UDK 903(510:3-11)"6343' Documenta Praehistorica XXV (Poročilo o raziskovanju paleoiitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji XXV) A comparative outline of the Early Neolithic cultures in China and in the Near East Claude Bjork Department of Classical Archaeology and Ancient History, Stockholm University ABSTRACT - The transition betiveen a hunting-gathering and food-producing economv occurred at both ends ofthe Asia continent at roughly the same tirne. A survey of the archaeological evidence published on this cultural period in these regions produces some very interesting results. It clearly shoivs that, if the basic principles for sedentism and the domestication of localplants and animals ivere similar in the Near East and in China, the respective adaptive strategies chosen by the localpop-ulations to solve technological and metaphysicalproblems ivhich must have been similar, mere com-pletely different. It must then be accepted that the cultural changes that happened at the beginning of the Neolithic period were not the result of direct contacts or exchanges of influences betiveen the Near East and China, and that the transition occurred independently in these regions. POVZETEK - Do prehoda iz lovsko-nabiralnega v pridelovalno gospodarstvo je v vzhodni in zahodni Aziji prišlo skoraj sočasno. Pregled objavljenih arheoloških podatkov o tej kulturni fazi ponuja v omenjenih regijah nekaj zanimivih rezultatov. Ti jasno kažejo, da so bile adaptivne strategije, ki so jih uporabljale lokane skupnosti pri reševanju tehnoloških in metafizičnih problemov, kljub podobnim osnovnim načelom sedentizma in domestikacije lokalnih rastlin in živali na Bližnjem vzhodu in na Kitajskem, različne. Velja ocena, da se je prehod na kmetovanje na teh področjih odvijal neodvisno in da kulturne spremembe, ki so se dogodile na začetku neolitika, niso bile posledica neposrednih kontaktov, izmenjav in vplivov med Bližnjim vzhodom in Kitajsko. I. INTRODUCTION At a certain point in their development, people de-cided to stop wandering around and to settle down instead. The real reasons for this have yet to be es-tablished with certainty, beyond probable climatic, ecological or demographic problems. It is even pos-sible that Jacques Cauvin's suggestion that the deci-sion was primarily a step towards human sociologi-cal and intellectual maturity (ime mutation men-tale) is indeed correct (Cauvin 1994.97). We do not know, but what is certain is that similar events occurred in both Eastern and Western Asia at roughly the same time. Based on archaeological reports, this study is a syn-optic outline of what is presently known about the events resulting from the switch from the hunting-gathering way of life to sedentism and a systematic food-producing economy i.e., the Early Neolithic cultural period. Generalization means oversimplifica- tion, which may be dangerous, but it is necessary if one wishes to draw conclusions about general trends. Consequently, in order to have an overall view of how each region solved problems which must have been similar, I decided to deal with the Chinese archaeological evidence in the same way Western researchers usually treat the Near Eastern material. China will therefore be considered as a sin-gle cultural block, and will not be divided into the four traditional geo-cultural zones of the North, the North-East, the Central Plain and the South, as is the čase elsewhere in more detailed investigations of some Early Chinese Neolithic cultures (Zhao Chaohong and Chen Xingcan, this volume). What, then, really happened during the earliest Neolithic period in China and in the Near East? In both regions, the cultural period appears to be the result of indigenous developments of the local, Palaeoli- thic foundation. How, then, did both groups solve problems which must have been similar? Method The methodology is straightforward. After a brief summary of the Early Neolithic in the Near East, the equivalent period in China is rapidly surveyed. Then a series of specific features is surveyed and the East Asian evidence is compared with analogous data from Western Asia. Definitions To begin with, we must be aware that the definition used for the cultural period is slightly different at each end of Asia. In the Near East, the Neolithic is essentially characte-rised by sedentism and an economy based on agricul- ture and animal husbandry. Pottery is not involved during the two earlier phases, which are knovvn as Pre-Pottery Neolitihic A (PPNA), starting around 9000 BC, and the later, Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB). There was even a Pre-Pottery Neolithic C (PPNC) which appeared on a limited basis in the Syrian Desert and in the Southern Levant (Cauvin 1994.20-21; Avner et al. 1994; Yakar, this volume). In China, any settlement dated to the early Holocene with pottery and some form of sedentism is attribu-ted to the Neolithic period, even if agriculture and/ or animal husbandry was not yet fully developed. Radiocarbon Dates In this study, ali the radiocarbon dates were cali-brated according to the latest publications (Kuijt & Bar-Yosef 1994; Zhongguo Kaoguxue Zhongtau Shisi Niandai Shujinji 1991). BC BP Central Anatolia Coastal Phoenicia Cyprus S. Levant Negev Sinai Jordan Damascene Middle Euphrates Eastern Taurus Syrian Desert Eastern Djezireh (Sinjar) Zagros 6000-6500 7200 7600- Hacilar Amuq A-B Ras Shamra V Byblos Neo. xxxxxxxxxxx Khirokitia L-PPNB YARMUKIAN Ain Ghazal El Kowm 2 PNA PPNC Hassuna PN PPNC Ain Ghazal F-PPNB Ramad 111 Abu Uurevra 2 C XXXXXXXXXX F-PPNB El Kowm 2 Umni Dabaghyah xxxxxxxxx L-PPNB (Sinjar) Jarmo T xxxxxxxxxxxx Gritille Cafer Hiiyiik XXXXXXX Aceramic Jarmo Ali Kosh Ganj Dareh 6900 7000- 8000-8100 (Jatal Htivuk xxxxxxxxxx L-PPNB \XXXXXXXXXX Ain Ghazal L-PPNB Abu Kosh L-PPNB Abu Hureyra 2B L-PPNB XXXXXXXXX Bouqras Ras Shamra V Ramad I-Il Beisamoun Teli Assouad Magzalia XXXXXXXXXXXX 7600 8000- 8600- Asikli M-PPNB Jericho PPNB Munhata M-PPNB Mureybit IVB Abu Hureyra 2A Halula PPNB Cafer Hiiyiik Cay()iiu NEMRIKIAN Nemrik SULTANIAN E-PPNB Mureybit IVA 8800 9000- 9600- > Jericho PPNA Netiv Hagdud Mureybit IIIB Cay()iui KHIAMIAN (Lebanon) KHIAMIAN Abu Madi I Jericho Protoneo. (XX) Mureybit IIIA Tab. 1. The Beginning of Agriculture in Western Asia: a chronology. Simplified after Jacques Cauvin, Nai-ssance des divinites. Naissatice de VagricuUure. (Empreintes), Pariš 1994.20-21. Calibrated according to Kuijt & Bar-Yosef1994.227-245 and Evin 1995.15. (E - Early; M - Middle; L - Late; F - Final; Neo - Neolithic; Up. - Upper; = - Beginning of Agriculture; xxx - Beginning ofPottery). II. THE EMERGENCE OF THE NEOLITHIC IN THE NEAR EAST In the Near East, the Neolithic evolved directly from the preceding Epipaleolithic (Yakar; this volume), which began about 14000 years ago. The beginning of the agricultural economy was not synchronic in ali the different regions of this part of Western Asia (Tab. 1). Apparently, it began in the Middle