Connecting Pots and Places: How Many Centres ofPottery Invention in East Asia?
Kevin GIBBS1
ABSTRACT

Current evidence indicates that hunter-gatherers invented pottery in East Asia at least by 18 000
years ago, with early pottery coming from sites in Japan, southern China and in the Amur Riverregion in the Russian Far East. A number of recent studies have provided important information
about this early pottery, including its chronological age, its function, and the impact of changing
environmental conditions. Another key issue concerns the number of centres of ceramic innovation.
Was pottery independently invented in multiple East Asian locations or was it invented at a single
core area with subsequent dispersals into other regions? This paper outlines multiple lines ofevidence that have been used to support a multiple-origin argument. It then provides a response toeach of these lines from a single-centre perspective. Ultimately, given the gaps in existing knowledgeof early pottery it is too early to rule out either possibility. Additional work will be needed to resolve
the debate, including a consideration of changing landscapes and the broader contexts of early
pottery production.
KEYWORDS: pottery, pottery function, ceramic technology, invention, East Asia, dispersals,
landscapes

1.

Introduction

The world’s earliest pottery (ﬁred clay containers) was made by hunter-gatherers in Late
Pleistocene East Asia, with particularly early evidence coming from Japan, southern China
and the Amur region of the Russian Far East. A number of publications have highlighted
the importance of these very early pottery traditions to English language audiences (e.g.,
Cohen 2013; Iizuka 2018; Kuzmin 2013). Recent studies have provided information on
the age of this pottery (e.g., Boaretto 2009; Cohen et al. 2017; Kuzmin 2017; Wu et al.
2012), its function (e.g., Craig et al. 2013; Lucquin et al. 2016, 2018; Shoda et al. 2020),
and environmental contexts (e.g., Feng & Wang, in press; Kawahata et al. 2017; Sato &Natsuki 2017). Another issue that has seen less attention concerns the number of centres ofceramic invention in East Asia. Was pottery invented independently in multiple locations(including southern China, Japan and the Amur) or was it invented in just one core area
1 Archaeological Research Facility, University of California, Berkeley, 2251 College Building Berkeley, CA

94720–3710 USA(k.gibbs@berkeley.edu)
Category: Original Article Received: 18 December 2020; Accepted: 10 February 2021
JAPANESE JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 8 (2021): 209–225

Kevin GIBBS

with subsequent dispersals into other parts of East Asia?
This paper looks at both sides of the debate. It outlines arguments for the multiplecentre perspective (e.g., Kuzmin 2006, 2013) and then provides a response to each ofthese lines of evidence from a single-centre perspective. Ultimately, given the gaps inexisting knowledge of early pottery it is too early to rule out either possibility. In order tosatisfactorily resolve the issue new data will be required from ﬁeldwork in key regions andthe detailed analysis of archaeological assemblages. The robust datasets from Japan willneed to be considered within their broader East Asian contexts, including a considerationof changing landscapes and resource availability.
Investigating the number of centres of pottery production in East Asia necessarily
requires consideration of evidence from a number of modern countries. This creates alinguistic hurdle as a great deal of important research has been published in languages otherthan English. This paper relies solely on English-language literature as this is the languageof the Japanese Journal of Archaeology. However, it should be recognized that future
considerations of the topic could beneﬁt from the integration of non-English resources.

2.

Pottery chronology, environment and function

A number of recent English-language publications have summarized early pottery in East
Asia (e.g., Cohen 2013; Gibbs & Jordan 2013; Kuzmin 2006, 2013; Iizuka 2018) so only abrief discussion of a few representative sites is provided below (Figure 1). In each region
pottery was ﬁrst made and used by hunter-gatherers who likely retained a largely nomadic
lifestyle.
A number of sites in China south of the Yangzi River have produced evidence forpottery older than 10 000 cal. BP (Lu 2011), including the cave sites of Xianrendong andYuchanyan. Recent work at Xianrendong has dated the site’s pottery as early as around
20 000 cal. BP making it a strong contender for the earliest pottery ever recovered (Wuet al. 2012). Kuzmin (2013) is sceptical of this early date, however, preferring to date theearliest pottery at the site to around 14 000-15 000 cal. BP (but see Cohen et al. 2017).
Regardless, other sites point to a Late Pleistocene date for southern China’s earliest
pottery, including Yuchanyan, which has been dated to around 18 000 cal. BP (Boaretto2009). Pottery from Xianrendong has surfaces that are either plain or ﬁnished with parallel
striations, perhaps from smoothing with plant ﬁbres or a toothed implement (Cohen 2013,
p. 64; Wu et al. 2012, p. 1697). The rims can be decorated with u- or v-shaped notches orrows of irregularly spaced punctates below the rim. A reconstructed pot from Yuchanyan
has a pointed base and surfaces with apparent cord impressions (Yuan 2002, p. 162).
Compared to some adjacent regions of East Asia, there is considerably more evidence
for early pottery production in Japan, where over 100 Incipient Jomon sites have been
© Japanese Archaeological Association

210

CONNECTING POTS AND PLACES

Figure 1. Map showing locations of sites mentioned in the text: 1. Yuchanyan; 2. Xianrendong; 3.
Hutouliang; 4. Houtaomuga; 5. Odai Yamamoto 1; 6. Taisho 3; 7. Khummi; 8. Gasya; 9. Goncharka
1; 10. Gromatukha; 11. Ust’-Karenga.

