Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 51 (2) 2023   doi:10.17746/1563-0110.2023.51.2.038-048

Annotation:  Lakhuti-IV: A New Site of the Loessic Paleolithic in Tajikistan The Emergence of Levallois Blade Industry in the Western Foothills of Tien Shan: Kulbulak Layer 24 The Kushevat Site and the Paleogeographic Context of the Initial Peopling of Northern Urals The Concept of Civilization in Modern Studies of the Neolithic in China and Japan The Pisany Kamen Rock Art Site on the Angara (Marking the Tercentenary of Its Discovery by D.G. Mess A Chalcolithic Burial in the Mountain-Forest Zone of the Trans-Urals Okunev Culture and the Dene-Caucasian Macrofamily A New Approach to the Study of Archaeological Charcoal: The Case of Metallurgical Furnaces of the So A Jurchen Temple at the Southern Ussuri Fortifi ed Site, in Primorye Irrigation Systems of the Altai: Results and Prospects of Archaeological Studies An Old Believers’ Skete near Maltsevo, Fort Chaus, Based on Mid-18th Century Documents and Their Com Artifacts from the Ural-Hungarian Center (800–1000 AD), Recently Found at Ob Ugrian Sanctuaries “Mountains” on the Draft of the Land of Fort Narym by S.U. Remezov From the History of Ethnographic Studies in the Yenisei Region: F.A. Fjelstrup’s Siberian Materials A Metric Analysis of a Human Cranium from the Khatystyr Cave, Republic of Sakha (Yakutia)   

The Concept of Civilization in Modern Studies of the Neolithic
in China and Japan

M.A. Kudinova¹, D.A. Ivanova², and A.V. Tabarev¹

¹Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences, Pr. Akademika Lavrentieva 17, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia

²Far Eastern Federal University, Ayaks sttl. 10, Russky Island, Vladivostok, 690922, Russia

This paper presents a brief overview of studies exploring the origin of civilizations in modern archaeology of China and Japan and mostly concerning the Neolithic period. The analysis of publications shows that in Chinese and Japanese archaeology, original scholarly traditions have been developed, with their own methodological foundations and terminology. We outline the key ideas relating to the origin of civilization, elaborated by researches in China (Su Bingqi, Yan Wenming, Li Boqian, Xu Hong, Gao Jiangtao) and Japan (Harunari Hideji, Watanabe Hiroshi, Sasaki Fujio, Yasuda Yoshinori). We show that most Chinese scholars consider the formation of state a sine qua non of transition to the civilization stage. However, the problem of identifying criteria of civilization and state formation using archaeological data has not been resolved to date. Examples of archaeological markers of civilization proposed by Chinese specialists are listed. In the works by Japanese researchers, no connection between the emergence of the state and civilization has been revealed. Most Chinese archaeologists date the emergence of civilization and of the first state formations to the Late Neolithic (Dawenkou, Hongshan, Liangzhu, Longshan, etc.), ca 3500-2000 BC. There are alternative hypotheses—the Early Bronze Age (Erlitou culture) and the Late Bronze Age (the Spring and Autumn period). In Japanese archaeology, there are two main positions regarding the time when civilization had formed—the Jomon period (Neolithic) and the subsequent Yayoi period (Bronze Age). Scholarly and external (includingpolitical) factors that have influenced modern concepts of the origin of civilization require special historiographic research.

Keywords: China, Japan, civilization, Neolithic, archaeological criteria of civilization