Euphrates region (Mureybit) and the Jordan/Damascene area (Jericho, Netiv Hagdud). It then radiated southwards, to the Negev/Sinai (Ain Ghazal), eastwards to the Djezireh (Mazalia), to the Zagros Qarmo), and to the Syrian Desert (Bouqras), and northwards, to Phoenicia (Ras Shamra) and the island of Cyprus (Khirokitia). Do-mestication occurred in the eastern Taurus area (Ca-yonii) shortly after the two earliest core areas al-ready mentioned, and seems then to have expanded mostly towards Central Anatolia (Catal Hiiyuk). In the Near East, the duration of the Neolithic is di-vided into three periods: the Early Neolithic (EN), the Middle Neolithic (MN), and the Late Neolithic (LN). This general classification is made for definite Map 1. Early Neolithic settlements in the Near East. cultures, independently of modern political divisions (Map 1). III. THE EARLY NEOLITHIC PERIOD IN CHINA: THE BACKGROUND Until the beginning of the 1920's, there was no archaeological evidence of any Neolithic cultures in China, and this part of prehistory was presumed not to have occurred. Settlements and artifacts, attrib-uted to the Neolithic period, and at the tirne dated to c. 2500 BC, were, however, excavated in 1921 in the village of Yangshao, in Shaanxi province, by Johan Gunnar Andersson, a Swedish geologist and archaeologist employed by the Chinese government to survey the mineral resources of the country. They were soon followed by investigations in the pro-vinces of Gansu and Henan, which revealed more Neolithic material (Chen 1997, and this volume). This was the real beginning of prehistoric archaeol-ogy in the country. Classified at first as belonging to the EN period, the Yangshao culture is now recog-nised as pertaining to the MN, although, because of the high quality of the pottery, some Chinese schol-ars would attribute it to the early LN. The terminology (EN, MN, LN) is also used in China. Regarding the exact geographical identification of these widespread cultures, the problem is the same for Chinese archaeology as it is for its Near Eastern counterpart. Since archaeological cultural sectors are often located in more than one Chinese province, the name of an eponymous site is used to characterise a culture, even if the latter is then found far from the first excavated settlement (Map 2). However, some confusion may occur if two or perhaps three different sites with the same culture have been unearthed in different provinces, as in the the cases of the Da-diwan (Gansu), Laoguantai and Baijia (both in Shaan-xi) cultures, which are now recognised as being simi-lar. Any of these three names can be then found in the relevant literature, but the problem will even-tually be solved. IV. THE EARLY NEOLITHIC PERIOD IN CHINA: THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE It is stili unclear when the Neolithic period proper, as we know it in the Near East, began in China. A large number of Early Neolithic cultures, ali with pot- tery, have recently been discovered in various parts of the country, and many were even excavated and the findings published in many of the local archaeological journals. Few of these cultures displayed strong specific regional characteristics. However the majority showed enough relationships with the cultures of neighbouring regions to suggest inter-site contacts on a limited local basis (Tab. 2). To date, the earliest Neolithic cultures in China with early 14C dates have been recovered at Peiligang in Henan (c. 6500-5000 BC), Cishan in southern Hebei (c. 6500-5000 BC), Dadiwan (c. 6000-5000 BC) in Gansu, Laoguantai (or Baijia) in Shaanxi (c. 6000-5000 BC), Houli in Shandong, Pengtoushan (c. 7000-5500 BC) and Zaoshi in Hunan (c. 5500-5000 BC). The cultures of Xinglongwa and Chahai (c. 6200-4500 BC) were unearthed in Liaoning. In the South-Eastern part of the lower Changjiang, Early Neolithic cultures were discovered at Zengpiyan in Guilin (c. 6600-5400 BC) and Fuguodun in Fujian (c. 5600-4700 BC). In the South, a Sino-American team recently excava-ted two caves at Wangdong (c. 9000-6000 BC) and Xianrendong (c. 8500-7000 BC) in the Dayuan Basin, Map 2. Early Neolithic sites in China. Tab. 2. The most important Chinese cultures from the Neolithic to the beginning of the Bronze Age. (after Wenwu 1994.3, 83; Kaogu 1995.1, 38-38; adapted after Wang Tao, Antiquity 71 (1997J.34). When-everpossible, the calibration follotvs the listspublished in Zhongguo KaoguxueZhongtan Shisi Niandai Shujinji 1965-1991 (Radiocarbon dates in Chinese Archaeologp 1965-1991). Beijing 1991. New exca-vations and new analyses, hoivever, may slightl'y alter these r,C dates and even the final name of the earliest cultures. cal. BC Northern Steppes Upper Huanghe Middle Huanghe . Middle Changjiang Lower Huanghe Lower Changjiang S-E China S-W China 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 - Shang Shang Shang Shang Siba Erlitou Erlitou Yueshi Shang Fengbitou (Taiwan) Qijia Longshan Longshan Longshan post-Hongshan Majiayao Miaodigou II Liangzhu Dapenkeng (Taiwan) Baiyangcun Shixia Karuo Hongshan (Fuhe) Hongshan Xinle Chahai 6000 - Xinglongwa 7000 8000 9000 - 11000- Miaodigou I (Banpo) Qujialing YANGSHA0 Dadi wan/ Lao-guantai Pei-li- gang Cishan Dawenkou Songze Majiabang Daxi Hemudu Beixin Xijiaoshan Zaoshi Fuguodon Houli Peng-toushan Zengpiyan Wang-dong Xianren-dong Wan-nian County, Jiangxi Province. They yielded one Epipalaeolithic and five Neolithic phases, the upper-most being identified as Lungshanoid (LN). Pottery appeared in the first Neolithic phase, stili together with wild fauna and flora. Dog, however, was dome-sticated, and there may be some evidence of domesti-cated rice dated to c. 11700 BP (Zhao etal, 1995.52). There are potential indications of an incipient ceramic phase in the Middle Huanghe region at one single and very early site, Nanzhuangtou, in Hebei (c. 8600-7700 BC), where 15 coarsely made sherds were discovered in a possible transitional Epipalaeo-lithic/Neolithic context, together with limited dome-sticated fauna and the remains of various types of wild flora (fia & Xu 1992). Early Neolithic cultures have not yet been excavat-ed, either in the Upper Changjiang, or in the south-western part of China (Map 2). 