identiﬁed. The Incipient Jomon has been subdivided into three phases (Taniguchi 2017).
Since these are based on changes in pottery decoration a degree of overlap is to be
expected. Undecorated pottery (phase 1) is earliest, followed by pottery decorated withlinear relief (phase 2). Phase 3a pottery is decorated with punctates, nail-impressions orcord-impressions, and phase 3b is characterized by a range of decorations, including rolled
cord-marking. Undecorated pottery from the Odai Yamamoto 1 site has produced someof the earliest dates for pottery in Japan. Nakamura et al. (2001) assign an age of around16 540 to 15 710 cal. BP to this pottery but Kuzmin (2013) suggests a wider range of
17 400 to 14 000 cal. BP. Several other sites in Honshu have produced pottery with dates© Japanese Archaeological Association

211

Kevin GIBBS

that are almost as old.
A number of sites in the Amur River valley and its tributaries have produced pottery
earlier than 10 000 cal. BP (Kuzmin 2013). Key sites include Gasya, Khummi and
Goncharka 1, which are attributed to the Osipovka culture. Vessels from these sites include
ﬂat bottomed pots sometimes with decorated surfaces. At the Gasya and Khummi sites, pots
have organic inclusions and rough grooves on both the exterior and interior surfaces, while
pottery from the Goncharka 1 site lacks organic inclusions and is decorated with zig-zag
patterns (Zhushchikhovskaya 2005; Yanshina 2017). Radiocarbon evidence suggests theearliest Osipovka pottery dates to around 16 800 to 14 100 cal. BP, which is approximately
the same age as the ﬁrst pottery in Japan or perhaps only slightly later (Kuzmin 2013).
A key observation from the early dates of pottery in southern China, Japan and the Amuris that in each of these areas pottery predates the onset of warming conditions during the
Bølling-Allerød (Taniguchi 2017), which began around 14 700 cal. BP. Pottery, therefore,
was ﬁrst made during the Last Glacial stage and its invention cannot simply be attributed
to climatic amelioration or any concomitant availability of new food resources. This alsomeans that pottery was invented during a period of lower sea levels. At the Last Glacial
Maximum sea levels were as much as 120 m below current levels (Clark and Mix 2002)
making coastlines in some regions dramatically different when compared to present
coastlines. For example, the Yellow Sea and large parts of the coastal shelf of the East
China Sea were probably exposed up to 16 000 cal. BP and the southern tip of Japan would
have been closer to the mainland (Guedes et al. 2016).
Due to the colder climate, biome distributions during the Last Glacial stage were not thesame as today (Figure 2). In southern China, pottery likely appeared in temperate woodlandenvironments, while in Japan pottery appeared in temperate coniferous forest and the Amur
has been reconstructed as a steppe-tundra biome at the time of pottery’s appearance (Guedes
et al. 2016). It is evident that early pottery was made and used in a range of biomes across
East Asia, each with their own suite of resources.
The function of early pottery in East Asia is an important topic for understanding its
appearance. The rounded or pointed bases of some early pots, along with their open
shape, suggest that boiling of foodstuﬀs was a possible function (Kobayashi et al. 2004).
Shellfish (Ikawa-Smith 1976), nuts and other plants (Kobayashi et al. 2004) and bonegrease (e.g., Prendergast et al. 2009) have all been suggested as foods that would beneﬁt
from processing in early pottery vessels. Advances in organic residue analysis have begun
to provide direct evidence for the resources that were processed in early pots, although it isworth noting that some studies have relied on fairly small sample sizes and the applicationof residue analysis methods has been somewhat uneven. Future studies will beneﬁt fromlarger datasets that incorporate more sites, including from key regions like southern China,
where evidence is currently limited. The most extensive organic residue results have come© Japanese Archaeological Association

212

CONNECTING POTS AND PLACES

Figure 2. Biomes in East Asia during the period 21 000 to 17 000 years ago (after Guedes et al.
2016: ﬁgs. 2 and 4). The map also shows the reconstructed coastline for this time period. Note thatmuch of Yellow Sea and the East China Sea was exposed land.

from Japan, where evidence indicates the processing of aquatic species in pottery during
the Incipient Jomon (Craig et al. 2013), a pattern that persists into later periods (Lucquin
et al. 2016). Shoda et al. (2020) demonstrate that in the lower part of the Amur pottery was
also used to process aquatic species, perhaps salmonids and freshwater ﬁsh, while organic
residue analysis of pottery from the Gromatukha site in the Middle Amur indicates asigniﬁcant contribution of lipids from ruminant animals indicating that there was variability
across the region, although the number of samples from Gromatukha was small (n=5).
Another explanation for pottery’s invention looks to the possible prestige or symbolic© Japanese Archaeological Association

213

Kevin GIBBS

value of the technology, including for the aggrandizement of particular individuals (Hayden2009), although pottery could instead have been used to prepare special foods for the
beneﬁt of the collective (Pearson 2005, p. 826), perhaps to promote group cohesion duringritual events. In each region of early pottery use, the number of vessels was very limited,which may lend some support to a prestige or symbolic explanation for pottery; at its
inception, pottery was evidently not used for large-scale processing of foods. Pots, as rare
objects, may have had inherent prestige value or possibly it was the special foods they
contained— prepared or served in limited quantities—that had prestige value, particularly
if these foods were only produced during infrequent feasting events (Hayden 2009).

3.

