Taiwan Archaeology: Local Development and Cultural Boundaries in the China Seas 0824891910, 9780824891916

Citation preview

Taiwan Archaeology

Taiwan Archaeology

Local Development and Cultural Boundaries in the China Seas Richard Pearson

University of Hawai‘i Press Honolulu

© 2023 University of Hawai‘i Press All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America First printing, 2023 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Pearson, Richard J., author. Title: Taiwan archaeology : local development and cultural boundaries in   the China seas / Richard Pearson. Description: Honolulu : University of Hawai‘i Press, [2022] | Includes   bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2022043602 (print) | LCCN 2022043603 (ebook) | ISBN   9780824891916 (hardback) | ISBN 9780824893774 (pdf) | ISBN 9780824893781   (epub) | ISBN 9780824893798 (kindle edition) Subjects: LCSH: Antiquities, Prehistoric—Taiwan. | Excavations   (Archaeology)—Taiwan. | Taiwan—Antiquities. Classification: LCC DS799.3 .P43 2022 (print) | LCC DS799.3 (ebook) | DDC  931/.249—dc23/eng/20220926 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022043602 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022043603 Cover art: Nephrite ornament of human and animal. Beinan site. Approximate height 6.5 cm. Permission provided by the National Museum of Prehistoric Culture in Taiwan. Cover design: Eric Woo University of Hawai‘i Press books are printed on acid-free paper and meet the ­g uidelines for permanence and durability of the Council on Library Resources.

Contents

Figures and Tables Acknowledgments 1 Frameworks and Debates 2 Environment of Taiwan, Fujian, Guangdong, Hong Kong, and the Ryukyu Islands 3 Palaeolithic Discoveries 4 Early Neolithic, 6500 to 4500 BP 5 Middle Neolithic, 4500 to 3500 BP 6 Late Neolithic, 3500 to 2500 BP 7 Metal Period, 2500 to 500 BP 8 Contact Period, AD 1500 to 1663 9 Taiwan in Context 10 Conclusions and Prospects References Index

vii ix 1 20 30 36 50 68 87 117 136 181 223 265

Figures and Tables

Figures

1.1. Map of Taiwan and southeastern coastal China 1.2. Location of Taiwan sites mentioned in the text 2.1. Taiwan in maritime perspective 2.2. Taiwan basins, plains, and surrounding regions 3.1. Stone tools from the Bogonglong site, Miaoli County 4.1. Reconstructed Neolithic pottery assemblages 4.2. Early Neolithic artifacts from the Nanguanli (NGL) and Nanguanlidong (NGLD) sites 5.1. Map of cultures of the Middle Neolithic period 5.2. General view of the Nangang site on Qimei Island, Penghu 5.3. Debitage from the Nangang Quarry site, Qimei Island, Penghu 5.4. Nephrite objects from the Xidadun site, Middle Neolithic period 5.5. Middle Neolithic period artifacts from the Youxianfang site 6.1. Map of cultures of the Late Neolithic period 6.2. Late Neolithic artifacts from the Sanbaozhu (SBZ), Niuniaogang (NNG), and Wujiancuo (WJC) sites, Tainan Science Park 6.3. Excavation at the Beinan Site Museum, showing house features, floors, walls, and stone ladder 6.4. Beinan nephrite earrings 7.1. Map of cultures of the Metal period 7.2. Anthropomorphic clay vessel from the Shisanhang site 7.3. Earthenware jar from the Shisanhang site decorated with incisions and impression 7.4. Shisanhang cast bronze dagger handles vii

2 10 21 22 33 38 45 51 55 55 60 63 69 74 77 80 88 91 91 92

viii   Figures and Tables

7.5. Heirloom bronze daggers and dagger handles of the Paiwan people 7.6. Metal objects from the Shisanhang site 7.7. Metal ornaments from the Shisanhang site 7.8. Engraved tooth of the Formosan clouded leopard from the Guishan site and impression from mold fragment from the Jiuxianglang site 7.9. Pottery from the upper layer of the Huagangshan site 8.1. Contact period artifacts from the Shenei and Daoye sites 8.2. Wire fish-shaped ornament from Ivatan Island and ceramic pipe bowls 9.1. Map of major Fujian sites 9.2. Spatial-temporal framework of prehistoric cultures in Taiwan and Fujian 9.3. Map of major Guangdong sites 9.4. Map of major Hong Kong sites 9.5a. General Map of the Ryukyu Islands and Sakitari Cave site 9.5b. Map of sites in Sakishima (Ryukyu Islands) 10.1. Diagram showing proposed use of a stone axle for the rotary cutting of nephrite 10.2. Location of sites in eastern Taiwan and the northern Philippines mentioned in the text 10.3. Location of Southeast Asian and Chinese sites mentioned in the text

Tables

1.1. General Chronology 1.2. Archaeological cultures and phases in Tainan Science Park 9.1. Chronology of Neolithic and Bronze Age of Fujian 9.2. Fujian cultures, sites, and dates 9.3. Neolithic Chronology for Hong Kong 10.1. Taiwan prehistoric burial patterns 10.2. Distinctive patterns in Taiwan and exchanges across cultural boundaries in the East and South China Seas

Color plates to follow page 52.

92 93 94 105 107 121 131 137 144 158 166 175 176 199 201 202

7 9 142 143 167 189 220

Acknowledgments

I began my studies in Taiwan in the summer of 1963 with an archaeological survey under the guidance of Professor Sung Wen-hsun of east coast sites discovered by Japanese archaeologists before 1945. At that time, my purpose was to compare the prehistory of Taiwan with the prehistory of the Ryukyu Islands. As a member of the Yale–National Taiwan University Project under the direction of Professor K. C. Chang, I returned to Taiwan for the period from July 1964 to August 1965. From these early days, I owe a huge debt of gratitude to Professor Chang and Sung, and also to Professors Ch’en Ch’i-lu and Inez de Beauclair. Since then, I have worked on other areas of East Asia for the past five decades. I returned to the study of Taiwan archaeology in 2016 with the hope of learning about recent developments in Taiwan archaeology and celebrating the work of local scholars. Unfortunately, I have not been able to travel extensively to Taiwan and have been constrained by other obligations. However, I have decided to attempt an introductory overview that might be useful for the general reader. In this project, many people have provided encouragement and support. I wish to thank (in alphabetical order): Chao Chin-yung, Chen Kuang-tzuu, Chen Maa-ling, Chen You-pei, Chiang Chih-hua, Chiu Hung-lin, Chu ­Hwei-lee, Hsieh Wen-lun, Hung Hsiao-chun, Jing Zhi-chen, Kan Yu-chun, Ku Kun-hui, Kuo Su-chiu, Li Kuang-ti, Li Tso-ting, Liu Jing, Liu Yi-chang, Niu Hung-jen, Barry Rolett, John Shepherd, Tsang Cheng-hwa, Wang Kuan-wen, Yen Ling-da, and Tomoko Yen. I offer special thanks to Frank Muyard, who helped me on many occasions during the preparation of the manuscript, and to two anonymous reviewers. The reader will see that I have used a variety of sources in English, Chinese, and Japanese. Most of materials are overviews, dissertations, and research ix

x  Acknowledgments

articles, supplemented with a few visits to sites and museums. Many specialists very kindly sent me copies of their publications in pdf format. I regret that I was not able to spend adequate time in Taiwan using library and museum collections. In particular, I could not use the voluminous “gray literature” of recent rescue excavations. Although these administrative reports provide details which are critical, they often lack the interpretation and synthesis which I needed to get a general picture. I should say that the availability of some materials in pdf format made this project possible, in contrast to some of my earlier projects. Many North American libraries hold sets of the major archaeological journals from the People’s Republic of China but few are available for Taiwan. Many interesting aspects of Taiwan archaeology reach beyond a single period or group of sites. These deserve greater international recognition. It may be that my foreign perspective sheds a slightly different light on Taiwan’s archaeological heritage. I hope that this book will introduce some of the outstanding accomplishments of Taiwan archaeologists in the short term, until more local scholars can tell their own stories.

Taiwan Archaeology

Chapter 1

Frameworks and Debates

Recent archaeological discoveries from every corner of Taiwan have improved our knowledge of prehistoric and early historic chronology, technology, subsistence, and exchange. These contributions open the way to understanding the social processes shaping Taiwan’s prehistoric societies and affecting their interaction with surrounding areas. This book summarizes some of the archaeological discoveries of the past five decades in Taiwan. It provides site details not readily available in English and contextualizes Taiwan by comparisons with mainland southeast China, Southeast Asia, and the Ryukyu Islands. My frames of reference include the processes of adaptation to Holocene climate and geomorphology, interaction among groups in Taiwan and with groups on the Chinese mainland and in Island Southeast Asia, regionalization of cultural patterns within Taiwan, and diversification of forms of social organization. Taiwan’s long period of relative isolation from the mainland was followed by contact with Europeans and immigration of mainland Han Chinese in large numbers from the seventeenth century AD forward. To better understand the context of Taiwan, I discuss adjacent Fujian, Guangdong, Hong Kong, and the Ryukyu Islands. In this chapter, I outline the goal of the study, the approach and terms of reference, the time frame involved, and a summary of local archaeology. I conclude with descriptions of the chapters that follow. Dates of historical dynasties and events are given as BC/AD. Year references are cited as BP (before the present). ­Figure 1.1 shows the relief and major cities and rivers in Taiwan and southeastern coastal China.

1

2  Chapter 1

Figure 1.1.  Map of Taiwan and southeastern coastal China.

Point of View The point of view from which we regard Taiwan archaeology determines its content, intellectual significance, audience, and stakeholders. Taiwan can be considered a special kind of frontier of East Asia. Historically, several political and economic institutions arose to manage the relations between native peoples and the state (Eskildsen 2005, 282). Was Taiwan a kind of frontier in prehistory as well in historic times? What were the processes of interaction with the mainland? What is the social and political context of Taiwan archaeology? Is it part of the general history of China, to be fitted into chronologies and narratives

Frameworks and Debates   3

linked to the center of China, or is it part of broader Southeast Asian archaeology? The point of view will determine the interpretations of sites and artifacts as well as the public and government support for Taiwan archaeology. Is local archaeology just about the original inhabitants, or does it include all groups living in Taiwan? Is the point of view gender specific? Who cares about Taiwan archaeology and why? Stainton (2007) describes competing origin theories that informed research on Taiwan ethnography and prehistory. Early missionaries and the Japanese colonial administration considered Taiwan to be part of Southeast Asia, settled by people from the Malay archipelago. This discourse isolated Taiwan from China, justifying the colonial enterprise and the role of colonizers in “protecting” and educating native peoples. A theory of northern origins developed by mainland Chinese anthropologists put China as the center and place of origins of Pacific cultures. It focused on links with the Chinese mainland from prehistoric times and regarded Taiwan native peoples as part of the history of the ­expansion of the Chinese nation. Chinese historiography was considered important evidence. In fact, current research shows that Taiwan is a frontier in at least two directions, to the China mainland and to Southeast Asia. At present, both perspectives are included in a transformed vision of modern Taiwan. With the dramatic social and political changes of the early 1990s, the mentality of people in Taiwan has changed dramatically to become inclusive of all people in Taiwan, who share a multilingual culture, modern and traditional Taiwanese, Chinese, and Austronesian cultures, religious and belief systems, a democratic political culture, a national universal health system and media ­culture (Muyard 2012, 347). Some scholars have come to view Taiwan history as a multiethnic continuum that includes a long period before the advent of written documents (Chou 2015). Despite discontinuities and ruptures, the totality includes many groups in addition to the Han Chinese (Liu Yi-chang 2019a, 223; Muyard 2012, 2022). Previously the Han Chinese were inclined to exclude ­Taiwan prehistory from their own history, considering it separate from their own heritage, in a way similar to the view of some North Americans of ­European descent of native archaeology. In her study of Taiwan museums, Varutti (2011) discusses how Taiwanese cultural identity has changed to include all ethnic and indigenous groups in a “shared” or “life” community. Indigenous and minority ethnic groups have gained visibility and are playing an active role in cultural representation and museum activities. Taiwan may be considered as a kind of East Asian “New World Society” (Muyard 2012; 2016, 196) in which indigenous people have been dominated by colonists and considered separate from the majority Han Chinese immigrant population. Muyard examines the relations between Taiwan archaeological

4  Chapter 1

science and practice and indigenous peoples and the practice of indigenous archaeology. He outlines projects in which indigenous peoples explore their roots through their old village sites, combining local knowledge, ethnohistory, and archaeology. Muyard, Chou, and Dreyer (2010) examine various aspects of ­cultural heritage including local religion and art and its appreciation through collecting and celebration. Professor Hu Chia-ying of National Taiwan University initiated projects in which precious artifacts held by the university were recontextualized into their original native communities through celebrations initiated by their original community owners. These celebrations included the university community as stakeholders. Two films were produced to commemorate these projects (Su and Hu 2018a, 2018b). She also studied the contemporary social and cultural context of glass beads that are still considered as valuables by indigenous peoples (Hu 2012). Much can be done to bring together various stakeholders in Taiwan archaeology with increasing government support.

Social Processes What kinds of social processes led to the creation of aboriginal Taiwan society from initial habitation to the period of contact with Europeans in the seventeenth century AD? When Taiwan was first inhabited in the Middle Pleistocene, as early as 200,000 BP, it was not yet an island but still part of the land mass of Southeast China. The earliest inhabitants were part of the Palaeolithic populations of South China. Taiwan became an island only around 7000 to 8000 BP. First, adaptation to changing climate and coastal topography was an important process in cultural development. In addition, the relations of Taiwan populations with mainland China and Southeast Asia grew and changed. Shifting frontiers between Taiwan, the mainland, and Southeast Asia affected internal and external exchange systems. Although Taiwan was colonized by Neolithic foragers as early as 7000 BP, by 4000 BP it became increasingly isolated from the mainland, lying outside the sphere of emerging chiefdoms in Guangdong and Fujian by around 3000 BP. By 4500 BP, a distinctive center of nephrite ornament production, using local nephrite from the east coast of Taiwan, developed in Taiwan in a region remote from mainland contact. The techniques of working nephrite, specifically the grinding of rings, seems to have come from the mainland, perhaps ultimately from the Liangzhu culture of the Yangzi Delta area; however, the hallmarks of mainland Neolithic nephrite symbolism and status marking, such as nephrite discs and cylinders, are absent in Taiwan but found in Fujian and Guangdong, often being local copies of central Chinese versions. On Taiwan, distinctive types of nephrite earrings were created along with rod-shaped weights

Frameworks and Debates   5

and bell-shaped beads. Distinctive burial rituals were adopted, and megalithic stone arrangements, not found on the mainland, were constructed at sites along the east coast. Similarly, the use of the potter’s wheel, adopted by 3000 BP on the adjacent mainland, was not adopted by inhabitants of Taiwan except perhaps as a slow wheel for finishing the rims or feet of vessels (Kuo 2019a, 81). Clay vessels were generally shaped by the paddle and anvil technique. Although Taiwan shared an early Neolithic culture with nearby parts of the mainland, it became isolated from most later developments in Guangdong and Fujian, such as the rise of local polities and their incorporation into the political and cultural system of imperial China. How much contact took place up to the arrival of private traders and pirates in the sixteenth century and the final incorporation into Qing China in AD 1683? These points are discussed in subsequent chapters. A heuristic approach to the interpretation of prehistoric societies in Taiwan focuses on “middle range” or tribal societies (Sahlins 1968; Service 1971; ­Shepherd 1993; Parkinson 2002, 2006). These societies are characterized by a lack of vertical political hierarchy or full-time occupational specialization. Villages were autonomous rather than being organized into a hierarchy dominated by a paramount chief. Although some groups in southern Taiwan, such as the Paiwan and Rukai, had social ranking and distinguished between elites and commoners at the time of contact, most societies seem to have been organized in autonomous groups characterized by age grading and pantribal institutions. When I began my examination of Taiwan archaeology many years ago, I assumed that on such a seemingly rich island, societies would have become hierarchical and that chiefdoms, articulating with the ancient Chinese state, would have emerged (Pearson 1989). This is definitely not the case. Segmentation into autonomous units was common but pantribal sodalities may have held groups together in loose aggregates and they may have undergone cycles with tighter organization followed by loose cohesion. Although it was technically possible to produce seasonal surplus, there appears to have been little motivation to create one, in the absence of leaders who demanded it. Food production remained at a low level, with little indication of intensification (Smith 2001). Full-time craft specialization could possibly have occurred at the end of the Metal period; parttime craft specialization was widespread in the Middle Neolithic. Head-hunting and raiding, along with ceremonial exchange, were almost universal.

Time Frame Most archaeological finds from Taiwan and the mainland date from the ­Holocene, from about 7000 BP. Several discoveries dating to the Pleistocene, as

6  Chapter 1

early as 190,000 BP, however, indicate the great antiquity of settlement in the region and the possibility of major future discoveries. On Taiwan, archaeological finds can be grouped into several broad periods: Palaeolithic, Preceramic, Early, Middle and Late Neolithic, Metal period, European Contact and ­Chinese Colonization, and Japanese Occupation. For Fujian and Guangdong, discussed in chapter 9, I include selected material from the Palaeolithic up to the Bronze Age and include brief notes on later periods. A regional chronology for Taiwan is presented in table 1.1. In Fujian and Guangdong, chiefdoms emerged in the first millennium BC; subsequent polities were absorbed into the Chinese imperial system around the end of the first millennium AD. Gradually they came to be governed and taxed by the imperial government. However, on ­Taiwan, this process did not occur until the seventeenth century.

Cultures and Sites Over the past 70 years, Taiwan archaeologists have grouped prehistoric sites into local cultures and in some cases phases of these cultures based on similarities and differences of artifacts, settlements, and burial customs. These have been dated by stratigraphy and other forms of absolute and relative dating. In this book, I introduce the major cultures, provide examples of one or more sites, and describe some of the major finds. When reports were not available, my treatment is brief but I have included as many of the most recent important excavations as I could. Following the practice of Taiwan archaeologists, prehistoric dating in this book is expressed as “years ago” or BP, as noted earlier. Taiwan archaeologists use BP to mean before the actual present rather than before a fixed date such as AD 1950. For prehistory, they do not use BC, AD, or BCE. Historic dates and dates of historical dynasties are expressed as years BC and AD. In table 1.1, I present both systems of dating for reference. The chronology has been compiled from several sources. For Guangdong and Hong Kong, I have combined the work of Lu Lie-dan (2011) and Chau (2007). For Taiwan, Tsang (2000) does not subdivide the Neolithic into Early, Middle, and Late but his cultural units follow the same sequence as other chronologies. Liu Yi-chang (2021a) prefers five Neolithic subperiods, including an Initial period and a Final (Eneolithic) period. A tripartite division, however, seems adequate for this book. Table 1.1 covers several regions comparatively and many sources and thus includes multiple sites and prehistoric and historic periods and cultures. This scheme is not ideal but retains familiar terms from the literature rather than presenting a new and unfamiliar scheme. From extensive excavations at the Tainan Science Park, Tsang, Li, and Cohen (2015) created a detailed chronology that is included here for comparative purposes (table 1.2).

Early Neolithic period Keqiutou culture 6000–5500 BP ( 4050–3550 BC) Middle Neolithic period Tanshishan culture 5000–4300 BP (3050–2350 BC) Damaoshan site 5000–4300 BP (3050–2250 BC)

(??–10000 BC) Phase 1 Xiantouling Site Lower Layer

(1500–214 BC)

Phase 5 3450 BP–2164 BP

4150–3450 BP (2200–1500 BC)

Phase 4 Guye site

6150–4950 BP ( 4200–3000 BC) Phase 3 Shixia site Layer III 4800–4100 BP (2800–2050 BC) Huangtulun culture 4300–3500 BP (2350–1550 BC) Hulushan culture 4100–3500 BP (2050–1550 BC) Fubin culture 3500–3000 BP (1550–1050 BC)

Palaeolithic ??–12,000 BP (??–10,000 BC)

Palaeolithic ??–12,000 BP

7000–6400 BP (5050–4250 BC) Phase 2 Xiantouling Middle Layers

Fujian

Guangdong and Hong Kong

Table 1.1  General Chronology

Late Neolithic period 3500–2500 BP (1500–500 BC) Yuanshan, Zhishanyan, Zhiwuyuan

Hongmaogang cultures

Middle Neolithic period 4500–3500 BP (2500–1500 BC) Xuntangpu, Niumatou, Niuchouzi, Fushan,

Palaeolithic 32,000–6000? BP (30,000– 4000? BC) Preceramic 5000?? BP Early Neolithic period 6500–4500 BP ( 4500–2500 BC) Dabenkeng culture

Taiwan

Qin 225–201 BC Western Han 221 BC–AD 8

Eastern Han AD 25–220 Western, Eastern Jin AD 265–581 Sui AD 581–618 Tang AD 618–907 Min, Yin, Qingyuan AD 909–945 Wu Yue AD 907–978 Song Yuan Ming AD 960–1644 Qing AD 1644–1911

Qin 221–207 BC Western Han 202 BC– AD 9 Nanyue kingdom 210– 111 BC Eastern Han AD 25–220

Western, Eastern Jin AD 265–581

Sui AD 581–618 Tang AD 618–907 Min, Yin, Qingyuan AD 909–945 Wu Yue dates? Song Yuan Ming AD 960–1644 Qing AD 1644–1911

Source: Author.

Yue ?–225 BC

Zhou dynasty 1050–221 BC

Xin AD 8–22

Fujian

Guangdong and Hong Kong

Contact period (AD 1500–1663?)

Metal period 2500–500 BP (500 BC–AD 1500) Shisanhang, Fanziyuan, Daquyuan, Kanding, Niaosong, Guishan, Jingpu cultures

Dahu, Fengbitou, Huagangshan, Beinan, Sanhe cultures

Wanshan, Yingpu, Damalin,

Taiwan

Frameworks and Debates   9

Table 1.2 Archaeological Cultures and Phases in Tainan Science Park Culture

Phase

Dates

Sites

Dabenkeng culture (Early Neolithic)

Guoye phase

5000 to 4200 BP

Suogang phase Niuchouzi phase

4200 to 3800 BP 3800 to 3300 BP

Dahu phase

3300 to 2800 BP

Nanguanli, Nanguanlidong Scattered sites Nanguanli, Nanguanlidong Daoye South, Shousha, Youxianfang South 22 sites including Beisanshe, Sanbaozhu, Wujiancuo Qigande Daoye, Sanbaozhu, Youxianfang, Wujiancuo South, Siqiao Shenei, Wujiancuo, Wujiancuo North

Niuchouzi culture (Middle Neolithic)

Dahu culture (Late Neolithic)

Niaosong culture (Metal period)

Wushantou phase 2800 to 2000 BP Yuliao phase

2000 to 1800 BP

Anzi phase

1800 to 1400 BP

Siraya culture (Contact period)

500 to 300 BP

Source: Tsang et al. 2005, 77.

Summary of Archaeology Major sites discussed in chapters 3 through 8 and their location are presented in figure 1.2. Recent discoveries of human fossils from the seabed of the Taiwan Strait date the span of human history of the region as far back as 190,000 BP. Several sites in Fujian and Guangdong could date even earlier (see chapter 9). The Baxiandong sites of eastern Taiwan confirm the presence of hunter gatherers as early as 30,000 BP. Taiwan, as mentioned, was connected to the continent until 7000 to 8000 BP (Liu Yi-chang 2015a, 20). Pottery-using foragers inhabited Guangdong and Fujian as early as 16,000 BP (Zhang Chi and Hung 2008, 300) and migrated to Taiwan via the Penghu Islands some time around 6000 to 4800 BP (Liu Yi-chang 2015a, 22). They had some knowledge of cultivation but were not specialized cultivators. They adapted to the dynamic coasts and estuaries of western Taiwan and spread to the east coast. The first culture of these new migrants from the mainland, the Dabenkeng, dated to 6000 to 4200 BP, was relatively homogeneous, even though it cannot be traced to a single culturally

Figure 1.2.  Location of Taiwan sites mentioned in the text. The numbers run roughly from north to south. Sites in the Tainan Science Park are grouped under one number, 44. Penghu sites, shown in the inset, are grouped separately at the end of this list.

Frameworks and Debates   11

Alphabetical listing Anhe 安和 19 Baisang’an (Basangan) 白桑安 54 Bajia 八甲 48 Baxiandong 八仙洞 39 Beinan 卑南 63 Bogonglong 伯公壠 23 Changguang 長光 40 Chaolaiqiao 潮來橋 60 Chulu 初鹿 62 Dabenkeng 大坌坑 3 Dahu 大湖 49 Dakeng 大坑 31 Dalongtong 大龍峒 7 Damalin 大馬璘 28 Dazhangqiao 大昌橋 50 Dazhuwei 大竹圍 14 Dulan 都蘭 57 Eluanbi (Oluanpi) 鵝鑾鼻 67 Fanziyuan 番子園 24 Fengbincun 豐濱村 36 Fengbitou 鳳鼻頭 52 Fushan 富山 58 Gangko 港口 37 Guandu 關渡 4 Guishan 龜山 65 Guweishan 鵠尾山 12 Hanben 漢本 18 Huagangshan 花崗山 32 Huilai 惠來, Luliao 鹿寮, Nanshikeng 南勢坑 21 Jialulan 加路蘭 61 Jilong (Keelung) 基隆 13 Jiuxianglan 舊香蘭 64 Kanding (Kenting) 墾丁 66 Maoergan 貓兒千, Linnei Pingding 林 內坪頂 29 Niaosong 鳥松 44 Niuchouzi 牛稠子 22 Niumatou 牛罵頭 25 Niupu 牛埔 26 Pinglin 平林 34 Qiwulan (Kivulan）淇武蘭 15

Saoba 掃叭 41 Shangli 上里 59 Shangtianzu 上田組 38 Shisanhang 十三行 2 Shewei 社尾 17 Shuijiaoshe 水交社 47 Taiyuan 泰源 56 Tayoan, Anping 安平, Zeelandia 熱蘭 遮城 44 Tudigongshan 土地公山 11 Wanshan (Wansan) 丸山 16 Wushantou 烏山頭 43 Xiagukeng 下罟坑 9 Xiaoma 小馬 55 Xidadun 西大墩 20 Xiliao 西寮 41 Xuntangpu 訊塘浦 1 Yingiana 伊吉亞那 30 Yingpu 營埔 27 Yuanshan 圓山 6 Yuemei 月 眉 35 Zhanlongshan 斬龍山 10 Zhishanyan 芝山岩 5 Zhiwuyuan 植物園 8 Zhongguang 重光 33 Zuoying 左營 53 Zuozhen 左鎮 51 Tainan Science Park Sites: Nanguanli 南 關里, Nanguanlidong 南關里東, Sanbaozhu 三抱竹, Youxianfang 右 先方, Niuniaogang 牛尿港, Wujiancuo 五間厝, Shenei 社內, Daoye 道爺, Shiqiao 石橋 46 Penghu sites (inset) Chiqiantou (Chikantou) 赤嵌頭 68 Donghu 東湖 73 Guoye 菓葉 70 Nangang 南港 74 Shibantoushan 蒔板頭山 69 Suogang 鎖港 71 Xibeiwan 西北灣 72

12  Chapter 1

Numerical listing 1 Xuntangpu 訊塘浦 2 Shisanhang 十三行 3 Dabenkeng 大坌坑 4 Guandu 關渡 5 Zhishanyan 芝山岩 6 Yuanshan 圓山 7 Dalongtong 大龍峒 8 Zhiwuyuan 植物園 9 Xiagukeng 下罟坑 10 Zhanlongshan 斬龍山 11 Tudigongshan 土地公山 12 Guweishan 鵠尾山 13 Jilong (Keelung) 基隆 14 Dazhuwei 大竹圍 15 Qiwulan (Kivulan）淇武蘭 16 Wanshan (Wansan) 丸山 17 Shiwei 社尾 18 Hanben 漢本 19 Anhe 安和 20 Xidadun 西大墩 21 Huilai 惠來, Luliao 鹿寮, Nanshikeng 南勢坑 22 Niuchouzi 牛稠子 23 Bogonglong 伯公壠 24 Fanziyuan 番子園 25 Niumatou 牛罵頭 26 Niupu 牛埔 27 Yingpu 營埔 28 Damalin 大馬璘 29 Maoergan 貓兒千, Linnei Pingding 林內坪頂 30 Yingiana 伊吉亞那 31 Dakeng 大坑 32 Huagangshan 花崗山 33 Yuemei 月 眉 34 Pinglin 平林 35 Zhongguang 重光 36 Fengbincun 豐濱村 37 Gangko 港口 38 Shangtianzu 上田組 39 Baxiandong 八仙洞 40 Changguang 長光

41 Saoba 掃叭 42 Xiliao 西寮 43 Wushantou 烏山頭 44 Tayoan, Anping 安平, Zeelandia 熱 蘭遮城 45 Niaosong 蔦松 46 Nanke Sites: Nanguanli 南關里, Nanguanlidong 南關里東, Sanbaozhu 三抱竹, Youxianfang 右 先方, Niuniaogang 牛尿港, Wujiancuo 五間厝, Shenei 社內, Daoye 道爺, Shiqiao 石橋 47 Shuijiaoshe 水交社 48 Bajia 八甲 49 Dahu 大湖 50 Dazhangqiao 大昌橋 51 Zuozhen 左鎮 52 Fengbitou 鳳鼻頭 53 Zuoying 左營 54 Baisang’an (Basangan) 白桑安 55 Xiaoma 小馬 56 Taiyuan 泰源 57 Dulan 都蘭 58 Fushan 富山 59 Shangli 上里 60 Chaolaiqiao 潮來橋 61 Jialulan 加路蘭 62 Chulu 初鹿 63 Beinan 卑南 64 Jiuxianglan 舊香蘭 65 Guishan 龜山 66 Kanding (Kenting) 墾丁 67 Eluanbi (Oluanpi) 鵝鑾鼻 Penghu sites (inset) 68 Chiqiantou (Chikantou) 赤嵌頭 69 Shibantoushan 蒔板頭山 70 Guoye 菓葉 71 Suogang 鎖港 72 Xibeiwan 西北灣 73 Nangang 南港 74 Donghu 東湖

Frameworks and Debates   13

unified source on the mainland (Tsang 2005; Bellwood 2017, 235). Dabenkeng people engaged in exchange of nephrite artifacts from Fengtian on the east coast, and olivine basalt from Penghu. Successors of Dabenkeng showed regional stylistic differences in their tools and ornaments but generally shared a common pottery ware known as fine red corded. They pushed deeper into river valleys and montane areas than their predecessors (Liu Yi-chang 2015a, 24). Around 4200 BP, some groups from southeastern Taiwan appear to have migrated to the Philippines, carrying with them distinctive forms of pottery and nephrite artifacts. They are thought to have spoken an Austronesian language that later spread throughout Southeast Asia. Some writers assume a substantial movement of people, but recent studies suggest that these groups may have been small (Soares et al. 2016), though culturally influential. From the point of view of Taiwan prehistory we need to consider the social conditions that led to their migration. The first use of metal artifacts has recently been pushed back to as early as 2500 BP (Hung Hsiao-chun and Chao 2016). Both bronze and iron artifacts have been found, as well as small molds for making bronze bells and utilitarian objects on the East Coast (see chapter 8). Evidence also indicates iron working in northern Taiwan around 1500 BP though the nature and scale of production of both iron and bronze artifacts remains unclear. At most, precontact smallscale production by part-time specialists was limited to extracting iron from iron sand and recycling iron and bronze artifacts from shipwrecks and limited ­exchange. In the Neolithic Taiwan, various stone materials and artifacts were exchanged; in the Metal period, exchange was centered on iron, bronze, and glass objects. The Metal period is thought to have lasted from 2500 BP to as late as 500 BP with subdivisions of Early (2500 to 1800 BP), Middle (1800 BP to 1200 BP), and Late (1200 BP to roughly 300 BP) (Hung Hsiao-chun and Chao 2016, 1546). It is likely, however, that the subsequent Contact period could have started as early as 1100 BP (AD 900) with sporadic contacts from the Chinese mainland. In the Metal period, interaction between Southeast Asia and the east coast increased but remained on a small scale. The Contact period involved the interaction of native peoples with Han Chinese, Dutch, Spanish, and Japanese. Contact with Chinese traders probably occurred as early as 1100 BP. The Dutch and Spanish, meanwhile, were present for several decades in the first half of the seventeenth century AD. Following the Contact period, Taiwan came under the control of the Qing dynasty in 1683 AD. In the Early Neolithic period, it appears that cultivation was present but ­non-intensive and hunting and foraging remained very important. Even in the Middle and Late Neolithic, the degree of reliance on cultivation remains an open question despite archaeological finds of millet and rice. At the time of

14  Chapter 1

contact among people of the western coastal plain, women farmed while men hunted and raided (Shepherd 1993, 81). In general, prehistoric societies in ­Taiwan were simply organized and lacked intensive cultivation, sophisticated storage, or regional social hierarchies that depended on accumulating surplus. At the time of contact in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, a few groups in southern Taiwan were organized into corporate groups with some social hierarchy. Most groups, however, were relatively egalitarian and had no established authority who could deal with the Dutch, Spanish, and Chinese migrants. The Dutch relied on priests or appointed headmen to establish and maintain their rule (Shepherd 1993, 84). Pottery changed from rough cord marked to fine cord marked, and later burnished and paddle impressed, but from current studies, little seems to have changed in terms of the organization of production. Perhaps such changes will be elucidated in the future. The process of trade with the Chinese mainland, the arrival of Han Chinese colonists, and its integration into the Qing dynasty (1644 to 1911) political system followed a unique pattern, and left a distinctive archaeological signature, different from those found in surrounding areas of East Asia and the Chinese hinterland. Despite its proximity to the Chinese mainland, the few early contacts were through limited private trade rather than tributary trade, and its communities were not controlled by local chiefs, as groups in Southwest China were. Chinese contact and migration followed a different pattern from contact with and migration to Korea and Japan. Taiwan remained outside the direct control of dynastic China until the 1760s. Even at that time, Qing China was wary that the costs of incorporating Taiwan into its governmental structure could not be covered by the revenue generated by taxes (Shepherd 1993, 103).

History of Research Archaeological studies in Taiwan formally began in the Japanese period (1895 to 1945) with the discovery and preliminary exploration of many key sites fundamental to the understanding of each area of the island. For more detailed treatments, I refer readers to Liu Yi-chang (2011a, 2013, 2015a) and Kanaseki and Kokubu (1979). Pioneer anthropologists such as Torii Ryuzo visited and conducted research. Kokubu Naoichi investigated many sites and proposed that basalt from Penghu was exchanged with prehistoric inhabitants of the west coast. Kano Tadao conducted groundbreaking comparative studies of the history of Formosan tribes. In his seminal work, he outlined seven cultural layers (1946, 1952). With the resumption of Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan in 1945, a new era of Taiwan archaeology began. National Taiwan University became the

Frameworks and Debates   15

center of Taiwan archaeological research. From the previous Japanese perspective, the flanking island nature of Taiwan and its links with Southeast Asia were given prominence; with the arrival of mainland Chinese scholars with experience on the archaeology of the heartland of China, continuities with mainland China were explored following a Chinese point of view. Scholars who were bilingual in Japanese and Chinese, such as Sung Wen-hsun, helped in the academic transition of the 1950s under the new regime, translating many classic Japanese works into Chinese. Extensive treatments of the history of Taiwan archaeology are presented by Liu Yi-chang (2011a), Chiu (n.d.), Kuo (2019a), and Muyard (2012, 2022). Pioneer excavations in the late 1950s and 1960s were carried out by Liu ­Pin-hsiung, Sung Wen-hsun, and Chang Kwang-chi. Liu first explored the ­Dabenkeng site (1964); Chang conducted important excavations at Dabenkeng and Fengbitou (1969) and Sung was the first to excavate the Palaeolithic sites at Baxiandong (1969). Geological field work conducted by Lin Chiao-chi (1964) provided ancillary geological materials. The early history of Taiwan archaeology is outlined by Liu in his volume on Taiwan archaeology (2011a, 85–115). A second generation of scholars has expanded the chronology and archaeological interpretations. New data included the study of the east coast, Penghu, and Central Taiwan. Exploration of National Parks such as Kanding (Kenting) began in the 1980s, and in the 1990s, huge industrial developments such as the Taipei Water Treatment Plant and the Tainan National Science Park required archaeological survey and excavation. Their work and the work of many others is described in coming chapters. In the 1950s, scholars Sung Wen-hsun and Chang Kwang-chih studied graduate anthropology at Harvard University, following in the footsteps of Li Chi, a major figure in mainland Chinese archaeology who stimulated the growth of the field on Taiwan (Chang Kwang-chih 1980). Since that time, a substantial number of students from Taiwan have received graduate degrees from the United States, Great Britain, Australia, and Japan. Many returned to Taiwan to hold important research positions, and several have mastered current advanced scientific methods of analysis. They play a pivotal role in the development of archaeology in Taiwan. A second generation of students, including Tsang Cheng-hwa, Lien Chao-­ mei, Liu Yi-chang, and others, expanded the chronology and archaeological interpretation. From 1996, the Institute of Anthropology of National Tsing Hua University became the second university to offer archaeology education courses. The opening of the National Museum of Prehistory in Taitung in 2002 was a significant development for Taiwan archaeology. Built near the Beinan site (chapter 6), it includes comprehensive displays and a research

16  Chapter 1

library, and produces the online open access bilingual Journal of Austronesian Studies. The Tainan Branch of the museum, focusing on the excavations at the Tainan Science Park, officially opened in 2019. A strong presence of archaeology in the National Museum of Natural Science links Taiwan archaeology to national and international natural science. Academia Sinica, the major scientific research institute in Taiwan, coordinates and funds archaeological research and maintains a laboratory for Taiwan archaeology. National Cheng Kung University in Tainan recently established an institute of archaeology. Cooperative international projects in osteology and historical archaeology and conferences including scholars from the mainland and the Philippines have been productive. The French École Francaise d’Extrême Orient has also been active in promoting cooperative research. The Chinese-language Field Archaeology of Taiwan (Tianye Kaogu) published in Taiwan since 1992, is full of valuable material but not yet digitized. Taiwan archaeologists have embraced the internet, producing a wide variety of official web sites and informal forums. As this book demonstrates, contemporary Taiwan archaeology is rich in new discoveries and interesting debates. These include sites on the east coast, on the southern tip of the island, and in the northeast, to mention only a few. Studies of nephrite processing and exchange, and contacts with Maritime Southeast Asia have greatly changed the perception of Taiwan in prehistory. Several huge projects such as the Tainan Science Park, Shisanhang, Beinan, Kivulan, and Blihun Hanben have been undertaken to mitigate the destruction of sites or regions by large public construction projects. Our understanding of the Dabenkeng culture was completely transformed by extensive excavations undertaken in preparation for the construction of the Taiwan Science Park, Tainan City (Tsang 2013, 2015a; Tsang, Li, and Chu 2006; Tsang, Li, and ­Cohen 2015, 98–136). More than 50 sites covering an area of 1043 ha were excavated before the construction of this complex of more than 150 high-tech factories presently employing 60,000 workers. In each instance, the archaeologists had to mobilize public support to push the government into action, and they deserve credit for building public consciousness. These projects have produced mountains of information and warehouses full of artifacts and related samples that require long-term commitments to interpretation and dissemination. Compared with other countries, the number of practicing archaeologists relative to the total population is extremely small, making it very difficult for ­Taiwan a­ rchaeologists to keep up with publication and research. A critical lack of ­human resources and a chronic lack of state and societal interest prevail (Muyard  2022) As in Japan, contemporary archaeology is primarily a rescue operation. A ­ lthough a great deal of information from the large excavations is

Frameworks and Debates   17

available in digitized format, much of it consists of descriptive preliminary lists or illustrated catalog accounts of recovered artifacts. It will take time to produce synthetic analyses, but already many papers on selected topics are appearing. The reports of smaller excavations sponsored by local cities or townships have limited circulation; although useful for local specialists, they may be too fine grained for international readers. Many North American university libraries hold sets of the major archaeology journals and site reports of the People’s Republic of China. Taiwan materials, however, are rare and no single university has an adequate collection. Much important material has not yet been digitized. Taiwan needs a central repository of archaeological information and a system of digitization of reports of excavations and analyses. An annual bibliography of new materials would improve the dissemination of new knowledge.

Site Preservation From 1919, at the time of the Japanese administration, legislation protected a few sites, landscapes, and relics, including two archaeological sites and several historic fortified sites (Chen Kuang-tzuu 2011a, 61). In 1982, a comprehensive Cultural Properties Preservation Law was passed. As of 2011, Taiwan had 2,300 recognized sites. In the last 30 years, the balance of archaeological research has shifted to salvage work, and problem-oriented academic research has decreased, in part because relatively little funding is available. Nevertheless, a substantial number of high-quality research papers on salvaged sites have recently appeared in international journals. Further revisions to the cultural properties legislation took place in 2005 to integrate protection and mitigation. Despite this, many sites are often subjected to salvage excavation before complete destruction; in some cases, a small portion of the site is saved for posterity. A particular problem relates to the deeply buried nature of many prehistoric sites, such as those in the Tainan Science Park (Tsang, Li, and Cohen 2015). Such sites, buried by 2 m or more of alluvium, cannot be discovered by surface survey and present serious logistical problems when they are found during construction, A bias in favor of aboveground structures that are easier to locate and preserve than buried sites may also be seen in current legislation and practice. Investigation and preservation of underwater sites has also become a priority (Tung 2015). As of 2011, only six sites were given national protection, 15 were given municipal protection, and 15 more were given county protection. Virtually all local museums have public outreach and education programs; nevertheless, a strong government bias in favor of economic development often exerts pressure on local movements to preserve prehistoric

18  Chapter 1

cultural heritage. As in other parts of the world, the problem is how to balance site preservation with economic development and to securely establish archaeological heritage in the cultural and intellectual life of all communities for the benefit of everyone (Chu 2013).

Debates In addition to providing a descriptive summary of recent finds from Taiwan and adjacent Southeast China, I introduce some debates of general interest. Some of the themes that guide the content of this book include the dynamics of early settlement from the China mainland, changes in technology and social organization, changes in subsistence and diet, exchange systems within Taiwan and connections to surrounding regions, the development of distinctive regional cultures, and the process of engagement with the global economy.

Chapter Outline In chapter 2, I discuss the environmental background. In chapters 3 to 8, I describe major sites and discoveries from the Palaeolithic period to the Contact period. In chapter 9, I introduce a comparative review of major trends in the archaeology of Fujian and Guangzhou Provinces, Hong Kong, and the Ryukyu Islands. In chapter 10, I discuss various fields of inquiry in Taiwan archaeology that synthesize and integrate the findings of the previous chapters and present a brief summary and conclusions. These fields of inquiry include the cultural origins of early populations and general trends in social and technological change. Recent developments in the study of the exchange of nephrite artifacts, distinctive pottery styles, and glass beads are also introduced. Links with Southeast Asia and the Ryukyu Islands are also discussed, and there is brief note on Austronesian languages. Important older surveys of Taiwan archaeology and history include The ­Archaeology of Taiwan (Tsang 1990) and Eleven Lectures on Taiwan History (­National Museum of History Editorial Committee 2006). Many important reviews of Taiwan archaeology have been published recently. I have used them extensively in the preparation of this book to build a broad coverage and anthropological perspective. Important sources include a new book in English by Kuo, New Frontiers in the Prehistoric Archaeology of Taiwan (2019a), the Chinese ­volume, Population and Archaeology (Liu Yi-chang 2011a), and the important unpublished book manuscript Summary of Taiwan Prehistoric Culture (Chiu,

Frameworks and Debates   19

n.d.). In 2019, Liu Yi-chang published a definitive up-to-date analysis of important archaeological sites and cultures (2019a). Important review articles include Chen Wei-chun’s The Early Occupation of Taiwan (2017) and an overview (Jacobs 2016). Several edited Chinese volumes summarize information that is often locked away in site reports with limited circulation. These include a collection of key excavation summaries edited by Chen Kuang-tzuu (2018), a volume devoted to Taiwan prehistory (Liu Yi-chang 2015a), and a volume of conference papers on glass beads, bracelets. and earrings (Institute of History and Philology 2005). Hung Li-wan (2016) edited an important volume in archaeology, history, and indigenous peoples. Liu Yi-chang and Frank Muyard (2018) edited the preliminary proceedings of the conference Maritime Exchange and Localization across the South China Sea 500 BC to 500 AD, held at National Cheng Kung University in November 2018. An important volume edited by Paola Calanca, Liu Y ­ i-chang, and Frank Muyard, Taiwan Maritime Landscapes from Neolithic to Early Modern Times, is scheduled for publication by the École Francaise d’Extrême Orient in 2022 (Liu, Calanca, and Muyard 2022). A GIS map of Taiwan sites has been initiated by Academia Sinica (IHP 2020). Chinese names of Taiwan authors have been transliterated using their preferred name as it appears in their English publications or academic directories. Place-names in Taiwan follow customary usage for large centers, or pinyin or local name. Names of Chinese mainland authors and all place-names on the Chinese mainland are Romanized in pinyin.

Chapter 2

Environment of Taiwan, Fujian, Guangdong, Hong Kong, and the Ryukyu Islands

Taiwan and the adjacent regions of southeast China, consisting of Fujian and Guangdong Provinces and Hong Kong, are subtropical maritime regions facing the Pacific Ocean and the South China Sea. Isolated from central China by mountain ranges, they share a mountainous topography with short swift rivers and small flood plains and estuaries providing little arable land. The region is subject to a monsoon climate and powerful summer typhoons. In prehistory and early history, it supported a sparse population and agriculture developed late. The sophisticated, intensive production of food crops such as rice, sweet potatoes, sugar, peanuts, and bananas (all introduced to the area) as well as all kinds of high value tree crops such as lichee, have all been achieved in historic times through tremendous effort. My impression as a student first visiting this area was that the present agricultural landscape was timeless, reaching far into the past; this is definitely not the case.

Taiwan Taiwan Island is part of the Ryukyu-Taiwan-Philippine Island arc system. It was formed at the convergent boundary of the Eurasian Sea Plate and the Philippine Sea Plate, the former slipping over the latter. It has an area of 35,883 km2 and its present population is about 23 million. It is separated from the mainland by the Taiwan Strait, which has a maximum width of 220 km and a minimum width 20

Environment of Taiwan, Fujian, Guangdong, Hong Kong   21

of 130 km. Because the strait is actually a depression on the continental shelf, the water over it is no more than 100 m deep and as shallow as 25 m. The strait, which was dry land in the Late Pleistocene, flooded about 7000 BP. Because of subsequent sedimentation in the Holocene period, the west coast of Taiwan is shallow and sandy, with shifting currents, making navigation difficult. Thompson (1968) describes the strait in his translation of the accounts of two travelers who crossed from Xiamen and the Tainan area, one in AD 1697 and the other in 1793. “The Taiwan Strait is well known to be one of the most dangerous bodies of water in the world, particularly during the typhoon season from June to November, so that even the large, motor-driven ships of modern times have often been destroyed there. The island of Formosa is itself a major hazard to navigation because of its treacherous shoals and the lack of safe anchorages along its hundreds of miles of coast-line” (1968, 171; Calanca 2022). The island lies roughly parallel with the mainland cities of Fuzhou and Quanzhou in Fujian (figure 2.1). The Taiwan mountain belt was created by the collision of the Philippine and Eurasian Plates in the past million years. Abundant earthquakes occur along this interface. Taiwan is a tilted fault block, the eastern two-thirds of which

Figure 2.1.  Taiwan in maritime perspective.

22  Chapter 2

consist of five rugged mountain ranges, parallel to the east coast, and the western third of flat to gently rolling plains. These mountain ranges are the East Coast Mountain Range, the Central Mountain Range, the single line of the Xueshan and Yushan Ranges (broken by Sun Moon Lake), and the A ­ lishan Range. The highest mountain is Yushan, with an elevation of 3952 m. As a group, the five mountain ranges extend 330 km from the north to south and about 80 km east to west. They include more than 200 peaks with elevations over 3000 m. The East Coast Range is much lower than the Central Mountain Range, only 1682 m at its highest (Republic of China 2014). On its east side, a rift valley extends from Hualien to Taitung. The east side of this valley is bordered by the Coastal Range, which sits on the edge of the Philippine Plate; the west side is bordered by the Central Mountains, which sit on the edge of the Eurasian Plate. These two ranges have moved apart, creating the rift valley. On the eastern edge of the East Coast Range, a narrow plain faces the Pacific Ocean.

Taiwan Geomorphology The major plains and basins, as well as surrounding islands, are shown in figure 2.2. Many recent studies have advanced our knowledge of Taiwan geomorphology (Ho 1986) since the pioneering work of Lin Chao-chi (1964). The western

Figure 2.2.  Taiwan basins, plains, and surrounding regions.

Environment of Taiwan, Fujian, Guangdong, Hong Kong   23

plains, some 50 km wide, consist of sediments laid down in the Holocene, mostly in the last 6,000 years. Of this western zone of plains and basins, the largest flat area is the Chianan Plain, with lesser areas in the Pingtung Plain, Taichung Basin, and Taipei Basin. The small Ilan Plain is located on the northeastern side. Human communities created distinctive local cultures in these basins, as we shall see in later chapters. The geomorphological history of the Taipei Basin, a very important locus of archaeological research, is an example of Taiwan’s dramatic landscape change. Around 200,000 BP, the Tamsui River system in northern Taiwan was dammed by volcanic detritus and rocky debris from the Dadun volcanoes and became a deep freshwater lake. In the Holocene, with rising sea level and subsidence, the basin was inundated by a marine incursion and turned into a brackish bay, portions of which filled in with alluviation (Teng et al. 2001; Tsang 2001). The most recent alluvial layer of the basin, the Songshan, contains abundant marine to brackish water molluscs, the result of a marine transgression as late as 6000 BP (Tsang, Lin, and Wang 2000). The Ilan, or Lanyang, Plain of northeastern Taiwan is a triangular alluvial fan delta with two major mountain ranges bordering the northern and southern flanks, the Xueshan Range and the Central Range, respectively. Normal faulting systems along the mountain fronts are associated with the westward extension of the Okinawa Trough. These may yield severe earthquakes. Continuous subsidence has led to the opening of more than 120 m of sedimentary accommodation space since the Last Glacial Maximum. In central western Taiwan, two rivers flow from the high mountains through basins contained by mountains and hills to a plain that formed in the Holocene. Flowing near the city of Taichung, the Dadu River is about 140 km long. Farther to the south, the Zhuoshui River has a length of about 167 km. The total area of these two river systems is about 5200 km2, about one-seventh of the total area of Taiwan. Sediments deposited by the Dadu River and its tributaries extend to a depth of more than 300 m. The Zhuoshui alluvial fan was built on and above the coastal plain. The sediments discharged by the Zhuoshui River covered most of the coastal area. However, this area may have been exposed by tides until its uplift in the middle Holocene (Tsai et al. 2010). The coastal area received a massive deposition of alluvium from the Zhuoshui River. The coastal hills, consisting of the Dadushan and Baguashan table lands, lie parallel to the coast, at a distance of 4 to 6 km and an elevation of more than 100 m. The climate of the west coast is among the driest in Taiwan. The hills absorb rainfall and release it in springs at their base (Dewar 1978). This is the environment of the Niumatou site. The Taichung Basin contained a lake that drained at some time in the Middle ­Holocene. In the mountains to the east of Taichung, the Puli Basin contained a Pleistocene lake that also drained in the Holocene. The two rivers discharge

24  Chapter 2

huge amounts of alluvium weathered from the soft unstable mountains in their hinterland, creating mud flats extending out to sea from silted estuaries, and there are no natural deepwater ports. The Dadu Hill, at the narrowest point on the coastal plain near Niumatou, is some 5 km from the sea. Archaeological sites are located on the hills surrounding the Taichung Basin. Dating to after 3000 BP, sites of the Yingpu culture are located on the newly formed alluvial plain near Zhanghua. Geomorphological research by a team led by K. C. Chang established three stages in the recent formation of land forms connected to the Taichung Basin (1974a, 42). In the first stage, the Dadu and Bagua terraces of alluvial debris from the central mountains were connected, forming a kind of berm that became the western bank of the basin. In the second stage, the Puli Basin, adjacent to the Taichung Basin, was drained as the result of tectonic movement. In the third stage, probably occurring in the Late Pleistocene or Early Holocene, a gap appeared between the Dadu and Bagua terraces, transforming Lake Taichung into an inland bay or large lagoon, which subsequently drained. In the south, the Chianan Plain is composed of alluvium from several rivers. It is roughly 35 km wide by 145 km long. The coastal edges of the plain emerged from the sea around 5000 BP. It is situated in an area of summer rainfall, in contrast to the Taipei Basin where rainfall is most abundant in the winter (Lu et al. 2007). On the Pacific coast, one of the fastest uplift regions of the world, coastal terraces are formed by tectonic uplifting. Most Neolithic sites located 20 to 30 m above sea level were likely on the ancient coastline (Chao 2018). Geologists have used radiometric dates from nineteen localities to determine Holocene rates of uplift along the 140 km long Huadong coast from Hualien to Taitung. The rates vary from 4 mm per year in the north to 10 per year near the southern end (­Pirazzoli et al 1993; Hsieh Meng-long, Liew, and Hsu 2004). Over 3,000 years, the uplift could be in the range of 12 m to 30 m above present sea level. The presence of many terraces during Holocene time implies that intermittent uplifts, associated with large earthquakes at intervals of a thousand to several hundred years, have repeatedly occurred in this coastal area, but with different timing and intensity at each subregion (Yamaguchi and Ota 2004) Between the mainland and Taiwan are the volcanic Penghu (Pescadores) Islands. They are eroded mesa-like remnants of volcanic lava that flowed from fissures in the Taiwan Strait during the Pliocene/Pleistocene period, roughly 8 to 17 million years ago (Penghu 2018). Sixty-four islands are scattered over an area 40 km east-west and 60 km north-south. The total area of the islands at high tide is 127 km2, and only eleven of the islands are larger than 1 km2. Some islands have coastal plains formed by marine deposits during times of higher sea

Environment of Taiwan, Fujian, Guangdong, Hong Kong   25

levels (Chen Yue-gau and Liu Tsung-kwei 1996). Although they are subject to two monsoon seasons per year, their climate is dry and windy; nevertheless, deer bones have been found in their prehistoric sites, although they have been extinct for some time. Because the islands are on the continental shelf, the surrounding seas are only 40 to 60 m deep and support well-developed coral reefs. Rich marine life is further enhanced by the convergence of a branch of the Black Current and the China Coastal Cold Current, creating good conditions for migratory fish. In the shallows around the islands, extensive underwater fish weirs dating to at least the eighteenth century AD have been mapped using Google Earth and GIS (Luo et al. 2015). Perhaps in future associated artifacts embedded in their stone walls will confirm that these weirs have a longer history.

Sea-Level Change Jiao (2006) reports that sea level in Southeast Asia and by inference, southeast China, began to rise 10,000 14C BP (roughly around 8000 BC). The reconstructed sea-level histories from different coastal sectors of the China coast reveal a certain degree of variability in the timing and height of mid-Holocene sea level highstand. Within large river deltas, the mid-Holocene sea-level high stand occurred earlier by almost a thousand years than that from other coastal sites. The high stand from large river deltas appears also lower in altitude (a few meters below the present-day sea level), probably because of local subsidence and sediment consolidation (Zong 2004). From 7000 to 4500 BP, the sea level rose to a level about 2.5 m higher than at present. In Fujian, the transgression pushed inland up to 30 km from the present coastline. By 4000 BP, the sea level dropped and the coastline began to retreat to its present location. On the Penghu Islands around 4700 BP, the sea level was 2.4 m higher than it is today (Chen Yue-gau and Liu 1996). Particularly in the case of Taiwan, the tectonic movement of the land had substantial influence on sea level, in addition to changes in sea level (eustatic change). Peng Tsung-hung, Li, and Wu (1977) propose that in southern Taiwan uplift averaged 5 mm per year. This would amount to 50 cm per century and 25 m in 5,000 years. However, such patterns of tectonic movement can be locally variable as well as cyclical rather than unidirectional; for instance, subsidence occurred in the Taipei Basin while the shoreline shifted seaward at a rate of as much as 5 m per year in the Chianan Plain area with uplift and continuous deposition (Peng Tsung-heng et al. 1977; Chen Yue-gau and Liu 2000). In the Ilan area, large lagoons created by subsidence lay in the north and south parts of the Ilan Plain around 3000 BP and subsequently filled in (Chen Wen-shan et al. 2004). The Baxiandong caves of the east coast of Taiwan provide some important information on tectonic uplift (chapter 3).

26  Chapter 2

Holocene Climate Change Based on palynology and radiocarbon dating, a general picture of Holocene climate change can be deduced. Many aspects of it, however, are still unknown. Huang Zhenguo and Zhang (2002a, 2002b) summarize fluctuations in ­Holocene climate. Zhang Weiqiang and Huang (1996) correlate them with the archaeological chronology presented by Chang Kwang-chih (1989). They estimate that the last glacial maximum occurred from about 22,000 to 17,000 BP and concluded that the total amplitude of Holocene temperature change in Taiwan based on radiocarbon dating of coral reefs, did not exceed 2°C (Huang Zhenguo and Zhang 2002a, 93; 2002b). The authors propose that the Holocene of southeastern China and Taiwan saw seven cooling fluctuations of 200 to 500 years and eight warming stages. The cooling fluctuations and their rough median dates are Younger Dryas (10.6 kiloannum [ka] BP), Boreal (8.8 ka BP), Neoglacial I (7.5 ka BP), Neoglacial II (4.5  ka BP), Neoglacial III (2.8 ka BP) Cooling Stage 2 (1.6 ka BP), Cooling Stage 1 (1 ka BP), and Little Ice Age (ca. 0.5 ka BP). The fluctuations can be recognized by shifts in plant communities; their impact on mammalian communities may be blurred by the effects of hunting and burning. The persistence of coral reefs in the South China Sea throughout the Holocene indicates that ocean surface temperature did not cool below 18°C, the minimum required for coral survival. Given that the present temperature is 20°C, it is fair to conclude that the amplitude of the cooling was less than 2°C. Lee Cheng-yi, Liew, and Lee (2010) and Lee Cheng-yi and Liew (2010) report, based on a pollen core, a similar sequence for the Dongyuan Basin in southern Taiwan. From 11,400 to 8200 BP, the climate was cooler than at present. From 8200 to 4100 BP, the time of the Holocene Climatic Optimum, climate was warmer. From 4100 to 2100 cal (calibrated year) BP, the climate was cooler, indicated by a decrease in lowland forest components. Following this period, the climate was similar to today’s. The authors note fluctuations in the East Asian summer monsoon with weakening from 10,600 to 10,300 cal BP, from 9400 to 8600 cal BP, from 7300 to 7000 cal BP, and from 5700 to 5200 cal BP. For our purposes, the mid-Holocene Hypsithermal and the subsequent cooling trend around 4000 BP are the most significant. The mid-Holocene Hypsithermal is thought to have started sometime between 8900 and 7500 BP and ended sometime between 4800 and 2500 BP (Jiao 2006, 618). At that time, the mean temperature was 1° to 3°C warmer than today. The cooling trend that began sometime around 4200 BP is an important feature of a wide area of China, thought to have led to the demise of the Liangzhu culture of the Yangzi River, and possibly to a sharp decrease in shell middens in the Hong Kong area.

Environment of Taiwan, Fujian, Guangdong, Hong Kong   27

Data from Sun Moon Lake in Central Taiwan indicate a cooling trend around 4000 BP following the Hypsithermal (Huang Zhenguo and Zhang 2002a, 92, 95). A palynological study of two alpine lakes in central Taiwan and a lake at 460 m elevation in southern Taiwan showed evidence of a cool dry interval from 3700 to 2000 BP, followed by rise of 1° to 2°C that lasted for several hundred years (Liew Ping-mei and Hsieh 2000). This evidence of a cooling interval seems to fit with the evidence from the mainland. Is it possible that this major cooling event is related to the movement of people from the east coast of Taiwan to the Philippines? Jiao (2006, 620) notes that frequency of contacts across Taiwan Strait decreased significantly after 4000 BP. Holocene changes in seasonality and interannual climate variability, such as those associated with the El Niño Southern Oscillation may have shaped the opportunities Austronesians had to navigate out of Taiwan and around the South China Sea (Siame and Leduc 2022). On the mainland coast, the number of shell midden sites decreased, and the cultivation of rice became important. Jiao states that these changes were not coincidental and that their inter-relationship is a topic of future research. Pollen analysis of sediment cores from the Ilan Plain showed environmental changes in the past 4,200 years (Lin Shu-fen et al. 2004, 2007). Around 4200 cal BP, the climate was relatively warm, and conditions were favorable for settlement in the littoral zone. From 3800 to 2400 cal BP, however, the lowland area was affected by marine incursion and settlement moved to hilly areas (Lin Shu-fen 2015). A gap in the archaeological sequence from 2400 to 1300 cal BP is thought to have been caused by extensive erosion and aggradation. By 1300 BP, a lowland flora was widespread, indicating a shift from a marsh to a terrestrial environment in response to a well-developed fluvial plain. Another study of the Lanyang River of Ilan and the Erhjen River of southern Taiwan also showed evidence of a widespread aggradational episode from 2500 to 1500 BP (Liew Ping-mei and Hsieh Meng-long 2000) that probably affected the entire island. This environmental change is attributed to an increasing frequency of typhoons or intense precipitation that may have triggered frequent slope failures and increased sedimentation yield resulting in river aggradation and or external erosion. Evidence of this episode has been found in archaeological sites on the Ilan Plain. A few details on Pleistocene climate are included in chapter 3.

Fujian Province The total area of Fujian Province is 123,100 km2 (Ministry of Commerce 2013). The province is transected by several mountain ranges of moderate elevation,

28  Chapter 2

aligned southwest to northeast, and parallel to the coast, that have been subject to folding and refolding. The Wuyi Mountains, with a maximum elevation of 1,800 m, form a natural boundary between Fujian and interior China. They are steep or vertical on their western sides and relatively gentle on their eastern sides (Jiao Tianlong 2007a, 26). The range forms a watershed between the Min River system of Fujian and the Gan River system flowing into the Yangzi, but few passes between the two river systems are accessible. In northern Fujian, the Min River and its three tributaries drain about half of the province through its estuary at Fuzhou. The river, about 541 km long, was historically an important transportation route. Its drainage system is about 61,000 km2 (Jiao 2007a, 26). To the north of the Min River is the shorter Ou River, and to the south are the Jiulong, Jin, and Han, each with a small alluvial estuary. The area of the Zhangzhou Plain at the mouth of the Jiulong River is about 900 km2 and that of the Chaoshan Plain about 1,200 km2. The Fujian coastal area has very small plains. Isolated by mountains from the rich agricultural centers of the Yangzi Valley, this area was slow to adopt cultivation and to create intensive systems. Inland routes of communication are deeply affected by the Nanling and Wuyi Ranges, which block access to Central China and restrict settlement to narrow river valleys. Indigenous fauna found in Fujian prehistoric sites include dog, pig, bear, tiger, Indian elephant, rhinoceros, two species of deer, cow, wild boar (Hystrix sp.), and monkey. Elephant, monkey (Trachypithecus), and rhinoceros are now ­extinct. Prehistoric changes in flora and fauna are discussed in chapter 9. Deer were abundant in Neolithic times and were important in Taiwan.

Guangdong Province The total area of Guangdong Province is 179,800 km2 (Ministry of Commerce 2013). Cut off from the Yangzi River Valley of central China in the north by the Nanling Mountains running east to west, the province is characterized by rounded hills cut by streams and valleys, some of which have substantial deposits of alluvium. The upland soils are generally leached and impoverished. Some mountain ranges in eastern Guangdong are continuations of ranges from Fujian, running northwest to southeast. The Pearl River Delta has an area of 7,500 km2, much greater than the areas of deltas in Fujian. This river system consists of three tributaries with a huge discharge. On its lower reaches are Guangzhou, Macau, and Hong Kong. Access from Guangdong to the Yangzi Valley of Central China was restricted by mountain ranges in northern Guangdong. The major north-south route in historic times follows the Gan River of Jiangxi and the North River of Guangdong, through the Meiling Pass. The Gan River can also be reached from Fujian,

Environment of Taiwan, Fujian, Guangdong, Hong Kong   29

following the Han and East Rivers, but the route was difficult. A second pass, the Zheling Pass, follows a tributary of the Xiang River from Central Hunan. This is the main route between Guangdong and the central Yangzi at present. Another major route links the Xiang and Gui Rivers of Guangxi and the ­Yangzi; this was the route southward to Vietnam (Lucas 1984, 70, 77).

Hong Kong Topographically Hong Kong could be considered part of Guangdong but is important in this discussion as a window on the outer portions of the Pearl River estuary and coastal Guangdong in general. Many estuarine and coastal sites have been carefully excavated, providing important information, some of which is discussed in chapter 9.

The Ryukyu Islands The Ryukyu islands consist of 35 major islands with a total area of 3090 km2 ­extending from Kyushu to Taiwan. Formed at the boundary of the Eurasian and Philippine Plates, they are composed of a submerged mountain range separated from the continental shelf by the Okinawa Trough. The mountain tops are fringed by coral reefs. Their subtropical climate is deeply affected by the northward flowing Black Current (Kuroshio) summer monsoons and autumn ­typhoons. The island chain is divided into three groups separated by the Tokara Strait and the Kerama Gap. The largest islands in the Central Ryukyus are Amami Oshima (712 km2) and Okinawa (1204 km2) (for more, see Pearson 2013). For our purposes, the southern Sakishima Islands are the most significant. These consist of the Miyako and the Yaeyama Islands. The Miyako are raised coral, the Yaeyama both high islands and raised coral islands. The largest islands, Ishigaki and Iriomote, sit in a lagoon formed by the Sekisei Reef and are surrounded by coral islets. Two outlying islands, Hateruma and Yonaguni, lie to the south of Iriomote and between Iriomote and Taiwan respectively. Recent excavations discussed in chapter 9 show that very early islanders lived on ­Ishigaki, and later groups, possibly related to these early inhabitants, lived on Ishigaki, Hateruma, and Yonaguni and later moved to Miyako Island.

Chapter 3

Palaeolithic Discoveries

The Palaeolithic of Taiwan, southeastern China, the Philippines, and the Ryukyu Islands is slowly coming to light. In general, deep well-stratified sites with abundant artifacts and ecofacts are rare; nevertheless, clearly humans have lived in the region for hundreds of thousands of years. With a few exceptions, most of the finds date to the Late Pleistocene and the late or Terminal Pleistocene. For much of this period, Taiwan was still part of the South China mainland and the Eurasian continent. At the end of the Pleistocene, it was separated from the mainland by rising sea levels. Palaeolithic finds from Taiwan thus need to be considered in continental perspective, along with those from the mainland. I therefore briefly discuss some of the major finds from Fujian and Guangdong Provinces again in chapter 9.

Finds from the Sea Bottom of the Taiwan Strait Taiwan was joined to the China mainland at various times during the Pleistocene. Remains of people and animals who lived on the surface of the areas now submerged by rising sea levels have been recovered from the sea bottom of the Taiwan Strait on several occasions. Underwater reconnaissance is ongoing. These faunal finds are collectively referred to as the Taiwan Land Bridge Fauna. Chen Kuang-tzuu proposes that there may actually be two subgroups, the first dating from the late Middle Pleistocene to as late as the early Late Pleistocene. The second group probably dates to the Late Pleistocene or the beginning of the Holocene. The total fossil remains include elephants, rhinoceros, bovids, shrews, cervids, boars, horses, tigers, racoon dogs, bears, hyaenas, wolves, whales, and dolphins. Because they are salvaged finds from the sea bottom, it is difficult to study them systematically (2000a, 458). 30

Palaeolithic Discoveries  31

An archaic Homo mandible, along with fossils of other vertebrates known as Terminal Middle Late Pleistocene Penghu Fauna, were dredged from a depth of 60 to 120 m from the Penghu submarine channel between Penghu and Taiwan. The dating range is given as younger than 450,000, most likely from 190,000 to 10,000 BP. The dating is only relative, confirming that the Pleistocene fauna and mandible came from the same submarine deposit. Radiocarbon dating failed because of the lack of collagen, and laser-ablation U-series dating had limited success because of uranium overprint in the seawater. Assessment of fluorine and sodium content showed that the mandible was of the same relative age as the Pleistocene faunal bones of eight medium-bodied mammal taxa recovered from the same area. The mandible shows robust, apparently primitive teeth and jaws in comparison with finds from Hexian, Anhui. These distinctive features suggest the survival of multiple evolutionary lineages among archaic hominins before the arrival of Homo sapiens in the region. The most striking aspect of the Penghu mandible is the unexpectedly late survival of the traits of large teeth and thick mandible. Given the general trend for decreased robustness in the Middle and Late Pleistocene archaic hominid populations of East Asia, this find demonstrates the substantial diversity among Homo erectus populations in East and Southeast Asia (Chang Chun-hsiang et al. 2015). Finds in the Callao Cave, Luzon, confirm the presence of a Homo species, Homo luzonensis, in the Pleistocene (Detroit et al. 2019). The lowest yielded faunal bones and a human third metatarsal bone dated by Uranium Series dating to 67,000 BP. The second lowest dated to ca. 25,000 BP and was characterized by hearths, abundant charcoal, burned sediments, and chert flake tools (Mijares 2017).

Baxiandong (Late Pleistocene, Holocene) The Baxian Caves (Baxiandong), on the east coast of Taiwan, dating to the Late Pleistocene and Holocene, are situated in an imposing agglomerate outcrop at Changbin on the east coast of Taiwan. This outcrop gives a vivid expression to the violent geological processes that occurred at the meeting of the Continental and Philippine Plates long before humans came to the ultimate edge of the Eurasian continent and looked out to the Pacific. Excavations were undertaken from 1968 to 1974 by a team led by Sung and Lien (Sung 1969, 1991; Lien 2015). Lien reports on the excavations of seven caves conducted by her and Professor Sung from 1968 to 1974, four of which produced cultural deposits. No evidence was found of pottery or domesticated plants or animals. The tools were characterized by unifacially flaked choppers and cobble flake tools. Refitting showed that toolmaking took place at the site. Coarse artifacts were fashioned from

32  Chapter 3

sandstone, periodotite, andesite, and gabbro; fine artifacts were quartzite, quartz, and chalcedony. Most artifacts of the fine stone material were unretouched flakes, but some show evidence of faceted striking platforms. Recognizable tools types include side scrapers, points, knives, and notched scrapers. Bone tools, thought to be a later development, include parts of leisters, eyed needles, three-pointed gorges, and chisel edge implements (Lien 2015, 233). Radiocarbon dating of four samples from the excavations by Sung and Lien were dated from 5240 to 4970 BP. Sung suspected that the younger dates were contaminated by seeping ground water (Lien 2015, 246). Tsang’s project of 2008 to 2011 (Tsang et al. 2018) located 13 new caves, six rock shelters, and two terraces. In Unnamed Cave no. 10, located at 145 m above sea level, a sounding 2 m2 reaching a depth of 7.5 m below the surface located a cultural layer remains of five fire pits dated to approximately 27,000 to 29,000 BP. Recovered artifacts include pebble or cobble tools and microlithic flakes and tools. The pebble assemblage included hammers, choppers, and pebble flake tools. One multipurpose artifact was a handpick-like chopper with a pitted surface. The lithic materials included metamorphosed sandstone, fine dense basalt, quartz, chalcedony, and rock crystal. Fire-cracked rocks and pebble flakes were also found. In the fire pits were many extremely small burned bone fragments and deer teeth. Tsang concludes two occupations at Baxiandong: an earlier Palaeolithic one dated to around 30,000 BP and a later Preceramic dated to around 5000 BP, sometimes referred to as the Chaoyindong culture, named for the cave in which the Preceramic finds were found. Tsang (2016) proposes that the Preceramic occupation might indicate a migration from the Philippines. There are certainly many questions about this culture, which may be linked to similar findings from the nearby Xiaoma cave (Huang 1991) and the Eluanbi (Oluanpi) area. Li (1982) found sites belonging to the Preceramic period in the Eluanbi area of Kanding (Kenting). Pearson (1972, 147) illustrates three quartzite choppers surface collected from Kanding and Eluanpi in the area of old excavations of cists (boxlike small stone coffins). The caves of Baxiandong must have been produced by sea erosion when they were near sea level but at present they are elevated by coastal uplift. Carson (2016, 16) states that around 25,000 BC certain caves would have been close to sea level. The east coast of Taiwan has experienced exception isostatic uplift since these caves were occupied. Pirazolli et al. (1993) finds that marine sediments deposited around 14,000 BP, when the sea level was between 80 and 100 m lower than today’s, have been found exposed at about 17 m above present sea level near Dulan, on the east coast of Taiwan. This implies a minimum average uplift rate of 7.6 mm per year; similar values of tectonic uplift are not

Palaeolithic Discoveries  33

uncommon on the eastern Coastal Range (Hai’an) of Taiwan. Such rates of tectonic uplift, among the highest reported in the literature, are of the same order as present-day maximum glacio-isostatic uplift rates. The slope of the sea bottom dropping into the Pacific Trench off the east coast prevented the formation of ancient foreshores and shallows creating a foreshore different from the shallow silty shoreline of the west coast. Liu Yi-chang (2011a, 125) reports a pebble tool culture, the Wang Xing ­culture, found in sites on river terraces at elevations of roughly 200 to 400 m above sea level. He states that sites of this culture are distributed from the Taipei Basin to the Dadu River in central Taiwan. Although this culture is thought to be temporally parallel to the Changbin culture and to have early and late subperiods, the open sites have not yet been radiometrically dated. Tools from the ­Bogonglong site, southern Miaoli County, show the production of thick flakes by direct percussion and the retention of water-worn cortex. Some pointed tools were probably used for a variety of tasks (figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1.  Stone tools from the Bogonglong site, Miaoli County. 1. Thick flake produced by direct percussion. 2–4, 7. Flaked multipurpose tools. 5, 6. Pointed tools. Courtesy of Professor Liu Yi-chang.

34  Chapter 3

Pleistocene mammal fossils have been found in eroded coastal sand dunes at Xiagukeng, on the southern shore of the estuary of the Tamsui River in northern Taiwan (Chao 2016). Pebble flakes found in the same area could be products of the Late Palaeolithic but are eroded out of their context and are mixed with later prehistoric and historic materials. Some of the wedge-shaped flakes ­resemble those found in other Palaeolithic sites. The Palaeolithic presence is widespread in Taiwan but most sites contain redeposited artifacts in open locations, similar to sites in coastal mainland China. Li Yinghua et al. (2019) finds three major operational sequences involving cobbles that identify the late Pleistocene and Early Holocene Southeast Asian Hoabinhian culture: the production of chopper or chopping tools, unifacial tools, and split cobbles. These show a general similarity to the Taiwan cobble assemblages.

Zuozhen (Holocene) In 1972, fossilized cranial bones of Homo sapiens were recovered from a series of eroded vertebrate fossil beds at Zuozhen Tainan County known to contain Pleistocene animal fossils from 200,000 to 400,000 BP. Analyzed by fluorine and manganese methods, the bones were determined to date between 20,000 and 30,000 BP (Shikama, Ling, and Shimoda 1976; Olson and Antonio-Miller 1992, 152). In 2015, however, the bones were dated using accelerator mass spectrometry on bone collagen and found to be only about 3,000 years old (Chiu  2016). Thus the Zuozhen Homo fossils can no longer be considered ­Pleistocene. The dating of the fauna as Pleistocene is still accepted, however.

Preceramic Culture: An Early Australo Papuan Population? Huang Shi-chang (1991) and Tsang et al. (2018) propose a Preceramic culture in Taiwan dating to 5000 to 6000 BP, left by hunters and fishers. Flake tools and bone tools have been found in Changbin and Xiaoma on the east coast and ­Eluanbi in the extreme south but pottery and polished stone tools are absent. Huang suggests that some early Holocene shoreline sites may have been destroyed by the marine transgression that occurred around 7000 to 8000 BP; this may account for the scarcity of Preceramic sites. Recently, archaeologists and physical anthropologists have proposed that an ancient “Australo Papuan” population could have preceded the present Asiatic population of Taiwan that appeared with the Dabenkeng culture (Bellwood 2017, 93; Matsumura et al. 2019). Burials in Southeast Asia reveal the remains in flexed or crouched positions and lack grave goods. This is the case for the Xiaoma

Palaeolithic Discoveries  35

burial, found in a cave in southeastern Taiwan, dated around 6000 BP. Early burials from Liangdao Island are described in chapter 9. One of the remains in these burials is said to have Australo Papuan physical characteristics and to be buried in the tightly flexed position. These two finds may be evidence of the predecessors of the Dabenkeng culture. The nature and dating of the Preceramic culture of Taiwan and its relation to both the Palaeolithic and Neolithic are unclear at present and much interesting work remains to be done.