1. ANIMAL DOMESTICATION In contrast to what happened in the Near East, the domestication of animals, i.e. the genetic transfor-mation of a limited range of wild species, appears to have preceded plant domestication in China (Miller 1992.50-54). The latter requires sedentism, while the former does not. With the exception of the dog and the pig, the ear-liest Chinese domesticates were somewhat different from those in the Near East. It is also worth noting that these early Chinese animals (dog, chicken and pig) can either follow a tribe stili partly on the move, or be easily transported from one location to anoth-er. As plant domestication occurred after animal hus-bandry at the local early Neolithic sites, the choice of animal may imply a longer tradition of wander-ing-gathering in China than in the Near East, where there is solid evidence of settlements during the Epi-palaeolithic and Natufian period which were built to last much longer than the simple seasonal periods (Henry 1983; 1989; Yakar, this volume). Dog As in the Near East, the domesticated dog {Canis fa-miliaris) is present from the earliest times in the Neolithic settlements in China at Nanzhuangtou (Baoding et al 1992.965) and at Wangdong, Xienrendong (Re-dding 1995.53). Although no systematic analyses of butchering marks have been conducted on the Chinese osteological evidence, dogs may have been bred for hunting, as sacrificial animals, or as food. The latter assumption is quite plausible, especially if we con-sider that dog is stili eaten in modern China. The dog appears to have been the earliest domesticated animal in the Near East (Bokonyi 1994.392). The evidence from Natufian tombs (Epipalaeolithic period) at Mahalla, where men were buried under floors with canids (Henri 1989.215), suggests, how-ever, that dogs may have been raised for hunting, or even as pets, although the possibility that they could have occasionally been eaten cannot be ruled out. Their use as sacrificial animals has also been advan-ced (B6konyi 1994.391). Domesticated dogs have been found at the lovvest PPNA level at (/aydnu, in the Eastern Taurus (Braidivood & Braidivood 1986.8). Chicken As a domesticate, the chicken (Gallus gallus domes-ticus) is possibly present in a ninth millennium BC context, both in the North, at Nanzhuangtou (Jia & Xu 1992.964) and in the South, in the Wangdong and Xienrendong caves (Reeding 1995.56, 58). How-ever, the most reliable evidence so far is for the early sixth millennium BC, at Cishan (Choiv 1981.340). The domesticated chicken was present in southern Europe possibly as early as about 5000 BC (in Rurna-nia), but much later (c. 3900-3800 BC) in the Near East, at Tepe Yahya, Iran (West & Zhou 1988.520-521). The genetic change in fowl seems to have occurred locally, although the possibility of diffusion to the West, probably via Eurasia rather than India, has recently been suggested (West & Zhou 1988.528). Pig As one of the local basic food animals, the pig (Sus scrofa) was domesticated very early in China. It can be bred easily, even within a woody environment. The samples from the South, in the Wangdong and Xianrendong caves, show that a genetic change had already taken plače in the ninth millennium BC {Reeding 1995-56). Domesticated pigs are reported front the Cishan, Peiligang and Hemudu cultures (Smith 1995.139). In the Near East, the earliest evidence for domesticated pig comes from Jarmo (Zagros), around the mid-dle of the seventh millennium BC (Stampfli 1983. 454). Cattle Bos exiguus Matsumoto, an Asiatic species of cattle, has been reported from the EN site of Cishan, and dated to the late early sixth millennium BC (Choiv 1984. 364). However, it is not considered to have been completely domesticated. As a full domesticate, it be-came more and more common from the Yangshao cultural period (MN; c. fifth millennium BC) onwards. In the Near East, the local wild cattle, Bos primige-nius, was possibly domesticated at Bouqras (Syria) and at (Jatal Hiiyuk (Anatolia) around the late eighth millenium BC (Perkins 1969)- Sheep In China, sheep (Ovies) are first found for certain in the mid-fifth millennium, in a MN context (Hemudu culture). The Chinese domestication data is stili not definitive as to the existence of a local wild progen-itor in the region, and the archaeological reports are often unclear on this point; the species is even sus-pected to have been imported from Western Asia {Chang 1986.65-94). As no detailed osteological analysis of the material was apparently conducted at the tirne of the excavation, it is doubtful whether the bones identified in a Majiayao context in Gansu (third millennium BC) really belong to the Ovies species (Andersson 1943-43). In the Near East, domesticated sheep (Ovis aries) are already present in the archaeological record at Ali Kosh, in the Zagros mountains, in a ninth millennium BC context (ltole & Flannery 1967). Goat In China, domesticated goats (Capra hircus) do not appear early in the archaeological record. The earliest archaeological evidence was excavated at the Miaodigou II site, from the second half of the third millennium BC (Choiv 1984.365). For the same rea-sons mentioned above for sheep, it is doubtful whether the bones identified in Gansu, in a Majiayao context (third millennium BC), really belong to the Capra species {Andersson 1943-43). The wild goat of Iran (Capra aegagrus) has now been accepted as the wild progenitor of the Near-eastern domesticated goat {Capra hircus). To date, the earliest domesticated animals have been exca-vated at Ganj Dareh and Jarmo (c. eighth millennium BC), both in the Zagros {Smith 1995.58-61). 2. PLANT DOMESTICATION The categories of the earliest plants domesticated in China are completely different from those in the Near East. This, however, only indicates that the ge-netic transformation of the native wild progenitors was adapted to local ecological environments. Con-trary to what happened in the Near East, plant do-mestication occurred after animal domestication in China. Millet Broomcorn millet (Panicum miliaceum) and foxtail millet (Setaria italica) were the first cereals domesticated in China. They were present as main crops in the earliest Neolithic setttlements (possibly including Nanzhuangtou, during the ninth millennium BC, although there are stili some doubts about the valid-ity of the evidence), and were apparently cultivated parallel to each other. Green brittlegrass {Setaria vi-ridis), which is presumed to be the wild ancestor of foxtail millet, originates, among several other areas, in the Huanghe valley. Broomcorn millet {Panicum miliaceum) is not identified with certainty in Western Asia (Iran) until the fifth millenium BC {Zohary & Hopf1988.78), while the archaeobotanical evidence indicates that it was fully domesticated in the sixth millennium BC in Au-stria (Kreuz 1991.67, 70, 81, 82, 164, 207), and also possibly at the same tirne in the Caucasus {Lisitsina 1984.288). The earliest known occurence of Central European foxtail millet {Setaria italica) was dated to the second millenium BC, while at this tirne it was stili unknown in the Near East {Zohary & Hopf 1988.81). Although Setaria viridis occurs in eastern Turkey, it does not seem to have been cultivated as a domesticate until the Iron Age (c. seventh centurv BC) in the region, at Tille Hoyiik (Nesbitt & Sum-mers 1988.86, 92). Rice Domesticated rice (Oryza sativa) was fully cultivated in the early phase of the Hernudu culture (fifth millennium BC), in the Lower Changjiang region. Domestication seems to have occured locally in the region as early as the eighth millennium BC, as wild rice grows normally in the Middie and Lower Changjiang zones {Chang 1983- 70-77; An 1989a.647; Zhao