Centres of pottery invention

Whatever the reason for the initial invention of pottery, it is clear that it eventually became
an important and long-lasting technology in several regions within East Asia. But was theappearance of pottery in diﬀerent regions the result of multiple, independent innovations
by diﬀerent hunter-gatherer groups? Or was it the result of a single invention in a core areathat was subsequently adopted by people in other regions? The multiple-centre perspective
has been supported by some scholars (e.g., Keally et al. 2004; Kuzmin 2017) and somehave even raised the possibility of multiple inventions within a single region. Kobayashi etal. (2004, p. 20), for example, notes the possibility that Jomon pottery had multiple origins
within Japan.

3a.

Multiple centre arguments

Several lines of evidence have been oﬀered to support the multiple centre perspective. First,
the spatial distribution of early pottery may suggest separate centres of origin. The earliest
pottery in East Asia is found in southern China, Japan (especially Honshu and Kyushu) andthe Amur while regions in between appear to lack comparatively early pottery. In particular,
the earliest known pottery from northern China, the Korean peninsula and Hokkaido and
Sakhalin is later in date. Current evidence indicates the pottery was being made in northern
China shortly before the onset of the Holocene (Li et al. 2017), which is several millennia
later than in southern China. The earliest pottery from Korea comes from Jeju Island, southof the peninsula, dating to around 9500 cal. BP (Kim et al., in press). Pottery in mainland
Korea is later, dating to around 8200 cal. BP (Kim & Seong, in press). On Hokkaido, early
pottery sites are rare when compared to the rest of Japan. Pottery from the Taisho 3 site is
as early as 14 410 to 14 080 cal. BP (Yamahara 2006), which is a couple of millennia later
than Honshu. Early pottery from Sakhalin postdates the onset of the Holocene, dating toafter 10 200 cal. BP (Vasilevski et al. 2010). While all of these dates are early from a global
perspective, predating pottery from most other world regions, they are notably later than© Japanese Archaeological Association

214

CONNECTING POTS AND PLACES

the earliest pottery in southern China, Japan and the Amur.
Second, pottery from each of the earliest centres is relatively simple and indicative ofa low-level of production. As Brown (1989, p. 221) notes, the expedient manufacture ofpottery should be expected in the earliest phase of production in a region. In the potteryof East Asia, ﬁring temperatures are low, shapes are simple, decoration tends to be absent
or unelaborate, and in each region the number of vessels produced is relatively low. At
Yuchanyan, for example, only two vessels have been identiﬁed, which are “coarsely made,with thick, uneven walls” and ﬁred to a relatively low temperature of between 400 and
500 degrees C (Boaretto et al. 2009, p. 9596). Taniguchi (2017) notes that sites in Japan
attributable to the ﬁrst phase of the Incipient Jomon (phase 1) produce very small numbersof undecorated pots and that it is only after the transition to the Holocene that pottery
production drastically accelerates. For example, at Odai Yamamoto 1, of the 46 sherds
recovered, 44 are thought to come from a single vessel (IIzuka 2018, p. 287). At the Gasyasite in the Amur, most recovered sherds derive from a single vessel, which may have been
fired to a temperature of around 500 degrees C (Zhushchikhovskaya 2005, p. 15). The
infrequent production of simple, low-fired vessels may be consistent with each region
having a sustained phase of experimentation following local inventions.
Third, despite the overall simplicity of pottery from each region, some scholars havesuggested that there are notable technological and stylistic diﬀerences between them (e.g.,
Keally et al. 2004, p. 349; Kuzmin 2006, p. 368). For example, pottery from Yuchanyan
and Xianrendong in China have rounded bases, inorganic inclusions and thick walls, andsometimes cord marks. In Japan, pottery from the ﬁrst phase of the Incipient Jomon isplain although “false puncture” and “incised” pottery are also recovered from a few sites(Taniguchi 2017, p. 155). In the Amur, some sites have pots that are flat-based, thickwalled, include organic inclusions and have grooved or undecorated surfaces. Pottery from
Goncharka 1, however, has zigzag decoration and lacks organic inclusions.
Fourth, Kuzmin (2013, p. 548) argues that if pottery technology spread from a “core” area
to other regions then there should be other evidence of cultural exchange or contact. This
could include the movement of other materials or ideas, or genetic ties between populations.
Kuzmin (2013) suggests there is no such evidence. For example, microblades, which occur
in northern China, Japan and the Russian Far East do not appear in southern China.
A key issue with a multiple-centre perspective is understanding why hunter-gatherer
communities in diﬀerent biomes all began making pottery at roughly the same time, whenno other people in the world were doing so. This cannot simply be attributed to climatic
amelioration as, in each area, pottery predates the onset of global warming at the end of the
Pleistocene.