Discussion Discoveries in the past few decades have expanded our knowledge of the Pleistocene inhabitants of the region. Taiwan and Fujian constituted a continuous land mass at the time of early inhabitants such as the individual whose mandible was found on the Penghu sea bottom. Upper Palaeolithic discoveries in both Taiwan and coastal Fujian provide encouraging hints about the nature of early populations of the region and show the Baxiandong finds of Taiwan to be part of a general pattern found also in Fujian. There appears to have been a separate Holocene Preceramic culture in ­Taiwan. Is it accurately dated?

Chapter 4

Early Neolithic, 6500 to 4500 BP

Sometime between 6000 and 7000 BP, the first Neolithic groups arrived in Taiwan and the Penghu Islands. When they first arrived in Taiwan, they may have been exclusively maritime oriented fishers and foragers, adapted to coastal environments (Li Kuang-ti 2013, 628); however, by 5000 BP, these groups cultivated cereals such as rice and millet. The archaeological remains of these first colonizers have been termed the Dabenkeng culture, after the type site in northern Taiwan. The origins of the Dabenkeng culture have been traced to the Pearl River Delta in Guangdong (Tsang 2005; Zhang and Hung 2008; Hung and Carson 2014; Hung Hsiao-chun 2017a, 235), cultural influences from Fujian and Zhejiang affecting northern Taiwan (Kuo 2015a). The Dabenkeng culture has distinctive cord-marked ceramics with an everted lip on which is an external ridge often decorated with cording and incision. The color ranges from creamy buff to dark brown, and the principal shapes of the vessels are large, globular jars and bowls (Chang Kwang-chih 1969, 211). Low and perforated ring feet are found attached to the bottoms of some jars. The rims are flared and many have a circumferential ridge or carination below the lip. The entire body of the vessel is invariably impressed with cord marks, probably applied with a cord-wrapped stick (rouletting) or paddle (impressing). The rim surfaces and frequently the upper shoulder are decorated with incised designs of wavy lines and short, parallel strokes applied with a pair of (or occasionally three) sticks bundled together. Kuo (2016) mentions that Dabenkeng pottery was hand built using curved clay slabs that were then beaten with a cordmarked paddle. Painting also occurs. Barnes (2015, 98) notes that all major Holocene cultures of East Asia, regardless of their subsistence base, used ­ceramics with textured surfaces. Early archaeologists identified cord-marked 36

Early Neolithic, 6500 to 4500 BP   37

ceramics as part of the earliest cultural layer in Taiwan (Kano 1946; see also Liu Yi-chang 2011a, 7). K. C. Chang (1969) postulates that the makers of this pottery were the earliest cultivators. Several general points about Taiwan Neolithic earthenware are important to bear in mind in contextualizing the Early Neolithic. The first Neolithic groups brought with them a vigorous pottery tradition from the southeast coast of China. It formed an important part of daily life surviving in remote areas until the twentieth century. Liu Yi-chang (2011a) reconstructed the major groups of Neolithic ceramics. In his original diagrams (see figure 4.1), no scale was given. I have attempted to reconstruct vessel sizes from his scaled drawings of actual rim sherds for each culture. In most cases, intact vessels come only from burials because vessels from living sites have been broken into small pieces, rendering the original shape and dimensions conjectural. For the ­Dabenkeng culture, the measured rim diameters were 12 to 16 cm (Liu Yichang 2011a, 144) and the estimated height for the largest vessel was 18 to 24 cm. Smaller vessels were half of this size. For the Xuntangpu culture, the measured rim diameter was 15 to 22 cm (Liu Yi-chang 2011a, 157) and the estimated height was 30 to 44 cm. In addition to smaller jars, there are shallow bowls and lids. For the East Coast Corded culture, the rim diameters for globular bowls range from 15 to 23 cm and the conjectural height is 22 to 39 cm. The Middle Neolithic Niuchouzi culture displays a wide variety of new forms, including narrow necked jars and bottles. Elevated plates and tripods become more common. Up to the Late Neolithic, pottery vessels seem to be centered around food consumption, given the little evidence of large storage vessels or specialized shapes. Chang Kwang-chih (1969, 82–104) describes a wide range of wares and shapes typical of the Late Neolithic, including painted fine red, sandy red, sandy gray, and black wares. This dramatic change reflects outside contact or population movement. Early Neolithic stone tools included chipped and polished adzes and ground knives and arrow points. Adzes of olivine basalt, derived from Qimei Island in Penghu (Tsang 2015b), were flaked and ground, rectangular in shape with oval or quadrilateral cross sections, Adzes of nephrite from Fengtian in eastern Taiwan were fashioned by “sawing” or abrading nephrite blocks, given that nephrite resists flaking. They were quadrilateral, marked with regular angles and flat surfaces. Adzes could be unifacially or bifacially beveled. Shouldered stone implements originated in the Pearl River Delta during the Neolithic, gradually spreading to surrounding areas including Taiwan in the Early Neolithic period (Kuo 2019a, 91, 92).

Figure 4.1.  Reconstructed Neolithic pottery assemblages. (a) Dabenkeng site (Liu Yi-chang 2011a, 143). (b) Xuntangpu culture (Liu 2011a, 155). (c) East Coast Cord Marked (Liu Yi-chang 2011a, 177). (d) Niuchouzi culture, Fengbitou site (Chang Kwang-chih 1969, 89; Liu Yi-chang 2011a, 172). (e) Zhishanyan culture (Liu Yi-chang 2011a, 186). (f) Beinan culture (Liu Yi-chang 2011a, 216). (g) Huagangshan culture (Liu Yi-chang drawing). Courtesy of Professor Liu Yi-chang.

Early Neolithic, 6500 to 4500 BP   39

Geomorphology and Early Neolithic Sites The development of the Neolithic of Taiwan and coastal southern China is tightly associated with receding sea level, emerging coastal plains, and coastal alluviation. K. C. Chang (1969, 191–220) proposes that early Neolithic populations lived on terraces near estuarine environments and Lin Chao-chi (1963) traces the history of Holocene coastal transgressions. In the 1970s, Meacham and others found that the typical location of Neolithic site occupation in the Hong Kong area was a storm beach sand bar enclosing a back marsh, and its surrounding slopes (Meacham 1978; see also chapter 9). This location optimized access to the resources sought by hunter-gatherers and incipient cultivators. However, the estuary of the Min River in Fujian Province shows a different trajectory, of limited alluviation and late development of the flood plain (Rolett 2012). The geomorphological histories of various regions of Taiwan are becoming clearer. In the Taipei area, some Early Neolithic sites are located on newly formed beaches facing shallows. The Taichung Basin had a similar history. In the Tainan area, all areas below a 35-m elevation were covered by the sea until 6000 BP (Liu Yi-chang 2011a, 81). A series of coastal lagoons were ringed by sand bars. Neolithic sites were situated on beaches and low terraces behind these lagoons and along streams flowing into them. Around 6000 BP, an incursion of the sea began and continued from 5000 to 3000 BP. A part of the Tainan Science Park, the site of an enormous archaeological project, was an ancient lagoon and marsh. At the time of their occupation, from 5000 to 4200 BP, Nanguanli and Nanguanlidong on the northeast side of the park appear to have been situated in sand dunes at the edge of the sea. Up to 4000 BP, temporary incursions of the sea occurred and, from 3000 to 1300 BP, alluviation from river flooding (Tsang 2013; Tsang, Li, and Cohen 2015, 77, 88). The Science Park is now several kilometers inland. On the east coast, many low-lying coastal areas were submerged as late as 3500 BP. The east coast is subject to extreme coastal uplift (chapter 2). Although Early Neolithic Dabenkeng sites seem to be near on small terraces near river mouths, Middle Neolithic sites in the Fushan area that are now on low hills of 40 to 50 m in elevation were on freshly exposed sea shores apparently less than 5 m above sea level at the time of their occupation, radiocarbon dated to roughly 4800 to 4440 BP (Carson and Hung 2018, 797). Carson and Hung propose that erosion, typhoons, and the development of steep slopes through tectonic uplift created an unstable environment for cultivation, which encouraged people to look for new land in the northern Philippines (799).

40  Chapter 4

The Dabenkeng Culture K. C. Chang (1969) proposes a single Early Neolithic culture named after Dabenkeng (Tapenkeng) the type site in northern Taiwan. As new information accumulated, Liu Yi-chang (2011a) designated phases and types of the Taiwan Neolithic. He asserts that the first Neolithic migrants reached Taiwan around 6000 to 6500 BP, were from the Fuguodun culture, and actually preceded the Dabenkeng culture (Liu Yi-chang et al. 2019a, 71, 223). He proposes a separate Initial Neolithic period. In fact, the date of the beginning of the Dabenkeng culture and the nature of the very earliest sites require further research. A shell sample from the Bajiacun site in Taiwan provides a determination of 5645±60 recalibrated to 6475±170 BP (Yeh 2015, 56). Thus the earliest dates for Dabenkeng could be between 6000 to 7000 BP (4050 to 5050 BC). This dating is part of the basis for Liu Yi-chang’s proposed Initial Neolithic. These people came at the height of the Holocene Marine Transgression around 6000 BP. Kuo (2019a, 70) describes four variants of Early Neolithic culture: Early Xuntangpu in the north, Early Niumatou in the west-central area, Guoye in the southwest, and Fushan in eastern Taiwan. The eastern variant is found in the Yuemei and Changguang sites. The Yuemei III site is found on the eastern slopes of the Coastal Mountain Range, across the Hualien River from sites such as Changguang, Laoshan, and Fengbingcun that are close to nephrite sources. Yuemei III appears to have had access to nephrite and may be the source site of early Dabenkeng nephrite found in sites on the west side of Taiwan. At the time of the first Neolithic migrations to Taiwan, the topography of the coast of southeastern China was different from that of today. Facing the sea were hills flanked by narrow beaches. River estuaries lacked alluvial deltas, as noted in chapters 3 and 9. As sea level retreated and alluvial deposits formed, sediments accumulated in the estuaries but these remained at or beneath sea level until around 3000 BP. On the eastern coast of Taiwan, the landscape at 5000 BP consisted of hilly terrain directly flanked by aquatic habitats and differed significantly from the gently shelving west coast attached to the shallow Asian continental shelf. The eastern coastal plains of today did not emerge until around 5500 BP (Carson 2017, 241–242). In the Taiwan sequence, the Dabenkeng culture is placed is placed in the Early Neolithic, which is roughly contemporary with the Middle Neolithic of Fujian. The Early Dabenkeng extends from 6500 to 4800 BP (4400/3500 BC to 2800 BC), and the Late Dabenkeng from 4800 BP to 4200 BP (2800 to 2200 BC). In the Dalongtong site, northern Taiwan, posthole clusters indicate that the raised houses were rectangular and grouped together. Each building was surrounded by ditches that may have been spatial boundaries or simply drains (Kuo

Early Neolithic, 6500 to 4500 BP   41

2019a, 56). Early Neolithic villages on the western side of Taiwan were large and were occupied for long periods. Remains of rice found in the Dalongtong site dated to between 4800 and 4100 BP (Kuo 2015a, 235). Ridged stone bark cloth beaters are found in the Early and Middle Neolithic; at the Dalongtong site, they were dated from 5000 to 4500 BP. A type with a single beating surface is said to be unique to Taiwan (Kuo 2019b, 77). These artifacts are thought by some specialists to indicate the production of bark cloth (tapa cloth) by felting, rather than weaving, which involves the production of thread and the use of spindle whorls (Liu Yi-chang 2011a, 164). These artifacts, sometimes called ridged stone rods or batons (Lien 2013), are also found in coastal sites in southeast China and Vietnam (Tang Chung 2002). A form with multiple beating surfaces was found in the Xiantouling site in the Pearl River Delta and dates to 6800 BP. This composite type flourished in part of South China from 6800 to 3500 BP (Tang Chung 1999; M. Tang et al. 2019, 272). Some 60 Dabenkeng sites were known up to 2015. They temporally span more than 2000 years. It is thought that they spread over the lowland areas of Taiwan and Penghu quite rapidly. Yeh Mei-chen (2015) studied decorative motifs found on 200 sherds showing impression and incision from six sites in western Taiwan and three in eastern Taiwan. Although the samples are small and are distributed over a long period, the project seems heuristic. In the eight sites on the western part of the island, Yeh found six groups of decorative motifs executed by incised lines over cord impression. These were ladder, straight line, curved line, S line, and small wavy intersecting lines. Two of the sites, one in the north and one in the south, had all six decorative motifs. The Dabenkeng site lacked only one, the S motif. One site on the east coast, Gangkou, also produced all six (Yeh 2010, 2014). In general, the six motifs were distributed all over T ­ aiwan. The thicknesses and angles of the rim show some differences. The cohesive Dabenkeng pottery tradition must have been consolidated through frequent social interaction and exchange. These patterns of decoration seem quite similar to those from the Daowei sites of Liangdao Island, described in chapter 9. It is also remarkable that olivine basalt and east coast nephrite circulated over wide areas, once again indicating a wide social network in the early Neolithic. Kuo (2015a, 230) compares pottery vessel forms from the earliest Xuntangpu sites and the lower layers of the Tanshishan, Fujian. The globular jar form with a short flaring collar was common to both. She also compares Xuntangpu pottery with pottery from the upper layer of Zhuangbianshan and Huangguashan in Fujian. They shared the following traits: vertical painted lines on the exterior of the collar, elevated dishes with broad flat rims, decoration of a horizontal notched ridge, lattice impressed decoration, and some common shapes of handles and lugs.

42  Chapter 4

Dabenkeng Site (Northern Taiwan) The Dabenkeng site is typical of the Dabenkeng culture, dates to the Late ­Dabenkeng period, and is located on old marine terraces on the slopes of ­Guanyin, an extinct volcano, some 40 to 50 m above the intertidal estuary of the Tamsui River, which drains the Taipei Basin. With the construction of the Shisanhang Sewage Treatment Plant and the Taipei Deep Water Port, the area is now industrialized. On the foreshore in front of the site is the Metal period Shisanhang site (see chapter 7). In the excavations from 1962 to 1964, materials from the entire span of local prehistory were found: corded ware, Yuanshan, Zhiwuyuan (Botanical Garden), Ketagalan, and Han Chinese.

Guoye A Site (Penghu Islands) Located on Penghu Island at an elevation of 10 to 15 m, backed by high sand dunes, and facing tidal flats and fringing reefs, this site is the first Neolithic settlement of Penghu. An area of 104 m2 was excavated. Surface collected sherds all displayed cord marking. The site is a partially destroyed shell midden. Layer no. 1, the surface layer, 10 to 20 cm thick, consisted of shell midden with artifacts. Layer no. 2, the main cultural deposit, was a dense shell midden deposit of up to 50 cm thick. Layer no. 3 yielded similar artifacts to main ­cultural layer but the discontinuous shell deposits suggested short term or intermittent occupation. One feature, a circular concentration of rubble, could be a hearth. The pottery, in bowl and jar form, was primarily coarse cord marked (81.4%), but included a small amount of fine cord-marked, painted, painted and incised, and plain pieces. The cord marking was applied by pressing a cord-wrapped stick or paddle into the relatively wet clay. Stone tools, from most to least common, consisted of pitted pebbles, pounding stones, net sinkers, polished hoe axe, flake knives, anvils, and chopping tools. Single examples of chipped hoe axe, arrowhead, awl, polished adze, and millstone were found. A few bone, antler, and coral tools were as well. The major shellfish species recovered from midden samples were Tridacnidae, Turbinidae, and Neritidae, occupying intertidal rocks and Cerithiidae, living in the shallow water adjacent to the site (Tsang 1992, 94). Remains of deer, sea mammal, sea turtle, catfish, wrasse, and parrot fish were recovered. Radiocarbon dates ranged from 4600 to 4800 BP (98). The location of Penghu sites mentioned in the text is shown in figure 1.2.

Early Neolithic, 6500 to 4500 BP   43

Anhe Site (West-Central Taiwan) The Dabenkeng cultural layer of the Anhe site in Taichung, west-central Taiwan, contains 48 densely arranged skeletons; it is currently the earliest cemetery found in central Taiwan. Radiocarbon dates give a span of 5000 to 4000 BP, as early as the Nanguanli Sites mentioned later. The pottery from both sites has a thick body and coarse cord marking. This site shows the presence of nephrite working and rich burials in the Early Neolithic period. Some very large chipped hoes show a high level of technology in the Early Neolithic period. Carbonized rice from the Anhe site dated to 5000 BP was identified as cultivated rice, basically a smaller type than Nanguanlidong rice. The burials contained many grave goods, including nephrite ornaments (for the production and exchange of nephrite artifacts, see chapter 10). Burial M13 was an extended burial of a male about 173 cm in height with heavy lower body bones. His head was oriented to the south and his feet to the north. Burial treatment included surrounding stones (the only burial with this treatment) and grave goods consisting of nephrite chisels, notched weights made of pot sherds, notched oblong net weights made of pot sherds, with notches or perforations, more than 400 shark teeth, and one shark tooth shaped nephrite pendant. From the abundance of grave goods and special treatment, he is thought to have had relatively high status. Burial M46 was a young male 156 cm tall. At the neck was the only grave offering, a nephrite ornament shaped like a shark tooth that was completely ground and had two perforations. An ash pit feature, F13, may have been an offering or a deposit of ritual objects used for divination. It contained adze-shaped nephrite ornaments, twelve flat rectangularly cut nephrite adzes, more than 20 rounded pottery sherds, polished stone axes, and more than 300 shark teeth each less than 1 cm long (Kuo 2019a, 65). Shark teeth have been found in Nanguanlidong, Tainan, and the Chaolai­ qiao site of eastern Taiwan dated to around 4000 BP. In the Anhe, Niupu, and Huilai sites of the Taichung area, long stone alignments separated settlements or the dwellings from burial areas. Some stone walls may have been path boundaries. Burials in this region were oriented south and some lacked coffins. A few burials were prone and some show tooth ablation. The Niupu and Anhe sites show some evidence of slicing blocks of nephrite by abrasion and processing of nephrite tools on site (Kuo 2019a, a1).

Nanguanli and Nanguanlidong Sites, Tainan (Southwest Taiwan) By 4800 BP, alluvial sediments began to accumulate along the western coastline of Taiwan, likely due to increased slope erosion prompted by forest clearing. Living sites began to develop on these landforms; for instance, Nanguanli and

44  Chapter 4

Nanguanlidong are now buried under 7 m of alluvium and are more than 20 km inland, a distance increased in part by lowering of sea level after 3000 BP (­Carson 2017, 241). These two sites were occupied roughly from 4800 to 4200 BP (2850 to 2250 BC) The sites yielded shark bones and diverse marine shells, showing extensive ­exploitation of marine resources. Shell artifacts were also numerous. Stone tools includes adzes, axes, and plow-shaped tools of olivine basalt from the Penghu Islands, meta basalt from the east coast, andesite, and nephrite. No evidence indicates use of draft animals. No remains of tool manufacture were found at either Nanguanli or Nanguanlidong (Tsang, Li, and Cohen 2015, 106). ­Extended supine burials were either buried in a shallow grave in the midden or ashpit, or in a coffin in a grave pit. The burials contained shell knives and ornaments. The head usually faced to the south. Some disarticulated perforated human tooth pendants were found in adult male burials. Arrowheads embedded in skeletons and dissociated human heads in burials provide evidence of competition in the form of warfare and head hunting (128). Artifacts from the Nanguanlidong site are shown in figure 4.2. The dimensions of the Nanguanli site are about 200 m east to west by 150 m north to south. This site shows two distinct layers of occupation during the Dabenkeng period. The upper layer includes material similar to that of the Guoye Period of Penghu. Carbon-14 dates from this layer cluster around 4300 cal BP. A second, lower cultural layer was 20 cm thick. The two layers are separated by a 40- to 60-cm layer of silty sand. Radiocarbon dates for the lower layer cluster around 4700 BP (Tsang, Li, and Chu 2006, 84–85). The two sites were occupied for a long period, judging from the presence of permanent wells for the dry seasons and large numbers of artifacts. The pottery in the upper layer is of three types. The first has a red to brown sandy body with some shell and quartz temper. Shapes are both flat-bottom and round-bottom jars (guan) with a short everted lip. Surface treatment consists of cord marking and parallel lines made by dragging a shell. Most abundant is a flat-bottom jar with short upright vertical rim and sloping shoulder, cord marking below the neck. The red brown pottery has a variety of shaped bowls (bo), bottles (ping), lids (gai), and elevated basins (pen or dou) with high perforated ring feet. Some have a wave decoration incised over the cording on the neck. Globular jars with flat bottoms have been found but the most common form seems to be the rounded bottom. The second type is brown and silty. Shapes include basins, jars, and lids. They may have a perforated ring foot or elevated foot (dou). Decoration consists of some red painting and shell impression. The third type is grayish brown, globular, with cord marking above the shoulder. In some cases, cord marking is omitted.

Figure 4.2.  Early Neolithic artifacts from the Nanguanli (NGL) and Nanguanlidong (NGLD) sites. (1) Pottery elevated serving stand (reconstructed from two broken vessels) NGL, rim diameter 33 cm. (2) Jar (guan) NGLD, max diameter 22 cm. (3) Clay spindle whorl NGLD, height 5.2 cm. (4) Axe hoe, olivine basalt, NGL, length 14.7 cm. (5) Shouldered axe, olivine basalt NGL, length 13.2 cm. (6) Adze or chisel, olivine basalt, NGLD, length 7.6 cm. (7) Sandstone net sinker NGLD, length 8.6 cm. (8) Ridged bark cloth beater, meta-sandstone, NGL, length 13.2 cm. (9) Perforated human tooth NGL, length 2.5 cm. (10) Perforated shark tooth, NGL, length 3.6 cm. (11) Nephrite arrowhead, NGLD, length 7.6 cm. (12) Shell knife, NGLD, length 7.3 cm. (13) Shell earring ( jue) NGLD, diameter 5.1 cm. Images from Tsang, Li, and Cohen 2017, 014, 015, 019, 022, 025, 026, 029, 036, 039, 045, 049, 057, 060. Permission from the National Museum of Prehistoric Culture in Taiwan.

46  Chapter 4

In general, the pottery from these deep undisturbed deposits, with its decoration and smooth finish, gives a very different impression from the eroded pottery found on terrace sites such as Dabenkeng. Spindle whorls were also recovered (Tsang, Li, and Chu 2006, 85–97). The stone tool assemblage included axes and adzes of Penghu olivine basalt and east coast andesite. The adzes are well polished but show some flake scars. One polished rod pendant was fashioned from east coast nephrite. Thin polished perforated slate arrow or spear heads and knives with fine biconical perforation, net sinkers, and abraders were also recovered. Distinctive shell knives fashioned from scallop shells were also found, of two types, one with a rectangular haft and round blade, one with a shape more like an adze. Ornaments included shell discs, perforated human teeth used as pendants, and perforated vertebrae (Tsang, Li, and Chu 2006, 89; Tsang, Li, and Cohen 2015, 134). Burials Fourteen burials were discovered in Nanguanli, all in cultural layer no. 1, six subadults and eight adults (Tsang, Li, and Chu 2006, 94). The orientation of the head to the south was consistent, and there was clear evidence of tooth extraction of the incisors and canines. This custom continued up to the Niaosong culture of the Metal period, spanning some 4,000 years. Shell bracelets on both wrists were made from large shells of scallops that survive in silty alluvial marine conditions. A shell slit-ring earring was also found, as well as perforated shark tooth ornaments found near the neck of individual in burial F5B15. Four intact dog burials were found in cultural layer no. 2. Three were found in an ash pit. These are the oldest examples of keeping domesticated dogs in Taiwan (98). Pits for ashes and refuse were also noted. Belonging to the upper layer, they cut into the lower layers. Remains of a drainage ditch, 1 m deep and 1 m wide, were also recorded. From Nanguanlidong, 83 burials were recovered (Tsang, Li, and Chu 2006, 119). Some were buried in the shell midden or ash pits with no grave offerings; others were buried in shallow grave pits at a depth of 30 cm. These two types occur in the earliest layer, cultural layer no. 3. In cultural layer no. 1, examples of grave pits 70 cm deep were found that included the remains of wooden coffins. One burial had perforated shark tooth ornaments. The burials seem evenly spaced, as if they had been marked in a planned cemetery, none cutting into each other. Burial Dentition A study of the dentition of burials from Nanguanlidong and the Iron Age site of Shisanhang in northern Taiwan (discussed in chapter 7) suggests that the diet

Early Neolithic, 6500 to 4500 BP   47

was “broadly based on farming, fishing, and hunting and gathering of marine and terrestrial resources” (Pietrusewsky et al. 2014b, 2). The authors conclude that “the indications of oral infection in both the Nanguanlidong and Shisanhang sites are among the lowest reported, indicating good health for Taiwan’s prehistoric inhabitants, a finding that may also reflect a non-agricultural subsistence economy or diets low in starch and sugars, and/or the cariostatic nature of marine diets” (2). The research focused on ante-mortem tooth loss, dental caries, alveolar resorption and defects, dental calculus and attrition, and linear enamel hypoplasia. Some evidence of childhood stress in the form of linear enamel hypoplasia was indicated, which could be attributed to childhood diseases or stress from parasites or contaminated drinking water. Flotation Analysis From Nanguanlidong, flotation and scanning electron microscopy of abundant seed samples yielded evidence that two species of millet, broomcorn millet (Panicum miliaceum) and foxtail millet (Setaria italica), were cultivated. In addition, seeds of wild foxtail millet, Setaria glauca, were also found (Tsang et al. 2017; Deng et al. 2018). The relative abundance of seeds of the latter in flotation samples indicates that the plant was probably abundant near the site. Rice grains were also recovered. The two cultivated millets and the rice were thus more than likely domesticated and did not have a shattering rachis. The seed specimens of foxtail millet, broomcorn millet, and rice were identified from Nanguanlidong were not directly dated by AMS dating within the earlier site but instead by associated carbon samples within the layers. The earliest layers of Nanguanlidong, dated to 4800 to 4200 cal BP, did not yield phytolith traces of rice or millet. Deng et al. (2018, 8) state that rice and millets spread to Taiwan from Fujian as a package slightly later than the time of occupation of Nanguanlidong. Shell reaping knives are thought to have been used for harvesting. Tsang et al. (2017, 9) conclude that the people of Nanguanlidong practiced mixed farming of millet and rice in addition to hunting and collecting. No evidence at the site indicated ridged fields or clayed soil from the bottom of rice paddies; therefore, these crops are thought to have been grown in upland areas. Recent research has indicated that rice and the millets, both Setaria and Panicum, were cultivated together as crops in Southeast China (Fujian) and Taiwan by at least 4500 BP, and perhaps as early as 5000 BP (Hung Hsiao-chun 2019). The limited data on arable weed flora, either from seeds or phytoliths, make it difficult to infer whether this is the evidence of wet or flooded rice or rainfed rice agriculture systems. Still, the locations of sites in upland zones in Fujian could be interpreted as consistent with some

48  Chapter 4

rainfed rice systems (Qin and Fuller 2019, 184). In Taiwan, recently emerged rich coastal alluvium must have been used in non-intensive rain fed horticulture. Kuo (2020) reports on finds of millet and rice from recent large-scale excavations at the Botanical Gardens site in Taipei from deposits of the Early Neolithic, terming them the Xuntangpu Early culture and dating them to between 5000 and 4000 BP. From the abundant remains of crop cultivation discovered at the Botanical Garden Site, it is clear that people of Shuntanpu (Xuntangpu) Early Culture already knew how to cultivate rice and millet. Since reliance on crop cultivation as a livelihood would have involved complex farming techniques, as well as planned land-use, patterns of settlement, and irrigation, this would have led to the people’s increased dependency on the land, and thus paved the way for long-term habitation, large-scale settlements, and population growth. (Kuo 2020, 286) She does not, however, provide enough evidence to support these claims of intensive cultivation and emerging social complexity. Tooth Ablation The Nanguanlidong site burials provided excellent osteological samples for the study of tooth ablation (Pietrusewsky et al. 2017). The most common pattern in 22 of 23 cases was bilateral extraction of the maxillary lateral incisors and canine teeth. Judging from evidence of residual roots, teeth were knocked out rather than extracted. Again, widespread cultural and community identity can be inferred by the consistency of the pattern at Nanguanlidong. This pattern is more common in Southeast Asia than in East Asia but is quite rare even in Southeast Asia. The common pattern in Nanguanlidong is not observed in small samples from modern groups of the Paiwan and Yami. It makes up only 38% among Bunun, 6% among Atayal, and 38% among skeletons from China (6).

Gangkou Site (East Coast) Many sites on the east coast have yielded Dabenkeng pottery (Yeh 2014). The Gangkou site on the flood plain at Gangkou shows that Early Neolithic people occupied even remote areas. Two styles of Dabenkeng pottery were found at elevations of 29.3 m and 23 to 24 m above sea level (Yeh Mei-chen 2010), probably indicating two sequent occupations at a site subject to dramatic coastal

Early Neolithic, 6500 to 4500 BP   49

uplift. Materials from the Metal period, including more than 500 glass beads were also found at Gangkou (Yeh Mei-chen 2005).

Conclusion Early Neolithic Dabenkeng culture was the first Neolithic culture of Taiwan, dating from 6500 to 4200 BP. Although little evidence at present supports a single point of origin on the mainland, the culture is relatively homogeneous and widespread in Taiwan. In sites with good preservation in the Tainan Science Park, evidence is abundant of elaborately decorated slab-built pottery with distinctive combinations of stamping and incision on the rim that may indicate community subgroups. Stone tools were made by chipping, grinding, and polishing, and fine finished personal ornaments of bone and stone have been found in burials. Subsistence patterns include hunting and littoral and maritime fishing and shellfish collecting as well as cereal cultivation. Evidence of exchange of various kinds of lithic materials is ample throughout Taiwan and Penghu. Because Early Neolithic sites are located very close to old shorelines, it is assumed that the people were maritime boat users. They used sea scallop shells for knives, fish bones for beads, and even made earrings and ladles of shell at the Nanguanli site. From the Nanguanlidong shell assemblage, the original site environment may have been like that of Penghu or Hengchun, with less muddy alluvium than in later times (Li Kuang-ti 2016, 146–157). In general, it seems that prehistoric fishing was carried out with nets. Some deep sea fishing may have been undertaken in the Eluanbi area. Chen You-pei (2016a) explains that most in most areas oblong stone weights, notched at both ends for tying, were used. From their weight, he concludes that they were used for individual throw nets rather than larger communal nets. Few fish hooks have been found. Pottery net weights were used in the southwest Chianan and northeast Lanyang Plains. A particular type of tubular pottery net weight found in the Late Neolithic appears to have originated in the mainland (Chen You-pei 2016a, 22).

Chapter 5

Middle Neolithic, 4500 to 3500 BP

Many features of the Early Neolithic persist into the Middle Neolithic. For this reason, Kuo (2019a) proposes that the Middle Neolithic be considered a continuation of the Dabenkeng period and designates this period the Successive period of Dabenkeng. This nomenclature emphasizes cultural continuity between the Early and Middle Neolithic particularly in ceramics, given that coarse cord marking developed into fine cord marking in the Middle Neolithic. I retain the term Middle Neolithic, noting continuities from the previous period. In the Middle Neolithic period (4500 to 3500 BP), distinct regional cultures developed in the Penghu Islands, and north, central, southern and eastern Taiwan. Their distribution is shown in figure 5.1, based on the work of Liu Yi-chang. The term “type” is used to indicate a local subculture. In this book, I prefer the broader term, “culture.” I do not discuss the Hongmaogang culture type or the Yunchia Corded-Ware culture type. Although many Taiwan Rivers are short, distinctive cultures developed in different river valleys and estuaries. Regional diversity can be seen in styles of pottery, stone tools, ornaments, and burial patterns. At this point, it is not clear whether community and settlement patterns were also regionally distinctive. Liu notes that sites occur in a variety of sizes and in different settings: coastal plains, estuaries, river terraces, interior valleys, and foothills of the Central Mountain Range. He states that Middle Neolithic sites are larger, up to 100,000 m2 in area. He attributes this increase in site size to the increased dependence on cultivated plants including root crops and expansion of hunting and gathering activities (Liu Yi-chang 2011a, 151–152). However, various dietary studies show that despite the presence of seeds and phytoliths in several sites, subsistence strategies favored a mixture of cultivation, hunting and gathering, and the use of various aquatic resources, rather than 50

Middle Neolithic, 4500 to 3500 BP   51

Figure 5.1.  Map of cultures of the Middle Neolithic Period. From Liu (2011, 153). Redrawn from Liu Yi-chang (2011a, 153). Courtesy of Professor Liu Yi-chang.

cultivation alone. Bone collagen isotope data from 53 indviduals from 11 sites showed a high reliance on marine resources (Lee Cheng-yi et al. 2018). Many sites contain large amounts of remains of deer, pigs, fish, shellfish, and wild plant remains as well as hunting and fishing tools. A broad-spectrum subsistence strategy of hunting and gathering, fishing, shellfish collection, and crop

52  Chapter 5

cultivation persisted from the Neolithic into the Metal period. From Middle Neolithic sites, the bones of rusa and sika deer, muntjac, pig, dugong, and dog have been found (Chen Kuang-tzuu 2000a, 458). Dewar (1978) presents a list of plants used by Formosan tribes compiled by Chen Ch’i-lu (1968) from ethnographic sources. It includes taro, ginger, sugar cane, bottle gourd, Job’s Tears (Coix lacryma-jobi), and the greater yam. Chen lists fifty “main crops of the Formosan aborigines” (1968, 19) but it is clear that many of these, such as tobacco and sweet potato, arrived around the time of European contact or later. New styles of pottery mark the beginning of the period. The most prominent is decorated by a kind of cord marking termed fine cord marking, which is distinct from the coarse cord marking of the Early Neolithic Dabenkeng culture. Pottery bracelets of about 6 cm in diameter were also an innovation. K. C. Chang (1969, 249) proposes that the new pottery forms represented the arrival of what he terms the Lungshanoid culture, an extension of the Longshan of northern and central China. Li Kuang-chou (1983) proposes that the change in pottery was a local development from coarse to fine cord-marked pottery. Liu Yi-chang (2011a, 153) states that it was introduced from the southeast China coast. Tsang, Li, and Cohen propose that it was the result of regional interaction across the Taiwan Strait (2015, 170–173). Evidence of head-hunting from burials suggests that social boundaries were maintained by raiding, but competing groups communicated through exchange of olivine basalt from Qimei Island, Penghu, and nephrite from Fengtian, near Hua­ lien. Around 4200 to 4000 BP, the spread of red-slipped pottery from the east coast to the northern Philippines is well documented (Carson and Hung 2014, 509); the significance of this spread is discussed later in this chapter and in chapter 10. Liu Yi-chang (2015b, 92) concludes that nephrite working in Taiwan probably began in the late stage of the Early Neolithic Dabenkeng, sometime between 4800 and 4200 BP. It proliferated in the Middle Neolithic and flourished in the Late Neolithic. In the sections that follow, I describe Middle Neolithic finds from Penghu, Northern Taiwan, West Central Taiwan, the Puli Basin, Southwest, Southern Peninsula, and East Coast.

Suogang Site (Penghu Islands) The Suogang site belongs to the Suogang phase, is dated from 4700 to 4300 BP (2750 to 2350 BC), and is characterized by fine cord-marked pottery. The cord marking was partially smoothed over while the vessels were wet, after shaping. Painting in short strokes occurs. Tsang (1995, 191–196) finds that the fine cordmark assemblage of Penghu shares some characteristics with fine red cord-mark sites of Taiwan and Damaoshan in Fujian and is contemporary with and similar

Beinan nephrite ornaments, exact provenience within the site unknown. Zooanthropomorphic figure in frontal view surmounted by animal figure in side view Approximate height 6.5 cm.

Nephrite bell-shaped beads, 5.2 x 4.4 x 3.1 mm.

Nephrite figure with bulging eyes.

Flanged nephrite ring.

Hollow nephrite tubes. Permission from the National Museum of Prehistoric Culture in Taiwan.

Middle Neolithic, 4500 to 3500 BP   53

to the cord-marked pottery of the lower layer of Tanshishan in Fujian (see chapter 9). Tsang prefers the term “phase” over “culture” for the Penghu sequence to indicate localized subcultural variation. Liu Yi-chang uses the word “type” in a similar fashion. Taiwan sites have yielded adzes of olivine basalt adzes from ­Penghu. In the Suogang phase, permanent settlements had been established in Penghu, and trading took place across the Taiwan Strait. More details on this exchange are described later in this chapter and in chapter 10. Tsang describes two sites of the Suogang phase, Suogang and Nangang (1992, 101–147). The Suogang site is located on the leeward, southwest coast of Penghu Island, protected from winter winds, near the best inshore fishing grounds in the islands. It contains a dense shell layer, already partially destroyed at the time of discovery. The original dimensions of the site are 90 m by 45 m and the total area of excavation, 90 m2. Four burials were discovered in the midden. No. 1, a young male, may have had possible tooth ablation of the upper lateral incisors (Tsang 1992, 107). Some artifact fragments were in the grave fill but cannot be clearly identified as grave offerings. The pottery was found to be relatively homogeneous: 60% was decorated with fine cord impressions. Two reddish brown sherds chosen for thin-section analysis contained mainly quartz grains, and rock fragments of sandstone, neither of which is a major product of the basaltic bedrock of Penghu (Tsang 1992, 112), indicating exchange with southwestern Taiwan. Other temper types were crushed shell and sand derived from basalt, probably local, and coarse sand of unidentified origin. The pottery manufacture technique was hand building along with use of a cord-wrapped paddle and anvil. The cord marking is the print of a finer cord (about 1 mm thick) than that found in the earlier Guoye phase. Coarser cord marking was present but less common. Painting and basket impression were present but rare. Painted patterns consisted of short strokes, parallel lines, and hatched lines. Fired clay rings around 6 cm in diameter may have been ornaments worn by children. They were decorated with cloth impressions, incised straight lines, and feather-like lines. Of the stone artifacts, 86% were net sinkers, followed by polishing stones and pitted pebbles. Of particular note were 11 nephrite artifacts. There were five adzes as well as nephrite points, needles, and a pendant (Tsang 1992, 132). ­A lthough Tsang says little about these artifacts, it seems likely that the raw material was from eastern Taiwan, possibly the Fengtian region. That artifacts of Taiwan nephrite have been recovered on Penghu raises the question of whether their distribution might extend beyond Penghu into Fujian. At present no evidence attests to this. Nonlocal slate, presumably from southwest Taiwan, was used for a single arrowhead, while the rest of the artifacts were of olivine basalt. Chipped hoe axes have cutting edges at both ends and are about 80 mm long and

54  Chapter 5

27 mm thick. They were probably general tools for digging and chopping. Four bone one-piece jabbing fishing hooks were recovered (Tsang 1992, 134, 139). Pick-up faunal samples included deer, catfish, parrot fish, and dugong. Deer later became extinct in Penghu. Shell samples from screening were weighed and counted (Tsang 1992, 141). The most numerous samples are small gastropods. Most common are Lunella coronata (Turbinidae), about 4 cm in length; they made up almost 50% of the shell sample by weight in most units, along with Chlorostoma xanthostigma of the Trochidae, which average about 3.5 cm in length. Although their shells appear bulky in the midden, the caloric contribution to the overall diet from the very small amounts of meat in the shellfish must have been limited. They were probably used in soups or as condiments. Multiple scholars have reached similar conclusions regarding the contribution of small shellfish to the general diet (Keegan and de Niro 1988; Keegan, Portell, and Slapcinsky 2003; Pearson 2013, 108). A single bone sample subject to carbon nitrogen isotope analysis shows major input of marine food. It indicated that 50 to 60% of the diet consisted of C4 plants, that is, tropical grasses and sedges (Tsang 1992, 145). These must be seaweed. Carbon dates for the site cluster around 4600 BP. Although this dating is a little early, the predominance of fine cord marking indicates that it belongs to the Middle Neolithic. Similarly, dates for the sites of the Xuntangpu culture are occasionally as old as 4800 BP (Kuo 2015a, 194).

Nangang Site (Penghu Islands) A second site of the Suogang phase, the Nangang site on Qimei Island, 14C dated to around 4330 BP, is a large site of 15,000 m2, facing a rocky shore and also adjacent to a large fishing ground. A test excavation totaling 9.5 m2 yielded the same general pottery assemblage of bowls and jars, predominantly fine cord-marked, as the Suogang site; however, the fired clay rings from this site were plain and undecorated (Tsang 1992, 153). Stone artifacts found at the site include notched net sinkers and chipped stone hoe axes. The site was both a habitation site as well as a lithic workshop and is one of three sites yielding evidence of stone tool processing of Qimei olivine basalt. A shell sample from Unit L5 of the shell midden, yielded a date of 4100±105 BP, GX 11275, calibrated to 4680±151 BP (Tsang 1992, 167).

Qimei Stone Tool Production Sites (Penghu Islands) Qimei Island is a volcanic outcrop with many steep coastal cliffs, approximately 3 km2 in area, with a maximum elevation of about 50 m. On the small island, the Nangang, Donghu, and Xibeiwan sites were workshop sites for making ­olivine basalt tools (figures 5.2, 5.3).

Figure 5.2.  General view of the Nangang site on Qimei Island, Penghu, showing basalt dyke stone, the source of olivine basalt, and dense accumulations of debitage. Photo by Barry Rolett. From Rolett (2019, 197). Courtesy of Dr. B. Rolett.

Figure 5.3.  Dense accumulation of debitage from the Nangang Quarry site, Qimei Island, Penghu. A flat rectangular preform can be seen at adjacent to the number 1 on the scale. From Rolett (2019, 198). Courtesy of Dr. B. Rolett.

56  Chapter 5

Tsang and Hung (2001) propose a tool production sequence that began with roughing out a large core, continued through shaping with stone hammers, and concluded with polishing, which may have been completed after the adzes were distributed. They propose that Nangang is the major site on the island, and that it may have had a population of 200 to 300 persons. Perhaps it was seasonally occupied.

Chiqiantou (Chikantou) Site (Penghu Islands) Tsang (1992, 177) describes Chiqiantou, another Middle Neolithic site with distinctive reddish brown and grayish black pottery that is different from the pottery just described. The excavation consisted of two test pits, each 2 m2. The site, a small fishing camp dating to around 4000 BP, is located on the southern coast of Baisha Island, near shallow water and tidal flats. It appears to be part of the Middle Neolithic occupation of Penghu. Tsang concludes that the two rather large sites of Suogang and Nangang were single-component sites dating to around 4600 BP. The sites, he says, were closely related and the Suogang phase developed locally from the Guoye phase. It is difficult to determine the duration of occupation or whether they were occupied year round. From the presence of exotic pottery temper and Taiwan nephrite artifacts, as well as stylistic similarities of pottery and stone tools with those found in sites of the fine red cord-mark pottery period of western Taiwan, interaction with Taiwan is clear. The finding of Penghu olivine basalt in sites such as Damaoshan in Fujian confirms interaction with that area as well. The debris of lithic manufacture at Nangang indicates that it could be a production center for a wide area. Were there resident specialists at Nangang? Were they connected to exchange systems extending from Taiwan to the mainland? Tsang concludes that “all of the prehistoric cultural assemblages on the islands of Penghu show their strongest affinities with the prehistoric cultures of southwestern Taiwan” (1992, 248, 259) which is the nearest area to Penghu. The inhabitants first exploited the rich reef resources seasonally, and subsequently shifted to a yearround settlement pattern. Tsang also concludes that “between around 4000 BP and the arrival of the Chinese in the ninth and tenth centuries AD, very few or even no humans inhabited the Penghu Islands” (1992, 262). What were the reasons for this long period of isolation? Were terrestrial resources such as deer exhausted in the Middle Neolithic? More information on the original vegetation of the islands and environmental change could provide interesting insights.

Middle Neolithic, 4500 to 3500 BP   57

Xuntangpu Site (Northern Taiwan) In the 1970s, the archaeological sequence for northwestern Taiwan was thought to begin with the Dabenkeng culture, followed by the Yuanshan, Zhiwuyuan (Botanical Garden), and Shisanhang. However, excavations in the 1990s led to a revision, in which a new culture, Xuntangpu, was found to be transitional from the Dabenkeng to the Yuanshan culture (Liu Yi-chang 2011a). Later, Kuo (2019a) concludes that the Xuntangpu culture was widespread in northern and central Taiwan and that Dabenkeng was part of Xuntangpu. Kuo adopted Xuntangpu culture as the designation for the Early and Middle Neolithic of Taiwan. Previously, the view was that Yuanshan might be intrusive, derived from the Guangdong coast. In the excavations of the Yuanshan site, an early layer containing cord-marked pottery and fine sandy pottery was noted (Chang Kwang-chih 1969). In the 1990s, Liu Yi-chang proposed that this assemblage was part of a separate culture ancestral to Yuanshan, termed Xuntangpu after the Xuntangpu site. Liu (2011a) later notes that the old name for the southern shore of the Tamsui estuary is Xuntangpu. Kuo (2015a) agrees that local development occurred from the Xuntangpu to Yuanshan, although she acknowledges some substantial outside contacts. The dates for Xuntangpu are from 4800 to 4000 BP, some as late as 3500 BP (Kuo 2015a, 194). New evidence for the Xuntangpu culture came from many test excavations as well as large-scale excavations at Xuntangpu itself, located in Xinbei (New Taipei) City, Dalongtong near Yuanshan, and Tachuwei (in Ilan). Xuntangpu sites have been found near the ancient shoreline in the Bali area close to the slopes of Guanyin Shan. These sites show distinct patterning of activities that was difficult to observe in earlier small excavations: posthole concentrations, ash pits, remains of shallow wells, areas for cooking and food processing, and places for the production and maintenance of stone tools (Kuo 2015a, 203). The postholes supported elevated structures. Ditches with V and U cross sections for drainage or defense have been found. Well-defined cemeteries indicate sedentary settlement. Chipped and notched net weights, polished semilunar perforated stone knives, polished stone spear heads and stone needles, pottery, and stone spindle whorls were also found. Ornaments include pottery and stone bracelets. Liu Yi-chang (2011a) states that nephrite tools with rectilinear cross sections, showing cutting and sawing technology, have been found. A nephrite tubular stone core measuring more than 8 cm long demonstrates that the progress achieved in rotary-cut techniques of bracelet production at Xuntangpu (Kuo 2019a, 105). The lithic assemblages show an increased variety of types in comparison with the Dabenkeng culture. They include adzes, chisels, knives, pointed tools, spear

58  Chapter 5

points, hammers, and large adzes for agricultural activity. Cultivating tools include hoes and adzes. It appears that the communities were agricultural with access to saltwater and freshwater area zones. The presence of boats is inferred from the riverine and coastal location of sites. Artifacts of nephrite from Fengtian are found in Xuntangpu sites. Kuo proposes that the techniques of nephrite production were adopted from the Latest Liangzhu culture of Zhejiang, and from the Xuntangpu culture they spread to several late Neolithic cultures in Taiwan. (The Liangzhu culture was centered in the lower reaches of the Yangzi River around Hangzhou in ­Zhejiang Province, which is situated north of Fujian Province, and is dated from 5600 to 4250 BP). These techniques include vertical sawing, boring, and the production of circular objects by grinding (Kuo 2015a, 236–239). Nephrite production and exchange are discussed in chapter 10. Some black pottery wares, including round bottom jars, multispouted cups, and plates, found in Xidadun (see following section) may also indicate contact with the mainland (Kuo 2015a, 238; 2019a, 107). Xuntangpu pottery is brownish or brownish red in color and belongs to the general category of fine red cord-marked pottery of the Middle Neolithic. In addition to cord marking, decoration consists of punctates, checker patterns, carving, and circle motifs. Some iron rich clay material from the Dadun volcanic mountains becomes reddish on firing. Many vessels are cauldrons with a round bottom or circular ring foot. Elevated dishes (dou) and cups (bei) also occur. Some of the vessels are red slipped, and some have incisions over erased cord marking, a Dabenkeng trait. Some vessels are painted with red geometric designs and other vessels are polished (Liu Yi-chang 2011c; Liou 2014). The pottery-making techniques of Dabenkeng, slab building followed by thinning and shaping with a paddle and anvil, were used in Xuntangpu. Kuo points out that although wheel production of pottery began in Fujian around 3000 BP, it was never adopted in Taiwan (2015a, 207). Frank Muyard has communicated the results of ethnographic field work in Indonesia showing that hand smoothing of a long rope of clay used to make an attached rim can produce striations that resemble wheel marks (personal communication, November 2020). This possibility should be checked for Taiwan examples. The slab and anvil method of making pottery vessels found in Xuntangpu is similar to that used in the Min River and northeast Fujian, according to Kuo (2015a, 239). This technique was transmitted to northern Taiwan from Fujian and spread to the Niumatou and Niuchouzi cultures. Motifs of painted pottery decoration, such as the V motif found in the later stages of the Xuntangpu culture, 4100 to 3500 BP, can be seen in the upper layer of Zhuangbianshan (for a description of Fujian sites, see chapter 9). From the Dalongtong site, the jars

Middle Neolithic, 4500 to 3500 BP   59

(guan) are globular with short flaring rims. The elevated vessels (dou) also have a flat flaring rim. Bottles (ping) with long necks, clay vessel supports and cone shape spindle whorls are also found. Stone “rods” (pang) are described but no function is proposed.

Niumatou and Xidadun Sites (West Central Taiwan) Located on a hill overlooking the town of Qingshui, on the coastal edge of the Taichung Basin, the Niumatou site of the Niumatou culture provides a preliminary picture of the Early and Middle Neolithic. The largest known archaeological site on the west coast of Taiwan (Chang Kwang-chih 1977, 128–139), it was first investigated by Kokubu Naoichi and later by Liu Pinhsiung, who proposes two cultures in the area, the red cord-marked pottery culture of Niumatou and the black pottery culture of Yingpu. Many Niumatou culture sites are located on terraces around the Taichung Basin, such as the Dadu and Bagua. Decoration on the lips of Niumatou pottery vessels resembles the cord marking and incision found on Dabenkeng pottery (Liu Yi-chang 2011a, 164). Vessel forms include jars, bowls, bottles, and elevated cups. Ring feet (quanjiao) were also found. The pottery has cord marking on the shoulder and body of the vessel. Some of the pottery is rather elaborate and distinctive from that of the preceding Dabenkeng culture. Vessels with attached multiple cups and high pedestals have been found. These can be seen in the archaeological displays of the National Museum of Natural History. They appear to indicate contact with the Mainland because these shapes have no local antecedents. At the time of its occupation the site was close to the ocean and marine resources. At the base of the deposits sherds of coarse cord-marked pottery of the Dabenkeng culture were recovered. Most of the deposit belongs to the Middle Neolithic Niumatou culture, characterized by fine red cord-marked pottery. Abundant ground slate knives and chipped hoes indicate the importance of cultivation for the inhabitants (Chang Kwang-chih 1977, 128–139). The Xidadun site yielded nephrite tools such as arrowheads and axes along with comb shaped nephrite pieces, two large flat nephrite tablets or scepters, and semilunar knives. These are displayed in the Natural Museum of Natural Science in Taichung (figure 5.4). Kuo (2015a, 236) links these specialized nephrite artifacts to influence from the Late Liangzhu cultures of Zhejiang in sites such as the Haoquan Cemetery, Zhejiang. Liangzhu wood and ivory examples are extant (Chu 2012).

60  Chapter 5

Figure 5.4.  Nephrite objects from the Xidadun site, Middle Neolithic period. Upper. Nephrite comb-like artifacts and notched pendants. Lower, nephrite. The comb-like artifacts are 2 to 3 cm long and the illustrated perforated nephrite tablet is 30 cm long. Photo by R. Pearson. Courtesy of the Taiwan National Museum of Natural Science.

Mountain Basins of Central Taiwan The Puli Basins, interior mountain basins in central Taiwan, are important in Taiwan archaeology for several reasons. Their montane location to the east of the Taichung region is a suitable place to study human adaptations to highland environments. People adapted to the region in the Middle Neolithic. These land-locked basins were part of a communication corridor from east to west (Liu Yi-chang, n.d.). So far, remains of the Early Neolithic Dabenkeng culture have not been found in Puli, indicating that the first Neolithic inhabitants of Taiwan were adapted to coastal and riverine environments and did not live in the interior mountains. Except for this absence, the cultural sequence generally resembles that of the rest of central Taiwan with differences in the styles of artifacts, particularly pottery. The Damalin site in Puli provides the basis for the

Middle Neolithic, 4500 to 3500 BP   61

cultural sequence. At the beginning of the Middle Neolithic, around 4000 BP, red cord-marked pottery of the Niumatou culture appears in the lower layers of the Damalin site. This pottery represents the earliest inhabitants of Puli, who moved into the basin from the Taichung Basin to the west. They were cultivators who lived on the terraces. Their remains have been designated the Damalin culture of the Middle and Late Neolithic. They are contemporary with the Niumatou, Yingpu, and Fanziyuan cultures of the western lowlands. Palynological analysis of a core sample collected from Sun Moon Lake and analyzed by Tsukada Matsuo showed evidence of a proliferation around 4200 BP of Liquidambar formosana, a tree that colonizes open areas after forest clearing (Chang Kwang-chih 1969, 192). Liu Yi-chang (2005, 16) proposes that this may indicate the arrival of the first inhabitants of the Puli Basin and the beginning of swidden activities. After the Early Neolithic Dabenkeng colonization of Taiwan, the subsequent Middle Neolithic red cord-marked Niumatou culture moved into the upland areas. Human adaptation to Taiwan’s mountains is old, as Triestman proposes (1972), and not the result of the expansion of Han ­Chinese and Japanese settlement. An abundance of Taiwan nephrite artifacts, including adzes, slit-ring earrings, bracelets, knives, semi processed artifacts as well as debitage in Damalin culture sites, show that local people processed nephrite and exchanged it with peoples of the west coast in the Middle and Late Neolithic. Puli was an intermediate point for nephrite exchange between the east and west coasts as well as a point of cultural exchange. The route through the mountains from the east coast must have been challenging. To the south, in the Alishan area, Tsang found evidence of fine red cordmarked pottery followed by plain red pottery. At the Yingiana site, the fine red cord-marked pottery was dated to around 3700 BP; plain reddish pottery was dated from 900 to 2000 BP (Hung Ling-yu and Ho 2006, 22, 23). These dates appear to mark the expansion of people into the highlands. The first groups to move into the highlands may have lived there seasonally or traveled on to the east coast (23). Some sites in the Alishan area have deep deposits, indicating substantial settlement. The cultures of this area were not assigned to existing cultural phases by Hung Ling-yu and Ho (2006) but show similarities with the Niuchouzi and Yingpu cultures of the adjoining region. In the river valleys immediately below Yushan (elevation 3,900 m) in the vicinity of Dongpu, at elevations well over 2,000 m, many sites have deep cultural layers dating from 2400 to 1000 BP. They have yielded chipped stone adzes, chisels, arrowheads, spear heads, flakes, grinding stones, and fragments of slate box-like (cist) coffins (Ho and Liu 2006).

62  Chapter 5

Youxianfang Site (Southwest Taiwan) The Youxianfang site is assigned to the Niuchouzi culture, named for the Niuchouzi site located in Tainan. The Niuchouzi culture is known for its abundance and diversity of stone tools. The wide variety attests to wideranging exchange networks; olivine basalt from Penghu for axes and hoes, nephrite from east Taiwan for adzes chisels and ornaments, and metabasalt, tufaceous sandstone andesite, and shale from east Taiwan for other tools such as reaping knives, as in other Middle Neolithic cultures. Net sinkers were waisted pebbles for heavier communal nets and polished slate rod-like cylinders for individual throw nets. The lower layer of the Youxianfang site in the Science Park is representative of the Niuchouzi culture: it yielded an abundance of stone tools, including chipped hoes (including one particularly large specimen), finely ground lunar and rectangular reaping knives, and polished rectangular net weights. Abrading stones and nephrite bracelets were also found (Tsang, Li, and Cohen 2015, 141–173). Several types of artifacts are shown in figure 5.5. Debitage found at the site is evidence that stone tools were finished there. Nephrite working is addressed in chapter 10. The pottery displays a variety of pastes and forms. The surface treatment includes smoothed-over cord marking. Some vessels were coated with black paint, which has peeled off. Large jars were used for children’s burial. Legs of pottery tripods have been recovered. Fine huan (bracelets) with incised decoration and perforated discs were used as ornaments. Carbonized grains of rice and millet show uniformity of size and morphology, suggesting that different strains may have been selected (Tsang, Li, and Cohen 2015, 154). Remains of unidentified legumes were also recovered. Although detailed evidence of residential structures has not been recovered, the arrangement of clusters of burials in straight lines may indicate that burials were associated with elevated houses. Adults were buried in shallow grave pits in extended supine position. No evidence indicated the use of coffins. Two individuals had nephrite huan armlets at their elbows. Children were buried in distinctive jars that were widest at the shoulder. The bottom of the jar was cut away and the child burial was inserted through the bottom. The mouth of the jar was covered with a large pottery sherd, a second urn, or a basin. The jar was placed on its side with the mouth facing south. Some 50 burials were recovered, and four of them were jar burials of this type.

Middle Neolithic, 4500 to 3500 BP   63

Figure 5.5.  Middle Neolithic period artifacts from the Youxianfang site. (1) Pottery elevated vessel (dou) rim diameter 25.4 cm. (2) Hollow pottery vessel leg, height 15.9 cm. (3) Axe hoe, length 13.4 cm. (4) Fired pottery paddle for finishing pottery height 9.9 cm. (5) Pottery spindle whorl diameter 3.3 cm. (6) Adze or chisel. Metabasalt. (7) Polished knife. Olivine basalt. Length 9.9 cm. (8) Polished knife. Sandstone. Length 9.5 cm. (9) Whetstone. Sandstone. Length 5.7 cm. (10) Nephrite ring showing evidence of rotational cutting from two sides. (11) Bone fishhook point. Length 5.6 cm. From Tsang, Li, and Cohen 2017, 63, 69, 74, 68, 67, 76, 78, 79, 84, 88, 92. Permission from the National Museum of Prehistoric Culture in Taiwan.

Eluanbi and Kanding Sites (Southern Peninsula) Much of our knowledge of extreme southern Taiwan is based on research at Kanding (Kenting) and Eluanbi (Oluanpi). The Kanding site is located on a terrace overlooking a bay near the Shiniu Stream; the Eluanbi site lies 9 km to the southeast, near the lighthouse at the extreme southern tip of Taiwan. Kanding was first discovered by the Japanese archaeologist Miyamoto Nobuto

64  Chapter 5

in 1930. An excavation in the same year yielded 33 burials, 28 in cists (stone coffins) containing human bones and ceramic remains offerings (Li Kuangchou 1982, 13). Subsequent research was undertaken by Li Kuang-chou, who directed a survey of Kanding National Park in which 60 sites were found within park boundaries. The sites can be classified into 10 cultural phases, covering about 5,000 years, from the Paleolithic Eluanbi phase I to the historic Han Chinese phase that dates to as early as AD 1660. Eluanbi phase I, which dates to around 4800 BP, appears to belong to the Preceramic culture and is characterized by a lithic industry consisting solely of chipped tools in the pebble and flake tool tradition (see chapter 3). Given its extremely late date, it is possibly a specialized activity site left by people who used pottery at their main living sites. Eluanbi phase II (4500 to 3500 BP), also called the Kanding phase and regarded as the red cord-marked ware cultural tradition similar to the Middle Neolithic Niumatou phase of the central western coast. In Eluanbi, in addition to Middle Neolithic fine red cord-marked pottery, Late Neolithic fine red-painted pottery similar to that found in Fengbitou was also found (see chapter 7). Li Kuang-ti (2000, 2002) focuses on prehistoric fishing strategies at Eluanbi from an initial coastal settlement dating from 4000 to 2500 BP. Presumably all of the sites in the area were closer to the shoreline at the time of their occupation since the substantial tectonic uplift occurred during the Holocene (see chapter 2). According to Li, fish were the most abundant food resource in the area. Inshore fish were common but mullet and deep water species sail fish, shark, and dolphinfish were also found. A specialized fishing strategy showed indications of intensification. Li focused on the fish bone assemblage and fishing gear: net sinkers, fishing weights, and fish hooks. Specimens from Lutjanidae, Lethrinidae, Labridae, and Scaridae were numerous (Li Kuang-ti 2002, 53; Li Kuang-ti and James 2013). These coral reef fish assemblages are very similar to those found in sites in the Ryukyu islands (Pearson 2013, 109–118). Sharks were also important. Mullet are known to be part of the traditional winter fishery in historic times. Different kinds of net sinkers were associated with different fishing implements used for angling and netting. The lack of fish hook remains in Taiwan may be caused, Li suggests, in part by lack of screening in Taiwan excavations (Li Kuang-ti 2002, 57). Fish hooks, however, were recovered from the Suogang site, Penghu, mentioned earlier. Li Kuang-ti and James (2013) studied shellfish remains from the Eluanbi II site, dating from 4000 to 2500 BP. They find four subperiods, which match with four stages of shellfish use. They also find that Turbo was the most abundant in all four periods and stages of use. These reef dwelling gastropods have large dense shells, a very high rate of preservation, and a substantial amount of meat.

Middle Neolithic, 4500 to 3500 BP   65

Campos (2013, 213) argues that the propensity for pelagic fishing evidenced in the rough seas around the Batanes Islands and southern Taiwan would suggest a more sophisticated vessel than the type used to fish in shallow inshore reefs, perhaps with sail technology for trolling, as Li Kuang-ti suggests (2002). Hung Hsiao-chun et al. (2011) argue that shared pelagic fish hunting traditions in the Marianas, southern Taiwan, Lanyu, and Batanes might indicate cultural connections among these localities during the initial Austronesian migration beyond Taiwan. Possibly, the ichthyoarchaeological records of southern Taiwan and the Philippines are hinting at the existence of a maritime technology that permitted people to make the 2,300-km open-ocean crossing between the Philippines and the Marianas about 3500 BP (Carson and Hung 2018). A group of stone coffins burials have been unearthed at the Kanding and ­Eluanbi I sites (Kuo 2019a, 108). They are made of slabs of coral and limestone. The dead were buried in a supine position, facing the northwest or northeast, their limbs extended. Grave objects include pottery jars, bowls, bottles, plates on stands (dou), and jade or shell beads and bracelets. Some individuals wore shell bracelets on their right arms. At the Kanding site, among the remains of 33 individuals recovered, nine males and two females have been identified as having their upper lateral incisors and removed. Excavation of the lower layer at the ­Eluanbi I site in 1966 found that two of seven individuals had upper lateral incisors and canines removed; the other five remains were too poorly preserved to determine tooth ablation. Kuo (2019a, 124) proposes that the coffins found on the Hengchun Peninsula were influenced by the cultures of eastern Taiwan.

Fushan Culture (East Coast) The Fushan culture is dated from 4500 to 4000 to 3000 BP (Chiu, n.d., 134). The pottery consists of fine corded ware and red-painted ware. Sites include Fushan, Donghe North, Xiaoma Cave (upper layers), Beinan (lower layer), Laobanshe, Chaolaiqiao, and Yuqiao. They are included in the Fine Red CordedWare culture (Chiu, n.d.). Liu Yi-chang uses the term East Coast Red Corded-Ware culture (2011b, 174). In fact, corded ware makes up only about 10% of the assemblages of sites such as Fushan (Chiu, n.d., 133), and many sherds show red painting similar to the painted ware from Fengbitou. Plain pottery is also common. Stone tools include chipped stone hoes, polished knives, axes, adzes, distinctive stone needles or awls, pendants, arrowheads, spearheads, and nephrite ornaments including tubular beads. The dead were buried in the distinctive slate coffins found also in the Late Neolithic. Hung and Carson (2018) propose that similarities in ceramics indicate that people migrated from the east coast to the northern Philippines around 4000 BP. Specifically, the globular

66  Chapter 5

vessels with short flaring rims and elevated shallow bowls are common (see chapter 10). The Zhongguang site, located near Hualien, is dated to around 4000 BP. It confirms that the red cord-marked culture extended from Taitung to Hualien and that nephrite artifact production was well established in the early part of the Middle Neolithic (Liu Yi-chang and Chung 2014). This site, known from a test excavation, is located near the famous Pinglin nephrite processing site in the northern Rift Valley. The cultural layer is located on a river terrace and is similar to the lower layer of the Pinglin site. Artifacts recovered included pottery jars (guan), bowls (bo), lids (gai), ring feet (quanjiao), spindle whorls, stone axe/ adzes, knives, weights, whetstones, stone bracelets, and nephrite ornaments. It appears from the abundant hunting and cultivating tools in the site that nephrite working was a part-time or seasonal activity and that villagers looked after their own subsistence requirements and were not full-time specialists.

Pinglin, Zhongguang, and Fengbingcun Nephrite Processing Sites (East Coast) Three processing sites are known: Pinglin, Zhongguang, and Fengbincun. All have been partially excavated. In 2013, Kuo (2015b, 2017) excavated part of Fengbincun, which is located on the flood plain of the Rift Valley. Partially finished adzes and chisels and piles of chipped schist were found. Pebbles and pieces with some water-worn surfaces were brought to the sites to be processed into chunks roughly 10 cm3 that were sawn into slices that served as blanks for adze and chisels. Many of the flat chunks were already beveled with a chisel edge before the final sawing. In some cases, surfaces were left unpolished. These chisel blanks could be finished locally or carried to northern, western, and southern Taiwan and Penghu, where they were finished. The Fengbincun site is quite large and has several nephrite processing areas. The processing sites are part of the Middle Neolithic Dakeng culture of Hualien and the northern Rift Valley (Kuo 2017, 45–49). The pottery is reddish cord marked and resembles the reddish cordmarked pottery of the Xuntangpu culture of northern Taiwan. In both areas it follows the coarse cord-marked pottery of the Dabenkeng culture. It is believed that from the Middle Neolithic period to the Late Neolithic, Pinglin was a principal center of nephrite production. The people of the Beinan site near Taitung, discussed in chapter 6, may have been consumers of products coming from the Pinglin region in the northern part of the Rift Valley (Yin 2008; Wang Kuan-wen 2016, 18). Zhongguang is a Middle Neolithic jade processing site near Hualien, whereas Changguang—where jade earrings were found—is a Late Neolithic megalithic site farther south on the coast near Changbin.

Middle Neolithic, 4500 to 3500 BP   67

Subsistence Patterns Recent phytolith analysis of soil samples from the east coast sites of Fushan and Chaolaiqao has shown the presence of cultivated rice in the Middle Neolithic period (4500 to 3500 BP) (Lee Tsuo-ting et al. 2015). Rice cultivation is known from the Nanguanli site, in western Taiwan, to date to around 4500 BP. Because contacts between east and west Taiwan are inferred from the presence of east coast nephrite in west Taiwan sites at around the same period, it might be ­expected that rice cultivation spread to the east from the west. However, discriminant analysis of phytoliths of east and west Taiwan rice remains shows them to be different. The finds from Chaolaiqiao and Fushan show several distinctive features that require explanation; Lee Tsuo-ting et al. (2015, 50) report that the differences might indicate that ancient east coast rice and the rice of the west coast had different origins.

Conclusion The Middle Neolithic can be seen as a continuation of the Early Neolithic (Kuo 2019a) or as a distinctive group of cultures sharing the cord-marked pottery tradition of the Early Neolithic but with innovations resulting from contacts with the mainland (Liu 2011a). The Middle Neolithic is marked by local development from the Dabenkeng of the Early Neolithic. The distinctive coarse cord marking, usually smoothed after paddling, on the elaborately decorated lip and rim, was replaced by a variety of decoration based on smoothed fine cord marking. Stoneworking tools were mainly used for felling trees, carpentry, digging, and harvesting. At present no direct evidence supports intensification in the form of irrigating or weeding but detailed study of ancient agricultural field systems is difficult in the subtropical leached, eroded, and alluviated soils of Taiwan. Nevertheless, isotopic dietary studies indicate a broad spectrum of hunting, gathering, and cultivation. Part-time craft specialization is evident in the production of nephrite artifacts and fine pottery bracelets. As a result of sporadic contacts with the mainland, unusual jade artifacts and large well-made pottery vessels were produced in the Taichung area. Other contacts doubtless occurred. Although exchange systems based on Penghu olivine basalt and east coast nephrite began in the Early Neolithic, they expanded considerably in the Middle Neolithic. More details are provided in chapter 10.

Chapter 6

Late Neolithic, 3500 to 2500 BP

In the Late Neolithic period, distinctive regional cultures continued to flourish. The distribution of major Late Neolithic cultures is shown in figure 6.1, based on the work of Professor Liu Yi-chang. I do not discuss the Shanguili type, Tudigong type, or Xianglin culture. Village social organization displayed few signs of status ranking or hierarchy even though part-time specialists produced nephrite ornaments of great refinement. The production and circulation of ornaments of local nephrite are important aspects of the Late Neolithic. Occasional rich burials appear to mark individuals with achieved status. Incipient ranking of houses can be seen in the Ilan Plain on the east coast; unique architectural features distinguish this area from the rest of Taiwan. “Megalithic” communal construction projects featured large human-sized boulders and large river pebbles. In the Late Neolithic, the range of faunal materials found on sites included rusa and sika deer, muntjac, pig, money cat, small Chinese civet, Formosan masked civet, macaque, hare, squirrel, rat, goat, domesticated dog, and pig (Chen Kuang-tzuu 2000a, 454– 501). As the analyses of data from very large projects are published—such as the Tainan Science Park excavations, where systematic screening and flotation took place—the p­ icture of animal hunting and collection patterns will become more detailed. In the Late Neolithic, diverse materials—in addition to nephrite and basalt, such as andesite, siliceous shale, tuffaceous sandstone, silt stone, basaltic andesite, and slate—were used to make stone tools. Local exchange systems developed around specific sources of raw material (Hung Hsiao-chun 2004). 68

Late Neolithic, 3500 to 2500 BP    69

Some adzes show a rounded cross section, which may be related to the extreme hardness or refractory nature of some kinds of raw material, which are difficult to shape. Near the end of the Late Neolithic, contacts with Southeast Asia brought metal and glass artifacts and new ideas to Taiwan, arriving on the southern and southeastern coasts. These contacts had a fundamental impact on society and culture in the Metal period that followed.

Figure 6.1.  Map of cultures of the Late Neolithic period. Redrawn from Liu ­Yi-chang (2011a, 153). Courtesy of Professor Liu Yi-chang.

70  Chapter 6

Yuanshan and Zhishanyan Sites (Northern Taiwan) The Yuanshan and Zhishanyan sites, in northern Taiwan, are part of the important Late Neolithic Yuanshan culture. A recent comprehensive study of Yuanshan culture sites by Kuo (2014a) shows the distribution of 74 sites centered in the Taipei Basin and situated along the rivers flowing into the basin with a few sites along the north coast. Recalibrated 14C dates for the Yuanshan site, including the lower Xuntangpu component mentioned, range from 3700 to 3000 BP (1750 to 1050 BC). Dates for the Yuanshan culture in general range from 3300 to 2400 BP (1350 to 450 BC). Kuo (2015a, 136–138) stresses that the Yuanshan developed from Xuntangpu and Dabenkeng antecedents but contacts with mainland Neolithic and Bronze Age sites must have occurred. As noted in chapter 9, few bronze artifacts were actually produced in the Bronze Age of the South China coast, and bronze technology was not adopted by the Yuanshan culture (see table 1.1). Although the Yuanshan culture is generally considered to be the classic Late Neolithic culture of the Taipei Basin, a culture transitional from Xuntangpu to Yuanshan, referred to as the Zhishanyan culture, is now also recognized. Despite being the first archaeological site to be excavated in Taiwan in 1896, the Zhi­ shanyan site was eclipsed by the discovery of the Yuanshan site the following year. The cultural layer of the Zhishanyan site was waterlogged, preserving perishable artifacts and botanical remains, including carbonized rice. The moist conditions also preserved black-painted decoration on some pottery. Some features of the Yuanshan culture, such as stepped adzes, were not found in Zhishanyan. The Yuanshan site had a central location in the Tamsui River system and was situated on an island at the time of its occupation. It was excavated in the 1950s and was investigated several times in the 1980s and 1990s. It is said to contain preceramic, Dabenkeng, Xuntangpu, Yuanshan, Zhiwuyuan, and Shisanhang components (Lee Cheng-yi et al. 2016, 19, 2017). Groups of postholes have been discovered, some of which contain shells from the midden and Yuanshan pottery sherds. The posts must have come from a variety of structures, not simply houses. Kuo concludes that probably several residential groups occupied the Yuanshan site (2014a, 123–134). The site has yielded a substantial number of ornaments fashioned from Taiwan nephrite. In addition to adzes of various sizes are bracelets and earrings. The slit-ring type of jue is found, including some with four protrusions, a long slender form, and an intricate, fragile, anthropomorphic type. More than 100 specimens of this last type have been found in the Yuanshan site. Some show a human and animal; others show two humans. These appear to be too fragile for daily use; perhaps they were only used for burial or ritual occasions.

Late Neolithic, 3500 to 2500 BP    71

The major types of Yuanshan stone tools are adze hoes, chisels, arrowheads, net sinkers, and grindstones. The haft of the adze hoes is sometimes stepped, and the haft of chisels sometimes has a shoulder. These features are thought to have spread to Taiwan from the Pearl River Delta at the time of the Yuanshan c­ ulture. Perhaps these changes indicate different ways of hafting the stone tools to their handles. Kuo (2014a, 88) assembled data from six Yuanshan culture sites: Yuanshan, Guandu, Dabenkeng, Tudigongshan, Zhanlongshan, and Guweishan. The percentage of each type in the total site assemblage of the types is quite variable; the intensity of activities quite possibly depending on location. Guandu showed an unusually high percentage of adze hoes, whereas Dabenkeng was high in arrowheads and spearheads and Tudigongshan was high in net sinkers. The Yuanshan site showed high percentages of adze hoes of the shouldered type and chisels of the stepped type, perhaps indicating a difference in woodworking activities. Tools were primarily made of basalt, from the Dadun volcano, though some were of local sandstone.

Subsistence Patterns In a study of carbon and nitrogen isotope analysis of bone collagen from faunal samples from the Yuanshan site, Lee Cheng-yi et al. (2016) conclude that the people of Yuanshan practiced a broad range of subsistence strategies, including cultivating rice, hunting, fishing, and collecting wild plant foods. The cultivation of rice is supported by the finding of carbonized rice grains and polished stone sickles, but the authors suggest that the people were not necessarily intensive cultivators. At present, no evidence indicates consumption of millet, a C4 plant. However, it is known from Early Neolithic sites such as Nanguanlidong. The isotopic values from suid bone samples support the proposal that some wild pigs may have been raised and fed “leftovers from humans” as early as 4200 BP (23). According to Kuo’s dating, these would belong to the transitional Xuntangpu culture. Marine shellfish and plants were also consumed. An analysis of shellfish remains from the Yuanshan site dated to 3800 BP by accelerator mass spectrometry dating, yielded mostly specimens of a gastropod snail, Corbicula subsulcata and a small quantity of the bivalve Ostrea gigas (oyster). The authors of the study, Wang Chung-ho and Tsai (1993), conclude that the shells lived in an inland riverine environment on a sandy substrate. Oxygen isotope analysis showed that the shellfish experienced great temperature fluctuations, presumably in shallow water. The analysis corroborates the geomorphological picture of the Tamsui River system presented in chapter 2. In the Yuanshan culture component of Dabenkeng, a bronze arrowhead was found in 1962. In another Yuanshan culture site, Tudigongshan, dated to

72  Chapter 6

around 2500 BP, a rectangular hollow bronze adze recovered in the 1990s was made of a mixture of copper, tin, and lead and showed traces of nickel, iron, cobalt, and aluminum (Kuo 2014a; Chen Kuang-tzuu 2011). On the east coast, in the Late Neolithic Beinan culture, a few bronze bracelets have been found. The bronze arrowhead could have come from the Shang period (c. 1500 to 1050 BC) Wucheng culture of Zhejiang (see chapter 9); bronze adzes have been found in the upper layers of the Tanshishan, Zhuangbianshan, and Dongzhang sites of Fujian, dating to roughly 3500 BP (Kuo 2014a). These sites also contain impressed pottery, which appears in the Late Yuanshan and Zhiwuyuan cultures. The Zhiwuyuan (Botanical Garden) culture follows the Yuanshan culture and dates to about 2500 to 1800 BP. It is generally believed to be a development from the Yuanshan culture, but a new kind of pottery decorated with geometric impressions, similar to the geometric pottery of the China mainland, occurs. The Zhiwuyuan pottery is fired at a lower temperature than the typical mainland geometric pottery. Large polished stone tools indicate rather sophisticated woodworking.