et al. 1995-52). Consequently, it was not an import from third millennium India, as previously believed {Chang 1983- 70). Samples of what may be cultivated rice were also excavated in the late 1980's at the Early Neolithic site of Pengtoushan (Middie Changjiang) and were dated to the late eighth/early seventh millennium BC {Hodges & Chen 1994), but the degree of domestication is apparently stili under dis-cussion (Glover andHigham 1996.430). A little fur-ther south, however, two caves in the Dayuan Basin of Wan-nian County, Jiangxi Province, were recently excavated by a Sino-American team, and yielded pos-sible evidence of domesticated rice dated to around the twelfth millennium BP {Zhao et al 1995-52). In the Near East/Europe, rice is a fairly recent import from southern Asia, i.e., the Indian sub-continent. To date, the archaeological and archaeo-botanical evidence indicates that it was present in the second millennium BC at ali the Harappan sites (modern Pakistan), from where it possibly spread into the Near East and eventually into Europe (Zohari & Hopf 1988.215). Wheat Wheat (Triticum monococum) was one of the ear-liest domesticated cereals in the Near East, apparent-ly in the Karacadag mountain (Heun et al. 1997; Heun, this volume). It was excavated around the early ninth millennium BC at Mureybit (Middle Eu-phrates), Jericho (Levant) and Cavonu (eastern Tau-rus). Wheat does not appear in the Chinese archaeological assemblage until the first millennium BC, and is strongly suspected to have been imported from else-where, probably Western Asia, as no wild progenitor is yet known to be indigenous to the Far Eastern re-gion (Chang 1977.1-21, 25-52; Chang 1983.65-94; An 1989a.643-649; Craivford 1992.8). 3. POTTERY It is most interesting to note that, contrary to what happened in the Near East, China does not seem to have gone through a Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN) phase. It must be noted, however, that there is a slight di-lemma with the Near- eastern term "Pre-Pottery Neolithic" (PPN). The term PPNA was originally devised by Kathleen Kenyon for the first levels with a Neolithic economy, but without pottery which she exca-vated at Jericho (Kenvon 1957). Extended to the fol-lowing phase (PPNB), one must be aware that, since then, pottery which cannot always be classified as primitive was unearthed in the Middle Euphrates (at Teli Assouad), and in the Syrian Desert (at Bouqras) from an already late PPNB economy (c. mid-to-late eighth millennium BC), and everywhere during the Final PPNB/PPNC (c. seventh millennium BC). If we exclude the very few small (4-7 cm high) con-tainers of lightly fired clay from Mureybit IIIA (c. 9500 BC), which appear to have come from an iso-lated and short-lived experiment in the Middle Euphrates (Cauvin 1994.64), the earliest vessels of properly baked clay excavated so far were in the same region, at Teli Assouad, and are 14C dated to about 7500 BC (iCauvin 1994.200). They were man-ufactured nearly one and a half millennia after the beginning of an economy which was largely based on agriculture. In Neolithic Greece, the function of the earliest pot-tery was not primarily related to processing the re-sults of the new economy, i.e. domesticated food- stuffs, over a fire (Bjork 1995; Perles & Vitelli 1994; Vitelli, 1989; Yiouni, 1996). The long period of one-and-a half to two millennia of plant domestication and animal husbandry, in the absence of clay pots, speaks against a direct relationship between the new economy and the invention of containers made of baked clay devised for cooking, although no techno-logical and functional analyses of the earliest Near-eastern pottery have yet been published. The earliest pottery from the Near East was coil-made, tempered with sand or grass, low-fired, and most of the time well burnished. The shapes were simple, often globular, and with or without ring-bases. Large vessels were often made out of clay slabs (Vandiver 1987). There are no vessels made of lime plaster or gypsum CVaisselle Blanche) in China. The pyrotechnology involved in the manufacture of the necessary "raw" material, and the technique for making these containers are recognised to have been crucial for the transition between pots made of plaster and those made of ceramic in the Near East (Kingery et al. 1988.240). It is doubtful whether plaster technology was known in Neolithic China, as the "plaster floors" found in the Early Neolithic houses at Peiligang and Cishan were actually made of mud-plaster which was first simply air-dried, then fire-hardened (Shih 1992a.l27). According to the archaeological evidence, pottery and animal domestication were contemporary in China. Pottery even appears to have preceded plant domestication in the earliest Neolithic settlements (at Nanzhuangtou and in Southern China). Due to the quality of this early ware, it seems doubtful whether the earliest Chinese vessels were really de-signed for processing plant species over a fire. It must be noted that, up to now, no advanced tech-nological analyses have been conducted on Chinese pottery vessels to discover their exact functions. The čase of pottery preceding plant domestication is not, however, specific to China. Although synchron-ic neither to the Chinese data, nor even to each other, the archaeological evidence from Japan (Ika-iva-Smith 1970; Imamura 1996.442) and South-America (Legros 1990) testifies to the production of pottery prior to a Neolithic economy. The earliest pottery from Nanzhuangtou was crude, and the size of the 15 small sherds recovered during the trial excavation did not yield any definitive information on the size or shape of the vessels, even if the pots are presumed to have been jugs or bowls (Baoding et al. 1992.963). The material, porous, per-meable, very sandy, fired very low (below 573° C) and not burnished (Li et al. 1995.3; 1996.69) does not seem to suggest any real use in cooking, since it is accepted that porous and permeable vessels were unsuitable for boiling liquid over a fire (Rice 1981. 231). The pottery from Peiligang and Cishan was also coil-made, but was better fired, that is betvveen 820° C and 1020° C (Z/ et al, 1995.3; 1996.89) and possi-bly in kilns, since one was excavated at Peiligang (Li et al. 1995.4; 1996.90). Some of these vessels were burnished or decorated with knobs or impressions (comb-ware). Most of the containers were bowls or bottles, with or without ring-bases, and the great variety in shape and quality of the ware suggest var-ious functions. In the Near East, in contrast with China, feet under a vessel were extremely rare and the very few exam-ples (MN) are small and usually made of stone. To date, the earliest Chinese tripod bowls (ding) made of clay have been excavated at Laoguantai Peiligang and Cishan (EN). Such a shape seems to be a impor-tant marker, with strong symbolism attached to it throughout the following millennia in China. Although flat and round bases have been recognised as necessary for cooking-pots in other cultures (Rice 1987.237), nothing prevents these early ding from having been used as such, as this was clearly their function in later cultural periods in the country. 