UDK 903(510)“633/634” Documenta Praehistorica XXXI Early polished stone tools in South China evidence of the transition from Palaeolithic to Neolithic Chaohong Zhao, Xiaohong Wu*, Tao Wang, Xuemei Yuan School of Archaeology and Museology, Peking University, Beijing, China * wuxh@pku.edu.cn ABSTRACT – The appearance of polished stone tools has been taken as one of the important indicators of the beginnings of the Neolithic. Early polished stone tools excavated in South China are discussed in this paper. The polishing technology developed from stone tools with polished blades to whole polished stone tools. Different kinds of polished stone tools appeared at different times. The earliest polished stone tools are axes, adzes and cutters, with only the blades polished. They date to 21 000– 19 000 cal BP. The whole polished stone tools appeared thousands of years later. The relationship of the polishing technology with other factors during the transition from the Paleolithic to the Neolithic should be discussed after more detailed information has been obtained. IZVLEEK – Pojav poliranih kamenih orodij je eden glavnih znakov za zaetek neolitika. V lanku obravnavamo zgodnje polirano kameno orodje, ki smo ga izkopali na jugu Kitajske. Tehnologija poliranja se je razvijala od kamenih orodij s poliranim rezilom do v celoti poliranega kamenega orodja. Najzgodneje polirano kameno orodje so sekire in sekai, ki imajo polirano le rezilo. Datirano je v as od 21 000 do 19 000 calBP. V celoti polirano kameno orodje se pojavi tisoletja kasneje. Povezava med tehnologijo poliranja in drugimi dejavniki prehoda iz paleolitika v neolitik bo mogoa, ko bomo imeli ve podrobnejih podatkov. KEY WORDS – China; Palaeolithic; Neolithic; polished stone tools INTRODUCTION Because of its eco-geographical diversity and archa-following a book published in 1865 in which the eological/cultural complexity China is now beco-late period of polished stone tools was regarded as ming more important to serve as a source for the re-part of the Neolithic period. The appearance of pol- search of constructing new analytical methodologies ished stone tools has been taken as one of the indifor properly understanding the Palaeolithic-Neolithic cators of the beginning of the Neolithic ages for transition. The research on the models of Neolithiza-some time (Glyn Daniel 1987) and some archaeolotion in China is still in the early stages. In this pa-gical scholars still insist that their appearance is per, we focus on early polished stone tools excava-what distinguishes the Neolithic from the Paleolited in South China in order to investigate more deta-thic. In fact, abundant materials excavated in recent iled information about Neolithization. decades reveal that new models will be required to describe the transitional period. The ground or pol- The function of polished stone tools has been discus-ishing technologies were not only applied to stone, sed since the middle of the 19th century when a but also to wooden tools. These tools were used va- French archaeologist divided stone tools into chip-rious activities: agriculture, fishing, hunting, food ped ones and ground ones. The ground lithic imple-processing and weaving etc. It is difficult to correments were accepted as one important characteristic late them with different (micro)regional cultural of the Neolithic by archaeologists and prehistorians backgrounds and environmental conditions. The cul Chaohong Zhao, Xiaohong Wu, Tao Wang, Xuemei Yuan tural trends in China can be divided into two geological regions, South China and North China, during the Paleolithic-Neolithic transition. In this paper, we investigate early polished stone tools found in South China. THE EARLY POLISHED STONE TOOLS FOUND IN SOUTH CHINA In the last 20 years, many important sites have been excavated in China, which provided plenty of materials for researching the Paleolithic-Neolithic transition. According to excavation reports, more than 10 archaeological sites dated to ten thousand years ago have been found with polished stone tools. Most are cave sites, except the Liyuzui in Dalongtan and Shangshan in Zejiang, which are open-air sites. Typical sites are listed in Table. 