Yingpu Site (West Central Taiwan) The Yingpu culture dated to around 3000 to 2000 BP was first investigated by Kokubu Naoichi in the 1940s. Located at the boundary between the flood plain and the terraces of the Taichung Basin (K. C. Chang 1977, 89), it had access to the Zhuoshui estuary and the coastal plain. At the time, the Taichung Basin must have been still flooded by a saltwater lagoon or freshwater lake. Pottery of the Yingpu culture is generally grayish black and reddish brown, the paste containing fine sand and silty mud. Polished black pottery, decorated with circle patterns, string patterns, wave and shell patterns, and painted motifs is a special feature. Vessel forms are diverse and suggest some influence from the mainland. They include bowls, jars with constricted waists, bowls on pedestals, and cauldrons with animal-form feet. These types of pottery are found in the Yingpu culture layer of the Macibu site on the Taichung plain. The Jiushe site was excavated as part of the Zhuoshui Project of the early 1970s (K. C. Chang 1974a, 1974b). The site is located on a terrace above the Dadu River about 80 m above sea level. The pottery is 68% black or gray, the remainder buff or light gray. Stone tools were grouped into heavy implements for clearing land, turning soil, or woodworking (adzes, hoes, and chisels); fish net sinkers, functional flakes, and waste flakes. The excavators noted an absence of artifacts related to specialized hunting (1977, 82). This pattern might indicate a diversity of settlement and subsistence strategies.

Late Neolithic, 3500 to 2500 BP    73

Damalin Site (Central Taiwan) The Damalin site is situated in the geographical center of Taiwan in the Puli Basin, midway between the east and west coasts, in the foothills of the Central Range. As mentioned in chapter 5, Puli was colonized by Middle Neolithic people from the Taichung Basin. In the Late Neolithic, the basin became a processing and distribution center for Fengtian nephrite. Probably through their connection to the east coast, the local inhabitants adopted the custom of burying their dead in slate coffins around their houses. Around 3000 BP, Damalin people appear to have intermarried with Yingpu people, judging from their adoption of Yingpu gray black pottery with decoration of incision, comb decoration, and stamped circles (Liu Yi-chang, n.d.).

Dahu Sites (Southwest Taiwan) The Dahu culture, situated in the southwest of Taiwan, covers some 1800 years from 3300 to 1800 BP. K. C. Chang termed it the Lungshanoid period culture, Later Phase, considering it to be intrusive from the mainland (1969). The center of the culture lies in the Tainan foothills near Tainan City and extends to the south near Kaohsiung City. Bone, antler, and shell tools are abundant and stone tools are well polished. Spindle whorls are very uniform and well finished, suggesting that weaving may have become more developed that in earlier cultures. It is assumed that people of the Dahu culture were primarily cultivators, based on the edge wear of tools showing abrasion from soil and gravel. This culture is known for its distinctive black pottery, although sand-tempered red and gray pottery are also part of its assemblage. Some of the pottery is decorated with comb patterns. Several variants of the Dahu culture have been identified. The earliest is the Dahu phase, its pottery predominantly plain gray and black and showing a decrease in red ware. The stone tools appear to be fewer than in the Niuchouzi culture. Burials feature the unusual custom of covering the head with a stone. A large number of jar burials of infants, all upright, was found. The distinctive burial practices and unusual black pottery of the Dahu culture suggest a cultural break with the previous Niuchouzi culture and led Tsang, Li, and Cohen (2015, 175) to use the term “Newly Arriving People” to describe the Dahu people. Artifacts and features of the Dahu culture are shown in figure 6.2. The Wushantou phase of the Dahu culture is named for the Wushantou site, which is located adjacent to the Tainan Science Park. Wushantou has been known since 1920, when it was discovered in the construction of the Chianan irrigation system. Settlements consist of rectangular zones containing clusters of postholes and other features such as hearths surrounded by a refuse discard

74  Chapter 6

Figure 6.2.  Late Neolithic artifacts from the Sanbaozhu (SBZ), Niuniaogang (NNG), and Wujiancuo (WJC) sites, Tainan Science Park. (1) Basin (ben) with everted rim and rounded base. Silty paste. SBZ. Maximum rim diameter 26.8 cm. (2) Bottle (bing). Silty paste. SBZ. Ht. 22.9 cm. (3) Bottle (bing). SBZ. Silty paste. Ht. 16.5 cm. (4) Clay spindle whorl, gray black ware. SBZ. Ht 2.8 cm. (5) Adze or chisel. Meta basalt. NNG. Length 4.1 cm. (6) Nephrite ring. NNG. Diameter 5.6 cm. (7) Black pottery beveled ring with incised decoration. WJC. Diameter 5.3 cm. (8) Tridacna shell ring. NNG. Diameter 6.7 cm. From Tsang, Li, and Cohen 2017, 014, 015, 019, 022, 025, 026, 029, 036, 039, 045, 049, 057, 060. Permission from the National Museum of Prehistoric Culture in Taiwan.

area and pottery dumps and ashpits. The pottery is mostly gray black ware but pottery bracelet (huan) are made of fine red ware. Burial practices are distinctive from those of earlier cultures. Individuals were placed in graves 70 to 100 cm deep, some of which show traces of wooden coffins. The head was oriented to the north, but in Dabenkeng and Niuchouzi to the south (Tsang, Li, and Cohen 2015, 185–186). Grave goods reflect a division of labor in which net sinkers accompanied males and spindle whorls accompanied females. In the Sanbaozhu and Wujiancuo sites, burials lacking heads were

Late Neolithic, 3500 to 2500 BP    75

recorded, indicating the presence of head-hunting. In the Wujiancuo site, one child was interred with 70 nephrite beads (Tsang, Li, and Cohen 2015, 122). Individuals exhibited removal of upper lateral incisors and canine teeth. A soil sample taken from the pelvic area of a burial at the Wushantou site contained the eggs of roundworm. Roundworm has been found in mainland Neolithic populations at higher concentrations. The concentration of such parasites was considered low at Wushantou, perhaps because high levels of precipitation in Taiwan may have removed much of the ancient parasite evidence (Yeh, Chen, and Mitchell 2016). In the excavation of 1999, 35 human burials and four dog burials were found. Osteoarthritis was common in individuals as young as 20 years. Incidence of osteomyelitis and tuberculosis were also recorded (Lin Hsiu-man et al. 2014). In excavations at the Tainan Science Park at the Sanbaozhu site of the Late Neolithic Dahu culture (Tsang, Li, and Cohen 2015, 207), around the perimeter of each hamlet was a kind of disposal zone, composed of refuse deposits, pot sherd dumps, ditches, ashpits, postholes, and groups of two to seven graves. Architectural structures were rectangular and may have been elevated. House posthole clusters seem close to graves, indicating that burials were near houses. Completely polished quadrilateral adzes were probably woodworking tools. Because the deposits were not waterlogged, wooden tools were not preserved. In the Yuliao phase, stone tools are fewer than in the Dabenkeng and ­Niuchouzi. Edge wear on large broad batu type hoes indicate abrasion from working soil. (The term batu refers to their shape that is similar to that of a New Zealand Maori polished club). Symmetrical finely polished adzes appear to have been used for woodworking. Very finely polished slate or shale reaping knives were used. Arrowheads were also found embedded in human skeletons, providing evidence of warfare. The pottery is grayish black, produced in a variety of vessel shapes and decorated with comb incision. It appears to have been fired in an open fire which was smothered to produce a reducing atmosphere. No evidence of kilns has been found. Numerous attributes may indicate an ethnic discontinuity between the Dahu and previous cultures.

Eluanbi and Kanding Sites (Southern Peninsula) In the Eluanbi and Kanding area, the Late Neolithic period is represented by the Eluanbi III (or Fengbitou culture, ca. 3500 BP) and Eluanbi IV (ca. 2500 BP) phases; the Metal period is represented by the Guishan culture (ca. 1500 to 1000 BP) (Li Kuang-chou 1983, 18–19). The sites are interspersed between outcrops of jagged raised coral that offered protection for the ancient inhabitants. The heavily dissected terrain of weathered raised coral reef makes archaeological survey and

76  Chapter 6

excavation difficult, however. In his investigation of sites of Kanding National Park, Li Kuang-chou (1982) examines relationships among sites, topography, and natural resources, including fresh water. He concludes that sites belonging to the Eluanbi III period (3500 to 2500 BP) were small and dispersed on enclosed, defensible leeward coastal areas having fresh water resources, and that Eluanbi IV (2500 to 1200 BP, actually Metal period) sites were larger and concentrated on open leeward slopes. They were also relatively close to arable land (Chen M ­ aa-ling 1997, 87–89; 2006). A study of catchment areas of sites from Eluanbi II and IV showed that sites sharing the same landscape maintained their site catchments without competing for resources (Liu Ting-yu 2013). The Late Neolithic Beinan culture of the east coast shows that this region was not culturally backward despite being distant from the Taiwan Strait and the mainland. Distinctive features include plain sandy reddish pottery, architectural features that make use of river cobbles and boulders, burial in cists (stone coffins), and the specialized production of sophisticated nephrite tools and ornaments. Evidence of the production of the finest ornaments is restricted to a few sites. Stone uprights and megaliths (deliberately modified boulders) are also major features. Although Sung (1976) proposes two Late Neolithic cultures, the Qilin with megaliths and the Beinan without megaliths, it may be useful to postulate one cultural group, the Beinan people, who constructed a polythetic variety of stone monuments along the Pacific coast and in the Rift Valley, given that most of the styles of pottery and stone tools are shared by the two cultures.

Beinan Site (East Coast) When the Beinan site, one of the largest in Taiwan, was threatened with destruction around 1980, a team of dedicated archaeologists led by Sung Wen-hsun and Lien Chao-mei of National Taiwan University not only salvaged a substantial portion of the site against considerable odds, but also initiated the movement to build a national museum of prehistory near the site. The museum was completed in 2001 and opened in 2002. Thirteen seasons of excavations 10,000 m2 in area uncovered 50 groups of houses and storehouses, 1,523 burials, 13,293 grave goods, and some 400 nephrite artifacts. The entire area of the site is thought to cover 400,000 to 800,000 m2: it is in fact the largest archaeological site in Taiwan. That it is on the east coast, not on the west coast facing the Taiwan Strait, is significant. Two main cultural layers were encountered. The lower one yielded cord-marked pottery and the upper remains of the Beinan culture, dated from 2800 to 2500 BP (Lien 1991). The total site covers 3,000 years: the lowest layers contain Early Neolithic Dabenkeng remains and the upper extend to the end of

Late Neolithic, 3500 to 2500 BP    77

the Late Neolithic (Tsang and Yeh 2005, 6). Other sites such as Shangyanwang, 3 km from the Beinan site, contained Early Neolithic Dabenkeng, Middle Neolithic Fushan, and Late Neolithic Beinan and Sanhe components, showing long-term intensive occupation of the area (Lee Kun-hsiu 2014). Pottery of the Beinan culture is plain fine orange sandy ware, hand built without a wheel and fired at a low temperature. The predominant form has a flaring rim, ring foot, and vertical or horizontal handles. Bowls with or without horizontal handles, plates, dishes, footed stands, spindle whorls, bark cloth beaters, and animal figurines were produced. The ancient village was located at the foot of the Beinan hills on a terrace of the Beinan River. It appears to have been a local center, strategically located on a terrace where the Rift Valley opens to the sea near Taitung. The site is larger than others and contains many burials. Within the village houses were built in a line running north-northeast to south-southwest at the base of the hill. They were regularly interspersed with round or oblong storage structures. Forty-eight rectangular houses, built on the surface, were found in the upper stratum of the site; their average size was 11.5 by 5.5 m. Front yards and most house interiors were paved with slate slabs or split boulders (figure 6.3).

Figure 6.3.  Excavation at the Beinan Site Museum, showing house features, floors, walls, and stone ladder. Photo by R. Pearson.

78  Chapter 6

Houses were clustered side by side in a zone with a north-northeast to southsouthwest orientation. Slab graves were located directly beneath the houses and had the same orientation. Round or oblong storage structures were built alongside the houses. Burials were located under the paved house floors instead of in a separate village cemetery. An elongated burial zone beneath each house measured about 15 m wide; house and storage zones together measured 18 to 20 m wide. Burials were rarely found beneath storage structures (Lien 1991, 348). Lien proposes that the storage structures were communal rather than private. Several zones of these household structures, in combinations with family burials beneath, were distributed across the site. No evidence was found of particularly large houses, large central storehouses, or public architecture, but the houses may have been part of a “house society” that included deceased family members. After the major excavation, in a study by Tong Lun-tao et al. (2013a, 2013b) the physical properties of the site were measured and four geophysical methods involving magnetic, electromagnetic, electrical resistivity tomography, and ground-penetrating radar were tested along three parallel profiles. The results imply that the electromagnetic and magnetic methods were cost effective and suitable for investigating the entire area. The full extent of the unexcavated portions of the site is now known. In the surveys, the prehistoric boulder construction stands out against the background river sediment. Future management of the Beinan Site Park may benefit from these survey techniques. Beinan Burials Although skeletal preservation was variable, Beinan burials displayed evidence of head-hunting, tooth ablation, and betel nut mastication as well as important aspects of social organization (Lien 1989). Some 99% of the individuals were buried in cists fashioned from large thin slabs of local slate. In five cases, only the skull was buried separately in a rectangular stone cist. Where adequate preservation permitted identification, 121 individuals were buried in an extended supine position. No instances were found of flexed or squatting positions, and only three of prone burial. Burials were located under paved house floors. Most of the burials were uniformly oriented north-south, with the head to the south. More than 21% of the coffins contained more than one skeleton. These were sequent interments, in which the coffin was reopened and refurbished (Lien 1991, 343) by successive generations. About 75% of adult graves and 23% of infant graves yielded grave goods, mostly of pottery, nephrite, and slate (Lien 2003, 249). Disparities in the numbers and kinds of grave goods were slight, suggesting a relatively egalitarian society. Tsang and Yeh (2005) conclude, judging from differences in the quantitative distribution

Late Neolithic, 3500 to 2500 BP    79

of nephrite artifacts in Beinan burials, that some part-time craft specialization and social ranking is possible. Multiple burials in the same coffin had more grave goods per individual, suggesting slight differences in houses. Stratigraphically burials appear in groups at roughly the same level, indicating that the site was occupied and abandoned from time to time. The inhabitants were swidden farmers who allowed their fields to lie fallow at regular intervals (Lien 2003). From a sample of 51 individuals sufficiently well preserved for dental study, Lien (1989) determined that 35 (68.8%) had a tooth removal pattern of [CI2|I2C], that is, removal of central and lateral incisors. Three had only incisors removed— [I2|I2]. Later, Lien modified the count for the former type of tooth ablation to 94% of the burial population and concluded that all four teeth were removed at the same time (1991, 345). Tooth ablation took place during the teen years, showing no gender differences. Lien notes from the burial data that those without tooth ablation received relatively better mortuary treatment in terms of grave offerings and the construction of the cist grave indicating that tooth ablation was not necessarily a sign of superior status. Evidence of head-hunting was found in burials lacking the cranium and in separate graves for skulls. In one case that lacked the cranium, two jue (earrings) were placed near the cervical vertebrae (Lien 1989, 173–180). In a small subset for which height could be determined, 16 males had a mean height of 163.2 cm and 18 females one of 152.6 cm. A total of 1,328 earrings were found in the Beinan burials (Lien 1991, 346– 348). Almost all specimens were complete. Some 441 graves of the total 693 contained earrings. Lien (1991, 347) divides them into four types (figure 6.4): 1. simple slotted earring, 608 specimens from 262 graves; 2. slotted earrings with four protuberances, 671 specimens from 184 graves; 3. various forms of rectangular slotted earrings, 43 specimens from 38 graves; and 4. rare human (anthropomorphic) and human-animal (zoanthopomorphic) shapes as well as crescents, only six specimens from four graves. Type 1 earrings vary in size, are usually found in single burials, and may be related to infants and females. Types 3 and 4 are less common. Nephrite ornaments from the Beinan site included perforated bell-shaped beads of various sizes, strung together into necklaces and found around the neck, a set of five extremely delicate nephrite tubes showing sophisticated craftsmanship and flaring nephrite bracelets (huan). A group of Beinan nephrite artifacts recovered from salvage excavations in 1983 and 1984 that were separate from the excavations directed by Sung and Lien of National Taiwan University, have been designated Taiwan National Treasures (color plates 1 to 5).

Figure 6.4.  Beinan nephrite earrings. (1–4) Simple slotted earrings. (5–8) Slotted earring with four protuberances. (9–10) Zooanthropomorphic (human-animal) earring and anthropomorphic (human) earring. (11) Complex perforated earring. From Lien Chao-mei 2003, 124, 125. Line drawing by R. Pearson.

Late Neolithic, 3500 to 2500 BP    81

East Coast Megalithic Sites In an area no less than 60 km in length in the southern part of the Rift Valley and along the coast, several sites have yielded standing stones, either slotted or shouldered, stone troughs or possible ladders, natural boulders with man-made cavities that have been interpreted as stone coffins, and round doughnut-shaped stones (Chao 2018). In addition, a few sites on the east coast, spread over a wider distance, have yielded slate standing stones that may be upright beams for houses. Famous examples can be seen at the Saoba site, Ruisui, and Haulien. These finds are associated with an artifact assemblage that belongs to the Beinan culture. Although some stone uprights appear to have had a ritual function, others were parts of domestic structures. In the case of ritual sites, burials of jars have been found in the surrounding open culturally sterile space up to 50 m from the stones. These are thought to be offerings or jar burials (Chao 2018, 307). Chao Chin-yung (2018, 295) divides the standing stones into two categories, typical and atypical. The typical are menhirs, stone discs, shaped slabs, and sarcophagi. The atypical type are column-shaped schistose sandstone uprights usually linked to archaeological deposits and are thought to have been parts of prehistoric structures as in the Beinan site. Chao finds that typical megaliths were found in the middle part of the east coast, and atypical ones along the interior valley and along the coastline near both ends of the valley. A site with standing stones and slate coffins has also been reported on the southern edge of the Ilan Plain (Kuo 2014b, 42), showing the northern limits of this culture. These distinctive architectural features have been identified (Kano 1930a, 1930b) as part of megalithic cultures related to the megalithic cultures of Southeast Asia. Pearson (1968) refers to them as the Taiyuan phase, following his field work on the Taiyuan site. Following Sung and Lien (1975), some archaeologists have identified two contemporary cultures, Beinan and Qilin, in the Late Neolithic. The distinguishing features of the Qilin culture are rock-cut stone coffins, stone walls, modified standing stones, and perforated stone rings. It could be that the rock-cut tombs were for people of high status and cists were for commoners (Kuo 2014b, 41). At the Shangtianzu site, Sung found Qilin menhirs arranged within a foundation and associated with a cultural deposit dated to 3060±280 BP (Sung 1976). Where did this custom of erecting stone monuments come from? Current archaeological studies indicate little interest in the diffusionist ideas of megalithic culture. But one must try to explain the origin of these architectural and religious practices. It is within the realm of possibility that the custom is an entirely local development. Given the occurrence of the stone monument construction in parts of Southeast Asia that are linked to Taiwan through exchange

82  Chapter 6

systems in the late Neolithic and Metal periods, however, it seems reasonable to propose that some ideas surrounding burial monuments may have come to Taiwan in the Late Neolithic from Southeast Asia.

Dulan Site (East Coast) The Dulan site is registered as a National Historic Site. Surface finds include artifacts of the Cord-Marked, Beinan, Qilin, and Amis cultures. Stone remains visible on the surface include a “coffin” cut from bedrock, standing stones, groups of walls, slate cist graves, terraces and platforms (Yeh 2016). These have been disturbed by agricultural clearing and subsequent cultivation. Stone tools found over a wide area included adzes, arrowheads, sickles, net weights, mortars, flakes and chips. Lien, Sung, and Li (1996, 97) say that this site contained many examples of the megalithic remains found on the east coast. Some excavation was carried out around the standing stones but a lack of artifacts or recognizable features made it impossible to interpret the context or significance of the stones. Similarly, excavations in the 1960s at the Taiyuan site did not provide clues to the use or meaning of these monuments (Pearson 1968). Lien et al. (1996) recommend that the site be preserved as one of the major megalithic sites. What is the significance of the standing stones? How were such stones used in other areas such as Southwest China or Southeast Asia? Did the stones have religious meaning? It is not clear how much can be learned of the social and cultural significance of these remains from excavation alone, since excavations have failed to locate associated structures or features. Historical ethnography and ethnoarchaeology of Island Southeast Asia may provide some insights. It may be useful to study the “viewscapes” of each site; for instance, the Dulan site faces to the island, Lutao. Are there common orientations among the standing stone sites? Are there local traditions concerning these stone monuments? How can the sites be linked to the East Coast National Scenic Landscape to retain and enhance their historical, cultural, and environmental integrity (Blundell 1997)?

Changguang Site (East Coast) The Changguang site consists of a cemetery situated around a rock-cut “coffin” (Chao 1993, 2000). Excavation near the feature revealed two intact stone coffins. A scattering of slate coffin fragments around the rock outcrop probably indicates the existence of a cemetery. Stone artifacts consisted of polished slate fragments, a stone bracelet (huan), an earring ( jue) from inside the coffin, and tubular stone beads. The pottery consisted of sandy red jars, bowls (bo, wan) and

Late Neolithic, 3500 to 2500 BP    83

elevated stands (dou), also twin-handled small jars (guan) with a ring foot. Some of the ring feet were high and perforated. These ceramics may have been made specifically for burial. Chao (1993, 83) notes a total of 14 rock-cut coffins at 11 sites on the east coast dated to roughly 3400 BP.

Taiyuan Site (East Coast) The Taiyuan site is located on three terraces on the east bank of the Beiqi River, roughly 100 m above the steam bed in an interior valley of the east coast mountain range (Pearson 1968). On the lowest terrace are nine stone uprights, several of which have a shouldered shape. These standing stones vary in height from 103 to 351 cm. On the second terrace, one slate coffin was excavated. Four fragments of shouldered stones were also found, as well as sherds of plain sandy orange pottery and nephrite artifacts. On the highest terrace, fragments of more shouldered stones as well as a bowl or tank of coarse sandstone and a stone disc were recorded. Surface collected pottery consisted of spindle whorls, sherds of vessels with flaring mouths and ring feet, and plain and decorated handles. Polished slate knives appear to have been used for reaping either rice or millet.

Saoba Site (East Coast) The Saoba site, a national historic monument, is famous for a standing stone some 6.7 m high, located on a mountain slope. It was noted by Japanese archaeologists who referred to the site as Maizuru (Kano 1930a, 1930b). Associated cultural materials identify it as Late Neolithic, dated roughly from 3300 to 2400 BP (Kuo 2014b). Surface finds include sherds of red sandy pottery with vertical handles, stonechipped adzes or hoes, polished stone arrowheads, needles, chipped debitage, and large thin perforated stone discs of various sizes up to 56 cm in diameter. The discs may have used to prevent rats from climbing up house posts, judging from modern metal examples. The site may also contain remains from a later phase dated 2100 to 1600 BP, represented by paddle stamped pottery. This type of pottery appears at the transition from the Neolithic to the Metal period in the upper layers of East Coast sites such as Huagangshan and Pinglin. It has been named the Huagangshan upper layer type by Liu Yi-chang (Chao, Liu, and Chung 2013), shows influence from the Sanhe culture, and seems to be similar to pottery from the Botanical Garden (Zhiwuyuan) culture, which follows the Yuanshan culture in northern Taiwan.

84  Chapter 6

Although Beinan culture sites show signs of mobilization of labor in the construction of house walls, floors, megaliths and other features, there does not appear to be a concentration of wealth or power with one particular subgroup. However rich burials from the recently excavated Shangli site (the Late period of Beinan culture, 2500 to 2300 BP) may show the emergence of social ranking. Six slate coffin burials yielded five pottery vessels, 22 stone artifacts, and 622 nephrite artifacts. They included unusual slotted ear pendants, some slotted ear pendants with animal motifs, one anthropozoomorphic ear pendant, a ling­ lingo penannular earring with four pointed circumferential projections, and a large necklace. This information is taken from the display of the National ­Museum of Prehistory in Taitung. At the end of the Late Neolithic, an intrusive culture, the Upper Huagangshan, appeared in the Hualien area (Chao, Liu, and Chung 2013). The transition from the Late Neolithic to the Metal period is associated with the appearance of new styles of pottery and burials in sites in the Chilai Plain at the northern end of the Rift Valley near Hualien at sites such as Huagangshan, which was excavated in 2008 and 2012. Layer 3, dated to 2100 to 1600 BP, spans the transition from the Late Neolithic to the Metal period. Diagnostic features of the Upper Huagangshan culture include pit-style graves containing burials in a flexed squatting position, and grave goods including glass beads and small gray black earthenware bottles. The types of pottery are fine sandy red and gray black stamped and impressed wares of the Guishan type of southern Taiwan. The new burial type and grave goods contrast with the stone coffins, sandy red pottery, and nephrite artifacts of the Early Huagangshan. Chao, Liu, and Chung (2013) assert that this transition, which occurred over 300 to 500 years, contrasts with the continuous transition on the southeast coast from the Beinan to the Sanhe and Jiuxianglan cultures. Although metal, glass, and exotic pottery were introduced into the Jiuxianglan site, described in chapter 8, the custom of burial in stone coffins did not change, suggesting ethnic continuity. In the Hanben site, mentioned in chapter 8, evidence indicates the possible arrival of intrusive craftsmen.

Wansan (Wanshan) Site (Ilan Plain) The Wansan site is dated to 3500 to 2500 BP and is located on the south edge of the Ilan Plain, less than 10 km from the coast at the time of occupation, on a small hill extending from the Central Mountain Range. The habitation area is about 600 m by 300 m. At least 65 sites in all have been recorded on the Ilan Plain. To the north of Wansan, the Dazhuwei site was a large village with two superimposed components, an early one dated to the Middle Neolithic (red

Late Neolithic, 3500 to 2500 BP    85

cord-marked pottery) and a later one dating to the Metal period Shisanhang culture. The site shows 800 years of continuous occupation and the position of the houses did not change over this span (Chiang Chih-hua 2010, 2015). From the analyses of postholes, it was hypothesized that 12 house sites existed in the excavated area. Each posthole cluster, or in some cases several clusters, was associated with a stone tool workshop or ritual locus. Burials were found under the floors of the houses or immediately adjacent to them. Sixty-nine burials were recovered, 14 in urns and 55 in stone coffins (cists). Not every burial had grave goods. The burial customs found in Wansan are unusual in Taiwan prehistory and appear also in the east coast sites of Dakeng and Huagangshan. A key artifact at the Wansan site was a zooanthropomorphic nephrite earring. Wansan has yielded the largest number of nephrite zooanthropomorphic ornaments found in Taiwan, even more than at the Beinan site, but so far no evidence seems to indicate production at either site. These fragile, delicately worked ornaments could not have been functional ornaments; they were used for display and burial. They show a standing human figure in frontal view surmounted by an animal figure in side view. Eight of these were found in Wansan, five in coffins or urns; the remaining three were recovered near the burials. This type of ornament is found in four other Neolithic sites in Taiwan, closely associated with burial contexts. Some house sites at Wansan yielded pottery from northern Taiwan or the east coast. They had social connections that enabled them to obtain exotic goods. These were the houses in which nephrite zooanthropomorphic earrings were found. Chiang proposed that the ownership of these heirlooms required special social networks based on economic, social, ritual, and political status. These rare earrings functioned as a source of inalienable wealth. It is thought that the houses were the residences of the ancestors as well as the living. The types of stone tools found in Wansan included hoe axes, adze axes, knives, arrowheads, spearheads, and rectangular slate tools with perforations and a sharpened edge (Chiang Chih-hua 2010, 61–111). Polished adzes and chisels were generally 4 to 5 cm long and 2 cm wide (possibly specialized woodworking tools), though some larger examples were also noted. Polished slate tools included curved slate sickles and gorges. Net weights included notched pebbles but also rod-shaped cylinders with notches at both ends and distinctive round forms with a thin slot to hold an attaching cord. There were irregular hammers and many whetstones, presumably for maintaining ground slate tools. A substantial number of ridged stone tapa beaters were also found.

86  Chapter 6

Conclusion In the Late Neolithic period, regional cultural differences continued to develop. Some distinctive features probably indicate contacts with the mainland and Southeast Asia. In the Taipei Basin, stepped adzes appear in the Yuanshan ­culture for the first time and geometric impressed pottery appears on the ­Zhiwuyuan culture. Both types of artifacts are found in the Pearl River delta around the same time period (see chapter 9). In the central west coast area, polished black pottery appears in the Yingpu culture and new forms of pottery in the Dahu culture as well as distinctive burial customs. On the east coast, the Beinan culture had distinctive burial practices in slate coffins and megalithic architecture. In his classic study of megaliths in Wessex and the Orkney Islands, Renfrew (1983) concludes that the monuments were left by groups of farmers who were linked by marriage but not centrally organized. The monuments may have functioned as enduring markers to identify territory. In the Orkneys, the monuments yielded few grave goods and appeared to have been accessible to the entire population, indicating the absence of a pronounced social hierarchy. They also seem to have marked the land into roughly equal productive units. Chapman (1995) states that the monuments were meant to be seen by the living, remaining part of the cultural landscape for generations. Some functional similarities between the megaliths in the two regions seem evident. A particular expression of “house society,” with elaborate permanent house foundations and burials under the floor, as well as substantial storage facilities, is found in the Beinan site. In the Beinan case there may have been different burial practices for elites and commoners. At the end of the Late Neolithic, a few very rich burials suggest social ranking. The exchange of nephrite artifacts and ornaments reached a peak in the Late Neolithic. Increased contact between the east coast and Southeast Asia at the end of the Late Neolithic brought the metal objects and glass beads and led to the beginning of the Metal period.

Chapter 7

Metal Period, 2500 to 500 BP

Although 2000 BP was previously considered the beginning date of the Metal period, recent finds have pushed the dates back by 500 years (Liu Jiun-yu 2018, 132). The main cultures of the Metal period are shown in figure 7.1. A small number of iron and rarely copper objects such as knife handles and blades, fish hooks, and adzes dating to the beginning of the Metal period have been found in Taiwan sites. These artifacts were made by reworking imported metal goods obtained from traders or from shipwrecks. At present, no indisputable evidence has been found of local smelting until around 400 BP. In designating a Metal period, it could be said that archaeologists are merely following conventions that a metal period must follow a neolithic. The introduction of metal artifacts into Taiwan did not bring about a technological revolution. However, both metal knives and ornaments and glass objects such as beads, bracelets, ornaments, and small tools became important prestige objects and grave goods. A structure thought to be a smelting furnace was recovered at Shisanhang at the mouth of the Tamsui River near Taipei, but Chen Kuang-tzuu (2000a) concludes that it was not a furnace but instead a smithy for metalworking. A substantial number of sandstone molds have been found at the Jiuxianglan site on the southeastern coast, but at present little evidence of systematic casting has been found at this unique site. Copper, iron, and bronze were obtained by melting down imported artifacts or extracting metal artifacts from shipwrecks. Some authors have proposed that itinerant craftsmen from Island Southeast Asia brought new technologies, lived in enclaves with communities and produced metal and glass artifacts (Liu Yi-chang 2018; Liu Jiun-yu 2018, 2019). Until now, the Blihun Hanben site (Hanben) has yielded a metal working area and Liu Ji-un has stated that a smelting furnace for extraction of iron from iron sand may lie in an unexcavated portion of the site. 87

88  Chapter 7

Figure 7.1.  Map of regional Metal period cultures. Adapted and simplified from Liu Yi-chang 2011a, 224. Courtesy of Professor Liu Yi-chang.

A few mainland bronze objects have been found in Neolithic sites, as discussed in chapter 6 (Chen Kuang-tzuu 2011b, 2012; Kuo 2001), and are important evidence of indirect outside contact before the Metal period. Metal period people fired their pottery at higher temperatures than their predecessors. Surely these improvements in ceramic technology came from the adjacent China coast. Metal tools replaced the stone tools, with the exception of stone hammers. Metal period cultures display more variability in burial practices than their predecessors (Yen 2017, 17) and the practice of tooth ablation declined (Lien 1998). At the end of the Metal period and in the Contact period, people

Metal Period, 2500 to 500 BP   89

particularly in western Taiwan exchanged deer skins with Chinese, Japanese, and European traders. Most probably, this trade began in the last centuries of the Metal period, before the arrival of the Dutch. At that time, deer were particularly abundant in the lowland plains of western Taiwan. Taiwan was not part of the Chinese tributary system, and evidence of contact from the mainland is scarce relative to what has been found in surrounding regions, such as the Ryukyu Islands or the Philippines; however, new studies are showing evidence of Chinese contacts with people living at the mouth of the Tamsui River of northern Taiwan, at the Shisanhang site. Also, exchange contacts from Southeast Asia to the east coast appear to have begun more than 2,000 years ago. Yen found evidence of a different kind of trade, radically different from tributary trade, conducted by fishermen and peddlers along the coast of western Taiwan (2017, 2–5). Yen describes evidence derived from faunal analysis from sites in central western Taiwan that deer changed from a subsistence resource to a trade commodity in the late Metal period. How did metal and glass objects come to be adopted by Taiwan prehistoric groups? Wang Shu-jin and Liu (2005) propose that small numbers of trade objects were introduced into a few locales from 3000 to 1800 BP, followed by larger-scale inputs to coastal areas between 1800 and 1000 BP. These goods reached a peak period from 1000 to 450 BP. The earliest glass beads are said to occur in the Late Beinan culture of the east coast, as early as 2500 BP (Liu Jiunyu 2018, 132). Itinerant craft specialists with knowledge of high firing technology visited Taiwan from Island Southeast Asia, bringing glass and agate beads and small numbers of iron tools to trade for nephrite. They traveled on the Kuroshio (Black) Current and returned on the winter monsoon. Their presence may be identified by black hard-fired pottery in sites such as the upper layer of the ­Huagangshan site. Many aspects of this scenario require testing because the Southeast Asian sources of these new cultures are not clearly visible. Later they are said to have established craft enclaves in some east coast communities and enclaves and by 1800 to 1600 BP their own communities and learned to refine local iron ores (Liu Jiun-yu 2018, 138–139). Lu Tai-kang et al. (2015) found two peaks of metal work that occurred before the Contact period. The first at Shisanhang from 1500 to 1300 BP coincided with the Northern Wei (AD 386 to 535) to Tang (AD 618–906) dynasties on the mainland; the second on the east coast, during the Sanhe and Jingpu cultures, occurred as early as 2130 BP and coincided with the Nanyue kingdom—Western Han (206 BC to AD 9) to mid-Tang (ca. AD 800). I use these terms from ­Chinese dynastic history as temporal reference points merely for the reader’s convenience.

90  Chapter 7

Shisanhang Site (Northern Taiwan) The Shisanhang site in northern Taiwan, which is located a few kilometers from the mouth of the Tamsui River on its south bank at an elevation of about 5 m, is named after an early Chinese settlement on the site, which may have been linked to the Shisanhang trading organization of the Qing dynasty (AD 1644 to 1911), in Guangdong. It was excavated in 1957, 1978, and from 1989 to 1992. Following the final excavation, most of the site was destroyed for the construction of the Bali Sewage Treatment Plant. An area of 7,247 m2 was excavated and the area of the entire site exceeded 60,000 m2. Tree ring samples from the site cover a span from 538 to 1,414 years ago (Tsang 2000; 2001, 22). Four layers were discovered. Layer I, the surface layer, some 10 to 30 cm thick, was disturbed and contained earthenware sherds, iron artifacts, broken glass, and fragments of clay figurines. Layer II dated from the Qing dynasty (AD 1644 to 1911) and the Japanese period (late eighteenth to twentieth centuries). Layer III, termed the Shisanhang culture layer, is dated to 1800 to 500 BP, and was 20 to 60 cm thick. It contained pottery, stone and bone tools, metal artifacts, and animal bones as well as burials. The bottom of layer III contained some artifacts from the Yuanshan culture. Layer IV was composed of sterile sand. Tsang (2000, 154) reports that some 40 14C date from Shisanhang fell mainly between 2300 and 500 BP, and clustered between 1500 and 1000 BP. Pottery from the Shisanhang culture is reddish brown with fine paste, decorated with geometric patterns such as checks, chevrons, circles, parallel lines, and rhombi. The method of decoration was mainly impression but incision and stamping of dots were also used. Forms include bottles, bowls, basins, and globular cooking pots, A few striking anthropomorphic vessels were also produced (Tsang 2001, 36) (figures 7.2, 7.3). Trade sherds of earthenware from other parts of Taiwan were also found. Stone tools included a few abraders and hammerstones. Iron tools replaced stone adzes and knives (Han 1991). Shisanhang yielded 238 bronze objects along with glass, gold, copper, and silver objects, a few sherds of Song (AD 960 to 1279) and Yuan (1279 to 1368) porcelain, and several iron objects. It also yielded several hundred Chinese and Japanese coins. Two bronze arrowheads of a type different from the Dabenkeng specimen, but of the same type found in the Han dynasty fortress of Wuyishan in Fujian (see chapter 9), and a large sample of 590 small ornamental bronze bells in three sizes were found as well. Because these were not common in burials, they were likely simply used in daily life. A mold for making this type of bell was recovered from the Jiuxianglan site. Eleven bronze anthropomorphic dagger handles were found in the cultural layer and seven in burials (figure 7.4). They show striking similarities to heirloom daggers kept by Paiwan families and photographed by Kano Tadao (figure 7.5).

Figure 7.2.  Anthropomorphic clay vessel from the Shisanhang site. Tsang and Liu 2001, figure 38. Found in Excavation no. 5, Area B, Unit TO4P11D Layer 3. The form with the carinated shoulder and tall ring foot is common in Shisanhang but the anthropomorphic decoration is rare. Approximate height 23 cm. Line drawing by R. Pearson.

Figure 7.3.  Earthenware jar from the Shisanhang site decorated with incisions and impression. Height approximately 14 cm. From Burial Pit EM5, Area E, Pit T2P7B Layer 6. From Tsang and Liu 2001, figure 36. Line drawing by R. Pearson. Zone 1 has the same type of decoration as seen on the shoulder on a smaller scale. Zone 2 indicates a missing portion of the vessel. Zone 3 is a fragment of the bottom of the vessel.

Figure 7.4.  Shisanhang cast bronze dagger handles. From Tsang and Liu 2001, 80. Line drawing by R. Pearson.

Figure 7.5.  Heirloom bronze daggers and dagger handles of the Paiwan people recorded before 1940. From Kano 1946, figure 17, 19.

Metal Period, 2500 to 500 BP   93

Chinese coins included various specimens: Wuzhu, probably Han dynasty (206 BC to AD 220), Kai Yuan Tong Bao, Tang dynasty (AD 618 to 906), and Northern Song (AD 960 to 1279) (Tsang 2000, 45). A small Tang dynasty gilt bronze bowl was recovered from a burial. More than 200 bronze artifacts were recovered (Tsang 2001, 46). One bronze oblong repoussé ornament shows the form of a camel-like animal (Tsang and Liu 2001, 78) (figure 7.5, figure 7.6). Three nephrite artifacts, including a zooanthropomorphic earring, were recovered. Generally, this type of earring is dated from 2000 to 3000 BP (Tsang 2001, 50; see chapters 6 and 10). Most likely these nephrite objects were heirlooms. Blue and brownish glass, stone, shell, and agate beads came primarily from burials, but some were found in the cultural layer. Gold objects included 20 pieces in disc shape and rectangular strips with repoussé decoration. Silver earrings were also found, probably from the latest cultural layer. Chinese Song

Fig 7.6.  Metal objects from the Shisanhang site. From Tsang and Liu 2001, 78. (1–2) Bronze arrow heads. (3) Small bronze jingle bell. (4) Bronze plaque with raised decoration of a camel, converse and obverse. (5) Round disc. Line drawing by R. Pearson.

94  Chapter 7

Figure 7.7.  Metal ornaments from the Shisanhang site. (1–5) Gold disc ornaments. (6–7) Silver jue split-ring earrings. From Tsang and Liu 2001, 89. Line drawing by R. Pearson.

(AD 960 to 1279) and Yuan white and bluish-white porcelain (qingbai) sherds were also found (Tsang 2001, 51). From the discovery of post molds and comparison with Qing dynasty (AD 1644 to 1911) accounts of native houses, Tsang (2001, 91) calculates that the remains of 56 to 88 houses were found. These elevated dwellings were probably 7 m by 10 m in size. The village population he estimates at probably some 300 inhabitants. The spatial patterning of burials suggests that they may have been buried in nuclear family groups adjacent to the houses. Tsang concludes that the inhabitants relied primarily on fishing and hunting, but also on cultivated rice. Evidence of weaving is indicated from the finding of spindle whorls. From ethnographic comparison. it appears that the horizontal back strap loom was used (Han 1991). Tsang describes the finding of an iron-making hearth in the form of a pit approximately 2 m2 containing chunks of slag. He states that this is the first evidence of iron making in Taiwan (2000, 153). There is no doubt that some kind of iron working was conducted at Shisanhang, but many questions remain. In his exhaustive study of prehistoric metal working in Taiwan, Chen Kuang-tzuu concludes that the feature Tsang describes as “an iron-making

Metal Period, 2500 to 500 BP   95

hearth” is in fact some other kind of feature (2000b, 250). He points out the total absence of crucibles or tuyeres, proposing that any furnace would have likely been above ground, constructed of stone and plastered in the interior. The furnace would have been broken to remove the slag. The chemical composition of the slag is very similar to that of the iron sand deposits that are abundant around the site. He also proposes that local iron rich sand was used for smelting, even though the below ground hearth pit containing slag may not have been a furnace (2000b, 242–245). This iron sand, as well as the slag found on the site, contained titanium and manganese. No flux was added during the smelting process because the chemical composition of the sand and the slag was the same. Chen proposes that the Malay forging or single-action piston bellow was used to supply air to the furnace. It is not clear, however, whether definitive evidence of this process has actually been found in Shisanhang. At present, the missing pieces of evidence at Shisanhang are crucibles and burned fragments of the furnace wall. Liu Jiun-yu (2019, 43) illustrates a suspected tap hole from the Shisanhang hearth remains; the question of local iron smelting could change with new data. This process is sometimes called the bloomery method (Liu Jiun-yu 2019). It involved creating a bed of red-hot charcoal in a furnace to which iron ore mixed with more charcoal was added. The abundance and widespread nature of the iron rich sand in the area of Shisanhang precluded political control of the resource, according to Chen Kuang-tzuu (2000a, 259). The fuel employed was wood, not coal, lumps of which are found on the surface of the site. This coal is from the time of the Han Chinese occupation of the site; alternatively, some of it may have been deposited by the Tamsui River from upstream localities. Chen notes a second type of iron, one high in manganese. It is distinctive from the iron produced from local iron sand and is also found at other Metal period sites in Taiwan such as Fanziyuan, Guishan, and Jingpu (described in later chapters). An important source of iron was shipwrecks, given that each wreck yielded a huge quantity of nails. An iron nail was also found at the ­Funaura site, Iriomote Island, some 250 km east of the east coast of Taiwan (Pearson et al. 1978, 21). In their investigations of Sha Po in Hong Kong, Atha and Yip (2016, 80) found evidence of bronze casting in the form of two-piece molds associated with coarse pottery sherds splashed with bronze casting slag and possible fragments of crucibles. They postulate that simple “backyard” casting could have been carried out by preparing molten bronze in a crucible set in a coarse clay container containing charcoal, set in the ground. Bamboo tuyeres attached to bellows were inserted into the charcoal to create a draft and raise the temperature. Such a method would leave few traces beyond slag, burned soil, and burned coarse pottery. In

96  Chapter 7

conclusion, it seems that at present in Taiwan we have ample evidence of pre– Contact period metalworking but no unequivocal hard data on metal extraction. The people of Shisanhang were in contact with other Taiwan groups. Sherds of Fanziyuan black pottery from central coastal Taiwan were found in Shisanhang, as well as two prone burials that followed Fanziyuan custom, with a pottery vessel placed at the head of the deceased (Ho and Yen 2008). The bronze pieces of handles of iron-bladed weapons found in Shisanhang resemble handles kept as heirlooms by Paiwan tribes. A rare socketed spearhead found in the ­Guishan area in the extreme south of Taiwan appears to have been made of Shisanhang raw iron, traded from northern Taiwan all the way south (Chen Kuang-tzuu 2000b, 267). The end of the Shisanhang tradition of ironworking probably occurred in the second half of the seventeenth century, when Taiwan came under the control of the Zheng family from AD 1661 to 1683. Many mainland Chinese blacksmiths migrated to Taiwan at that time (Chen Kuang-tzuu 2000b, 142). Among the 238 bronze artifacts, Chinese and Japanese coins were found. The presence of Chinese coins of the Tang dynasty (AD 618–907) and Song dynasty (960–1279) and Japanese coins contemporary to the Tang dynasty may indicate the exchange of goods to Taiwan by itinerant Chinese traders (Tsang and Liu 2001, 79). It was suggested that these coins were not used as currency but instead as decorative objects or grave goods in Shisanhang society, suggesting they had a more symbolic than commercial significance. Most of the iron artifacts were heavily corroded, but 344 items in total were identified. The iron artifacts were mostly daily tools or weapons (83). Ornaments made of nephrite, clay, shell, animal bones, glass, agate, gold, and silver were found as well. Only three nephrite objects were unearthed, but 35,000 glass beads and 100 agate beads were reported (91–110). Most of these ornaments were found in graves. Of the 284 burials at Shisanhang, most were flexed, lying on their sides and facing the southwest; only a few were extended supine or extended prone (34–39). The burial area was outside the habitation area. Single and multiple burials were both unearthed, and pottery was the predominant grave good. In some cases, bronze coins, beads, and other ornaments were placed inside the mortuary pottery. Although the mouth of the Tamsui River lies across the Taiwan Strait from Fujian, the assemblage of Pacific glass and carnelian beads, gold, and bronze, and metalworking techniques are thought to have reached Shisanhang from Southeast Asia via the east coast of Taiwan. This proposal may be surprising to many readers. Liu Yi-chang (2019a, 227) outlines how the extraction of iron from iron sand and the spread of black pottery extends from Lanyu (the Lobusbussan culture) to the east coast and the Hengchun Peninsula to Hualien, Ilan, and Shisanhang, along the coast that is remote from the mainland.

Metal Period, 2500 to 500 BP   97

Shisanhang Palaeo Health The second largest sample of burials in Taiwan next to the sample from the Beinan site, eastern Taiwan (see chapter 6) consisting of 284 individuals, was recovered from Shisanhang.. An analysis by Liu Chin-hsin et al. (2014) shows a very low presence of dental caries in both deciduous and permanent teeth, but heavy attrition. Such attrition removes caries-prone loci early in life, reducing the overall chances of caries. Ante mortem tooth loss was exceptionally low in comparison with samples from other East Asian sites. Tooth abscesses were minimal and rates of dental calculus were low. However, the presence of linear enamel hypoplasia (LEH), a linear lesion of reduced enamel thickness, indicated childhood stress. This could be caused by contaminated food and water or marine foods or weaning stress. Also, many individuals in the sample were young adults, showing fairly high mortality rates. Liu et al. suggest that people engaged in “possible crop planting and the incipient domestication of pigs” (2014, 438). The study of samples from both Nanguanlidong and Shisanhang undertaken by Pietrusewsky (see chapter 4), found the same patterns of hypoplasia but found that high frequencies of dental calculus and alveolar resorption noted for Shisanhang relative to Nanguanlidong were consistent with the transition of advanced food preparation techniques in Shisanhang. It is not clear what these food techniques might be. Higher dental attrition in Nanguanlidong indicates the use of teeth as tools in the Early Neolithic. The rate of LEH was higher in Nanguanlidong, suggesting overall improvement of health in the Shisanhang. In general, the dental conditions were similar, showing that both sites shared a similar subsistence economy broadly based on farming, fishing, hunting, and gathering of both marine and terrestrial resources, The indications of oral infection in both Nanguanlidong and Shisanhang are among the lowest reported, indicating good health for Taiwan’s prehistoric inhabitants; they may indicate a non-agricultural subsistence economy of diets low in starch and sugars or the cariostatic nature of marine diets. Pietrusewsky et al. note that “the absence of evidence for a deterioration of health associated with the transition to sedentism and the intensification of agriculture was attributed to the relative noncarcinogenity of rice and retention of broad spectrum subsistence strategies” (2014a, 4). From an examination of pig mandibles, Liu Chin-hsin et al. conclude that pigs were in the process of being domesticated. Domesticated pigs appear in southern Taiwan about 1500 BP (2014, 420).

98  Chapter 7

Kivulan Site Lower Layer (Ilan Plain) The Kivulan site is located on the Lanyang Plain of Ilan in northeastern Taiwan, about 4 km from the present coastline. A portion of the site was waterlogged, and part of what remains after excavation is now submerged under the Dezikou River. Geological subsidence is common in the area. An excavation of some 3,800 m2 was undertaken to rescue part of the site before the construction of an expressway bridge. Six volumes of site reports were published by Chen You-pei et al. (2007a, 2007b, 2007c, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c). Architectural features, pits, and graves were encountered. The site has two components, the lower one dating from between 1600 and 800 BP and the upper one between 600 and 100 BP (Chen You-pei 2016b, 2018). I discuss the finds from the lower layer, where early Metal period beads were found. Finds from the upper layer are discussed in chapter 9. The burials are in two temporal groups, 100 to 400 BP (83 graves) and 800 to 1300 BP (20 graves) (Chiu 2004, 30). Burials from the lower layer included secondary burials and use of stone or wooden coffins or partial coffins made of wooden slabs. Some of the secondary burials may in fact be primary burials. Chiu (2004, 74) shows that site formation processes of decomposition and compression could transform a seated articulated skeleton into a skull sitting on a pile of long bones. Similarly, a flexed burial lying on its side can be compressed and take the form of a secondary burial. The Lower Cultural layer belongs to the Metal period, and the Upper Cultural layer to the Contact period. Interpretation of the interrelations of the two stratigraphic units remains controversial (Wang Kuan-wen 2016, 10). A substantial sterile layer lies between the two habitation layers; it has been attributed to climatic instability, in which heavy rainfall rendered the site uninhabitable (Huang Jyh-aan et al. 2019). Chen You-pei (2012) suggests that the two layers present the same cultural group based on the similarities of artifact styles, pottery in parti­ cular. Chiu (2004) holds the opposite view given that the mortuary practices show dramatic differences between the two layers, in particular, the body arrangement and the building of burial chambers. The lower layer has both habitation and mortuary contexts, including 35 burials found near a habitation area. Eleven of the burials have grave goods that include glass and agate beads, pottery, and a few metal artifacts. Due to the poor preservation of burials, age, gender, and body position were difficult to determine. Pottery in the lower layer consists of geometric impressed earthenware jars produced by paddle and anvil method. A total of 10,789 glass beads were found, 1,134 from the lower layer. Most of the beads in the lower layer were found in houses or midden (1,033), versus 101 from a mortuary context. In the upper layer, the majority of beads were from burials (6,474 items) rather than habitation or middens (643 items). They fall into two major groups:

Metal Period, 2500 to 500 BP   99

m-Na-Al glass and v-Na-Ca glass (Chen 2008; Wang Kuan-wen 2016) (see chapter 10). The discussion of the upper layer of Kivulan continues in chapter 8.

Fanziyuan Site (West Central Taiwan) The Fanziyuan site has layers of sand and gravel showing prehistoric flooding. The Fanziyuan culture—which dates from 400 to 1900 BP, that is, the first to sixteenth centuries AD—is a distinctive culture of the Metal period first identified by Sung and Lien (1975). The early stage of this culture, from 800 to 1900 BP, shows the use of black pottery as well as grayish black pottery resembling pottery from Shisanhang. In the late stage, from 400 to 800 BP, red pottery became more abundant (Wang Kuan-wen 2016, 36). Prone burials and shell middens were characteristic of Fanziyuan culture. It is mainly found in coastal regions, and many of the sites are shell middens. Its distinctive burial customs can be seen in some burials at the Shisanhang site of northern Taiwan, indicating ­contact between northern and central Taiwan. A study of the diet of the Metal period inhabitants of the Fanziyuan site examined the carbon and nitrogen stable isotopic composition of human bone collagen in 33 individuals (Lee Cheng-yi et al. 2017). In conjunction with archaeological evidence, this study showed that human diet at this site derived mainly from terrestrial animals, with a minor component derived from marine shellfish. No significant difference in isotopic compositions was detected between male and female adults or between adults and juveniles. However, six individuals had dietary patterns that were different from others, probably indicating that they had special social status or nonlocal origins, or both.

Huilai, Luliao, and Nanshikeng Sites (West Central Taiwan) I rely heavily on Yen’s discussion of these three sites (2017, 89–110). The Huilai site is in the Taichung Basin, 15 km from the present coastline, near the Fazi River, a tributary of the Dadu River. The site is now under a park in downtown Taichung City. The top layer contains material from the Han Chinese period; the lower layer contains black and gray pottery sherds of the Fanziyuan culture. Yen (90) states that at the time of occupation of the site the river was navigable by boat or raft. Traders from outside Taiwan probably sailed along the western coast and traveled inland along the major rivers. The area of the site is 150,000 m2; it contains deposits from the Niumatou (Middle Neolithic), Yingpu (Late ­Neolithic), and Fanziyuan (Metal period) cultures. At least one area of Huilai (Section 144) was carbon dated to 1200 to 1300 years BP. The Luliao and ­Nanshikeng sites are located on the Dadu Plateau, 6 to 7 km from the coast. The

100  Chapter 7

excavations of these sites are not yet fully reported; Yen (2017, 89–110) worked from preliminary reports. A publication of the abundant exotic glass beads from Luliao shows the wide extent of trading activities (Anthropology Group 2005). The Luliao site contains one cultural layer, radiocarbon dated to 420 to 1010 BP. The site is assigned to the Late Fanziyuan culture. Both Luliao and Fanziyuan are noted for the distinctive custom of prone burial (Ho, Liu, and Yen 2007). The pottery was reddish brown, with a hard, smooth surface; decoration consisted of regular patterns of zoned linear incision, stamping, and rows of circular punctates. A total of 2,239 glass beads were recovered from the Luliao site (Anthro­pology Group 2005). These beads are distinctive from earlier beads of Southeast Asian origin, and most likely come from the China mainland. The main colors were red, blue, green, and yellow. Polyhedral-faceted beads of agate were also found. They reflect increasing contact with Chinese traders along the west and north coasts of Taiwan, as seen in sites such as Shisanhang. In the early Metal period, exotic materials appear to have been exchanged between Shisanhang and Fanziyuan through land-based networks. Working from hypotheses that a commodity-oriented deerskin production developed during the Metal period, that the deer skins were traded overseas, and that local inhabitants traded the processed deerskins to Chinese private traders who traveled along the coast and followed the rivers, Yen (2017, 2012) examined the faunal assemblages of these three sites to explore differences in deer-hunting practices during the late Metal period. In particular, she assessed the degree of fragmentation of the bones to determine whether possible differences in the preparation of deer carcasses between the earlier site of Huilai and the later sites of Nanshikeng and Luliao. She found that all three faunal assemblages were dominated by bones of the sika deer. Age profiles showed that the Huilai and Nanshikeng people hunted deer mostly in the dry season, and that the Luliao people tended to hunt deer year round in a more intensive fashion (Yen 2017, 158). She also found that the concentration of exotic artifacts such as beads increased with the rise of commodity-oriented deer skin production, supporting the hypothesis that commercialized deer hunting was developed for the maritime trade. The discussion of these sites continues in chapter 8.

The Niaosong Culture (Southwestern Taiwan) The Niaosong culture extends over a wider area of Taiwan than the Dahu ­culture does. Three phases have been identified: the Anzi (1800 to 1400 BP), the Niaosong (1400 to 1100 BP), and the Kanxi (1000 to 500 BP). The people of the Niaosong phase used iron tools for woodwork, abandoning polished quadrilateral stone chisels and adzes but retaining lenticular sectioned

Metal Period, 2500 to 500 BP   101

stone hoes for clearing land and farming. They replaced stone projectile points with iron versions but retained hammerstones and grinding stones. They used three stone supports to make a tripod on which to place a clay cooking pot over the fire. Niaosong pottery is thick and flat bottomed and has attached lugs. The ring foot is retained but the shape is modified (Tsang et al. 2015, 238). The zeng steamer is an innovation that must have been adopted from the Han Chinese. Pottery vessels were globular with low perforated ring feet; various forms of lids were also produced. Pottery figures with human faces are an innovation of the Niaosong culture. Notably, the contemporaneous Shisanhang culture also produced pottery vessels decorated with a human face. Fine clay bracelets are predominantly reddish brown, but black examples are also seen. Examples of excellent carving of bone, antler, and wood were found. Bone gorges pointed at both ends were found as well. Iron objects include knives, swords, and arrowheads, but no remains of smelting or forging were recovered. Dog burials were discovered in ash pits. The dog skeletons are articulated and some have grave offerings of small pottery vessels. From faunal samples, evidence indicates deep sea fishing but remains of shore or estuary species are scant. Plant remains include Job’s Tears and rice. In the early period of the Niaosong culture, some burials were placed on a layer of pottery sherds, but this custom died out in later sites. Sequential burials were interred in the same grave. Because no earlier burials were disturbed by subsequent interment, later occupants must have retained knowledge of the location of earlier burials.

Daoye, Wujiancuo, Xiliao, and Shiqiao Sites (Southwestern Taiwan) Important Niaosong culture sites include Daoye, Wujiancuo, and Xiliao. Daoye is one of the sites found in the salvage excavations of the Tainan Science Park (Tsang et al. 2015, 227–268). The major occupation of Daoye occurred between 1800 and 1400 BP. Beads recovered from Daoye are monochrome and of Indo Pacific type. The site is composed of two cultural layers. The upper layer is from a Han Chinese settlement of the Qing period (AD 1644 to 1911), and the lower from the Anzi phase of the Niaosong culture. The pottery is brownish and bag shaped with a short straight collar. Spindle whorls are globular rather than the usual conical shape. The Wujiancuo site, also within the Tainan Science Park, had three layers: one belonging to the Contact period (see chapter 8), about 3.8 m above sea level and 20 cm thick dating to around 450 BP; a Niaosong layer about 2 m below the present surface and 2.6 m above sea level dating to around 1200 to 1500 BP; and a Dahu layer of the Wushantou phase dated to around 2500 BP. In general, the

102  Chapter 7

pottery is flat bottomed with reddish brown sandy paste. A burial from the Niaosong layer contained a decapitated head set in a basin and placed above the neck of the decapitated individual (Tsang et al. 2015, 264) confirming the practice of head-hunting in the Metal period. The Xiliao site, located on the north bank of the Zengwen River near Tainan, underwent salvage excavation from 2006 to 2010. I rely on a summary provided by Wang Kuan-wen (2016, 18, 19). The site was occupied from the end of the Middle Neolithic, through the Late Neolithic Dahu culture, and finally at the time of the Metal period Niaosong culture. Around the habitation area were middens, fireplaces, and a well. The pottery was predominantly plain red, and bird figurines diagnostic of the Niaosong culture were abundant. Burials were supine, with the head facing to the north. In the Late Neolithic occupation of Xiliao, the deceased were laid to rest on a layer of pottery sherds and a pot was placed on the north side of the burial. In the Metal Period, however, the use of the pottery pavement was not observed. A total of 62 glass beads were recovered from the Niaosong burials of Xiliao. The incidence of tooth ablation in the Niaosong culture, as revealed in the Shiqiao site, is different from that of previous cultures, the majority of cases being females over 15 years old whose upper left and right incisors and canine teeth were removed ([CI2|I2C]) (Tsang et al. 2015, 262). In previous cultures both males and females practiced the custom. Some human mandibles with perforations through the ramus were found in ash pits (264). At the Shiqiao site, 50 skeletons of a total sample of 1,672 burials of the Niaosong culture showed bilateral symmetrical ablation of maxillary lateral incisors and canine teeth of young females: ablation was highly correlated with adulthood and marital status. Chiu (2009, 16) notes that the practice is recorded for males in the Neolithic in the north, south, southwest, and east parts of the island. However, in the Metal period it is only found in Niaosong in the southwest and is limited to females. Because the Atayal, Bunun, and Tsou practiced tooth ablation in the Japanese period, this custom was probably more widespread in the Metal period than current evidence suggests (Frank Muyard, personal communication, 2020). Chiu (2010, 3) notes that at the Shiqiao site in the Tainan Science Park no positive correlation was found between tooth ablation and evidence of having experienced pregnancy but that females who had experienced pregnancy tended to be buried in spatial proximity to each other. Using the analysis of tooth crown measurement to detect genetic inheritance, Chiu finds that among the ablated females some were genetically related, but others were not; therefore, the practice was not restricted to one kin group. Within a 3-km radius of the Shiqiao site were five localities with roughly the same dates, type of tooth ablation, and material culture. The sites display the flexed supine burial position, with the

Metal Period, 2500 to 500 BP   103

head oriented to the north. Chiu (2009, 148) concludes that the people of the Niaosong culture were matrilineal or bilineal and practiced matrilocal residence. They practiced female tooth ablation at maturity or marriage. He concludes that they likely had a system of age grading. Evidence of head-hunting was found in the Guoxiao and Niaosong sites.

Guishan Site (Southern Peninsula) The most important site of the Metal period in the extreme southern peninsula is Guishan. Much of this summary is taken from Wang Kuan-wen (2016, 16–17). Guishan is located on a coastal terrace of raised coral reef. It is located within Kanding National Park, in the southernmost region in Taiwan. The name ­Guishan means Turtle Mountain in Chinese, which describes the shape of the hill where the site is located. This hill, rising to about 72 m above sea level, is located in the northwest corner of the Hengchun Peninsula. The Bali River flows 300 m to the north. The dimensions of the prehistoric site are roughly 500 by 400 m. At this time, Guishan materials are found on only a few sites. The first excavation at Guishan was conducted in 1985. This discussion ­focuses on the archaeological finds from the Metal period layers. The 14C data from shell and skeleton samples revealed the Metal period occupation of the site dates to around 1200 to 1500 BP, although a recent publication indicated that the 14C dating from the seashell must be calibrated; a new chronology of around 1000 to 1300 BP was then suggested (Yang Hsiao-ch’ing, Lee, and Chen 2012). This new dating seems to be rather late in light of postulated similarities with sites on the east coast such as Jiuxianglan, but a similar dating is given by Wang Kuan-wen (2016) and seems to be corroborated by cross dating glass beads found in Guishan with comparable ones from Southeast Asia. Li Kuang-ti (2003) conducted excavations in 1993 and 1994. The inventory of field collections includes potsherds, clay spindle whorls, pottery bracelet fragments, a broken clay animal figurine, stone net sinkers, stone hammers, stone knives, chipped stone hoes, polished stone hoes, polished stone adzes, stone projectile points, grinding stones, polished bone points, fragments of polished bone awls, double-pointed gorge fishhooks, two-piece composite fishhooks, iron knives, glass beads, perforated human teeth, perforated shark teeth, necklaces of shark vertebrae, perforated animal teeth of wild boar, dog, and clouded leopard, human burials with skeletons, and large quantities of animal bones, fish bones, and mollusk shells. The archaeological deposits are rich and diverse and provide a highly valuable source of information for the study of cultural differentiation, distribution, and change. A large proportion of potsherds were unearthed from Locus A, a different area than that of the burials where glass beads

104  Chapter 7

were found. However, the dispersed nature of the cultural deposit over the raised limestone coral reef has made it difficult to study the context of most areas. Figure 7.8 presents a sophisticated ornament carved from a canine tooth of a clouded leopard found in Guishan (Li Kuang-ti 2018, 128). A total of 17,000 pottery sherds of the Guishan culture dated to around 1500 BP were excavated. Only 6% were decorated, a small number with human figure designs. These vessels are very finely made and their production was labor intensive; they appear to have been prestige objects. The pottery was fired at between 650° and 800°C. It was hand built, in some cases with the aid of a slow wheel, most wheel marks appearing on the rim (Li Kuang-ti 2003, 82). A paddle and anvil were used as well and sometimes the vessels were carefully polished. The paste is relatively sandy to fine. Most of the potsherds unearthed at Guishan were red and plain. Vessel shapes are basins, bowls, beakers, jars, and long-neck bottles. The most common forms are small bowls with a round base and inverted mouth, medium bowls with flared mouths, and medium bowls with a flared mouth and ring foot. The sandy red ware was probably used for water storage vessels, which were large globular jars with short necks. Decoration was made by impression, incision, and the application of punctates. A small number of human face and figure designs were found: the total is 2% of the assemblage. Li argues that they are prestige objects. These vessels contain slate inclusions, slate being found only near Fengshan, north of the Hengchun Peninsula. ­Frog-shaped human figures seem close to the ethnographic Paiwan style. Although the area of distribution of this type of pottery on the Hengchun Peninsula appears to be very limited, the pottery has also been found on the east coast at several sites such as Chulu, north of Beinan in the Rift Valley. Petrographic analysis showing inclusions of lithics found along the east coast indicate that this pottery may originate from southeastern Taiwan (Li Kuang-ti 2003; Yang Hsiao-ch’ing, Lee, and Chen 2012). This type of pottery is found in a broad area of eastern Taiwan, such as at Jiuxianglan in southeastern Taiwan to Huagangshan near Hualien, and therefore may indicate the potential interaction between the Guishan site and broad eastern areas of Taiwan. The stamped motif could ultimately be derived from the Late Neolithic Yingpu culture. These sites date to around 1500 BP. The human figure motif may be associated with the Paiwan aborigines in southern and southeastern Taiwan (Li Kuang-ti 2003). Li argues that the ­Guishan inhabitants and Paiwan people have a common inheritance. At present, no Paiwan people live in this area. Three burials in stone slab coffins built on the coral reef were found at ­Guishan during the excavation in 1994. They contained multiple burials of two, three, or four individuals. Extended supine and prone burials were both identified. Grave goods including glass beads, grayish pottery, iron artifacts and

Metal Period, 2500 to 500 BP   105

bronze ornaments, perforated animal teeth, and human teeth were unearthed (Wang Kuan-wen 2018a, 17). Research suggests that the grave goods of perforated human teeth might be regarded as prestige goods representing the social status of the owner, possibly as a headhunter (Li Kuang-ti 2001). The exotic stamped pottery of the Guishan period is so unusual that it has been proposed that a group of migrants may have brought it to southern Taiwan on the trade routes extending at that time from Southeast Asia or the south China coast; as mentioned earlier, the area also has some connection to Yingpu. At Guishan, a total of 122 red, green, blue, and dark blue beads dated to roughly 1000 BP were found in roughly similar proportions (Wang Kuan-wen 2016, 116–120). Both wound and drawn types were noted; most were drawn. The types were more diverse than those from Jiuxianglan. In the tiny sample of three burials at Guishan, two included a variety of beads and one had only a few beads of two types (Wang Kuan-wen 2016, 225). A very fine carved ornament from the Guishan site, of unknown provenence, is illustrated in figure 7.8.

Figure 7.8. Upper: Engraved ornament made of the canine tooth of the Formosan Clouded Leopard (Neofelis nebulosa brachyura) from the Guishan site. Length 4.8 m. From Li Kuang-ti 2018, 128. Lower: Impression from sandstone mold fragment found upper layer of the Jiuxianglan site. From Lee Kun-hsiu 2015. Scale unknown. Line drawing by R. Pearson.

106  Chapter 7

The Guishan site yielded suid remains thought to be from domestic pigs introduced into Taiwan around 1500 BP (Li Kuang-ti et al. 2015). Suid remains found from earlier sites in the region, such as Eluanbi II and Yusunfang, appear to be wild boar, although they have larger third molars than modern wild boars (2015, 677). Remains of fourteen stone houses were found on the slopes of eastern Hengchun peninsula; they date between 700 and 300 BP. Maybe the Guishan people are their ancestors.

Huagangshan Site (East Coast) The Huagangshan site, the largest in Hualien City, has an area of about 1,000  m2 and was first investigated in the 1930s (a different site than the Huangguashan site in Fujian mentioned in chapter 9). It is located immediately south of the mouth of the Meilun River, on a deposit of sand and alluvium, at about 16 to 18 m above sea level. In the east coast region of dramatic coastal uplift, it has been elevated some 15 m during the past 4200 to 4600 years, since the time of the red cord-marked pottery. Every major culture in the region is represented in its six cultural layers (Kuo 2010a; Liu Yi-chang and Chao 2018, 63). These cultures are the Jingpu (300 to 650 BP), Huagangshan Upper Layer (1600 to 2100 BP), Late Huagangshan Meilun type (2500 to 3500 BP), Early Huagangshan (2800 to 3500 BP), East Coast Red-Corded Pottery (4000 to 4500 BP), and Late Dabenkeng (4500 to 5000 BP). The Huagangshan Upper Layer culture has attracted particular attention for its intrusive pottery types and radical change in burial practices, indicating the arrival of a new group in the area. The new pottery types are from the Guishan and Sanhe cultures, ­located in southern Taiwan. They include Guishan type cups decorated with intricate stamped decoration, small black or gray bottles with long neck, ­expanded round body and foot ring, and jars (guan or fu) with impressed decoration (figure 7.9). In addition are small numbers of Indo Pacific glass beads, among the earliest found in Taiwan. A few metal objects mark the beginning of the Metal period in Taiwan. Hearth features show the use of hot stones for cooking in earth ovens. The distinctive burials are about 50 to 70 cm below the surface. They usually have a single stone slab in the bottom, while some examples have stone cobbles around the edge of the burial pit. Some burials have a stone slab cover. The head faced north. Grave goods are pottery vessels, usually one to four in number. Some burials appear to be disarticulated and may be secondary.

Figure 7.9.  Pottery from the upper layer of the Huagangshan site. Upper: Huagangshan pottery upper layer, Gray ware cup of Guishan type, showing complex impressed decoration. Lower: Types of pottery decoration found on pottery from the upper layer, Huagangshan site. (a) diagonal paddle impression. (b) circular punctates. (c) feather pattern (nonlocal decoration). (d) rectangular impression. (e) rough impression. (f) comb impression. (g) geometric impression. (h) cloud and thunder pattern. (i) Guishan type decoration found on hard-fired gray ware shown above. (j) circular impression? (k) nipple. (l) pierced decoration. From Liu Yi-chang, Caho, and Chung 2013, 67. Courtesy of Professor Liu Yi-chang.

108  Chapter 7

Fulishan Site (East Coast) The single component Fulishan site, near Hualien, dates to around 2200 to 2500 BP, at the time of transition from the Late Neolithic to the Metal period. It yielded various kinds of megalithic remains, including slate coffins and stone wheels, fragments of iron artifacts and whetstones, as well as stone knives and sickles (Lee Kun-hsiu 2017). A small number of black pottery small bottles with stamped decoration were used as grave offerings; this type of pottery shows connections with early Yingpu and the middle period of Damalin.

Jiuxianglan Site (East Coast) The Sanhe culture, extending from the end of the Neolithic to the Metal period, developed from the Beinan culture of the Late Neolithic, as discussed in chapter 6. It has several unique characteristics (Shu et al. 2001). During the transition from Beinan to Sanhe, from 1800 to 1500 BP, bronze and iron came into limited use, glass beads appear, and stone tools decrease but do not disappear. Rare metal tools must have had high status (Kuo 2010a, 145). Toward the end of the Beinan culture, small sporadic migrations from the Philippines took place, bringing new pottery motifs as well as the use of bronze, iron, and glass. These lasted from 2000 to 1000 BP (Kuo 2010a, 153). According to Kuo, Beinan has artifacts from the Early Sanhe and the Sanhe cultures, dating from 2200 to 2000 BP. The Jiuxianglan site belongs to the Sanhe culture, one of the ancestors of ethnographic Paiwan culture, along with the Beiye culture of Pingtung (Pingtung). This culture represents a substantial change in material culture from the Beinan culture. New pottery characteristics of the Sanhe culture are snake motifs and stamped decoration, such as circles and geometric shapes, often applied in complex patterns. These motifs also occur in northern Philippine sites such as ­Anaro, Itbayat Island. Stamped circles are found on Yingpu black pottery and even in Yuanshan pottery (Kuo 2019a, 152, 160) as well as in Sanhe and Guishan pottery. I expect that they are evidence of influence from the mainland coastal Geometric pottery of Guangdong and Fujian, dating to the Minyue kingdom (Kuo 2019a, 161, 174–175, 186, 213; Lin Fu 2019) (see chapter 9). Stamped pottery also appears in the Lobusbussan culture sites of Lutao and Lanyu. According to Chen Yu-mei (2021), these two islands were settled by people from eastern and southern Taiwan, but not until the Middle or Late Neolithic. On these islands, no evidence points clearly to Middle Neolithic red cord-marked pottery. The Jiuxianglan site is located directly on the seashore about 30 km south of Taitung, near the south bank of the Taimali River. It was a substantial

Metal Period, 2500 to 500 BP   109

settlement on the small delta of the Taimali River, in contact with Guishan, and profiting from its contacts to the south. The site is dated roughly to 1500 to 1200 BP (Kuo 2010a, 137). Part of the site was washed away by high waves during a ­typhoon in 2003. It is likely that the eroded areas contained the remains of production sites. Another part of the site was recently developed into an agricultural area with several fishponds. Because the cultural layer was some 3 m below the surface of shoreline sand dunes, heavy equipment was used to remove the deep overburden of sand. Salvage excavations of 4,000 m2 in area were ­undertaken in 2004 and 2005 by the National Museum of Prehistory (Lee ­Kun-hsiu 2005a, 2005b) and in 2007 (Lee Kun-hsiu 2007, 2010). In 2004 and 2005, a month-long excavation was conducted in the shoreline areas (Lee Kun-hsiu 2005). Eleven stone coffins (cists) were excavated. Burials and a cultural layer, consisting of brown beach sand, were found. In the cultural layer, various kinds of manufacturing debris were revealed (Lee Kun-hsiu 2005a, 2005b, 95–120; Lee Kun-hsiu and Yeh 2017). The cultural layer is one of the richest in East Taiwan. Twelve excavation pits, each 4 m2, were opened. About 1 million pottery sherds, 3,000 artifacts (stone, bone, glass, metal, marine, and terrestrial faunal materials), and botanical remains were recovered. Subsequent excavations were published in 2007 and 2010 (Lee Kun-hsiu 2007, 2010) and a publication discussing the sandstone molds was published in 2015 (Lee Kun-hsiu 2015). In a shoreline excavation, three adjacent units each 4  m2 were opened. Finds included 230,000 pottery sherds, 541 stone tools, 71 bone artifacts, and a mass of animal bones (2007, 65). Six cobble features ­resembling those from Beinan were found, with slate coffins below them. Stone tools were also recovered: chipped stone adzes ( fu), stone knives of several different shapes including rectangular and sickle shape, perforated ­arrowheads, stone needles, chisels, gouges, net weights, stone weights, stones with small depressions, whetstones, small stone circular perforated discs, slate bracelets and Han Chinese white jade bracelet fragments. A small round tooth shape flat stone, and two round shape stone discs were also found (Lee Kun-hsiu 2005b, 163). Other finds included sandstone molds, glass beads, bronze bells, bronze ­tubular earrings, bronze slag, iron knives, iron arrowheads, iron slag, gold foil, gold beads, bone needles, bone artifacts, simple and composite bone fish hooks, and bone arrowheads. Ornaments included tooth pendants, bone ornaments, and carved bone knife handles (Lee Kun-hsiu 2005b, 163–168). In this assemblage of the Sanhe culture, one can see the tradition of Beinan culture, the slate coffins, stone hoes, sickles knives chipped stone circular discs, stone weights, but also items that have come from outside; bracelets, ringfooted jars (guan), the snake motif, gray black and red jars, the technique of

110  Chapter 7

making small mold-made metal objects and glass beads, jade linglingo with three projections, and the bone assemblage. This culture could extend as far back as 2500 BP. Examination of the pottery assemblages from the Jiuxianglan site also reveals cultural affinities or interaction of people from this site with those from contemporary southern Taiwan. Lee Kun-hsiu (2005b, 69–74) suggests that some of the decorated pottery may reveal a development from the earlier style of Sanhe culture to the later Guishan motif. Guishan pottery is often found in southern Taiwan, and therefore its presence at Jiuxianglan has led to the discussion of the relationship between the Sanhe culture in southeastern Taiwan and the Guishan culture in southern Taiwan. However, recent petrographic analysis on the decorated pottery of Guishan type at Jiuxianglan has shown that the raw materials may in fact be locally procured in southeastern Taiwan (Yang ­Hsiao-ch’ing, Lee, and Chen 2012), suggesting some interaction took place ­between southeastern and southern Taiwan. A small quantity of the Jiuxianglan pottery (150 sherds out of a total 45,000) resemble Geometric pottery from Guangdong where they date from 2150 to 1170  BP. They are hard fired and decorated with impressions or repetitive stamped decoration (Lee Kun-hsiu 2015). One of the striking finds at Jiuxianglan was the evidence of pyrotechnology relating to glass bead making and metal casting (Lee Kun-hsiu 2005a, 2007). This includes small fragments of glass rods, a mandrel encircled with a glass bead, fused glass, and glass beads attached together. Sandstone casting molds and metal slag were found as evidence for metal production. A total of 2,800 glass beads were found in the first excavation season. Only two were polychrome; all the rest monochrome red, orange, yellow, green blue, and black. A furnace-like structure built of gravel with burned areas and associated glass finds was interpreted as place for bead making. Wang Kuan-wen et al. (2018, 2019) conducted the first analytical study of 36 beads and eight waste samples from the site, combining technology, chemical composition, and microstructure. The finished beads in the sample were made by the drawn method but the evidence from the raw and waste materials in the site show glass rods, used in the wound method. In addition, the raw materials in the site do not match the materials found in the finished beads (Wang Kuan-wen et al. 2019, 1398). They find that the bead-making methods identified in the glass beads and the glass waste recovered from the site do not match each other, nor do the composition, coloring recipes, and manufacturing processes. This disparity could be the result of a sampling error, but visual observation of other bead samples indicates that most were drawn beads. Two techniques, drawn beads and wound beads, may be sequential rather than contemporary. Drawn beads appear to date to a

Metal Period, 2500 to 500 BP   111

period earlier than the sixth century AD and wound beads to the seventh century (Wang et al. 2019, 1403). The wound bead technology found in Jiuxianglan has not been found in securely identified sites around the South China Sea in this period; it may have come from China, but the Chinese examples date from the twelfth century AD onward. Wang Kuan-wen et al. (2019, 1404) are not convinced of a connection. The situation seems temporarily unresolved. The authors conclude that at present evidence of glass bead production at Jiuxianglan is not definitive. It could be that at first beads were imported to Jiuxianglan and that later the inhabitants learned how to make them. It is possible that the later production localities have been eroded by the sea or lie in an unexcavated area of the site. The picture emerging from this analysis is that Jiuxianglan probably took part in the import of exotic glass beads in the earlier period and later developed bead production at the site. This may indicate a potential change in cultural, social, or economic activities at Jiuxianglan within a thousand years. A total of 26 burials have been excavated at Jiuxianglan; 25 were slate slab cist burials. One had no coffin. The presence of slate slab coffins, together with the multiple burials and the potsherds covering over the face of individuals, suggests a possible relationship to the Neolithic Beinan culture. Nineteen burials were found with grave goods, including glass beads, pottery and a few agate beads, shell beads, nephrite beads, and metal artifacts (Lee Kun-hsiu 2010, 180–181). Nine had no grave goods. Glass beads were present in nine burials, five of which also had one or more metal artifacts. Some of these “rich burials” contain more than one individual. Cist burials containing multiple interments tend to be rich in grave goods. A similar pattern was observed in the Beinan site. Most of the pottery vessels found in mortuary contexts are smaller relative to the utilitarian pottery found on settlement sites, and the typology and decoration is similar to the Guishan type pottery (Lee Kun-hsiu 2010, 182–183). The ceramics seem to be ritual containers such as cylindrical cups with a small vertical ring handle midway up the side and small jars with low flaring ring feet, as well as some with very low flaring shoulders and straight necks. In the two seasons of excavation in 2004 and 2007, 671 specimens of sandstone molds were found, including fragments broken during casting, and unused molds, waste pieces, and molds with grooves for molten metal. An impression taken from a mold is shown in the lower portion of figure 7.8. Lee Kun-hsiu (2015) considers these to represent a mature package for metal production, not an initial technology, indicating that advanced technical knowledge was introduced from overseas. Most of the molds are double sided for the production of small ornaments, some for casting a single object, and others for multiples. One piece of the two-piece mold has been carved out; the other is flat.