4. STONE IMPLEMENTS The sophisticated manufacture of certain stone tools found in China is extremely rare in the Near East. Although the prevailing technology used to produce flint blades may be somewhat related in both areas, the shapes of sickles and querns is not, even though it would be expected that these essential instru-ments for processing cereals, whenever employed, would be formed in more or less the same way. Near-Eastern querns were usually flattish, thick stone slabs, with the pestle very often being a suitable, roundish or oval stone. The quality of the stone was, however, carefully chosen, and was often non-indige-nous to the region. This can be taken as proof not only of contacts with other areas, but of an apparent knowledge of mineralogy. The early Chinese equivalents were completely different. At Cishan and Peiligang, the querns were about 40 cm long, flat, oval (a little like miniature "skateboards") and resting on four small feet cut out of the stone. The pestles were long and shaped like thin rolling-pins (Cishan, Peiligang), while the sickles (bone at Cishan, stone at Peiligang) were cres-cent-shaped, flat, up to 17 cm long and 5cm wide, with an almost regular dentation on one side (Ilena n Working Team 1984.31). Originating from eastern Turkey (Lake Van, Bingol) or from Cappadocia, obsidian has been excavated throughout the whole of the Near East from c. 14 000 BC onwards (Cauvin 1994.127, fig. 32). Technologi-cal analyses have pinpointed the exact origin of the tools excavated in most of the principal Near-eastern settlements in the eighth millennium BC, essentially indicating a diffusion towards the South, the South-west and the West. Irrespective of whether this was a čase of some down-the-line exchange or of direct procurement, the diffusion of such raw material indi-cates the beginnings of a permanent inter-regional network of "trading routes" which could even have been used for other goods, as is suggested by the type of stone selected for querns (Yakar, this volume). In China, obsidian tools were discovered in Neolithic and Bronze Age (Xingcheng culture) contexts (c. 3000 to 1300 BC) only at Jingu and Daliudaogou in eastern Jilin (Liu 1995.91; Lin 1995.219) and at Yinggeling in eastern Heilongjiang (Tan et al. 1995-126). The raw material has been identified as com-ing from the Changbai mountains on the border with modern North Korea (Nelson 1995.89). Its absence elsewhere in China, even in other settlements in Heilongjiang and Jilin, indicates that inter-site contacts in the North, and wider, North-South, inter-regional contacts did not develop during these periods. This is also confirmed by the interaction spheres based on the relationship between sites in the same region (Chang 1986.235; Yan 1987.47). 5. SETTLEMENT PATTERNS: ARCHITECTURE Whether in the Near East or in China, the earliest human dwellings were caves. As soon as people set-tled down in groups on plains, shelters were circu-lar and semi-subterranean, forming a new settlement pattern: a village. Buildings situated directly on the ground, with straight walls inside and outside, as well as more or less rectangular houses, were de-vised much later. In the Near East, this evolution is best studied at Mu-reybit, a settlement on the Middle Euphrates (modem northern Syria), although the evidence is similar in practically ali the regions (at Beidah and Teli Ra-mad, for instance). Excavated by the French in the late 'sixties and late 'seventies, it shows that in Pha-se I (belonging to the Natufian (Epipalaeolithic) cul-ture) shelters were circular or oval, semi-subterra-nean and with flat roofs. During Phase II, a transi-tional period between the Epipaleolitihic and the PPNA, they were stili circular, but were built direct-ly above the ground, the few inner walls being curved. During Phase III (PPNA culture), the houses were stili circular and built above ground, but the inner walls were now straight. It is from the end of Phase III B and during the following Phase IV (PPNB period) that the first rectangular houses, with sev-eral rooms, were excavated (Cauvin 1994.60-64). They were built mostly in pise, with stone founda-tions. However, from the Middle Neolithic period, Near-eastern people had already begun to use stone walls and mud-bricks. In China, the house-building technique and material does not appear very different from the Near Eastern dwellings, although the evolution of architectural forms was not as systematic. The earliest houses, ex-cavated at Peiligang and Cishan, were either semi-subterranean or built directly on the ground. They were constructed in pise on stone foundations, and sometimes with mud-plaster floors. Most of them were circular, with a diameter between 2 and 5 m., although a few were almost rectangular and appar-ently larger than the circular structures. This con-struction technique was used well beyond the Neolithic period. Mud bricks were not used until the Late Neolithic Longshan period (Chang 1986.263), and stone walls (including fortification walls) were a rar-ity in China untill well into the Iron Age (fourth-third century BC). 6. FIGURINES Figurines appear early in the Near East. The first isolated examples were zoomorphic (small grass-eating animals, birds and dogs, i.e., the first domes-ticated animals); they were found in the southern Levant, and dated to the Natufian period. Associated with fertility because most represent large fema-les, Near-Eastern anthropomorphic figurines had already appeared in large quantities in the PPNA period (c. 10th millenium BC) in the Levant (Cauvin 1994). Few figurines are present in the Chinese Neolithic data, whereas they exist from the earliest period in the Near East. The earliest figurines in China were ali zoomorphic and connected to domesticated animals. Anthropomorphic representations do not appear in China until the MN period, although they were not exactly figurines as such; they were either painted on the inside or the outside of pots, or mod-elled as heads only and used as lids (Yangshao, c. middle of fifth to the end of the fourth millenium BC). The first real anthropomorphic figurines do not appear in China until the end of the Middle Neolithic period, and only then in the northern part of the country (Hongshan culture, middle of the fourth to the middle of the third millennium BC). As they are the first female representations discov-ered in a Chinese archaeological assemblage, they have been associated with fertility cults, on the sole ground that such an interpretation is traditionallv accepted for similar figurines in the prehistoric Near East and Europe. 