson (2000:
214) states: ‘the theoretical relationship between the individual, the social collective and agency
will vary according to context. Consequently it follows that different methods will be appropriate
for identifying agencies and developing convincing interpretations in different contexts.’ Brumfiel
notes a strong division between writers who believe that agents work towards goals that are
in some way cross-culturally predictable, and those who believe that the goals were defined
by unique culturally and historically specific logics and values (2000: 249). She concludes
that ‘the presence of aggrandizers in the archaeological record should be demonstrated rather than
assumed ’ (2000: 253). Let us consider some of these ideas when we turn to the evidence of
early south Chinese pottery and incipient cultivation.

821
 Early pottery in the Lingnan region of south China

Figure 1. South Chinese Early Neolithic sites discussed in the text.

Early sites and pottery from the Lingnan region

My discussion is limited to sites south of the Lingnan Mountains of south China (Figure 1).
Other sites in the valley of the Changjiang (Yangzi) River are discussed by Zhao and Wu
(2000), Wu and Zhao (2003) and Zhang (2002). In the Late Pleistocene there appears to have
been a trend toward increased exploitation of local wild resources. In the final Pleistocene and
early Holocene (c . 14 000-9000 years ago), Jiao (1994) noted the development of ground
stone tools, perforated and chipped stone tools, shell and bone tools and the earliest pottery.
He termed this assemblage Mesolithic, as did Zhang (2000). Zhang (2002) and Lu (in press)
have also noted that pottery appears in a Mesolithic or ‘pre-Neolithic’ (my term) context.
Changes occurred 9000 years ago with the development of completely polished stone tools
and the widespread use of pottery. A few sites briefly described in English summaries are
listed below. Debates on the dating of these and other sites can be found in a special issue
of The Review of Archaeology (Kuzmin 2003).
Excavations at Dayan, Lingui County, Guangxi province, in 2000 yielded deposits dating
from the Late Palaeolithic to the Middle Neolithic. Early pottery, which was incompletely
fired, included a large cooking vessel (fu or bo) and a cylindrical fragment. The earlier portions
of the site yielded shell midden containing human burials. Later layers yielded pottery
resembling the pottery of Pengtoushan, Hunan Province, dating to around 9000 b.p. (Cao
in press; Zhang 2002; Fu 2001). Dayan pottery is described as being thick and low-fired.

822
 Richard Pearson

Vessel form and function are unclear (Cao in press). Dingsishan, Nanning, Guangxi
province, on the Bachijiang River, has yielded ceramics dating to earlier than 10 000 b.p.
as well as ceramics from about 8000 b.p. The latter appear to be round-bottomed cooking
vessels (Fu 2002). Cao (in press) states that the latter period of the site, dating from about