© Japanese Archaeological Association

215

Kevin GIBBS

3b. A single-centre response

A single origin for early pottery in East Asia has been supported by some scholars. Zhang(2002, p. 35), for example, suggests a single centre of pottery invention but does not
identify a particular location where pottery was invented. Southern China would be apossibility given the very early dates from that region. Aikens and Higuchi (1982, p. 114)
suggest that the origin of pottery in Japan can be traced back to mainland Asia, with the
Korean peninsula as a possible entry point. Kajiwara and Kononenko (1999, p. 67) see theAmur River as a conduit for the spread of pottery technology between regions. Jordan etal. (2016) model the westward spread of pottery across the Eurasian continent, selecting asingle origin source in southern China. That study, however, was not speciﬁcally focusedon the origin of pottery in East Asia and their model was not contingent on a single-centre
position. But if there is any validity to an argument for a single-centre origin of pottery,
how should it respond to the four points listed above: (1) that pottery is missing fromintervening areas; (2) that pottery in each region appears to be experimental; (3) that there
is an apparent lack of technological or stylistic similarity between the early centres ofpottery production; and (4) that there is no other evidence for cultural contact?
To address the fact that comparably early pottery is not found in intervening areas like
Korea and northern China, there are a couple of issues that need to be considered. Firstis the impact of changing landscapes. During the late glacial period, when pottery was
first made, sea levels were considerably lower than modern levels. This suggests thatmany early pottery sites could now be submerged and inaccessible to archaeologists.
For example, we might speculate that pottery was invented near the Xianrendong site insouthern China and entered Japan through Kyushu, which is the closest point in Japan tomainland Asia. A least-cost path analysis including bathymetric data indicates that a likely
route would be across land that is now submerged (Figure 3). Rather than expecting toﬁnd intervening sites in northern China or Korea, this model suggests that evidence forintervening sites would now be mostly underwater. This particular model does not speak
to the likelihood of any connections between the Amur and China or Japan, although it
is possible that pottery spread northward along the eastern coast of Korea and Primorye,
along shorelines that are now submerged. This is highly speculative but evidence fromorganic residue analysis, which indicates that early pottery was largely used to processaquatic species (Craig et al. 2013), suggests that a coastal orientation for early pottery
sites would be likely. The second issue that needs to be considered is the variability inintensity of archaeological research and the diﬃculty of identifying early pottery sites on
the landscape. Not all regions within East Asia have experienced the same intensity ofarchaeological research and as research progresses some gaps in our understanding may
begin to be ﬁlled. For example, radiocarbon dates from the Houtaomuga site have recently
pushed back the reliable age of early pottery in north-eastern China to around 12 900 to© Japanese Archaeological Association

216

CONNECTING POTS AND PLACES

Figure 3. Least cost path analysis using bathymetric data, beginning at the site of Xianrendong(circle) and ending at the southern tip of Korea (triangle), which is a possible entry point forpottery into the Japanese archipelago. The map shows the reconstructed coastline for the end of the
Pleistocene. Note that the least cost path crosses land that is now submerged. Also note that Japanis closer to mainland Asia.

11 100 cal. BP (Wang & Sebillaud 2019). As Kuzmin (2013, p. 549) points out, an even
earlier reported date from the Hutouliang site in north-eastern China (Yasuda 2002, p.
127) requires further published details before it can be accepted. It is also worth notingthat some of the earliest evidence for pottery comes from cave sites, especially in southern
China, which are particularly intrusive on the landscape and are consequently easy forarchaeologists to ﬁnd. In other regions where early pottery may instead be associated with
open air sites, discovering signiﬁcant sites may be more challenging. Third, it is possiblethat in some of the intervening areas, early pottery was once present but was quickly
abandoned. Given how prevalent pottery is in the prehistoric archaeology of many world
regions, archaeologists may be tempted to assume that once pottery appears in a region
it will easily take hold and have longevity. But it is possible that some hunter-gatherer© Japanese Archaeological Association

217

Kevin GIBBS

groups in East Asia brieﬂy tried pottery but then gave it up, preferring instead to use othercontainer technologies, which might leave little archaeological trace. This could make itseem that some regions were devoid of pottery even though they were conduits for thedispersal of pottery between regions.
If pottery was invented in a single, core area, we might assume that it would only
disperse to other areas once it had developed into a more sophisticated technology. This is
not the picture that we see in East Asia, with the earliest pottery in southern China, Japanand the Amur all exhibiting characteristics that might be described as experimental. How
might a single-centre argument address this? Rather than thinking about this materialas experimental or primitive, it is perhaps better to describe it as a container technologythat usefully fulfilled particular roles. In some areas, this seems to be the small-scale
processing of aquatic species. While the earliest pottery in East Asia may seem simple
from the perspective of 21st century archaeologists, who have familiarity with how pottery
developed over millennia, the hunter-gatherer communities who ﬁrst adopted pottery may
have viewed it as suitably sophisticated for their speciﬁc needs. We might speculate, then,that an apparently simple early pottery tradition spread from a single-centre and continued
to be made in a relatively unchanged way in each region that adopted it. This simple pottery
could continue to be made until a need for diﬀerent sorts of pottery emerged, perhaps withthe onset of the Holocene, when changing environments and new potential food sources
encouraged an increase in pottery production and the elaboration of new pottery types to
fulﬁl new needs. While this is speculative, it is worth noting that in Japan, for example,
pottery does increase in number at the onset of the Holocene (Taniguchi 2017).
The third reason that some has led some archaeologists to reject a single-centre
perspective is the perceived technological and stylistic differences between the earliest
centres of production. This is based on the assumption that if pottery dispersed from asingle centre then every adopting group should make pottery in the same way. However,there are a number of points that should be considered. First, the diﬀerence between theregions may be overstated. Yanshina (2017), for example, points out some similarities
between early pottery from southern China and the Amur, including surface treatments.
And in each region the overall shape of pots is somewhat similar, with fairly simple, open
forms dominating. There are diﬀerences in the inclusions found in pots, with some regions(e.g., southern China) having mineral inclusions and others having organic ones (e.g., somesites in the Amur). However, it is not always clear that these inclusions were intentionallyadded as temper. Instead, the perceived diﬀerences could reﬂect a shared practice of using
unmodiﬁed clays that already contain inclusions, with speciﬁc diﬀerences reﬂecting local
geology and vegetation. The use of largely unmodiﬁed clays for early pottery production
seems to be the case at Ust’-Karenga 12 in Transbaikal (Vetrov & Hommel 2019, p. 49).
Second, the variability that is observed may be the result of diﬀerent communities adapting© Japanese Archaeological Association