1. The polished stone tools mentioned here include axes, adzes, chisels, knives, sickles, spearheads, and arrowheads. Stone rollers, stone saddle-querns and perforated ground stone tools should not be included among the polished stone tools. So the earliest polished stone tool in Figure 1.1 is the polished peddle cutter from the west layer No. 4 at Bailiandong cave site in Liuzhou (Scientific Museum of Liuzhou Bailiandong Cave 1987; Liuzhou Museum 1983). This cutter is 4.5 cm long, 2.7cm wide and 1.2 cm thick and made of metamorphic siltstone. A flat small peddle was ground, which formed an inclined arc-shaped knife-edge. The whole artifact is in the form of a triangle. The uncalibrated radiocarbon dates assigned to the west layer No. 4 are 19 350±180 BP and 20 960±150 BP. A stone adze with polished blade or adze-shaped cutter (Fig. 1.2) was excavated from the east layer No. 4. It was made from an arc-topped, flat trapezoidal pebble of quartz siltite by chopping and polishing the bottom to form the knife-edge. It is 8.3 cm long and 1.2 cm thick and the knife-edge is 5.1 cm wide. The uncalibrated radiocarbon age is 13 170±590 BP (Zhou Guoxing 1994). The site of Liyuzui in Dalongtan can be divided into two cultural strata (Qiu Licheng et al. 1982). In the lower stratum most of the stone tools are chipped; Fig. 1.1. Cutter with polished- blade from the Bailiandong site (Zhou Guoxing 1994). Fig. 1.2. Adze with polished- blade from the Bailiandong site (Zhou Guoxing 1994). they were excavated with a few sandy pottery shards with corded decoration and lightly calcified animal bones. Only one polished stone tool was found, a stone axe with a polished blade (Fig. 2.1). The blade was polished on one side only. It is small and incomplete, 11cm long and 5cm wide in the middle. The lower layer of this site, which is 100–170 cm thick, should be divided into more sub-layers, but at present we can give the age of the polished stone axe within a range of uncalibrated radiocarbon dates as somewhere between 21 025±450 BP and 11 450±150 BP. Fig. 2.1. Axe with polished blade from the Liyuzui site (Liuzhou Museum 1983). The deposit at the Dushizai cave site is 4 meters thick, with five strata, and has been excavated four times from 1960 to 1983. Strata 2, 3, and 4 correspond to the upper, middle and lower cultural layers. Most stone tools are for chopping, with some ground perforated stoneware. The materials are sandstone, argillaceous rock, quartzose sandstone, quartzite and so on, with sandstone predominating. All of the 7 stone cutters with polished blades were excavated from the upper cultural layer. Their forms are not very uniform. Most of them are made from flakes and cores by chopping and polishing to form the blade. Cutter (Fig. 3.1) was made after chiseling and polishing the edge. It is 5.4 cm long and the blade is 3.2 cm wide. Its radiocarbon date without calibration is 12 845±130 BP. In the Huangyandong cave site beside chipped stone tools, a fragment of perforated stone ware, and in Early polished stone tools in South China evidence of the transition from Palaeolithic to Neolithic Fig. 2.2. Perforated stone ware from the Liyuzui site (Liuzhou Museum 1983). complete polished stone tool were found. The remains of pig, deer, snails and shells have been recorded (Song Fangyi et al. 1983). The incomplete stone axe is made from quartzose fine sandstone, with a fine polished arc-shaped blade. The incomplete length of the axe is 6cm, with a 4.5 cm wide blade. The shells from this deposit gave uncalibrated radiocarbon dates from 10 640±300 BP to 11 580± 300 BP. Xianrendong and Diaotonghua are two cave sites 800 m apart in the small and humid Dayuan Basin. Five excavations were carried out at Xianrendong from 1962 to 1999. Diaotonghuan was excavated in 1995. Abundant upper Paleolithic and early Neolithic cultural deposits were found at these two sites. The cultural deposits of the Stone Age were divided into two strata following excavations in 1962 and 1964. More strata were assigned to the deposit after 1995. According to the information from the excavation of 1962 and 1964, most stone tools are chipped (scrappers, choppers, cores, and plate-shaped artifacts) and embedded in the lower cultural layers (Jiangxi Provincal Committee for Administration of Cultural Relics 1963; Jiangxi Provincal Museum 1976). The polished stone tools assemblage consist of celts, shuttle shaped (Fig. 4.2) or cone-shaped (Fig. 4.1) wares and perforated stones (Fig. 4.3). They are made from roughly polished sandstone. The materials of the excavation after 1995 have not been published so far. But according to someone’s Fig. 3.1. Cutter with polished- blade from the Dushizai site (Qiu Licheng et al. 1982). introduction, there were 625 stone tools, 318 bone wares, 26 perforated shells, 516 pottery shards, tens pieces of human bone, and more than ten thousand pieces of animal bone excavated at the sites of Xianrendong and