Research
8000 b.p., displayed unique burial traits but does not give details. A rock shelter site at
Liyuzui, Luzhou City, Guangxi province, has yielded two piles of ashes interpreted as the
remains of hearths (Zhang 2000; Fu 2002). Chang (1986: 102) reported that several flexed
burials were recovered from the site but the precise details were not provided. Dating of
shells from the lowest layer ranges from 18 000 to 23 000 b.p. (Onuki 2003: 78) but these
samples came from below the cultural layer (Institute of Archaeology 1991: 217). Previously,
Zhao (1998) estimated the age of the Neolithic component to be around 11 000 b.p., so
there is considerable debate concerning the dating of this site. Liyuzui yielded soft, low-fired
sand-tempered pottery. The vessel form is unclear.
The site at Miaoyan, Guilin City, Guangxi Province, has yielded deposits dating from
20 000 to 12 000 b.p. Zhang (2002) states that the small sample (5 sherds) of pottery from
Miaoyan are similar to the plain pottery of Xianrendong, Jiangxi. Recalibrated AMS dates
from potsherds from Zone 5 give dates of about 18 000 to 19 000 b.p. (Zhao & Wu 2000:
237). Miaoyan pottery is sandy, thick, hand-built and undecorated. It is light brown or black
on the outside and mostly black on the inside. The midden in the cave site at Zengpiyan,
Guilin City, Guangxi Province, has yielded 18 human burials. Chang (1986: 102) reports
that they are mostly flexed, that 6 individuals had an artificial perforation on the top of
their skulls and that some of the skeletons had been coloured with red ochre. The dating of
the burials is not clear. Underhill (1997: 135) states that the stone tools included digging
stick rings and elongated pebbles with flat ends believed to be pestles. The pig bones of
Zengpiyan are of special significance. From a total of 67 individuals identified from jaw
bones, 40 yielded age determinations, 65 per cent being between 1 and 2 years old. This
indicates human harvesting of the pig population (Ren 1995: 41). The pig canines seem to
show size reduction typical of domesticated pigs (Underhill 1997: 135). The Zengpiyan pig
remains appear to be dated about 8000 years ago (Ren 1995). The earliest pottery was fired
at less than 250◦ C, and tempered with quartz particles at least 1.5mm in diameter. Surfaces
were cord marked. The only shape is a wide-mouth semi-hemispherical vessel. Pottery from
10 000 to 8000 b.p. was slab built; from 8000 to 7000 b.p. it was wheel made, in various
shapes including stands (Zhongguo Shehui et al. 2003) (Figures 2-4). Following new
excavations and interdisciplinary analysis at Zengpiyan in 2001, a new evaluation of the site
has been published (Zhongguo Shehui et al. 2003). Five phases, each of roughly 1000 years’
duration, from 12 000 to 7000 b.p., were distinguished. The authors concluded that there
was no evidence for plant or animal domestication at the site.
However, remains of rice thought to be in an early stage of domestication, dating to
12 000 to 14 000 b.p. have been found at the Yuchanyan site, Hunan province, only
200km to the east of Zengpiyan, in the Yangzi Basin (Zhang & Yuan 1998). Phytoliths
of rice thought to have been collected have been found in the Niulandong site in northern
Guangdong province (Zhongguo Shehui et al. 2003: 699). Two burials of individuals
in crouched squatting position were recovered in Phase IV (9000 to 8000 b.p.). One of
these had two clam shells placed together to cover the skull. In the Guilin area the authors

823
 Early pottery in the Lingnan region of south China
Figure 2. Pottery sherd from Period I (12 000 to 11 000 b.p.). Zengpiyan Site, Guilin City, Guangxi Province, China.
Left, cross section; right, exterior surface.
Figure 3. Pottery sherd, interior surface, from Period II
(11 000 to 10 000 b.p.). Zengpiyan Site, Guilin City,
Guangxi Province, China.
824
note that natural stone slabs have been
found covering burials dating from 12 000
to 8500 years ago, while tools are found
with burials dated 8000 years ago (2003:
693).
In general, the sites show evidence of
sedentism in the form of extensive shell
deposits and burials, and the burials show
some kinds of ritual treatment, but status
distinctions are not clear. None of the
early burials possesses grave goods. Red
ochre is a precious substance, but it was
used for the collective. However, Hayden
believes that few people may have received
such a purposeful burial, and that they
are probably elite (Hayden pers. comm.
November 2003). The dating of the burials
remains uncertain. While vessel shape is
difficult to determine from the Lingnan
sites the consensus seems to be that the
 Richard Pearson

Research
Figure 4. Pottery sherd of vessel base, from Period II (11 000 to 10 000 b.p.). Zengpiyan Site, Guilin City, Guangxi Province,
China.

earliest vessels are round-bottomed cooking vessels. Early pottery from Yuchanyan and
Diaotonghuan, north of the Nanling Mountains, also seems to consist of round-bottomed
cooking vessels. Zhao and Wu state that they could have been used for cooking rice or snails,
clams and fish (2000: 237).