218

CONNECTING POTS AND PLACES

pottery to their own preconceived notions of what is appropriate for a container to look
like. In the case of the Amur, earlier types of containers may have even been adapted tocreate pottery. In particular, Zhushchikhovskya (2005) argues that baskets were used as akind of mould for pottery production, perhaps indicating a “metaphorical link” (Knappett
et al. 2010, p. 599) between these two types of containers. Here it may be useful toconsider early pottery from other world regions. For example, Knappett et al. (2010, p.
600) suggest that variability in early pottery from Knossos on Crete was inﬂuenced by
pre-existing container typologies in basketry and wood, which each had “speciﬁc sets ofperceived properties and meanings.” This indicates the importance of looking at pottery
within broader technological traditions that may affect how pots were made within aparticular region. Likewise, in the Near East, early pottery exhibits considerable variability
in form and decoration despite evidence for contacts between regions and the likelihoodthat pottery in this part of the world had a single origin. Third, and more speculatively, it ispossible that the common ancestor of pottery is a currently unidentiﬁed tradition that wastechnologically and stylistically similar across the broader East Asian region. Recognized
diﬀerences in each speciﬁc region could reﬂect subsequent adaptations of this ancestral
tradition. Again this is highly conjectural but it is worth noting that Rice (1999) has
hypothesized an early “software horizon” comprised of unﬁred or low-ﬁred clay containersthat gave rise to later pottery traditions. This kind of software may be largely invisible in
the archaeological record.
A ﬁnal point that has been used to support a multiple-origin perspective is the apparent
lack of additional evidence for contact between the early centres of pottery production,
which might include both genetic and archaeological evidence (Kuzmin 2013). However,
if pottery did disperse between regions it may have been the spread of the idea of pottery
technology, which would not be contingent on the large-scale movement of humanpopulations. Thus, genetic connections between regions would not necessarily be expected.
In terms or archaeological evidence, it is also perhaps useful to distinguish between theexchange of ideas and the movement of artefacts. Studies of obsidian, for example, showthat this material was exchanged fairly widely but not to the extent that it can connect
regions as diverse as southern China, Japan and the Amur (Kuzmin 2012). This may be
because obsidian, as a material, was a ﬁnite resource that would eventually be “used up”
as it moved through down-the-line exchange. The idea of a technology, however, is notﬁnite and could presumably be spread much farther. It is noteworthy that there is evidence
that prepared core/microblade technologies did spread throughout much of north-east
Asia, including in the Russian Far East, Japan and northern China (Kato 2014). The factthat southern China is not included in this microblade zone is interesting. It is certainly
possible, however, that the idea of pottery and the idea of microblade technology spreadindependently, in which case we should not assume that the lack of microblades in southern© Japanese Archaeological Association

219

Kevin GIBBS

China has any bearing on connections in pottery technology.

4.

Conclusion

This paper outlined four observations that have been used to support a multiple-centre
argument for the origins of pottery in East Asia, with key centres in southern China, Japanand the Amur. It then provided responses to each of these observations from the alternative
perspective, which suggests that pottery was invented only once, and then dispersed fromthis original core area. Admittedly, much of this response is based on speculation and theabsence of evidence, which is not a particularly satisfying counterargument. However, theabsence of evidence does not always mean that something is untrue and the real conclusionof this paper has to be that (1) it is too early to say deﬁnitively which side of the debate
is right and (2) that more work will be needed to determine whether pottery was invented
once or multiple times in East Asia.
In particular, more fieldwork designed to look for new early pottery sites is needed,
especially in areas between the currently recognized centres of early pottery production
in southern China, Japan and the Amur. As noted above, due to changes in landscapes
after the last glacial maximum and evidence for aquatic uses of pottery, some key sites arelikely now submerged beneath the East China Sea and along the coasts of Japan and Korea(Guedes et al. 2016). Underwater archaeology will be the only way to assess these invisible
landscapes but this will be challenging. Continued effort to contextualize early pottery
in East Asia is also important. This includes understanding how pots were used throughthe application of organic residue analysis with a focus on the earliest pottery collections.
It also includes reﬁning our understanding of how technologies passed between huntergatherer communities and why certain technologies are adopted while others are not. Thereis also a need for more detailed discussions of key pottery assemblages and associateddating and archaeological evidence, which will allow more detailed technological andstylistic comparisons between regions (e.g., Yanshina 2017). For example, inter-regional
comparisons can beneﬁt from advances in reconstructing manufacturing techniques (Roux2019; Thér 2020). This can include the application of micro-CT analysis, which has beenused to study prehistoric pottery in other parts of the world (e.g., Kahl & Ramminger
2012; Kozatas et al. 2018), as well as ceramic petrography, which can provide insights
into manufacturing techniques in addition to information about raw material selection andpreparation (Quinn 2013: 176). The overall high preservation of organic residues in early
pottery from East Asia suggests that compound-speciﬁc radiocarbon dating of absorbed
residues (Casanova et al. 2020) may be a viable method for dating pottery from the region.
High resolution chronological information will be vital for determining when and where
the earliest pottery was made and how it may have spread to other regions.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