112  Chapter 7

One two-piece dagger handle mold has a frontal face and a flat back. The external form of the molds is cubical. Lee states that their dating between 2000 and 1200 BP, and their association with so-called Indo Pacific glass beads and jade earrings with three-pointed projections, indicates that they are likely from mainland Southeast Asia (42). It is likely that molding technology arrived in Taiwan on the same route, sometimes referred to as the South China Sea Maritime Trading Network. The dagger molds may be the prototypes of the Paiwan human figure daggers given that the motifs are quite similar. Gold objects also came with the maritime trading networks. Southeast Asian origins have also been proposed. These casting molds resemble stylistically clay molds found in Southeast Asia (Hung Hsiao-chun and Chao 2016), although petrographic investigation of the sandstone used to produce the molds indicates this raw material was procured locally in southern Taiwan (Yang et al. 2012). No examples of tooth ablation were found in the Metal period sites of Kivulan or Jiuxianglan. Chiu (2009, 18–21) notes that historical documents predating 1700 describe tooth ablation for females at the time of marriage. However, records from the Japanese period did not associate tooth ablation with marriage but instead associated it with coming of age. In general, tooth ablation seems to have been available to everyone as a marker of age or events of the life cycle rather than as a marker of social hierarchy. Among most modern Taiwan native groups, age grading is a major feature in the absence of rigid hierarchical divisions.

Jialulan Site (East Coast) In 1933, Miyahara excavated an old house in Jialulan (Karakulan) Village, Taimali. Below the floor was a rectangular cist (stone coffin). Although no skeletal remains were found, grave goods consisted of 10 metal short daggers, 40 brass bracelets, three brass dagger handles, three brass bells, and two lead glass beads. More finds were made in 1935, including a broken segment of a dagger with two projections like arms and a central human face (Chen 2011b, 184–189). The rectangular cist is a later form than the long cists of the Beinan culture. The Jialulan area is located within the territory of the ethnographic Puyuma people.

Baisang’an Site (East Coast) This site appears to have been occupied in both the Late Neolithic and Metal periods (Lee Kun-hsiu 1993). A large stone upright roughly 3 m2 has two rectangular lug-like protrusions on one face. A cultural layer some distance from the

Metal Period, 2500 to 500 BP   113

upright contained abundant gray pottery and chipped hoes of sandstone and basalt. Two nearby distinctive undated burials in rough stone-lined pits (not slate coffins) were found. One of the burials contained rich grave offerings that included a very thin sheet gold frontlet decorated by repoussé technique and a crescent-shaped neckpiece of bronze or alloy. The burial yielded 16,230 glass beads and 32 carnelian beads as well as iron bracelets (Chen Kuang-tzuu 2011b, 181). The striking neck ornaments provide a glimpse into the burial practices and prestige goods of the east coast Metal period. They are displayed in the National Museum of Prehistory in Taitung.

Hanben Site (East Coast) The Hanben site, officially known as Blihun Hanben, is a coastal site at the mouth of the Heping River, halfway between Hualien and Suao, at the foot of a cliff facing the Pacific Ocean on the east coast. Culturally, it shows affiliation primarily with Shisanhang and Kivulan but also with Huagangshan. It was designated a National Historic Site in 2016 following a public outcry against its impending destruction by the expansion of the coastal highway, which the local governor had approved despite environmental hazards (Zorzin 2017). A rescue excavation of 3,250 m2 was undertaken by Liu Yi-chang in 2016 (Liu Jiun-yu 2018). The site contained several house structures, six tons of iron slag and remains of metalworking such as burned clay, at least 200 burials, several household structures, and small terraces for agriculture (Cultural Assets Bureau 2017). In all, 214 burials were recovered; 20% contain more than one individual in a coffin of shaped slate and piles of schist pieces. Two cultural layers were identified; the upper one was radiocarbon dated to roughly 1570 to 970 BP and the lower to 1990 to 1335 BP. A deeper layer may exist. The lowest deposits in a few test pits resembled those found in Shisanhang, but were difficult to match with other known archaeological cultures. Liu Jiun-yu (2018) sampled from one 4 m2 unit and several 1 m2 subunits. Pottery petrographic analysis showed multiple sources of ceramic inclusions, from southeastern to northern Taiwan, easily more than 100 km distant, indicating that the people were highly mobile and engaged in extensive trade. The dominant petrographic types of upper layer are similar to those of the Shisanhang culture but lower layer types are very different, containing nonlocal products. The pottery of the lower layer includes hard dark pottery with impressed decoration, which is found in only a few other sites, such as the upper layer of Huagangshan. Liu concludes that it must come from the Philippines, where similar pottery is decorated by circular impressions. However, the Taiwan ­examples are hard fired and therefore different from the Philippine examples.

114  Chapter 7

Burials from the two layers have the same flexed and sitting burial position. Burial goods consist of pottery, iron knives, lithic tools, glass rims, agate beads, and bronze ornaments. Based on finds from Hanben, Liu Jiun-yu (2018) proposes a scenario for the introduction of pyrotechnology brought by a diaspora of traders and metal workers, occurring in three stages. Around 2400 BP, these maritime traders and specialists stayed for only one or two seasons, judging from the paucity of glass and metal materials at this time. Around 2100 BP, they began to stay longer, settling near the host community, expanding farther to the north along the east coast. In the third stage, from 1800 to 1600 BP, they established settlements with free access to iron ore. Sites from this stage should yield slag and furnace remains, and metallurgical analysis should indicate the use of local material. Liu concludes that similar smelting might have been carried out in the Hanben Site, but the actual clay-lined broken furnace has not been found yet nor is the slag of the type associated with smelting; it is of the type associated with smithing; (2019, 39). Liu finds that the proposed (but not completely substantiated) ­Taiwan type of bloomery extraction method is found in Guangdong, Guangxi, and Yunnan (2019, 44).

Lanyu and Lutao Sites Several sites on the small offshore islands of Lanyu and Lutao could be as old as 1000 BP (Liu Yi-chang 2011a, 258–259). They are notable because they yield sherds of distinctive stamped or impressed pottery similar to Guishan pottery and may have a similar origin. Jar burials found on these islands seem to be derived from the Batanes Islands. Although some data suggest that people started to migrate from Taiwan to Lanyu and Lutao as early as the mid-Neolithic/Fine Cord-Marked pottery period, it was during the late Neolithic that the two islands witnessed immigration on a larger scale. Most of the work on Lanyu has been salvage recovery of jar burials unearthed during construction. These burials have yielded glass beads, glass and gold bracelets, iron objects, and bronze bells. The assemblages from Lutao and Lanyu show similarities with the Sanhe culture site of Jiuxianglan. The development of the Lobusbussan archaeological culture in the Metal period was a result of interaction with the south. For Lutao, multiple genetic origins were observed among the local population (Chen Yu-mei 2021). Questions such as the establishment of early settlement in Lanyu and Lutao and their interaction with their former homelands require further investigation and research. From studies of mitochondrial DNA, Loo et al. (2011) conclude that evidence of gene flow between the Yami of Lanyu and the people of Ivatan ­Island in the Babuyanes Islands is scant.

Metal Period, 2500 to 500 BP   115

The ethnographer Deszo Benedek (1987, 87) learned from a Lanyu informant in 1983 that Batan Island was the source of treasures (such as blue glass beads and gold and was a place that symbolized social and cultural value). Artifacts from the south, he was told, were cherished and prized by the local people and became important components in rituals for life events or annual ceremonies. In other words, they were indispensable elements in the social reproduction of local society.

Conclusion Although Taiwan remained relatively isolated from the busy trade routes originating from production centers in China and passing close to Penghu, it had indirect access to metal and glass objects that replaced nephrite as desirable objects for exchange on South China Sea Austronesian routes. The adoption of metal tools and ornaments is relatively well documented and the chemical characterization of trade artifacts sophisticated, but the actual nature of native society and political economy are not clear. Many recent excavations have been very large projects, generating huge collections requiring heroic efforts for curating and management. In future, to explore the interrelations of various classes of artifacts, multivariant spatial analysis of sites and regions may shed light on the relationships among social groups and the circulation of exotic objects in sites, and regions. Special techniques for bronze and iron casting or firing ceramics at high temperatures to make stoneware or porcelain did not cross the Taiwan Strait from China. Metal objects were made from recycled iron from shipwrecks and perhaps Chinese coinage. Bloomery production of iron from iron sand is yet to be conclusively confirmed. Bronze casting in small molds is confirmed by the presence of molds in Jiuxianglan and the presence of molded dagger handles from Shisanhang. Glass beads were obtained on trade routes from Southeast Asia until roughly 1000 BP or even later. Scholars may soon confirm with archaeological data the production of glass beads in Taiwan, just as they did for iron smelting. Northern Taiwan and the center of Shisanhang and early Kivulan appear to be linked to the Fujian coast through itinerant traders, not settlers, as well as to Southeast Asia via the east coast. The large number of molds for making metal objects from Jiuxianglan may support the suggestion that itinerant craftspeople formed enclaves in some southeastern settlements. Wang Kuan-wen (2016, 30–42) summarizes regional exchange relations in the Metal Period. In the north, the Shisanhang culture traded iron and grayish black pottery from the northern and eastern coasts to the Jingpu, Sanhe, and Lobusbussan cultures. Geometric stamped pottery, sideways flexed burials, iron smelting, and coins from the Tang (AD 618 to 906) and Song (AD 960 to 1279)

116  Chapter 7

Periods suggest interaction with China, but also the presence of glass beads, agate beads, bronze coins, and gold artifacts indicate interaction with other cultures of the South China Sea. The presence of gold discs in Shisanhang and fragments of gold foil in Kivulan, in addition to the frontlet from Baisang’an indicate that gold objects circulated rather widely along the east coast in in the north. Goldworking has a long history in the Philippines and some similarities among objects found in the Taiwan and the Philippines can be seen. One is a Philippine tradition of producing gold foil (Capistrano-Baker, Guy, and Miksic 2012). On the east coast, the Upper Huagangshan culture grave goods such as glass beads, nephrite earrings, and footed blackish or reddish pottery with long necks were found. The Guishan culture had unique pottery with human and pit viper motifs. Petrographic analysis indicates that this pottery may have been made in southeastern Taiwan rather than southern Taiwan (Li Kuang-ti 2003; Yang Hsiao-ch’ing, Lee, and Chen 2012). The Niaosong culture has iron artifacts, glass and agate beads. In the Early phase of the Fanziyuan culture, glass beads are rarely reported but are abundant in the Late phase. These later beads are of Chinese rather than Southeast Asian origin. Certain types of beads circulated within limited areas, suggesting that they were not alienable commodities but instead social inalienable valuables. Pottery styles were also local, such as the intricately stamped pottery of Guishan and the human effigy jars of Shisanhang. Distinctive burial patterns indicate regional identity. Head-hunting was practiced. Dietary studies of human skeletons seem to indicate that subsistence patterns were diverse and cultivation was practiced but not the only means of support for communities. Occasional rich burials may indicate the emergence of social ranking, though no clear evidence of inequality in community or settlement patterns has been found, that are just now being investigated. Groups specializing in trade or craft production may have appeared at the end of this period, judging from their existence in the Contact period (discussed in chapter 8). Until this time, Taiwan was remarkably isolated, considering its proximity to the China mainland and Southeast Asia. Chapters 8 and 9 describe aspects of isolation and contact. Continuities from Metal period cultures to ethnographic cultures can be seen in five areas: in the north, between the Shisanhang culture and groups described by the Europeans in the mid-seventeenth century; in the west, between the Fanziyuan culture and the Pingpu Plains people and between the Niaosong culture and the Siraya people (Yen 2017); on the east coast, in the seeming connection between the Jingpu culture and the Amis people (Liu Yi-chang 2011a, 265–269); and in the south, between the Sanhe and Beiye cultures and the Paiwan people.

Chapter 8

Contact Period, AD 1500 to 1663

In previous chapters, I describe the arrival of populations from the Chinese mainland in the Early Neolithic and the long period of relative isolation in the Middle and Late Neolithic. A hallmark of the Neolithic was the exchange of Taiwan nephrite within Taiwan and some areas of Southeast Asia. In the Metal period, from 2500 to 500 BP, metalworking was adopted and glass beads were imported. Centers of metalworking emerged in eastern and northern Taiwan. In the early second millennium AD, some limited contact with mainland China took place, as seen in the Shisanhang site. Although archaeological evidence is still scant, it is evident that Han Chinese arrived in southwestern Taiwan in small numbers during the Ming dynasty (Chen Kuo-tung 2022). Taiwan was colonized by the Dutch from AD 1626 to 1662 and the Spanish from 1626 to 1642. The Zheng family defeated the Dutch in 1662 and controlled parts of Taiwan for two decades before they were defeated by the Qing dynasty forces in 1683 (Tsang 1989). This is known as the Contact period. The process of gradual, multistage contact between the Chinese and natives was completely different from that with the Dutch and the Spanish. Contact between Chinese traders and natives occurred over several centuries. Contact with the Dutch began and ended in less than 50 years. A period of pre-Dutch contact began in 1582, the year of the account by Gomez of a wreck in northern Taiwan of a Portuguese junk sailing from Macao to Japan with 300 passengers (Borao Mateo 2009, 207), and lasted until the Dutch arrived in the Tainan area in 1624. Three crew members of the Portuguese junk provided the first eyewitness accounts of Taiwan. After three months in Taiwan, they built a small ship from the remains of the junk and returned to Macao (Olle 2022). 117

118  Chapter 8

The Dutch first traded with the East Indies in 1595 and established the Dutch East India Company (VOC, Vereenigde Oost Indische Compagnie) in 1602. At first, the VOC captured Portuguese ships and stole their cargo, but later built their own ships. In 1624, they established the trading post at Tayouan (Tainan). From 1640 onward, Taiwan was one of the most profitable VOC posts in Asia. Because the Tayouan post could only handle ships with a draft of less than 4 m, goods were assembled in Tayouan and, using small ships, loaded on to a large VOC ship in a roadstead near Penghu. The Dutch also captured Chinese junks on the route from Fujian to Manila. At the height of the transshipping trade, in 1638, some 890,000 pieces of porcelain were held in the warehouse in Fort Zeelandia (Ketel 2010, 20–26). Recent excavations, some of which are described here, illuminate the society and material culture of this period. The Contact period has several interesting parallels with the European Contact period in North America; competition for animal pelts, glass beads, and even tobacco pipes may sound familiar. In contrast to contact periods in other parts of the world, Taiwan aboriginal populations were not decimated by introduced foreign disease because they had long been exposed to Eurasian germs (Andrade 2008, 223; for the major Chinese historical documents referring to Taiwan and the Ryukyus, see Hsu 1980). From at least the ninth and tenth centuries AD, the inhabitants of Taiwan had intermittent Chinese contact from China (Liu Yi-chang 2018). Liu ­Yi-chang and Wang Wen-hsiung (2021) note a shift from exchange with Austronesian partners in Southeast Asia, the Austronesian trade routes, to exchange with Chinese traders, the East Ocean navigation routes. Andrade (2008, 88) makes the important point that “since Sung times, the trade of the East China Sea always produced a nexus where all parties could meet with a minimum of political competition.” This center was in Quanzhou in the Southern Sung and Yuan and in the Ryukyus for much of the Ming. However, in 1609, the Ryukyu kingdom came under the control of the Satsuma fiefdom of Southern Kyushu and, at the same time, the China coast became more unsettled. The Dutch were able to develop a point of contact between the Chinese and Japanese merchants in the Tainan area and convert it into a point for transshipment for goods destined for Japan, Southeast Asia, and Europe. The Dutch bought Chinese goods and sold them to Japan, which in 1636 expelled the Portuguese and forbade all Japanese maritime trade with Westerners. Tsang Cheng-hwa (1989, 169) asserts that Han Chinese from the southeast coast established temporary fishing bases in the Penghu islands from the ninth to tenth centuries AD but not permanent settlements until two or three centuries later. Tsang’s investigation of the Shibantoushan A site and other historical sites yielding Chinese ceramics, clay net sinkers, iron artifacts, coins, and a rock

Contact Period, AD 1500 to 1663   119

paved house floor (Tsang 1992, 237) confirmed evidence of temporary and permanent settlement. It appears that Visayan people (Pi-she-yeh) from the Philippines attacked Penghu in 1171 as part of an attempt to plunder the southeast China coast (Tsang 1989; Knapp 1980, 7). Quanzhou officials are said to have attempted unsuccessfully to establish a military garrison. During the Ming period (1368–1644), the imperial court did not recognize the island as part of China or part of the Chinese tributary system. Considerable new information on Chinese ceramics found in Taiwan is illuminating the nature of contact with the Chinese mainland. Liu Yi-chang and Wang (2017) divide these finds into four phases: 850 to 1100; 1100 to 1400; late fourteenth to the mid-sixteenth centuries; the mid-sixteenth to early seventeenth centuries. In the first phase, the west coast was occasionally visited by fishermen or residents of Penghu. No definite transportation routes or exchange networks between China and Taiwan were formed at this point. Trade ceramics found on the east coast of Taiwan and Lanyu indicate that the preceding Austronesian networks were fairly active in this period. In the second phase, the presence of lagoons and therefore good ports on the southwest coast suggests more trade sites in the southwest. Some Koryo celadon sherds have been found in Lanyu in this period. The north coast may have been incorporated into a regional network linking Fujian and the Ryukyu Islands; the Zhoushui estuary may have been in contact with Penghu. The third phase is the period of the Ming Maritime Ban (1371–1509 and 1521–1529), which saw a decline in trade wares across Taiwan. At this time, the Ryukyu kingdom participated in tributary trade that was exempt from the Ming Maritime Ban (Pearson 2013, 215–219). Some private Chinese traders may have passed along the north coast of Taiwan on the way to the Ryukyu Islands. Keelung must have been important but recent development has probably destroyed early sites. Fifteenth-century ceramics are widely found in Tamsui and Keelung in the north, Changhwa and Yunlin on the west coast, and Hualien on the east coast. In the fourth phase, Zhangzhou ware from southern Fujian predominated. Liu and Wang link it to the Fujian-Manila trade, but it is definitely linked to the deerskin trade with Japan as well as to Manila and Fujian. In northern Taiwan, the archaeological sites of Xiagukeng and Kivulan were major entrepôts. They mention the position of Taiwan between the Fujian-Manila route and the Fujian Ryukyu route, and say that northern Taiwan was included in some voyages on that route. Shipwrecks with cargoes of ceramics dating to the Five Dynasties (907–960) and Southern Song period (1127–1279) found in Penghu show that ships passed

120  Chapter 8

near these islands on their way to Southeast Asia (Huang Han-chang 2012). Dating to the Tang (618–906), the Song (960–1279), and the Yuan (1279–1368) in the Penghu area are 39 underwater sites or artifact scatters. A Qing period (1644–1911) sunken ship and a Ming period (1368–1644) wreck have also been located. A shipwreck site dating to the tenth century AD at an undisclosed location in Penghu yielded some 3,153 sherds of Yue ware, the product of the Shang­ linhu Kiln site in Hangzhou (Chen Hsin-hsiung 1994). The ceramics were probably produced in the Ting (丁) year (AD 977), one year before the end of the Wuyue kingdom. The wares are of high quality, showing the technical and economic power of the Wuyue kingdom and shedding light on one of its trade routes. The ship was thought to be sailing from Ningbo to Southeast Asia or beyond. This find is apparently a scatter of sherds probably from a wreck, with no archaeological context (Liu and Wang 2017). These ceramics are roughly contemporary with Yue ware found on Kikai Island in the Ryukyu Islands (Pearson 2013, 160) and two plates of ninth-century Changsha ware were found in a local shrine on Iriomote Island, southern Ryukyus (Pearson 2013, 80). A survey of an area 500 m2 at a depth of 27 m near Baisha Island, Penghu, using side scan sonar and a remotely operated vehicle, yielded sherds of Zhejiang Yue ware from the Tang (618–906) to the Song (960–1279) dynasties (Huang ­Han-chang 2012). The large Portuguese ship wrecked in 1582 recorded by Gomez (Borao Mateo 2009) provided a huge windfall of iron artifacts and precious goods for local inhabitants and such wrecks must have occurred relatively frequently. Typical seventeenth-century Fujian ceramics found in Taiwanese sites such as Shenei and Daoye are shown in figure 8.1. Japanese trade should not be discounted. The deer skin trade is described in chapter 7. Both Dutch and Spanish planned on conducting relaying trade between China and Japan when they established their colonies. Such trade flourished until the Tokugawa government stopped outside trade in 1635. Before the Dutch colony was established, Japanese traders and pirates traveled regularly along the western and northern coasts of Taiwan. Copper ingots were traded by the Japanese in the seventeenth century. Bars about 22 cm long have been found at Shewei, Ilan, and from the sea at Magong, Penghu (Chen Kuang-tzuu 2011, 193).

Reasons for Late Contact and Colonization Despite the new materials on trade ceramics in Taiwan, the intensity of trade of contact and trade affecting Taiwan up to the seventeenth century from surrounding areas is still low compared with Japan, Korea, the Ryukyu Islands, and parts of Southeast Asia. Reasons for this are important. Navigation along the west coast of Taiwan was much easier thousands of years ago in the Early

Contact Period, AD 1500 to 1663   121

Figure 8.1.  Contact period artifacts from the Shenei and Daoye sites. (1) Brown ware narrow neck jar (guan). Shenei. Height 11.5 cm. (2) White porcelain small lion figure. Daoye. Height 9.2 cm. (3) Anping jar. Daoye. Height 12 cm. (4) Porcelain bowl, underglaze blue and white decoration. Daoyue. Height 7.6 cm. (5) Porcelain cup, underglaze blue and white decoration. Shenei. Height 3.3 cm. (6) Porcelain bowl, underglaze blue and white decoration. Daoye. Height 7.6 cm. (7) Agate bead. Shenei. Length 1.3 cm. (8) Agate bead. Shenei. Length 2.1 cm. From Tsang, Li, and Cohen 2017, 282, 285, 286, 308, 309, 320, 322, 330. Permission from the National Museum of Prehistoric Culture in Taiwan.

Neolithic (6500 to 3500 BP), before the rivers of central and southwestern ­Taiwan poured alluvium along the shallow coastline, creating flats, ever-­changing shoals and shifting islets formed by dangerous currents. These currents push boats to the south. The actual channel between Penghu and southwestern T ­ aiwan is only 15 km wide. Tidal flats extend out to sea, necessitating the use of coastal rafts

122  Chapter 8

(Knapp 1980, 144). In investigating the colonization of Taiwan, it is important to understand the social dynamics of the Fujian region, the source of migrants. Although the infrastructure of coastal Fujian was prosperous and well developed in the Song and Yuan periods with road building and agri­cultural development, a decline set in with the destruction of the outward looking rule of the Yuan, and by the end of the Ming, the economy could not support the rural population. Life was made difficult by local economic changes, causing tenants to fall into debt, and local markets were controlled by middlemen, who squeezed them for profit. Mountain lands that had been communally owned by villages were privatized, cutting the villagers off from valuable resources. Despite the difficult situation in Fujian, Taiwan was not an attractive destination because of malaria and other harsh conditions, including hostile natives. The people of coastal Fujian preferred to trade with the Philippines. Although few Chinese settled permanently prior to the arrival of the Dutch, Chinese fishermen set up seasonal camps for processing fish and salt and aborigines depended on the Chinese salt (Wills 1980, 86). In the winter season, fishermen from Fujian traveled to the southwestern coast of Taiwan for the seasonal winter solstice mullet fishery (which still takes place). Japanese and Chinese traded with each other in the small harbors of Taiwan. From 1600 to 1620, before the consolidation of Dutch power, an estimated 1,000 to 1,500 Chinese lived on the Taiwan coast. In the centuries before the Dutch arrived, long-standing trading links existed in northern Taiwan, extending back to the Metal period Shisanhang site, where the natives brought iron and textiles from Chinese merchants in exchange for coal, sulfur, and venison. Some natives were full-time traders of raw materials and handicrafts. One group in the Bay of Keelung area known as the Tappiri or Kimaurri (Andrade 2008, 174) did not rely on hunting or agriculture. Hung Hsiao-chun and Chao (2016, 1547) mention another group, the Bassae or Basay, a term that likely designates the language of the two groups. They exchanged their labor, craft skills, and special gathered products for rice, millet, and other subsistence necessities. Their trade circuits were separate from those of the Han Chinese. Known to be skilled coal miners and metalworkers, they exchanged raw materials for making ornaments. Their language was a lingua franca for the region. They received iron tools from the Dutch, ostensibly to mine coal for them, but traded these to interior groups who did not have direct access to the Dutch (Blusse and Everts 2012, 269). They are said to have lived as traders and craftspeople, providing expertise to other groups and selling deer skins, some of which were transshipped from the Philippines (Borao Mateo 2009, 151–167). They also provided sulfur from northern Taiwan, reeds for furniture, and a kind of seed for necklaces (Job’s Tears, Coix lacryma-jobi). The Basay traded with the

Contact Period, AD 1500 to 1663   123

Chinese on beaches not controlled by the Spanish even during the Spanish ­period (Borao Mateo 2009, 168; 2012). In 1567, the Ming Ban was lifted for Chinese coastal inhabitants but not for trade with Japan. To engage in trade, Chinese met Japanese in southwest and central Taiwan. Deerskins were the most important item. Chinese tried to restrict the transfer of technology and production to Taiwan to maintain their monopoly on the natural resources there. Before the arrival of the Europeans, Sino-aboriginal interaction increased and some Chinese lived in aboriginal villages.

Interactive Emergence and Hybrid Colonization The international background of the Dutch and Spanish colonies in Taiwan is relevant to this discussion (Olle 2022). The dynastic union between Spain and Portugal (1580–1640) led to cooperation and to rivalry between Manila and Macau. Dutch conflict with Spain occurred not only in Asia but also in the Caribbean and Europe. Japan withdrew from international interaction in 1635, and in 1644 China saw a dynastic change from the Ming (1368–1644) to the Qing (1644–1911). The dynamics of the growth of the Dutch and Spanish colonies in Taiwan affected the patterns of distribution of trade items in archaeological sites. The Dutch colony was a hybrid colony. The Spanish colony relied far less on ­Chinese immigration and was shorter lived. The distribution of Chinese artifacts should therefore be different in the two regions. Wills (1993) concludes that colonialism in Asia evolved from relationships between indigenous groups and newly arrived European powers. The Europeans provided corporate organization but the colonizing population was Chinese, and the colony developed through the interaction of the two groups. Andrade describes Taiwan under the Dutch as a Chinese colony under Dutch rule (2006, 430). With the labor of Fujian migrants, Taiwan under the Dutch changed from an outpost for trading Chinese silk for Japanese silver to a land colony producing hides, venison, rice, and sugar. By 1645, as many as 15,000 Fujianese immigrants lived in Taiwan (Andrade 2006, 430). The thousand or so Chinese who lived in Taiwan before the Dutch arrived were unable or unwilling to make the administrative and military investments necessary to make Taiwan amenable to intensive agricultural colonization, and thus the Dutch East India Company played the part of their colonial government. By offering free land, tax breaks, and other subventions, it enticed pioneers to cross to Taiwan. By subjugating the aborigines, controlling pirates, enforcing contracts, and providing policing and civil governance, it made

124  Chapter 8

Taiwan a safe and calculable place to live and do business in. Without the Dutch East India Company, the Chinese colonization of Taiwan would have occurred much more slowly or perhaps not at all (Andrade 2006). For a short period, from around 1636 to 1662, the hybrid colony of Chinese colonists under Dutch military and administrative structures was quite profitable, but the rise of the Zheng family power, a maritime state loyal to the Ming, cut short Dutch control. The Dutch were expelled in 1662 (Andrade 2005).

Taiwan Aboriginal Groups at the Time of Contact The earliest published account of Taiwan’s aboriginal people, believed to have been lost until it was found in 1955, was written by the Fujian scholar Chen Di in 1602 (Jenco 2019; Thompson 1964; Chou 2003). His account is only 1,700  characters long but provides many important details. Chen mentions coastal villages of up to 1,000 people who engaged in head-hunting but quickly made peace, and who staged collective deer hunts. He also mentions the funerary custom of leaving the corpse to dry in a house, only to be buried if the house was renovated, and describes communal houses lived in by young boys before marriage. According to Jenco (2019), Chen Di acknowledged the cultural differences of the aboriginal people as a parallel way of life and did not assume that they should be taken over or Sinicized. Shepherd (1993, 13–46) summarizes several important points about aboriginal society at the time of contact. Generally, population density was low, the Dutch census of 1650 reporting a total of 50,000 inhabitants of the western plains (29). No indigenous state authority was in place; nor was internal social stratification notable, except among the Paiwan and Rukai, which had aristocratic founder families and commoners. Other areas appear to have been village alliances. Villages were organized by age grades, cult groups, and other forms of supra household organization, rather than by lineages or kinship alone (13–46). The Siraya, who lived on the southwestern plain near the center of Dutch colonization, relied on age-grade councils, but had no central authority or chiefs (60–61). Siraya villages consisted of wards, each with its own dormitory and shrine. Religious specialists were present, but little is known of their activities because their role declined early in the Dutch period. According to Shepherd (1995), Siraya men married at age 21 but lived in men’s houses. Pregnancies before the husband was 21 were aborted (Shepherd 1993, 65; 1995). Households were established only after males completed age-grade service in their 40s. Females held divine power, priestesses dominated many aspects of social life, and men held secular power. Villages were protected by bamboo or wooden walls, and dense hedges and village gates were frequently the sites of men’s houses. In the

Contact Period, AD 1500 to 1663   125

traditional division of labor, women and old men were cultivators and able men engaged in hunting, raiding, and warfare. Draft animals were absent, as was plow agriculture. In northern Taiwan, the pre-Contact society is described as lacking internal violence and devoted to agriculture, save for the Tappiri and Kimaurri peoples, who were specialized traders. The Dutch introduced tax farming as a way of extracting revenue to support the colony. Monopolies were sold to Chinese or Dutch through the Dutch clergy, who acted as agents. For a short period, from 1636 to 1640, Chinese were given licenses to hunt with pitfall traps and snares in native territories; however, soon the deer populations were decimated and the pitfall trap was prohibited (Andrade 2005, 1–35). In the far south in the early seventeenth century was a proto state defined by hereditary succession. An exceptional regional hierarchy existed, with a ruler controlling more than sixteen villages (Andrade 2005, 1–35). Similar groups of villages under the control of a chief appear to have emerged around the time of Contact (Ferrell 1969). These emerging polities are an interesting topic for future research. How stable were these confederacies?

The Dutch Period (1626–1662) With the withdrawal of the Japanese after the prohibition of foreign trade in 1635, the Chinese and the Dutch competed for control around the Bay of ­Tayouan near Tainan. The first Dutch post on Taiwan was on a sand bar at the mouth of a coastal bay near modern Tainan. In the 1630s, the Dutch built a castle on the sandbar, and at nearby Anping they built Fort Provintia (Ch.  Chikanlou) (Wills 1980). Around 1636, the Dutch consolidated their power. Aborigines considered the Dutch presence to be protection against hostile raids from surrounding groups. By 1639, deer populations declined from over hunting (Shepherd 1993, 77). Although the Fujianese had previously been reluctant to establish farming in Taiwan, the Dutch encouraged them to migrate to increase rice production, because native production was low and not enough to support the colony. The ports of Fujian also did not have enough rice to export to Taiwan (85). The Tainan area became the emporium for the entire island. A center of export of rice and sugar cane to the adjacent coast. In 1631, twelve ships brought 1,000 Han Chinese immigrants from Batavia. The population was then close to 10,000, with 300 satellite indigenous villages home to some 70,000 people in all. The Tainan operation provided about one-quarter of the total income of the Dutch East India Company (Shiba 2002, 237–240; Hong Min-lin 1979). By the end of the Dutch period, the Chinese population of Taiwan was probably 40,000 to 50,000 (Hsu 1980).

126  Chapter 8

The Spanish Period (1626–1642) In 1625, the governor of Manila decided to establish an outpost in northern Taiwan in the region from Tamsui to Keelung. For a few years, until the closing of Japan by the Tokugawa government in 1635, trade with Japan was substantial. Contact between northern Taiwan and the Philippines extended along the east coast of Taiwan, following a very old trade route from the Neolithic and Metal periods (chapters 7 and 8). Recent archaeological discoveries show evidence of contact and trade in the seventeenth century along the east and northeast coasts. In the 1630s, the Spanish fort of San Salvador was built on an island in Keelung Bay, in proximity to several native communities. It consisted of a fort and chapel and during its time was the largest European fortress in East Asia, larger than the Dutch fortress at Taoyuan Tainan or fortresses in the Philippines (Borao Mateo 2009, 112). Natives accepted Spanish priests into the villages because they thought they would bring protection from raiding by other aboriginal groups (Andrade 2008, 179). However, in the 1630s, the economy of Manila declined, making it difficult to maintain the Taiwan bases. The Dutch then gained support of the natives of the Tamsui area against the Spanish and in 1642 the Spanish left northern Taiwan. Spanish missionaries reported that the Tamsui natives were farmers but grew only enough crops for local consumption (Andrade 2008, 218). The Spanish did not encourage Chinese immigration; on the other hand, because the Dutch encouraged the Chinese to colonize and set up intensive agriculture, requiring them to purchase licenses or monopolies for local trade of deer skins and hunting and fishing, they were able to make a profit from their colony, which was self-financing. Nevertheless, most of Dutch revenue came from the transshipment of goods from China. The Spanish from Manila attempted to trade silk and some porcelain with Chinese ships in the port of Keelung around 1628. This trade was somewhat risky, however, because the Spanish sometimes failed to raise enough silver to complete the transaction, leaving the Chinese stranded with no buyers (Lu Tai-kang 2019, 154). The Spanish hoped to conduct relay trade with Japan and China through Keelung (Borao Mateo 2009, 137–150; 2012). They were also motivated by the presence of gold panned by native groups about 20 km north of Hualien (Blusse and Everts 2012, 269). Following the defeat of the Dutch by Zheng Chenggong in 1662, the Dutch garrison returned to the Keelung fort in 1664 and stayed until October 1668. They were apparently unable to gain access to the Ilan Plain and groups such as the Kavalan because of the power of the Basay traders (Blusse and Everts 2012, 269).

Contact Period, AD 1500 to 1663   127

The Zheng Family The Zheng family transformed the island of Taiwan from a foreign trading colony to a Chinese frontier. Ming loyalists introduced Chinese high culture to the island, in contrast to the folk culture brought there by peasant pioneers (Hsu  1980, 14; Shiba 2002, 240). After the fall of the Ming in 1644, the Zheng family gained power in the Fujian coastal region and ousted the Dutch from Taiwan in 1661, maintaining control of the island until their defeat in 1683 by Qing forces. The Zheng family, then, was an essential force in the region for several decades. Its leader, Zheng Chenggong, known to foreigners as Koxinga, was preceded by his father Zheng Zhilong, who held an important position in the Chinese community in the trading port of Hirado, Japan. He became an important official for maritime trade under the Ming and his fleets controlled most of the trade. A native of Nan’an, Quanzhou, he consolidated his power as master of the Fujianese trading world (Andrade 2008, 100) and established his base in Xiamen. At his apogee, he had more than 100,000 soldiers and 3,000 sea vessels. He issued permits to ships trading spices with the Malay archipelago, competing with the Dutch. His assets were as large as those of entire nations (Ku 2018). In 1655, he restricted the trade of foreign goods between Taiwan and China, allowing only local goods. Under the Zheng family, Japanese Hizen ceramics were brought to Taiwan during shortages of Chinese ceramics caused by disruptions as the Qing consolidated their power over South China (Lu Tai-kang 2019, 155–157). In 1662, he laid siege to the Dutch fort at Zeelandia. Finally, the Dutch surrendered and were allowed to leave Taiwan unharmed (Andrade 2008, 341). The Zheng family made great efforts to open land to produce food. After Zheng Chenggong died in 1662, his son Zheng Jing assumed power (he died in 1681). Following a decisive naval battle in Penghu in 1683, the Qing, under Shi Lang, granted an amnesty to the Zheng forces. At first, the Qing f­ avored abandoning Taiwan in consideration of the cost of maintaining the territory with little prospect of extracting revenue. Shi Lang, however, convinced them to keep it and in 1684 it was made a prefecture of Fujian Province. Qing ambivalence regarding Taiwan was based on the costs of controlling what was considered unprofitable territory. The Qing restricted immigration from the mainland to Taiwan to avoid the rise of a potentially rebellious population and dismantled commercial activity. At first there were no outposts north of Zhanghua; only after 1711 was the Qing Tamsui outpost established to counter a pirate threat. Under the Qing, aborigines could not deal with or appeal directly to government officials but instead had to negotiate with predatory middlemen (Shepherd 1993, 103). In 1732,

128  Chapter 8

immigration of Han Chinese families was sanctioned for the first time but then suspended in 1740 (Shepherd 1993, 17). The Japanese period (1895–1945) is now a topic of archaeological research (Chao 2012; Chao Chin-yung and Chung Yi-shing 2014) but beyond the scope of this book. This sketch is simply historical background for the archaeological projects that follow.

Keelung (Jilong) Fortress (Northern Taiwan) Early excavations by the Japanese archaeologists Kanaseki and Kokubu in 1936 and 1944 found the outlines of the fort and 18 Anping stoneware jars (see figure 8.1), as well as a shoreline midden. Excavations by Liu Yi-chang in 1988 and 1991 located prehistoric Yuanshan and Shisanhang pottery. Test excavations by a joint Taiwan Spanish project in 2011 and 2012 may have located a portion of an adjacent chapel (for summaries of these projects, see Borao Mateo 2009; Borao Mateo and Hung 2015).

Kivulan Site, Upper Layer (Ilan Basin) The Kivulan site is located on the northern edge of the Ilan Plain, in northeastern Taiwan. Salvage excavation was undertaken in the early 2000s. The site is now partly submerged under the Dezikou stream. Some 3,750 m2 of excavations uncovered architectural remains, pits, and burials. Two cultural layers were found. The Lower Layer, belonging to the Metal period, is discussed in chapter 7. The Upper Layer can be divided into periods, from 200 to 400 BP and from 200 to 100 BP. Some of the metal artifacts are described in a report by Chen You-pei et al. (2008b). Wood and bamboo artifacts were well preserved because the site was waterlogged. These included parts of houses and unique carved and colored boards on which the dead were placed in burials. Most were found in the upper layer. Other artifacts consisted of food containers, weaving tools, ornaments, bowls, plates, lids, spoons, mortars, knife handles and blades, pointed tools, and carved blocks of wood. Some of the wood carving resembles that of the Paiwan people (Chen Chi-lu 1968, 299). Of particular interest were pipe bowls, of two types, one with the stem as an integral part, and the other with a perforation for a reed stem. These were fashioned from pottery, stone, wood, bronze, and even agate. Some 307 specimens were found, 234 of which were of pottery (Chen et al. 2008b, 190–194). Almost two-thirds were found in the old river bed, and only two in the lower layer. From America, tobacco pipes entered Spain in 1558 and Japan in 1590.

Contact Period, AD 1500 to 1663   129

A total of 538 coins were found, 238 from the upper layer and one in the lower. A substantial number came from the disturbed areas of the old river bed. The coins were primarily Chinese, but Vietnamese, Japanese, and Korean types were also found. Ranging in date from the tenth to twentieth centuries, most were in the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries. Substantial numbers are from the Northern Song (960–1127) and Qianlong (1735–1796) eras but most (165 of 538) were from the Hongwu (1368–1398), some of which were copies produced in Japan. A small number were deliberately perforated for suspension. A total of 10,789 glass beads were found, 1,134 from the Lower Layer. Most found in the Lower Layer were in habitation contexts or midden (1,033 versus 101 from a mortuary context). In the Upper Layer, most are from burials (6,474 items) rather than habitation or middens (643). The glass beads fall into two major groups: m-Na-Al glass and v-Na-Ca glass (Wang and Jackson 2014). Pottery found at the site is gray, decorated with geometric impressions, but a small quantity is plain with circular stamping. It is generally similar to the Metal period ceramics of Shisanhang and Fanziyuan. In the upper layer, some new shapes show influence from contemporary Han Chinese ceramics. Chen Youpei et al. (2008a) describe a total sample of 1,000 intact vessels. All types of metal objects were more abundant in the upper layer than the lower. They were mostly iron, but copper and tin objects were also found (Chen You-pei et al. 2008b, 2012). Fishing gear and both cultivating and harvesting implements were noted, as were many iron knives, nails, and arrowheads (2008b, 62–78). Small hollow bronze bells of so-called dog tooth form and human faced form were found, as well as bracelets of various kinds of alloys (2016b). Hsieh Wen-lun (2012a) studied the distribution of grave goods in the Upper Layer burials. These consisted of utilitarian and high value porcelain, large and small metal bracelets, gold foil, small bronze bells, coins, Liuli blue beads, small glass beads, agate beads, and strings of beads. In 52 graves (of 85) for which age could be determined, the richest burials were in the 15- to 35-year-old group, not for children or very old individuals. Many objects were quite common; a few graves had small numbers of precious items such as fish-shaped wire crescents, glass beads, luxury ceramics, and coins. The coins (a total of 237) were found in one grave, M020. No spatial segregation of rich graves was noted (Chen You-pei 2012; Hsieh Wen-lun 2012b). The Upper Layer yielded some 30,000 sherds of high-fired glazed ceramics from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. No comparable assemblage of trade ceramics has been found in Taiwan so far. Although some of the blue and white underglaze ceramics are from Jingdezhen, most are from the Zhangzhou area of Fujian. Other wares from Zhangzhou include brown wares, Huanan

130  Chapter 8

sancai (“three colors,” a decoration type using a glaze of brown, green, and offwhite), and lead glazed wares (Hsieh Wen-lun 2012b; Hsieh Ming-liang 2014). Some of the brown wares with a crenellated band midway down the jar may be from the Foshan area in Guangzhou. Whitish-glazed Anping jars, which Hsieh identifies as containers for Chinese beer, are numerous (Hsieh Mingliang 2011, 98). A small number of sherds from Thai and Myanmar kilns were also identified. Hsieh dates the ceramics to the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Western trade goods have recently been found in Kivulan and other sites. Some, such as clay tobacco pipe stems and bowls, appear to have come from the Americas via the Philippines; others, such as small metal tobacco pipes, are of Japanese origin (Wang Shu-jin and Liu 2005). A particular kind of bead, of gold foil encased in glass, was abundant in the upper layers of Kivulan (Chen Kuangtzuu, Cheng, and Li 2005, 2013). These beads must have been strung in necklaces given that they are found in the area of the neck in burials. They appear to date to the seventeenth century in Kivulan, judging from their context, but their dating is uncertain, because they have also been found in Song (960–1279) pagoda deposits in China and from eleventh- to thirteenth-century radiocarbondated contexts at the Shisanhang site. Hsieh suggests that the beads are of European origin. Wang Shu-jin and Liu (2005) point out that the beads are concentrated in Ilan, and that multicolored beads are concentrated in the Paiwan area in the south. Traditional seventeenth-century Paiwan beads are also thought to be of Dutch origin. These beads are distinct from older beads of Southeast Asian or Chinese origin just mentioned. In some burials in the Upper Layer of Kivulan were clay jars containing rare beads. Also, a distinctive blue and white vase (yuhucun) of Zhangzhou ware was found in a female burial. Are these finds evidence of the emergence of trading networks in which highly ranked individuals were connected to regional trading circuits (Wang Yi-ling and Marwick 2020)? The Kivulan site is mentioned in Spanish and Dutch accounts. The term Kavalan was used for people of the Ilan Plain but Kibannoan was the name of the site. The Dutch recorded 39 villages in total. A second site at the Ilan Vocational High School, contemporary with the upper layer of Kivulan (ca. 400 BP) and in relatively close proximity, was excavated from 2000 to 2008 (Li Chin-ying and Chiu 2014). It consisted of a single cultural layer. Groups of posts, ditches, wells, and seven subadult burials were recovered. The burials were set on a distinctive carved wooden plank, similar to those from the upper layer of Kivulan. Brown glazed wares from Quanzhou were decorated with relief dragon motifs; lead glazed wares from Fujian and gold foil glass beads were also found. One burial contained the distinctive woven

Contact Period, AD 1500 to 1663   131

wire necklace of fish shape termed bian found also in Kivulan (Wang Yi-ling and Marwick 2020), as well as beads and other metal artifacts. Kano illustrated a similar wire necklace from Itbayat (1946, plate 7). A crescent-shaped shell ornament, similar in general shape to the wire examples from the Contact period, was found in the Middle Neolithic Niuchouzi culture Sanbaochuan site in Tainan (Kuo Su-chiu 2019a, 117). Earthenware decorated pipe bowls are also shown in figure 8.2.

Figure 8.2.  Upper: Wire fish-shaped ornament from Ivatan Island, Batanes, similar to examples from the Kivulan and Ilan Agricultural School sites. From Kano 1946, figure 7. Lower: Ceramic pipe bowls. From Li and Chiu 2014, 86. Line drawing by R. Pearson.

132  Chapter 8

Maoergan and Linnei Pingding Sites (West Central Taiwan) The Maoergan and Linnei Pingding sites are part of a group of some 30 found on the alluvial fan of the Zhuoshui River in central Taiwan. They date from roughly 900 to 500 BP and were probably left by the people of Favorlang, who were described by Dutch writers (Liu Yi-chang 2011b, 157). In this area, swidden farming opened up shrubby areas of secondary forest for abundant deer. Sites from the Middle and Late Neolithic are located on the middle terraces of the Zhuoshui River, not on the alluvial fan itself. However, sites such as Maoergan and Linnei Pingding are part of a small group of Contact period sites found on the alluvial fan. Perhaps settlers were drawn to the coast by contact with Fujian traders and perhaps parts of the river bed had stabilized, enabling settlement. Liu’s study of the Zhuoshui region provides a long-term history from the Middle Neolithic terrace sites to the Contact period sites on the river flats.

Han Chinese Sites (West Central Taiwan) At the old port of Bengang, at the boundaries of Chiayi and Yunlin Counties in the general area of Beigang, test pits yielded copper hair combs, oil lamps, 17 coins dating from Northern Song (960–1126) to early Ming (ca. 1500), six coins of Qianlong (1735–1796), Vietnamese coins, and two coins of Japan’s Kan’ei Tsuho period (1624–1644). Surface collecting produced 30,000 to 50,000 coins from the Tang dynasty Kai Yuan Tongbao to coins of the same types found in the excavation (Chen Kuang-tzuu 2011b, 192; Liu Ke-hung 2003). The Bengang site dates from the mid-Qing dynasty. Many more similar sites in the region are likely. The Song coins seem to indicate the early presence of fishermen traders; the Vietnamese coins may have reached Taiwan via Fujian, on trading routes from Fujian to Vietnam

Zeelandia Fortress (Southwest Taiwan) The fortress of Zeelandia in Anping, Tainan, was built over the 1624 to 1634 period by the Dutch East India Company. The site is located on a series of raised sand bars at the entrance to Tayouan Harbor, which was like an inner sea. The main fort was square and had three stories with storage on the ground level and offices, church and garrison on the top. The fort was armed with bastions and cannons. An adjacent fort contained residences, a hospital, and houses, around a central plaza. Excavations from 2003 to 2005 discovered a layer from the earliest Dutch activities dated from 1624 to 1633. Ceramics included Anping jars, Kraak porcelain, and Zhangzhou wares (Liu Yi-chang et al. 2011; Lu Tai-kang 2019).

Contact Period, AD 1500 to 1663   133

Zuoying Fortification (Southwest Taiwan) The Zuoying stratified site, situated on the Fengshan limestone terrace in Kao­ hsiung City, was a look-out post during the Zheng family period and later a Qing dynasty fortification (Hong Min-lin 1979). The upper layers contain remains of the first Han Chinese settlement in Kaohsiung, deposits dating from 1660 to 1680, 1680 to 1750, and 1750 to 1820 and later through the nineteenth century. Ash pits, remains of roads, drainage ditches, and wells were recovered. Artifacts included local and foreign ceramics as well as metal and bone tools. Abundant ceramics from Fujian, Kyushu, and Europe show that southwestern Taiwan participated in regional trade beginning in the Zheng period (roughly 1670 to 1680). Trade wares including blue and white wares found in Sakai and Nagasaki in Japan and eighteenth-century sunken ships show the participation of ­Zuoying and other sites in the East Asian globalized economy (Liu Yi-chang  2019b). Underlying the remains from the Contact period were layers from the Early (Dabenkeng), Middle (Niuchouzi), and Late (Fengbitou) Neolithic cultures (Liu Yi-chang et al. 2018).

Shuijiaoshe Site (Southwest Taiwan) Economic development in the Shuijiaoshe area of Tainan led to the rescue excavation of a Han Chinese cemetery of at least 60 tombs dating to the mid-­ seventeenth century and early Qing dynasty (Lu Tai-kang and Li 2009). The extended burials were in wooden coffins, in some cases within brick-lined pits. Grave offerings included low-fired and high-fired ceramics from southern Fujian, metal hair ornaments, bracelets, earrings, fasteners, bronze mirrors, jade ornaments, and a stone inscription. Interesting coins of the Southern Ming period were also recovered. A detailed forensic and palaeopathological analysis of the skeletons of Han Chinese was undertaken (Chiu 2009; Chiu, Lu, and Li 2015)

Shenei Site (Southwest Taiwan) The Shenei site, in the Tainan Science Park, is thought to have been occupied by the Siraya people and at the end of the sixteenth century and the beginning of the seventeenth century AD (Li Kuang-ti et al. 2010; Tsang et al. 2015, 270–312; Lu Tai-kang, Li, and Wang 2015). The site was abandoned earlier than Kivulan. Excavations uncovered middens, post holes, wells, and human and animal burials. Artifacts included porcelain, stoneware, plain red earthenware, net sinkers, glass ornaments, agate beads, and shell ornaments. The high-fired ceramics included Anping jars, blue and white porcelain, polychrome ware, brown glazed

134  Chapter 8

stoneware, and celadon (Lu Tai-kang 2013). Some stoneware may have been locally produced given that the firing temperature is lower than the most common export types from the mainland. Japanese Hizen ceramics date to the mid-seventeenth century, the time of the rule of the Zheng family, who secured Japanese ceramics when restrictions were imposed on the China coast. Vietnamese ­ceramics dating to the mid-seventeenth century were also recovered. One partial tobacco pipe was found. The metal objects were made of iron, copper, lead, and tin. The iron artifacts included knives, daggers, arrowheads, awls, chisels, nails, hairpins, and bracelets. The finding of molds and iron slag indicates that the Siraya had learned how to produce their own metal artifacts from the Han Chinese (Tsang et al. 2015, 219). Copper artifacts included coins. Ornaments included bracelets, small bells, bronze handles, and Chinese locks. Historical descriptions of Siraya burials mention that the corpse was partially dried and temporarily conserved above ground.

Conclusion The discovery of large numbers of trade ceramics and coins at Kivulan is a major development in historical archaeology in Taiwan. Research in progress in the southwest, from the Tainan Science Park, will likely corroborate a pattern of finding Chinese coins from the eleventh century, followed by a substantial flow of ceramics from the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. This pattern is distinct from those found in Japan, the Ryukyu Islands, and Southeast Asia. The coins were not used as common currency but were either treated as valuables or used in limited transactions. European contact in the seventeenth century linked Taiwan with world trade systems and changed its relationship with China by opening large-scale migration from Fujian. Occurring at the end of the Ming dynasty, this contact led to the establishment of a long-term role of Taiwan as a key Asian offlier and entrepôt and a key factor in Chinese power politics. Economic changes that began in the Metal period, such as the lucrative trade in deer skins, linked ­Japan, China, Taiwan, Holland, Spain, and the Philippines in complex configurations. How does archaeology contribute to our knowledge of this interesting period? Study of indigenous communities such as Kivulan and Shenei provide insights into the life of the Kavalan and Siraya people and their links to outsiders as seen from their consumption of trade goods. In both cases, utilitarian and luxury goods quickly entered the local economy. Coinage was accumulated in a few cases, and rich graves mark individuals who showed their status with special ornaments and ceramics. Metal tools were traded before the techniques of their

Contact Period, AD 1500 to 1663   135

manufacture were learned. Preliminary studies of the trading forts in Tainan and Keelung link the long-term history of Taiwan to Dutch and Spanish theories of fortification and architecture (Borao Mateo 2009). Borao Mateo places the Spanish experience in Taiwan at the crossroads of two European mentalities, the Renaissance and Baroque, showing us that the Contact period in Taiwan is linked to world history and very broad concepts: The history of the Spanish presence in Taiwan can be summarized as a Renaissance adventure that after ten years of searching for consolidation lost its mission and ended in Baroque pessimism. The reasons for their arrival were as neatly squared as the fortress they built and left behind: trade, the counterbalance of Dutch power, and missionary access to China and Japan. But ten years later some people in Manila considered that everything was a very costly enterprise with little gain in return. (2009, 204) A good deal of archaeological information concerning this period has been learned in the past 20 years as local archaeologists joined with international specialists (Berrocal and Tsang 2017; Berrocal et al. 2018).

Chapter 9

Taiwan in Context The Archaeology of Neighboring Fujian, Guangdong, Hong Kong, and the Ryukyu Islands

This chapter contextualizes the cultural history of Taiwan by describing significant sites in surrounding areas and comparing chronologies and trajectories of cultural and social development. Taiwan initially resembled the areas of present Guangdong and Fujian in the Paleolithic and Neolithic, but subsequently followed a different trajectory as these underwent Sinicization. In the Neolithic, both areas adopted cultivation comparatively late; further, despite stylistic differences, the functional categories of Neolithic artifacts are basically similar. The Taiwan assemblages display less typological diversity than their mainland counterparts. In Taiwan, distinctive ornaments and social badges such as nephrite zooanthropomorphic pendants and bell-shaped beads are found. Although the styles are distinctive, certain basic production techniques are similar, such as the use of a stone axle for rotating cutting blades in the production of nephrite bracelets. In the Metal period, the Taiwan trajectory diverged from that of the mainland. Social complexity increased on the mainland after 3000 BP but showed little change in Taiwan. New badges of status in bronze and fine pottery appear on the mainland, along with mastery of high firing and casting. A wide range of site types from mausolea to walled towns appear on the mainland, indicating the emergence of state-level society. Taiwan participated in a separate route of communication with Southeast Asia, which brought its own social badges and linked metallurgical techniques. In this chapter, the emphasis is on cultural-historical and developmental trajectories, not on particularistic individual artifact comparisons of individual artifacts taken out of site context (Kuo 2019a). 136

Taiwan in Context   137

Fujian As described in chapter 2, Fujian and Guangdong are isolated from Central China by mountain ranges. Access to Fujian is limited to a coastal route, probably for coastal boats or rafts or through narrow mountain passes leading to interior Fujian from the Yangzi Valley. Although Fujian is nearest to Taiwan, Tsang (2012, 110) and Jiao (2013, 610) propose that people from various points along the coast, not just areas immediately adjacent to Taiwan, reached Taiwan at various times. Figure 9.1 presents the major Fujian sites discussed in the text.

Figure 9.1.  Map showing location of major Fujian sites mentioned in the text.

138  Chapter 9

Late and Terminal Pleistocene I describe only three of the most significant sites. Others are described elsewhere (see Jiao and Fan 2010, 29–46). Lianhuachishan Site Finds from Fujian date to the Late and Terminal Pleistocene; some from Guangdong Province are much earlier. Excavations at the Lianhuachishan Cave site on the northern edge of Zhangzhou City in 2005 and 2006 covered an area of 600  m2 and revealed nine strata with a total thickness of 4 m. Layers 5 to 7 yielded small flake tools and scrapers as well as chopper chopping-tools, cleavers, and picks. Layers 5 and 6 were dated by thermoluminescence dating to 26,000 BP and 40,000 BP respectively. These dates fall within the MIS3, a warm and wet interglacial period before the Final Glaciation. The primary raw material for tool production was vein quartz; the production technique was direct hammer percussion, with no prepared striking platforms. Evidence points to the use of the bipolar toolmaking technique (Peng, Fan, and Xia 2011, 714). Fifteen Palaeolithic sites were identified in 2003 in the Zhangzhou area (Fan 2005). Some 67 artifacts consisting of cores, flakes, stone hammers, scrapers, chopper chopping-tools, points, and picks were found. Made using stone hammers, the artifacts resemble those found at the Lianhuachishan site and are thought to date to the Terminal Pleistocene. The raw material consists of quartzite, quartz sandstone, stone vein quartz, and volcanic rock (Fan 2005). Wanshouyan Site, Chuanfandong and Lingfengdong The limestone hill of Wanshouyan, 17 km southwest of Sanming City, Fujian Province, contains several caves and fissures (Sina Fujian 2013). Two important sites have been excavated, Chuanfandong and Lingfengdong (China Daily 2017; Sina.com 2020). The term “dong” in these place names means cave. The Chuanfan Cave opens to the west. It is 39 m long, 30 m wide, and from 3 to 7 m high inside. Two cultural zones were identified in the excavations of 1999 (Chen Ziwen, Li, and Yu 2001; Chen Ziwen, Li, and Fan 2006). The earlier comprises layers 7 and 6; the latter is found in layer 5. In layer 7, a unique floor of limestone chunks of varying sizes was discovered. Artifacts found on it and in layer 6 were classified into cores, flakes, hammerstones, scrapers, chopper chopping-tools, points, cleavers, chipped pebbles, lithic chunks, and debris. Scrapers are flakes with multidirectional retouch. Artifacts found in layer 5 included cores, flakes, hammerstones, scrapers, chopper chopping-tools, and an

Taiwan in Context   139

anvil, as well as a polished bone point, an antler digging tool shaped by scraping, and an antler tip, possibly an ornament, showing cut marks. Dating of layer 5 is thought to be 14,000 and 8000 BP (Chen Ziwen, Li, and Yu 2001). In 2004, a second excavation revealed deeper layers and more information on site formation processes (Li Jianjun and Fan 2006). The lowest deposits, layers 20 to 22, are Middle Pleistocene water-borne sediment. Over these are layers 17 to 21, sediments rich in mammalian fossils. Subsequent flooding deposited layers 7 to 16, which were eroded and filled with later sediments, accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) dates indicating that layers 8 to 15 were formed 37,000 and 29,000 BP respectively (Late Pleistocene). The Late Pleistocene fossil assemblages contain bones of mammals such as Macaca robustus, Canis lupus, Coun dubius, Ailuropoda melanoleuca, Ursus thibetanus, Meles suillus, Crocuta crocuta ultima, Crocuta spelaea, Acinonyx sp., Stegodon orientalis, Rhinoceros sinenis, Megatapirus augustus, and Sus scrofa (Li Jianjun and Fan 2006). Sporo-pollen analysis of samples from these lower layers indicates the existence of a temperate grassland dating to the last glacial maximum (Peng Fei et al. 2011, 714). The Lingfeng Cave yielded tools showing many similarities with those of the pebble tool tradition of South China but at the same time many flake tools and scrapers were also found (Li, Chen, and Yu 2001). It is 16 m long, 20 m wide, and 15 m high. The cave floor has a relatively thin deposit from 25 to 60 cm thick. In 1999 and 2000 an excavation of 13 m2 yielded faunal remains including two species, Rhinocerus sinensisis and Megatapirus augustus. Uranium series dating of travertine gave a determination of 185,000 ± about 13,000 years BP. More than 100 artifacts and 11 species of mammalian fossils were unearthed from the upper travertine. The Huangyilong Locality, near Sanming City, yielded surface finds of what appear to be Lower Palaeolithic chopper and chopping tools, pebble tools from dense igneous rock, fashioned by direct percussion (Chen Ziwen and Li 2008; Jiao and Fan 2010, 32). Several sites dating from 80,000 to 50,000 BP yielding chopper chopping-tools and rough flakes were found in Jiangle County during the construction of the Fujian expressway. Lianhuachishan and Lingfendong are thought to have been inhabited by Homo erectus on the basis of their dating but no human fossil remains were found. Lingfengdong is considered the oldest Palaeolithic site in East China (China Daily 2017). Evidence points to the presence of very early Homo sapiens from the recovery of 47 human teeth from the Duyan Cave site in Hunan Province, dated somewhere between 80,000 to 100,000 BP (Liu Wu et al. 2015). Although these fossils are not from Fujian or Guangdong, they show that fully modern humans were present in South China some 30,000 to 70,000 years earlier than in the

140  Chapter 9

Levant and Europe and may have traveled on a southern route from Arabia and the eastern Mediterranean (Dennell 2015). In Fujian, one human molar was found in association with Late Pleistocene fauna in the Qingliu limestone cave near Sanming City, western Fujian Province (Yu 2011). Qihedong Site The Qihedong Cave site, in Zhangping, Fujian, yielded archaeological deposits ranging from 17,000 to 7,000 years ago (Fan 2013, 2014). The cave is 26 m long and 4.5 m high and yielded living floors and ash pits. Three periods have been identified. The first is dated from 17,000 to 13,000 BP. The climate at the time was relatively dry and cold; however, pollen analysis has shown the existence of patches of wet grassland. Bones of eight species of small animals and one human tooth were recovered. An ash layer and paved floor area, as well as a small drainage channel, were noted. Although Homo sapiens fossils in well stratified sites bearing abundant artifacts are rare in the Fujian-Taiwan area, such sites will probably be found in the future. Late Pleistocene sites bearing human fossils but apparently devoid of artifacts have been found on some of the Ryukyu Islands, which were separated from Taiwan and the China mainland at that time (Kaifu et al. 2015). Until recently, Holocene sites earlier than 6000 BP were unknown in Fujian. Many coastal areas were probably inundated with rising sea levels, and the sites are lost. However, hillsides and caves remain possible locations for early sites. The Pleistocene Component Period 1, 17,000 to 13,000 BP, of Qihedong was just described. Periods II and III have been described as Neolithic on the basis of the presence of pottery. Period II is dated from 13,000 to 10,000 BP (11,050 to 8050 BC) (Fan 2013). This is the earliest “Neolithic” cultural layer in Fujian (based on the presence of pottery). The subsistence pattern was hunting and gathering. Faunal remains included 11 species of small and medium-sized animals, as well as the remains of turtles and birds. Shells were also found. From palynological analysis, the landscape was forested with grassland and moist areas. Domestic animals included dogs, pigs, and rats. Pottery, chipped and polished stone tools, and bone tools were recovered as well as the remains of a hearth. Human teeth were also recovered from the cultural deposit. Period III is dated from 10,000 to 7000 BP (8050 to 5050 BC). The climate appears to have been warm and humid, and the density of remains indicates an increase in population. Bones of fish, three species of monkey, pig, deer, muntjac deer, water deer, bear, and black rat were recovered. Hearths were also discovered. An analysis by Fang, Fan, and Li (2015) of a single human female skeleton from Qihedong Cave II dating to about 9500 BP shows a stature of 160.3 cm and a body mass of 59.9 kg. The individual seems generally to resemble other female skeletons

Taiwan in Context   141

from North China and South China in the Late Paleolithic and Early Neolithic in height and body mass. No mention is made of distinctive morphological characteristics but the sample in question consisted of only one individual. Early Holocene hunter gatherers are known to have lived in northern and western Guangdong in limestone caves in the foothills of the Nanling Mountain Range. They are referred to as Early Neolithic by Chinese because of the presence of very early pottery, dated to between 16,000 to 10,000 BP (Zhang Chi and Hung 2008, 300). For Chinese archaeologists, the Neolithic is defined by the presence of pottery and polished stone tools, not necessarily by the practice of cultivation. The people who lived in these cave sites must be ancestral to later Holocene hunter gatherers who occupied coastal sites, as described shortly, but time gaps in the chronology are significant. Midden deposits contain large numbers of riverine snails. Given that the people used a wide range of plant and animal resources, the snails were probably only a small part of their diet. Their pottery, among the oldest found in the world, included round-based jars and deep bowls decorated with linear incision, cord impression, and textile impressions; their stone tool assemblage consisted of unifacial choppers, flaked hoes and axes, perforated pebbles, and cutting tools with polished edges. One might assume that these hunter gatherers would have adopted cultivation or have embarked on a path toward social complexity very early; this, however, has been found not to be the case. Instead, technology changed slowly, population remained low, and cultivation was adopted late. A chronological gap is clear between these early inland sites and later ­Holocene sites dating to roughly 9000 BP and later. Rising sea levels may have submerged coastal sites and inland sites could be deeply buried by erosion.

Neolithic The Neolithic of southeast China developed later and more gradually than in some other parts of China as a result of important geographic and cultural factors. In northeast China, the Middle and Lower Yangzi regions, sedentary villages were present by 9000 cal BP. But plant and animal domesticates did not make substantial contributions to subsistence until after several more millennia. Agriculture emerged in interrelated steps through variable forms of interaction and exchange of information within and between these groups (Cohen 2011, 2014). The pattern of Neolithic development in Fujian and Guangdong Provinces is quite different from that of the Middle and Lower Yangzi Valley, where finds from the Pengtoushan-Zaoshi and Shangshan Kuahuqiao phases dating to 10,000 to 7000 BP have provided evidence for very early rice production, possible pig domestication, and pottery spindle whorls that imply use of plant fibers. Debates continue about whether the rice was still in its wild form or already domesticated.

142  Chapter 9

It is important that the Neolithic began later in southeastern China and Taiwan than in central China and followed a different trajectory. From 7900 to 7000 BP in the nearest center of intensive rice agriculture to Fujian, the estuary of the Qiantang River near Hangzhou in the Yangzi Delta region, people of the Kuahuqiao site managed natural stands of rice, whereas after 6900 BP the people of the Tianluoshan site grew rice in prepared fields (Pan, Zheng, and Chen 2017). In contrast, evidence of rice cultivation in Fujian, Taiwan, and Guangdong can be confidently dated to around 5000 BP (Zhang Chi and Hung 2010, 11–12). In beginning of the Early Neolithic in Guangdong, Fujian, and Taiwan, cultivation was either absent or very limited. In certain areas of the mainland, the productivity of paddy rice cultivation led to hierarchical settlement patterns, higher population densities, increasing specialization of labor, accumulation of wealth, and status differentiation, but these trends occurred in parts of Fujian and Guangdong in the Late Neolithic after 3000 BP. Jiao (2013) has presented a very useful chronology of the Neolithic and Bronze ages of Fujian (see table 9.1).

Table 9.1  Chronology of Neolithic and Bronze Age of Fujian Stage 1. Found in the lowest layers of Keqiutou, Tanshishan, and Xitou. Could date as early as 5000 BP. The pottery distinguished by vessels with round foot or ring foot. Tripods and flat bottom vessels absent. Stage 2. Early Tanshishan culture, 5000 to 4500 BP. Finds from the lower part of the TSS Middle Layer and burials in the lower part of the Middle Layer, and Lower Layer. Stage 3. Late Tanshishan culture, 4500 to 4000 BP. Includes burials in the Middle Layer of TSS, Xitou Lower Layer, Zhuangbianshan Lower Layer, and Dongzhang Lower Layer. Special feature the presence of sandy gray pottery, and polished gray pottery. Stage 4. Zhuangbianshan Upper Layer culture, 4000 to 3500 BP. Pottery consists of sandy and silty wares, adzes include ridged back and stepped, and small stone tools, including spears and halberds, abundant. Stage 5. Huangtulun culture, 3500 to 3000 BP. Upper Layer of Tanshishan, named for the type site of Huangtulun, dates to 1550 to 1050 BC, parallel to the late Shang or early Zhou). Pottery fired at a higher temperature than previously; some fine red ware, an increase in grayish white ware, some impressed (stamped) or incised. Stage 6. Dongzhang Upper Layer culture, Bronze Age, 3500 to 3200 BP. Characterized by glazed stoneware and small numbers of bronze artifacts. Found in the surface layer of Tanshishan and the upper layer of Zhangbianshan and Xitou. Source: Adapted from Zhong 2005, 54–60; Jiao 2007a, 72.

Taiwan in Context   143

The best-known Neolithic sites in the general Fuzhou region are Keqiutou, Tanshishan, Xitou, Zhuangbianshan, and Dongzhang. Based on these sites, Zhong (2005, 54–60) constructed a chronology of six periods from 5000 to 2700 BP. Zhong’s dates generally agree with Jiao’s dates published in 2013. The latter are more up to date.

Table 9.2  Fujian Cultures, Sites, and Dates Period

Culture

Sites

Dates

Early Neolithic

Keqiutou

Middle Neolithic

Tanshishan

6000 to 5500 BP (4050 to 3550 BC) 5000 to 4300 BP (3050 to 2350 BC)

Late Neolithic

Huangguashan

Bronze Age

Maling, Huangtulun Fubin

Kequitou, Fuguodun, Jinguishan Tanshishan, Zhuangbianshan, Xitou, Dongzhang Zhuangbianshan Upper, Shizigang (Zhejiang) Maling Huangtulun Hulinshan

4300 to 3500 BP (2350 to 1550 BC) ??? 3000 to 3500 BP

Source: Adapted from Jiao 2013.

Figure 9.2 provides a comparison of the sequences of Taiwan and Fujian, based on a compilation by Kuo (2019a, 91). Although rice pollen and phytoliths have been recovered from Middle Neolithic sites such as Zhuangbianshan, dating to the Fujian Middle Neolithic, that is from 5000 to 4300 BP (3050 to 2350 BC). Dai Jinqi et al. (2019), Jiao (2007a, 2007b, 2013), Fujian Provincial Museum (1998), and Rolett (2012) conclude that the level of agricultural food production and population density was low throughout the Neolithic. Isolation from the Yangzi Valley and limited arable land in Fujian were factors in the slow development of intensive wet rice cultivation. The economy was largely maritime. Rolett concludes that intensified rice cultivation was not possible until the Late Neolithic, when low sea level exposed flat wetland in the Fuzhou Basin. The limited land suitable for cultivation and a strong maritime orientation in subsistence may have been decisive in the development of seafaring and migration to Taiwan and beyond (Rolett, Jiao, and Lin 2002a; Rolett, Zheng, and Yue 2011). Despite the presence of phytoliths throughout the deposits of the Middle Neolithic site of Damaoshan, intensive cultivation may have begun only in the Late Neolithic. Ma Ting et al. (2016)

144  Chapter 9

Figure 9.2.  Spatial-temporal framework of prehistoric cultures in Taiwan and Fujian.

reached similar conclusions after a broad study of river estuaries in South China and Southeast Asia. They used palynology to search for key proxy taxa that could indicate anthropogenic forest clearance. They also studied palaeo shorelines and changes in the depositional environment of foraminifera, diatoms, and mangrove pollen. They conclude that by 4000 BP only limited flat lands with freshwater were available at the heads of coastal basins and that deltaic areas were still saline. After 3000 BP, coastal plains with freshwater sources emerged and high concentrations of charcoal in cores indicate extensive burning. Hung Hsiao-chun (2019) proposes that rice was cultivated as early as 4500 or 5000 BP, but the area under cultivation must have been very limited. Many Neolithic sites in Fujian and Guangdong discovered so far are concentrated in coastal areas, particularly estuaries and offshore islands. Their inhabitants relied heavily on aquatic resources. Inland sites in small river valleys have also been investigated. From the Min River and Fuzhou, all the way south to the northern border of Fujian near Chaozhou, sites are located near the mouths of the major rivers or on small islands. The same pattern holds for Guangdong and, as described in previous chapters, many major sites in Taiwan are also located in

Taiwan in Context   145

estuaries and areas of Holocene alluvium. Sites in the Taipei area are located around an enclosed estuary, flooded by marine intrusion in a similar manner to that the Min River estuary of Fuzhou.