Comparative early pottery sites

To assist the interpretation of the Lingnan pottery, comparisons can be drawn with two other
examples of early pottery use. From Japan, a study of 30 sites giving 97 age measurements
considered most reliable has found four phases of development of early pottery (Keally et al.
2003). Three of these pottery phases occur in the Incipient Jomon: Phase 1, plain pottery;
Phase 2, linear relief ware; and Phase 3, mainly punctate, nail impressed, and cord marked.
The fourth phase, in Earliest Jomon, is decorated with a cord-wrapped string. Calibrated
dates for the beginning of Phase 1 are around 14 280 BC or 16 230 BP. Uncalibrated dates
for the four periods are Phase 1, c .13 500-12 700 b.p.; Phase 2, c . 12 700-11 400 b.p.;
Phase 3, c . 11 400-9800 b.p.; and Phase 4, c . 9800-9000 b.p. Keally et al. (2003: 9) note
that the quantity of pot sherds from each site remains very low throughout the 5000 years of
the Incipient Jomon. Sites of Phase 1 had a median of 28 sherds, while those of Phase 3 had
500. In Phase 4, at the beginning of the Earliest Jomon, pottery suddenly becomes abundant.
Vessels tend to have wide mouths, deep bodies, and various types of bases, including flat,
round, and pointed. Keally et al. (2003: 3) state that the vessel shapes are appropriate for
boiling or cooking, or for storing liquids or solids. Comparable dates have been reported
for Siberia (Keally et al. 2003) and from northern Vietnam (Obata 2003).

825
 Early pottery in the Lingnan region of south China

A similar situation seems to occur in Amazonia, where early pottery has been found in
contexts similar to those of the Lingnan region. Roosevelt (1995) reports that early pottery
sites at two locations appear to be those of specialised river foragers. Sites of the Mina Culture
from the Amazon estuary zone of Salgado yielded shell- or sand-tempered plain pottery with
simple bowl shapes. Uncalibrated dates determined from charcoal, shell, and pottery temper
are in the range of 5570 to 3490 years ago (1995: 118). Sites of the Alaka Culture, Guyana,
are also early with dates of about 5000 years ago (1995: 117). The Taperhina site, in the
coastal lower Amazon area, yielded 11 AMS dates in the range of 7080 to 6300 b.p., several
millennia earlier than the Andean or Mesoamerican pottery (1995: 124). Sherds come from
fragile sand-tempered hemispherical or inturned-rim bowls, 150 to 300mm in diameter
at the rim. Only 3 per cent of 383 sherds displayed decoration, consisting of geometric
incisions on bowl rims and shoulders. Roosevelt thought that they could have been used for
seafood stew or soup, or for storage or display.

Discussion
Hayden’s postulates that pottery should first appear as serving or feasting utensils are difficult
to confirm from the Lingnan evidence. With regard to Rice’s expectations, it is not yet clear
whether the Lingnan sites were occupied seasonally or year-round, or whether the sites show
any signs of rank distinction. Zengpiyan’s special burial treatment of red ochre appears be an
expression of group identity rather than of individual status distinctions. The pottery vessels
do not seem to have served special purposes, although the unusual forms from Dayan do
raise some interesting questions, which need to be resolved. Vessel capacity does not seem
to be large and the ceramics are undecorated.
In China and Japan, elaborately decorated pottery begins to occur in abundance only
several millennia after the inception of pottery. In the Lingnan area, the Middle Neolithic
(Li 2002: 81) marks the appearance of abundant decorated pottery while in Japan it appears
with the Early Jomon period (5300 b.c. to 3500 b.c. based on uncalibrated dates). The
social dynamics of highly decorated ceramics in the Chinese Neolithic case, in which they
are often used in great quantities as grave offerings, vary from region to region, and are very
different from those of the Japanese Jomon, where they rarely appear in burials and ranking
cannot be clearly seen from burials until the final two stages of the Jomon Period.
The early pottery of eastern Asia, which occurs in Mesolithic contexts (Zhang 2000),
does not seem to be part of a prestige technology. What, then, is the social context of
the pottery? The evidence suggests that small semi-sedentary or sedentary communities
made very small quantities of pottery vessels for food preparation, since pottery is found in
the living debris and is plain or minimally decorated. Vessel shapes seem to indicate food
preparation rather than food consumption, although further research is needed to confirm
this. Pottery may have served as a kind of communal social entitlement, being used for
preparing some special food for the collective (Saitta 1999: 137). It has been proposed that
the Zengpiyan pottery was used for cooking gastropods (Zhongguo Shehui et al. 2003:
691). This interpretation comes close to the ideas of Haaland (1997: 354) that pottery is
associated with activities which become important with the advent of sedentism, activities
centred around women and children and the hearth, such as cooking, firewood collection,