Diaotonghuan. Most of the stone tools are pebbles. A small number of them are flint and quartz flakers. There are scrapers, points, choppers, blades and micro-blades and several polished stone tools. There is no radiocarbon date related directly to layer F, in which the ground shuttle shaped stone Fig. 3.2. Cutter with polished- blade from the Dushizai site (Qiu Licheng et al. 1982). artifact and polished conical stone tool were found. The radiocarbon date of layer D is 15 090±210 BP (the calibrated age is 16 900–15 300, BA00014) at the same site. So the radiocarbon date of the polished stone tools found in Layer F should be older than 15 090±210 BP. We can see very clear from Fig. 4.1. Polished and tapered stone tools from the Xianrendong site (Jiangxi Provincal Committee for Administration of Cultural Relics 1963). Chaohong Zhao, Xiaohong Wu, Tao Wang, Xuemei Yuan these two site that the early polished stone tools appeared earlier than the early pottery. Shangshan site in Pujiang county in Zejiang province is a hill site excavated in 2001. There were abundant cultural remains with local cultural characteristics (Jiang Leping et al. 2003). The layers No. 3 to 7 are Neolithic, 40–50 cm thick. The typical wares are a stone ball, an irregular flat, and long rectangular roller, a large shaped stone saddle-quern and red surfaced pottery shards with charcoal tem pering. There are wholly or partially polished adze, axe and perforated stone wares and flakers (Fig. 5). The rice husks in the pottery shards have yielded evidence of early cultivated rice. The radiocarbon dates from the rice husks are 9610±160 uncal BP and 8050±110 uncal BP. Pengtoushan is a hill site by a river, excavated in 1988. The excavated relics are tombs and house remains, with a large quantity of stone wares, pottery shards, and rice. Most of the stone tools are chop- Stratum Material 14C age Calibrated age Lab code Note (yr, BP) Cal BP (±2, 95.4%) Bailiandong in Liuzhou, Guangxi Province, Phase II West No. 4 Calc-sinter 19345±180* 23950–22150 BK82097 Peddle Cutter and adze shaped cutter with polished-blade, associated with chipped stone tools, animal bones and shells. West No. 4 Calc-sinter 20965±150 BK92039 East No. 4 Charcoal 13165±590* 17250–14050 BK93017 Layer No. 3 Bone 8700±240 (Pa–231) 8000±800 (Th–230) BKY82239 Polished axe Liyuzui in Dalongtan County in Liuzhou, Guangxi Province Lower Shell 22670±250* BK82091 Adze-shaped cutter with polished-blade, associated with chipped stone tools, sandy terracotta, shells. Lower Shell 20430±450* PV0379(1) Lower Shell 18035±300* 22450–20450 PV0379(2) Upper Shell 12515±220* 15750– 14050 BK82090 Axe and adze with polished-blade, associated with sandy terracotta. Upper Bone 11450±150* 13850–13000 PV0402 Upper Bone 10205±150* 12650–11250 PV0401 Dushizai in Yangchun, Guangdong Province Layer No. 4 Bone 16205±570* 20850–17850 BK83018 Layer No. 3 lower Bone 14915±250* 18650–17050 BK83017 Layer No. 3 lower Shell 16680±180* 20650–19050 BK83011 Layer No. 3 upper Bone 13855±130* 17250–16050 BK83016 Layer No. 3 upper Shell 17200±200* 21350–19650 BK83010 Layer No. 3 upper Shell 14480±300* 18250–16450 ZK0714 Layer No. 2 Shell 12845±130* 15950–14350 BK83009 Peddles with polished edge and cutter with polished blade, associated with perforated stone wares and shells. Huangyandong in Fengkai, Guangdong Province Cave Hall Shell 11580±300* 12050–13150 ZK0676 A piece of incomplete polished Cave Hall Shell 10640±300* 13250–11350 ZK0677 stone tool and perforated stone tools. Zengpiyan in Guilin, Guangxi Province BT3 Charcoal 8790±170 10250–9450 BA01224 Polished adze Shangshan in Pujiang, Zejiang Province 2001PKF2 Pottery 8740±110 10200–9500 BA02235 2001PKH31F Pottery 9610±160 11350–10400 BA02236 2001PKT2 Pottery 8620±160 10200–9250 BA02237 2001PKT3 Pottery 8050±110 9300–8550 BA02238 Partial or entirely polished axe and adze, with stone balls, chopper, pottery. *The dates were originally published in T1/2 5730 in China. Here we use T1/2 5568 to recalculate them. Tab. 1. The dates of earlier polished lithic implements in China (Wu & Zhao 2003). Early polished stone tools in South China evidence of the transition from Palaeolithic to Neolithic Fig. 4.2. Polished shuttle-shaped stone tools from the Xian-rendong site (Jiangxi Provincal Committee for Administration of Cultural Relics 1963). pers. Several of them are polished, mostly rollers and perforated stone tubes (Fig. 6.2). The raw material they used to produce them is black shale, which is not very hard. Only one axe was found (Fig. 6.1), of uncertain function, is of grayish-green