Early Neolithic The use of the term “Early Neolithic” on the mainland is ambiguous in light of recent discoveries. It has usually been applied to sites in the range of 5000 BP, where well-developed pottery is present. However, recently discovered Early Holocene sites such as Qihedong are also referred to as Early Neolithic. Perhaps the Middle Neolithic will be revised to include the present Early and Middle Neolithic as the Early Holocene gap is gradually filled in. Fuguodun and Jinguishan Sites The Fuguodun and Jinguishan sites are both located on Jinmen Island. According to Jiao (2007a, 56), test excavations at these sites were inadequately reported and the context of dated samples is unclear. Fuguodun is dated around 6000 BP, but Jiao notes that the stratigraphic location of the dated sample is unclear (2007b, 53). The site yielded extensive shell deposits, reddish brown sandy pottery, chipped stone adzes, knives, pointed tools and hammers. The presence of cultivation is not clear (Liu Yi-chang 2019a, 55). Pottery from a test excavation at Jinguishan dated between 6500 and 5700 BP lacks cord marking (Jiao 2007b, 57). In a summary of his work on Jinmen Island, Chen Chung-yu (1997) concludes that from roughly 7000 to 4000 BP, the subsistence patterns at Fuguodun and Jinguishan showed evidence of foraging and fishing, but no signs of cultivation. Shellfish remains were abundant. The sites could have been used for seasonal fishing. Liangdao Daowei Sites I and II and Liangdao Man The discovery in late 2011 and early 2012 of two human skeletons, including intact crania, buried beneath a shell midden on Liangdao Island in the Mazu Island group that lies some 20 km offshore from the Min River estuary near the city of Fuzhou has provided important information for regional archaeology and the origins of the early Neolithic populations of Taiwan (Chen and Chiu 2013). Two sites, Daowei I and Daowei II, are situated on a ridge running the length of the narrow rocky island some 1,400 m long and 168 m in elevation. At the Daowei I site, two burials were found, designated Liangdao Man 1 and 2; the first, tightly flexed on its side and accompanied by two pottery vessels, is the

146  Chapter 9

earlier; the second, in extended supine position and accompanied by a stone hammerstone, is the later. Mitochondrial DNA recovered from the skeletons is important for understanding the origins of Early Neolithic populations in ­Taiwan and Southeast Asia (discussed in chapter 10). The island is well located for fishing and shellfish collecting and its alkaline soil has promoted good preservation of bone and shell. Settlement must have been seasonal, since the island is very small and the location of the site on a ridge is very exposed. Fish bones recovered from Daowei I included porgy, sheatfish, ribbonfish, shark, and ray. At least 24 taxa of shellfish were found and fish bones made up the bulk of the vertebrate remains. Pottery sherds were found at both sites. The pottery was mostly sandy in paste but some sherds of silty paste were also found. The island has no suitable clay for making pottery. Vessel shapes included jars (guan), bowls (bo), and cups (bei). A perforated ring foot was recovered. Surface decoration was applied to the exterior rim, but also on the body of the vessels. The decoration consisted of cord, shell, and fingernail impression, red painting, linear impressions, and rectangular and checker incisions. These decorative motifs can be seen on other sites on the southeast China coast, but the shell impression and fingernail impressions are particular to the Early Neolithic (Chen and Chiu 2013, 46). Two 14C dates for Daowei I are given as 8200 and 7600 BP. Keqiutou Site The earliest site on the Fujian mainland to yield substantial evidence is the Keqiutou site on Haitan Island. Four radiocarbon samples gave three dates around 5800 BP and one at 6600 BP (Jiao 2007, 53). Jiao summarized the finds (2007, 49–52). The site contains a midden deposit, primarily of Meretrix bivalve shells but also many fish bones. Postholes suggesting some kind of house structures and refuse pits were found, but they did not form a recognizable plan. The generally high quality of preservation at Keqiutou allowed for a fair representation of faunal remains as well. Terrestrial animal remains from the first excavation were mostly from Sika deer (Cervus nippon), red deer (Cervus elaphus), Sambar deer (Rusa unicolor), and wild pig (Sus scrofa). Marine remains included those of wrasses (Labridae family), sea turtle, baleen whale, common orient clam, oyster, cockle, and small sea snails. The second season of excavation revealed 19 types of shellfish, most prominently the common orient clam (Meretrix lusoria), followed by the Chinese domestic oyster (Ostrea plicatula) and the blood cockle. Substantial numbers of marine fish bones were also recovered. However, no plant remains were discovered in the flotation samples (Hung Hsiao-chun and Zhang 2019, 53). Rice phytoliths were not found in soil samples, indicating that rice cultivation was either absent or of marginal importance. Carson and Hung (2014, 507) state that in sites in the

Taiwan in Context   147

Fujian area dating from roughly 6000 to 5000 BP (4000 to 3000 BC) no remains of rice grains or domesticated pigs were found. Stone adzes thought to be woodworking tools were abundant. The pottery is primarily sand or shell tempered. Cooking vessels such as cauldrons ( fu) predominate. Other vessels included bowls (bo), shallow dishes and stemmed dishes (dou). Some vessels show complex decoration involving combinations of lines, shell edge impressions, and cord marking. Most vessels are decorated only on the upper part of the body, from the neck to the shoulder. Jiao (2007b, 57) proposes that the inhabitants of Kequitou were new arrivals to the Fujian area from the area of modern Zhejiang Province, but concedes that concrete evidence for such a direct connection is limited. Tsang (2002) does not rule out the possibility of development from earlier local cultures, even from the Late Paleolithic. Discoveries of the Early Holocene site of Qihedong confirm the possibility of finding evidence of continuous development from the Palaeolithic.

Middle Neolithic Evidence of rice cultivation in the Middle Neolithic period is clear, although subsistence patterns were highly diversified. Settlement was relatively sedentary and new styles of ceramics proliferated. Tanshishan Site One of the most extensively excavated sites in Fujian is Tanshishan, near ­Fuzhou. It has become the type site of the Tanshishan culture, dated to 5000 to 4300 BP (Chen and Long 1983; Lin Gongwu et al. 2010; Fujian Provincial Cultural Properties Committee 1961; Fujian Provincial Cultural Properties Committee, Xiamen University Archaeology Team 1964). The site is situated on a hill some 20 m above the Min River in the dry season. The hill is 200 to 250 m long and about 10 to 12 m wide. In places, the cultural layer is 3 m thick (Zhong 2005, 131). Three layers have been identified in some 10 excavations that began in the 1950s. The lower and middle layers as well as the lower layer of the Xitou site and the Zhuangbianshan site have been designated as the Tanshishan culture. The Late Period of the Tanshishan culture is found in the middle layer of Tanshishan. Despite the many radiocarbon dates for the site, differences in dated materials, half life, recalibration, and context make it difficult to refine their interpretation. The pottery assemblage from the three layers is complex, made up of different paste types (gray, red, and black) depending on clay composition and firing conditions, different surface treatments, (plain, corded, painted, and stamped)

148  Chapter 9

and a wide variety of vessel forms. Many types are small serving vessels found in graves. Painted pottery is found in small quantities in all three layers of Tan­ shishan. In the lower layer, some sherds show that red painting was sometimes applied over cord marking. In the middle layer, some vessels have a band of color around the lip, while in the upper layer red and black painting occurs. Painting extends from the Middle to the Late Neolithic. Clay spindle whorls imply weaving of undetermined plant material. Cooking vessels include round bottom cauldrons and jars. Serving vessels found in burials include pedestal cups and plates. In the Early period, more than 50% of the pottery is red, whereas in the Late period, 90% is black or grayish black. Most of the pottery is sand tempered; some is decorated with cord marking, incision, and stamped lines and circles (Jiao 2013, 603). Adzes with angled tangs first appeared in the Tanshishan and Xitou sites of the middle phase of the Fujian Neolithic. About one-third of the Tanshishan adzes have angled tangs (Jiao 2007b, 123). Food remains include bones of pigs, dogs, brown bear, tiger, deer (Cervus nippon), and river deer (Rusa unicolor). Stone tools include implements such as adzes and sickles, indicating that in addition to hunting, gathering, and raising pigs, some farming may have been carried out. Plant resources must have included indigenous edible chestnuts (Castanea mollissima). Jin et al. (2017) and Yang Xiaoyan et al. (2018) report new radiocarbon dating and phytolith evidence from three Late Neolithic sites in eastern Fujian and southern Guangdong confirming that rice cultivation spread through the Wuyi and Nanling Mountains and entered western Fujian and northern Guangdong by 4000 BP. The Nanshan site in northwestern Fujian, located in a basin on the upper reaches of the Min River, has deposits of 4 m in depth yielding abundant seeds of rice and millet as well as faunal remains. Zhuangbianshan Site The Zhuangbianshan site is situated on a low hill on the south bank of the Min River near the river’s point of entry from a narrow valley into the Fuzhou Basin, across the river from Tanshishan. Near the summit of the low hill, four layers were recognized (Fujian Provincial Museum 1998; Ma Ting et al. 2016, 378). The surface layer consisted of modern cultivated soil. Layer 2 contained celadon and white wares as well as burials dating to the Late Zhou (475 to 221 BC) and Han dynasties (206 BC to AD 220). Layer 3 consisted of shell midden mixed with blackish gray clay sediment, up to 50 cm thick. This layer contained red-slipped pottery and other types of the Huangguashan culture. Based on radiocarbon dates for the Huangguashan culture, it dates to 4300 to 3500 cal BP (2350 to 1550 BC). Layer 4 consisted of shell midden with yellow brown clay sediment up

Taiwan in Context   149

to 50 cm thick. This layer belongs to the Tanshishan culture, dated to 5000 to 4300 cal BP (3050 to 2350 BC), based on dates from the Tanshishan site. ­Numerous burials and trash or house pits were recovered. Damaoshan Site The Damaoshan site provides important information on the Neolithic of southern Fujian (Jiao 2007b, 125–194). It is located on Dongshan Island, separated from the mainland by a narrow channel near Zhao’an, close to the Guangdong border, and dated is 4300 to 5000 BP. At time of occupation, the sea level was 2.4 m higher and the island smaller and more distant from mainland as well as adjacent to rich fishing grounds. The pottery was decorated on the shoulder, neck, rim, and foot; decoration consisted of impression, incision, cut outs, ridges, and applique; most of the sherds were plain. Jars and pedestal bowls were common, but shapes were difficult to reconstruct because of the small size of the sherds. From a small sample of adzes, mostly polished, three cross sections were observed: simple quadrangular, triangular, and near triangular. An analysis of lithic materials of six adzes from Damaoshan indicated that the inhabitants imported lava stone material either from Penghu or the Niutoushan area of the Fujian coast, and that exchange networks existed along the southeast coast and possibly across the Taiwan Strait around 4300 to 5000 BP (Guo et al. 2005). In the extensive shell midden, two bivalve species, Tegillarca (cockle) and Meretrix (clam), dominated. These species live in intertidal zones and mudflats. The inhabitants fished in the inshore areas using small hooks or fish traps.

Environment and Subsistence Recent innovative interdisciplinary research on the Holocene history of the lower reaches of the Min River provides important evidence for reconstructing environment and subsistence at the time of the Tanshishan culture by examining phytoliths, pollen samples, sediments, and carbon and nitrogen isotope content of human bones. Pollen and phytolith samples from samples taken from the profile of the Zhuangbianshan site show that rice was cultivated during the Tanshishan ­culture. An abundance of phytoliths from rice glumes, rather than from leaves and stalks, supports the hypothesis that partially processed rice was transported to the site. Pollen data show evidence of land clearing at the Zhuangbianshan site, but rice cultivation only became widespread and dominant in the subsequent Huangguashan period after 1900 BP, when access to the Min River plain was possible because of lower water levels. Following the Huangguashan culture,

150  Chapter 9

the Zhuangbianshan site was abandoned when people moved onto the emerging plain to grow wetland rice (Ma Ting et al. 2016, 383; Ma Ting and Zheng 2019). In a high-resolution pollen analysis from a core taken from the Gantan peat bog in Pingnan County, north of Fuzhou, dating no earlier than 2000 BP, a gradual decrease in evergreen oak forest was evident, indicating the shrinkage of a local swamp with the expansion of human activities (Yue Yuanfu et al. 2012). Although the bog is some distance from the Fuzhou Plain, this trend coincides with the move onto the Fuzhou Plain. Sedimentary studies by Rolett, Zheng, and Yue (2011) point out that the Min River estuary is distinctive in lacking a marine floodplain. The enclosed shape of the estuary led to entrapment of sediment in the basin and did not result in a large fertile delta near the coast that could support intensive cultivation, unlike the delta formed at Hangzhou Bay. According to Rolett and his research team, this may have led people to adopt a maritime orientation and cross the Taiwan Strait in search of new places to colonize (Rolett, Chen, and Sinton 2000; Rolett, Jiao, and Lin 2002; Rolette, Zheng, and Yue 2011; Rolett 2007). At present, the Tanshishan and Zhuangbianshan sites are on hills on the inland edge of the basin of the Min River, some 80 km from the coastline, which has been drained and prepared for intensive rice cultivation for the past 2,000 years. Geomorphological studies show that the Fuzhou Basin was flooded in the past, leaving little land for rice cultivation. Rolett, Zheng, and Yue (2011) collected four core samples extending up to 39.85 m in length from sediments in the Min River estuary, dating from roughly 9000 BP to the present. From the core samples, 13C values and C/N ­ratios were investigated. These indicate the degree of salinity of the estuary, ­allowing the researchers to track the incursion of saltwater inland. At the time of the mid-Holocene sea level high stand, at about the time of the Tanshishan ­culture, the hills were islands in the estuary. The sites are thought to have been sedentary villages but provide only slight evidence for agriculture (Lin Gong-wu 2003). Rolett proposes that rice grown at that time was a marginal crop, raised by trapping rainwater, and that sedimentation after 1900 cal BP created the first lowlands suitable for irrigated rice cultivation (2012, 142). After 1900 cal BP, the two site locales were no longer islands but instead hills surrounded by swamps. Rice cultivation emerged in southeastern China about 4000 to 5000 BP but initially was only one part of a broad spectrum Neolithic subsistence economy centered on fishing, hunting, and gathering. Only after 3000 BP do pollen assemblages show intensive human activity. Along with rapid formation of deltaic plains, economic dependency on rice agriculture occurred in the Pearl and ­Fuzhou basins only after 2500 BP (Ma Ting and Zheng Zhuo 2019, 80–82). Analysis of 17 prehistoric bone samples from the Tanshishan site showed that rice-based agriculture played only a minor role in the period from 5000 to

Taiwan in Context   151

4300 BP (Wu Mengyang, Ge, and Chen 2016). From their analysis, the diet mainly consisted of terrestrial C3 foods, herbivores, and significant amounts of aquatic resources. Further analysis yields no obvious relationship between diets and social stratus. According to the one-way ANOVA statistical analysis, juveniles in Tanshishan were more likely to consume food resources of higher δ15N values than adults. No differences were found between the sexes in dietary patterns. The rapid formation of deltaic plains, starting around 3000 BP, created extensive freshwater marshes suitable for paddy fields. However, agriculture was limited to lowland areas during that time.

Social Organization: Evidence from Burials Zhong’s examination of trends in burial data provide some insights into social organization (Zhong 2005, 302). The sample consists of burials from three sites—Tanshishan, Xitou, and Zhuangbianshan representing the Middle Neolithic—dated by Zhong to 5000 to 4500 BP and by Jiao to 5000 to 4300 BP.

Late Neolithic Remains of rice, foxtail millet, broomcorn millet, and pig bones indicate an increase in the use of domesticated plants and animals. Painted and slipped pottery are also common. Huangguashan Site The Huangguashan culture has been identified at the coastal Huangguashan site in eastern Fujian, north of the Min River (Jiao 2007b, 195–252). Dated roughly from 3200 to 3500 BP, it is the only shell-bearing site found in eastern Fujian; presumably, many other sites were destroyed for lime production or expansion of the limited areas of arable land. At the time of its occupation, because the sea level was 2.4 m higher than at present, coastal flat land was circumscribed. Post molds were discovered; the posts supported stilt houses or elevated buildings, judging from the lack of remains of walls or living floors. Cooking ovens consisting of two pits connected by a fire channel were also discovered. Stone adzes were abundant, most made of andesite and dacite, exotic material obtained through trading networks along the coast and to the Penghu Islands. Slate arrowheads and bone artifacts were also found, as well as a few nephrite ornaments (the source of the raw material is yet not known). Most of the pottery is yellowish red on the exterior, usually painted with geometric designs; many sherds have dark red or black slips on top of the

152  Chapter 9

decorative patterns, such as impressed lines or cord marking (Jiao 2007b, 226). Almost 50% of the pottery has a black slip. The ceramic spindle whorls from the Upper Zhuangbianshan were not painted, but those from Huangguashan were elaborately painted. Huangguashan and Upper Zhuangbianshan both have painted motifs of parallel lines, checks, and dots. Most of the pottery is termed soft pottery, which can be scratched with a fingernail. Only 1.8% is hard pottery, which cannot be scratched this way. Decoration consists of the application of a slip, painting, impression, and incised designs. Vessel types include jars, bowls, pedestal bowls, and cups, as well as stands and spindle whorls. Faunal remains were dominated by the bones of wild deer, which made up more than 50% of all identified specimens. Dog bones were recovered: the excavators concluded that the dogs were not consumed for food. Other local animals were found in very low numbers, each species making up less than 1% of the total identified specimens. Of the shell remains, three species, Tegillarca granosa, Ostrea cucullata, and Lunella coronata predominated. All three are found in intertidal zones, in estuaries and mudflats, and rocky outcrops. Rice phytoliths were found in every level of the site. Domesticated pigs account for 25% of all animal bones. Macrofossil remains of barley and rice (possibly imported through exchange) were also found. Jiao (2013, 604) concludes that cultivation was at a low level. Phytolith remains of foxtail millet, broomcorn millet, and rice were recovered from samples taken from the Huangguashan and Pingfengshan sites, dated to 4000 to 3500 cal BP by AMS dating. Ratios of different parts of crop remains show that dehusking and sieving were conducted within the site, showing the local production of these crops. Deng et al. (2018) conclude that the route of diffusion to Taiwan must have been through Fujian, now that evidence has been found in Fujian. Pingfengshan is 8 km northeast of Huangguashan. Deng et al. (2018, 5) also conclude that Late Neolithic populations in the region consumed a high proportion of rice. Foxtail millet and suspected broomcorn millet grains were observed, but percentages were quite low. To date, no evidence suggests Neolithic cultivation of millet in Guangdong. However, evidence from the Shixiongshan site in Guangdong indicates that foxtail millet was the most numerically abundant cereal crop during the period equivalent to the Qin and Han dynasties, accompanied by lesser representation of rice, broomcorn millet, and wheat (Deng et al. 2018, 8).

Bronze Age The term “Bronze Age” is used for cultures roughly synchronous with the Shang (ca. 1500 to 1050 BC) and Western Zhou dynasties of North China (3500 to 3000 BP) even though very few bronze artifacts were produced and the level of

Taiwan in Context   153

social complexity was low. Altogether, four Bronze Age cultures have been identified in southeast China; I restrict this brief discussion to two of them, the Fubin and Huangtulun. From this time, a divergence in social and technological complexity from contemporary cultures in Taiwan is clear. Hulinshan, Fubin Sites The Fubin culture is distributed in southeast Fujian and northeast Guangdong and dates to 3000 to 3500 BP (Chen Zhaoshan, 2007, 185–197; Jiao 2007b, 73–77). Three hundred sites are known. This culture shows relatively large differences with contemporaneous cultures of northern and central China. One of the best-known sites, Hulinshan, is located in Houdian Village, Chaoyang Township, Fujian Province, on the Zhangzhou Plain, Fujian’s largest river delta. The site is situated on a hilltop, 36 m above sea level. In 2000, the residential and cemetery site underwent salvage excavation. It contained Bronze Age and some later deposits. The burials were earthen pit burials with waist pits in one-third of the cases. This custom of digging a small subpit below the main burial pit comes from the Central Plains of northern China. Stone artifacts include halberds, spearheads, arrowheads, adzes, shovels, whetstones, yazhang blades, and bracelets; the only nephrite artifacts are earrings. Bronze artifacts of the Fubin culture, the earliest from Fujian Province, seem to be crude local products. They consist of ge (halberds), spearheads, and bells (Chen Zhaoshan 2007). The halberds appear to imitate bronze proto types from the Yangzi River or Central Plain. The Fubin site has early and late phases. In the early phase, fine-sand tempered pottery red brown and gray brown are most common. The late phase, 14C dated to around 3000 BP, is contemporary with Late Shang (ca. 1200 to 1050 BC) of the central plains. At this time, hard-fired ceramics tradition predominate but a secondary fine paste, soft ceramic tradition is also found. The distinctive hard pottery has a brownish glaze on the exterior. Vessel forms include distinctive urns with long necks and flat bottoms, stemmed plates, jars, and bowls. Like vessels of the Huangtulun culture, those of the Fubin culture often display incised signs. Stone tools include adzes, chisels, spearheads, and halberds. Nephrite objects include bracelets, rings with notches, and half rings. Burials at the Hulinshan site show signs of social inequality. High-rank burials contained bronzes, nephrite, and ritual stone blades (yazhang); those of commoner rank contained only a few simple pots or stone adzes. Li Boqian (2009) proposes that Fubin halberds or dagger axes are based on Shang dynasty (ca. 1500 to 1050 BC) prototypes and their diffusion can be traced to the Wucheng culture of the Yangzi Valley.

154  Chapter 9

Anshan Sand Dune Site This large stratified sand dune site dating from the Neolithic to the Qing contains Bronze Age layers similar in date to Huangtulun (Fujian Museum and Jinjiang City Museum 2008; Jin Jinhui et al. 2017). It is reputed to be the largest such site in the province. Cultural layer 3, which underlies a layer dating to the Qin/Han period, contained impressed pottery, earrings ( jue) of nephrite and other stone, nephrite chisels, bronze fish hooks, and bronze fragments. Presumably the nephrite comes from mainland sources. The pottery decoration included impression, incised curvilinear lines and thunder patterns. Similar sand dune sites are also found in Hong Kong and Guangdong. Huangtulun Site Huangtulun is an example of a culture of the same period as Shang (ca. 1500 to 1050 BC) (Liu Yuliang 2007). Artifacts from this layer are designated as Early period Huangtulun culture. Under layer 3 of the Huangtulun site, burials were found that have clusters of pottery vessels and stone tools. Skeletal remains were not preserved in the acidic soil. The ceramics are hard gray and wheel turned with impressed and incised decoration. Symbols incised on the pottery appear to be some kind of signs. No bronze artifacts have been found but the elaborate pottery shows a strong resemblance to Shang bronze vessels. Some vessels are hard fired like stone ware and slightly glazed; others are stamped like other contemporary South Chinese wares. Still others are unique. At the end of the Huangtulun culture, around 3500 BP, glazed pottery protoporcelain and bronzes appeared, probably the result of influence from the Wucheng culture that arose in the area to the west of the Wuyi Mountains. Bronze Age cultures in Fujian show stylistic influence from central China via contact through the mountain ranges. Remains of the Huangtulun culture were found in the upper layer of the Tanshishan site in excavation no. 8. Hard-fired ceramics and bronze fragments were found in association with a ditch radiocarbon dated to around 3500 BP (Lin Gongwu and Fujian 2003, 7–18). Guanjiu Bronze Age Mounded Tombs A group of 29 mounded tombs dating to 3700 to 2700 BP (ca. 1700 to 700 BC) were excavated in Guanjiu Village, Pucheng County, in northwestern Fujian. In 2003, a central mound was explored. It was 22 m east-west, 17 m north-south, and 2 m high. It contained a stone chamber and a burial in a wooden coffin.

Taiwan in Context   155

From carbon collected under the base of the burial a date of 2464±39 BP was obtained, fitting within the Late Spring and Autumn period. Subsequent discoveries in 2005 in the same general area near Guanjiu during highway construction located Late Bronze Age burials at five localities, yielding a total of 33 burials. The burials fall into three periods from Late Neolithic to the Spring and Autumn periods and appear to belong to a local polity that was increasing in complexity and ranking. In particular, a group of bronzes in Yue style are particularly important in showing the culture of the local people before the Qin conquest. This is the first time that such mounded tombs have been found in the Fujian area. This area, significantly, is on the border with Zhejiang and Jiangxi Provinces, near the southern edge of the Yangzi Valley. Objects recovered included protoporcelains, hard-fired impressed pottery, and bronze vessels. Black slipped pottery was also recovered. The bronzes, considered by the Fujian ­Museum to be temporally equivalent to the Western Zhou period (c. 1050–771 BC) are distinctive, showing local styles and control of low relief. The site consists of a large central mound with an original central burial, surrounded by burials of high elites (Fujian Museum 2007).

Later Cultures of Fujian At the time of the Bronze Age Fubin and Huangtulun cultures, interaction between Fujian and the Yangzi Valley was indirect. Sometime around 500 BC, local Yue people formed kingdoms that were taken over by powers from the northern Zhejiang. The Yue people, described in various historical documents, were native groups extending from Fujian to Vietnam. Three polities—Ouyue in Zhejiang, Minyue in Fujian, and Nanyue in Guangdong—are known from numerous recent archaeological discoveries. Minyue was a de facto kingdom until the emperor of the Qin dynasty conquered it. These kingdoms are important for this book on Taiwan because they show the processes of Sinification of the southeast coast and contrast starkly with cultural and political developments in Taiwan. These cultures are noted for their hard-fired geometric stamped pottery, which influenced the stamped pottery of the Late Neolithic and Metal period of Taiwan. Stamped (or impressed) pottery began much later in Taiwan than in Fujian and Guangdong and continued up to the Contact period, long after it had declined and disappeared on the mainland. In Taiwan, it was fired at a much lower temperature and the decoration was simpler. After the end of the Minyue State and the spread of Han culture to southern China, glazed pottery and early porcelain production became dominant and geometric stamped pottery disappeared from the Min River region (Lin 2019, 230).

156  Chapter 9

Minyue Kingdom The Minyue kingdom in Fujian is said to have received fleeing elites from the Ouyue of Zhejiang, who were defeated by the Chu in 334 BC. In the late third century BC, when the Han dynasty was consolidated, Minyue was restored as a tributary state of Han and the king, Wuzhu, was allowed to establish a fortified city in Fuzhou as well as a few locations in the Wuyi mountains. The kingdom extended into Guangdong, eastern Jiangxi, and southern Zhejiang. Minyue was established in 202 BC and Eastern Ou in 192 BC, with the support of the Han, in return for their contributions to the revolt against Qin. Minyue came under the nominal control of Zhao Tou, ruler of Nanyue, in 183 BC and remained under Nanyue control until 135 BC, when Minyue rebelled against Nanyue with the aid of the Han central government. The Han subsequently waged three campaigns against Minyue. The first was in response to Minyue’s invasion of Eastern Ou in 138 BC. In 135 BC, a second campaign was sent to intervene in a war between Minyue and the Nanyue kingdom of Guangdong. The Han government was faced with two factions within Minyue, ruled by two brothers. They established two administrative capitals to control the region. One capital was in Fuzhou (termed Ye); the other was established in the Wuyi Mountains, presumably to control mountainous inland Fujian and the passes leading to the Yangzi Valley. The latter was termed Dongyue. After the campaign, Min was partitioned into Minyue, ruled by a Han proxy king, and Dongyue. Dongyue was defeated in a third military campaign in 111 BC; in 110 BC the former Minyue territory was annexed by the Han empire and its population was scattered. The Han empire’s conquest of Nanyue and Minyue extended control to the shores of the China Sea in localized strategic areas. Other areas remained beyond direct control. Sinification of Nanyue and Minyue was brought about by a combination of Han military power, regular Han settlement, and an influx of Chinese refugees (Holcombe 2001, 145–164). The Wuyi capital site of the Dongyue, sometimes called Chengcun, has undergone extensive archaeological research since the 1980s (Huang Zhanye et al 2007). This capital was built on a new site, with no apparent underlying predecessor, and was not subsequently inhabited. Its structure follows the form of the Qin and Han capitals at Xianyang and Chang’an. Abundant iron artifacts found at the site show that it was technologically advanced and was not isolated, given that people from the Central Plain (Zhongyuan) and Nanyue were still using bronze weapons (Huang Zhanye et al. 2007, 106). A river surrounds part of the site and forms a natural moat. The residential, administrative, and handicraft areas were protected by a wall originally 15 m high and 6 m wide at the top. The total area of the site is 480,000 m2. In the administrative area was a palace

Taiwan in Context   157

elevated on posts. Adjacent to the palace was a large bathing pool. Remains of ancestral temples and an altar were also found. Tombs and commercial areas lay outside the walls. Five elite tombs were discovered. In 2002, a large central tomb, Yifengshan no. 1, looted long ago, was excavated. The burial pit was 14 m deep. The plan of the coffin chamber followed the plan of the Yinshan tomb of the Ouyue kingdom in Zhejiang, from where the Ouyue elite escaped to Fujian after the attack by Chu in 334 BC mentioned earlier. This tomb plan followed the fashion of the highest Han elite and included imperial burials of Nanyue rulers in Guangzhou (Yang Cong et al. 2018). In an area some 27 km from the Han capital site, in the lower Wuyi Mountains, ancient burials featuring boat coffins placed in caves in vertical cliffs, 20 to 50 m in elevation, may be dated as early as the Bronze Age (Zeigler 1998, 261). Two were well preserved. One, the Guanyin Peak burial, dates to 3840±60 BP; the second, the White Cliff burial, dates to 3445±150 BP. The burials were wrapped in several layers of cloth made of jute, hemp, silk, and cotton. It appears that the boat coffins were lowered from the top by winch and set in the cave with the bow extending out from the cave entrance. In later times, bones were removed from the boat coffins to use in rainmaking rituals, after which they were replaced in the burial. Because of this practice, the bones could have been badly disturbed. Not all hanging coffin burials used boat shaped coffins; some were placed in plain wooden cases. Han Dynasty (206 BC to AD 220) to Ming (AD 1368 to 1644) As Fujian became integrated into Imperial China, its archaeological record became richer and more complex. From the Three Kingdoms period to the Sui dynasty, early kiln sites and burials have been recovered (Chen, Ye, and Wu 1993; Wu Chun-ming and Lin 1998; Lin Gongwu and Fujian Museum 2003). Also, brick single chamber tombs with vaulted ceilings were reported from Huangguashan Cemetery in Nan’an (Fujian, Quanzhou City, and Nan’an City Museums 2014). Dating to the latter half of the fourth century AD, these tombs contained grave goods such as celadon wares, gold, silver, bronze and iron artifacts, stone implements, and glass objects. In the Tang dynasty, urban centers and religious centers emerged (Clark 1991, 2009; Lin Gongwu and Fujian Museum 2003). By the Song dynasty, the city of Quanzhou was a center of world trade (Pearson, Li, and Li 2001, 2002) known for its cultural and ethnic diversity. A vigorous ceramics industry produced all kinds of wares that were traded all over the world. People from the Quanzhou area were in contact with Taiwan and later became one of the largest groups of colonizers (as mentioned in chapter 8).

158  Chapter 9

This brief summary is simply to point out the divergent developmental trajectories of Fujian and Taiwan from the end of the prehistoric period forward.

Guangdong and Hong Kong As noted earlier, like Fujian, Guangdong Province is isolated by a mountain range. Access to it is somewhat easier than to Fujian, however, primarily through narrow valleys extending from the Yangzi Valley to northern Guangdong. A map of major sites discussed here is provided in figure 9.3.

Figure 9.3.  Map showing location of major Guangdong sites mentioned in the text.

Taiwan in Context   159

Palaeolithic Sites The Modaoshan site, in the Nanjiang River Basin near Hekou Town, has been dated to the Early Palaeolithic period, roughly 800,000 to 600,000 BP, based on its geological context. More than 60 sites have been found in the vicinity. Typical artifacts are choppers, hand picks, hand axes, and scrapers (Liu Suo­ qiang 2017). In 1958, a well-preserved hominid cranial skull cap was recovered from limestone cave deposits on Shizishan, located 1.5 km southwest of Maba Village, Shaoguan (Qujiang) County. Although no artifacts were associated with these deposits, an extensive array of mammalian fossils typical of the Stegodon-­ Ailuropoda fauna (Olsen and Antonio-Miller 1992) dated to the Late Pleistocene were found. Some morphological features of the Maba skull cap are shared with Asian Homo erectus. However, the Maba specimen is considered to be a more advanced physical type by virtue of its rounded frontal and parietal bones, thinner cranial walls, and a cranial vault that is more elevated than that of Homo erectus though less than that of modern Homo sapiens (Olsen and AntonioMiller 1992, 144). The Luoshayan site in Fengkai County includes five stratigraphic layers, dated from 48 to 22 ka by Y series analysis. The finds included flakes, choppers, scrapers, large number of animal fossils, and four fossil human teeth (Xie Guangmao et al. 2020). Several Late Palaeolithic sites have been found in Guangdong but so far, more sites have been found in adjacent Guangxi Province. Xie Guangmao et al. (2020) describe the coexistence of two technological traditions based on pebble tools and small flakes. The former is a continuation of earlier south Chinese toolmaking techniques, but the latter is said to be intrusive from the north. In the Late Glacial Maximum, temperatures dropped substantially and North Chinese fauna and humans migrated southward. Late Pleistocene faunal assemblages recovered from the sea bottom near Penghu belong to north Chinese groups (Xie Guangmao et al. 2020, 27). Two important cave sites in Yingde County show the transition from Palaeolithic to Neolithic. At the Huangmenyan Caves 1 through 4 of the Qingtang site, about 25,000 BP mobile hunter gatherers occupied several caves. From 22,000 BP, evidence reveals pottery, broad spectrum subsistence, and stable settlement. Some human remains date to 20,000 BP; a flexed skeleton of a young female, lacking the cranium, dates to around 13,500 BP (Deng Wanwen et al. 2020 ). At the Niulandong Cave, the cultural layer, more than 3 m thick and dating from 12,000 to 8000 BP, yielded pottery, shell bone, stone artifacts, and phytoliths of Oryza sativa, thought to date to around 10,000 BP and to have been

160  Chapter 9

growing wild. The presence of rice phytoliths is not taken as evidence of early cultivation. The inhabitants were Early Holocene foragers, subsisting on a wide range of plant, animal, and aquatic resources (Zhang Chi and Hung 2012, Li Guo 2002).

Neolithic Sites The Neolithic chronology of Guangdong reflects the diversity of the environment. The northern part is an extension of the Five Mountains Range; the middle portion is made up of small hills and basins; and the southern part is dominated by the Pearl River Delta. Sea level reached its current point around 6000 BP (Lu Liedan 2007a; 2011, 100). Sites in the area that were occupied prior to the formation of the modern delta, when sea levels were radically lower, are now underwater. Around 13,700 BP sea level was 131 m below today’s; around 8000 BP, some 20 m lower; and around 7500 BP, 13 m lower (Li Guo 2002, 61). Inland riverine areas served as communication corridors from the Yangzi Valley for the introduction of cultivation; coastal groups retained a foraging economy similar to that of other coastal areas in Fujian, Guangxi, and north Vietnam. Lu Liedan (2011, 101) mentions two routes from northern Guangdong into the Yangzi Valley and along the tributaries of the Pearl River flowing through Guangxi to Guangdong. Coastal sites contain shell middens, but shellfish did not provide the main source of subsistence relative to inshore and pelagic fishing, hunting, and collecting (Atha and Yip 2016, 52). A single red deer, for example, is calorically equivalent to 52,000 oysters or more than 150,000 cockles (Bailey 1978, 39). By the Late Neolithic, even the coastal areas were affected by communication from the north. Stone bark-cloth beaters were replaced by stone and pottery spindle whorls as bark cloth was superseded by spun fiber technology, probably using hemp (Atha and Yip 2016, 40, 54). Sites left by foraging communities dating to at least 9000 BP have been found in the Guangdong region. These groups used flaked pebble tools and made tempered pottery (Lu Liedan 2011, 99). Lu Liedan (2007b) proposes three phases dating from 7000 to 4000 BP (5050 to 2250 BC). Phase 1 is found in the early deposits of the Xiantouling site, which are dated to 7000 to 6400 BP (5050 to 4450 BC). No earlier Neolithic groups have been found in the area. The Xiantouling culture, marked by a style of white painted pottery derived from Hunan, is intrusive, not indigenous. The Keqiutou culture of Fujian, mentioned earlier, appears to be temporally equivalent to a late phase of Xiantouling. These cultures are termed Middle Holocene Coastal Southeast China Foragers (Zhang Chi and Hung 2012, 26). Hung Hsiao-chun points out that

Taiwan in Context   161

these coastal groups were prosperous and complex; they practiced an alternative, non–rice-based economy that could support large numbers of dense and formal settlements (2019, 5). For instance, Xiantouling sites show different scales of residential settlement, some exceeding 50,000 m2 in area, and formal cemeteries (Hung Hsiao-chun 2019, 6). Phase 2, from 6200 to 5000 BP (5250 to 3050 BC) is found in both the north and south. Coastal sites include ­Dahuangsha and the middle layers of Xiantouling. Inland sites from the hilly areas of northern Guangdong include layer 4 of Shixia and the basal layers of sites such as Fuchuanling and Lezhukou. Lu Liedan proposes that the coastal and northern site groups are different cultural groups with different cognitive mindsets (2011, 96). She bases her interpretation on differences in pottery manufacturing techniques, firing temperatures, decorative motifs, and vessel shapes. Foraging cultures began to decline between 5500 and 5000 BP with the shift to a cooler climate (Zhang Chi and Hung 2012, 26). Phase 3, dating to approximately 4800 to 4000 BP (2850 to 2050 BC), is found in layer 3 at Shixia and sites such as Yinzhou and Guye, in southern Guangdong. The remains of rice have been found in Shixia in this period, “indicating the possible occurrence of rice agriculture in northern Guangdong” (Lu Liedan 2011, 97). As in the Tanshishan site of Fujian, the degree of dependence on rice cultivation is not always clear even though rice grains are present. Pottery vessel shapes diverge between the two regions of Guangdong: tripod cauldrons, elevated tripod dishes, and stands have been found in the north; pots, cauldrons, and stands are more ­common in the south. Two Late Neolithic sites dated to 5000 to 4100 BP have yielded rice phytoliths (Yang Xiaoyan et al. 2018). The Laoyuan site produced an assemblage that shows Tanshishan characteristics, whereas the Chaling site in northern Guangzhou City produced artifacts similar to a late phase of the Shixia culture. The discovery of this site indicates that farmers from northern Guangdong were established in the Pearl River estuary rather early. In his discussion of Guangxi Province, to the west of Guangdong Province, Cohen reports that between 7000 and 5550 BP (5050 to 3500 BC), the height of the Holocene Climatic Optimum, shellmound and sand dune sites left by hunter gatherers increased (2014). No evidence has been found of rice cultivation before 6000 BP (4050 BC), but large quantities of rice phytoliths from slightly later deposits have been identified (Cohen 2014). Social complexity emerged by the Late Neolithic, ca 5000 BP (3050 BC) but a cold climatic fluctuation, occurring around 4600 BP (2650 BC) and a major cold event at 4000 BP (2050 BC) roughly coincide with what some see as a sudden end to some of the Late Neolithic or Early Bronze Age cultures of South China (Cohen 2014, 765). This dramatic fluctuation is discussed in chapter 2.

162  Chapter 9

Coastal Guangdong In the Pearl River estuary, population density was low in the Early phase of the Middle Neolithic, judging from Li’s catchment analysis showing that none of the site catchments overlapped at a radius of 1 km (Li Guo 2002). Lack of features such as burials or houses probably points to the relatively seasonal nature of sites. If groups were mobile, they would have been able to use resources from multiple catchments. The Late phase of the Late Neolithic saw the peak of social development in the Pearl River estuary area for the entire Neolithic period. At that time the largest number of overlapping catchment areas was found, as well as the least distance between sites. The largest number of burials, houses, and artifacts of the greatest diversity also suggest a considerable increase in sedentism. Some sites in nonmarine or farming settings, such as the hillside Sai Wan site, indicate more land-based subsistence (Li Guo 2002, 62). An interesting quarry site, dating to the Late Neolithic and Geometric ­period, has been found in an old volcano (roughly 50 million years old), ­Xiqiaoshan. It is surrounded by alluvium in the Pearl River Delta. The lithic material includes felsite and siliceous stone that has been fashioned into various tools, including microliths produced from tortoise-shaped and wedge-shaped cores, showing technological influence from the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic of northern China (Huang Weiwen et al. 1982). Tools from the Xiqiaoshan quarries were exchanged in the region of the tributaries of the Pearl River (Guangdong Provincial Museum 1983; Lucas 1984, 131).

Xiantouling Site The Xiantouling site is a prime example of the sand dune sites found around the estuary of the Zhujiang (Pearl River). One of some 50 sites known in the estuary by 1996 (Chen Xingcan 1996; Li Guo 1996; Li Yan 2019), it is located on a flat elevated sand bank 350 m inland from the present coast near a crescent-shaped bay. Large post molds up to 44 cm in diameter were recorded, but the form of the structures to which they belonged could not be determined. Stone tools include adzes, chisels, pestles, discs, grinding stones, and grooved bark-cloth beaters. The stone tools were mainly polished. The reports by Chen (1996) and the Shenzhen Museum (2008) do not mention spindle whorls, indicating that weaving fibers was not yet practiced in the area. The pottery assemblage consisted of coarse-sand tempered cooking ware and fine serving wares. Vessel shapes include round bottom cooking vessels, flat bottom bowls, and pedestal plates. Distinctive thick clay pot supports were used to

Taiwan in Context   163

form a tripod. They are cord marked and incised, whereas in the Yangzi Valley they are painted. Based on seriation, five chronological stages can be determined (Shenzhen Museum 2008). The oldest dates for this layer are thought to be 7000 BP. There were no 14C dates at the time of Chen’s report but a calibrated date from Dahuangsha, a nearby contemporary site, was 6255+260 BP. In stage 1, the earliest, the assemblage was already diverse. It included cooking cauldrons ( fu) with fine cord marking on the exterior, stamped and inlaid wares, and white wares. The last were made of fine clay, hard fired, and decorated with complicated punctated and stamped motifs. In stage 2, the end of which is dated to 6000 BP (4050 BC), fine cord-marked vessels and vessels painted with red stripes on a yellowish ground were common. White wares became more common and were hard fired at a high temperature. Stage 3 and 4 are dated from 6400 to 6200 BP. Stage 5 is dated to around 6000 BP. The white wares originated in the Gaomiao culture of the Yuanshui valley of western Hunan around 7800 BP (Lu Liedan 2007b). The process of cultural transmission from the Yangzi to the Zhujiang is not well known (Shenzhen Museum 2008). The Gaomiao culture, well known for its elaborate white pottery, was a huntinggathering culture that abandoned farming (Zhang Chi and Hung 2010; ­Matsumura et al. 2017).

Xincun Site Located on the crest of a coastal sand dune, the Xincun site lies approximately 180 km southwest of Guangzhou City, near an old lagoon fed by freshwater streams. It was excavated from 2008 to 2009 (Yang Xiaoyan et al. 2013). Six Late Neolithic layers alternate with sterile sandy layers 15 to 40 cm thick, indicating periods of abandonment. Ten AMS dates from charcoal or soot on pottery give a time range of about 5300 to 4500 BP. The living surfaces yielded post molds and stone tools included slabs and pestles. Although flotation did not yield plant macrofossils, samples for starch and phytolith analysis yielded evidence of starch processing of sago palms, bananas, freshwater roots and tubers, fern roots, acorns, Job’s Tears, and rice. Identification of these required a detailed comparison of starches from 150 Asian species. About 1% of the phytoliths were identified as rice. Sago palms were an important plant food. Although poor preservation of plant materials in acidic soils has hampered the study of regional palaeobotany, the Xincun site confirms the importance of root and tuber collection. The Zengpiyan site of Guangxi also produced charred roots and tubers, but they could not be identified to species. Reliance on a wide range of starch rich food apparently slowed the transition to laborintensive rice agriculture.

164  Chapter 9

Inland Guangdong Sites The Shixia and Henglingshan sites show the development of social ranking in this period.

Shixia Site Burials from the Shixia site, dated from 4600 to 4200 BP, provide evidence of social inequality. From a total sample of 44 burials, the wealthiest contained more than 100 objects and the less elaborate from five to seven. These grave goods consisted of a wide range of ceramics and ornaments emulating objects from the Liangzhu culture in the Yangzi Valley. These include bi (discs), cong (tubes), and yue (axes), fashioned from lower-quality stone than those of Liangzhu but “attest[ing] to an association among status, craft specialization, and access to and control of exotic forms and ideas of non local origin” (Allard 2014, 817).

Henglingshan Site In the Lingnan area, society developed from egalitarian to strongly ranked during the second half of the period of Geometric pottery, which lasted from 5000 to 2200 BP. The Guangdong social hierarchies were strongly involved in external exchange with more northerly states. Northern exchange exerted a pull on centers of power, a disproportionate number of which are located along major trading routes leading to a major partner in the Yangzi Valley. Elite burials with bronzes seem to cluster in the Pearl River hinterlands that had access to the passes leading to the north (Lucas 1984, 165, 170). Ranked chiefdomlevel societies in the Late Geometric period also engaged in craft specialization in the production of fine ceramics and metal artifacts and conducted interregional exchange in elite bronzes (Lucas 1984, 165, 170). They emulated their northern partners in burial styles and prestige objects. Demandt (2019) notes that the production of protoporcelain involved the construction of climbing “dragon” kilns and specialized craftspeople who may have been itinerant and somewhat independent rather than attached to and controlled by local elites. By 2800 BP, the appearance of wealthy burials indicates increasing levels of social inequality. Finds from 3200 to 2400 BP include two kinds of bronze artifacts: simple bronzes such as fish hooks, awls, axes, knives, and simple tripod vessels of local manufacture; and larger complex bronze vessels and bells. A number of nonlocal bronzes were found in nonfunerary contexts in pits, perhaps as ritual offerings (Allard refers to nature-focused rituals). This

Taiwan in Context   165

practice occurred in Hunan slightly earlier, around 3000 BP. The majority of funerary bronzes in Lingnan are found in Guangxi, on routes with access to the Yangzi Valley. At Henglingshan, they are linked to emerging elites and social complexity (Allard 2018). The Henglingshan site, located in east-central Guangdong Province, yielded 302 burials (Guangdong Provincial Cultural Properties and Archaeological Research Institute 2005). The grave goods included 523 specimens of ceramics, including one glazed vessel, 122 bronzes, mostly weapons and tools but also one elaborate vessel, and two special bells termed Yongzheng bells. These bells were originally made in sets. In the Warring States period, their ownership in ­Zhejiang and Jiangsu was regulated and thus they represented high status. Some 150 nephrite or quartz artifacts were also found. One elite burial, M182, dated to around 2900 BP, had a secondary ledge and niche; these are rare features at the cemetery and indicate high status and influence from central China. The grave assemblage consisted of 20 artifacts including ceramic or proto porcelain vessels, bronze weapons, and whetstones as well as the two bronze bells mentioned earlier. Around 2400 BP, the central Chinese state of Chu expanded into southeast China and defeated the coastal state of Yue (Allard 2014, 821). Chu was defeated by the Qin, however, who were defeated by Liu Bang, who established the Han dynasty in 206 BC. In the second century BC, the states of Nanyue and Minyue were independent. After 111 BC, however, they became polities under control of the Han dynasty. The Nanyue polity persisted for 93 years. Chinese expansion into the south was associated with the extension of trade relations and maritime routes to Southeast Asia and beyond (Allard 2006, 236), as the Han dynasty sites of Hepu and Xuwen attest. In fact, Han dynasty control of Guangdong was loose. Allard speaks of an incomplete redistributive network and a prestige goods economy. For hundreds of years after the fall of the Han dynasty, historical records continue to speak of unassimilated groups who opposed Chinese rule (Allard 2006, 238).

Hong Kong Sites Sites dating to around 7000 to 8000 BP are known for their flaked stone tools and absence of pottery. These include Wong Tei Tung, originally thought to be Palaeolithic, and Pak Kok Tsui, and Lamma Island. A survey of the Pak Kok Tsui headland found cultural deposits from the Middle to Late Neolithic as well as surface evidence of the quarrying and working of white quartz thought to be of the same period (Atha 2015). The dating of this site seems to be debated. A map of major Hong Kong sites discussed in the text is provided in figure 9.4.

166  Chapter 9

Figure 9.4.  Map showing location of major Hong Kong sites mentioned in the text.

Neolithic Period A current local chronology for Neolithic sites in Hong Kong (Atha and Yip 2016, 40–43) begins around 6450 BP, approximately 4500 BC (see table 9.3). Five periods are proposed. The designation “Neolithic” is based on the presence of pottery and polished stone tools. Cultivation began around 5000 BP (Hung Hsiao-chun 2019; Meacham 1999). By 3000 BP, casting of bronze artifacts such as axes, arrowheads, and fishhooks in the form of baked clay molds was common. However, no raw materials or furnaces structures have been found to confirm local smelting of copper or tin, nor have any ingots of the two metals been found (Atha and Yip 2016, 63). Swords and daggers or halberds, probably prestige goods, were traded down the line from the north but not cast locally (63). Bronze Age grave goods include flanged rings of tremolite, molds for making small bronze objects, and pottery vessels.

Taiwan in Context   167

Table 9.3  Neolithic Chronology for Hong Kong Early Middle Neolithic, 6450 BP to 5450 BP (4500 to 3500 BC). Finds of fine white earthenware basins, red painted bowls and cups, cups with perforated pedestals for eating and drinking, round bottom cord impressed cooking pots, and probably ding tripod cooking pots (identified by leg fragments). Late Middle Neolithic, 5450 BP to 4650 BP (3500 to 2700 BC). Eating and drinking wares were white bowls on perforated pedestals, and decoration of incised lines and impressed circles. Cooking and storage wares had incised wavy lines and shelllike impressions. Early Late Neolithic, 4650 BP to 4350 BP (2700 to 2400 BC). Sites are rare, marked by large cooking pots, hard fine pottery with applied strips of clay, incised lines, and stamped geometric decoration including basketry, leaf vein, herringbone, and zigzag. Late Late Neolithic, (2400 to 1500 BC). Fine chalky pottery, including carinated spouted forms and stepped adzes. Bronze Age, 3450 BP to 2450 BP (1500 to 500 BC). Includes rectangular and trapezoidal adze forms, bronze fish hooks and tools. The characteristic pottery is hard fired and stamped with geometric patterns. An early form of translucent green glaze, produced from iron, appears for the first time. Ornaments include nephrite discs and tubular beads, and rare nephrite scepters (yazhang). Source: Hong Kong AMO and Atha and Yip (2016, 40–43).

Sham Wan Site This Sham Wan site on Lamma Island is situated on an old sand bar dune extending between two hillsides. It faces a wide protected bay and has a swamp or lagoon on the inland side (Meacham 1978). It is protected by a headland that was previously an offshore island. The sand bar or raised beach was formed at the postglacial high sea level, around 6400 BP. The site has Middle Neolithic and Bronze Age layers. The pottery is sometimes cord marked, with superincisions of big arc wavy lines. Exclusively cord-marked sherds are rare; most have superimposed decoration over the cord marking, as in the Dabenkeng pottery of Taiwan. The coarse cooking ware from the site is red or black, with white on the exterior. Coarse-ware rims are incised on the outside with straight or curved lines, or marked on the inside with concentric semicircles. Fine wares are brick red, yellow, or black, and decorated with incised straight or curved lines, or marked on the interior of the rim with concentric semicircles. Shallow dishes with perforated foot rims were sometimes painted red on a white slip. Many bronze arrowheads have been surface collected from Sham Wan over many decades.

168  Chapter 9

Similar to Sham Wan, sites on Hac Sa Bay Coloane Island, Macau, on the western side of the Pearl River estuary, had layers dating to from the Middle to Late Neolithic, between 5500 BP to 3000 BP (Davis and Sin 2009). Evidence of a Late Neolithic workshop for the production of crystal or quartz ornaments was discovered. Nephrite also appears to have been worked at the site, though the report is not clear on this point. Quartz rings, cores, and blanks were discovered. Sha Po Site The Sha Po site, at Sha Po Tsuen on Lamma Island, is situated on a sandspit and a back beach, separated by a freshwater lagoon. Inland from the beach is a natural terrace. Using a landscape approach, Atha and Yip (2016) built up a picture of this site from localized test excavations, the only way of investigating the ancient deposits covered by a densely settled modern village site. The ancient site was occupied intermittently from around 6500 BP to 3500 BP, throughout the Middle and Late Neolithic and later. The loose sand, transitory occupation, long time span, and post-depositional disturbance made it difficult to delineate precise activity areas. The beach site is an aggregated reworked sand dune in which interrelationships are difficult to interpret. The low density of pottery, stone tools, and faunal remains indicates a low intensity of use in prehistoric times. The Middle Neolithic pottery assemblage has red-painted fine pottery serving wares and fine corded cooking wares. Stone tools include hammers, coarse choppers, and whetstones. A very few projectile points were found. A gap of 1,000 years is found between the Middle and Late Neolithic occupations. On the terrace, the cultural layers were more dispersed and less compacted. Postholes cut into the subsoil were noted but the form of the structure supported by the posts is not clear. Sandstone bivalve molds for the production of bronze axes and fish hooks were found but pieces of actual bronze were absent. In the local Bronze Age, production was quite limited and no evidence was found of the casting of swords, daggers, or halberds. Metal fragments found in the site by local residents were probably collected to sell as scrap in modern times (Atha and Yip 2016, 57). No direct evidence indicates ancient smelting from ore; old artifacts were melted down to make new ones, perhaps in a kind of portable bowl furnace made of coarse pottery (79). Remains of a workshop for producing earrings of clear and white quartz from imported blanks were also found. Bronze Age pottery found on the terrace includes hard-fired wares from sites near Guangzhou. Sherds of coarse cooking pots were abundant, as were wheelmade stem cups, geometric stamped pottery, and green-glazed hard-fired stoneware.

Taiwan in Context   169

Tai Wan Site The Tai Wan site, dated to the Late Neolithic, is located on a tombolo beach with a back bay on the west side of Lamma Island at an elevation of 8.2 to 6.5 m above sea level. Two cultural layers lie above sterile yellow sand (Au et al. 1994, 195–208). Large quantities of sand were removed from the site in the late 1930s and parts of the site may have been disturbed (211). At that time, three tanged bronze arrowheads were found (Au 1994, 213). Layer 2 yielded 10 burials. One was richer than others, with a nephrite-bladed yazhang, tubular beads, and discs. It did not contain earrings ( jue), though they were found in three other burials. The burials did not contain impressed pottery. The pottery was sorted into three groups. The first was sandy low fired, and in several colors— gray, black, yellow, and reddish. About 90% was cord marked; vessels shapes included fu, wan, po, cauldron, bowl, jar, and pottery stand (ring foot). The second group had silty paste and was fashioned into jars and basins. The third group was impressed and hard fired; two examples had a greenish glaze. This last group did not occur in the burials. Stone tools consisted of adzes and chisels, and perhaps halberds, although these finds could also be polished spear points. Nephrite artifacts included huan rings, jue, yazhang, and perforated discs (Au et al. 1994, 198). Despite the small size of the site and its relatively isolated location, evidence indicates social inequality in the burials. The nephrite yazhang that originated in the Longshan culture of North China is found in the Yangzi Valley, the Sanxingdui site in Sichuan, and in several sites in southern China. It appears to have circulated in a religious or ritual network (Au 1994).

Bronze Age and Later Small bronze artifacts and molds were found in the Sha Han and Tung Wan Tsai sites. Sha Ha Site The Sha Ha site, located at Sai Kung, Hong Kong, contains deposits from the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age as well as later layers from the Yuan (AD 1279–1368) and Ming (1368–1644) periods. It is one of the largest in Hong Kong, covering 20,000 m2, of which 3,000 were excavated from 2001 to 2004 (Hong Kong Antiquities and Monuments Office 2005). During the Late Neolithic and Bronze Age, the site consisted of dwellings and workshops. It is located on a raised sand bar around which are remnant lagoons. Phytoliths of gourds and rice

170  Chapter 9

were found, suggesting that rice cultivation may have begun in the Late Neolithic, about 4000 BP. Only one complete rice grain was recovered in flotation. Pottery included cauldrons, jars, stem cups, basins, firing grates, baked clay stands for pottery vessels, coarse pottery with square rim, and soft pottery with foot rings and incised designs. A flanged stone halberd, the imitation of a bronze halberd, was also found. Other stone artifacts included pendants, rings, slotted rings, and a small number of arrowheads and net weights (Hong Kong Antiquities and Monuments Office 2005, 32–33). Fragments of a stone mold were found in deposits associated with a distinctive hard-fired ware with a stamped Double F motif. Two phases of the Bronze Age were recognized. The early phase is marked by coarse pottery cauldrons, stone adzes, and stone rings, and the later by hard impressed pottery. Tung Wan Tsai Site The Tung Wan Tsai coastal site on Mawan Island consisted of a Bronze Age deposit dating from roughly 3600 to 3200 BP and a later deposit from roughly 2450 to 1700 BP, that is, the end of Warring States to the end of the Han dynasty (Rogers et al. 1995). Numerous small bronze artifacts, including a bronze fish hook, two spear heads, a barb, and a possible shell pick were found, almost exclusively in the Han dynasty layer. Iron objects included adze/axes, picks or chisels, harpoons, fishhooks, spades, saws, nails, wire or pins, and blades of spear tops, as well as fragments of containers. In the cultural deposit, several Han dynasty coins were found. The inhabitants had access to traded metal objects and were able to manufacture some small pieces in stone molds. At the same time, they continued to use polished stone tools as well as simple functional pebble tools in the same period as the great Nanyue tomb of Guangzhou.

Han Dynasty and Later In this section, I outline the extent of Han Chinese interaction with populations of Guangdong and contrast it with the relative isolation of Fujian. In the Pearl River Delta area, a local Bronze Age existed from around 1000 BC to the third century BC. The presence of distinctive styles of burial objects such as bronze animal-headed staffs and locally made bells and vessels suggest that the elites were local rather than colonists or conquerors (Allard 2017, 455–461). The area was occupied by the Qin dynasty of central China from 214 to 208 BC, followed by the independent Nanyue kingdom from 204 to 111 BC. It was

Taiwan in Context   171

subsequently incorporated into the Han dynasty (for a useful account of Guangdong history, see Lai 2020). Nanyue Kingdom The Nanyue kingdom was established in 204 BC by Zhao Tuo, the Han dynasty commander of the Nanhai region who broke away from the Han dynasty. Autonomous for five generations, the kingdom was destroyed by the Han in 111 BC. The majority of Nanyue’s citizens were Yue people (Brindley 2015), native inhabitants of Guangdong and adjacent areas, ruled by a group who were mostly descendants of the Qin armies. A layer belonging to the Nanyue Palace of the Western Han was found under 12 layers of cultural remains more than 3.2 m deep. Parts of two palace structures plus a corridor and brick and stone paved road were found. Artifacts included building materials such as bricks, tiles, and molded tile ends (Guangzhou ­Municipal Institute 2008). The burial of Zhao Mo, second king of Nanyue, is an elaborate Western Hanstyle burial of impressive scale and wealth, replete with brick tombs and nephrite burial suit. Its ritual follows Han dynasty norms, including the use of tomb figures and of ceramic models that emphasize domestic and craft production activities (Allard 2006, 243). The seven chambers in the immense structure are 20 m below the surface of the burial mound. The main chamber contains the king’s burial, encased in a “suit” of nephrite pieces sewn together. In the east chamber were his four wives and in the west chamber seven slaves, all of whom were killed at the time of the burial (Mai 1993). The abundant, extremely rich burial goods include objects from the state of Chu, the Xiongnu of the steppes, and the Bashu area of Sichuan as well as a Persian silver box and African ivory elephant tusks. Objects produced in the Yue area demonstrate the highest skill, sophistication, and stylistic distinctiveness, confirming the technological advancement of the Yue center. Sets of cast bronze and iron tripods show the observance of central Chinese rituals in offerings of local style and manufacture. An inlaid single piece tiger tally showed the use of the custom in the extreme south (usually the tallies were made in two pieces). Both sites are located within Guangzhou City.

Trade and Contact with Southeast Asia From at least 2500 BP (500 BC), active trade took place from coastal Guangdong and Guangxi to Southeast Asia and even into the Indian Ocean (Wang Gungwu 1998; Heng 2020). A major commodity was Chinese silk but many

172  Chapter 9

other precious tropical raw materials, beads of all kinds, gold, and glass were also traded. Surely part of the motivation of the Qin expansion into Guangdong and the establishment of the Nanyue kingdom was to gain access to trade in the southern oceans. Muyard (2018) holds that the trade was conducted by the local Yue people in collaboration with Chinese merchants and officials. Although the Yue people controlled the coastal trade, long-distance trade was in the hands of Southeast Asians, whose ships could sail as far as the Malay Peninsula and beyond. A link to ancient Southeast Asian trading circuits has recently become an important theme in Taiwan archaeology. The circulation of goods from Southeast Asian regions to Taiwan and the finding of Taiwan nephrite objects and raw material in Southeast Asia dating to 2500 to 1500 BP are discussed in chapter 10. Han Dynasty Cemetery of Hepu, Guangxi The Han Dynasty Cemetery site, located in Guangxi, near the Guangdong border, is important for several reasons. It was part of the Hepu Commandery, established in 111 BC (Schafer 1970). The rich assemblage shows the intensity of Han dynasty trade with Southeast Asia and the importance of the Guangdong region as a commercial and cultural link to Imperial China (Guan et al. 2013). The prevalence of beads of glass and semiprecious stones could be relevant to the study of beads found in Taiwan mentioned in chapters 8 and 10. (No comparative study of the glass beads from coastal Guangzhou and Taiwan is known). Although Hepu and Xuwen were the most important southern ports for foreign trade in the Han dynasty, Guangzhou and the Pearl River Delta began to develop in the third century AD. However, the center of population remained in northern Guangdong until as late as the thirteenth century, when large-scale construction of levies enabled the expansion of agriculture in the delta region. In the early Tang period (AD 618–906) the Yue were assimilated into Han Chinese culture or moved into less-developed areas to become the ancestors of modern minority people (Lai 2020). The nature of this important transcultural process is actively debated. The Hepu tomb cemetery is scattered over a total area of 68 km2. An estimated 10,000 tombs still survive underground. From the 1950s to the present day, more than 1,000 have been excavated (Xiong 2014). Most date to the Han dynasty (206 BC–AD 220), others to the subsequent Three Kingdoms and Southern Dynasties periods (AD 220–589). Building materials and type of construction allow them to be divided into three categories: shaft tombs, wooden-chambered tombs, and brick-chambered tombs. They have yielded objects including pottery, bronze, iron, gold and silver ware, lacquer, glass, amber,

Taiwan in Context   173

agate, crystal, etched carnelian beads, gold polyhedral beads, pearls, and garnets. These precious goods were obtained from Southeast Asian and Persian traders who had their own distinctive ships (Burningham 2019; Schottenhammer 2019; Guy 2019; Wade 2019). Most of the glass artifacts were made of locally produced potash glass, but some from Southeast Asia and India were also found. A horned, ring-shaped artifact from Hepu is similar to the nephrite linglingo ear ornaments found in Palawan in the Philippines dated to 2500 to 1700 BP (Higham 1996, 305). Special etched carnelian beads indicate a technology transfer from India to Southeast Asia. Beryl ornaments probably came from India. Distinctive gold polyhedral beads found in the Hepu graves have also been found in east coast of India, Thailand, Burma, and the Indus Valley. A greenglazed Persian ceramic pot and bronze cymbal were originally from the Parthian empire. Muyard (2018) concludes that the people buried in the Hepu tombs were not Chinese officials or merchants but native elites who were subjects of the Chinese colonizers. The patrons and operators of maritime trade and glass production were Yue craftsmen, merchants, and elite.

Hainan Hainan, like Taiwan, was joined to the mainland until the Holocene. The date for separation is set at 8500 BP (Li Yinghua et al. 2019, 169). Qiantie Cave (Qian­ tiedong) in Changjian County, Hainan, was excavated in 2012. Based on stratigraphy and stone artifact typology, it has been dated to around 20,000 BP. Flakes, choppers, picks, stone hammers, and anvils were recovered. The raw material for tools seems mostly tuff and sandstone. Toolmaking techniques involved direct flake removal with stone hammers (Xie et al. 2020). The Luobi (Luobidong) limestone cave site, on Hainan’s southern coast 15 km northeast of Sanya, resembles other Early Holocene sites in southeast China and Taiwan, such as the Taiwan Preceramic. Like Changbin in Taiwan, the cave site is located in an isolated hill formed by uplift. Layer 2, the cultural layer, contained artifacts of stone, bone, tooth, and shell as well as bones of deer and other mammals. Many flaked stone tools, mostly unifacial, some with secondary retouch, hammerstones and reused flakes were found. Many have edge polish. A wide range of bone tools, points, spoons, tubes, weights, and awls was also recovered. Layer 2 gave a 14C date of 10,890±100 years ago. Polished and perforated stone tools were found but pottery was absent (Hainan Museum 2013). At least three Neolithic sites have undergone substantial excavations. The sites are dated from 6000 to 4000 BP (Chinese Archaeology 2016). The Yingdun site, in Sanya City, contained rich shell layers separated by sterile sand.

174  Chapter 9

Two periods, Early and Late, were distinguished. The pottery of the Early period is coarse-sand tempered and fine-sand tempered. Fu cauldrons with flat bases are characteristic. Jars, bowls, and cups were also found. Stone tools of this period include shouldered adzes. Pottery of the Late period is hard fired and finely polished. Some have been coated with a red slip. The Lianziwan site, in Linshui County, yielded thick coarse-sand tempered pottery and thin burnished pottery as well as abundant stone tools and faunal remains. The Qiaoshan site, also in Linshui County, is stratified with three layers. In general, the site yielded reddish brown sandy pottery, spindle whorls, and completely polished quadrilateral adzes. Layer 3 produced burnished red-slipped pottery. A cultural sequence extends from the Early period of Yingdun to Lianziwan and Late Yingdun and then to Qiaoshan, which is the latest (Hung and Zhang 2019). Hainan prehistoric sites resemble those from the coastal Guangdong and Fujian in terms of red coarse pottery and red slipping but seem to differ in the absence of cord marking and more elaborate painted wares. Tsang (2022) mentions general similarities in coastal subsistence patterns and artifact assemblages with sites in the Pearl River Delta and the Dabenkeng culture of Taiwan. Historical documents indicate that Hainan was much more closely linked to Imperial China than Taiwan. Schafer mentions that Early Han documents cite 23,000 taxable households in 16 townships along the north coast of the island (1969, 19). According to him, the main purpose of the Han presence was to secure local products, such as medicinal herbs, incense, tortoise shell, ivory, and tropical woods. In the Tang period (618–906), records mention several counties that served as outposts. In the Song period, the coastal population included fugitives from south China in addition to the native islanders. The famous Song philosopher Su Shi was exiled to Hainan from 1094 to 1100. He mentioned the presence of substantial Chinese communities (Schafer 1970, 90).

Ryukyu Islands Archaeological deposits in limestone caves dating as early as 35,000 BP have been found in the Ryukyu Islands. The sites have yielded Homo sapiens fossils and faunal remains (for an expanded account of early sites, see Pearson 2013). Here I discuss sites of particular relevance to Taiwan prehistory (for the location of Ryukyu Island sites, see figure 9.5a and figure 9.5b).

Figure 9.5a.  General map of the Ryukyu Islands and Sakitari Cave site.

176  Chapter 9

Figure 9.5b.  Map of sites in Sakishima (Ryukyu Islands).

The Sakitari Cave on Okinawa Island in the central Ryukyus has yielded shell artifacts, beads, and the world’s oldest fishhooks (Fujita et al. 2016). The latest layers of Sakitari, dated to around 12,000 BP, yielded a human molar, wild boar bones, marine shells, and rough fragments of quartz thought to be artifacts. The quartz is not from the immediate area and is difficult to work; natural breakage is considered unlikely (Yamasaki 2014). No sites have been discovered yet in the period from 12000 BP to the beginning of the Shellmound period of

Taiwan in Context   177

the northern and central Ryukyus, around 9000 BP. Island hunter gatherers, considered to be a subculture of the Japanese Jomon culture, left sites dating from 9000 to 1200 BP, when cultivation was introduced from the Japanese main islands. The survival of hunter-gatherer populations on small subtropical islands for millennia is said to be remarkable in world prehistory (Takamiya et al. 2015). Notably, however, the Caribbean islands were colonized by pre-agricultural populations around 6000 BP and by farming populations from 2500 to 3000 BP (Fernandes et al. 2020). From a much later period, an important trading site dating from 1200 BP to 900 BP has been found on the island of Kikai (Pearson 2007). Fortified sites dating from roughly 950 BP (AD 1050) to 750 BP appear throughout the central Ryukyus, leading to the establishment of the Ryukyu kingdom, an independent state with tributary relations with the Ming dynasty. Chinese and other trade ceramics are abundant throughout the Ryukyus from the Song dynasty forward (Pearson 2013). At the peak of its ascendancy, the Ryukyu kingdom on Okinawa Island was allowed by China to send tribute missions carrying largely transshipped goods from Southeast Asia to China at frequent intervals and to secure goods from China that could be traded to other countries having less favorable access to it, particularly during the Ming Maritime Trade Ban (1371–1567), when China prohibited private foreign trade. During the period of its independence, Okinawa served as a center for transshipment in the East China Sea until it was taken over by the Satsuma fiefdom of southern Kyushu in 1609. With its decline in the seventeenth century, transshipment and exchange were conducted by all kinds of private traders, including smugglers and pirates along the west coast of Taiwan. Similar to the central Ryukyus, the southern Ryukyus (Sakishima) were ­occupied during the Pleistocene from as early as 28,000 BP, as shown from ­excavations at the Shiraho Saonetabaru site on Ishigaki Island. From the same site, pottery dating to around 10,000 BP has been recorded from layer 3b. No pottery of comparable age has been found in Taiwan, the Philippines, or the central Ryukyus although pottery of similar age has been found in the northern Ryukyus and the Japanese main islands. It is not clear whether human occupation was continuous in the southern Ryukyus from 28,000 BP to 10,000 BP (Yamagiwa et al. 2019). Island foragers occupied the islands from 4800 to 3300 BP (Aoyama et al. 2020, 2), leaving a culture termed the Shimotabaru culture, named for the Shimotabaru site on Hateruma Island. Nine shell middens have been excavated; recovered artifacts included pottery, stone adzes, hammers, grinding stones and drills, shell and bone tools, and shark tooth ornaments. The sites of the Shimotabaru phase have been divided into Early and Late periods, the Pyutta site on Ishigaki Island is dated at 4800 to 4200 BP, and the Shimotabaru site

178  Chapter 9

(Hateruma Island) and Fune and Otabaru sites (Ishigaki Island) to 3900 BP to 3600 BP. Yamagiwa et al. (2019) find that the pottery of the Early Shimotabaru phase from Pyutta is similar to the 10,000-year-old pottery from Shiraho Saonetabaru but that the later Shimotabaru phase pottery is dissimilar, leaving open the possibility of an outside source for the Late Shimotabaru phase. Summerhayes (2018) and Hudson (2017) propose that the Shimotabaru phase was left by people who migrated from the east coast of Taiwan. Further study of the surface of Shimotabaru pottery by X-ray fluorescence microscopy shows that the Shimotabaru pottery’s red surface, thought to resemble the surface of pottery from Taiwan, is not slip or paint as in Taiwan but the result of calcium and phosphorus deposition derived from shell and bone in the site matrix. Aoyama et al. (2020) conclude that the absence of surface treatment such as slip or paint reduces the likelihood of derivation from Taiwan. Judging from the current suite of radiocarbon dates, the populations of the Shimotabaru culture died out around 3300 BP and the southern Ryukyus appear to have been uninhabited until around 2900 BP when people who did not produce pottery but were proficient in the manufacture of shell tools and ornaments appeared. No evidence indicates that they practiced cultivation. In a detailed analysis of Sakishima archaeology, Yamagiwa (2016) concludes that continuous occupation was likely from the Shimotabaru culture to the Nonceramic culture; in the transition, pottery making was lost and shell adze technology adopted. Yamagiwa could not find evidence of trading networks or major population movements with surrounding areas, such as Taiwan or the Philippines, that could account for these changes. Loss of pottery technology occurred in the islands of remote Oceania, such as Hawaii, when isolation eliminated the necessity for decorated pottery in exchange systems. The Shimotabaru people first occupied high islands in Yaeyama, such as Hateruma and Ishigaki, before moving to coral islands such as Miyako. At first, they carried with them lithic material such as metamorphosed rock from the high islands; later, they transferred lithic technology to the thick dense shell of the Tridacna giant clam that inhabits coral reefs. A transitional site could be the Toguruhama site, dated to the end of the Shimotabaru culture. It lacks pottery, although pottery and some of the stone tools resemble those found in the earliest occupation layers of the Urasoko site, the earliest Non-ceramic site on Miyako Island. Evidence indicates contact in the first millennium AD between Yaeyama and mainland China. Some 40 Tang coins, mostly Kaigen Tsuho, including 33 specimens from the Sakieda Akasaki site on Ishigaki Island, by far the largest concentration in the Ryukyus, are thought to have been brought by ships sailing from Japan to China on Japanese tributary missions (kentoshi). Several routes were taken to sail from Hakata to China. Ohama (2008, 352) contends that the

Taiwan in Context   179

southern route through the Ryukyus was used between AD 702 and 752. Iron tools and slag have also been found. In the eleventh century AD (1100 BP), migrants from the north brought cultivation and earthenware production to the Ryukyus in the Shinzato period (1100 to 900 BP). Around 1500, the Ryukyu kingdom sent a maritime expedition to incorporate the Sakishima Islands into the Ryukyu kingdom (Pearson 2003).

Conclusion Artifactual finds from Modaoshan in Guangdong indicate that hominids lived in Southeast China as early as 600,000 to 800,000 BP. Early hominid fossil finds at Maba in Guangdong and the Penghu sea bottom show that Homo erectus and some types of archaic Homo sapiens lived in southeast China in the Late Pleistocene. Sites in Fujian and Taiwan dating to the Late and Terminal Pleistocene provide a firm record of Late Palaeolithic occupation by Homo sapiens. A few sites in the region dating from 11,000 to 7000 BP give a glimpse of hunter-gatherer communities subsisting on a broad spectrum of plants and animals. Rice cultivation entered the region through narrow valleys leading from central China to the south and east. No evidence indicates any rice cultivation in southeast China before 5000 BP at sites such as Keqiutou and Xiantouling (Hung Hsiao-chun 2017a). From 5000 BP forward, small groups of cultivators lived in the narrow river valleys and constricted estuaries; coastal people retained their hunting and gathering subsistence patterns. Changes in sea level and alluviation of river mouths were important in the expansion of cultivation. Contact with the Yangzi Basin was direct. Some small groups of southern elites received prestige goods such as bronze weapons and tools and very rarely vessels. The Yue kingdoms emerged around 2500 BP. The preeminent trading center of Guangzhou assumed importance beginning about 1500 BP, to be superseded by Quanzhou beginning about 900 BP. Guangdong was in contact with central China to a greater degree than the Fujian area was. Although access through the Nanling Mountains was constricted, human groups repeatedly gained access to the Pearl River Delta, in the Neolithic, Bronze Age, and Han dynasty. As in Fujian, the adoption of cultivation was late and the level of intensification remained low in most environments. However, in some interior pockets, such as the area around the Shixia site, culti­ vation may have been highly productive, judging from the elaborate pottery found in graves. Agricultural settlements emerged at roughly the same time, around 5000 BP across the region. In general, Fujian and Guangdong were isolated from central and northern China but cultural, social, technological, and social contacts occurred.

180  Chapter 9

Cord-marked pottery from sites in the Pearl River estuary such as Sham Wan appears to be similar to Dabenkeng pottery from Taiwan, suggesting that the Early Neolithic populations of Taiwan may have had their origins in several localities along the southeast coast of China. The Sha Po site has fine corded pottery that may be related to the fine cord-marked pottery of the Middle Neolithic of Taiwan, and tanged bronze arrowheads similar to those found in Taiwan were found in the Tai Wan site. However, the nephrite yazhang, thought to be symbols of prestige, have not been found in Taiwan, although vaguely similar scepters were found at the Xidadun site in Central Taiwan. Taiwan, Fujian, and Guangdong were relatively familiar in culture until around 1000 BP, when Fujian and Guangdong were gradually drawn into the Chinese imperial system, and Taiwan became somewhat isolated. Despite subsequent cultural contacts, political control was not exerted over Taiwan. The Taiwan Strait presented a barrier that far exceeded its physical width, separating Sinitic and Austronesian worlds. A kind of cultural fault line persisted until the seventeenth century AD, when Taiwan was drawn into world systems.

Chapter 10

Conclusions and Prospects

In this book, I briefly review the culture history of Taiwan from the Palaeolithic to the seventeenth century AD (chapters 3 to 8) and survey relevant archaeological discoveries from Fujian, Guangdong, Hong Kong, and the Ryukyu Islands (chapter 9). Here I summarize and synthesize the main findings and discuss major topics of research.