220

CONNECTING POTS AND PLACES

Understanding where and when pottery was invented in East Asia is an important topic.
This is the region of the world’s earliest pottery so it can provide exceptionally long-term
insights into how pottery was used and how it developed during later millennia with theadvent of social complexity, resource intensiﬁcation and increased specialization. The topic
has wider implications as well. Jordan and Zvelebil (2009) proposed the idea that pottery
technology originating in East Asia dispersed westward across the Eurasian continent,
leading to the adoption of pottery by hunter-gatherers all the way to north-western Europe(see also Gibbs & Jordan 2013; Jordan et al. 2016). Understanding how and why pottery
was first invented in East Asia and how it may—or may not—have dispersed between
regions can provide important insights into the adoption of pottery by hunter-gatherer
communities in other parts of the continent.

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank HABU Junko and Simon KANER for inviting me to contribute to thisissue. I would also like to thank the anonymous reviewer who provided useful commentsthat improved the paper. This paper is based on a presentation made at the 2019 Annual
Meeting of the Japanese Archaeological Association in Tokyo. I would like to thank HABU
Junko, MIZOGUCHI Koji and the Japanese Archaeological Association for inviting me tospeak at the Annual Meeting and for kindly providing support to attend.

References
Aikens, C.M. & T. Higuchi. 1982. Prehistory of Japan: studies in archaeology. New York:
Academic Press.
Boaretto, E., X.H. Wu, J.R. Yuan, O. Bar-Yosef, V. Chu, Y. Pan, K.X. Liu, D. Cohen, T.
L. Jiao, S.C. Li, H.B. Gu, P. Goldberg & S. Weiner. 2009. Radiocarbon dating ofcharcoal and bone collagen associated with early pottery at Yuchanyan Cave, Hunan
Province, China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the UnitedStates of America 106: 9595–9600.
Brown, J.A. 1989. The beginnings of pottery as an economic process, in S. E. van der
Leeuw & R. Torrence (eds.) What’s new? A closer look at the process of innovation:
203–224. London: Unwin Hyman.
Casanova, E., T.D. Knowles, A. Bayliss, J. Dunne, M.Z. Barański, A. Denaire, P. Lefranc,
S. di Lernia, M. Roﬀet-Salque & J. Smyth. 2020. Accurate compound-speciﬁc 14C
dating of archaeological pottery vessels. Nature 580: 506–510.
Clark, P.U. & A.C. Mix. 2002. Ice sheets and sea level of the Last Glacial Maximum.
Quaternary Science Reviews 21: 1–7.
Cohen, D. 2013. The advent and spread of early pottery in East Asia: new dates and new© Japanese Archaeological Association

221

Kevin GIBBS

considerations for the world’s earliest ceramic vessels. Journal of AustronesianStudies 4: 55–90.
Cohen, D.J., O. Bar-Yosef, X. Wu, I. Patania & P. Goldberg. 2017. The emergence ofpottery in China: Recent dating of two early pottery cave sites in South China.
Quaternary International 441: 36–48.
Craig, O.E., H. Saul, A. Lucquin, Y. Nishida, K. Tache, L. Clarke, A. Thompson, D.T.
Altoft, J. Uchiyama, M. Ajimoto, K. Gibbs, S. Isaksson, C.P. Heron & P. Jordan. 2013.
Earliest evidence for the use of pottery. Nature 496: 351–354.
Feng, Y. & Y. Wang. In press. The environmental and cultural contexts of early pottery insouth China from the perspective of behavioral diversity in the Terminal Pleistocene.
Quaternary International.
Gibbs, K. & P. Jordan. 2013. Bridging the Boreal Forest: Siberian archaeology and theemergence of pottery among prehistoric hunter-gatherers of Northern Eurasia. Sibirica
12: 1–38.
Guedes, J.d.A., J. Austermann & J.X. Mitrovica. 2016. Lost foraging opportunities for
East Asian hunter-gatherers due to rising sea level since the Last Glacial Maximum.
Geoarchaeology 31: 255–266.
Hayden, B. 2009. Foreword, in P. Jordan & M. Zvelebil (eds.) Ceramics before farming:the dispersal of pottery among prehistoric Eurasian hunter-gatherers: 19–26. Walnut
Creek, CA: Publications of the Institute of Archaeology, University College London,
Left Coast Press.
Iizuka, F. 2018. The timing and behavioral context of the Late-Pleistocene adoption ofceramics in greater East and Northeast Asia and the ﬁrst people (without pottery) in
the Americas. PaleoAmerica 4: 267–324.
Ikawa-Smith, F. 1976. On ceramic technology in East Asia. Current Anthropology 17:
513–515.
Jordan, P., K. Gibbs, P. Hommel, H. Piezonka, F. Silva & J. Steele. 2016. Modelling thediﬀusion of pottery technologies across Afro-Eurasia: emerging insights and future
research questions. Antiquity 90: 590–603.
Jordan, P. & M. Zvelebil (eds.) 2009. Ceramics before farming: the dispersal of pottery
among prehistoric Eurasian hunter-gatherers. Walnut Creek, CA: Publications of theInstitute of Archaeology, University College London, Left Coast Press.
Kahl, W.-A., & B. Ramminger. 2012. Non-destructive fabric analysis of prehistoric pottery
using high-resolution x-ray microtomography: a pilot study on the late Mesolithic to
Neolithic site Hamburg-Boberg. Journal of Archaeological Science 39 (7):2206–2219.
Kajiwara, H. & A.V. Kononenko. 1999. The origin of early pottery in Northeast Asia
in the context of environmental change. Proceedings of the Society for California
Archaeology 12, 64–79.
Kato, S. 2014. Human dispersal and interaction during the spread of microblade industries
in East Asia. Quaternary International 347: 105–112.
Kawahata, H., Y. Ishizaki, A. Kuroyanagi, A. Suzuki & K.-I. Ohkushi. 2017. Quantitative© Japanese Archaeological Association