claystone, entirely polished with one cutting edge, which has been damaged by use. It is 8 cm long 4 cm wide and 0.85 cm thick. CONCLUSION According to the discoveries of polished stone tools in South China, different kinds of polished stone tools appeared at different times. The earliest polished stone tools are axes, adzes and cutters, all having only the blade polished. The cone-shaped or shuttle-shaped polished tools, used for perforating, are also among the earliest polished stone tools. According to the radiocarbon dates from the sites of Bailiandong and Liyuzui, the ages assigned to these kinds of stone tools are about 24 000–22 000 calBP, based on samples of calc-sinter and shells. If we consider the “dead carbon factor” concerning the calcsinter and shells in the limestone area of South China, we should subtract some years from those dates. The dead carbon factor in aquatics and hydrophytes in South China has been measured before. It changes from a hundred years to two thousand years or more. The mean value of the factor is about 1500 Fig. 4.3. Perforated stone tool from the Xianrendong site (Jiangxi Provincal Committee for Administration of Cultural Relics 1963). years (14C Laboratory of Archaeological Department 1982; Zhang Xuelian 2003). Here we use 3000 years as the greatest factor. Then the ages of the earliest stone tools with only the blade polished are about 21 000–19 000 cal. BP. Cone-shaped or shuttle-shaped polished stone tools appeared at almost the same time. The evolution of polished stone tools followed steps: blade polished only; entire tool roughly ground, with blade finely polished; entirely polished. The completely polished stone tools appeared about 10 000 cal BP. Those from the Zengpiyan site date to 10 250–9450 cal BP. The polished adze was embedded in 5, upper layer. The stone tools from phase 1–4, lower layers, are all chipped. The dates of Pengtoushan culture and Chengbeixi culture along the Yangtse River are 9800–7500 cal BP. A few polished stone tools were found there. The stone assemblage consists of chipped tools and a large number of adornments, and very few tools such as small axes, adzes and chisels. Fig. 5. Polished adze and perforated stone ware found in Shangshan site (Jiang 2003). The development of stone polishing technology can be seen from changes in the materials of stone wares. The earlier polished stone tools were usually made of sandstone, shale and tuff, which are all soft and easily worked. Metamorphic rock and other hard rocks were used to make stone tools later. Of course, the selection of stone material was also limited by local resources. Anyway, the hard material used for stone tool making show the progress of polishing technology. Usually the stone tools used for felling, cutting, scraping and digging were made from the hard rock. Most of the early polished stone tools were made of pebbles after polishing. The natural surface of the pebble can be seen from the axe, adze and cutter with the blade polished only. According to finds made so far, the appearance of the polishing technology predates the cultivation of Chaohong Zhao, Xiaohong Wu, Tao Wang, Xuemei Yuan Fig. 6.1. Polished axe from the Pengtoushan site (Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology in Hunan Province 1990). rice. Because of insufficient dates it is still difficult to make a comparison between the appearances of polished stone tools and pottery. It seems that the polished stone tools were earlier than the pottery in some places. But we also found contrary evidence, such as at the Zengpiyan site. The pottery shards were excavated from phases 1–4, lower layers, without any polished stone tools. The polished stone tools appeared later, in phase 5, upper layer. There is no doubt that the appearance of polished stone tools is a Neolithic characteristic in South China, because polished stone tools were found in almost every Paleolithic-Neolithic transition site in South China. But the function of the polished stone tools in the transition is still uncertain. The development of the polishing technology covered a long Fig. 6.2. Stone club-shaped pendant stone tube and stone club- shaped pendant from the Pengtoushan Site (Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology in Hunan Province 1990). period from its appearance to its wider distribution. The process varied from place to place. More detailed information is needed in order to understand the relationship between the appearance of polishing technology and economic development, the relationship with living conditions and the environmental background, the relationship to the appearance of pottery, agriculture and husbandry. We must also investigate the process in the context of the global development of stone tool making technology.  