Cultural Origins The earliest human populations of Taiwan were present long before the Holocene separation of Taiwan from the mainland by rising sea levels in the Taiwan Strait around 9000 BP. As mentioned in chapter 3, remains of archaic Homo sapiens dating to sometime between 40,000 and 190,000 BP have been found on the sea bottom between Penghu and Taiwan. In the Late Pleistocene, Taiwan lay at the eastern edge of the Asian continent and the Baxiandong site shows that people lived virtually on the very edge of the continental shelf (chapters 2, 3). Their occupation is dated to around 30,000 BP. In Taiwan, no fossil human remains are associated with the stone tools. Neolithic people migrated from the south and southeast coasts of the mainland in the Early Neolithic. The Dabenkeng culture appeared in Penghu and Taiwan. Dabenkeng pottery seems stylistically uniform throughout Taiwan, suggesting that the colonizing groups spread rapidly and groups remained in contact throughout the thousand years of the culture. The sources of the pottery with cord-marked rim and collar could be the Pearl River Delta (Tsang 2005, 71). Other writers have noted similarities between certain elements of Dabenkeng and Taiwan examples and pottery from the Fujian coast (Jiao 2007b); 181

182  Chapter 10

however, it seems that the entire repertory of Dabenkeng styles cannot be traced to a single source on the mainland. It seems clear that the colonizers did not come from a single location. Why did people migrate to Taiwan? It seems unlikely that they were pushed by shortage of cultivable land or population pressure, given that all indicators are that at the time of their arrival they were primarily foragers. They may have been attracted to the estuarine environments of Taiwan created by changing sea levels. Cultural factors may also have been in play. The maritime orientation of the Early Neolithic of southeast China and expanding exchange relationships were significant factors in the expansion to Taiwan (Rolett 2019). Finds from Early Neolithic sites such as Anhe, Nanguanli, and Nanguanlidong show that migrant populations produced sophisticated pottery, tools, and ornaments (chapter 4). Turning to a different source of information, osteological analysis, Lauer’s study (2015) of biological distance between cranial and dental distance between groups on both sides of the Taiwan Strait dating from 4500 to 4000 BP showed few similarities between the two. The samples used were relatively few and the temporal control was loose: Dingsishan (only dental measurements) five individuals, Hemudu six, Dabenkeng nine, Tanshishan (Late Neolithic) 16, Xitou seven, and Shisanhang 16. It would seem that this analysis should be followed with larger samples with better spatial and temporal control. Samples from the Pearl River Delta were too small to test the proposal that Dabenkeng derives from this area. Lauer does conclude that Dingsishan was not likely an ancestral community to Dabenkeng, but that the samples may share a southeast Chinese origin. Sporadic migration of small populations from several points along the coast seems to have occurred. A comparison of human mandibles from the Dabenkeng component of the Early Neolithic Nanguanlidong site with specimens from East Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific led to several conclusions (Pietrusewsky et al. 2017). The early Neolithic and later Metal period series from Taiwan separated by nearly 4,500 years are not closely related. The closest groups to Nanguanlidong are from the Ryukyu Islands and the East Asian mainland. The groups closest to Shisanhang include the Ryukyu Islands and Asian mainlanders but also groups from Southeast Asia and the Pacific, suggesting wider contact with surrounding groups in the later period. Possible early connections between Taiwan and the Ryukyus are discussed later in this chapter. The second conclusion of expanding contacts in the later period of Taiwan prehistory corroborates the archaeological picture. Interestingly, the end of Dabenkeng period, around 4200 BP, coincides with an episode of cold climate on the Chinese mainland (Liu Yi-chang 2016, 78) and the decline of the Liangzhu culture. That time saw a dispersal of people, ideas,

Conclusions and Prospects   183

and technical knowledge that brought people to Taiwan. Their cultural repertory could have included basic techniques of nephrite working and new pottery types, including fine red-corded ware. The distinction should be made between colonization and contact. When substantial numbers of migrants arrived from the Chinese mainland, genetic changes as well as technical transfer occurred. A question for current research is whether technological innovations in the Taiwan Neolithic were accompanied by substantial population inputs. Tsang (2016, 70–71) concludes that archaeological data show that single-origin and internal-differentiation models do not explain the great cultural diversity of the indigenous people of Taiwan, that multiple contacts played an important role. Despite maritime contacts across the Taiwan Strait, the rate of cultural development in Taiwan was not synchronous with that of the mainland over the last 5,000 years. Different stages of prehistoric cultures in Taiwan were significantly later than those across the strait. For example, although, Taiwan and southeast China both had corded pottery cultures, using similar manufacturing techniques, vessel forms, and impressed-cord patterns, this Neolithic corded-ware culture appeared and developed in southern China around or before 7000 to 6000 BP (and nowhere later than 5000 BP), whereas the equivalent development in Taiwan did not occur until 5600 to 3200 BP, that is, roughly 2,000 years later (Kuo 2019a, 52). During the Middle Neolithic, interactions between Niuchouzi culture in ­Taiwan and Maqiao culture in Jiangsu and Zhejiang Provinces, and between the Xuntangpu Late culture (chapter 5) in Taiwan and the Zhuangbianshan Upper Layer type (chapter 9) and Southern Fujian Bronze culture (early Taying type), as well as the Guangdong Pearl River Delta’s Late Baojingwan culture, are important manifestations of maritime cultural connections across the Taiwan Strait (Kuo 2019a, 125). Assemblages of the Xuntangpu culture in northern Taiwan and the upper layer of Zhuangbianshan in Fujian show remarkable similarities in artifacts used by both. Shared ceramic traits include raised-line patterning on pot lips, ridges on the neck or belly, impressed net patterns, impressed triangular net patterns, painted patterns, pottery cups and sherds of handles, and double-grooved net sinkers (Kuo 2019a, 128). The methods of manufacture, however, remained different. Zhuangbianshan pottery was wheel made and relatively hard fired whereas Xuntangpu was built up by slabs and lower fired. The people of Xuntangpu were aware of pottery styles on the mainland but did not change their methods of manufacture. Similarities in artifacts of the Middle Neolithic Late Xuntangpu culture and sites such as Hulinshan in Fujian include black-painted geometric decoration at the Zhishanyan site and similarities in stone and nephrite bracelets as well as concave-bladed stone adzes (Kuo 2019a, 130).

184  Chapter 10

In the Neolithic period, it is likely that small groups repeatedly crossed the Taiwan Strait, bringing new kinds of technical knowledge. The changes were small and incremental, however. The transition from the Early Neolithic Dabenkeng culture to the Middle Neolithic Niumatou is marked by a shift from coarse brown-corded pottery to fine red-corded pottery. K. C. Chang considers the new pottery to be the product of the spread of the Longshan horizon. Li Kuang-chou considers it a local development from earlier coarse corded pottery. Liu Yi-chang (2011a, 153) concludes that it was introduced from the mainland. In the Middle Neolithic Niumatou culture of central Taiwan, red cord-marked pottery makes its appearance along with unusual comb-like nephrite artifacts and large wellmade footed vessels, which resemble examples from the mainland. In the Late Neolithic Zhishanyan and Yuanshan cultures, black-painted pottery decoration is similar to that found in the Huangguashan site of Fujian, whereas stepped and shouldered adzes are similar to those found in the Pearl River Delta. Tsang (1995, 195–197) notes similarities among the fine cord-marked pottery of the Suogang phase in Penghu, the Niuchouzi and Wangliao in southwestern Taiwan, the Sham Wan stratum in Hong Kong, and the Damaoshan and Tanshishan lower layers in Fujian. These assemblages, though, also show distinctive characteristics. The Late Neolithic Dahu culture of southwestern Taiwan and the Metal period Niaosong culture of southwest Taiwan display distinctive burial customs that could indicate the arrival of new groups (Tsang, Li, and Cohen 2015; Chiu 2018). The Late Neolithic Yingpu culture is characterized by gray ware with stamping. Although impressed and stamped decoration is found throughout the south China mainland, specific correspondence with Yingpu has not yet been found. The Guishan culture shows new pottery styles with stamped circles and both geometric and anthropomorphic motifs, which were not previously found in Taiwan and were probably derived from the China mainland. Nephrite working is a distinctive feature of the Taiwan Neolithic. It seems unlikely that it could have developed independently in eastern Taiwan when such a powerful center was in Zhejiang at the same time. Perhaps the general skills of nephrite working came to Taiwan from the mainland; however, the distinctive techniques and forms of Liangzhu nephrite artifacts are not found in Taiwan. These include the cylindrical cong, pendants, and the technique of abrading the surface of the nephrite around a motif in fine relief. It appears that the specific styles of expression found on nephrite artifacts in Taiwan are local inventions—with two exceptions, the fine comb-like artifacts from Xidadun and the split-ring earring that is widespread in East Asia, even in the Jomon culture of Japan. New groups arrived in Taiwan at the end of the Late Neolithic at the time of Huagangshan Upper Layer culture of the east coast. It does not appear that

Conclusions and Prospects   185

these groups were large. Generally, following the inputs of the Early Neolithic, contacts were sporadic, with no large-scale inputs until the seventeenth century, about 400 years ago. In the seventeenth century, the Dutch and Spanish established trading posts in Taiwan. The Dutch built up a substantial colony populated by Fujian Chinese. In the latter half of the seventeenth century, the European colonial period ended and Qing dynasty control was established.

Social and Technological Change Prehistoric social change often involves changes in architecture, community and settlement pattern, burial customs, and production and social complexity. Regional and temporal changes in styles of pottery and stone tools have been documented for the Neolithic and Metal periods, but the basic functional categories remain the same: cooking and serving dishes, including vessels with ring feet, spindle whorls, and bracelets. Stone tools include chipped hoes, polished adzes and axes, knives, arrowheads, and fishing weights. Possible weeding tools may have appeared in the Late Neolithic Fengbitou site. The major changes in Neolithic ceramics are in paste and decoration. In general, cord marking and impression predominated in the Early Neolithic in association with slab building and paddle finishing. Although Early Neolithic Dabenkeng cord marking may be termed coarse in distinction to the finer cording of the Middle Neolithic, the decoration on the rim and lip of Dabenkeng pottery turns out to be intricate and applied in a sequence of incision and stamping on top of cord marking. Painting and slipping also occurred in the Early Neolithic. Change in paste and color appeared in the Late Neolithic and geometric stamping, presumably of mainland origin, appeared in the Late Neolithic and Metal periods, as do burial jars. Black and gray wares appeared on the west coast in the late Neolithic. Although painting occurred as early as the Early Neolithic, it flourished in the Late Neolithic Dahu culture of the southwest. Changes in surface treatment and decoration of ceramics appear to be associated with general trends on the mainland, but the expressions show local originality. In terms of architecture and community patterns, only a few broad trends can be proposed. On the east coast, the foundations of houses, storage areas, and plazas were constructed of river cobbles, creating a unique local village pattern that may have ultimately contributed to the Paiwan stone-built villages. The stone-built villages manifest enduring house ownership by corporate groups. In other parts of Taiwan, houses were built on platforms above the ground and the patterns of post molds are difficult to decipher. Burial areas were located adjacent to settlements in some cases such as the Late Neolithic

186  Chapter 10

Dahu culture Youxianfang site (Tsang, Li, and Cohen 2015, 207) (see chapter 6). The positioning of burials adjacent to houses or under the floor confirms the importance of the house as an enduring social unit (Chiang Chih-hua 2015). In many cases, the burials are regularly spaced and not cut into each other suggesting long-term house ownership. Burial postures and grave goods show a variety of forms, some of which may have been introduced by groups migrating from the mainland. Although it is clear that people were familiar with the cultivation of rice and millet from the Early Neolithic, cultivation coexisted with foraging and collecting (Hsieh Jaw-shu et al. 2011). An economy of underproduction was a factor in low population growth. No evidence points to prehistoric or ethnohistoric intensive paddy cultivation. The Early Neolithic migrants may have left the mainland coast before large areas of alluvium were available for intensive cultivation there. When coastal plains emerged in Fujian, they did not provide particularly favorable conditions for intensive cultivation provided by large open river deltas in the Yangzi area. Vigorous exchange systems of lithic materials such as olivine basalt and nephrite tools and ornaments appear to have connected groups into loose alliances; at the same time, evidence also points to head-hunting from the Middle Neolithic. In the Late Neolithic and Metal periods, exchange systems in eastern Taiwan were linked to those of Southeast Asia. Evidence points to achieved status in individual rich burials as early as the Anhe site of the Dabenkeng ­culture, the Beinan site of the Late Neolithic, and the Kivulan site of the ­Contact period. Did prehistoric societies vary in complexity as measured in housing, burials, craft production, settlement hierarchy, owning resources, or control of resource processing? At present, we do not have consistent data sets to assess these variations but an increase in economic activity in exchange systems seems clear. Ethnohistoric sources hint at the emergence of specialized service groups such as the Basay of northern Taiwan and chiefdoms among the Paiwan. What evidence is available concerning prehistoric population change? Some very large villages are recorded on the Tainan Plain at the time of contact. Was their exceptional size caused by a new economy based on trade with outsiders? Some ethnographic information is available on the limiting of population growth by infanticide among the Siraya people.

Exchange and Cultural Boundaries Communities achieve identity through distinctive culture and exchange ties groups together and crosses cultural boundaries. In Taiwan, prehistoric social

Conclusions and Prospects   187

and cultural groups were linked together by several exchange systems. At the same time, groups often maintained social boundaries through dress, burial customs, language and religion, head-hunting, warfare, and fortifications. Some of these boundary-maintaining activities are archaeologically detectable. In the Early Neolithic, fine-grained olivine basalt from quarries on Qimei Island, Penghu, was exchanged to many locations on the west coast and certain sandstones from the east coast were traded to the west (Tsang 2015b) (see chapter 4). In the Nanguanli and Nanguanlidong sites of the Tainan Science Park, most stone tools were made from olivine basalt from Penghu. A small number of stone adzes and chisels were metabasalt from eastern Taiwan, as well as andesite and nephrite. Arrowheads were made from slate and shale (Tsang, Li, and ­Cohen 2015, 100–104). The finding of olivine basalt in sites such as Damaoshan in Fujian confirms interaction with that area as well (Fujian Provincial Museum 2004). The debris of lithic manufacture at Nangang, Penghu, indicates that it could be a production center for a wide area. Were there resident specialists at Nangang? How were they connected to exchange systems reaching Taiwan and the mainland? Fine red-corded pottery from the west coast was traded to Penghu. Nephrite from Fengtian, near Hualien on the east coast, was traded throughout Taiwan and to Penghu. It is first recorded in the Dabenkeng culture sites of Anhe and Niupu in the Taichung area (Kuo 2016) and Nanguanlidong in the Tainan area. In the Late Neolithic and Metal periods, it was traded to the Philippines and coastal Southeast Asia. It is likely that special ornaments such as zooanthropomorphic and penannular earrings were exchanged on different social circuits from the circulation of tools or raw material blanks. The earrings were precious or inalienable valuables. In the Late Neolithic, a few rare bronze artifacts were traded from the mainland to northern Taiwan. In the Metal period, the exchange of iron and bronze artifacts seems to be earliest in sites on the east coast such as Jiuxianglan, dating from 2300 to 1200 BP. Along with the knowledge of metalworking, these goods spread north along the east coast to Blihun Hanben and the Ilan area and to Shisanhang in the Taipei Basin, dated from 1800 to 600 BP. It is likely that some bronze objects such as daggers and dagger handles were made in sites such as Jiuxianglan and traded within Taiwan to sites such as Shisanhang. In Shisanhang, the range of items includes bronze knife handles, coins, glass bracelets, glass beads, gold ornaments, silver, and shell ornaments. Exotic objects were used more widely than in the sites of the Fanziyuan and Niaosong cultures of the west coast. Later, from 1600 to 1000 BP, evidence attests to the inland spread of exotic artifacts. At the Lalu Site on an island in Sun Moon Lake near Taichung, the cultural layer

188  Chapter 10

included debitage from nephrite working as well as glass slit-ring earrings and an iron bracelet (Liu Yi-chang 2018, 56), showing the overlap of old and new trade goods. The decline in the use of nephrite is directly related to the arrival of foreign goods such as glass beads. Beginning in the Late Neolithic and continuing into the Metal period, glass and stone beads of many forms and origins were exchanged. That their distribution is often localized to specific regions of Taiwan may mean that they were valuables that could only be circulated among eligible partners. In the Metal period, a new form of hard-fired stamped pottery, decorated with motifs including human figures, faces, and pit vipers, came to Taiwan from the south China mainland. The snake motif is intriguing given that it is said to be a common one in south China, but no prehistoric representations of snakes in Taiwan appeared until the Late Neolithic. In the Contact period, hard-fired Chinese ceramics, Chinese coins, and new forms of metal ornaments such as small cast jingle bells and bracelets as well as clay and stone tobacco pipe bowls appear in sites such as Kivulan, indicating new forms of exchange (Wang Shu-jin and Liu 2005). At least seven kinds of archaeologically recognizable materials were exchanged in prehistoric Taiwan in addition to myriad perishables such as medicinal plants, bird feathers, and textiles, which are of course not found in archaeological deposits. These were Qimei basalt, east coast sandstone, nephrite from the east coast Rift Valley, metal objects from local artisans, Han Chinese, and Europeans, beads from Southeast Asia, China, and the west, and shells and shell objects. Each was embedded in a social matrix involving trading partners and it is unlikely that any of them were treated as neutral commodities. The raw basalt from Qimei seems to have been partially processed at the site (Rolett 2019, 197). Some nephrite objects appear to have been finished at their final destination. Shell artifacts are found in many sites where preservation conditions are favorable. They deserve the systematic attention of archaeologists. How can we detect cultural differences from archaeological data from ­Taiwan? Clues may be found in ceramic wares and styles, styles of stone tools, community patterning, and burial patterns. Are there prehistoric burial patterns that could indicate emerging and changing social communities in Taiwan? In 1977, Ho Chuan-k’un analyzed prehistoric burial data for his master’s thesis at Washington State University and updated his analysis with some new material in 1996 (1977, 1996). He found ten patterns. It appears that all burials in the Early Neolithic were primary and extended, following the pattern found in mainland sites such as Tanshishan and Zhuangbianshan in the Fuzhou area. In the Middle Neolithic, stone coffins (cists)

Conclusions and Prospects   189

Table 10.1  Taiwan Prehistoric Burial Patterns 1

Extended supine without container, face oriented in easterly direction, found in Fengbitou and Suogang in Penghu and in Tanshishan and Zhuangbianshan in Fujian.

2

Associated with megalithic culture of east coast. Rock-cut sarcophagi. Large energy expenditure, associated with stratified society?

3

Cist burial, some long enough for extended supine position, some too short. Typical site Damalin, Puli Basin. No evidence of social stratification.

4

Extended, supine, body interred within coral and sandstone coffins, Eluanbi, Kanding, extreme south. Grave goods include shell bracelets and spoons.

5

Cist burials of Taitung hills, near east coast.

6, 7

Extended, prone, Fanziyuan west coast.

8

Single burial from Shisanhang, semi flexed in a pit grave, head pointing in northeast direction.

9

Square burial pits lined with stone slabs, corpse interred in a sitting position, stone slab for lid, whole grave covered with a mound. Continuation of Pattern 3 of Damalin, Puli.

10

Jar burials of Hualien, Lutao, Lanyu, Gaoxiong area.

Source: Ho 1977.

appeared on the east coast and in the Puli Basin, where shale and schist are available to make slabs for coffin construction. In the Late Neolithic, burial customs diversified as communities became separated and distinct, with prone burials in Fanziyuan, long cists as well as special “megalithic” stone-cut coffins on the east coast, and special votive pottery vessels and a layer of sherds under the corpse in the Dahu culture of the southwest. Communities in the extreme south used coral slabs and boulders to make simple chambers. The invention of cist coffins appears to be indigenous but could also be related to burial practices in Southeast Asia. In the Metal period, jar burials occur on the southeast coast; they are likely descendants of jar burials of the Vietnam coast and the Philippines. The Metal period trend toward flexed burials became widespread in the Contact period. Sometimes they were placed within stone coffins. The elaborate stone platforms of the historic Paiwan, incorporating skull racks and special chambers containing chiefly burials, appear to have developed after contact. In the Late Metal period, a distinctive burial pattern, as seen at the Kivulan site, consisted of elaborate wooden chambers constructed of carved and painted wooden planks, contained flexed burials. Some burials of the historic Siraya people were

190  Chapter 10

found in the excavations of the Tainan Science Park. Historic records record that individuals were not interred for some time after death and may have been disarticulated gradually; very few burials of the Siraya culture have been found: most are incomplete or disturbed (Tsang, Li, and Cohen 2015, 302). Glass beads were important imperishable items in the exchange systems of the Metal and Contact periods that could be used as proxy for other items that are difficult to find archaeologically, such as deer skins (Yen 2017). They were used to consolidate alliances among weakly integrated networks. One ethnographic example was recorded by the Dutch in the central western lowland in the seventeenth century (Yen 2017, 176). This small tribal alliance had a shifting membership of 15 to 27 villages and its leader had limited power, restricted to arbitration, protection, and ritual practices. Dutch records mention that valuable glass beads were exchanged for the building of alliances and resolving disputes (Yen 2017, 176).

Isolation from the South China Mainland Despite correspondences in stone tools and pottery between cultures on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, Taiwan prehistoric and early historic cultures maintained their cultural distinctiveness from the mainland from the time of the Early Neolithic. Were there particular attitudes or mentalities that distinguished prehistoric groups on Taiwan from those in the political centers of China? Did these groups avoid contact with Han Chinese but engage in longdistance exchange with counterparts in Island Southeast Asia? Various clues suggest that the Bai Yue (Hundred Yue), indigenous inhabitants of Southeast China, may have avoided contact and subjugation by the Han Chinese. Mainland coastal dwellers may have had mixed feelings about the emergence of densely populated settlements, competition, and social inequality and moved to new frontiers (Hung and Carson 2014). Judging from the Covid-19 pandemic, they may also have attempted to avoid endemic diseases and periodic plagues. Did acephalous tribal groups, which could gain little through alliances with neighboring groups, keep their distance rather than form confederacies or link chiefdoms? Why did some groups in southern Taiwan engage in prehistoric exchange with groups in Southeast Asia? From about 2500 BP to 1700 BP, Taiwan was a kind of prehistoric pivot between mainland China and Southeast Asia, a kind of conduit or semiconductor across which information could be transmitted to Southeast Asia (Carson and Hung 2014). Did the exchange systems with Southeast Asia serve to enhance the non-Han Chinese identity of the prehistoric people of southern Taiwan? Archaeology confirms the existence of a shifting

Conclusions and Prospects   191

boundary between the center of Chinese power and areas outside its control. Whereas the Guangdong area was slow in adopting rice cultivation or bronze technology, it became an important trading center in the Han (206 BC to AD 220) and Tang (AD 618 to 907) dynasties, linking the centers of Chinese power to markets in Southeast Asia, the Indian Ocean, and beyond. Were there any links between Taiwan and the Nanyue polity in the Pearl River Delta, or with the Han dynasty outpost in the inland, northwestern Han dynasty outpost at Wuyi in Fujian Province? No evidence of contacts has been recorded, although the direct distances between these centers and Taiwan are relatively short. The appearance of stamped or impressed decoration and snake motifs may indicate some indirect communication or the arrival of small groups of people. At least until the Late Tang (roughly AD 1000), many people in southern China remained unassimilated to the Sinitic culture of the north. Tang political authority was strong only in the port of Guangzhou, because of its great economic importance, and along the trade routes to the Yangzi Valley (Clark 2015, 67). The ultimate assimilation of southern China to Sinitic culture should not be taken as a forgone conclusion; it was instead a long and fluctuating process (Clark 2015, 18). Taiwan lay almost completely beyond the edge of central Chinese political control until 1683 and the defeat of the Zheng family by Qing forces. It is fascinating that the entire region of southeast China and Taiwan lay beyond the pale for a long time, only to become an economic engine of the Chinese economy in present times. It is significant that imperial China showed little interest in Taiwan until the late seventeenth century, when the Qing were pushed to defeat the Ming loyalist Zheng Zhenggong. At that time, the Qing realized that if Taiwan were not controlled by them it would be taken over by foreign powers, as it was in the late nineteenth century with the annexation by Japan.

Social Organization and Production Several Taiwan archaeologists have attempted to reconstruct social organization from archaeological data. Some writers have examined patterns of community organization, residence, and descent, following American trends of the 1960s and 1970s (Li Kuang-chou 1982). Changes in settlement patterns have also been investigated in the same area (Chen Maa-ling 1997). Others, following trends in Taiwan social anthropology, find that the traditional categories of patrilineal, matrilineal, and bilineal failed to generate understanding of how local society actually functioned. Chiang Chih-hua (2010, 2015) examines houses and households, and the concept of house society. Liu Jiun-yu (2018) examines the role of enclaves of technical specialists within an east coast site. Chen Maa-ling (2008,

192  Chapter 10

2011; Chen, Chen, and Lee 2010) introduces some of the major themes in American archaeology in the latter half of the twentieth century and provides a valuable kind of road map for young scholars who wish to explore some of the most important contributions. She concludes that in Taiwan emphasis should be placed on theoretical clarity and methodology, objective rigor, better understanding of social science, and use of ethnographic analogy. She also says that archaeologists can benefit from a deeper understanding of Taiwan ethnography. In the Upper Shellmound Settlement of the Fengbitou site, Chang Kwangchih (1969, 128–132) found that two pottery styles, rim height and painting motifs, divide the site into northern and southern sections, suggesting social divisions. Could these divisions represent moieties? Hopefully, detailed studies of pottery and other artifacts from recent large excavations, using contemporary statistical and spatial analysis, will extend our knowledge of prehistoric community organization. Li Kuang-chou (1982) investigates prehistoric patterns of residence and descent at the site of Kanding, testing a hypothesis that related females were normally restricted to living in the same village for generations and that male spouses moved to the village each generation. To test this hypothesis, he examined stylistic diversity of seven classes of information: net sinkers, ­projectile points, potsherds, clay spindle whorls, pottery bracelets, burials, and pottery from the burials, reasoning that artifacts made by females should be more stylistically homogenous than those made by males. His examination found greater stylistic variability among the artifacts made by males. In his estimation, the hypothesis was not falsified. The excavated area was small, however, consisting of eight pits 2 m2 and one pit m2, and the site had only one radiocarbon date. Chen refines the chronology of the Eluanbi area from 5000 BP to roughly 3000 BP and, using systematic survey and strategic excavations, began a study of local subsistence systems. She concludes that shifts in the settlement patterns were probably related to the adoption of seasonal cultivation, which was practiced in sheltered areas despite harsh seasonal winds (Chen Maa-ling 1997). She also undertook important studies of the stone houses of the Southern Paiwan site Saqacengalj, abandoned about 350 years ago, in cooperation with local Paiwan groups (2006, 2008). Located on a gentle slope 250 to 300 m above sea level, it consists of more than 10 terraces with more than 83 architectural features made from local layered sandstone. Houses have adjacent enclosures and platforms, the size of which seems to be related to the scale of social activity and social status. Chen’s studies (2010, 2011) focus on identifying the variations in the distribution of certain resources, such as imported goods, that help interpret the social meaning, particularly with regard to social status and wealth, of house structures having different shapes. She and her colleagues find that houses of different shapes varied in the types of imported ceramic vessels to which they

Conclusions and Prospects   193

had access, and that, based on artifacts and residues found in the houses, the location of sleeping and personal areas were similar between houses but other activities and their locations varied. This kind of study could potentially link to Paiwan ethnography and substantive hypotheses on the nature of social organization and complexity and changes through space or time. In future, it may be possible to map abandoned sites in remote, inaccessible locations using photogrammetry (Wu Mu-chun 2019). Chiang Chih-hua (2015) uses a house society model to examine the active role of the house in creating and regulating social groups at the Wansan site (see chapter 6). The concept of house society is important in the study of Austronesian-speaking societies. Houses play an active role in organizing people into distinct groups. Taiwan cultural anthropologists have found it difficult to place societies into traditional anthropological categories of patrilineal, matrilineal, and bilateral. The concept of house society is more heuristic. It is common in house societies for ancestors to be buried within the house. The house becomes more sacred as it gathers more ancestors in it. Following the work of Kirch (2000), she examines the relation between houses, material objects, social relations, and power relations of each household group and the group’s access to prestige and resources. Those houses in which exotic goods and heirloom nephrite zooanthropomorphic earrings were excavated were found to have wider social networks, as determined by the diversity of exotic artifacts found in the houses. It was common for ancestors to be buried within the houses, as they were in the Beinan site. Liu Jiun-yu (2018) proposes a scenario that the east coast Contact period site of Blihun Hanben may have been home to itinerant craftsmen who specialized in glass and iron processing, and that these people were members of a diaspora of maritime traders who lived and worked within the village but gradually ­established a separate community. His method of investigation presumably involves the spatial patterning of artifact styles, tools, and by-products. The historical records left by the Spanish who established the fort of Keelung in the seventeenth century includes descriptions of the Basai people who provided various services to local villages in return for food. It is not clear how such craftspeople were sponsored or supported or why they were accepted into communities that appear to have practiced head-hunting. Head-hunting was present from the Early Neolithic (Nangualidong site), Middle Neolithic (Wujiancuo site), Late Neolithic (Beinan site), and Metal period (Guoxiao and Niaosong sites). It was present over an area from Assam to Sulawesi and the outer islands of Indonesia. Robertus Candidus (1597–1647) notes that the groups of southwestern Taiwan lacked chiefs but recognized successful head-hunters as heroes (Campbell 1967, 13–15; Shepherd 1993, 187).

194  Chapter 10

Head-hunting was associated with prestige and leadership (Andaya 2004). Although heads were taken by males, female shamans played important roles in the ritual activities of head-hunting groups according to Candidus (Campbell 1967, 24–25). Head-hunting played various social roles in various groups in Southeast Asia. A detailed examination of evidence of head-hunting from recent excavations might provide some information on the development of the custom in Taiwan. Chiu (2016) concludes that two perforated human mandibles found in Niaosong sites were cut from crania, probably trophy heads, judging from cut marks found on one of the specimens. He associated them with head-hunting and found ethnographic examples of perforated human mandibles from the ­Ifugao and Kalinga of northern Luzon. Many intriguing ethnographic similarities between Taiwan and the Philippines make one wish for comparative studies of Taiwan ethnography from the point of view of Southeast Asia.

Social Inequality The nature of social inequality is often assessed in archaeological studies by documenting differences in house size or location, prehistoric diet, access to precious materials and objects, location and size of burial facilities. In general, Taiwan prehistoric burials do not show spatial segregation into areas reserved for rich and poor. However, when burials are under the floor of large houses, as in the Wansan, Beinan, and Contact period sites of the Paiwan, the burial treatment shows that their corporate group had access to a wider social network than others did. Certain houses show social ranking but cemeteries do not. In some cases, burials appear to belong to powerful individuals who have achieved status in their lifetime rather than receiving inherited high status from their ancestors. Even from the Early Neolithic Dabenkeng culture, these distinctions in achieved status can be seen in Niupu and Anhe, where certain burials were marked with grave goods and surrounding cobbles. In many ­Taiwan societies, age grading was one of the important social distinctions (see chapter 9). Opinions vary on the level of social complexity presented in the Beinan site. Lien (1991) concludes that differences in the numbers and kinds of grave goods were slight, suggesting relatively egalitarian society. Tsang and Yeh (2005), however, conclude that differences in the quantitative distribution of nephrite artifacts could indicate part-time craft specialists and social ranking. Ellen Hsieh’s (2012) analysis of the distribution of grave goods in the Upper Layer burials of the Kivulan site may show that some families were ranked higher than others, given that the richest burials were in the 15- to 35-year-old age group, not with children or very old individuals.

Conclusions and Prospects   195

Ethnographic studies of the Paiwan people of southern Taiwan contrast with the relatively egalitarian situation believed to have prevailed in prehistory. At the time of Japanese contact in 1895, Paiwan society was organized into chiefdoms. Paiwan aristocrats lived in named houses with access to special emblems and attire. They sponsored ritual observances and their houses were decorated with wooden and slate relief carvings of human figures, animal figures, and symbols of fertility and head-hunting. The ancestors of some aristocratic families were said to have been born from a snake, and representation of pit vipers and other snakes were restricted to special groups (Chiang Bien 1993). Human figures on the central ancestral posts of the chiefly houses are the representative of the founding ancestor or ancestress of the village. The designs depicting human heads, the sun, and the hundred pacer snake are “representative of the genesis of the Paiwan” (264). A few chiefly households appear to have owned agricultural land, hunting fields, and dwelling plots. Commoners were clients and tenants of the aristocratic landlords who collected rent or tribute. Among the northern Paiwan, several landlords could live in one village but only one person was paramount chief (Chiang 1993, 229). The contrast is stark between the societies of the western coastal plain such as the Siraya and the Paiwan. In Taiwan, some groups appear to be acephalous tribes with little hierarchy, but others were chiefly house societies. The chiefly house societies may have developed during the Late Neolithic and Metal periods. Examples are the Wansan, Beinan, Sanhe, and Guishan cultures. These interpretations of limited hierarchical social complexity are based mostly on burial treatment, location, and contents; as data on domestic architecture and village plans become available, the picture may change. Simultaneous heterarchical differences between communities are possible. In the Late Neolithic, Beinan is larger than other known communities in Taiwan, and in the Metal period, the sites of Shisanhang, Kivulan, Jiuxianghlan, and perhaps Guishan were probably local centers. They may have been local centers for important crafts such as metalworking. In the Contact period, the Tamsui and Tainan regions were local centers at the time the Europeans arrived.

Organization of Production Subsistence practices seem to have included cereal cultivation from the Late Dabenkeng culture of the Early Neolithic but it seems to have been balanced with collecting. Ethnographic records indicate that farming was practiced by females and that males hunted and engaged in warfare and raiding. Dietary studies show a diversity in the range of cultivated and collected foods. I conclude

196  Chapter 10

that population pressure to push people to intensify cultivation is not apparent. No terracing or irrigation facilities have been discovered. Nor have there been discoveries of specialized food processing facilities. As mentioned in chapter 9, western coastal populations seem to have practiced an economy of underproduction, and evidence is scant of any population increase, expansion of village sizes, or population pressure On the east coast, Carson and Hung (2014) propose that population pressure was a factor in pushing people of the Fushan culture to migrate to the Philippines. This may be an exceptional case. We know that both rice and millet were cultivated by lowland groups as early as the early Neolithic period. Archaeological data on subsequent highland ­cultivation systems is scant. Ethnographic studies of swidden cultivation of foxtail and broomcorn millet show that Bunun villagers kept varieties separate by careful segregation in seed selection, planting and harvesting, and weeding out primitive phenotypes (Fogg 1983). In contrast, the Yami people of Lanyu leave wild varieties of Setaria viridis or primitive types of Setaria italica in the field, resulting in a continual progression of wild genotypes into Setaria italica. On the China mainland and in Southeast Asia, the advent of intensive rice cultivation appears to be linked to the migration of Han Chinese from the north in the Warring States period (480 to 221 BC) and later. This cultivation is linked to new plowing methods involving socketed metal tools and domesticated water buffalo (Ma et al. 2020). These innovations are contemporaneously absent in Taiwan. Pottery decoration involved intricate stamping, incising, and painting. No evidence, however, is found in excavations of specialized production, though it is clear that pottery was exchanged between regions, as at the Shisanhang site and the Huagangshan site. The production of nephrite artifacts was a local specialty of the Fengtian area but most tools could be made by part-time specialists. The most refined and delicate ornaments, given that they are technically complex, may have been made by full-time specialists but no archaeological evidence attests to any such workshops. At present, we need much more information on the social dynamics of the introduction of metal and glass objects at east coast sites.

Nephrite Working and Exchange Taiwan nephrite, also termed serpentine or tremolite, occurs in one locality in the mountains at the western edge in the northern Rift Valley, near the locality of Fengtian. In the Early, Middle, and Late Neolithic, it was traded throughout Taiwan and Penghu and it found its way to Island Southeast Asia and the Malay Peninsula. It died out in the subsequent Metal period.

Conclusions and Prospects   197

In the Early Neolithic period (5500 to 4500 BP), nephrite tools include axes, adzes, and chisels; these tools were prepared by cutting or sawing in straight lines and subsequent polishing. There were also slit-ring jue earrings. In the Middle Neolithic Period (4500 to 3500 BP), flat adzes, axes, chisels, arrowheads, and many forms of ornaments including tubular beads of reddish-colored nephrite (liang gan), bell-shaped small beads, and bracelets were common. Nephrite debitage shows cutting or sawing, polishing, perforation, and some rounding of surfaces. In general, the number of nephrite grave goods increased through time. In the Late period, from about 3500 to 2000 BP, the number of sites yielding nephrite artifacts increased. Nephrite processing expanded from the east coast to the Puli Basin and the Damalin site, which became a center for processing and distribution. In the Late period, the use of nephrite declined sharply, accompanied by the appearance of glass beads and metal objects as prestige objects (Liu Yi-chang 2005, 212–215). Three major east coast processing sites are known in the Fengtian area: Pinglin, Zhongguang, and Fengbingcun (described in chapter 5). They show abundant evidence of subsistence activities, indicating that their inhabitants were part-time rather than full-time specialists supported by other people. These sites of the Dakeng culture are dated by Liu Yi-chang to around 4000 BP, the earliest being 4600 BP and the latest 3400 BP. The pottery is reddish cord marked and similar to that of the Xuntangpu culture of northern Taiwan. In both areas, it follows the coarse cord-marked pottery of the Dabenkeng culture. A key nephrite artifact in Taiwan was the zooanthropomorphic earring in which one or two humans stand side by side in frontal view, surmounted by an animal in side view (see cover image). It is found in Beinan, Shisanhang, ­Wanshan, and Chula (southern Taiwan). Similarities in style and execution suggest a high level of manufacturing technology and limited number of highly skilled craftsmen. These fragile, delicately worked ornaments could not have been functional; they were used instead for display and burial. Eight were found in Wansan, five in coffins or urns, and the remaining three in close proximity to burials. The placing of an animal on top of the head of a human is not limited to Taiwan, but occurs as well in Yunnan, Guangxi, and adjacent areas. Early examples of combinations of humans and animals are also known in the Liangzhu culture (Gu 1996). Two theories circulate on the production of nephrite bracelets. The traditional theory is that concentric bamboo rings were used with sand or grit to separate an outer ring from a core by abrasion. A more recent proposed method (Lin Huadong 1996) involves the use of hard stone blades set in a wooden ring that cut into a nephrite blank set in a revolving wooden frame. The frame is attached to a stone shaft on which is a kind of stone washer (figure 10.1). The

198  Chapter 10

wooden frame can be rotated on the shaft. The stone shafts have been found in many parts of north and central China (Tang Chung et al. 2020). Kuo (2014c) describes the technique and lists seven examples of the stone shaft found in Taiwan. In general, they date from the latter half of the Middle Neolithic to the latter half of the Late Neolithic (4000 to 3000 BP). However, an early example from the Nangang site, Penghu, dates from 4700 to 4300 BP and belongs to the Dabenkeng culture. East coast nephrite was found in the same component. Another example was found in the Wansan site, Ilan, dated from 3500 to 2700 BP. Late Neolithic examples, along with a quartz cutting tool insert, were found in the Pinglin site. Kuo proposes that this technique diffused from the Liangzhu culture of the Lower Yangzi River, famous for nephrite working, to the Pearl River estuary, and from there to Taiwan. At the Baojingwan site in the Pearl River area of Guangdong, jade cutting using Lin’s revolving wooden frame process was practiced around 4200 to 4000 BP. The Guangdong area was influenced by the Liangzhu culture. Interaction between Guangdong and Taiwan could have brought the technique to Taiwan, but Kuo (2019a, 84) insists that certain artifact forms are shared only by Liangzhu and Taiwan. A center in northern Vietnam is also contemporary with the Taiwan and Liangzhu centers (Ngyuen 2019). At the Trang Kenh Workshop site, sawing with sandstone and cutting circular rings leaving a discoidal core were customary. The rings were cut by two methods; the rotation of a wooden wheel and rotary cutting with a bamboo handle, and a turning lathe. These appear to be variants of the method shown in figure 10.1. Adzes first appear in Taiwan in the Early Neolithic Dabenkeng culture. Their production seems to have been limited relative to later cultures; nephrite adzes, though, were being exchanged between the east coast and Penghu; and Penghu olivine basalt adzes were found in the Early Neolithic Dabenkeng sites of Nanguanli and Nanguanlidong. In the Middle Neolithic (4500 to 3500 BP), after the Dabenkeng culture was replaced by regional cultures distinguished by fine red cord-marked pottery, adzes of nephrite and basalt became more common. Nephrite adzes from this period have been found in many sites in Taiwan and Penghu. Presumably the source of the basalt was Qimei Island, Penghu. In the Late Neolithic (3500 to 2300 BP), not only nephrite and basalt but a variety of other lithic materials was used (Hung Hsiao-chun 2004, 58). Andesite was obtained from outcrops north of the Taipei Basin, siliceous shale from the area south of Taipei, tuffaceous sandstone from the central Taiwan area, basaltic andesite from southern and eastern Taiwan, and siltstone from central Taiwan (62–63). With the exception of nephrite and siltstone, which were sawn and polished, adzes of other types of stone were flaked and polished, most commonly into quadrangular forms with rectangular cross sections. During the

Conclusions and Prospects   199

Figure 10.1.  Diagram showing proposed use of a stone axle for the rotary cutting of nephrite. The drawings by Kuo (2014, 295; 2019a, 114) do not have scales. Tsang’s single head example on the left, from the Nangang site in Penghu, is 5 cm in length. Left: Roughly pecked ovoid axle (a) sits firmly in a base (b), anchored by stone axle sockets (c) and surmounted by a wooden axle plate (d) into which the nephrite material (e) is firmly set. Right: Cutting tools such as quartz slivers (f) are set in bamboo tubes (g) set into a wooden plate which can be lowered to cut into the piece of nephrite. Redrawn from Kuo 2014, 295.

Late Neolithic, nephrite adzes continued to be the most widespread type in Taiwan; other lithic materials were used by localized regional groups. The raw material of adzes in southwestern Taiwan changed from east coast nephrite and Penghu olivine basalt in the period up to the Niuchouzi culture, to east coast basaltic andesite and central Taiwan tuffaceous sandstone at the beginning of the Dahu culture. In the Late Neolithic, lithic raw materials became localized as distinctive local cultures developed. Two cases of interaction over long distances occurred in the Late Neolithic. The stepped adze with trapezoidal cross section was probably introduced into the Yuanshan culture from Guangdong, and Philippine adzes were brought to the east coast around 3500 BP, when east coast nephrite appeared in the northern Philippines. Liu Yi-chang (2015b) outlines the periods of nephrite exchange within Taiwan. It began in the Early Neolithic Dabenkeng culture, as early as 4000 to 4800 BP, with the circulation of a small number of tools, axes ( fu), adzes (ben), and chisels

200  Chapter 10

(cuo) found in sites such as Nanguanlidong on the west coast and Guoye in Peng­ hu (see chapter 4). The period of most active exchange was from 3200 to 2000 BP in the Middle and Late Neolithic, when nephrite artifacts circulated to the ­Xuntangpu and Yuanshan cultures in the north, the Wansan culture in Ilan, sites in the area of Hualien such as Huagangshan, the Beinan culture of the east coast, the Niumatou culture of the southwest, and the Suogang culture of Penghu. During this period, ornaments such as slotted earrings were produced. Finally, between 2000 and 1000 BP, few nephrite ornaments were circulated but beads and glass bracelets appear (Liu Yi-chang 2005). This replacement took place in coastal regions before mountain regions. Glass beads are more abundant in eastern sites than western. Small numbers appear in southern areas, and glass beads were scarce in the early Metal period of western Taiwan. The regional differences bear attention: in the Late Neolithic nephrite is infrequent in south, relatively rare in middle west, but abundant in the north and east.

Connections to Southeast Asia The east coast of Taiwan has sometimes been considered its most isolated region, far from mainland China, with a precipitous coastline facing the deep Pacific Ocean. Nevertheless, recent discoveries have shown that the inhabitants of this narrow plain and rift valley not only ventured to the Philippines and other areas of Southeast Asia, but also interacted with these areas for over two millennia, exchanging ideas and material culture (Hung and Carson 2014, 509) (see figures 10.2, 10.3). Tsang (2016) proposes a Middle Holocene migration roughly 5000 to 6000 BP of preceramic people from the northern Philippines to Taiwan. This migration could account for the presence of preceramic bone tool assemblages in Taiwan. Finds in the Callao Cave, Luzon, confirm the presence of a distinctive species of hominin in the Pleistocene (Detroit et al. 2019). Some archaeologists have proposed an ancient Australo Papuan population in Taiwan and possibly in southeast China, as indicated by distinctive cranial shape and burial practices, found in the Liangdao and Xiaoma Cave and other sites (Bellwood 2017; Matsumura et al. 2019). Perhaps these proposals will be confirmed in f­ uture research. A migration from the South China coast to Taiwan occurred in the Early Neolithic. With the subsequent development of red-slipped cord-marked pottery on the east coast around 4000 BP is evidence of voyaging from the southeast coast of Taiwan to the Batanes Islands and northern Luzon in the Philippines. Bellwood (2011) and Hung Hsiao-chun (2005a) propose a deliberate movement of Austronesian speakers from eastern Taiwan to the northern Philippines around 4200 BP. From the Philippines, subsequent Austronesian

Conclusions and Prospects   201

Figure 10.2.  Location of sites in eastern Taiwan and the northern Philippines mentioned in the text.

migrations were to the Marianas and farther south into Island Southeast Asia (Carson and Hung 2014; Hung Hsiao-chun et al. 2011). Varying configurations of artifacts were created by patterns of interaction occurring over a wide span of time. Key artifacts shared by Taiwan and the northern Philippines include tapa beaters, nephrite ornaments (Hung Hsiao-chun 2005a), shouldered stone tools, stepped adzes, various types of pottery, and even Taiwan-made nephrite ornaments in the Metal period. Kuo concludes that because these items originated from many places on Taiwan, their diffusion is not the result of systematic ­cultural transmission but of a random process. She acknowledges that “the possibility that a small number of people migrated from Taiwan to the Philippines cannot be discounted” (2019a, 210, 220). Tsang finds little general continuity between the prehistoric cultures of Taiwan and the Philippines. He concludes

202  Chapter 10

Figure 10.3.  Location of Southeast Asian and Chinese sites mentioned in the text.

that Taiwan’s prehistoric cultures did not move directly across the sea to the Philippines; instead, cultures of southeast China may have moved directly across the sea to the Philippines. The actual center of diffusion is the Pearl River Delta (Tsang 2002, 2012). In the Metal period, contacts with the Philippines and other points in Southeast Asia, termed transit patterns by Hung and Chao (2016, 1547), involved differing agents, raw materials, finished goods, new knowledge and technologies, and new ways of organizing production. The interaction was separate from and perhaps parallel to exchange systems extending from China, such as those extending from Guangdong to Southeast Asia, over which Southeast Asian luxury goods such as pearls and gold were transported (Allard 2006; Xiong 2014). It seems to have occurred within a world of non-Chinese Southeast Asian trading partners. It is notable that no Han mirrors have been found on Taiwan but have been in Korea, Japan, and Vietnam (Hung Hsiao-chun 2017b, 645). Some coastal communities in southern China anomalously shared traits with certain coastal groups  in Southeast Asia; these outlier groups were distinctive from overall

Conclusions and Prospects   203

homogeneous  patterns that developed during the Bronze and Iron Ages in China. Most clearly defined so far is a group of sites in the coastal zone of Guangdong and Hong Kong, where casting molds from bronze axes and adzes are more similar to Southeast Asian traditions than to neighboring Chinese traditions (Hung Hsiao-chun 2017b, 643). These patterns of interaction evolved over roughly 2,500 years, from 4000 BP to 2500 BP. Red-slipped pottery, nephrite, metals, exotic beads were exchanged. Jar burials, anthropomorphic dagger handles, and certain pottery styles indicate contacts with Southeast Asia. Hung Hsiao-chun and Bellwood believe that the Neolithic expansion of Austronesian-speaking populations “out of Taiwan” and the spread of goods and technologies consecutive to their movements may have initiated long-distance interaction networks throughout the South China Sea area, which would have persisted though time (Hung Hsiao-chun et al. 2017). These networks formed the basis for later exchange systems, such as the South China Sea Trade Network in the Metal period; however, Favereau and Bellina (2022) point out that Taiwan’s involvement in this network was indirect. Sherds of Kalanay pottery, shared by the Philippines and the central coast of Vietnam around 1500 BP, have not been found in Taiwan, but Fengtian nephrite is found in many Southeast Asian sites. The typical forms of nephrite artifacts found in Southeast Asia, earrings with three-pointed projections and pendants shaped as a double-headed animal, are rare in Taiwan, three having been found at Jiuxianglan and a few others on Lanyu. It may have been that the exchange was carried out by intermediaries from the Philippines who may have brought metalworking skills to sites such as Blihun Hanben. Liu Yi-chang (2022b) states that around the end of the ninth century and early tenth century, the Austronesian exchange network of Taiwan was cut off by China’s burgeoning trade systems, under formation since the end of the Tang dynasty (about 1000 BP), including the Eastern maritime route network connecting Quanzhou to the Philippines.

Red-Slipped Pottery The first red-painted and red-slipped pottery appears in Dabenkeng and Xuntangpu cultures; on the east coast in the Fushan culture, fine cord-marked and plain pottery from Chaolaiqiao dates as early as 4000 BP. As early as 1929, the Japanese archaeologist Miyamoto Enjin found red-slipped pottery on the surface of the Huagangshan site (Hung and Chao 2016, 116). From roughly 4000 BP, fine red-slipped pottery was transported from eastern Taiwan to the Philippines (Carson and Hung 2014, 509). Red-slipped bowls with ring foot bases were found in sites on the east coast such as Chaolaiqiao as early as 4000 BP.

204  Chapter 10

Subsequently they occur on the smaller islands of Lutao, Lanyu, and the Batanes Islands, slightly before 2000 BP. According to Carson and Hung (2014, 210), no pottery of any kind appeared in the Philippines prior to this in northern Luzon. Rice husks have been found in red-slipped pottery dating to 4000 to 2500 BP in the Philippines but no evidence indicates intensive rice farming at that time. Some writers suggest that rice farming and pig raising followed the same route as the red-slipped pottery (Bellwood and Dizon 2013, 235). Remains of domestic pig have been found in stratified context in the Philippines dated to 4000 BP and associated with cultural material from Taiwan (Piper et al. 2009). Carson and Hung (2018, 790–791) propose that the movement of people at this time was caused by a “crisis of limited suitable landforms for their particular mode of subsistence economy.” But Fuller, Castillo, and Murphy (2017, 216) conclude that “the route proposed by Bellwood from Taiwan into the Philippines does not have enough rice evidence to support it, nor is there evidence of millets south of Taiwan. Early pigs are probably the Lanyu genetic lineage rather than the Pacific clade of pigs or Chinese mainland pigs.”

Exchange of Taiwan Nephrite to Southeast Asia Carson and Hung (2014, 509) propose two stages of prehistoric movement of  Taiwan nephrite into the Philippines: an earlier stage from 4000 to 2500/2400 BP and restricted to the Batanes and northern Philippines, and a later stage from 2500 to 1800 BP. Nondestructive mineralogical analysis—­ scanning electron microscopy, energy-dispersive spectroscopy, electronic probe microanalysis—has determined that nephrite from Fengtian has been found in the Philippines (Hung Hsiao-chun et al. 2006, 2007; Iizuka et al. 2005; Iizuka and Hung 2005; Iizuka, Hung, and Bellwood 2007). In the first stage, finished objects were exported mainly to the Philippines. In the second stage, around 2500 to 1800 BP, raw materials were exported as preprocessed blanks to a wider region of the Philippines, central and southern Vietnam, southern Cambodia, peninsular Thailand, and east Malaysia across the South China Sea. In the first, bell-shaped beads and bracelets of identical style appear in eastern Taiwan and the Philippines (Hung, Iizuka, and Santiago 2004). A nephrite bell-shaped bead found in the Kay Daing site, southern ­Luzon, has been tested by several techniques and found to be made from Fengtian nephrite (Hung et al. 2004). These beads have been found in sites such as Beinan in Taiwan and in Batangas and southeast Luzon in the Philippines. At the same time, identical types of clay ornaments found in the Philippines and Vietnam indicate an early sea connection and cultural interaction (Hung Hsiaochun 2017b, 634–637).

Conclusions and Prospects   205

In the second stage, the most common types of ornament are the so-called linglingo, pennanular earrings with three-pointed circumferential projections, and double-headed animal pendants (Hung Hsiao-chun et al. 2017). Many of the double conical-headed ear ornaments are virtually identical in size and shape, suggesting a cross-regionally shared and standardized tradition of manufacturing (Miyama 2018). Although the raw material is Fengtian nephrite the ear ornaments were often produced in the Philippines, southern Vietnam, and southern Thailand, using specially sawn square tablets of Fengtian nephrite. The prototype of the three-pointed linglingo may be from southern Taiwan, the northern Philippines, or possibly central Vietnam (Hung Hsiao-chun et al. 2012, 2017b). These two types of nephrite artifacts are regarded as typical of Sa Huynh-Kalanay culture in the South China Sea region. Only a few have been seen in southeastern Taiwan and the offshore islands, however (Wang Kuanwen 2016, 29). Fengtian nephrite has been found in sites of this period from the Philippines to Cambodia and the Isthmus of Kra (Nguyen 2017). From 2500 to 1800 BP, emerging states on the Isthmus of Kra of the Malay Peninsula, such as Khao Sam Kaeo, acted as bridges between the Bay of Bengal and the South China Sea (Murillo Basso, Bellina, and Martinon-Torres 2010; Bellina et al. 2014). At this site, specialized craftsmen, probably south Asian, produced exotic luxury goods for local elites, and they worked with Taiwan nephrite (Hung and Chao 2016, 1545). Sites of the Sa Huynh culture of coastal Vietnam contain many precious objects from the Bay of Bengal and the South China Sea, as well as objects of Taiwan Fengtian nephrite (Nguyen 2017). It is possible that these communities may have been linked to the South China Trade Network by sea nomads (Bellina, Favereau, and Dussubieux 2019). Since 2004, excavations at Anaro on Itbayat Island in the Batanes Islands have recovered many drilled-out disc-shaped and cylindrical cores, petal-shaped pieces, and grooved-and-cut nephrite debris, all strongly indicative of the former existence of a nephrite workshop on the site. In the Anaro chronology, the majority of the nephrite pieces belonged to Batanes Phase 2, subphase 2b, dating between 2500 BP to some time after 2000 BP. They were found mostly in association with Anaro circle-stamped type 1 pottery sherds (Bellwood and Dizon 2013, 150–160). Anaro is the most important nephrite workshop found so far in the Philippines in that it illustrates what appears to be the full production sequence for making circular rings and ear ornaments, including possibly the widespread type of linglingo with three projections. It appears that Fengtian nephrite blanks were carried to distant points on a South China Sea network, in “a cultural matrix that laid the ground for sociopolitical practices hypothesized to be at the core of identity building and social transfers” (Bellina 2014, 345). Elite exchanges fostered alliances and common identity.

206  Chapter 10

From roughly 2500 BP to 1500 BP, agate and carnelian beads were brought to Taiwan from Southeast Asia. Dating to sometime around 2100 BP, the sites of Huagangshan, Sanhe, Jiuxianglan, and the upper layers of Beinan have yielded ornaments of glass, agate, carnelian, iron, bronze, and gold. The Huagangshan site near Hualien dates from 1600 BP to 2100 BP. Jiuxianglan casting molds from its upper layer suggest local manufacture dating to as early as 2100 BP. These include 10 bronze objects such as bells and chains, together with 61 casting molds carved from soft sandstone. The styles and forms of these molds do not occur in contemporary sites in China but resemble those found in Chansen, Thailand, and Oc Eo, Vietnam (Hung and Chao 2016, 1541). Because the sandstone used for making the molds can be traced to a source in southern Taiwan, the molds were not imported. But the metal raw materials may have been imported or recycled. Along with the bronze artifacts were iron objects largely unidentifiable except for (probable) fish hooks and arrowheads. No ­tuyeres have been identified; one gold bead and some gold nuggets attached to baked clay were found. From Huagangshan, some 3,234 Indo Pacific glass beads were found and have been analyzed (Wang Kuan-wen and Jackson 2014). Their colors were monochrome red, blue, green, yellow, and orange; their production originated in India but manufacturing sites are reported from Sri Lanka, Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Sumatra (Hung and Chao 2016, 1543–1544). ­Agate and carnelian beads have been found but are rare. So far, no evidence of production in Taiwan in this period has been found. Liu Yi-chang (2022a) notes that during the heyday of the nephrite exchange no Taiwan nephrite objects are known from the neighboring South Chinese coast or the Ryukyu Islands, indicating that intensive interactions took place only between Taiwan and Southeast Asia.

Jar Burials A particular form of jar burial, in which the rim of a large jar was cut away by chiseling from the inside of the vessel to enable the insertion of a flexed corpse or small individual, is found on the Sa Huynh coast of Vietnam, the Huagangshan site of East Taiwan, and the Savidug site, Batan Island (Hung Hsiao-chun et al. 2017, 393). According to Bellwood and Dizon (2013, 47), Batanes people placed the burial jars on the ground surface, in an open and exposed place. The only grave offering found in Savidug was a linglingo earring buried in a hole adjacent to the base of the burial jar. In other locations in the Philippines, Vietnam, and Indonesia, the jars were buried in hidden caves. In Savidug, a sample of tooth enamel from a child burial was radiocarbon dated to roughly 1650 BP (Bellwood and Dizon 2013, 457). Liu Yi-chang (2022b) states that this burial

Conclusions and Prospects   207

form, found only on the east coast as far north as Hualien, has no antecedents in Taiwan and must have come from Southeast Asia. Was it used by the entire population of the East Coast at one time? This seems unlikely given the small number of occurrences recorded so far. Perhaps it was limited to itinerant traders or craftspeople. Other burial forms of crouched or flexed individuals in earth pits appear in the upper layer of the Huagangshan site for the first time in ­Taiwan (Liu Yi-chang 2022b).

Anthropomorphic Copper Dagger Handles Three examples of a dagger with bronze handle in human form, attached to an iron blade, were photographed in a Paiwan village by Kano Tadao in 1929 and published in 1946 (Kano 1946, plate 19). Kano illustrated an anthropomorphic dagger handle from Vietnam (216) that is similar in general form to the Paiwan examples but dissimilar in details. Kano proposed that these daggers were part of a cultural stratum in Taiwan related to the Dongson culture of Vietnam, thought to date from roughly to 1500 to 2500 BP. Other similar finds from Taiwan are kept in the Museum of the Department of Anthropology, National Taiwan University. Finds of 11 bronze anthropomorphic dagger handles from the Shisanhang site in northern Taiwan transformed the study of these artifacts by providing dated contexts (Tsang and Liu 2001, 81). They appear to have been produced in open-face molds; an example of such a mold has been found in the Jiuxianglan site. This technology may have arrived from coastal Southeast Asia during interactions with regions of the South China Sea, which could have lasted well into the first millennium AD. Chen Kuang-tzuu (2011b) compiled a very useful study of the many scattered finds of copper and bronze artifacts in Taiwan.

Archaeological Studies of Beads The study of glass beads of the Metal period and Contact period has become one of the most dynamic areas of research in Taiwan archaeology. Recent large excavations of burial sites all over Taiwan have provided information on their temporal and spatial distribution in reliable contexts. Compositional analysis and studies of glass technology show technological connections with neighboring areas such as Southeast Asia and China at different periods. In addition to glass beads, beads of nephrite, agate (carnelian), and other kinds of stone are found in Taiwan. Three general types of glass beads are known: Indo Pacific or Southeast Asian beads, Chinese beads, and European beads. Recent research has shown that several compositional groups are involved, and that the earliest beads

208  Chapter 10

reached Taiwan from Southeast Asia around 2500 BP. Beginning around 1000 BP, new types of Chinese beads were traded to Taiwan and, in the Contact period, new types of European beads were circulated. Pioneers such as Chen Ch’ilu focused on one type of glass bead, the heirloom polychrome beads of groups such as the Paiwan (Chen 1968, 357–366). Cultural anthropologists such as Hu Chia-ying (2012) examine their use in ethnographic context. Hu finds that the polychrome heirlooms beads of the Paiwan were endowed with social meanings of aristocracy and land ownership. Because these beads are rare in archaeological context, it is not easy to trace their origins or paths of distribution. Chen concludes that the Paiwan brought these beads with them when they migrated to Taiwan from Southeast Asia (1968). He mentions that they have a high lead content but differ from ancient Chinese beads in having a particularly low barium content. In other groups, specific types of glass beads are used in ritual events. For example, the Kavalan shaman used a parti­ cular kind of bead of gold foil encased between two layers of glass to communicate with the spirits (Hu 2012). Not all beads were made of glass. Nephrite beads, round and rectangular in cross section occur in the Dabenkeng, Yuanshan, and Zhishanyan sites of the north, Yingiana in central Taiwan, Fengbitou in southern Taiwan, and Changguang, Donghe, Beinan, and Jiuxianglan on the east coast. They range in date from 4500 to 2000 BP. From the Lalu Site, Guanghua Island, Sun Moon Lake, in the period 1600 to 1000 BP, nephrite jue (earrings), glass beads, and agate beads occur together. As noted, this appears to be period of transition between nephrite and glass trade goods (Liu Yi-chang 2005, 2018). Agate (carnelian) beads are also extremely important. Agate beads were first produced in South Asia and circulated through Southeast Asia to Taiwan. Later, some processing, and possibly extraction, appears to have occurred in Southeast Asia (Bellina 2003; Theunissen, Grave, and Bailey 2000). Carter (2016) concludes, however, that most of the raw material comes from South Asia. The study of agate beads in Taiwan is a fertile field for future research. Agate beads have been found in elite burials in Korea dating from AD 100 to 668. Facetted hexagonal, spherical, and irregularly shaped agate beads were perforated by diamond drills, a technique originally developed in South Asia around the year 600 (Glover and Kenoyer 2019).

Glass Beads in Taiwan Glass beads are a kind of hallmark of the Metal period of Taiwan. As noted, the exchange system of Taiwan nephrite, which marked the Neolithic period, was replaced by an exchange system of glass beads (Wang Kuan-wen 2016, 4). The

Conclusions and Prospects   209

bead exchange system was built on the nephrite exchange system, and both involved the production of ornaments as social markers. Glass beads show differences in chemical composition, shape, method of manufacture, and color. In general, glass beads in ancient Asia were made by fusing silica sand using either silica sand or quartz pebbles. Glass beads may also be made by treating glass as stone and cutting it (Wang Kuan-wen 2016, 249). Wang found that among several compositional types of glass such as soda glass, potash glass, and high lead glass, two types of soda glass are the most common types in Taiwan. The alkali used as flux can be derived from minerals or plant ashes. These types are known respectively as mineral soda glass, termed m-Na-Al glass, and vegetal soda glass, termed v-Na-Ca glass. The first predominates in the early first millennium AD for beads known as Indo Pacific beads, made by creating a hollow glass tube and cutting it transversely into small pieces. In contrast, the later Chinese beads were made by winding molten glass around a core (Wang Kuanwen 2016, 51). This technique is thought to have developed in the Chinese ­Warring States period (470–221 BC). In Taiwan, the technique occurs from the late first millennium onward. The two soda glass types reached Taiwan from Southeast Asia. In the early second millennium, beads of lead silicate glass and potassium lead silica glass reached Taiwan from the China mainland (Wang Kuan-wen 2016, 237). Wang notes differences in the color of beads, the m-Na-Al glass beads being generally orange, and the v-Na-Ca beads a general blue and dark blue. The earlier presence of m-Na-Al glass and later v-Na-Ca glass in Taiwan in the first millennium reflects the chronological sequence of glass composition in the South China Sea network (Wang Kuan-wen and Jackson 2014). The shift from mineral to vegetal soda glass can be attributed to a shift in the glass supply. Vegetal soda glass is associated with a western Asian source of beads flowing through Southeast Asia to Taiwan. Wang examined beads from seven archaeological sites: Shisanhang (1800 to 500 BP), Kivulan (1300 to 800 BP, possibly Shisanhang culture), Xiliao (1400 to 600 BP, Niaosong culture), Wujiancuo (1500 to 1200 BP, Niaosong culture), Guishan (roughly 1000 BP, Guishan culture), and Jiuxianglan (1700 to 1300 BP, Sanhe culture). Differences in bead typology and composition suggest the existence of separate exchange networks in northern Taiwan and southeastern Taiwan. Smaller quantities of beads from sites in southwestern Taiwan may indicate less exchange relative to northern and eastern Taiwan (Wang Kuan-wen 2016, 242). The occurrence of high numbers of beads per burial in the northern sites of Kivulan and Shisanhang relative to sites in the southwest seem to indicate greater inequality and perhaps social differences in owning and displaying the beads. Similarly, some degree of social distinction can be seen at Jiuxianglan and

210  Chapter 10

Guishan in the south, but evidence of social hierarchy is more scant in the southwestern sites of Daoye, Wujiancuo, and Xiliao. Wang Kuan-wen (2016) finds differences in the rate of exchange of beads among sites in different regions of Taiwan. Despite finds of beads and molten glass at Jiuxianglan, Wang (2016, 249) concludes that no evidence indicates large-scale bead production or a viable center of specialization at this site. There are some puzzles regarding the evidence for bead production at Jiuxianglan (248). The chemical composition of beads found in the site is not similar to the glass bead-making waste. Given that a portion of the site is missing through marine erosion, it is possible that evidence of bead making has been lost. In northern and northeastern Taiwan, orange, yellow, and blue are dominant colors in the Metal period sites of Kivulan and Shisanhang, and the proportion of m-Na-Al glass and v-NA-Ca glass in the two sites is similar. Some types are found only in the two northern sites, such as long tubular beads covered with orange glass, long tubular dark blue beads, and small oblate yellow beads. The two sites have different mortuary traditions. In Kivulan, a concentrated distribution of glass beads and other grave goods in a single burial is typical. In Shisanhang, information on the distribution of grave goods and stratigraphy is incomplete (Wang Kuan-wen 2018b, 123). The Guishan and Jiuxianglan sites have different bead assemblages. In Guishan, all the beads were recovered from three burials; two had large quantities of glass beads. Relative to Kivulan, grave goods from Jiuxianglan do not show a centralized distribution of large numbers of beads and other grave goods in a single burial. In Jiuxianglan also, more than one burial containws a variety of grave goods; some had large quantities of glass beads.

Beads in Southeast Asia and Their Relevance for Taiwan Multiple phases of bead production and exchange between Southeast Asia and south Asia are evident (Carter 2016). From 2500 to 2100 BP, high alumina soda (m-Na-Ca) glass and potash glass were worked into artifacts in the Thai entrepot site of Khao Sam Kaeo. By 1800 BP, high alumina soda glass replaced potash glass. At this time also, some beads and bracelets were made by shaping and drilling beads using lapidary techniques as if they were stone (Carter 2016, 23). New forms of bead technology may have been carried into Southeast Asia from South Asia by itinerant craftsmen and traders. As the body of glass compositional analyses grows, certain sites can be seen to share glass-making recipes; it can fairly be inferred that they were in contact with each other (Carter 2016, 19). An examination of glass beads in the Philippines from sites such as Nagsabaran in northern Luzon shows similar trends to those found in Taiwan

Conclusions and Prospects   211

(Hung 2005b, 91–94). In both areas, a shift is evident from nephrite beads to Indo Pacific beads, and then to Chinese coiled beads. The Indo Pacific beads may have come from Indochina. In this early period, maritime trade was small in scale, conducted within the Austronesian trading network. In the Philippines, Rey Santiago (2003) classified more than 10,000 beads from 75 sites into more than 300 types by size, material, shape, and color. A rough chronology for the Philippines begins in the Late Neolithic, before 2700 BP, when rare nephrite beads occur though most are fashioned from shell or teeth. In the Early Metal period, from 2700 BP to 2000 BP, Indo Pacific glass beads make up around 46% and other stone beads around 33%. In the Developed Metal period, from 2000 to 850 BP, Indo Pacific glass beads make up 66.2% and stone beads 20.5%. In the Trade and Contact period, from 850 to 550 BP, IP beads decrease to 1.2%; Chinese beads increase to 54.6% and 32.8% of these are coiled beads. From 1400 to 1600 BP, Chinese beads make up 50.9%, of which coiled beads are 7.4%; Indo Pacific beads make up 28.7%; copper red glass beads make up 14.1%; European beads make up 4.1%; and gold beads make up 1.8% (Hung Hsiao-chun 2005b, 83–84). Indo Pacific beads, as mentioned earlier, are made by drawing glass tubes and cutting them into sections. This is the most frequent type of bead found worldwide. Chinese wound beads, in which a filament of glass is wound around a core, may be temporally limited to around 1000 BP. In Taiwan, the shift from Indo Pacific beads to Chinese beads occurred around 900 BP (Hung 2005b, 91), slightly after than the appearance of Chinese trade ceramics. From the Lalu site, Guanghua Island, Riyue (Sun Moon) Lake, in the period from 1600 to 1000 BP, nephrite jue and glass and carnelian beads occur together. This appears to be a period of transition. A type of bead made up of a thin layer of gold foil sandwiched between two layers of clear glass was found in the upper layer of the Kivulan site dated to the Contact period (see chapter 9). This type of bead is not part of the Indo Pacific assemblage of Southeast Asia and may have been produced in Europe. Beads are important markers of wealth and status. They are portable over long-distance trading networks and often involve complex technologies and rare materials. Because glass waste materials can be remelted and mixed, chemical analyses may be difficult to interpret.

Taiwan and Austronesian Languages Taiwan has been proposed as the source of Austronesian speakers who first migrated to Taiwan from Southeast China and then voyaged southward to the Philippines and beyond. The exploration of this hypothesis has preoccupied

212  Chapter 10

archaeologists and historical linguists and the Taiwan case is considered one of many examples in which farming was a major dynamic in the spread of language families (Bellwood 2005; Bellwood et al. 2011). Because the speakers of the ancestors of modern Austronesian languages are dead and few written texts remain, the history of their spread must be extrapolated from their modern distribution and other studies of historical linguistics. Archaeological data are also used to trace the history of languages by determining that certain kinds of artifacts are proxies for certain ancient languages; artifact typologies and their distribution are then used to trace migrations. Genetic studies also bear on the movement of human populations and their domesticated plants and animals. Here I present the most widely accepted hypotheses concerning the spread of Austronesian speakers, and several debates and hypotheses. Because this book concerns the discipline of archaeology and not historical linguistics, I simply introduce some of the debates and refer the reader to authors who are well versed on these topics. In the most widely accepted view, the Austronesian language family—whose members are dispersed from Taiwan to Madagascar, New Zealand, and Easter Island—was carried by populations originating in southeastern China to Taiwan, the Philippines, and beyond (Bellwood 2009). Bellwood argues that Austronesian dispersal out of Taiwan was fueled by population growth “and a need for new cultivation land” (2011, S363). He sees the spread in the context of pressure from increasing populations of southern China and Taiwan, advanced technology (he refers to boat construction and carpentry), dependence on agriculture and animal domestication, and a “portable food production repertoire that allowed long-distance dispersal to take place.” According to Jiao (2007b, 258), the earliest Neolithic culture on the coast of southeast China can be dated to 6500 BP, and earliest date of Neolithic of Taiwan to about 6000 BP. The earliest expansion of Proto Austronesians across the Taiwan Strait happened about 6500 to 6000 BP, but because most sites date to 4000 to 5000 BP, this is probably the period of most substantial migrations. Both sides of the Taiwan Strait maintained regular contacts until around 3500 BP. ­Origins in China may be either the Fujian coast (Chang Kwang-chih 1995) or the Guangdong coast (Tsang 2012), but Hung and Carson note that “The establishment of what ultimately became a regionally complex Taiwanese Neolithic cannot be attributed to a solitary single movement of people at the beginning of the Dabenkeng” (2014, 1128). The Dabenkeng culture of Taiwan is identified as the material culture of the first Austronesian speakers in Penghu and Taiwan. The culture that succeeded it, distinguished by fine cord-marked pottery, found in southwestern Taiwan and the northern Philippines, is considered to be the material culture of Austronesian speakers crossing from Taiwan to the

Conclusions and Prospects   213

Philippines. Several causes for the movement of people to Taiwan and beyond have been proposed: population growth created by the spread of food production, demand for tropical and marine food products, search for new trade products, social cultural motivations such as founder ideology, and environmental responses (Hung and Carson 2014, 1115). Genetic sequencing by Ko et al. (2014) of mitochondrial DNA from two skeletons found at Liangdao, Mazu Island, near Fuzhou, Fujian (mentioned in chapter 9), is important for understanding the origins of early Neolithic populations in Taiwan and Southeast Asia. Burial no. 1 was found to carry mtDNA haplogroup E1 “found today in relatively small proportions among Austronesian-speaking populations throughout Island Southeast Asia (including Taiwan) and the Mariana Islands” (Ko et al. 2014; Bellwood 2017, 93). Burial 1 was interred in a tightly flexed position found in pre-Neolithic burials in mainland southern China and northern Vietnam and associated with the early Australo Papuan inhabitants of the region, found before the advent of the spread of Asian populations from southern China to Taiwan (Bellwood 2017, 86–93). Burial no. 2 at Liangdao appears to have Asian cranial morphology, perhaps reflecting processes of admixture between Australo Papuan and Asiatic according to the excavator, Chen Chung-yu (Bellwood 2017, 93). Ko et al. (2014) and Duggan and Stoneking (2014) find that the mtDNA data from Liangdao no. 1 was compatible with new mtDNA studies of existing populations in Taiwan, especially when new statistics and analytical methods were introduced. Ko et al. conclude that “the Liangdao Man mtDNA sequence is closest to Formosans, provides a link to southern China, and has the most ancestral haplogroup E sequence found among extant Austronesian speakers” (2014, 426). The results from ­Liangdao are from only two skeletons. However, at face value, they seem to provide somatic rather than artifactual evidence that some people did migrate from coastal mainland China to Taiwan and to Island Southeast Asia. Donohue and Denham (2010) propose a new historical framework that emphasizes the mosaics of regional networks and social processes prevalent in Island Southeast Asia before and during the spread of Austronesian languages and cultural influences from Taiwan. They do not find evidence of a mass migration of farmers out of Taiwan who replaced or absorbed populations across Island Southeast Asia (2010, 225). They propose that “a small group or groups emigrated from Taiwan and intermixed with indigenous populations leaving an inconsistent genetic trace” (2010, 258). They conclude that “the spread of red pottery should not automatically be equated with or used as a proxy for the spread of farming, a language family, or the people in Island Southeast Asia.” Blench (2014, 2022) critiques the single migration model, in which Dabenkeng represents a single language group, Proto-Austronesian. This model, he

214  Chapter 10

says, is inconsistent with both the archaeology and the lexicon; instead, Formosan languages represent a continuing flow of pre-Austronesian languages from the mainland. There was no proto-Austronesian, he asserts; different Taiwan aboriginal languages have different ancestors. Based on genetic analyses, Soares et al. (2016, 309) describe two different interpretations of the prehistory of Island Southeast Asia. The first proposes a major Late Holocene expansion of Neolithic Austronesian speakers. An alternative explanation proposes that Late Glacial/Post Glacial sea level rises triggered largely autochthonous dispersal. They assert that a common ancestry for Taiwan and Island Southeast Asian populations was established before the Neolithic but also detect clear signals of two minor Late Holocene migrations probably representing input from both mainland Southeast Asia and south China, via Taiwan. They do not infer any large-scale population replacement and do not accept rice cultivation as the driving force of these movements.

Connections with the Ryukyu Islands Chapter 9 includes a brief outline of Ryukyu culture history that emphasizes the prehistoric sequence of the southern Ryukyus (Sakishima). Although Taiwan and the Ryukyus form adjacent links in the line of islands flanking the Asian continent and are washed by the Kuroshio current, they have few common cultural features (Chen You-pei 2014). They are the extremities of the two separate worlds of Japan and Southeast Asia/South China. Their coastal ecologies are radically different. The Ryukyus are surrounded by coral reefs and protected from the mud carried by rivers such as the Yangzi by the Okinawa Trough, a submerged canyon on the edge of the continental shelf. Taiwan’s coastline, except for the southernmost tip of Eluanbi, is characterized by mud flats and shallows on the west coast and steep rocky shorelines on the east coast. Despite these differences, some connections are interesting. They concern the common origins of ancient populations from around 30,000 BP, the origins of the prehistoric people of Sakishima, the northern limits of the expansion of Austronesian speakers, and important links to the merchants of Quanzhou, Fujian, from around 900 BP.

Pleistocene Settlement of the Ryukyu Islands from Taiwan A new perspective on the ancient peopling of the Ryukyus has been contributed by Kaifu et al. 2015; Choi 2020; Takamiya et al. 2019). Kaifu et al. propose that Pleistocene people voyaged by repeated open sea raft voyages from around 30,000 BP from the east coast of Taiwan (the edge of the Asian continent) to

Conclusions and Prospects   215

the Ryukyus and introduced the wild boar to the islands, which were substantially isolated from each other by that time. They discuss the most recent chronological information and summarize available morphological evidence. In a paper that tentatively supports this scenario, Shinoda and Adachi (2017) report on the successful extraction of DNA from human remains from the Shiraho Saonetabaru Cave of Ishigaki Island, concluding that the presence of the MtDNA haplogroups B-4e and M7a may suggest a link between Ishigaki and Southeast Asia. A replication of the actual crossing, from Changbin to Yonaguni Island, was accomplished in a voyage by five men in a dugout canoe on July 10, 2019, in a project organized by Yousuke Kaifu and sponsored by the National Museum of Science of Japan and National Museum of Prehistory of Taiwan (Kaifu et al. 2020; Heritage of Japan 2020). This information may shed light on the finding by Pietrusewsky et al. (2017) that Early Neolithic skulls and mandibles from the Nanguanlidong site in the Tainan Science Park show some resemblance to those from Ryukyu prehistoric sites. However, connections between the earliest populations of the Ryukyus and the Holocene Shellmound period are unlikely given the gaps in the cultural sequences of the central and southern Ryukyus. Many scholars consider the Pleistocene inhabitants of sites such as Minatogawa, Okinawa, to be part of a group of Southeast Asian Australo Melanesoid that are morphologically separate from early Jomon populations (Yamasaki 2014).