826
 Richard Pearson

water carrying, food consumption, and habitation. I would favour a similar interpretation
for the Amazonian data rather than one of a prestige technology. In at least two parts of the
world, where pottery is very old, it appears that it was not initially a prestige technology, being
associated with social competition and ranking only at a subsequent stage of development,

Research
such as the Barra Phase of the Soconusco region of Chiapas at around 1500 b.c. (Clark &
Gosser 1995: 210). Clark and Gosser (1995: 212-9) found multiple lines of invention in
Mesoamerica, plain utilitarian pottery being associated with small egalitarian groups as a
practical technology, and well-made, highly decorated pottery as a prestige technology for
ritual use in a competitive, evolving, rank society. Thus the world’s oldest ceramics have a
rather different social context than some of the later cases.

Acknowledgements
A draft of this paper was prepared for the International Conference, Prehistory in South China and Southeast
Asia, Guilin, China, December 10-14, 2003. I thank the Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social
Science, the Guilin City Council, Guangxi Municipality, and the Cultural Bureau of the Guangxi Municipality,
China, for the invitation to participate in the conference and for their hospitality. Thanks are offered to Simon
Kaner, Sainsbury Institute for the Study of Japanese Arts and Cultures, Yaroslav Kuzmin, Pacific Institute
of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences, Charles Keally, Sophia University, and Min Li, Department of
Anthropology, University of Michigan, for assistance and advice. Figures 2-4 are reprinted from the Institute of
Archaeology, CASS, Archaeological Team of Guangxi Zhuang Municipality, Zengpiyan Museum, Archaeological
Team of Guilin City (Editors) 2003. Zengpiyan–A Prehistoric Site in Guilin, Beijing. Cultural Relics Publishing
House. Plates V and VIII. Thanks to Professor Xianguo Fu.

References Haaland, R. 1997. Emergence of sedentism: new ways

Brumfiel, E. 2000. On the archaeology of choice:
agency studies as a research paradigm, in M. Dobres
& J. Robb (ed.) Agency in archaeology: 249-63.
London and New York: Routledge.
Cao, B. in press. The earliest ceramics in China: the
findings, contents, and a preliminary interpretation.
Journal of East Asian Archaeology.
Chang, K.C. 1986. The archaeology of ancient China.
New Haven: Yale University Press.
Clark, J. & D. Gosser. 1995. Reinventing
Mesoamerica’s first pottery, in W.K. Barnett & J.W.
Hoopes (ed.) The emergence of pottery: technology
and innovation: 209-22. Washington: Smithsonian
Institution Press.
Dobres, M. & J. Robb. (ed.). 2000. Agency in
archaeology. London and New York: Routledge.
Fu, X. 2001. Guilin diqu shiqian wenhua mianmao
lunkuo chuxian/The prehistoric framework of
prehistoric Guilin. Wenwu Bao April 4: 1.
–2002. Guangxi di ige shiqian kaoguxue wenhua –
Huning Dingsishan yizhi, in Li, Wenru (ed.)
Zhongguo shinian baida kaogu xinfaxian/Top 100
New Archaeological Discoveries of China 1990-1999:
236-42. Beijing: Wenwu Publishing House.
of living, new ways of symbolizing. Antiquity 71:
374-85.
Hayden, B. 1995. The emergence of prestige
technologies and pottery, in W.K. Barnett & J.W.
Hoopes (ed.) The emergence of pottery: technology
and innovation: 257-66. Washington: Smithsonian
Institution Press.
–1998. Practical and prestige technologies: the
evolution of material systems. Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory 5: 1-55.
Hegmon, M. 2003. Setting theoretical egos aside:
issues and theory in North American archaeology.
American Antiquity 68: 213-44.
Hodder, I. 2000. Agency and individuals in long term
process, in M. Dobres & J. Robb (ed.) Agency in
archaeology: 21-33. London and New York:
Routledge.
Institute of Archaeology, Cass. 1991. Radiocarbon
dates in Chinese archaeology. Beijing: Wenwu
Chubanshe.
Jiao, T. 1994. Gengshinshi mozhi quanxinshi chu
Lingnan diqu de shiqian wenhua/Prehistoric
cultures of the Lingnan area from the Late
Pleistocene to the beginning of the Holocene.
Kaogu Xuebao 1: 1-24.