222

CONNECTING POTS AND PLACES

reconstruction of temperature at a Jomon site in the Incipient Jomon Period innorthern Japan and its implications for the production of early pottery and stone
arrowheads. Quaternary Science Reviews 157: 66–79.
Keally, C.T., Y. Taniguchi, Y.V. Kuzmin & I.Y. Shewkomud. 2004. Chronology of the
beginning of pottery manufacture in East Asia. Radiocarbon 46: 345–351.
Kim, J. & C. Seong. In press. Final Pleistocene and early Holocene population dynamics
and the emergence of pottery on the Korean Peninsula. Quaternary International.
Kim, M.-J., J.-W. Go, M.-B. Bang, W. Hong & G.-K. Lee, in press. Absolute chronology of
Gosan-ri-type pottery, the oldest manufactured pottery in Korea. Radiocarbon.
Knappett, C., L. Malafouris & P. Tomkins. 2010. Ceramics (as containers). In D. Hicks & M.
Beaudry (eds.) The Oxford handbook of material culture studies: 582–606. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Kobayashi, T., S. Kaner & O. Kobayashi. 2004. Jomon reﬂections: forager life and culturein the prehistoric Japanese archipelago. Oxford: Oxbow.
Kozatsas, J., K. Kotsakis, D. Sagris & K. David. 2018. Inside out: assessing pottery
forming techniques with micro-ct scanning: an example from Middle Neolithic
Thessaly. Journal of Archaeological Science 100: 102–119.
Kuzmin, Y.V. 2006. Chronology of the earliest pottery in East Asia: progress and pitfalls.
Antiquity 80: 362–371.
Kuzmin, Y.V. 2012. Long-distance obsidian transport in prehistoric Northeast Asia. Bulletinof the Indo-Paciﬁc Prehistory Association 32: 1–5.
Kuzmin, Y.V. 2013. Origin of Old World pottery as viewed from the early 2010s: when,
where and why? World Archaeology 45: 539–556.
Kuzmin, Y.V. 2017. The origins of pottery in East Asia and neighboring regions: ananalysis based on radiocarbon data. Quaternary International 441: 29–35.
Li, Z., D. Kunikita & S. Kato. 2017. Early pottery from the Lingjing site and the emergenceof pottery in northern China. Quaternary International 441: 49–61.
Lu, T. L.-D. 2011. Early pottery in South China. Asian Perspectives 49: 1–42.
Lucquin, A., K. Gibbs, J. Uchiyama, H. Saul, M. Ajimoto, Y. Eley, A. Radini, C. P. Heron,S. Shoda, Y. Nishida, J. Lundy, P. Jordan, S. Isaksson & O.E. Craig. 2016. Ancient
lipids document continuity in the use of early hunter–gatherer pottery through 9,000
years of Japanese prehistory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113:
3991–3996.
Lucquin, A., H.K. Robson, Y. Eley, S. Shoda, D. Veltcheva, K. Gibbs, C.P. Heron, S.
Isaksson, Y. Nishida & Y. Taniguchi. 2018. The impact of environmental change on
the use of early pottery by East Asian hunter-gatherers. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 115: 7931–7936.
Nakamura, T., Y. Taniguchi, S. Tsuji & H. Oda. 2001. Radiocarbon dating of charred
residues on the earliest pottery in Japan. Radiocarbon 43: 1129–1138.
Pearson, R.J. 2005. The social context of early pottery in the Lingnan region of south
China. Antiquity 79: 819–828.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