7. BURIALS In China, from the Early Neolithic period onwards (at Peiligang, Cishan, c. eighth-seventh millennium BC), burials seem to have been systematically performed in large cemeteries outside of settlements, with one individual per tomb and with grave-goods. Flexed positions appear to have preceded supine, and intra-mural burials are extremely rare, seemingly reser-ved for babies who were inhumed in pots placed closed to the entrance of the house (at Banpo, MN, for example). Variation in burial systems over tirne, but within the same region is often accepted as proof of local for-eign immigration, and/or of evidence of different re-ligious beliefs. If this is always the čase, the appar-ent systematic uniformity of Chinese burials, both in tirne and space, would suggest that similar meta-physical concerns were generally accepted through-out a vast area with differing ecological environ-ments. Consequently, a certain elementary "religious unity" may already have been present in China at the beginning of sedentism, which was at that tirne a very new way of life. It is then possible to suppose that this form of burial may originate from the pre-vious cultural phase. The Near Eastern schemes for burying the dead vary according to plače and tirne. Primary and sec- ondary single burials, without specific orientation, but with grave-goods (personal jewellery only, never with stone vessels or tools), existed during the Epipalaeolithic/Natufian period (Mellart 1975. 38). Whenever recovered, the evidence indicates that Neolithic burials were mostly without grave-goods, in flexed or semi-flexed position, most of the tirne without the skull, which was plastered and used for cultic purposes (Jericho, Ain Ghazal). They were more often under the floor of the house, as secondary burials (Jericho, Mureybit, Beidah, Catal Hiiyiik) rather than outside in adjacent courtyards (Abu Hureyra). Grave goods appeared later and in limited quantities, mainly in regions more to the West than the Levantine core areas (at Catal Hiiyuk, in Anatolia). Cemeteries outside villages are often found in regions far from the coast (Jarmo, Halaf), although this does not seem to be an absolute rule, since intro-mural burials were carried out at the same tirne at Halaf and Samarra. Regular grave goods do not seem to appear until the early sixth millennium BC at Halaf and Samarra (Ubaid cultural period). 8. INTER SITE CONTACTS Inter-site contacts appear very early in the Near East (during the Epipalaeolithic period) with the emer-gence of obsidian blades in many settlements from the fifteenth millennium BC onwards. Technological analyses have narrowed their origin to only three sources - Bingol, Lake Van and the Cappadoce, ali of which are located in Anatolia (Cauvin 1994.127). The diffusion/exchange of domesticated plants and anijnals from at least two core areas towards the rest of the Near East confirms the continuity of these early "trade routes". Any possible contacts with exogenous cultures from the Chinese side, cannot be considered earlier than the appearence of new elements in the archaeological material. The present archaeological evidence indicates that inter-site contacts began at a very limited regional level during the Early Neolithic (EN) period in China. The extremely limited diffusion of obsidian, occurring only in eastern Jilin and Hei-longjiang, illustrates this clearly (Nelson 1995.89). Fig. 1. General distribution of the Early Neolithic cultures in China (after Yan Wenming 1987.47). The spheres of interaction established a little more than a decade ago (Chang 1986.235; Yan 1987.47) stress the indigenous, cultural impact of China's basic geophysical zones (Fig. 1). These spheres slowly star-ted to establish wider contacts with each other only from the Middle Neolithic period (MN), slowly break-ing down the barriers between these cultural zones. V. SUMMARY The basic material problems for a transition between a hunting-gathering and sedentary way of life appear to have been similar in the Near and the Far East. However, beyond the ecological constraints which dictated the selection of plants and animals to do-mesticate, the adaptative solutions to this new econ-omy are different. A synopsis of the two sets of data clearly shows the similarities and differences which occurred at both ends of Asia (Tab. 3). Similarities The species of both domesticated plants and animals follow a similar pattern both in western and eastern Asia, although differences in the choice of domesti-cates were obviously dictated by ecological parame-ters. The early Chinese husbandry points however to species closer to a non-sedentary way of life than in the Near East. The fact that animal domestica-tion preceded that of plants also fits this trend. Considering a more general level of Neolithisation, the evolution of settlement patterns (from cave to village) and house-building systems seems to be re-lated in both regions, even if the eastern Asian evo- China Near East Animal domestication: before plant domestication after plant domestication Dog c. 12& mili. BC c. I4th mili. BC Chicken c. 6th mili. BC c. 2nd mili. BC (Iran) Pig c. 9th mili. BC c. 7th mili. BC Cattle c. 6th mili. BC c. 8th mili. BC Sheep c. 5th mili. BC c. 9th mili. BC Goat c. mid-3rd mili. BC c. 8th mili. BC Plant domestication: after animal domestication before animal domestication Millet c. 8th mili. BC c. 5th mili. BC (Iran) Rice c. 9th mili. BC c. 2nc' mili. BC (Pakistan) Wheat c. 1« mili. BC c. 9th mili. BC Pottery before plant domestication after plant domestication (no plaster vessels) (plaster vessels before pottery) Implements (stone/bone) sophisticated (sickle/quern) un-sophisticated (sickle/quern) obsidian only in northern sites obsidian everywhere from 14000 from c. 5-3000 BC BC onwards Settlement pattern cave to village cave to village Architecture round to square (unsystematic) round to square (systematic) semi-subterranean (round) semi-subterranean (round) with above ground (round) to above ground (round) with above ground (rectangular) to above ground (rectangular) stone walls rare until end of BA stone wall common from MN Figurines: few many zoomorphic yes yes anthropomorphic no (untill MN) yes (from beginning) Burial flexed to supine flexed or supine (unsystematic) cemeteries (one/several per grave) intramural (several) to very few intramural (children) few cemeteries (unsystematic) primary, rare and late secondary secondary to primary Grave goods always (from 8th mili. BC) none untill 6th mili. BC Inter-site contacts EN onwards: Epipalaeolithic onwards: limited to low regional level multi-regional level Tab. 3■ Synopsis of Early Neolithic data for China and the Near East. lution from circular to rectangular dwellings does not exactly follow the somewhat more rigorously sys-tematic, western Asian evolutionary model. Differences The differences are, however, to be found in two very important areas which reflect people's creativ-ity as well as their anxiety about the unknown: in technology and metaphysics. On the technological level, the manufacture