Sakishima and an “Austronesian Presence” Summerhayes (2018) makes the case that the Sakishima Islands of the southern Ryukyus were reached by Middle Neolithic people from the Fushan culture of the east coast of Taiwan around 4200 BP. They left sites of the Shimotabaru culture, dated by Summerhayes to 4200 to 3500 BP, but by others to 4900 to 4000 BP (Pearson 2013, 73), and subsequently became extinct. Many of the differences are striking between the Shimotabaru and Fushan assemblages in subsistence patterns, ceramics, and ornaments. For instance, characteristics of the Fushan culture are concentrated burial grounds and the use of slate coffins, corded pottery jars and bowls, plain pottery basins and jars, stone hoes, adzes, knives, and nephrite jue earrings and pendants (Kuo 2019a, 123). The Shimo­ tabaru assemblages, however, are extremely limited and the typical pottery vessel is thick, low fired, and flat bottomed with lateral lugs. Summerhayes proposes both that Shimotabaru people may have practiced cultivation—evidence has been lost because of poor preservation—and that elaborate pottery disappeared in the absence of any need for competitive display. After a hiatus, during which the islands were uninhabited, a subsequent group appeared in Sakishima from

216  Chapter 10

around 2800 BP. They are known for their lack of pottery and distinctive ­Tridacna shell adzes. Hudson (2017) proposes that they too were migrants from Taiwan, but Yamagiwa et al. (2019) conclude that they must have come from an undetermined population in Southeast Asia. The culture of the Non-ceramic period of Sakishima is radically different from any other along the east coast of Taiwan. It may be that the source was the maritime culture of Eluanbi at the southernmost tip of Taiwan. People from this area were familiar with deep sea fishing and the abundant resources of coral reefs. Significant differences in the artifact assemblages of the two areas would indicate that a very few people accidentally drifted away from the east coast of Taiwan to Sakishima and were unable to return to Taiwan or replicate the diagnostic features of their culture in their new homeland (Pearson 2013, 77; Aoyama et al. 2020, 3). Until recently, the Taiwan hypothesis has simply been the only explanation of the origins of prehistoric Sakishima populations at this time (Hudson 2017). It cannot be denied, however, that the archaeological assemblages of Fushan or Huagangshan, and Sakishima are fundamentally different (Lu Jo-chun 2014). Chiang Chih-hua (2022) suggests that the Shimotabaru culture may be contemporaneous with the early Neolithic Dabenkeng culture and that part of a group of early cultures such as Dabenkeng and Fuguodun. She notes the shared presence of shell middens, lack of cereal cultivation, small settlement size, short-term habitation, and variety of ceramic styles. This theory might be stronger than the proposed connection to Taiwan Middle Neolithic cultures. Hudson (2014) notes that, at present, the plastic debris drifting to Miyako Island comes predominantly from the China mainland rather than from Taiwan; we have no control, however, over the original amounts dumped from each source. The need to hypothesize an input from Taiwan may be obviated by new discoveries from Shiraho Saonetabarau, Ishigaki Island. The Shimotabaru culture could have developed from earlier local populations and gradually evolved into the Non-ceramic culture with little or no input from Taiwan or Southeast Asia (Yamagiwa 2016, 2019). A study of Sakishima islanders and Taiwan indigenous people using ­mtDNAs, Y chromosome, and autosomal short tandem repeat loci found that the proposed Neolithic expansion from Taiwan did not contribute to the gene pool of modern Sakishima islanders and that the male lineage of Ryukyu islanders is linked with the Hokkaido Ainu, who are presumably direct descendants of the Jomon people (Matsukusa et al. 2010). As in the study of the Lan Yu and Ivatan islanders by Loo et al. (2011), frequent reciprocal gene flow within the islands has masked traces of common ancestry in the Ryukyu chain.

Conclusions and Prospects   217

Hudson (2014) notes that the Sakishima islanders in prehistory lived in a high-risk environment with a risk of human population extinctions. He noted the lack of developed external trade network in contrast to those of the central and northern Ryukyus. It should be noted that Chinese trade with Sakishima was intensive beginning in the eleventh century and a Chinese historic record documents Miyako islanders voyaging to China to trade in the thirteenth century (Pearson 2013, 168).

Ryukyu, Taiwan, and Quanzhou At first glance, Ryukyu and Taiwan in the Song to Ming periods seem to have had few direct relations. However, they had a common partner in Quanzhou, the great port city on the Fujian coast. Quanzhou commercial interests traded with the Ryukyu kingdom and the Taiwan west coast in very different ways. In the Taiwan case, we have seen that trade was small in scale, given that the natives resisted incursions from the mainland. In the case of Ryukyu, local people, building on the momentum of created by the Heian period trade outpost on Kikai Island, became linked to trade with the Ming dynasty under the tributary system. The process by which the Ryukyu kingdom emerged rapidly in the twelfth to fourteenth centuries and became linked to Ming official trade must have involved strong participation of Quanzhou merchants as well as significant input from the early medieval trading center centered on Kikai Island (Pearson 2007). It may have been that the Quanzhou merchants helped set up a tributary state to gain access to state trade with China, the only acceptable method of commerce since the Ming Ban on private trade. Managing such a “state” involved knowledge of Chinese language and commerce, which could have been difficult for local people to acquire. It seems significant that many small kingdoms or secondary states emerged in the East and South China Seas in the twelfth to fourteenth centuries under the influence of traders from Fujian. Wade (2008, 609, 614) discusses how “registry managers” or “clerks” from the Chinese ­bureaucracy were appointed by the Ming to “assist” the traditional r­ ulers in early fifteenth-century Southeast Asian states in their administration. The document Li Dai Bao An (Precious Documents of Successive Generations) was a compendium of records by Chinese officials or the few Ryukyuans who were well educated in China (Kobata and Matsuda 1969). The document legitimized the position of Ryukyu in the tributary network. The document, the backbone of Ryukyu-Ming studies, gives an official picture of tributary exchange but does not show the actual process of engagement of the Ryukyu kingdom with Fujian commercial interests. It seems that for Southeast Asia other less official documents than those describing Ryukyu provide insights into

218  Chapter 10

the actual role of Quanzhou merchants in gaining access to official trade by allying themselves with local elites and providing services to make sure that profits were realized and the trade went smoothly. Based on an exhaustive study of historical sources, Smits (2019) assigns agency in the formation of the Ryukyu kingdom to the wako, “seafarers who operated in and around the margins of cultural and state borders and often migrated in search of economic opportunities” (2019, 39). Throughout the East China Sea, they were much more than pirates; they traded in goods and people, and engaged in diplomacy, protection, and marauding. They were predominantly Japanese and Chinese origin. Smits identifies Fuzhou as the main area of Chinese contact with Ryukyu. From archaeological data, trade with the Ryukyus began in earnest in the Song (960–1279) and Yuan (1279–1368) periods and can be seen as part of abroad pattern of Song overseas trade in both East and Southeast Asia. I would prefer to assign some of the agency in the formation of Ryukyu and similar Southeast Asian states to Fujian commercial interests, which also entailed peddling trade along the Taiwan coasts. We may be describing the same group of pirate-trader entrepreneurs from different viewpoints. The Nan’ao wreck is of a ship carrying ceramics, iron artifacts, coinage, and—significantly—iron cannons, dated by Zhangzhou ceramics to a period from 1573 to 1620. Found near Shantou in Guangdong Province, it is evidence of such pirate-trader activity in violation of the Ming Maritime Trade Ban. The ship was not a long-distance trading ship or an official trading ship (Hilgers 2011).

Conclusion The archaeological record of Taiwan has relevance for our understanding of the history of the East China Sea region. In the Palaeolithic and Early Neolithic, links to southeastern China were strong. In the Middle Neolithic, groups from Taiwan voyaged to the Philippines and probably beyond. ­Cultural groups became distinctive from each other and from those on the China mainland. In the Late Neolithic and Metal periods, groups from Taiwan were in indirect contact with trading partners in Southeast Asia in the South China Sea trade network. These links extended along the east coast and into northern Taiwan. Around 1100 BP, contacts with Southeast Asia declined even as contacts with Fujian brought trade goods to the west coast. The arrival of the Spanish and Dutch in the seventeenth century, coupled with the fall of the Ming dynasty (1368–1644) and the decline of the Ryukyu kingdom, pushed Taiwan into global networks and brought Taiwan under direct ­Chinese control for the first time.

Conclusions and Prospects   219

In the Neolithic and Metal periods, the Taiwan Strait was a kind of frontier. The very few bronze and jade artifacts show that some trade may have occurred but only that. A comparison of long-term trends with those of Fujian and Guangdong shows a different cultural trajectory beginning around 4000 BP with the beginnings of connections to the Yangzi Valley, and the isolating effects of the Taiwan Strait. Taiwan prehistoric peoples resisted contact with and dominance by the peoples of the South China coast, particularly Han Chinese who “Sinicized” the south bringing advanced technology and social inequality (Clark 2015). Taiwan constituted a unique frontier between mainland China and Southeast Asia. The exchange systems of olivine basalt and nephrite integrated various parts of Taiwan and Penghu. Later, the exchange of nephrite extended to partners in Southeast Asia but not mainland China. In terms of material culture, the prehistoric production and exchange of nephrite tools and ornaments is striking. This exchange system relied on alliances that crossed boundaries maintained by raiding and head-hunting. It is comparable to the Hongshan jade network of the Northeast (Tang et al. 2020) and the Liangzhu network of the Yangzi River on the mainland, or the shell trade network of the Ryukyus and southwestern Japan. At the same time, the Bashi Channel to the south of Taiwan was a cultural boundary at the northern edge of Southeast Asia. In the East China Sea, a stretch of some 100 km of open sea separated Taiwan from the extreme end of the Ryukyu Islands. It appears to have been deliberately crossed in the Palaeolithic and accidentally crossed in the Middle Neolithic. The period of colonization of Taiwan in the seventeenth century AD is also distinctive for the contrasting styles of colonial aspirations and administration of the Dutch and Spanish. The growth of Taiwan from a point of transshipment of Chinese and Japanese goods with few local resources to a source of agricultural products is significant for understanding European trade with East Asia and the formation of modern world systems. This archaeological record of trade is different from that left by Chinese tributary trade or Southeast Asian trade with India. The defeat of the Dutch by Chinese and the subsequent rapid migration from Fujian, despite Qing official ambivalence to bearing the cost of administering the territory, is a very important episode in East Asian history. Table 10.2 summarizes some of the distinctive patterns that show the unique cultural development of Taiwan and the links and movements between Taiwan and surrounding areas. These only hint at the complex web of relations involving Taiwan and the East and South China Seas.

220  Chapter 10

Table 10.2 Distinctive Patterns in Taiwan and Exchanges across Cultural Boundaries in the East and South China Seas Palaeolithic, 35,000? to 6500 BP China mainland: no Taiwan Strait, Taiwan part of China mainland, continuous land mass. Similar stone tool assemblages Southeast Asia: (inbound) Preceramic population from Philippines to Taiwan? (Tsang 2016) Ryukyu: (outbound) migration from east coast to Ryukyus (Kaifu et al. 2015) Early Neolithic, 6500 to 4500 BP China mainland: (inbound) coarse cord-marked pottery, foragers followed by introduction of rice and millet cultivation from Fujian. Bark beaters. Some ceramic similarities with Tanshishan, Zhuangbianshan, Huangguashan sites of Fujian. Introduction of nephrite working technology? Local distinctive patterns: tooth ablation, pottery decoration, nephrite artifacts Middle Neolithic, 4500 to 3500 BP China mainland: (inbound) fine cord-marked decoration? Vessel forms such as elevated stands. Few distinctive nephrite artifacts such as combs and scepters (Xidadun) Southeast Asia: (outbound) red-slipped pottery, nephrite artifacts, population movement Ryukyu: (outbound) small population movement to Sakishima Islands, maybe Early Neolithic (?) Local distinctive patterns: persistence of hand-built pottery, distinctive nephrite ornament styles, slate coffins Late Neolithic, 3500 to 2500 BP China mainland: (inbound) shouldered and stepped adzes from Pearl River area, rare bronze artifacts, gray and black pottery of Dahu and Yingpu could be intrusive. Stamped pottery Southeast Asia: (inbound) flexed burials, jar burial, bronze dagger handles, glass beads Local distinctive patterns: standing stones, prone burial pattern of Fanziyuan (?) Metal period, 2500 to 500 BP China mainland: (inbound) trade objects, coins, in Shisanhang. Evidence of deer hunting for processing of skins for export, new motifs, snake in particular. Impressed pottery, Chinese trade ceramics from 1000 BP, Chinese-style glass beads, other trade goods. (outbound) sulphur, forest products Southeast Asia: (inbound) pyrotechnology, metal casting, glass beads. (outbound) nephrite raw material Local distinctive patterns: burial patterns such as Kivulan Upper Layer

Conclusions and Prospects   221

Contact period, AD 1500 to 1663 China mainland: (inbound) trade ceramics, links to Fujian and Han Chinese settlement Global links to Japan, Holland, Spain, incorporation into Qing China Southeast Asia: trade links to Manila Ryukyu: Northern ports may have been links in Ryukyu-Fujian trade Source: Author’s tabulation.

Future Prospects Many exciting future projects in Taiwan archaeology are possible. The relationship between the Palaeolithic and Preceramic cultures may become more clear if appropriate stratigraphic sequences can be found. Comparisons with Late Pleistocene sequences in Fujian may provide some clues. The question of the historic relationship between Taiwan prehistoric cultures and ethnographic cultures remains (Kuo 2010b). As more sites with components of the Late Neolithic, Metal period, and Contact period are explored, stratigraphic sequences may confirm the links between prehistoric and historic communities. This approach is more heuristic than studies of historical linguistics because the links between archaeological cultures and language groups are often unclear. The formation of the ethnographic group, the Paiwan, is of interest because the Paiwan display greater social complexity than other groups. Are the Paiwan descended from the Sanhe culture? What were the mechanisms of the development of their social complexity and what effect did foreign contact have on their culture and society? Continuation of research on social transformations that occurred with European contact will combine history, ethnohistory, and archaeology. Several syntheses of Taiwan archaeology have been prepared in the last decade (Chiu, n.d.; Liu Yi-chang 2011a, 2019; Kuo 2019a). In addition, a new GIS website that includes a full mapping of sites has been established by the Institute of History and Philology of Academia Sinica (IHP 2020). An e-book of 11 lectures on Taiwan history is also useful (National History Museum Editorial Committee 2006). This book is a preliminary attempt to present the results of recent archaeological research for the time being, until Taiwan archaeologists fully describe the results of their dedicated work. The relatively small group of archaeologists in Taiwan is hard pressed to complete the full reporting of some of the very large projects, but it is hoped that in future the various bodies of new data can be fully integrated and contextualized in regions and landscapes rather than being project based. This is a formidable task in a country where many sites are endangered by constant expansion of industry and infrastructure.

References

Allard, F. 2006. Frontiers and Boundaries: The Han Empire and Its Southern Periphery. In Archaeology of Asia, edited by M. Stark, pp. 233–254. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. ——— . 2014. Early Complex Societies in Southern China. In The Cambridge World Prehistory, edited by C. Renfrew and P. Bahn, pp. 807–823. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ——— . 2017. Globalization at the Crossroads: The Case of Southeast China during the Pre- and Early Imperial Period. In The Routledge Handbook of Archaeology and Globalization, edited by T. Hodos, pp. 454–469. London: Routledge. ——— . 2018. The Lives of Shovels, Vessels, and Bells in Early South China. In Memory and Agency in Ancient China; Shaping the Life History of Objects, edited by F. Allard, Yan Sun, and K. Linduff, pp. 50–71. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Andaya, B. 2004. History, Headhunting, and Gender in Monsoon Asia: Comparative and Longitudinal Views. Southeast Asian Research 12(1): 13–52. Andrade, T. 2005. Pirates, Pelts, and Promises: The Sino Dutch Colony of SeventeenthCentury Taiwan and the Aboriginal Village of Favorlang. Journal of Asian Studies 64(2): 295–321. ——— . 2006. The Rise and Fall of Dutch Taiwan, 1624–1662: Cooperative Colonization and the Statist Model of European Expansion. Journal of World History 17(4): 429–450. ——— . 2008. How Taiwan Became Chinese: Dutch, Spanish, and Han Colonization in the Seventeenth Century. New York: Columbia University Press. Anthropology Group, National Museum of Natural History 國立自然科學博物館 人類學組, ed. 2005. 鹿寮遺址標本圖錄 (Catalog of specimens from the Luliao Site). Taichung: 國立自然科學博物館 (National Museum of Natural History). 223

224  References

Aoyama, Hiroaki, Kaishi Yamagiwa, Shingo Fujimoto, Jin Izumi, Senri Ganeko, and Shingo Kameshima. 2020. Non-Destructive Elemental Analysis of Prehistoric Potsherds in the Southern Ryukyu Islands, Japan: Consideration of the Pottery Surface Processing Technique in the Boundary Region Between the Japanese Jomon and Neolithic Taiwan. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 33 (102512): 2–10. Atha, M. 2015. Archaeological Survey-Cum-Excavation, Pak Kok Tsui, Lamma Island, Final Report. Submitted to Hong Kong Archaeological Society, Hong Kong. Atha, M., and K. Yip. 2016. Piecing Together Sha Po: Archaeological Investigations and Landscape Reconstruction. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Au, Kafat 區家發. 1994. 大彎牙璋之年代與相關問題 (The date of Tai Wan yazhang and some related issues). In 南中國及鄰近地區古文化研究: 慶祝鄭德坤教授從 事學術活動六十週年論文集 (Ancient cultures of South China and neighbouring regions: Essays in honor of Professor Cheng Te-kun on the occasion of the sixtieth anniversary of his academic career), edited by 鄧聰 (Tang Chung), pp. 209–214. Hong Kong: 中文大學出版社 (Chinese University Press). Au Kafat, Feng Yongqu, Li Guo, Tang Chung, and Shang Zhitan 區家發, 馮永驅, 李果, 鄧聰, 商志譚. 1994. Xianggang Lamma Dao Tai Wan Yizhi fazue jianbao 香港南丫島大彎遺址發掘簡報 (Preliminary excavation report of the Tai Wan Site at Lamma Island, Hong Kong). In 南中國及鄰近地區古文化研究: 慶祝鄭 德坤教授從事學術活動六十週年論文集 (Ancient cultures of South China and neighbouring regions: Essays in honor of Professor Cheng Te-kun on the occasion of the sixtieth anniversary of his academic career), edited by 鄧聰 (Tang Chung), pp. 195–208. Hong Kong: 中文大學出版社 Chinese University Press. Bailey, G. 1978. Shell Middens as Indicators of Post Glacial Economies: A Terrritorial Perspective. In The Early Post Glacial Settlement of Northern Europe, edited by P. Mellaars, pp. 37–63. London: Duckworth. Barnes, G. L. 2015. The Archaeology of East Asia: The Rise of Civilization in China, Korea, and Japan. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Bellina, B. 2003. Beads, Social Change and Interaction Between India and Southeast Asia. Antiquity 77:285–297. ——— . 2014. Maritime Silk Road’s Ornament Industries: Socio-Political Practices and Cultural Transfers in the South China Sea. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 24:345–377. Bellina, B., A. Favereau, and L. Dussubieux. 2019. Southeast Asian Early Maritime Silk Road Trading Polities‚ Hinterland and the Sea-Nomads of the Isthmus of Kra. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 54:102–120. Bellina, B., P. Silapanth, B. Chaisuwan, C. Thongcharoenchaikit, J. Allen, V. Bernard, B.  Borell, P. Bouvet, C. Castillo, and L. Dussubieux. 2014. The Development of Coastal Polities in the Upper Thai-Malay Peninsula. In Before Siam: Essays in Art and Archaeology, edited by N. Revire and S. Murphy, pp. 69–89. Bangkok: River Books.

References  225

Bellwood, P. 2009. Formosan Prehistory and Austronesian Dispersal. In Austronesian Taiwan, edited by D. Blundell, pp. 336–364. Berkeley: Shung Ye Museum and Hearst Museum. ——— . 2011. Holocene Population History in the Pacific Region as a Model for Worldwide Food Producer Dispersals. Current Anthropology 52(S4): S363–S378. ——— . 2017. First Islanders: Prehistory and Human Migration in Island Southeast Asia. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Bellwood P., G. Chambers, M. Ross, and Hsiao-chun Hung. 2011. Are Cultures Inherited? Multidisciplinary Perspectives on the Origins and Migrations of AustronesianSpeaking Peoples Prior to 1000 BC. In Investigating Archaeological Cultures, edited by B. Roberts and M. Vander Linden, pp. 321–354. New York: Springer. Bellwood, P., and E. Dizon. 2013. 4000 Years of Migration and Cultural Exchange: The Archaeology of the Batanes Islands, Northern Philippines. Terra Australis 40. Canberra: ANU ePress. Benedek, D. 1987. A Comparative Study of the Bashiic Cultures of Irala, Ivatan, and Itbayat. PhD diss., Pennsylvania State University. Berrocal, M., and Cheng-hwa Tsang, eds. 2017. Historical Archaeology of Early Modern Colonialism in Asia-Pacific: The Asia Pacific Region. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Berrocal, M., E. Herrero, M. Moret, A. González, M. Pérez, S. Rodríguez, A. Chevalier, F. Valentin, and Cheng-hwa Tsang. 2018. A Comprised Archaeological History of Taiwan through the Long-Term Record of Heping Dao, Keelung. Journal of Historical Archaeology 22:905–940. Blench, Roger. 2014. Suppose We Are Wrong about the Austronesian Settlement of ­Taiwan? Unpublished manuscript, November 12, 2014. Accessed February 14, 2017. http://www.rogerblench.info/Archaeology/SE%20Asia/Suppose%20we%20are%20 wrong.pdf. ——— . 2022. Restructuring Our Understanding of the South China Sea Interaction Sphere: Evidence from Multiple Disciplines. In Taiwan Maritime Landscapes from Neolithic to Early Modern Times, edited by Yi-chang Liu, P. Calanca, and F. Muyard, pp. 249–270. Paris: École Francaise d’Extrême Orient. Blundell, D. 1997. Archaeology, Cultural Resource Management and the Pacific: A Look at the East Coast of Taiwan. Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association Bulletin 16:233–241. Blusse, L., and N. Everts. 2012. The Kavalan People of the Lanyang Plain Four Hundred Years Ago. In 探溯淇武蘭: 宜蘭研究第九屆學術研討會論文集 (Exploring ­K iwulan: Academic papers from an international symposium), edited by Li Su-Yue and Xu Mei-chih 李素月, 許美智, pp. 265–280. Ilan: 宜蘭縣史館 (Ilan County Historical Museum). Borao Mateo, J. 2009. Spanish Experience in Taiwan 1626–1642: The Baroque Ending of a Renaissance Endeavour. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

226  References

——— . 2012. Kavalan and the Spaniards in the Seventeenth Century. In 探溯淇武蘭: 宜蘭研究第九屆學術研討會論文集 (Exploring Kiwulan: Academic papers from an international symposium), edited by Li Su-Yue and Xu Mei-chih 李素月, 許美 智, pp. 247–264. Ilan: 宜蘭縣史館 (Ilan County Historical Museum). Borao Mateo, J., and Hung Hsiao-chun, eds. 鮑曉鷗, 洪曉純, ed. 2015. 尋找消逝的 基隆: 臺灣北部和平島的考古新發現 (Recovering the past of Keelung: New archaeological findings from Heping Island of northern Taiwan). Taipei: 南天書局 (SMC Publishing). Brindley, E. F. 2015. Ancient China and the Yue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Burningham, N. 2019. Shipping in the Indian Ocean World. In Early Global Interconnectivity across the Indian Ocean World, vol. 2: Exchange of Ideas, Religions and Technologies, edited by A. Schottenhammer, pp. 141–202. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Calanca, P. 2022. The Maritime Environment around Taiwan: Perception and Reality. In Taiwan Maritime Landscapes from Neolithic to Early Modern Times, edited by Yi-Chang Liu, P. Calanca, and F. Muyard, pp. 213–248. Paris: École Francaise d’Extrême Orient. Campbell, W. 1967. Formosa under the Dutch, Described from Contemporary Records. Taipei: Cheng-wen Publishing. Campos, F. 2013. Ichthyoarchaeological Investigation of Neolithic to Recent Fishing Practices in the Batanes Islands. In 4000 Years of Migration and Cultural Exchange: The Archaeology of the Batanes Islands, Northern Philippines, edited by P. Bellwood and E. Dizon, pp. 201–214. Canberra: ANUepress. Capistrano-Baker, F., J. Guy, and J. Miksic. 2012. Philippine Ancestral Gold. Singapore: National University of Singapore Press. Carson, M. 2017. Coastal Paleo-Landscapes of the Neolithic Period. In First Islanders: Prehistory and Human Migration in Island SE Asia, edited by P. Bellwood, pp. 240– 244. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Carson, M., and Hsiao-chun Hung. 2014. Semiconductor Theory in Migration: Population Receivers, Homeland, Gateways in Taiwan and Island Southeast Asia. World Archaeology 46:502–515. ——— . 2018. Learning from Paleo-Landscapes: Defining the Land-Use Systems of the Ancient Malayo-Polynesian Homeland. Current Anthropology 59(6): 790–813. Carter, A. 2016. The Production and Exchange of Glass and Stone Beads in Southeast Asia from 500 BCE to the Early Second Millennium CE: An Assessment of the Work of Peter Francis in Light of Recent Research. Archaeological Research in Asia 6:16–29. Chang, Chun-hsiang, Y. Kaifu, M. Takai, R. Kono, G. Grun, S. Matsu’ura, L. Kinsley, and L. Lin. 2015. The First Archaic Homo from Taiwan. Nature Communications 6, article 6037. DOI:10.1038/incomms7037.

References  227

Chang, K. C. (Kwang-chih) 張光直. 1969. Fengpitou, Tapengkeng, and the Prehistory of Taiwan. Publications in Anthropology no. 73. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. ——— . 1974a. Man in the Choshui and Tatu River Valleys in Central Taiwan: Preliminary Report of an Interdisciplinary Project, 1972–1973 Season. Asian Perspectives 17(1): 36–55. ——— . 1974b. Man and Land in Central Taiwan: The First Two Years of an Interdisciplinary Project. Field Archaeology of Taiwan 1(3/4): 265–275. ——— , ed. 1977. 台灣省濁水溪與大肚溪流域考古調査 (Reports of archaeological investigations in the Choshui and Tatu River valleys of west-central Taiwan). Special Publication no. 70. Nangang, Taipei: 中央研究院歷史語言研究所 (Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica). ——— . 1980. Li Chi (1896–1979). Asian Perspectives 23(2): 317–321. ——— . 1989. 新石器時代的台灣海峽 (The Taiwan Strait in the Neolithic Age). 考 古 (Archaeology) 6:541–550. ——— . 1995. Taiwan Strait Archaeology and Proto Austronesian. In Austronesian Studies Relating to Taiwan, edited by Jen-kuei Li, pp. 161–183. Nangang, Taipei: Institute of History and Philology. Chao, Chin-yung 趙金勇. 1993. 台東縣長濱鄉長光遺址發掘報告 (Report of excavations of the Changguang Site, Changbin, Taitung). Master’s thesis, National Taiwan University 國立台灣大學人類學系碩士論文. ——— . 2000. Changkuang: A Neolithic Burial Site on the Eastern Coast of Taiwan. Bulletin of the Indo Pacific Prehistory Association 20:165–170. ——— . 2012. The Archaeology of Late Modern History in Taiwan and Why Does It Matter? Paper presented at the First World Congress of Taiwan Studies, Academia Sinica, Taipei, April 2012. ——— . 2016. 八里下罟坑遺址之形成過程探微 (A proposed scenario of site formation processes at Xiagukeng, Bali). 田野考古 (Field Archaeology of Taiwan) 18(2): 37–70. ——— . 2018. Reconsidering Megalithic Cultures in Taiwan and Insular Southeast Asia. Proceedings of the Conference on Maritime Exchange and Localization across the South China Sea 500 BC to 500 AD 293–315, edited by Yi-chang Liu and F. Muyard. Tainan: National Cheng Kung University, French School of Asian Studies. Chao, Chin-yung, Liu Yi-chang, and Chung Kuo-feng 趙金勇、劉益昌、鍾國風. 2013. 花岡山遺址上層類型芻議 (On Upper Huagangshan culture, a proposal). 田 野考古 (Field Archaeology of Taiwan) 16(2): 53–80. Chao Chin-yung, and Chung Yi-shing. 2014. Ceramic Consumption and Colonial Self Fashioning in Japanese-Occupied Taiwan: An Archaeological Perspective. Pan-­ Japan 10(1/2): 1–26. Chapman, R. 1995. Ten Years After—Megaliths, Mortuary Practices, and the Territorial Model. In Regional Approaches to Mortuary Analysis, edited by L. Beck, pp. 29– 51. New York: Springer.

228  References

Chau, Hing-wah. 2007. Pluralistic Development and Cultural Interaction: A Study of the Assimilation into the Han Chinese Civilization of the Ancient Yue Culture in the Pearl River Delta and the Ancient Shu Culture in Sichuan Province. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Heritage Museum. Accessed January 3, 2022. http://www.heritagemuseum.gov.hk/documents/2199315/2199693/Article%2bon%2bSanxingdui%2 band%2bJinsha%2bExhibition_E.pdf. Chen, Cunxi, and Chen Long 陈存洗, 陈龙. 1983. 福建闽侯县昙石山遗址发掘新 收获 (New results of excavations of the Tanshishan Site, Minhou County Fujian). 考古 (Archaeology) 12:1076–1084. Chen, Chi-lu. 1968. Material Culture of the Formosan Aborigines. Taipei: The Taiwan Museum. Chen, Chung-yu 陳仲玉. 1997. 福建金門島考古遺址調查 (Investigation of Archaeological Sites on Jinmen Island Fujian). 國家公園學報 (National Parks Academic Reports) 7(1–2): 87–104. Chen, Chung-yu, and Chiu Hung-lin 陳仲玉 and 邱鴻霖. 2013. 馬祖亮島島尾遺址 群發掘及『亮島人』修復計畫 (Excavation of the Liangdao Daiwei Site Group and reconstruction of Liangdao Man). Lianjiang: 連江縣政府文化局 (Cultural Office, Lianjiang County). Chen, Guoqiang, Ye Wenchen, and Wu Mianji 陈国强, 叶文程, and 吴绵吉主编. 1993. 閩台考古 Archaeology of Min (Fujian) and Tai (Taiwan). Xiamen: 厦门大学 出版社 (Xiamen University Press). Chen Hsin-hsiung 陳信雄. 1994. 澎湖における伍代十国越窯優品の大量発見 (Yue ware of Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms found in the Penghu Archipelago). 貿易陶磁研究 (Study of trade ceramics) 14:60–96. Chen, Kuang-tzuu. 陳光祖. 2000a. 試論臺灣各時代的哺乳動物群及其相關問 題—臺灣地區動物考古學研究的基礎資料 (On Taiwan mammalian faunas in different periods of time and related problems: The background materials for Taiwan zooarchaeological studies, Part 1 and 2). 中央研究院歷史語言研究所集刊 (Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica) 71(1/2): 129– 198, 367–503. ——— . 2000b. Ancient Iron Technology of Taiwan. PhD diss., Harvard University. ——— . 2011a. The Protection of Archaeological Sites in Taiwan. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 13(1): 58–75. ——— . 2011b. 臺灣地區出土銅器及相關遺留芻論 (A preliminary research of copper-based artefacts and related remains discovered in the Taiwan area). 中央研究 院歷史語言研究所集刊 (Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica) 82(2): 169–259. ——— . 2012. 淇武蘭遺址出土非鐵金屬器物初步分析 (Preliminary analysis of nonferrous metal artifacts from the Kivulan Site). In 探溯淇武蘭: 宜蘭研究第九屆 學術研討會論文集 (Exploring Kivulan: Collected papers of an academic collo-

References  229

quium), edited by Li Su-yue and Xu Mei-zhi 李素月, 許美智, pp. 63–82. Ilan: 宜蘭 縣史館 (Ilan County Historical Museum). ——— , ed. 2018. 臺灣考古發掘報告精選 (Special collections of the archaeological reports of Taiwan 2006–2016). Taipei: 文化部文化資產局 (Ministry of Culture, Bureau of Cultural Heritage). Chen, Kuang-tzuu, Cheng Chieh-fu, and Li Chenying. 陳光祖, 鄭玠甫, 李貞瑩. 2005. 淇武蘭遺址出土含金屬箔玻璃珠的初步科學分析 (Preliminary scientific analy­ sis of double layer gold foil glass bead from the Kiwulan Site). In 台灣地區外來物 質: 珠子與玻璃環玦形器 (Objects exotic to the Taiwan region beads, glass rings, penannular jade pendants), edited by中央研究院歷史語言研究所 (Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica), pp. 163–182. Nangang, Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica. ——— . 2013. 淇武蘭遺址出土夾金屬箔玻璃珠的初步科學分析 (Preliminary scientific analysis on double layer gold foiled glass beads excavated from the Kiwulan site). 田野考古 (Field Archaeology of Taiwan) 16(2): 1–28. Chen, Kuo-tung. 2022. Chinese Knowledge of the Waters Around Taiwan from the Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries. In Taiwan Maritime Landscapes from Neolithic to Early Modern Times, edited by Yi-chang Liu, P. Calanca, and F. Muyard, pp. 185– 196. Paris: École Francaise d’Extrême Orient. Chen, Maa-ling. 1997. Settlement Patterns, Subsistence Systems and Their Changes in Kanding National Park during O-Luan-Pi Phases III and IV. PhD diss., Arizona State University. ——— . 2006. Physiochemical Compositional Analysis of Ceramics: A Case Study of Kanding, Taiwan. Archaeometry 48(4): 565–580. ——— . 2008. Settlement Patterns at Saqacengalj, a Slate House Settlement in Southern Taiwan. Asian Perspectives 47(2): 210–241. ——— . 2011. Interpreting Social Differentiation by Examining the House and Settlement Patterns and the Flow of Resources: A Case Study of Pai-Wan Slate House Settlements in Southern Taiwan. Asian Perspectives 50(1–2): 107–131. Chen, Maa-ling, Yi-lin Chen, and Hai-ling Lee. 2010. Interpreting the Meaning of Different Shapes of House Structures by Examining the Flow of Resources: A Case Study of Saqacengalj at the Southern Tip of Taiwan. Archaeometry 52(6): 1057–1078. Chen, Wei-chun. 2017. The Early Occupation of Taiwan. In Handbook of East and Southeast Asian Archaeology, edited by P. Lape and J. Habu, pp. 277–291. New York: Springer Science+Business Media. Chen, Wen-shan, Sung Shih-hua, Wu Le-chun, Hsu Hao-de, and Yang Hsiao-ch’ing 陳 文山, 宋時驊, 吳樂群, 徐澔德, 楊小青. 2004. 末次冰期以來台灣海岸平原區的 海岸線變遷 (Shoreline changes in the coastal plain of Taiwan since the last glacial epoch). 考古人類學刊 (Journal of Archaeology and Anthropology) 62:40–55.

230  References

Chen, Xingcan. 1996. Xiantouling Dune Site: Its Significance in Understanding the Coastal Area of South China in Prehistory. Bulletin of the Indo Pacific Prehistory Association 15:207–210. Chen, You-pei 陳有貝. 2012. 從淇武蘭陶器探討噶瑪蘭族群問題 (Kavalan social groups: An examination of pottery of Kiwulan). In 探溯淇武蘭: 宜蘭研究第九 屆學術研討會論文集 (Exploring Kiwulan. Academic papers from an international symposium), edited by Li Su-yue and Xu Mei-zhi 李素月, 許美智, pp. 503– 527. Ilan: 宜蘭縣史館 (Ilan County Historical Museum). ——— . 2014. 琉球列島與台灣史前關係的再研究: 從古代地理意識之角度 (A reappraisal of the prehistoric relationship between Taiwan and the Ryukyu Islands: From the perspective of geographic consciousness). 考古人類學刊 (Journal of Archaeology and Anthropology) 81: 3–28. ——— . 2016a. 台湾先史時代の漁業研究 (Study of prehistoric fishing in Taiwan). 東 南アジア考古学 (Southeast Asian Archaeology) 36:19–32. ——— . 2016b. 淇武蘭遺址出土的外來物意義研究 (Examining the significance of the foreign artifacts excavated at Kivulan). In 考古歷史於原住民: 臺灣族群關係 新視野 (Archaeology, history andindigenous peoples: New perspectives on the ethnic relations of Taiwan), edited by 洪麗完 Hung Li-wan, pp. 165–194. Taipei: 順 益博物館 (Shung Ye Museum). ——— . 2018. 淇武蘭考古遺址第三章 (Kivulan archaeological site, chapter 3). In 臺 灣考古發掘報告精選 (Special collections of the archaeological reports of Taiwan 2006–2016). edited by Chen Kuang-tzuu 陳光祖, pp. 179–243. Taipei: 文化部文 化資產局 (Bureau of Cultural Heritage, Ministry of Culture). Chen, You-pei, Chiu Shui-jin, and Li Chen-ying 陳有貝, 邱水金, 李貞瑩. 2007a. 淇 武蘭遺址搶救發掘報告(一) (Report of the rescue excavation of Kiwulan, Part 1). Ilan: 宜蘭縣立蘭陽博物館 (Ilan Lanyang County Museum). ——— . 2007b. 淇武蘭遺址搶救發掘報告(二) (Report of the rescue excavation of Kiwulan, Part 2). Ilan: 宜蘭縣立蘭陽博物館 (Ilan Lanyang County Museum). ——— . 2007c. 淇武蘭遺址搶救發掘報告(三) (Report of the rescue excavation of Kiwulan, Part 3). Ilan: 宜蘭縣立蘭陽博物館 (Ilan Lanyang County Museum). ——— . 2008a. 淇武蘭遺址救發掘報告 (四) (Report of the rescue excavation of ­K iwulan, Part 4). Ilan: 宜蘭縣立蘭陽博物館 (Ilan Lanyang County Museum). ——— . 2008b. 淇武蘭遺址搶救發掘報告 (五) (Report of the rescue excavation of Kiwulan, Part 5). Ilan: 宜蘭縣立蘭陽博物館 (Ilan Lanyang County Museum). ——— . 2008c. 淇武蘭遺址搶救發掘報告 (六）(Report of the rescue excavation of  Kiwulan, Part 6). Ilan: 宜蘭縣立蘭陽博物館 (Ilan Lanyang County Museum). Chen, Yu-mei. 2022. The Austronesian Dispersal: A Lanyu Perspective. In Taiwan Maritime Landscapes from Neolithic to Early Modern Times, edited by Yi-chang Liu, P. Calanca, and F. Muyard, pp. 115–134. Paris: École Francaise d’Extrême Orient.

References  231

Chen Yue-gau, and Liu Tsung-kwei. 1996. Sea Level Changes in the Last Several Thousand Years, Penghu Island, Taiwan Strait. Quaternary Research 45(3): 254–292. ——— . 2000. Holocene Uplift and Subsidence Along an Active Tectonic Margin Southwestern Taiwan. Quaternary Science Reviews 19 (2000): 923–930. Chen Ziwen, and Li Jianjun 陈子文, 李建军. 2008. 福建永安黄衣垄旧石器遗址发 掘报告 (A report on the excavation of the Huangyilong Paleolithic Site, Yong’an, Fujian). 人类学学报 (Acta Anthropologica Sinica) 27(1): 23–32. Chen Ziwen, Li Jianjun, and Yu Shengfu 陈子文 , 李建军 , 余生富. 2001. 福建三明 船帆洞旧石器遗址 (The Chuanfan Palaeolithic Cave Site, Sanming, Fujian). 人 类学学报 (Acta Anthropologica Sinica) 人类学学报 20(4): 256–270. Chen Ziwen, Li Jianjun, and Fan Xue-chun 陈子文, 李建军, 范雪春. 2006. 万寿岩 旧石器时代遗址埋藏学研究 (A taphonomic study of the Wanshouyan Paleolithic site). 人类学学报 (Acta Anthropological Sinica) 25(3): 220–227. Chen Zhaoshan. 2007. The Fubin Culture. In Lost Maritime Cultures: China and the Pacific, edited by T. Jiao, pp. 185–197. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press. Chiang, Bien. 1993. House and Social Hierarchy of the Paiwan. PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania. Chiang, Chih-hua. 2010. Reconstructing Prehistoric Social Organization: A Case Study from the Wansan Site, Neolithic Taiwan., PhD diss., University of California Berkeley. ——— . 2015. “Houses” in the Wansan Society, Neolithic Taiwan. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 39:151–163. ——— . 2022. Possible Relationships Between Taiwan and the Southern Ryukyu Islands During the Early Neolithic. In Taiwan Maritime Landscapes from Neolithic to Early Modern Times, edited by Yi-chang Liu, P. Calanca, and F. Muyard, pp. 103–114. Paris: École Francaise d’Extrême Orient. China Daily. 2017. Wanshouyan, the Site of Fujian’s Earliest Human Ancestors. March 3, 2017. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/m/fujian/2017‑03/03/content_28426175_2.htm. Chinese Archaeology. 2016. Important Neolithic Discoveries in Southwest Coastal Areas in Hainan Island. January 20, 2016. http://www.kaogu.cn/en/News/New _discoveries/2016/0120/52860.html. Chiu, Hung-lin 邱鴻霖. 2004. 宜蘭縣礁溪鄉淇武蘭遺址出土墓葬研究─ 埋葬行 為與文化變遷的觀察 國立台灣大學人類學研究所碩士論文 (Investigations of mortuary behaviours and cultural change of the Kiwulan Site in Ilan Country Taiwan). Master’s thesis, National Taiwan University. ——— . 2009. 台湾鉄器時代の社会組織の骨考古学的研究 (An osteo-archaeological study of the social organization of Iron Age Taiwan). PhD diss., University of Kyushu. ——— . 2010. 台灣史前時代拔齒習俗的社會意義研究: 以鐵器時代石橋遺址蔦 松文化為例 (The social meaning of ritual tooth ablation behavior in prehistoric

232  References

Taiwan: A case study at the Shiqiao Site from the Iron-Age Niaosung culture). 考古 人類學刊 (Journal of Archaeology and Anthropology) 73:1–60. ——— . 2016 台湾先史時代の穿孔下顎骨と首狩り行為 (Perforated human mandibles in Taiwan prehistory and the occurrence of head hunting). In 考古学は科 学か田中良之教授紀念論文集 (Is archeology science? Yoshiyuki Tanaka memorial papers), edited by 田中良之教授紀念論文集編集委員会 (Committee for the Publication of Yoshiyuki Tanaka Memorial Papers), pp. 1–21. Fukuoka: 田中良之 教授紀念論文集編集委員会 (Committee for the Publication of Yoshiyuki Tanaka Memorial Papers). ——— . 2016. Rewriting Taiwan’s Prehistory. National Tsinghua University Newsletter 10(2): 11–12. Accessed February 12, 2022. https://www.nthu.edu.tw/pdf/pdf _147436200117.pdf. ——— . 2018. Continuity or Disruption of Taiwan Prehistory: A Perspective from Burial Behaviors of Southwestern Plain of Taiwan. Paper presented at the Third World Congress of Taiwan Studies, Taipei, September 6–8, 2018. Accessed January 4, 2022. https://wcts.sinica.edu.tw/wctsIII/05_03_2_en.html. ——— . n.d. 第一 單元臺灣史前文化概論 (Part 1, Summary of Taiwan prehistoric culture). (unpublished manuscript in possession of the author) Chiu, Hung-lin, Lu Tai-kang, and Li Kuang-ti 邱鴻霖, 盧泰康, 李匡悌. 2015. 臺南市 水交社清代墓葬群之埋葬習俗與病理觀察 (New advances of osteoarchaeological study in Taiwan: Mortuary practice and pathological investigation of the Qing Dynasty Shuijiaoshe Cemetery in Tainan). 田野考古 (Field Archaeology of ­Taiwan) 18(1): 1–30. Choi, Charles Q. 2020. Ancient Humans May Have Deliberately Voyaged to Japan‚ Ryukyu Islands. Science News, December 3, 2020. Accessed February 11, 2021. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/ ancient-humans-sea-voyage-japan-ryukyu-island-migration. Chou, Wan-yao 周婉窈. 2003. 陳第〈東番記〉—十七世紀初臺灣西南地區的實 地調查報告(Dongfanji of Chen Di: An eye-witness account of southwestern Taiwan at the beginning of the seventeenth century). 故宮文物月刊 (National Palace Museum Cultural Relics Monthly) 241:22–45. ——— . 2015. A New Illustrated History of Taiwan. Translated by C. Plackitt and T. Casey. Taipei: SMC Publishers. Chu, Whei-lee 屈慧麗. 2012. 梳理的文明—再看西大墩遺址牛罵頭文化特色 (The nephrite ornaments in civilization: Rethinking the Xidadun site and characteristics of Niumatou culture) 田野考古 (Field Archaeology of Taiwan) 15(2): 17–46. ——— . 2013. Sustainable Education and Tourist Resources. In 考古學與永續發展研 究 (The study of archaeology and sustainability), edited by Chiu Su-chia and Tsang Cheng-hwa 邱斯嘉, 臧振華, pp. 453–484. Nangang, Taipei: Center for Archaeological Studies, Research Center for Humanities and Social Sciences, Academia Sinica.

References  233

Clark, H. R. 1991. Community, Trade, and Networks: Southern Fujian from the Third to Thirteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ——— . 2009. Frontier Discourse and China’s Maritime Frontier: China’s Frontiers and the Encounter with the Sea Through Early Imperial History. Journal of World History 20(1): 1–33. ——— . 2015. The Sinitic Encounter in Southeast China Through the First Millennium CE. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press. Cohen, D. 2011. The Beginning of Agriculture in China: A Multiregional Review. Current Anthropology 52:S273–S293. ——— . 2014. The Neolithic of Southern China. In The Cambridge World Prehistory, edited by C. Renfrew and P. Bahn, pp. 765–781. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cultural Assets Bureau. 2017. Blihun Hanben Archaeological Site. 2017. Tainan City: Ministry of Culture. Accessed January 7, 2021. https://nchdb.boch.gov.tw/assets/ overview/archaeologicalSite/20160815000001. Dai Jinqi, Zuo Xinxin, Cai Xipeng, Wen Songquan, Jin Jianhui, Zhong Leijie, and Xia Taoqin 戴 锦 奇, 左 昕 昕, 蔡 喜 鹏, 温 松 全 , 靳 建 辉 , 仲 蕾 洁, 夏 韬 钦. 2019. 闽江下游白头山遗址稻旱混作农业的植硅体证据 (Mixed rice and millet agriculture in Neolithic Age Lower Minjiang River: Phytolith evidence from the Baitoushan Site). 第 四 纪 研 究 (Quaternary Sciences) 39:161–169. Davis, V., and R. Sin. 2009. The Stone Tool Industry of Hac Sa, Macau, China. Internet Journal of Archaeology 26(7). Accessed January 4, 2022. http://intarch.ac.uk/journal /issue 26/davis_toc.html. Demandt, M. 2019. Tracking Proto-Porcelain Production and Consumption in the Dongjiang Valley of Bronze Age Lingnan. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 29(4): 671–689. Deng, Wanwen, Suoqiang Liu, Youbo Wu, Tuo Liu, Wencheng Li, Jianing He, Youping Wang. 邓婉文, 刘锁强, 巫幼波, 刘 拓, 李文成 , 何嘉宁, 王幼平. 2020. 广东 德 青塘 遗址 岩2 号洞地点2016 年度的发掘 (A preliminary report on excavation at the Huangmenyan Cave 2 of Qingtang site, South China in 2016). 人 类 学 学 报 (Acta Anthropologica Sinica) 349: 64–73. Deng, Zhenhua, Hsaio-chun Hung, Xuechun Fan, Yunming Huang, and Houyuan Lu. 2018. The ancient dispersal of millets in southern China: New archaeological evidence. The Holocene 28(1): 34–43. Dennell, R. 2015. Homo sapiens in China 80,000 Years Ago. Nature 526:647–648. Detroit, F., A. Mijares, J. Corny, G. Daver, C. Zanolli, E. Dizon, E. Robles, R. Grun, and P. Piper. 2019. A New Species of Homo from the Late Pleistocene of the Philippines. Nature 568:181–186. Dewar, R. 1978. Ecological Context and Prehistory of the West Central Taiwan Coast. Asian Perspectives 21(2): 207–241.

234  References

Donohue, M., and T. Denham. 2010. Farming and language in Southeast Asia: Re­ framing Austronesian History. Current Anthropology 51(2): 223–256. Duggan, A., and M. Stoneking. 2014. Recent Developments in the Genetic History of East Asia and Oceania. Current Opinion in Genetics and Development 29:9–14. Eskildsen, R. 2005. Taiwan: A Periphery in Search of a Narrative. Journal of Asian Studies 64(2): 281–294. Fan, Xuechun 范雪春. 2005. 福建漳州旧石器调查报告 (Report of investigations of the Palaeolithic of Zhangzhou Fujian). 人类学学报 (Acta Anthropologica Sinica) 24(1): 23–31. ——— . 2013. 福建省旧石器时代研究取得新进展 (New progress on Palaeolithic research in Fujian Province). In 第四屆國際漢學會議論文集. 東亞考古的新發 現 (Proceedings of the conference new lights on East Asian archaeology), edited by 陳光祖, 臧振華主編 Chen Kuang-tzuu and Tsang Cheng-hwa. Nangang, Taipei: 中央研究院 (Academia Sinica). ——— . 2014. 福建漳平奇和洞遗址地层动物群及埋藏学研究 (Research on the stratigraphy, faunal groups, and taphonomy of the Qihe Cave Site, Zhangping, F ­ ujian). 東南文化 (Southeast Culture) 2:68–75. Fang Yuan, Fan Xuechun, and Li Shiming 方 园, 范雪春, 李史明. 2015. 福建漳平奇 和洞新石器时代早期人类身体大小 (Body size of Neolithic human remains from the Qihe Cave, Zhangping, Fujian). 人类学学报 (Acta Anthropologica Sinica) 34(2): 202–215. Favereau, A., and B. Bellina. 2022. Reviewing the Connections Between the Upper Thai-Malay Peninsula and the Philippines During the Late Prehistoric Period (500 BC to 500 AD). In Taiwan Maritime Landscapes from Neolithic to Early Modern Times, edited by Yi-chang Liu, P. Calanca, and F. Muyard, pp. 151–170. Paris: École Francaise d’Extrême Orient. Fogg, W. 1983. Swidden Cultivation of Foxtail Millet by Taiwan Aborigines: A ­Cultural Analogue of the Domestication of Setaria italica in China. In The Origins of Chinese Civilization, edited by D. Keightley, pp. 95–115. Berkeley: University of California Press. Fujian Museum, Fujian Minyuewangcheng Museum 福建博物院福建闽越王城博 物馆. 2007. 福建浦城县管九村土墩墓群 (Mounded tomb group at Guangjiu Village, Pucheng County, Fujian). 考古 (Archaeology) 7:28–37. Fujian Museum, Quanzhou City Museum, and Nana’an City Museum, 福建博物院; 泉州市博物馆;南安市博物馆. 2014. 福建南安市皇冠山六朝墓群的发掘 (Excavation of a Six Dynasties tomb group at Huangguashan, Nan’an County, Fujian). 考古 (Archaeology) 5:37–63. Fujian Museum and Jinjiang City Museum 福建博物院, 晉江市博物馆. 2008. 晉江 庵山沙丘遗址考古发掘）(Archaeological excavation at the Anshan Sand Dunes in Jinjiang Fujian). 福建文博 (Fujian Culture and Museum) 44(3): 1–12.

References  235

Fujian Provincial Museum 福建省博物館. 1998. 福建閩侯庄边山遗址发掘报告告 (Report of excavations of the Zhuangbianshan Site, Minhou, Fujian). 考古学报 (Acta Archaeologica Sinica) 2:171–227. Fujian Provincial Museum and Anthropology Department of Harvard University (Fujian Provincial Museum). 2004. An Archaeological Investigation of the Damaoshan Site, Fujian Province. Chinese Archaeology 4:76–81. Fujian Provincial Cultural Properties Committee 福建省文物管理委員会. 1961. 閩 侯昙石山新石器时代遗址: 第二到第六次发掘简报 (Summary reports of the second to sixth excavations of the Tanshishan neolithic site). 考古 (Archaeology) 12:669–672. Fujian Provincial Cultural Properties Committee, Xiamen University Archaeology Team 福建省文物管理委员会, 厦门大学考古实习队. 1964. 福建闽侯昙石山新 石器時代遗址第五次发掘简报 (Brief report of the fifth excavation of the Tanshi­ shan Site at Minhou Fujian). 考古 (Archaeology) 12:601–602, 618 Fujita Masaki, Shinji Yamasaki, Chiaki Katagiri, Itsuro Oshiro, Katsuhiro Sano, Taiji Kurozumi, Hiroshi Sugawara, Dai Kunikita, Hiroyuki Matsuzaki, Akihiro Kano, Tomoyo Okumura, Tomomi Sone, Hikaru Fujita, Satoshi Kobayashi, Toru Naruse, Megumi Kondo, Shuji Matsu’ura, Gen Suwa, and Yousuke Kaifu. 2016. Advanced Maritime Adaptation in the Western Pacific Coastal Region Extends Back to 35,000–30,000 Years before Present. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113(40): 11184–11189. Fuller, D., C. Castillo, and C. Murphy. 2017. How Rice Failed to Unify Asia. In The Routledge Handbook of Archaeology and Globalization, edited by T. Hodos, pp. 711– 729. London: Routledge. Glover, L., and J. Kenoyer. 2019. Overlooked Imports: Carnelian Beads in the Korean Peninsula. Asian Perspectives 58(1): 180–201. Gu, Fang 古方. 1996. 台湾史前时代人兽形玉器的用途和宗教意义 (Human-animal form (zooanthropomorphic) jade artifacts in Taiwan prehistory and their use and religious significance). 考古 (Archaeology) 4:77–81. Guan, Yongjing, Zhaoming Xiong, Xiandong Ruan, Huijuan Wang, and Filippo Terrasi. 2013. Evidences for the View of the Importance of Hepu Seaport in Ancient China. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B294:688–691. Guangdong Provincial Museum 广東省立博物馆. 1983. 广東南海西樵山遗址 (The Xiqiaoshan Site, Nanhai, Guangdong). 考古 (Archaeology) 12:1085–1091. Guangdong Provincial Cultural Properties and Archaeological Research Institute 广 东省文物考古研究所编著. 2005. 博罗横岭山: 商周时期墓地2000年发掘报告 (Report of excavations in 2000 of Shang/Zhou burials at Henglinshan, Boluo [Guangdong]). Beijing: 科学出版社 (Science Publishers). Guangzhou Municipal Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, the Institute of Archaeology and Preparatory Office of the

236  References

­ useum of Nanyue Royal Palace (Guangzhou Municipal Institute). 2008. The M Royal Palace and Government Office Sites of the Nanyue Kingdom in Guangzhou. Chinese Archaeology 8:127–133. Guo, Zhengfu, Tianlong Jiao, B. Rolett, Jiaqi Liu, Xuechun Fan, and Gongwu Lin. 2005. Tracking Neolithic Interactions in Southeast China: Evidence from Stone Adze Geochemistry. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 20(8): 765–776. Guy, J. 2019. Shipwrecks in Late First Millennium Southeast Asia: Southern China’s Maritime Trade and the Role of Arab Merchants in Indian Ocean Exchange. In Early Global Interconnectivity across the Indian Ocean World Volume 1, edited by A.  Schottenhammer, pp. 121–164. Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland, ­Palgrave MacMillan. Han Sheng Zazishe 漢聲雜誌社, ed. 1991. 八里十三行史前文化 (Prehistoric culture of Shisanhang Bali). Taipei: 漢聲雜誌社 (Han Sheng Magazine Publishing). Heng, D. 2020. Ships, Shipwrecks, and Archaeological Recoveries as Sources of Southeast Asian History. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia, Asian History. Oxford: University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190277727.013.97. Heritage of Japan. 2020. Along the Paleolithic Path: The voyage(s) to and the early settlement of the Ryukyu Islands. Accessed February 10, 2022. https://heritageof japan.wordpress.com/pacing-the-paleolithic-path/origins-of-the-paleolithic-people /the-voyages-to-and-the-early-settlement-of-the-ryukyu-islands. Higham, C. 1996. The Bronze Age of Southeast Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hilgers, L. 2011. Pirates of the Maritime Silk Road. Archaeology 64(5). Accessed January 4, 2022. https://archive.archaeology.org/1109/features/south_china_sea_ming _dynasty_shipwreck.html. Ho, C. S. 1986. A Synthesis of the Geologic Evolution of Taiwan. Tectonophysics 125(1/3): 1–16. Ho, Chuan-k’un. 1977. Burial Customs of Prehistoric Taiwan. Master’s thesis, Washington State University. ———  何傳坤. 1996. 臺灣史前文化三論 (Three essays on Taiwan prehistory). ­Banqiao City: 稻鄉出版社 (Daoxiang Publishing). Ho, Chuan-k’un, and Liu Ke-hung 何傳坤、劉克竑. 2006. 玉山· 國家公園西北園 區史前文化研究 (上,下) (Study of prehistoric culture in the northwest region of Yushan National Park). Taichung: National Museum of Natural Science. Ho, Chuan-k’un, Liu Ke-hung, and Yen Ling-da. 何傳坤、劉克竑, 閻玲達. 2007. 台 中縣鹿寮遺址的俯身葬 (The prone burials of the Luliao site). Taichung City: National Museum of Natural Science. Accessed February 15, 2022. http://ed resource.nmns.edu.tw/ShowObject.aspx?id=0b81d9e9c00b81d9e9c80b81e3ba11. Ho, Chuan-k’un, and Yen Ling-da 何傳坤、閻玲達. 2008. Cultural Burials from Fanziyuan in Central Taiwan: Prehistoric Interaction. Museum News No. 261.

References  237

Taichung: National Museum of Natural Science. Accessed February 25, 2021. http:// edresource.nmns.edu.tw/ShowObject.aspx?id=0b81d9e9c00b81d9e9c80b81d798f6. Holcombe, C. 2001. The Genesis of East Asia. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press. Hong Min-lin 洪敏麟, ed. 1979. 臺南市市區史蹟調查報告書 (Report on investigations of the historic remains of the Tainan City Area). Taichung: 臺灣省文獻委員 會 (Taiwan Provincial Historical Documentation Commission). Hong Kong Antiquities and Monuments Office. 2005. 香港的遠古文化: 西貢沙下 考古發現 (The ancient culture of Hong Kong: Archaeological studies in Sha Ha, Sai Kung). Hong Kong: 康樂及文化事務署古物古蹟辦事處 (Kangle Publishers and Antiquities and Cultural Properties Office). Hsieh Jaw-shu, Caroline Yue-ie Hsing, Tze-fu Hsu, Paul Jen-kuei Li, Kuang-ti Li, and Cheng-hwa Tsang. 2011. Studies on Ancient Rice: Where Botanists, Agronomists, Archaeologists, Linguists, and Ethnologists Meet. Rice 2011(4): 178–183. Hsieh, Meng-long, Ping-Mei Liew, and Ming-Yang Hsu. 2004. Holocene Tectonic Uplift on the Hua-Tung Coast, Eastern Taiwan. Quaternary International 115–116:47–70. Hsieh, Ming-liang 謝明良. 2011. 臺灣宜蘭淇武蘭遺址出土的十六至十七世紀外 國陶瓷 (Sixteenth- and seventeenth-century foreign ceramics excavated at the ­K iwulan Site in Ilan, Taiwan). 國立臺灣大學美術史研究集刊 (National Taiwan University Journal of Art History) 30:1–185. ——— . 2014. 台灣宜蘭縣出土的十六到十七中國铅釉陶器 (Sixteenth- and seventeenth-­century lead-glazed ceramics found in the Ilan region, Taiwan). 田野 考古 (Field Archaeology of Taiwan) 17(1): 1–18. Hsieh, Ellen 謝艾倫. 2012. 由陪葬品的量化研究看淇武蘭遺址上文化層早期內部 的社會關係 (Quantitative analysis of burial goods from the Upper Cultural Layer of the Kiwulan Site and social interrelations). In 探溯淇武蘭: 宜蘭研究第九屆學 術研討會論文集 (Exploring Kiwulan: Academic papers from an international symposium) ed. Li Su-Yue, Xu Mei-chih 李素月, 許美智, pp. 527–549. Ilan: 宜蘭 縣史館 (Ilan County Historical Museum). Hsu, Wen-hsiung. 1980. From Aboriginal Island to Chinese Frontier: The Development of Taiwan before 1683. In China’s Island Frontier: Studies in the Historical Geography of Taiwan, edited by R. Knapp, pp. 3–28. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press. Hu Chia-ying 胡家瑜. 2012. 臺灣南島民族玻璃珠飾品的跨文化分析比較：對於 形式、價值與物質性的一些思考 (Comparative analysis of glass beads used among Austronesian groups in Taiwan: Some thoughts on forms, values, and materiality). 考古人類學刊 (Journal of Archaeology and Anthropology) 76:97–134. Huang, Han-chang 黃漢彰. 2012. 澎湖白沙島海域出水越窯青瓷初探 (Yue ware celadon found on the northern coast of Bai-sha Island, Penghu). 田野考古 (Field Archaeology of Taiwan) 15(2): 105–126. Huang Jyh-aan, Wei Kuo-Yen, L. Löwemark, Song Sheng-Rong, Yang Tien-Nan, ­Chuang Chih-Kai, Lee Meng-Yang, Chen Yu-Be, Horng Chorng-Shern, Lee ­Teh-Quei, and

238  References

Chen Kuo-Hang. 2019. What Caused the Cultural Hiatus in the Iron-Age Kiwulan Site, Northeastern Taiwan? Quaternary International 514:186–194. Huang, Shi-chang 黃士強. 1991. 從東河地區談東海岩史前文化及有關問題 (Prehistoric cultures of the east coast of Taiwan and related problems seen from the Donghe area). 田野考古 (Field Archaeology of Taiwan) 2(1): 1–29. Huang Weiwen, Li Chunchu, Wang Honshou, and Huang Yukun. 1982. Reexamination of a Microlithic Site at Xiqiaoshan, Nanhai County, Guangdong. Current Anthropology 23(5): 487–492. Huang, Zhanye, Zhaoyun Lu, Cong Yang, Zhenyoung Wang, and Fande Lin. 2007. The Landscape of the Ancient Minyue State. In The Vanished Ancient Liangzhu Kingdom, edited by D. Zhang, pp. 90–107. Beijing: Intercontinental Press. Huang, Zhenguo, and Zhang Weiqiang. 2002a. The Cooling Fluctuation Events During Holocene in the Tropical Zone of China. Journal of Geographical Sciences 12(1): 91–98. ——— . 2002b. The Relative Stability of Prehistorical Geographic Environment in China’s Tropics on the Basis of Archaeology. Journal of Geographical Sciences 12:460–466. Hudson, M. 2014. 先島諸島における先史時代のヒトと生業史―宮古島長墓遺跡 を中心に (Human and subsistence history in the Sakishima Islands, based on the Nagahaka Site of Miyako Island). In 琉球列島先史 原史時代の環境と文化の変 遷 (Environmental and cultural changes in the prehistoric and early historic periods of the Ryukyu Islands), edited by Takamiya Hiroto and Shinzato Takayuki. Tokyo: 六一日書房 (Rokuichi Books). ——— . 2017. The Ryukyu Islands and the Northern Frontier of Prehistoric Austronesian Settlement. In New Perspectives in Southeast Asian and Pacific Prehistory, edited by P. Piper, P. H. Matsumura, and D. Bulbeck, pp. 189–200. Canberra: Australian National University Press. Hung, Hsiao-chun. 洪曉純. 2004. A Sourcing Study of Taiwan Stone Adzes. Bulletin of the Indo Pacific Prehistory Association 24:57–70. ——— . 2005a. Neolithic Interaction Between Taiwan and Northern Luzon: The ­Pottery and Jade Evidence from the Cagayan Valley. 南島研究學報 (Journal of Austronesian Studies) 1(1): 109–133. ——— . 2005b. 試論菲律賓玻璃珠-兼臺灣玻璃珠 (A discussion of glass beads from the Philippines and Taiwan). In 台灣地區外來物質珠子興玻璃環決形器研究 會 (Conference: Materials from beyond the Taiwan area: Beads and glass bracelets and earrings), edited by 央研究院歷史語言研究所 (Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica), pp. 81–94. Nangang, Taipei: 中央研究院歷史語言研究 所 (Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica). ——— . 2014. Jade in Southeast Asia. In Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures, edited by Helaine Selin, pp. 1–8. Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media.

References  239

——— . 2017a. Neolithic Cultures in Southeast China, Taiwan, and Luzon: An invited Perspective by Hsiao-chun Hung. In First Islanders; Prehistory and Human Migration in Island Southeast Asia, edited by P. Bellwood, pp. 232–240. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. ——— . 2017b. Cultural Interactions in Mainland and Island Southeast Asia and Beyond, 2000 BC–AD 200. In Handbook of East and Southeast Asian Archaeology, edited by J. Habu, P. Lape and J. Olsen, pp. 633–658. New York: Springer Science + Business Media. ——— . 2019. Prosperity and Complexity Without Farming: The South China Coast c. 5000–3000 BC. Antiquity 93(368): 325–341. Hung, Hsiao-chun, and M. Carson. 2014. Foragers, Fishers, and Farmers: Origins of the Taiwanese Neolithic. Antiquity 88(342): 1115–1131. Hung, Hsiao-chun, M. Carson, P. Bellwood, F. Campos, P. Piper, E. Dizon, M. Bolunia, M. Oxenham, and Chi Zhang. 2011. The First Settlement of Remote Oceania: The Philippines to the Marianas: Supplementary Information on Radiocarbon Dating of the Nagsabaran Site. Antiquity 85(329): 909–926. Hung, Hsiao-chun, and Chao Chin-yung. 2016. Taiwan’s Early Metal Period and Southeast Asian Trading Systems. Antiquity 90(354): 1537–1551. Hung, Hsiao-chun, Iizuka Yoshiyuki 洪曉純 飯塚義之, and Rey Santiago. 2004. 一 顆在菲律賓出土的史前台灣鈴形玉琉 (Lost treasures from beyond the sea: A prehistoric bell-shaped bead excavated from the Philippines). 故宮學術李刊 (­National Palace Museum Research Quarterly) 21(4): 43–56. Hung Hsiao-chun, Kim Dung Nguyen, Peter Bellwood, and Mike T. Carson. 2017. Coastal connectivity: Long-term trading networks across the South China Sea. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 8(3): 384–404. Hung, Hsiao-chun 洪曉純, Yang Shuling 楊淑玲, Nguyen Kimdung 阮金容, Iizuka Yoshiyuki 飯塚義之, and Peter Bellwood. 2012. 海外出土的臺灣玉及其卑南文 化要素 (Taiwan nephrite overseas and its Beinan characteristics). 田野考古 (Field Archaeology of Taiwan) 15(1): 19–40. Hung Hsiao-chun, and Chi Zhang. 2019. The Origins, Expansion, and Decline of Early Hunter-Gatherers along the South China Coast. In Prehistoric Maritime Cultures and Seafaring in East Asia, edited by B. V. Rolett and Chunming Wu, pp. 53–80. Singapore: Springer Nature. Hung, Li-wan 洪麗完, ed. 2016. 考古、歷史與原住民: 臺灣族群關係研究新視野 (Archaeology, history, and indigenous peoples: New perspectives on the ethnic relations of Taiwan). Taipei: 順益博物館 (Shung Ye Museum). Hung Ling-yu, and Chuan-k’un Ho. 2006. New light on Taiwan Highland Prehistory. Bulletin of the Indo Pacific Prehistory Association 26:21–31. Institute of History and Philology (IHP), Academia Sinica 中央研究院歷史語言研 究所, ed. 2005. 台灣地區外來物質: 珠子與玻璃環玦形器研討會 (Conference:

240  References

Materials from beyond the Taiwan area: Beads and glass bracelets and earrings). Nangang, Taipei: 中央研究院歷史語言研究所 (Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica). ——— . 2020. GIOS Site Map. Institute of History and Philology. Accessed July 29, 2020. https://archaeogis.ihp.sinica.edu.tw/map/#/gis. Iizuka, Y., P. Bellwood, H. Hung, and E. Dizon. 2005. A Non-Destructive Mineralogical Study of Nephritic Artifacts from Itbayat Island, Batanes, Northern Philippines. 南島研究學報 (Journal of Austronesian Studies) 1(1): 80–105. Iizuka, Y., and H. Hung. 2005. Archaeomineralogy of Taiwan Nephrite: Sourcing Study of Nephrite Artifacts from the Philippines. 南島研究學報 (Journal of Austronesian Studies) 1(1): 35–81. Iizuka, Y., H. Hung, and P. Bellwood. 2007. A Non-Invasive Mineralogical Study of Nephrite Artifacts from the Philippines and Surroundings: the Distribution of Taiwan Nephrite and Implications for Island Southeast Asian Archaeology. In Scientific Research on the Sculptural Arts of Asia: Proceedings of the Third Forbes Symposium at the Freer Gallery of Art, edited by P. Douglas and J. Winter, pp. 12–19. London: Archetype Publications, Freer/Smithsonian. Jacobs, B. 2016. A History of Pre-Invasion Taiwan. Taiwan Historical Research 23(4): 1–38. Jenco, L. K. 2019. Chen Di’s record of Formosa: An Alternative Chinese Imaginary of Otherness. Historical Journal 64(1): 17–42. Jiao Tianlong. 2006. Ancient Environmental and Cultural Changes in Southeast China During the Neolithic Period. Antiquity 80(309): 615–621. ——— . 2007a. Maritime Cultures and the Prehistory of Southeast China. In Lost Maritime Cultures: China and the Pacific, edited by T. Jiao, pp. 12–35. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press. ——— . 2007b. The Neolithic of Southeast China: Cultural Transformation and Regional Interaction on the Coast. Youngstown, NY: Cambria Press. ——— . 2013. The Neolithic Archaeology of Southeast China. In A Companion to Chinese Archaeology, edited by A. Underhill, pp. 599–611. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. Jiao Tianlong, and Fan Xuechun 焦天龙, 范雪春. 2010. 福建南島語族 The Austronesian Peoples in Fujian. Beijing:中華書局 (Zhonghua Books). Jin Jianhui, Zhizhong Li, Yunming Huang, Feng Jiang, Xuechun Fan, Zhiyong Ling, Yan Cheng, and Xiaolin Xu. 2017. Chronology of a Late Neolithic Age Site Near the Southern Coastal Region of Fujian, China. The Holocene 29 (9): 1265–1272. Kaifu, Y., M. Fujita, M. Yoneda, and S. Yamasaki. 2015. Pleistocene Seafaring and Colonization of the Ryukyu Islands, Southwestern Japan. In Emergence and Diversity of Modern Human Behavior in Paleolithic Asia., edited by Y. Kaifu, M. Izuho, Ted Goebel, H. Sato and A. Ono, pp. 345–361. College Station, TX: A&M University Press.

References  241

Kaifu, Yousuke,Tien-sha Kuo, Yoshimi Kubota, and Sen Jan. 2020. Palaeolithic Voyage for Invisible Islands Beyond the Horizon. Scientific Reports 10, Article no. 19785. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598‑020‑76831‑7. Kanaseki Takeo, and Kokubu Naoichi 金関武夫、国分直一. 1979. 台湾考古誌 (Journal of Taiwan Archaeology). Tokyo: 法政大学出版局 (Hosei University Press). Kano, Tadao 鹿野忠男. 1930a. 台湾東海岸の巨文化についいて（一）(Concerning the megalithic culture of the east coast of Taiwan, part 1). 人類学雑誌 (Journal of the Anthropological Society of Nippon) 45(7): 273–285. ——— . 1930b. 台湾東海岸の巨文化についいて (二）(Concerning the megalithic culture of the east coast of Taiwan, part 2). 人類学雑誌 (Journal of the Anthropological Society of Nippon) 45(9): 362–374. ——— . 1946. 東南亜細亜民族学先史学研究 (1) (Study of the ethnography and prehistory of Southeast Asia Part 1). Tokyo: 矢島書房 (Yajima Shobo). ——— . 1952. 東南亜細亜民族学先史学研究 (Study of the ethnography and prehistory of Southeast Asia Part 2). Tokyo: 矢島書房 (Yajima Shobo). Keegan, W., and M. de Niro. 1988. Stable Carbon and Nitrogen Isotope Ratios on Bone Collagen Used to Study Coral Reef and Terrestrial Components of Prehistoric Bahamian Diet. American Antiquity 53(2): 320–336. Keegan, W., R. Portell, and J. Slapcinsky. 2003. Changes in Invertebrate Taxa at Two Pre-Columbian Sites in Southwestern Jamaica AD 800–1500. Journal of Archaeological Science 30:1607–1617. Ketel, Christine. 2010. Shipments and Shards: Dated Finds of Trade Ceramics and the Dutch East India Company at the Beginning of the Seventeenth Century. 田野考 古 (Field Archaeology of Taiwan) 13(1/2): 1–32. Kirch, P. V. 2000. Temples as “Holy Houses”: Transformation of Ritual Architecture in Traditional Polynesian Societies. In Beyond Kinship: Social and Material Reproduction in House Societies, edited by S. Gillespie and R. Joyce, pp. 103–114. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Knapp, R. K. 1980. China’s Island Frontier: Studies in the Historical Geography of ­Taiwan. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press. Ko, Albert Min-shan, Chung-yu Chen, Qiaomei Fu, F. Delfin, Mingkun Li, Hung-lin Chiu, M. Stoneking, and Ying-chin Ko. 2014. Early Austronesians into and out of Taiwan. American Journal of Human Genetics 94(3): 426–436. Kobata Atsushi, and Matsuda Mitsugu. 1969. Ryukyuan Relations with Korea and South Seas Countries: An Annotated Translation of Documents in the Rekidai Hoan. Kyoto: Kobata Atsushi. Ku, Boon Dar. 2018. The Zheng Family and the Dutch in the Malay Archipelago: Competition and Conflict in the Seventeenth Century. Journal of Nusantara Studies 3(2): 54–65.

242  References

Kuo, Su-chiu 郭素秋. 2001. 台湾新石器時代の青銅器 (Bronze artifacts of the Taiwan Neolithic) 東南アジア考古 (Southeast Asian Archaeology) 21:37–46. ——— . 2010a. 花東縱谷金屬器時代的文化樣相—以花蓮縣卓溪鄉哈比遺址為 例 (On Metal Period Cultural Phases of the East Longitudinal (Rift) Valley: A Case Study of the Habi Site Hualien County). 田野考古 (Journal of Field Archaeology) 12(1/2): 97–164. ——— . 2010b. 考古学から見たパイワン文化の起源 (The origins of Paiwan culture seen from archaeology）In 南海をめぐる考古学 (Archaeology around the southern ocean), edited by 今村啓爾 Imamura Keiji, pp. 131–158. Tokyo: Doseisha. ——— . 2014a. 臺灣北部圓山文化的內涵採討 (Discussion on the essence of ­Yuanshan Culture in northern Taiwan). 南島研究學報 (Journal of Austronesian Studies) 5(2): 69–152. ——— . 2014b. 花蓮縣掃叭遺址的文化內涵－兼論麒麟文化 (The culture of the Saopa Site, Hualien County: Discussion of the Qilin culture). 田野考古 (Field Archaeology of Taiwan) 17(2): 1–58. ——— . 2014c. 台灣新石器時代的圓形旋截法及其旋轉機械初探 (Preliminary investigation of the Neolithic rotating cutting technology and its rotating machinery in Taiwan). In 澳門黑沙史前輪軸機械國際會議論文集 (Proceedings of the international conference on prehistoric rotary technology and related issues at Hac Sa Macao), edited by 鄧聰 Tang Chung, pp. 268–299. Macao: 澳門民政 總署文化康體部 (Department of Culture and Health, Civil Affairs Department). ——— . 2015a. 臺灣北部訊塘浦文化的內涵探討 (Discussion on the essence of Shuntanpu culture in northern Taiwan). In 台灣史前史專論 (Discussion of Taiwan prehistory), edited by 劉益昌Liu Yi-chang et al., pp. 185–246. Taipei: 中央院, 聯經出版公司(Academia Sinica, Lianjing Publishing). ——— . 2015b. 花東縱谷北段重光遺址發掘報告 (Report of excavation of the Chungguang Site in the northern Huadong Rift Valley). 南島研究學報 (Journal of Austronesian Studies) 6(2): 91–190. ——— . 2016. 中部地區大坌坑式陶器的內涵 ─以彰化縣牛埔遺址為例 (The Niupu Site Zhanghua, and the nature of Dabenkeng style pottery in central ­Taiwan). 田野考古 (Field Archaeology of Taiwan) 18(2): 1–36. ——— . 2017. 花東縱谷北段玉製錛鑿形器工藝技術探析 以豐坪村遺址為例 (Investigating and analyzing the craftsmanship in producing nephrite adze chisels unearthed in the northern section of the East Rift Valley: A case study of the Fengbingcun Site). 中央研究院歷史語言研究所集刊 (Bulletin of the Institute of Philology, Academia Sinica) 88(1): 1–60. ——— . 2019a. New Frontiers in the Prehistoric Archaeology of Taiwan (5000–2000 BP): A Perspective of Maritime Cultural Interaction. The Archaeology of Asia-Pacific Navigation 3, edited by Chun-ming Wu. Singapore: Springer Nature.