223

Kevin GIBBS

Prendergast, M.E., J. Yuan & O. Bar-Yosef. 2009. Resource intensification in the Late
Upper Paleolithic: a view from southern China. Journal of Archaeological Science 36:
1027–1037.
Quinn, P. S. 2013. Ceramic petrography: the interpretation of archaeological pottery andrelated artefacts in thin section. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Rice, P.M. 1999. On the origins of pottery. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 6:
1–54.
Roux, V. 2019. Ceramics and society: a technological approach to archaeologicalassemblages. Springer.
Sato, H. & D. Natsuki. 2017. Human behavioral responses to environmental condition andthe emergence of the world’s oldest pottery in East and Northeast Asia: an overview.
Quaternary International 441: 12–28.
Shoda, S., A. Lucquin, O. Yanshina, Y. Kuzmin, I. Shevkomud, V. Medvedev, E.
Derevianko, Z. Lapshina, O.E. Craig & P. Jordan. 2020. Late Glacial hunter-gatherer
pottery in the Russian Far East: indications of diversity in origins and use. Quaternary
Science Reviews 229: 106–124.
Taniguchi, Y. 2017. The beginning of pottery technology in Japan: the dating and functionof incipient Jomon pottery, in A. Tsuneki, O. Nieuwenhuyse & S. Campbell (eds.) The
emergence of pottery in West Asia: 155–165. Oxford: Oxbow.
Thér, R. 2020. Ceramic technology. how to reconstruct and describe pottery-forming
practices. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 12 (8):1–22.
Vasilevski, A.A., V.A. Grischenko & L.A. Orlova. 2010. Periods, boundaries, and contact
zones in the Far Eastern insular world of the Neolithic (based on the radiocarbon
chronology of sites on the Sakhalin and Kuril Islands). Archaeology, Ethnology andAnthropology of Eurasia 38: 10–25.
Vetrov, V. & P. Hommel. 2019. Vessels on the Vitim: ‘Neolithic’ ceramics in eastern
Siberia, in P. Jordan & K. Gibbs (eds.) Ceramics in circumpolar prehistory:
technology, lifeways and cuisine: 37–62. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wang, L. & P. Sebillaud. 2019. The emergence of early pottery in East Asia: new
discoveries and perspectives. Journal of World Prehistory 32: 73–110.
Wu, X., C. Zhang, P. Goldberg, D. Cohen, Y. Pan, T. Arpin & O. Bar-Yosef. 2012. Early
pottery at 20,000 years ago in Xianrendong Cave, China. Science 336: 1696–1700.
Yamahara, T. 2006. Taisho 3 site: the discovery of the earliest ceramic culture in Hokkaido.
Current Research in the Pleistocene 23: 35–36.
Yanshina, O. 2017. The earliest pottery of the eastern part of Asia: similarities anddiﬀerences. Quaternary International 441: 69–80.
Yasuda, Y. 2002. Origins of pottery and agriculture in East Asia, in Y. Yasuda (ed.) The
origins of pottery and agriculture: 119–142. New Delhi: Lustre/Roli Books.
Yuan, J. 2002. Rice and pottery 10,000 yrs. BP at Yuchanyan, Dao County, Hunan
Province, in Y. Yasuda (ed.) The origins of pottery and agriculture: 157–166. New
Delhi: Lustre/Roli Books.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

224

CONNECTING POTS AND PLACES

Zhang, C. 2002. The discovery of early pottery in China. Documenta Praehistorica 29:
29–35.
Zhushchikhovskaya, I. S. 2005. Prehistoric pottery-making of the Russian Far East.
Oxford: Archaeopress.

土器を地域に結びつけて考える：東アジアにおける土器の起源は何か所あったのか
ケビン・ギブス
和文要旨

近年の研究により、狩猟採集民による土器の発明は、東アジアでは約 18,000 年前までさかのぼることが明らかになった。日本、中国南部、ロシア極東地域のアムール川流域からは、特に古い土器が報告されている。これら土器出現期の資料について、近年、その編年上の位置づけとともに、残存
脂質分析などによる機能分析や、景観・環境条件の時間的変化の影響についての研究が進んでいる。
さらに、東アジアにおける土器の起源は一か所だったのか、あるいは複数だったのかという議論も重要である。
複数 起源説の立場に立つ研究者は、その根拠として、いくつかの理由を挙げる。第一に、何
人 か の 研 究 者 は、 複 数 の 起 源 候 補 地 か ら 出 土 し た 土 器 の 間 に は、 技 術 的・ 様 式 的 類 似 が 認
め ら れ な い 点 を 指 摘 す る。 第 二 に、こ れ ら の 起 源 候 補 地 の 間 に は、 古 い 土 器 が 出 土 し て い な
い 空 白 地 帯 が 存 在 す る。 特 に、 朝 鮮 半 島 と 中 国 北 部 か ら は、 出 現 期 の 土 器 は 報 告 さ れ て い
な い。 第 三 に、 各 地 域 か ら 出 土 し た 最 古 級 の 土 器 は、 い ず れ も そ の 焼 成 温 度 が 低 く、 作 りも単 純 で あ る こ と か ら、 複 数 起 源 説 と 矛 盾 し な い。 複 数 起 源 説 の 支 持 者 は、 日 本・ 中 国 南 部・
ロシア極東地域の 3 か所から報告された出現期の土器がほぼ同年代に位置づけられる理由は、類似した
経済・文化的発展段階をたどってきた各地の狩猟採集民が独自に土器を発明したからだ、と主張する。
しかし、現時点における資料が限られていることを考えると、単一起源説の可能性を否定することも問題である。本稿では、狩猟採集民が従来の技術体系に新しい発明を組み込んでいく過程と、可能な伝播経路、土器の機能、環境データの検討を通じて、現段階では複数起源と単一起源の論争に決着をつけることはできない、と主張する。たとえば、近年における残存脂質分析の結果が土器と水産資源との深いつながりを示していることを考えれば、出現期の土器が、海岸ルート沿いに伝播した可能性がある。その場合、伝播ルートとなった地域は、最終氷期以降の海面上昇に伴って水没した可能性が高い。
狩猟採集民における土器の拡散に関する研究の重要性は、東アジア考古学だけでなく、世界の考古学にとっても重要である。近年、複数の研究者が、東アジアにおける土器の発明がアジア全域と北部ヨーロッパにおける土器の出現に関与した可能性を指摘している。
キーワード：土器、土器の機能、土器の製作技術、発明、東アジア、拡散、景観© Japanese Archaeological Association

225