REFERENCES ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE, CASS. 1991. Zhongguo Kaoguxue zhong Tanshisi Niandai Shujuji (The collection of radiocarbon dates in Chinese Archaeology) (1965–1991). Cultural Relics Publishing House. Beijing (in Chinese). 14C LABORATORY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL DEPARTMENT, PEKING UNIVERSITY (by Chen Tiemei et al.) 1982. The reliability of the radiocarbon dating for the limestone area and the chronological problem related with Zengpiyan site. Kaoguxuebao 2: 243– 250 (in Chinese). 14C LABORATORY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL DEPARTMENT, PEKING UNIVERSITY (by Yuan Sixun et al.). 1987. Report on 14C Date (7), Wenwu 11 (in Chinese). GLYN DANIEL 1987. A Hundred And Fifty Years of Archaeology? Chinese Edition, translated by Huang Qixu and An Zhimin 1987. Culture Relics Press. Beijing. INSTITUTE OF CULTURAL RELICS AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN HUNAN PROVINCE 1990. The brief excavation report of early Neolithic site of Pengtoushan in Li County in Hunan Province. Wenwu 8: 17–29 (in Chinese). JIANG LEPING et al. 2003. An early Neolithic site about 10,000 BP found in Pujiang County, Zhejiang Province. Zhongguo Wenwubao November 7th (in Chinese). JIANGXI PROVINCAL COMMITTEE FOR ADMINISTRATION OF CULTURAL RELICS 1963. Jiangxi Wannian Dayuan Xianrendong yizhi sjhijue (Test excavation at the Xianrendong cave site in Dayuan, Wannian, Jiangxi). Kaogu Xuebao 1: 1–16 (in Chinese). Early polished stone tools in South China evidence of the transition from Palaeolithic to Neolithic JIANGXI PROVINCAL MUSEUM 1976. Jiangxi Wannian Dayuan Xianrendong yizhi di’erci fajue baogao (Report on the second excavation at the Xianrendong cave site in Dayuan, Wannian, Jiangxi). Wenwu 12:12–23 (in Chinese). LI XINGGUO, LIN GUANGLIAN, XU GUOYING, WANG FULIN and LI FENGXIANG 1987. Liuzhou Dalongtan Beiqiu Yizhi Niandai Jiqi yu Lingjin Diqu Duibi (The dates of shell mound sites in Dalongtan in Liuzhou with the comparison of neighboring regions). Disiji Bingchuan yu Disiji Dizhi Lunwenji (disiji) (Collection of papers on Quarternary glacier and Quarternary geology) 4: 229–234, Geological Science Press. Beijing (in Chinese). LIUZHOU MUSEUM 1983. Liyuzui Neolithic shell- mound Site in Dalongtan, Liuzhou. Kaogu 9: 769– 774 (in Chinese). QIU LICHENG et al. 1982. Excavation on Dushizai Neolithic Cave site in Yangchun, Guangdong. Kaogu 5: 456–459, 475 (in Chinese). SCIENTIFIC MUSEUM OF LIUZHOU BAILIANDONG CAVE, et al. 1987. Excavation report on Guangxi Liuzhou Bailiandong cave relics at Stone Age. Southern Nationality Archaeology, Vol. 1 (in Chinese). SONG FANGYI et al. 1983. Huangyandong Cave site in Fengkai, Guangdong. Kaogu 1:1–3 (in Chinese). XIAOHONG WU and CHAOHONG ZHAO 2003. Chronology of the Transition From Palaeolithic to Neolithic in China. The Review of Archaeology 24/2: 15–20. YUAN SIXUN, CHEN TIEMEI, GAO SHIJUN and MA LI 1990. Yang Chun Dushizai he Liuzhou Bailiandong Yizhi de Niandai Ceding-Shitan Huannan Diqu Jiushiqi Wenhua xiang Xinshiqi Wenhua Guodu de Shijian (Dating of Dushizai Cave site in Yangchun and Bailiandong Cave site in Liuzhou – Exploration of Transition from the Paleolithic to Neolithic Period in South China). Jinian Beijing Daxue Kaogu Zhuanye Shanshi Zhounian Lunwenji (Collected Works for the Thirtieth Anniversary of the Archaeology Speciality of Peking University) (1952–1982): 40– 47. Cultural Relics Publishing House. Beijing (in Chinese). ZHANG CHI 2000. Jiangxi Wannian Zaoqi Taoqi he Daoshu Zhiguishi Yicun (Pottery and silicified rice remains in Wannian County, Jiangxi Province). Diaozuo Taoqi he Dushi de Qiyuan (The Origin of Rice Agriculture, Pottery and Cities): 43–50. Cultural Relics Publishing House. Beijing (in Chinese). ZHANG XUELIAN et al. 2003. The excavation report of the Zengpiyan site: 429–445. Cultural Relics Publish House (in Chinese). ZHAO ZHIJUN 1998. The middle Yangtze Region in China is one place where rice was domesticated: phytolith evidence from the Diaotonghuan cave, northern Jiangxi. Antiquity 72/278: 885–897. ZHOU GUOXING 1994. Another Discussion on Bailiandong Culture. Proceedings of International Seminar on the Relations of Ancient People and Prehistoric Culture Between China and Japan: 203–264, China Radio International Press. Beijing (in Chinese). cont ent s