of tools (of stone and even bone) is related not only to the economy, but also to the creative ability of the local population. The shape and manufacture of Chinese querns and pestles are very different from those in the Near East, in spite of the fact that this type of im-plement is directly connected to the processing of cereals. Any direct exchange of ideas related to the preparation of a similar category of staple food between the two ends of Asia does not seem to have taken plače during the Early Neolithic period. Pottery preceded the new agricultural economy everywhere in China. There is no transitional period in the country, either in time (no Pre-Pottery Neolithic period), or in technology (no manufacture of plaster vessels). Nevertheless, the differenciation of pottery technology, typology and, consequently of function, appear earlier in China than in the Near East. On the metaphysical level, the very early emergence of well organised cemeteries with grave-goods (Peili-gang and Cishan) in Neolithic China seems to indica-te a concern with the problems of the after-life which was different from that in the Near East, with sec-ondary internment Qericho, Mureybit, (iatal Hiiyuk) and plastered skull cult (Jericho, Ain Ghazal). It even seems that a very early social differentiation, which does not seen to have existed in the Near East at an identical cultural level, could have occurred in China. The occurrence of figurines, generally associated with cultic purposes at each end of Asia, is also very different. In the Near East, they appear early, and being mostly female, seem to relate exclusively to fertility cults, while in China, being mostly zoomor-phic, they seem to be more associated with the quest for food. Such an interpretation would not, howev-er, exclude religious purposes, possible related to an early form of shamanism, for the Chinese figurines (Chang 1992.217). VI. CONCLUSION If the basic principles for sedentism and the domestication of local plants and animals were similar in western and eastern Asia, the specific solutions cho-sen by the Neolithic populations in China to solve similar problems to those which arose more or less at the same time in the Near East, point to a most inter-esting result. This is clearly demonstrated by the idio-syncrasy shown by the choice of technology and ty-pology of the implements (tools/pottery) required by the new economy, and also by the metaphysical aspects (burials/figurines). Such reactions point to fundamentally different responses to identical problems. These respective adaptive strategies show not only the originality of each human group, but even that direct cultural contacts or some mutual exchange of influences could not have taken plače between both ends of Asia during the Early Neolithic period. We can then conclude that the transition between a hun-ting-gathering and a food producing economy occurred independently in China and in the Near East. REFERENCES AMMERMAN A. J. and CAVALLI-SFORZA L. L. 1984. The Neolithic Transition and The Genetics of the Population in Europe. AN ZHIMIN 1988. Archaeological Research on Neolithic China. Current Anthropology 29: 753-759- 1989a. Prehistoric Agriculture in China. In D. R. Harris & G. C. Hillman (eds.), Foraging and Far-ming. The Evolution of Plant Exploitation (One uiorld Archaeology 13): 644-49. 1989b. Chinese Archaeology: Past and Present. Archaeological Revieiv from Cambridge 8:12-18. 1994. The Technique of Radiocarbon Dating and the Archaeology of Prehistory. Wenwu 3. 83-87. ANDERSSON J. G. 1943. Researches into the Prehi-story of the Chinese. Bulletin 15, Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities, Stockholm. AVNER U., CARMII. and SEGAL D. 1994. Neolithic to Bronze Age Settlement of the Negev and Sinai in Light of Radiocarbon Dating: a View from the Southern Negev. In 0. Bar-Yosef, R. S. Kra (eds.), Late Quater-nary Chronology and Paleoclimates of the Eastern Mediterranean, Radiocarbon 1994: 265-300. BAODING et al. 1992. Baoding Prefectural Admini-stration of the Preservation of Ancient Monuments, Xushui County Administration of the Reservation of the Preservation of Ancient Monuments, Archaeological Department of Beijing University and History Department of Hebei University, Trial Digging at the Nanzhangtou Site in Xushui County, Hebei Province. Kaogu 1992,1: 961-986. BJORK C. 1995. Early Pottery in Greece. A Technolo-gical and Functional Analysis of the Evidence from Neolithic Achilleion, Thessaly. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, vol. 115- B0K0NYI S. 1994. Domestication of Animals from the Beginning of Food Production up to about 5000 years ago. An Overview. In S. J. de Laert, A. H. Dani, J. L. Lorenzo & R. B. Nunoo (eds.), History ofHuma-nity, vol. I: Prehistory and the Beginning of Civili-sations: 389-397. BRAIDWOOD L. S. and BRAIDWOOD R. J. 1986. Pre-lude to the Apprearance of Village-Farming Commu- nities in Southwestern Asia. I11 J. Vorys Canby, E. Po-rada, B. Sismondo Ridgway, T. Stech (eds.), Ancient Anatolia. Aspects of Change and Cultural Develop-ment, Essays in Honor ofMatcheldf. Mellink: 3~11. BROODBANK C. and STRASSER T. F. 1991- Migrant Farmers and the Neolithic Colonization of Crete. Antiquity 65: 233-254. CAUVIN J. 1994. Naissance des divinites. Naissan-ce de l'agriculture. CHANG K. C. 1976. The Beginning of Agriculture in the Far East. Antiquity 64: 175-185- 1977. Food in Chinese Culture. 1986. The Archaeology of Ancient China (4th ed.). 1989. Ancient China and its Anthropological Sig-nificance. In C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky (ed.), Archaeological Thoughts in America: 155-165. 1992. The Circumpacific Substratum of Ancient Chinese Civilization. In C. M. Aitkens, S.-N. Rhee (eds.), Pacific Northeast Asia in Prehistory: 217-221. CHANG TE-TZU1983. The Origins and Early Cultures of the Cereals grain and Food legumes. In D. N. Keightley (ed.), The Origins of Chinese Civilization: 65-94. CHEN CHUN 1989- Chinese Archaeology and the West. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 8:27-35- CHEN XINGCAN 1997. Zhongguo shiqian kaoguxue shiyanjin 1895-1949 (The History of Preh istoric Archaeology in China 1895-1949). CHEN TIEMEI and R. E. M. HEDGES 1994. Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Radiocarbon Dating of Pottery from the Pengtoushan and Hujiawuchang sites. Wen-wu 3: 88-94. CHEN TIEMEI and YUAN SIXUN 1988. Uranium-Se-ries Dating of Bones and Teeth from Chinese Palaeolithic Sites. Archaeometry 30:59-76. CHOW BEN-SHUN 1981. The Anhnal Remains disco-vered at Cishan Village, Wu'an, Hebei Province. Kaogu Xuebao 3:339-347. 1984. Animal Domestication in Neolithic China. In J. Clutton.Brock & G. Gridson (eds.), Ani-mals and Archaeologv, BAR Int. Series 202: 263-269. CRAWFORD G. W. 1992. Prehistoric Plant Domestication in Asia. In C. W. Cowan & P. J. Watson (eds.), The Origins of Agriculture. An International Per-spective: 7-38. EVIN J. 1995. Possibilite et necessite de la calibration des datations C-14 de 1'archeologie du Proche-Orient. Paleorient 21:1: 5-16. FERRIE H. 1995. A Conversation with K.