827
 Early pottery in the Lingnan region of south China
Johnson, M. 2000. Self made men and the strategy of
agency, in M. Dobres & J. Robb (ed.) Agency in
Archaeology: 213-231. London and New York:
Routledge.
Keally, C., Y. Taniguchi & Y. Kuzmin. 2003.
Understanding the beginnings of pottery
technology in Japan and neighbouring East Asia.
The Review of Archaeology 24 (2): 3-14.
Keally, C., Y. Taniguchi, Y. Kuzmin &
I. Shewkomud. 2004. Chronology of the
beginning of pottery manufacture in East Asia.
Radiocarbon 46: 345-51.
Kuzmin, Y. (ed.). 2003. The nature of the transition
from the Paleolithic to the Neolithic in East Asia
and the Pacific. The Review of Archaeology, Special
Issue. 24: 1-3.
Li, G. 2002. Subsistence of Neolithic Pearl River Area,
south China. MA Thesis, Department of
Anthropology, University of British Columbia.
Lu, T.L.D. in press. Early pottery in South China and
its archaeological significance. Journal of East Asian
Archaeology.
Obata, H. 2003. Shiberia: Enkaishu/Siberia and the
Russian Maritime Province. Kikan Kokogaku 83:
80-84.
Onuki, S. 2003. Chugoku nanbu – Reinan sanmyaku
no kita to minami/South China – north and south
of the Lingnan mountains. Kikan Kokogaku 83:
75-9.
Ren, S. 1995. Gongyuanqian wuqian nian Zhongguo
xinshiqi wenhua de jixiang zhuyao
chengjiu/Important results from the Neolithic
cultures in China earlier than 5000 BC. Kaogu 1:
37-49.
Rice, P. 1999. On the origins of pottery. Journal of
Anthropological Method and Theory 6: 1-54.
Robb, J.E. (ed.). 1999. Material symbols: culture and
economy in prehistory. Carbondale: Center for
Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper
No. 26.
828
Roosevelt, A. 1995. Early pottery in the Amazon:
twenty years of scholarly obscurity, in W.K.
Barnett & J.W. Hoopes (ed.) The emergence of
pottery: technology and innovation: 115-31.
Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Saitta, D. 1997. Review of Foundations of Social
Inequality, by T.D. Price & G. Feinman (ed.) Plains
Anthropologist 42: 263-5.
–1999. Prestige, agency, and change in middle range
societies, in J. Robb (ed.) Material symbols: culture
and economy in prehistory: 135-49. Carbondale:
Southern Illinois University Press.
Underhill, A. 1997. Current issues in Chinese
Neolithic archaeology. Journal of World Prehistory
11: 103-60.
Wu, X. & C. Zhao. 2003. Chronology of the
Transition from Paleolithic to Neolithic in China.
The Review of Archaeology 24: 15-20.
Zhang, C. 2002. The discovery of early pottery in
China. Documenta Praehistorica XXIX: 29-35.
Zhang, F. 2000. The mesolithic in south China.
Documenta Praehistorica XXVII: 225-31.
Zhang, W. & J. Yuan. 1998. A preliminary study of
ancient excavated rice from Yuchanyan Site, Dao
County, Hunan Province, PRC. Acta Agronomica
Sinica 24-4: 416-20.
Zhao, C. & X. Wu. 2000. The dating of Chinese
early pottery and a discussion of some related
problems. Documenta Praehistorica XXVII: 233-9.
Zhao, Z. 1998. The Middle Yangtze Region in China
is one place where rice was domesticated: phytolith
evidence from the Diaotonghuan Cave, northern
Jiangxi. Antiquity 72: 885-97.
Zhongguo Shehui Kexueyuan Kaogu Yanjiusuo,
Gwangxi Zhuang Minzujigu Wenwu
Gongzuotuan, Guilin Zengpiyan Izhi
Bowuguan, Guilin Shi Wenwu Gonzuotuan
(ed.). 2003. Guilin Zengpiyan (Zengpiyan, Guilin).
Beijing: Wenwu Chubanshe.