-C. Chang. Current Anthropologv 36: 307-325. GLOVER I. C. and HIGHAM C. F. W. 1996. New Evidence for Early Rice Cultivation in South, Southeast and East Asia. In D. R. Harris (ed.), The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralisni in Eurasia: 413-441. HEDGES R. E. M., CHEN TIEMEI and HOUSLEY R. A. 1992. Results and methods in the radiocarbon dating of Pottery. Radiocarbon 34:3: 906-915. HIGHAM C. 1996. The Bronze Age of Southeast Asia. (Cambridge World archaeology). HENRY D. 0. 1983. Adaptive Evolution within the Epipaleolithic of the Near East. In F. Wendorf & A. E. Close (eds.), Advances in World Archaeologv, vol. 2: 99-160. 1989- From Foraging to Agriculture. The Levant at the End of the Ice Age. University of Pennsyl-vania. HOLE F.and FLANNERY K. V. 1967. The Prehistory of South-Western Iran: a Preliminary Report. Proce-dings of the Prehistoric Society 33: 147-206. HUANG WANP0, CIOCHON R., GU YUMIN, LARICK R., FANG QIREN, SCHWARCZ H., Y0NGE C., DE VOS J. and RINK W.1995. Early Hotno and Associated Artefacts from Asia. Nature 378: 275-278. HUNAN Working Team No 1 of IA, CASS, 1984. Exca-vation of the Neolithic Site at Peiligang. Kaogu Xue-bao 1: 23-52. IKAWA-SMITH F. 1970. On ceramic technology in East Asia. Current Anthropology 17: 513-515- IMAMURA K. 1996. Jomon and Yayoi: the Transition to Agriculture in Japanese Prehistory. In D. R. Harris (ed.), The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia: 442-464. JIA JIAGUANG and XU HAOSHENG 1992. On the Early Neolithic Remains at Nanzhuangtou, Xushui County. Kaogu 11: 1018-1022. KENY0N K. M. 1957. Digging up Jericho. KINGERY W. D., VANDIVER P. B. and PRICKETT M. 1988. The Beginnings of Pyrotechnology, Part II: Production and Use of Lime and Gypsum Plaster in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Near East .Journal ofField Archaeology 15: 219-244. KUIJTI. and BAR-Y0SEF 0. 1994. Radiocarbon Chro-nology for the Levantine Neolithic: Observation and Data. In 0. Bar-Yosef, R. S. Kra (eds.), Late Quater-nary Chronologv and Paleo-climates of the Eastern Mediterranean, Radiocarbon 1994: 227-245- KREUZ A. M. 1990. Die ersten Bauern Mitteleuropas. Eine archaobotanische Untersuchung zu Umwelt und Landwirtschaft der Altersten Bandkeramik. Ana-lecta Praehistorica Leidensia 23- LEGROS T. 1990. Les Premieres Ceramiques Ameri-caines. Les Dossiers dArcheologie 145: 60-63- LI J., ZHANG Z., DENG Z. and LIANG B. 1995. Study on Neolithic Early Pottery of China - concurrent dis-cussion on its origin. In Guo Jingkun (ed.), Science and Technologv of Ancient Ceramics 3- Proce-edings of the Intern. Symposium (ISAC' 95): 1-7. 1996. A Study on Neolithic Early Pottery: also on the origin of Chinese Pottery. Kaogu: 5, 83-91- LISITSINA G. N. 1984. The Caucasus - Center of Ancient Farming in Eurasia. In W. van Zeist & W. A. Casparie (eds.), Plants and Ancient Man: 285-292. LIU JING-WEN 1995. Bronze Culture in Jilin Province. In S. M. Nelson (ed.), The Archaeologv of Northeast China: 206-224. LIU ZHEN-HUA 1995. Recent Neolithic Discoveries in Jilin Province. In S. M. Nelson (ed.), The Archaeologv of Northeast China: 89-117- MILLER N. F. 1992. The Origins of Plant Cultivation in the Near East. In C. W. Cowan, P. J. Watson (eds.), The Origins of Agriculture. An International Per-spective: 39-58. NELSON S. M. (ed.) 1995. The Archaeology of Northeast China. NESBITT M. and SUMMERS G. D. 1988, Some Recent Discoveries of Millet (Panicum Miliaceum L. and Setaria Italica (L.) Beauv.) at Excavations in Turkey and Iran. Anatolian Studies 38: 85-97. PERKINS D. 1969. Fauna of Catal Huyiik: Evidence for Early Cattle Domestication in Anatolia. Science 164: 177-179. PERLES C. 1997. L'Egee neolithicjue: un monde en mouvement. Dossiers dArcheologie 222: 10-13• PERLES C. and VITELLI K. D. 1994. Technologie et fonction des premieres ceramiques en Grece. In Ter-re Cuite et Societe. La ceramique, document tech-nique, economique, culturel: 225-242. XIVe Ren-contres Internationales d'Archaeologie et dHistoire d'Antibes, Juan-les-Pins. REDDING R. W. 1995. Preliminary Report on Faunal Remains Recovered from the 1993 Excavations. In R. S. MacNeish & J. G. Libby (eds.), Origin of Rice Agriculture. The Preliminary Report of the Sino-American fiangxi (PRC) Project: 53-58. Publica-tions in Anthropology No. 13. REN SHINAN 1995. The Main Achievements in Chinese Neolithic Cultures before the 5th Millennium BC. Kaogu 1: 37-49. RICE P. M. 1987. Pottery Analysis. A Sourcebook. SHIH XING-BANG 1992. The Discovery of the Pre-Yangshao Culture and its Significance. In C. M. Ait-kens & S. N. Rhee (eds.), Pacific Northeast Asia in Prehistory: 125-132. SMITH B. D. 1995. The Emergence of Agriculture. Scientific American Library Series 54. STAMPFLI H. R. 1983. The Fauna of Jarmo with notes on Animal Bones from Matarrah, the Amuq and Karim Shahir. In L. S. Braidwood et al. (eds.), Prehi-storic Archaeology along the Zagros Flanks: 431-483. TAN YING-JIE, SUN XIU-REN, ZHAO HONG-GUANG and GAN ZHI-GENG, The Neolithic in Heilongjiang Province. In S. M. Nelson (ed.), The Archaeology of Northeast China: 118-144. VANDIVER P. B. 1987. Sequential Slab Construction: a Conservative Southwest Asiatic Ceramic Tradition. Paleorient 13: 9-35- VITELLI K. D. 1989. Were pots first made for foods? Doubts from Franchthi. World Archaeologv 21:17-29. WANG TAO 1997. Establishing the Chinese Archaeological School: Su Binqi and Contemporary Chinese Archaeology. Antiquity 71: 31-39. WEST B. & BEN-XIONG ZHOU 1988, Did Chicken go North? New Evidence for Domestication. fournal of Archaeological Science 15: 515-533■ YAN WENMING 1987. The Unity and Variety of the Chinese Prehistoric Cultures. Wenwu 3: 38-50. 1992. Origins of Agriculture and Animal Husban-dry in China. In C. M. Aitkens, S. N. Rhee (eds.), Pacific Northeast Asia in Prehistorj: 113-123■ YIOUNI P. 1996. The Early Neolithic Pottery: Fun-ctional Analysis. In R. J. Rodden, K. A. Wardle (eds.), Nea Nikomedeia I: The Excavation ofan Early Neolithic Village in Northern Greece 1961-1964, (BSA suppl. vol. 25): 181-193■ ZHANG ZHAOQING 1987. On the Determination and Chronology of the Peiligang-Cishan Culture. Huaxia Kaogu 1: 138-149. ZHAO SHIGANG 1985. Some Question about the Peiligang Culture. Shijian Yanjiu 2: 27-40. ZHAO ZHIJUN, PEARSALL D. M. and JIANG QINHUA 1995. Analysis of Phytoliths from Xian Ren Dong and Wang Dong. In R. S. MacNeish, J. G. Libby (eds.), Origin of Rice Agriculture. The Preliminary Report of the Sino-American fiangxi (PRC) Project: 47-52. Publications in Anthropology No. 13- ZHONGGUO KAOGUXUE ZHONGTAU SHISINIAN-DAI SHUfINJI - 1965-1991 (Radiocarbon Dates in Chinese Arcliaeology - 1965-1991)- The Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Science -CASS (in Chinese, with explanation in English). ZOHARI D. and HOPF M. 1988. Domestication of Plants in the Old World,