References  243

——— . 2019b. Tapa Beaters from 5000 to 4200 BP in Taiwan. In Prehistoric Maritime Cultures and Seafaring in East Asia, edited by Chunming Wu and B. Rolett, pp. 251– 268. Singapore: Springer Nature. ——— . 2020. On the Cultural Contents and Settlements of Northern Taiwan’s Prehistoric Peoples. Cultural and Religious Studies 8(5): 284–297. Lai, H. M. 2020. History of Guangdong. Him Mark Lai Digital Archive. Accessed July 27, 2020. https://himmarklai.org/?s=Guangdong+history&searchsubmit=Search. Lauer, A. J. 2015. Biological Relationships across the Taiwan Strait: Evidence from Skulls and Teeth. PhD diss., University of Hawai‘i at Honolulu. Lee, Cheng-yi, and Ping-mei Liew. 2010. Late Quaternary vegetation and climate changes inferred from a pollen record of Dongyuan Lake in southern Taiwan. ­Paleogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 287:58–66. Lee, Cheng-yi, Ping-mei Liew, and Teh-quei Lee. 2010. Pollen Records from Southern Taiwan: Implications for East Asian Summer Monsoon Variation during the Holocene. The Holocene 20(1): 81–89. Lee, Cheng-yi, Maa-ling Chen, Peter Ditchfield, Li-hung Lin, Pei-ling Wang, A. Mark Pollard, Hsiu-man Lin, Ching-hua Lo, and Hsi-kuei Tsai. 2016. Diet and Subsistence Mode of Neolithic Yuan Shan People in Taiwan: Perspective from Carbon and Nitrogen Isotope Analyses of Bone Collagen. Archaeological Research in Asia 7:18–27. Lee, Cheng-yi, Maa-ling Chen, Peter Ditchfield, A. Mark Pollard, Li-hung Lin, Pei-ling Wang, Hsiu-man Lin, Ching-hua Lo, and Hsi-kuei Tsai. 2017. Dietary Reconstruction of the Iron Age Population at the Fanziyuan Site, Taiwan, Revealed by Isotopic Analysis on Human and Faunal Bone Collagen. Archaeological Research in Asia 9:34–43. Lee, Cheng-yi, Maa-ling Chen, and Mu-chun Wu. 2018. Isotopic Perspectives of Dietary Patterns in Taiwan After the Introduction of Crops. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 20:355–361. Lee Kun-hsiu 李坤修. 1993. 台東縣長濱鄉白桑安遺址試掘工作簡報 (Summary report of test excavations at the Baisang’an Site, Changbin, Taitung). 國立臺灣史 前文化博物館籌備處通訊 (Communications of the preparations office of the National Museum of Prehistory) 1:30–58. ——— . 2005a. 臺東縣舊香蘭遺址搶救發掘計畫期末報告 (Final report on the salvage excavations of the Jiuxianglan Site, Taitung Prefecture). Taitung: 臺東縣政 府委託國立臺灣史前文化博物館 (National Museum of Prehistory). ——— . 2005b. 舊香蘭遺址出土的玻璃質標本及相關問題初探 (Glass specimens from Jiuxianglan and related questions). In 台灣地區外來物質珠子與玻璃環玦 形器研討會 Conference: Materials from beyond the Taiwan area; beads and glass bracelets and earrings), edited by中央研究院歷史語言研究所 (Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica), pp. 95–120. Nangang, Taipei: 中央研究院歷 史語言研究所 (Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica).

244  References

——— . 2007. 臺東縣舊香蘭遺址搶救發掘計畫第二期計畫期末報告 (Final ­report of the second term of salvage excavations at the Jiuxianglan Site, Taitung Prefecture). Taitung: 臺東縣政府委託國立臺灣史前文化博物館 (National ­Museum of Prehistory). ——— . 2010. 舊香蘭標本整理計畫期末報告I—文化層與墓葬 (Final report on the analysis of specimens from the cultural layer and burials of the Jiuxianglan Site). Taitung: 臺東縣政府委託國立臺灣史前文化博物館 (National Museum of Prehistory). ——— . 2014. 臺東縣上岩灣遺址石板棺研究 (Slab cist burials in the Shangyanwan Site, Taitung). 田野考古 (Field Archaeology of Taiwan) 17(1): 121–144. ——— . 2015. 舊香蘭遺址出土的砂岩鑄模及其來源探討 (Sandstone molds from Jiuxianglan, Taitung and their origin: A preliminary consideration). 田野考古 (Field Archaeology of Taiwan) 18(1): 31–72. ——— . 2017. 花蓮縣富里山遺址史前文化內涵初探 (A preliminary investigation to Fulishan site Hualien and its nature). 田野考古 (Field Archaeology of Taiwan) 19(1): 2–76. Lee Kun-hsiu, and Yeh Mei-chen. 李坤修, 葉美珍. 2017. 失落的文明: 從舊香蘭考 古遺址看臺灣史前文化發展軌跡 (Lost civilization: The development trajectory of Taiwan’s prehistoric culture from the Jiuxianglan archaeological site). 台東 Taitung 東縣府: 文化部文化資產局 (Taitung County Government, Bureau of Cultural Properties). Lee, Tsuo-ting, Wu I-lin , Li Kuang-ti, and Lee Kun-hsiu. 李作婷, 吳意琳, 李匡悌, 李 坤修. 2015. 台灣東海岸四千年前栽培稻的起源: 矽酸體分析的初步成果 (The origin of rice cultivation at 4,000 years ago on the east coast of Taiwan: Preliminary results of Phytolith analysis). 南島研究學報 (Journal of Austronesian Studies) 6(1): 1–50. Li, Boqian. 2009. Rediscussion of the Problem When People in the Region South of the Five Ridges Began to Cast Bronzes. Chinese Archaeology 9:183–188. Li, Chen-ying, and Chiu Shui-chin 李貞瑩, 邱水金. 2014. 宜蘭農校遺址發掘 (A report on excavations in the Yi-Lang Agricultural Vocational High School site, 2000~2008). 田野考古 (Field Archaeology of Taiwan) 17(1): 59–120. Li, Guo. 1996. Neolithic Sand Bar Sites Round the Pearl River Estuary Area and Hainan: A Comparative Study. Bulletin of the Indo Pacific Prehistory Association 15:211–218. ——— . 2002. Subsistence of the Neolithic Pearl River estuary area, South China. Master’s thesis, University of British Columbia. Li, Jianjun, Chen Ziwen, and Yu Shengfu. 李建军, 陈子文, 余生富. 2001. 灵峰洞— 福建省首次发现的旧石器时代早期遗址 (Lingfengdong: First discovery of early Palaeolithic site in Fujian Province). 人类学学报 (Acta Anthropologica Sinica) 20(4): 247–255.

References  245

Li, Jianjun, and Fan Xuechun李建军 , 范雪春 2006. 船帆洞旧石器遗址洞穴形成 过程与地层划分 (Formation processes and geological strata of the Chuan Fan Palaeolithic cave site) 人类学学报 (Acta Anthropologica Sinica) 25(2): 153–160. Li, Kuang-chou. 1982. K’en-ting: An Archaeological Natural Laboratory Near the Southern Tip of Taiwan. PhD diss., State University of New York at Binghamton. ——— 李光周. 1983. 墾丁發掘引起之問題 (Problems raised by the Kanding excavation of 1977). 考古人類學刊 (Journal of Archaeology and Anthropology) 43:86–116. Li, Kuang-ti. 2000. Change and Stability in the Dietary System of Prehistoric ­O-luan-pi Inhabitants in Southern Taiwan. Bulletin of the Indo Pacific Prehistory Association 20:19–163. ——— . 李匡悌. 2001. 論龜山遺址出土穿孔人齒的意義 (The significance of perforated human teeth unearthed from Kuei-shan Site, near the southern tip of Taiwan). 中央研究院歷史語言研究所集刊 (Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica) 72:699–722. ——— . 2002. Prehistoric Marine Fishing Adaptation in Southern Taiwan. Journal of East Asian Archaeology 3(1/2): 47–74. ——— . 2003. Ceramic Remains from Kueishan and Discussions Relating to the Relationship of Formosan Aborigines in Southern Taiwan. Taiwan National Museum of Natural Science Bulletin 16:79–90. ——— . 2013. First Farmers and Their Coastal Adaptations in Prehistoric Taiwan. In A Companion to Chinese Archaeology, edited by A. Underhill, pp. 612–633. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. ——— . 2016. Least Cost and Decision Making: Application of Economics to the Lifeways of Early Neolithic Settlers in Taiwan [in English]. In 考古、歷史與原住民: 臺灣族群關係研究新視野 (Archaeology, history and indigenous peoples: New perspectives on the ethnic relations of Taiwan), edited by 洪麗完 Hung Li-wan, pp. 136–163. Taipei; 順益博物館 (Shung Ye Museum). ——— 李匡悌. 2018. 島嶼群相: 臺灣考古 (Island mosaic: A glimpse of Taiwan archaeology). Nangang, Taipei: 中央研究院歷史語言研究所 (Academia Sinica, Institute of History and Philology). Li Kuang-ti, Li Kuan-yi, Ju Yu-ten, and Tsang Cheng-hwa 李匡悌、李冠逸、朱有田、 臧振華. 2015. 史前時代臺灣南部地區的野豬與家豬, 兼論家豬作為南島語族 遷徙和擴散的驗證標記 (Wild boars and domestic pigs in prehistoric southern Taiwan: Some point of views on domestic pigs as a verification mark to the migration and dispersal of Austronesian speaking people). 中央研究院歷史語言研究 所期刊 (Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica) 86:607–678. Li, Kuang-ti, Lu Tai-kang, Tsang Cheng-hwa, and Chu Cheng-yi. 李匡悌, 盧泰康, 臧 振華, 朱正宜. 2010. The Exotic Connection: Imported Porcelain in Sixteenth- and

246  References

Seventeenth-Century Taiwan 田野考古 (Journal of Field Archaeology) 13(1/2): 169–186. Li, Kuang-ti 李匡悌, and S. James. 2013. Changes Induced by Human Exploitation in Prehistoric Shellfish Populations [in English]. In 考古學與永續發展研究 (The study of archaeology and sustainability), edited by 邱斯嘉, 臧振華 Chiu Su-chia and Tsang Cheng-hwa, pp. 341–373. Nangang, Taipei: Academia Sinica, Research Center for Humanities and Social Sciences, Center for Archaeological Studies. Li, Yan. 2019. A Preliminary Analysis of the Development of Neolithic Culture in the Coastal Region of Guangdong. In Prehistoric Maritime Cultures and Seafaring in East Asia, edited by Chunming Wu and B. Rolett, pp. 103–126. Singapore: Springer Nature. Li, Yinghua, Side Hao, Wanbo Huang, Hubert Forrestier, Yudan Zhou, and Huan Li. 2019. Luobi Cave, South China: A Comparative Perspective on a Novel Cobble-Tool Industry Associated with Bone Tool Technology during the Pleistocene-Holocene Transition. Journal of World Prehistory 32:143–178. Lien Chao-mei 連照美. 1989. The Interrelationship of Taiwan’s Prehistoric Archaeology and Ethnology. In Anthropological Studies of the Taiwan Area, K. C. Li, K. C. Chang, A. P. Wolf, and C. C. Yin, pp. 173–192. Taipei: National Taiwan University. ——— . 1991. The Neolithic of Taiwan and the Beinan Excavations. Bulletin of the Indo Pacific Prehistory Association 11:339–352. ——— . 1998. 七世紀到十二世紀的台灣－台灣鐵器時代文化及相關問題 (Taiwan in the seventh to twelfth centuries: Major characteristics of the Iron Age of Taiwan). 考古人類學刊 (Journal of Archaeology and Anthropology) 53:1–11. ——— . 2003. 臺灣新石器時代卑南研究論文集 (Research papers on the Neolithic Beinan of Taiwan). Taipei: 國立歷史博物館 (National Museum of History). ——— . 2013. 再論有槽石棒 (Reconsideration of grooved baton). In 東亞考古學的 再思: 張光直先生逝世十周年紀念論文集 (Rethinking East Asian archaeology: memorial essay collection for the tenth anniversary of Kwang-chih Chang’s death), edited by 陳光組 Chen Kuang-tzuu, pp. 109–134. Nangang, Taipei: 中央研究院 歷史語言研究所 (Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica). ——— . 2015. Chang-Pin Culture of Taiwan and Characteristics of Its Lithic Industry. In Emergence and Diversity of Modern Human Behavior in Palaeolithic Asia, edited by Y. Kaifu T. Goebel, H. Sato, and A. Ono, pp. 239–249. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. Lien, Chao-mei, Sung Wen-hsun, and Li Ruizong 連照美, 宋文薰, 李瑞宗. 1996. 都 蘭遺址考古學研究報告 (Archaeological research report of the Dulan Site). T ­ aipei: 國立臺灣大學文學院人類系 (National Taiwan University). Liew Ping-mei, and Hsieh Meng-long. 2000. Late Holocene (2 ka) Sea Level, River Discharge and Climate Interrelationship in the Taiwan Region. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 18:499–505.

References  247

Lin, Chao-chi. 1964. An outline of Taiwan’s Quaternary Geohistory with Special Discussion on the Relation Between Natural History and Cultural History in Taiwan. Asian Perspectives 7(1/2): 203–213. Lin, Fu. 2019. A Study of Geometric Stamped Pattern Pottery and Early Maritime Cultural Interactions Between Mainland China and Taiwan. In Prehistoric Maritime Cultures and Seafaring in East Asia, edited by Chunming Wu and B. Rolett, pp. 235–250. Singapore: Springer Nature. Lin, Gongwu 林公务, and Fujian Museum 福建博物. 2003. 福建考古的回顾与思 考 (Review and consideration of Fujian archaeology). 考古 (Archaeology) 12:7–18. Lin Gongwu, Chen Zhaoshan, Chen Ziwen, Cheng Lu, Lin Fengying, and Lin Rui­ ming 林公务, 陈兆善, 陈子文, 程璐, 林凤英, 林瑞明. 2010. 闽侯昙石山遗址 2004年考古发掘简报 (Report on the excavation of the Tanshishan site in Minhou in 2004). 福建文博 (Fujian Culture and Museum) 1:1–12. Lin, Hsiu-man, Lee Kun-xiu, Yeh Mei-chen, Chen Chiang-cheng, Lai Hsiu-chen, Liao Mei-tsu, and Chen Shu-fang. 2014. The Pathology and Dental Morphology of Neolithic Burials from the Wu-Shan-Tou Site, Southwestern Taiwan [in English]. 考古 人類學刊 (Journal of Archaeology and Anthropology) 80:251–282. Lin, Huadong 林華東. 1996. 論良渚玉器的製作工 (Discussing Liangzhu jade working technology). In 東方文明之光—良渚文化發現60周年紀念文集 (The light of eastern civilization: Essays honoring the 60th anniversary of the finding of the Liangzhu Culture), edited by 徐湖平 Hsu Hu-ping, pp. 374–381. Hainan: 海南國 際新聞出版中心 (Hainan International Newspaper Publishing Center). Lin Shu-fen 林淑芬. 2015. 聚落發展興自然環境變遷-以宜蘭地區史前為例 (Village development and natural environmental change: An example from Ilan prehistory). In 臺灣史前史專論 (Papers devoted to Taiwan prehistory), edited by Liu Yi-chang 劉益昌, pp. 319–345. Nangang, Taipei: 中央院, 聯經出版社 (Academia Sinica, Lianjing Publishing). Lin Shu-fen, Huang Tseng-chieng, Liew Ping-mei, and Chen Su-hwa. 2007. A Palynological Study of Environmental Changes and Their Implication for Prehistoric Settlement in the Ilan Plain, Northeastern Taiwan. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 16:127–138. Lin, Shu-fen, Ping-mei Liew, and T. H. Lai. 2004. Late Holocene Pollen Sequence of the Ilan Plain, Northeastern Taiwan, and Its Environmental and Climatic Implications. TAO 15(2): 221–237. Liou, Ying-san. 2014. Multi-Technique Study of Archaeological Cord-Marked Wares Decorated with Red Coatings from Taiwan. Journal of Raman Spectroscopy 46:133–140. Liu Chin-hsin, J. Krigbaum, Tsang Cheng-hwa, and Liu Yi-chang. 2014. A Paleohealth Assessment of the Shisanhang Site from Iron Age Taiwan. In Bioarchaeology of East

248  References

Asia: Movement, Contact, Health, edited by K. Pechenkina and M. Oxenham, pp. 417–443. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Liu, Jiun-yu. 劉俊昱. 2018. A Craftspeople Settlement, a Trading Post, or Both? A Trade Diaspora Model for the Early Ancient Metallurgy in Taiwan-Case Study of the Blihun Hanben Remains. In Proceedings of the Conference on Maritime Exchange and Localization across the South China Sea 500 BC to 500 AD, edited by Yi-chang Liu and F. Muyard, pp. 130–158. Tainan: National Cheng-kung University, French School of Asian Studies (EFEO), Institute of Archaeology. ——— . 2019. A Preliminary Analysis on the Ferrous Pyrotechnological Remains of the Blihun Hanben Site and Its Comparison to the Shihsanhang Iron Technology in Metal Age Taiwan. 東南考古学 (Journal of Southeast Asian Archaeology) 39:33–47. Liu Ke-hung 劉克竑 2003. 古笨港遺址出土的古代銅錢. 館訊第 275 期 (Copper coins from the old port of Bengang). 國立臺灣自然科學博物館館訊 (National Taiwan Museum of Natural Science News) no. 275. Liu, Pin-hsiung. 1964. Excavations and Discoveries at Tap’engk’eng and Other Prehistoric Sites of the Pali District. Asian Perspectives 7(1/2): 214–223. Liu, Suoqiang 刘锁强. 2017. 广东郁南县磨刀山旧石器时代遗址发掘简报 (Excavation of the Modaoshan site of the Paleolithic age in Yunan County, Guangdong). 考古 (Archaeology) 5:3–13. Liu, Ting-yu 劉亭攸. 2013. 地理資訊系統在集域分析及地景空間的應用: 以鵝鑾 鼻第三／四文化相遺址為例 (Application of GIS to catchment analysis and landscape room: A case study of OLP II/IV cultural phase sites). 考古人類學刊 (Journal of Archaeology and Anthropology) 79:47–70. Liu, Wu, M. Martinon-Torres, Yan-jun Cai, Xing Song, Hao-wen Tong, Shu-wen Pei, M. Sier, Xiao-hong Wu, R. Edwards, Hai Cheng, Yi-yuan Li, Xiong-xin Yang, J. Bermudez de Castro, and Xu-jie Wu. 2015. The Earliest Unequivocally Modern Humans in Southern China. Nature 526:696–699. Liu, Yuliang. 2007. The Huangtulun Culture. In Lost Maritime Cultures: China and the Pacific, edited by Jiao Tianlong, pp. 198–206. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press Honolulu. Liu, Yi-chang 劉益昌. 2005. 從玉器到玻璃, 瑪瑙; 台灣史前裝飾器物的變遷 (From jade objects to glass and agate: Changes in Taiwan prehistoric ornaments). In 台灣 地區外來物質: 珠子與玻璃環玦形器研討會 (Conference: Materials from beyond the Taiwan area; beads and glass bracelets and earrings), edited by 中央研究 院歷史語言研究所 (Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica), pp. 211– 226. Nangang, Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica. ——— . 2011a. 住民志考古篇: 臺灣全志 卷三 (People and population: Archaeology, complete annals of Taiwan, vol. 3). Nantou Shi: 國史館臺灣文獻館 (National Taiwan Document Bureau).

References  249

——— . 2011b. 臺灣原住民族與考古遺址關係調查: 濁水沖積扇區域史前文化與 人群關係之研究 (Investigation of Taiwan ethnography and archaeology: Prehistoric cultures and ethnographic groups in the Zhuoshui region). Nantou Shi: 國史 館臺灣文獻館 (National Taiwan Document Bureau). ——— . 劉益昌, ed. 2011c. 塗紅陶瓷密碼: 訊塘浦文化 特展專輯 (Ciphers of red painted pottery and Suntangpu culture: A special exhibition of the Suntangpu culture). Xin Taipei:十三行博物館 (Shisanhang Museum of Archaeology). ——— . 2013. 日本学者の台湾考古学研究 (Study of Japanese scholars and Taiwan archaeology). 宮崎県立西都原考古博物館研究紀要 (Bulletin of the Miyazaki Prefectural Saitobaru Archaeological Museum) 9:1–20. ——— . 2015a. 台灣考古學近年研究及意義 (Recent studies of Taiwan archaeology and their significance). In 臺灣史前史專論 (Papers devoted to Taiwan prehistory), edited by Liu Yi-chang 劉益昌, pp. 1–58. Nangang: 聯經出版公司 Lianjing Publishing. ——— . 2015b. 玉器的交換體系研究 (Study of nephrite exchange system). In 臺灣史 前史專論. (Papers devoted to Taiwan prehistory), edited by 劉益昌 Liu Yi-chang, pp. 83–112. Nangang: 聯經出版公司 (Lianjing Publishing). ——— . 2016. 從史前文化發展過程談原住民分布與構成 (The cultural development and distribution and composition of the prehistoric indigenous peoples of Taiwan). In 考古、歷史與原住民: 臺灣族群關係研究新視野 (Archaeology, history and indigenous peoples: new perspectives on the ethnic relations of Taiwan), edited by Hung Li-wan 洪麗完, pp. 73–108. Taipei: 順益博物館 (Shung Ye Museum). ——— . 2018. The Localization of Foreign Material Culture: A Case Study of Taiwan Prehistoric Societies. In Proceedings of the Conference on Maritime Exchange and Localization across the South China Sea 500 BC to 500 AD, edited by Yi-chang Liu and F. Muyard, pp. 51–70. Tainan: National Cheng-kung University, French School of Asian Studies (EFEO), Institute of Archaeology. ——— . 2019a. 典藏台灣史 (一) 史前人群與文化 (Taiwan history collection, vol. 1: Human groups and cultures). Taipei: 玉山社 (Yushanshe). ——— . 2019b. 歷史的左營腳步; 左營舊城遺址考古 (The historical footsteps of Zuoying: archaeology of the Zuoying old fortification). Tainan: 高雄市政府文化 局, 晨星出版 (Gaoxiong City Bureau of Culture, Morning Star Publisher). ——— . 2022a. Taiwan Prehistoric Maritime Trade Networks and Their Impacts. In Taiwan Maritime Landscapes from Neolithic to Early Modern Times, edited by Yichang Liu, P. Calanca, and F. Muyard, pp. 65–86. Paris: École Francaise d’Extrême Orient. ——— . 2022b. Interactions and Migrations Between Taiwan and the Philippines from the Neolithic to the Early Metal Age. In Taiwan Maritime Landscapes from Neolithic to Early Modern Times, edited by Yi-chang Liu, P. Calanca, and F. Muyard, pp. 135–150. Paris: École Francaise d’Extrême Orient.

250  References

——— . n.d. 埔里地區的考古遺址與史前文化 (Archaeological sites and prehistoric culture of the Puli area). Unpublished manuscript. Liu Yi-chang, and Chao Chin-yung 劉益昌, 趙金勇. 2018. 花岡山考古遺址 (The Huagangshan site). In 臺灣考古發掘報告精選 (2006–2016) (Special collections of the archaeological reports of Taiwan [2006–2016]), edited by Chen Kuang-tzuu 陳光祖, pp. 55–176. Taipei: 文化部文化資產局 (Ministry of Culture, Bureau of Cultural Heritage). Liu Yi-chang 劉益昌, Chao Chin-yung 趙金勇, and Chung Kuo-feng 鍾國風. 2013. 花岡山遺址上層類型芻議 (Observations on the typology of the upper layer of the Huagangshan Site). 田野考古 (Field Archaeology of Taiwan) 16(2): 1–10. Liu Yi-chang, and Chung Kuo-feng 劉益昌, 鍾國風. 2014. 花蓮縣壽豐鄉重光遺址 調查試掘報告 (A report on the test excavation at Zhongguang, Shou-Feng Township, Hualien County). 田野考古 (Field Archaeology of Taiwan) 17(2): 137–168. Liu Yi-chang, Chung Kuo-feng, Wang Su-chin, and Yen Ting-yu 劉益昌 , 鍾國風 , 壬 淑津 , 顏廷伃. 2011. 熱蘭遮城遺址所見十七世紀地層遺構的時空關係 (An archaeological study of the seventeenth-century stratigraphy and structures of Fort Zeelandia). 田野考古 (Field Archaeology of Taiwan) 14(1/2): 565–586. Liu Yi-chang, and Wang Su-chin 劉益昌, 王淑津. 2017. Encountering the Wider World before the Transition to History: Chinese Ceramics in Proto-Historic Taiwan. In Historical Archaeology of Early Modern Colonialism in Asia-Pacific, edited by M. Berrocal and Tsang Cheng-hwa, pp. 270–312. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Liu Yi-chang, Yen Tingyu, Wang Shujin, and Lin Meizhi 劉益昌, 顏廷伃, 王淑津, 林 美晢. 2018. Zuoying 左營城考古遺址. In 台灣考古發掘報告精選 (2006–2016) (Special collections of the archaeological reports of Taiwan [2006–2016]), edited by 陳光祖 Chen Kuang-tzuu, pp. 245–325. Taipei: 文化部文化資產局 (Bureau of Cultural Heritage, Ministry of Culture). Liu, Yi-chang, P. Calanca, and F. Muyard, eds. 2022. Taiwan Maritime Landscapes from Neolithic to Early Modern Times. Paris: Ecole Francaise d’Extreme Orient. Loo Jun-hun, Jean A. Trejaut, Ju-Chen Yen, Zong-Sian Chen, Chien-Liang Lee, and Marie Lin. 2011. Genetic Affinities Between the Yami Tribe People of Orchid Island and the Philippine Islanders of the Batanes Archipelago. Biomed Central Genetics 12:21. DOI: 10.186/1471‑2156‑12‑21. Lu, Jo-chun 盧柔君. 2014. 琉球先島群島下田原期與台灣東海岸花蓮溪口新石器 時代遺址之文化內涵探討 (Investigation of cultural content of the Shimotabaru period of the Ryukyu Sakishima Islands and the Neolithic period sites of Xikou Hualien, East coast of Taiwan). 考古人類學刊 (Journal of Archaeology and Anthropology) 81:29–82. Lu, Liedan 吕烈丹. 2007a. 香港史前的自然资源和经济形态 (Prehistoric natural resources and economic patterns in Hong Kong). 考古 (Archaeology) 6:36–44.

References  251

——— . 2007b. The Origin and Development of Neolithic Cultures in Hong Kong. Paper presented at the International Conference on Heritage Conservation and Prehistoric Archaeology of South China, Hong Kong, December 14, 2007. ——— . 2011. Coexistence in Prehistoric Guangdong, South China. In Coexistence and Cultural Transformation in East Asia, edited by N. Matsumoto, H. Bessho, and M. Tomii, pp. 89–103. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Lu, Tai-kang 盧泰康. 2013. 世紀台灣的外來陶瓷 (Research on foreign porcelains in seventeenth-century Taiwan). Xinbei, PRC: 花木蘭文化出版社 (Huamulan C ­ ulture Publishers). ——— . 2019. The Kraak Porcelains Discovered from Taiwan and Macao and Their Relationship with the Manila Galleon Trade. In Archaeology of Manila Galleon Seaports and Early Maritime Globalization, edited by Chun-ming Wu, Roberto Junco Sanchez, and Miao Lu, pp. 147–160. Singapore: Springer Nature. Lu Tai-kang, and Li Kuang-ti 盧泰康, 李匡涕. 2009. 發現台南水交社前清墓葬群 (Discovery of Early Qing tomb groups from Shuijiaoshe Tainan). Tainan: 國立臺 南藝術大学文博学院藝術史学系 (National Tainan College of Art, Department of Art History). Lu, Tai-kang, Li Kuang-ti, and Wang Zhuping 盧泰廣, 李匡悌, 王竹平. 2015. 台南社 內遺址出土金屬器研究 (Study of metal objects from the Shenei site, Tainan). Taitung: 台灣史前博物館 (Taiwan National Museum of Prehistory). Lu, Wan-Chung, Tzu-Hua Lai, Jui-Er Chen, Chih-Chao Huang, and Li-Yuan Fei. 2007. 臺灣地區水文地質分區特性: 嘉南平原水文地質調查研究 地質環境與 資源研討會論文集 (Hydrogeological survey of groundwater areas in Taiwan), pp. 125–132. Taiwan: Ministry of Economic Affairs, Central Geological Survey. Lucas, J. 1984. Exploring the Geometric Horizon: Interregional Interaction and Local Evolution. Master’s thesis, University of British Columbia Vancouver. Luo, Lei, Xinyuan Wang, Junye Liu, and Huan Guan. 2015. Ancient Stone Tidal Weirs in Penghu Archipelago Distribution, Category, Structure and Function: A Google Earth and GIS Approach. International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing, and Spatial Information Sciences XL-5/W7:311–314. Ma, Ting, and Zhuo Zheng. 2019. Pollen Evidence for Human-Induced Landscape Change Reveals the History of Agricultural Development in Southeastern China. In Prehistoric Maritime Cultures and Seafaring in East Asia, edited by W. U. Chunming and B. Rolett, pp. 81–88. Singapore: Springer Nature. Ma, Ting, Zhuo Zheng, B. V. Rolett, Gongwu Lin, Guifang Zhang, and Yuanfu Yue. 2016. New Evidence for Neolithic Rice Cultivation and Holocene Environmental Change in the Fuzhou Basin, Southeast China. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 25(4): 375–386. Mai Yinghao 麥英豪. 1993. 西漢南越王墓隨葬遺物的諸文化因素 (On the various cultural factors of burial articles unearthed from the tomb of the King of Southern

252  References

Yue). 嶺南古越族文化論文集 (Collected essays on the culture of the ancient Yue people in South China), edited by 鄒興華Chau Hing-wah, pp. 124–145. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Urban Council. Matsukusa Hirotaka, Hiroki Ota, Kuniaki Haneji, Takashi Toma, Shoji Kawamura, and Hajime Ishida. 2010. A Genetic Analysis of the Sakishima Islanders Reveals No Relationship with Taiwan Aborigines but Shared Ancestry with Ainu and MainIsland Japanese. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 142:211–223. Matsumura, Hirofumi, Hsiao-chun Hung, Lan Cuong Nguyen, Ya‑feng Zhao, Gang He, and Chi Zhang. 2017. Mid-Holocene Hunter-Gatherers ‘Gaomiao’ in Hunan, China: The First of the Two-Layer Model in the Population History of East/Southeast Asia. In New Perspectives in Southeast Asian and Pacific Prehistory Terra Australis 45, edited by P. Piper, H. Matsumura, and D. Bulbeck, pp. 61–78. Canberra: Australian National University Press. Matsumura Hirofumi, Hsiao-chun Hung, C. Higham, Chi Zhang, M. Yamagata, Lan Cuong Nguyen, Zhen Li, Xue-chun Fan, T. Simanjuntak, A. Oktaviana, Jia-ning He, Chung-yu Chen, Chien-kuo Pan, Gang He, Guo-ping Sun, Wei-jin Huang, Xin-wei Li, Xing-tao Wei, K. Domett, S. Halcrow, Kim Dung Nguyen, Hoang Hiep Trinh, Chi Hoang Bui, Khanh Trung Kien Nguyen, and A. Reinecke. 2019. Craniometrics Reveal “Two Layers” of Prehistoric Human Dispersal in Eastern Eurasia. Scientific Reports Nature Research 9:1451. Meacham, W. 1978. Sham Wan, Lamma Island: An Archaeological Study. Monograph no. 3. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Archaeological Society. ——— . 1999. Neolithic to Historic in Hong Kong. Bulletin of the Indo Pacific Prehistory Association 18:121–127. ——— . 2009. The Archaeology of Hong Kong. Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong Press. Mijares, A. 2017. Understanding the Callao Cave Depositional History. In New Perspectives in Southeast Asian and Pacific Prehistory Terra Australis 45, edited by P. Piper, H. Matsumura, and D. Bulbeck, pp. 125–140. Canberra: Australian National University Press. Miyama, E. 2018. Maritime Network of Earring Craftsmen around the South China Sea Region from 500 BC to AD 200. In. Proceedings of the Conference on Maritime Exchange and Localization across the South China Sea 500 BC to 500 AD edited by Yi-chang Liu and F. Muyard, pp. 103–116. Tainan: National Cheng-kung University, French School of Asian Studies (EFEO), Instititute of Archaeology. Ministry of Commerce. 2013. “Doing Business in China, Survey.” Beijing: People’s Republic of China. Murillo Basso, M. Pryce, B. Bellina, and M. Martinon-Torres. 2010. Khao Sam Kaeo— An Archeometallurgical Crossroads for Trans-Asiatic Technological Traditions. Journal of Archaeological Science 37:1761–1772.

References  253

Muyard, F. 2012. The Formation of Taiwan’s New National Identity since the End of the 1980s. In Taiwan Since Martial Law: Society, Politics, Economy. edited by D. Blundell, pp. 297–366. Taipei: 順益博物館 (Shung Ye Museum). ——— . 2016. Taiwan Archaeology and Indigenous Peoples: Cross Perspectives on Indigenous Archaeology and Interactions Between Archaeologists and Indigenous Communities in Taiwan. In 考古, 歷史與原住民: 臺灣族群關係研究新視野 (Archaeology, history and indigenous peoples: New perspectives on the ethnic relations of Taiwan), edited by 洪麗完 Hung Li-wan, pp. 195–264. Taipei: 順益博物 館 (Shung Ye Museum). ——— . 2018. The Integration of Southern China and Northern Vietnam in the Metal Period South China Sea Trade Network. In Proceedings of the Conference on Maritime Exchange and Localization across the South China Sea 500 BC to 500 AD. edited by Yi-chang Liu and F. Muyard, pp. 71–90. Tainan: National Cheng-kung University, French School of Asian Studies (EFEO), Institute of Archaeology. ——— . 2022. Taiwan’s Place in East Asian Archaeological Studies. In Taiwan Maritime Landscapes from Neolithic to Early Modern Times, edited by Yi-Chang Liu, P. Calanca, and F. Muyard, pp. 21–46. Paris: École Francaise d’Extrême Orient. Muyard, F., Liang-kai Chou, and Serge Dreyer. 2010. Objects, Heritage, and Cultural Identity. Nantou: 國史館臺灣文獻館 編印 (National History Document Bureau). National History Museum Editorial Committee 國立歷史博物館編輯委員會. 2006. 臺灣史十一講 (Eleven lectures on Taiwan history ebook). Taipei: 國立歷史博物 館 (National Museum of History). Nguyen, Kim Dung. 2017. The Sa Huynh Culture in Ancient Regional Trade Networks: A Comparative Study of Ornaments. In New Perspectives in Southeast Asian and Pacific Prehistory. Terra Australis 45, edited by P. Piper, H. Matsumura, and D. Bulbeck, pp. 311–332. Canberra: Australian National University Press. Ohama, Eisen 大浜永亘. 2008. 八重山諸島の交易, スク文化の中心に (Trade in the Yaeyama Islands, particularly in the Suku period). In 日流交易の黎明ーヤマ トからの衝撃 (The dawn of exchange between Japan and Ryukyu: The impact of Yamato), edited by 健一, 谷川 Tanigawa Ken’ichi, pp. 347–382. Tokyo. 森話社 (Shinwasha). Olle, M. 2022. A Century of Contacts between Manila and Taiwan in Spanish Sources. In Taiwan Maritime Landscapes from Neolithic to Early Modern Times, edited by Yi-chang Liu, P. Calanca, and F. Muyard, pp. 197–212. Paris: École Francaise d’Extrême Orient. Olsen, J., and Sari Miller-Antonio. 1992. The Palaeolithic in Southern China. Asian Perspectives 31(2): 129–160. Pan, Y., Y. Zheng, and C. Chen 2017. Human Ecology of the Early Neolithic Kuahuqiao Culture in East Asia. In Handbook of East and Southeast Asian Archaeology, edited by J. Habu, P. Lape, and J. Olsen, pp. 347–377. New York: Springer.

254  References

Parkinson, W. A. 2002. The Archaeology of Tribal Societies. International Monographs in Prehistory. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. ——— . 2006. Tribal Boundaries: Stylistic Variability and Social Boundary Maintenance during the Transition to the Copper Age on the Great Hungarian Plain. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006): 33–58. Pearson, R. 1968. Archaeological Investigations in Eastern Taiwan. Asian Perspectives 11:137–156. ——— . 1972. Archaeological Survey in Southeastern Taiwan. 中央研究院民族學刊 (Bulletin of the Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica) 30:317–330. ——— . 1989. Taiwan and Its Place in East Asian Prehistory. In Anthropological Studies of the Taiwan Area, edited by Li Kuang-chou, K. C. Chang, A. Wolf, and C. C. Yin, pp. 111–142. Taipei: National Taiwan University, Department of Anthropology. ——— . 2003. Excavations at Sumiya and Other Sakishima Sites: Variations in Okinawan Leadership around 1500 AD. Bulletin of the Indo Pacific Prehistory Association 23:95–112. ——— . 2007. Early Mediaeval Trade on Japan’s Southern Frontier: Grey Stoneware of the East China Sea. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 11(2): 122–151. ——— . 2013. Ancient Ryukyu. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press. Pearson, R., S. Asato, G. Monks, and D. Pokotylo. 1978. Excavations on Kume and Iriomote, Ryukyu Islands. Asian Perspectives 21(1):7–26. Pearson, R., Min Li, and Guo Li. 2001. Port, City, and Hinterlands: Archaeological Perspectives on Quanzhou and Its Overseas Trade. In The Emporium of the World: Maritime Quanzhou and its Overseas Trade, edited by A. Schottenhammer, pp. 177– 236. Leiden: Brill. ——— . 2002. Quanzhou Archaeology: A Brief Review. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 6(1): 23–59. Peng Fei, Fan Xuechun, and Xia Zhengkai 彭菲, 范雪春, 夏正楷. 2011. 福建莲花池 山旧石器遗址孢粉记录的古环境初步分析 (Preliminary study on the palaeoenvironment of the Lianhuachishan Palaeolithic site, Fujian Province, China). 第四 纪研究 (Quaternary Sciences) 31(4): 705–714. Peng Tsung-hung, Li Yuan-hui, and Francis T. Wu. 1977. Tectonic Uplift Rates of the Taiwan Island since the Early Holocene. Memoir of the Geological Society of China 2:57–69. Pietrusewsky, M., A. Lauer, Tsang Cheng-hwa, Li Kuang-ti, and M. Douglas. 2014a. Dental Indicators of Health in Early Neolithic Taiwan and Iron Age Skeletons from Taiwan. 南島研究學報 (Journal of Austronesian Studies) 4(2): 1–33. ——— . 2014b. A Biodistance Analysis of Mandibles from Taiwan, Asia and the Pacific: A Search for Polynesian Origins. In Biological Distance Analysis: Forensic and Bioarchaeological Perspectives, edited by M. Pilloud and J. M. Hefner, pp. 447–461. New York: Elsevier.

References  255

——— . 2017. Tooth ablation in early Neolithic skeletons from Taiwan. In World View of (Bio)Culturally Modified Teeth: Past and Present, edited by I. J. Burnett, pp. 102– 124. Gainesville: University Press Florida. Piper, P., Hsiao-chun Hung, F. Campos, P. Bellwood, and R. Santiago. 2009. A 4000  Year-Old Introduction of Domestic Pigs into the Philippine Archipelago: Implications for Understanding Routes of Human Migration Through Island Southeast Asia and Wallacea. Antiquity 83(321): 687–695. Pirazzoli, P. A., M. Arnold, P. Giresse, Meng-long Hsieh, and Ping-mei Liew. 1993. Marine Deposits of Late Glacial Times Exposed by Tectonic Uplift on the East Coast of Taiwan. Marine Geology 110:1–6. Qin, Ling, and D. Fuller. 2019. Why Rice Farmers Don’t Sail: Coastal Subsistence Traditions and Maritime Trends in Early China. In Prehistoric Maritime Cultures and Seafaring in East Asia, edited by Chun-ming Wu and B. Rolett, pp. 159–194. Singapore: Springer Nature. Renfrew, C. 1983. The Social Archaeology of Megalithic Monuments. Scientific American 249(5): 152–163. Republic of China. 2014. The Republic of China Yearbook 2014. Taipei: Executive Yuan, R.O.C. Accessed January 9, 2022. http://www.ey.gov.tw/Upload/UserFiles/YB%20 2014%20all%20100dpi.pdf. Rogers, P., N. Lenninger, S. Mirchandani, J. Van den Berg, and E. Widdowson. 1995. Tung Wan Tsai: A Bronze Age and Han Period Coastal Site. Occasional paper no. 3. Hong Kong: Antiquities and Monuments Office. Rolett, B. 2007. Southeast China and the Emergence of Austronesian Seafaring. In Lost Maritime Cultures: China and the Pacific, edited by Tianlong Jiao, pp. 54–61. ­Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press. ——— . 2012. Late Holocene Evolution of the Fuzhou Basin (Fujian, China) and the Spread of Rice Farming. In Climates, Landscapes, and Civilizations, American Geophysical Union, Geophysical Monograph Series vol. 198, edited by L. Giosan, D. Fuller, K. Nicoll, R. Flad, and P. Clift, pp. 147–143. Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union. ——— . 2019. Social Reciprocity Facilitated Overseas Exchange in Early Austronesian Cultures. In Prehistoric Maritime Cultures and Seafaring in East Asia, edited by Chunming Wu and B. Rolett. pp. 195–206. Singapore: Springer Nature. Rolett, B., Wei-chen Chen, and J. Sinton. 2000. Taiwan, Neolithic Seafaring and Austronesian Origins. Antiquity 74(283): 54–61. Rolett, B., Tianlong Jiao, and Gongwu Lin. 2002. Early Seafaring in the Taiwan Strait and the Search for Austronesian Origins. Journal of East Asian Archaeology 4:307–319. Rolett, B., Zhuo Zheng, and Yuanfu Yue. 2011. Holocene Sea-Level Change and the Emergence of Neolithic Seafaring in the Fuzhou Basin (Fujian, China). Quaternary Science Reviews 30:788–797. Sahlins, M. 1968. Tribesmen. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

256  References

Santiago, R. 2003. Techniques in Classifying Beads Recovered from Archaeological Sites. Hukay 5:1–30. Schafer, E. 1970. Shore of Pearls. Berkeley: University of California Press. Schottenhammer, A. 2019. China’s Increasing Integration into the Indian Ocean World Until Song Times: Sea Routes, Connections, Trade. In Early Global Interconnectivity across the Indian Ocean World Volume 1 Commercial Structures and E ­ xchanges, edited by A. Schottenhammer, pp. 21–52. Cham: Springer Nature. Service, E. 1971. Primitive Social Organization: An Evolutionary Perspective. New York: Random House. Shenzhen Museum. 2008. The Xiantouling Neolithic Site at Shenzhen, Guangdong. Chinese Archaeology 8:69–73. Shepherd, J. 1993. Statecraft and Political Economy on the Taiwan Frontier, 1600–1800. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. ——— . 1995. Marriage and Mandatory Abortion among the Seventeenth-Century S­ iraya. American Ethnological Society Monograph Series, no. 6. Arlington Virginia: American Ethnological Society. Shiba, Yoshinobu 斯波義信. 2002. 中国都市史 (History of Chinese cities). Tokyo: 東 京大学出版会 (Tokyo University Press). Shikama, Tokio, C. C. Ling, and Nobuo Shimoda. 1976. Discovery of fossil Homo sapiens from Chochen in Taiwan. Journal of the Anthropological Society of Nippon 84(2):131–138. Shinoda, Ken’ichi, and Noboru Adachi. 2016. Ancient DNA Analysis of Paleolithic Ryukyu Islanders. In New Perspectives in Southeast Asian and Pacific Prehistory, edited by P. Piper and D. Bulbeck, pp. 51–60. Canberra: Australian National University Press. Shu Tian-fu, Liu Yichang, Lee Kun-hsiu, and Yeh Mei-chen 施添福, 劉益昌, 李坤修, 葉美珍. 2001. 臺東縣史. 史前篇 (Taitung county history, prehistory volume). Taitung: 臺東縣政府. Siame, L., and G. Leduc. 2022. Climate Changes and Neolithic Human Migration Out-of-Taiwan. In Taiwan Maritime Landscapes from Neolithic to Early Modern Times, edited by Yi-chang Liu, P. Calanca, and F. Muyard, pp. 47–64. Paris: École Francaise d’Extrême Orient. Sina.com. 2020. 閩人之源: 两大发现的至尊高位 (The source of the Fujian people: the supreme and high position of the two discovieries). Sanming Daily, February 19, 2020. Accessed February 21, 2021. https://www.appsanming.com/jeecmsv9f/html /smdb/20200219/11861.html. Sina Fujian. 2013. 闽人之源万寿岩发现洞穴型旧石器时代遗址 (The origin of Min people: The palaeolithic cave site discovered at Wanshouyan). Sanming Daily, ­August 16, 2013. http://fj.sina.com.cn/news/city/sanming/picture/2013‑08‑16 /17363712.html. Smits, G. 2019. Maritime Ryukyu. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.

References  257

Soares, P. J. Trejaut, T. Rito, B. Cavadas, C. Hill, K. Eng, M. Mormina, A. Brandao, R. ­Fraser, T. Wang, J. Loo, C. Snell, T. Ko, A. Amorim, M. Pala, V Macaulay, D. Bulbeck, J. Wilson, L. Gusmao, L. Pereira, S. Oppenheimer, M. Lin, and M. Richards. 2016. Resolving the Ancestry of Austronesian-Speaking Populations. Human Genetics 1345:309–326. Stainton, M. 2007. The Politics of Taiwan Aboriginal Origins. In Taiwan: A New History, edited by M. Rubenstein, pp. 27–44. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. Su Hung-en, and Hu Chia-ying 蘇弘恩, 胡家瑜, ed. 2018a. Muakai 的跨世紀婚禮 (Muakai’s Wedding). Film. Taipei: 文化部 (Bureau of Cultural Heritage). ——— , ed. 2018b. 祖霊召喚 (Ancestral spirits call). Film. Taipei: 文化部 (Bureau of Cultural Heritage). Summerhayes, G. R. 2018. An Austronesian Presence in the Sakishima Islands: An Archaeological Update. Japan Review 25:27–37. Sung, Wen-hsun 宋文薰. 1969. 長濱文化: 台灣首次發現的先陶文化(簡報) (Changpin culture: The first preceramic culture in Taiwan). 中國民族學通訊 (Newsletter of the Chinese Ethnological Society) 9:1–45. ——— . 1976. 台湾東海岸の巨石文化 (The megalithic culture of the east coast of Taiwan). エトノス (Ethnos) 6:145–156. ——— . 1991. 臺灣舊石器文化探索的回顧與展望 (Studies of the Paleolithic culture of Taiwan: Retrospects and prospects). 田野考古 (Field Archaeology of Taiwan) 2(2): 17–28. Sung Wen-hsun, and Lien Chao-mei 宋文薰, 連照美. 1975. 台灣西海岸中部地區的 史前文化層序 (Cultural sequence of the middle west coast of Taiwan). 考古人類 學刊 (Journal of Archaeology and Anthropology) 37/38:85–100. Takamiya H., M. Hudson, H. Yonenobu, T. Kurozumi, and T. Toizumi. 2015. An Extraordinary Case in Human History: Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherer Adaptation to the Islands of the Central Ryukyus (Amami and Okinawa Archipelagoes), Japan. The Holocene 26(3): 408–422. Takamiya H., C. Katagiri, S. Yamasaki, and M. Fujita. 2019. Human Colonization of the Central Ryukyus (Amami and Okinawa Archipelagos), Japan. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 14(3): 375–393. Tang, Chung 邓聪. 1999. 台湾地区树皮布石拍初探 (Preliminary study of bark cloth beaters in Taiwan). 東南文化 (Southeast Culture) 5:6–13. ——— . 2002. 臺灣出土馮原式石拍的探討 (Study of Phung Nguyen type bark beaters in Taiwan) 研討會, 人類學的比較與詮釋 (Conference Proceedings, Comparison and Interpretation in Anthropology) 1–27. Taiwan National University, Taipei, April 26–27, 2002. Tang Chung, Mana Hayashi Tang, Guoxiang Lum, and Yadi Wen. 2020. The Neolithic Jade Revolution in Northeast China. In The Oxford Handbook of Early China, ­edited by E. Childs-Johnson, pp. 73–100. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

258  References

Tang, M. Hayashi, Kim Dung Nguyen, and Chung Tang. 2019. Double-Shouldered Barkcloth Beaters and Prehistoric Seafaring in South China and Southeast Asia. In Prehistoric Maritime Cultures and Seafaring in East Asia, edited by C. Wu and B. Rolett, pp. 269–292. Singapore: Springer Nature. Teng, L. S, C. T. Lee, C. H. Peng, W. F. Chen, C. J. Chu. 2001. Origin and Geological Evolution of the Taipei Basin, Northern Taiwan. Western Pacific Earth Sciences 1(2):115–142. Theunissen, R., P. Grave, and G. Bailey. 2000. Doubts on Diffusion: Challenging the Assumed Indian Origin of Iron Age Agate and Carnelian Beads in Southeast Asia. World Archaeology 32(1): 84–105. Thompson, L. 1964. The Earliest Eye Witness Accounts of Formosan Aborigines. Monumenta Serica 23:163–204. ——— . 1968. The Junk Passage Across the Taiwan Strait: Two Early Chinese Accounts. Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 28:170–194. Tong, Lun-tao, Kun-hsiu Lee, Chang-keng Yeh, Yen-tsung Huang, and Chih-yu Lu. 2013a. Ground-penetrating Radar Prospecting in the Beinan Archaeological Site, Taiwan. Terrestrial, Atmospheric, and Ocean Science 24(3): 311–321. Tong, Lun-tao, Kun-Hsiu Lee, Chang-Keng Yeh, Yan-tsong Hwang, and Jeng-ming Chien. 2013b. Geophysical Study of the Beinan Archaeological Site, Taiwan. Journal of Applied Geophysics 89:1–10. Triestman, J. M. 1972. Prehistory of the Formosan Uplands. Science 175(4017): 74–76. Tsai Heng, Hseu Zeng-yei, Kuo Hong-yu, and Chen Zeung-sang. 2010. Soilscape of the West-Central Taiwan: The Footprints on Soil Pedogenesis and Geographic Environment. Paper presented at the 19th World Congress of Soil Science, Soil Solutions for a Changing World, Brisbane, August 1–6, 2010. Tsang, Cheng-hwa 臧振華. 1989. New Perspectives on the Historical Archaeology of Taiwan. In Anthropological Studies of the Taiwan Area: Accomplishments and Prospects, edited by K. C. Li, K. C. Chang, A. Wolf, and C. C. Yin, pp. 159–171. Taipei: National Taiwan University, Department of Anthropology. ——— . 1990. The Archaeology of Taiwan. Anonim ebook, released January 24, 2022. https://www.susinpom.com/file/the-archaeology-of-taiwan. ——— . 1992. Archaeology of the P’eng hu Islands. Special Publications, Institute of History and Philology Academia Sinica no. 96. Nangang: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica. ——— . 1995. New Archaeological Data from Both Sides of the Taiwan Strait and Their Implications for the Controversy About Austronesian Origins and Expansion. In Austronesian Studies Relating to Taiwan, edited by Paul Jen-kuei Li, Cheng-hwa Tsang, Ying-kuei Huang, Dah-an Ho, and Chiu-yu Tseng, pp. 185–225. Nangang: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica. ——— . 2000. Recent Advances in the Iron Age Archaeology of Taiwan. Bulletin of the Indo Pacific Prehistory Association 20:153–158.

References  259

——— . 2001. 十三行的史前居民 (Prehistoric inhabitants of Shisanhang). Taipei: 十 三行博物館 (Shisanhang Museum). ——— . 2002. Maritime Adaptation in Prehistoric Southeast China: Implications for the Problem of Austronesian Expansion. Journal of East Asian Archaeology 3(1–2): 15–45. ——— . 2005. The Tapengkeng Culture sites in Taiwan. In The Peopling of East Asia: Putting Together Archaeology,Linguistics, and Genetics. edited by L. Sagart, R. Blench, and A. Sanchez-Mazas, pp. 63–73. London: Routledge Curzon. ——— . 2012. Once Again on the Austronesian Origin and Dispersal [in English]. 南 島研究學報 (Journal of Austronesian Studies) 3(1): 87–119. ——— . 2013. Environmental perception and resources utilization of the first arrivals in Neolithic Taiwan [in English]. In Kaoguxue yu yongxufazhan yanjiu (Study of archaeology and sustainability) 考古學與永續發展研究, edited by Si-chia Chiu and Cheng-hwa Tsang 邱斯嘉 藏振華, pp. 245–260. Nangang: 中央研究院人文社會 科學研究中心, 考古學研究博題中心 (Center for Archaeological Studies, Research Center for Humanities and Social Sciences, Academia Sinica). ——— . 2015a. Five Thousand Years of Taiwan’s Past Brought to Light by Rescue ­A rchaeology. Chinese Archaeology. Accessed January 5, 2022. http://www.kaogu .cn/en/Special_Events/dierjieshanghailuntan/2015/1222/52517.html. ——— . 2015b. 澎湖七美島史前玄武岩石器工業與其貿易體系 (The Qimei Island stone tool workshop, Penghu, and its trade system). In 臺灣史前史專論 (Papers devoted to Taiwan prehistory), edited by 劉益昌Yi-chang, pp. 59–82. Nangang: 中 央院, 聯經出版公司 (Academia Sinica, Lianjing Publishing). ——— . 2016. 台灣原住民的源流; 考古學的證據與觀點 (Archaeological perspectives on the origins of indigenous peoples of Taiwan). In 考古, 歷史與原住民: 臺 灣族群關係研究新視野 (Archaeology, history and indigenous peoples: New perspectives on the ethnic relations of Taiwan), edited by 洪麗完 Hung Li-wan, pp. 33– 71. Taipei: 順益博物館 (Shung Ye Museum). ——— . 2022. Cross-Strait Migration during the Early Neolithic Period of Taiwan. In Taiwan Maritime Landscapes from Neolithic to Early Modern Times, edited by Yi-chang Liu, P. Calanca, and F. Muyard, pp. 87–102. Paris: École Francaise d’Extrême Orient. Tsang Cheng-hwa, and Hung Hsiao-chun 臧振華, 洪曉純. 2001. 澎湖七美島史前 石器製造場的發現和初步研究 (Discovery and preliminary study of prehistoric lithic workshops on Qimei Island, Penghu). 中央研究院歷史語言研究所集 (Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica) 72(4): 889–940. Tsang Cheng-hwa, and Liu Yi-chang 臧振華, 劉益昌. 2001. 十三行遺址: 搶救與初 步硏究 (Salvage excavations and preliminary research on the Shisanhang Site). Taipei: 十三行博物館 (Shisanhang Museum). Tsang, Cheng-hwa, Helen Zhenji Lin, and Meg Zhuping Wang. 2000. The Archaeology of Taiwan. Taipei: Council for Cultural Affairs.

260  References

Tsang Cheng-hwa, and Yeh Mei-chen 臧振華, 葉美珍. 2005. 館蔵卑南遺址玉器圖 錄 (Beinan jade artifacts in the collection of the National Museum of Prehistory). Taitung: National Museum of Prehistory. Tsang Cheng-hwa, Li Kuang-ti, and Chu Cheng-i 臧振華, 李匡悌, 朱正宜. 2006. 先 民履跡 (Footprints of our ancestors). Tainan: 台南縣政府 (Tainan County Government). Tsang Cheng-hwa, Li Kuang-ti, and D. Cohen. 2015. Archaeological Heritage in the Tainan Science Park of Taiwan. Taitung: National Museum of Prehistory. ——— . 2017. 南科出土文物選 粹 (Quintessential relics unearthed at the Tainan Science Park). Taitung: Taiwan National Museum of Prehistory. Tsang, Cheng-hwa, Kuang-ti Li, Wen-shan Chen, Yu-xuan Zeng, and Wen-lian Chen 臧振華、李匡悌、陳文山、曾于宣、陳文連. 2018. 八仙洞考古遺址。 第一篇 (Baxiandong archaeological site, chapter 1). In 台灣考古發掘報告精選 (Special collections of the archaeological reports of Taiwan [2006–2016]), edited by 陳光祖 Chen Kuang-tzuu, pp. 3–52. Taipei: 文化部文化資產局 (Ministry of Culture, Bureau of Cultural Heritage). Tsang, Cheng-hwa, Kuang-ti Li, Tze-fu Hsu, Yuan-ding Tsai, Po-hsuan Fang, and Caroline Yue-de Hsing. 2017. Broomcorn and Foxtail Millet Were Cultivated in Taiwan About 5000 Years Ago. Botanical Studies 3:1–10. Tung, Ying-ying. 2015. Taiwan’s Underwater Cultural Heritage Documentation Management. ISPRS—International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences XL-5/W7: 533–537. Varutti, M. 2011. Toward Social Inclusion in Taiwan: Museums, Equality, and Indigenous Groups. In Museums, Equality, and Social Justice, edited by R. Sandell and E. Nightingale. London: Routledge. Wade, G. 2008. Engaging the South: Ming China and Southeast Asia in the Fifteenth Century. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 51:578–638. ——— . 2019. Islam across the Indian Ocean to 1500 CE. In Early Global Interconnectivity across the Indian Ocean World, vol. 2: Exchange of Ideas, Religions, and Technologies, edited by A. Schottenhammer, pp. 85–140. Cham: Macmillan Palgrave Springer. Wang, Chung-ho, and Pei-shan Tsai. 1993. The Stable Isotopic Records of Corbicula subsulcata from the Yuanshan Shellmound: Paleo-Environmental and Paleo-­ Ecological Implications. Journal of the Geological Society of China 36(1): 25–34. Wang, Kuan-wen. 2016. Cultural and Socio-Economic Interaction Reflected by Glass Beads in Early Iron Age Taiwan. PhD diss., University of Sheffield. ——— . 2018a. Glass Beads in Iron-Age and Early-Modern Taiwan: An Introduction. BEADS: Journal of the Society of Bead Researchers 30:16–30. ——— . 2018b. Regional interaction reflected by glass beads in early Iron Age Taiwan. In Maritime exchange and localization across the South China Sea 500 BC to 500 AD.

References  261

Conference Proceedings, edited by Yi-chang Liu and F. Muyard, pp. 119–127. Tainan: National Cheng-kung University, French School of Asian Studies (EFEO), Institute of Archaeology. Wang, Kuan-wen, and C. Jackson. 2014. A Review of Glass Compositions Around the South China Sea Region (the Late First Millennium BC to the First Millennium AD): Placing Glass Beads from Taiwan in Context. Journal of Indo Pacific Archaeology 34:51–60. Wang, Kuan-wen, Kun-hsiu Lee, Kwang-tzu Chen, and Yoshiyuki Iizuka 王冠文, 李 坤修, 陳光祖, 飯塚義之. 2018. 由舊香蘭遺址玻璃質遺留的原料及工藝談玻 璃珠的交換 (The exchange of glass beads reflected by the raw materials and craft of glass remains at Jiuxianglan). 考古人類學刊 (Journal of Archaeology and Anthropology) 89:57–92. Wang, Kuan-wen, Yoshiyuki Iizuka, Yi-Kong Hsieh, Kun-hsiu Lee, Kwang-Tzuu Chen, Chu-Fang Wang, and Caroline Jackson. 2019. The Anomaly of Glass Beads and Glass Beadmaking Waste at Jiuxianglan, Taiwan. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 11:1391–1405. Wang, Gungwu. 1998. The Nanhai Trade: The Early History of Chinese Trade in the South China Sea. Singapore: Times Academic Press. Wang Shu-jin, and Liu Yi-chang 王淑津, 劉益昌. 2005. 十七世紀前後臺灣玻璃珠 飾與煙草, 煙斗的輸入網路: 一個新的交換階段 (The import networks of tobacco, tobacco pipes and glass bead ornaments into Taiwan circa the seventeenth century: A new phase of exchange). In 台灣地區外來物質: 珠子與玻璃環玦形 器研討會 (Conference: materials from beyond the Taiwan area: Beads and glass bracelets and earrings), edited by 中央研究院歷史語言研究所 (Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology Academia Sinica), pp. 135–162. Nangang: 中央 研究院歷史語言研究所 (Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica). Wang Yi-ling, and B. Marwick. 2020. Trade Ornaments as Indicators of Social Changes Resulting from Indirect Effects of Colonialism in Northeastern Taiwan. Archaeological Research in Asia 24: Article 100226. Wills, J. 1980. Seventeenth-Century Transformations: Taiwan under the Dutch and Cheng Regimes. In China’s Island Frontier. Studies in the Historical Geography of Taiwan, edited by R. Knapp, pp. 84–106. Honolulu. University of Hawai‘i Press. ——— . 1993. Maritime Asia 1500–1800: The Interactive Emergence of European Domination. American Historical Review 98:83–105. Wu Chun-ming, and Lin Guo 吴春明, 林果. 1998. 闽越国都城考古研究 (Study of the archaeology of capital cities of Min and Yue). Xiamen: 厦门大学出版社 (Xiamen University Press). Wu Mengyang, Ge Wei, and Chen Zhaoshan 吴梦洋, 葛 威, 陈兆善. 2016. 海洋性 聚落先民的食物结构: 昙石山遗址新石器时代晚期人骨的碳氮稳定同位素 分析 (Diets of a late Neolithic maritime settlement: Carbon and nitrogen stable

262  References

­isotope analysis of human bones from the Tanshishan site). 人类学学报 (Acta Anthropologica Sinica) 35(2): 246–256. Wu, Mu-chun 吳牧錞. 2019. 攝影測量法在考古學舊社遺址研究與空間分析中的 運用：以高士排灣Saqacengalj 為例 (An application of photogrammetry on abandoned settlement research and spatial analysis: A case study of Saqacengalj, Taiwan). 考古人類學刊 (Journal of Archaeology and Anthropology) 90:45–74. Xie Guangmao, Qiang Lin, Yan Wu, Zhanghua Hu. 2020. The Late Paleolithic Industries of Southern China (Lingnan Region). Quaternary International 535:21–28. Xiong, Z. M. 2014. The Hepu Han Tombs and the Maritime Silk Road of the Han Dynasty. Antiquity 88:1229–1243. Yamagiwa Kaishi 山極, 海嗣. 2016. 宮古 八重山諸島先史時代における文化形成の 解明: 遺 跡属性と生態資源利用の地域間比較を通した文化形成の 考察 (Elucidation of cultural formation in prehistoric times in Miyako and Yaeyama Islands: A study of cultural formation through regional comparison of remains attributes and use of ecological resources). PhD diss., University of the Ryukyus, Nishihara. Yamagiwa Kaishi, Shingo Fujimoto, Hiroaki Aoyama, Jin Izumi, and Shingo ­Kameshima. 2019. A Possible New Oldest Pottery Group in the Southern Ryukyu Islands, Japan: Comparative Analysis of Elemental Components of Potsherds from the Shiraho-Saonetabaru Cave Site. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 26(101879): 1–9. Yamaguchi, M., and Y. Ota. 2004. Tectonic Interpretation of Holocene Marine Terraces, East Coast of Coastal Range Taiwan. Quaternary International 115:71–81. Yamasaki, Shinji 山崎真治. 2014. 旧石器時代から貝塚時代えー起源論研究の現 状とその行方― (From the Palaeolithic period to the Shellmound period: The present state and directions of origin studies). In 琉球列島の土器,石器,貝製品,骨製 品文化 (The pottery, stone, bone, and shell tool culture of the Ryukyu Islands), pp. 3–16. Tokyo: 六一日書房(Rokuichi Books). Yang, Cong, Lin Fande, Gao Shaoping, Zhao Fufeng, Zhao Lanyu, Zhao Aiyu, Lin Lianzhi, and Duo Bujie 杨琮, 林繁德, 高绍萍, 赵福凤, 赵兰玉, 赵爱玉, 林连芝, 多布杰. 2018. 武夷山城村牛山汉墓发掘简报 Wuyishan Chengcun Niushan Hanmu Fajue jianbao (Brief report of the excavation of the Niushan Han tomb at Chengcun, Wuyishan). 福建文博 (Fujian Culture and Museum) 1:2–9. Yang, Hsiao-ch’ing 楊小青, Lee K’un-hsiu 李坤修, and Chen Wen-san 陳文山. 2012. 岩象分析方法於考古研究之應用: 以臺東縣舊香蘭遺址砂岩質石器及陶片為 例 (The application of petrographic analysis to archaeological research examples from the artefacts and sherds of the Jiuxianglan site, Taitung, Taiwan). 南島研究 學報 (Journal of Austronesian Studies) 3:71–88. Yang, Xiaoyan, H. J. Barton, Z. Wan, Q. Li, Z. Ma, D. Zhang, and J. Wei. 2013. SagoType Palms Were Important Plant Foods Prior to Rice in Southern Subtropical China. PloS One 8: e63148. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.

References  263

Yang Xiaoyan, Qiuhe Chen, Yongchao Ma, Zhao Li, Hsiao-chun Hung, Qianglu Zhang, Suoqiang Liu, Zhiwei Jin, Zhenyu Zhou, and Xianguo Fu. 2018. New Radiocarbon and Archaeobotanical Evidence Reveal the Timing and Route of Southward Dispersal of Rice Farming in South China. Science Bulletin 63:1495–1501. Yeh, Hui-yuan, Yu-pei Chen, and P. Mitchell. 2016. Human Intestinal Parasites from the Wushantou Site in Neolithic Period Taiwan (800–1BC). Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 11:425–434. Yeh, Mei-chen 葉美珍. 2005. 港口遺址鐵器時代珠飾初探 (Questions concerning Iron Age beads of the Gangkou site). In 台灣地區外來物質: 珠子與玻璃環玦形 器研討會論文集(Conference: Materials from beyond the Taiwan area: Beads and glass bracelets and earrings), edited by 中央研究院歷史語言研究所 (Institute of History and Philology Academia Sinica), pp. 121–134. Nangang: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica. ——— . 2010. 花蓮縣港口遺址繩紋陶文化初探—2001年試掘出土繩紋陶片之分 析 (Study of the cord marked pottery culture of the Gang Ko site Hualien County: Analysis of cord marked potsherds excavated in 2001). 田野考古 (Field Archaeology of Taiwan) 12(1/2): 19–68. ——— . 2014. 臺灣東部大坌坑文化陶器刻印紋初步研究—以東海岸六處遺址出 土標本為例 (A preliminary study on incised and stamped ceramics of the Dabenkeng Culture in eastern Taiwan). 田野考古 (Field Archaeology of Taiwan) 17(1): 19–58. ——— . 2015. 館藏台灣西部大坌坑文化陶片刻劃紋研究 (Research on impressed and incised designs on Dabenkeng Culture pottery of western Taiwan in the collections of the National Museum of Prehistory). 南島研究學報 (Journal of Austronesian Studies) 6(1): 51–114. ——— . 2016. 臺東縣都蘭遺址2014年考古工作—石壁區外藍寶段農地之試掘 (Taitung Dulan Site 2014 archaeological work). 田野考古 (Field Archaeology of Taiwan) 18(2): 71–102. Yen, Ling-da. 2017. Maritime Trade and Deerskin in Iron Age Central Taiwan: A Zooarchaeological Perspective. PhD diss., University of Hawai’i. Yin, Yi-chih 尹意智. 2008. Prehistoric Taiwan Jade Industry: A Case Study at the Ping-Lin Site (台灣史前玉器工藝: 以平林遺址為例). Master’s thesis, National Taiwan University. Yu, Shengfu 余生富. 2011. 三明市三十年文物考古综述 (Summary of thirty years of cultural relics archaeology of Sanming City). 福建文博 (Fujian Culture and Museum) 3:2–11. Yue, Yuanfu, Zhuo Zheng, Kangyou Huang, Manuel Chevalier, Brian Chase, Matthieu Carre, Marie-Pierre Ledru, and Rachid Cheddadi. 2012. A Continuous Record of Vegetation and Climate Change over the Past 50,000 Years in the Fujian Province of Eastern Subtropical China. Palaeogeography, Paleoclimatology, Paleoecology 365–366:115–123.

264  References

Zeigler, D. 1998. The Cult of the Wuyi Mountains and Its Cultivation of the Past: A Topo-Cultural Perspective. Cahiers d’Extreme Asie 10:255–286. Zhang Chi, and Hung Hsiao-chun 张弛, 洪曉纯. 2008. The Neolithic of Southern China: Origin, Development, and Dispersal. Asian Perspectives 47(2): 299–329. ——— . 2010. The Emergence of Agriculture in South China. Antiquity 84:11–25. ——— . 2012. Later Hunter Gatherers in Southern China, 18,000 to 3,000 BC. Antiquity 85:11–29. Zhang Weiqiang, and Huang Zhenguo 张伟强, 黄镇国. 1996. 台湾晚更新世以来的 环境考古 (Environmental archaeology of Taiwan since the late Pleistocene). 热帯 地理 (Tropical Geography) 16(4): 291–298. Zhong Liqiang 钟礼强. 2005. 昙石山文化研究 (Archaeological research into neolithic culture of Tanshishan Fujian). Changsha: 岳麓书社 (Yuelu Publishers). Zong, Yongqiang. 宗永强. 2004. Mid-Holocene Sea-Level Highstand along the Southeast Coast of China. Quaternary International 117:55–67. Zorzin, N. 2017. Archaeology and Development in Taiwan: The Case of Hanben. ­Arqueologia Publica 7:21–32.

Index

achieved status, 68, 186, 194 adze; andesite, 46; beveled, 37; bronze, 203; chipped 37, cross section 69, 70, 149; nephrite 37, 43, 62, 199; olivine basalt 37, 44, 53, 198; polished, 37, 56, 62, 75, 83, 85, 103, 109, 185, 198, production, 55, 66; quadrilateral, 75, 100, 149, 174,174; shell, 216; shouldered, 220; stepped, 86,142, 167, 184, 201, 220; tanged, 148; woodworking, 72, 147 age grading, 5, 103, 112, 194 Anaro site, 108, 205 Anhe site, 11–12, 43, 182 186, 187, 194, 195 Anping, 121, 125, 128, 130, 132, 133 Anshan site, 154 anthropomorphic dagger handle, 90, 92, 203, 207 anthropomorphic (effigy) clay vessel, 91, 116; human-faced motif, 101 archaic Homo, 31, 179, 181 Australo Papuan, 34, 35, 200, 213, 215 Austronesian languages, 19, 211, migration,13, 200, 212, 213–214, networks

115, 118–119, 203, 211; presence, 215, worlds, 180 Baisang’an site, 11–12, 112, 116 bark–cloth beater, 41, 45, 77, 160, 162 Basay, 122, 126, 186 batu type hoe, 75 Baxiandong caves, 9, 11–12, 15, 25, 31, 32, 35, 181 beads, agate (carnelian) 92, 96, 98, 133, 171, 206; archaeological studies of, 207–212, 220, bell–shaped, 5, 79, 136, 197, 204; Chinese wound, 111; drawn, 110; fish bone, 49; glass,4, 18, 19, 49, 84, 86, 89, 96, 98, 100– 105, 109, 115, 129, 188; gold, 173; gold foil, 130; Indo–Pacific glass beads 96, 106, 112, 211, lead glass, 112, 113; Liuli glass, 119; nephrite, 65; polyhedral, 173; shell, 65; tubular nephrite, 65, 167, 169, 197, tubular stone, 82 Beinan, culture, 38, 72, 76–86, 89,108– 112, 200; site 11–12, 15, 66, 76, 77, 78– 81, 85–86, 97, 111, 186, 193– 194 265

266  Index

Bengang site, 132 betel nut mastication, 78 bian fish-shaped ornament, 131 biological distance analysis, 182 Black Current (Kuroshio), 25, 29, 89 Blihun Hanben site, 16, 87, 113, 187, 193, 203 bloomery method 95, 114–115 Bogonglong site, 11–12, 33 bone collagen isotope analysis, 51 bronze, arrowheads; artifacts, Taiwan, 13, 93; Bronze age, 6, 70, 142–143, 152–154, 155,161, 166, 167–170; bronze in Taiwan, 70, 71, 87–88, 90, 92–96, 105, 108–109, 113; bronze in mainland 70, 72, 95; casting, 95, 115; bells, 13, 90, 109, 114, 129, 165; ornaments, 93, 94, 105, 114; pipe bowls 128; weapons, 156, 165, 179 burials, 189; boat coffin, 157; cist (slab) coffin 64–65, 78, 113; dog 46, 75; earth pit (mainland) 153; extended supine, 43, 46, 78, 79, 96, 102; extended prone, 43, 104; flexed, 34–35, 84, 96, 114, 220; jar burial, 62, 81, 85, 114, 206; pottery sherd bed, 101; under floor, 86; seated, 98, 114–115 secondary, 98, 106; wooden plank, 128; wooden coffins, 133 C4 plants, 54, 71 Callao Cave, 31, 200 carbon and nitrogen isotope analysis, 71, 99, 149 Central Mountain Range, 22, 50, 84, Chang Kwang–chih, 15, 26, 36, 37, 38, 57, 59, 61, 192, 212 Changguang site, 11–12, 40, 66, 82, 208 Chaolaiqiao site, 11–12, 43, 65, 67, 203 Chaoyindong Cave, 32

Chengcun site, 156 chiefly households, 195 China Coastal Cold Current 25 Chinese ceramics, found in Taiwan, 90, 118 121, 129, 133; Anping jar, 121, 128,130, 132–133; blue and white, 129, 121, 133; brown wares,121 129–130; Changsha ware 120; celadon, 119, 134, 148, 157; Kraak, 132; lead glazed, 130, qingbai, 94; Yuan white 94; Yue ware, 120; Zhangzhouware, 119, 130 Chinese imperial system, 6, 180 Chiqiantou site, 11–12, 56 Chuanfandong site, 138 coastal uplift, 32, 39, 106 coins, 22, 90, 93, 96, 115–116, 118, 129, 132, 133 –134, 170, 178, 187, 220 contact, Dutch 118–124; Spanish, 126–128 cord marked pottery, 36, 38, 57, 58, 76, 148, 163, 167, 180; coarse rough, 14 42–43 50, 53, 59; fine, 14, 42, 50, 52– 54 56, 59–61, 64, 66 craft enclaves, 89 crucibles, 95 cultural boundaries 186, 220 Dabenkeng culture 7, 9, 16, 34–36, 40, 42, 49, 57, 59, 60,66, 174, 181, 184, 186, 194, 198, 212, 216; pottery 38, 41; site 15, 42 Dahu, culture, 73, 75, 86, 100–102, 161 –163, 184–186; site 9, 11–12 Dalongtong site, 11–12, 40–41, 57–58 Damalin site, 60–61, 73, 197 Damaoshan site, 7, 52, 143, 149, 184, 187 Daoye site, 121 Dazhuwei site, 11–12, 84 deer, 25, 28, 32, 42, 51, 54, 56, 68, 132, 134, 140, 146, 148 152, 160, 173; deerskins,

Index  267

89, 122, 124, 126, 190; hunting 100, 125, 220 dental analysis, (see tooth ablation), 47, 97, 182 DNA studies, 114, 146, 213, 215, 216 dog burial, 46, 75, 101 Dongyuan Basin, 26 Dongzhang site, 72, 142–143 Dulan site, 11–12, 32, 82 Dutch East India Company, 118, 123– 124, 132 Dutch period, 124–125 double headed animal pendants, 205 ear pendants, 84; jue, 45, 70, 79, 80, 82, 94, 154, 169, 197, 208, 211, 215; nephrite, 136 East Asian New World Society, 3 East Coast Mountain Range, 22, 83 Eluanbi 11–12, 32, 34, 189, 214, 216, site 63, 64, fishing strategy, 64; phases, 64, 75–76, 106 Eurasian Sea Plate, 20 exchange systems, 4, 18, 56, 67,68, 178, 186–187 190, 202–204, 219 Fanziyuan site, 8, 11–12, 95, 116, 129, 187, 189, 220; black pottery, 96; prone burials 96, 99–100 Fengbincun site, 11–12, nephrite processing, 66 Fengbitou site, 8, 11–12, 15, a, 65, 185, 189, 192, 208 Fengtian, 13, 37, 52, 53, 58, 73, 187, 196– 197, 203, 204–205 Fishhook, 63, 103, 166, 170, 176 flotation analysis, 47, 68, 146, 163, 170 Fubin culture, 7, 143, 153, 155 Fuguodun site, 40, 143, 145,153, 216 Fulishan site, 108

Fushan culture 7, 11–12, 39, 40, 65, 67, 77, 196, 203, 215–216 Gangkou site 41, 48–49, geometric impressed pottery, 86 gold ornaments, 90, 93–96, 112, 114–116, 129, 130, 157, 172–173, 187, 202, 206, 211; fishing gorges, 32, 85, 101 Guanjiu mounded tombs, 154–155 Guishan, Guishan type pottery, 84,106, 107, 110, 111, 114, 116, 209–210; site 8, 11–12, 75, 95–96, 103– 105, 106 Guoye phase, 9 40 53, 56, site 11–12, 42, 44 Hainan Island, 173–174 Hanben site (see Blihun Hanben) Head hunting, 5, 44, 52, 75, 78, 79, 102, 116, 124, 186, 193–195, 219 Henglingshan,164–165 Hepu site, 165, 172–173 Hoe adzes, axes 43, 58, 59, 62, 65, 72, 75, 83, 101, 103, 109, 113, 141, 185, 215 Holocene, 1; climate 26, 161; finds, 5, 30; geomorphology, 21, 23–24, 64; Marine Transgression, 39, 64, 150 migration 200, 214; sea level, 25, 40; sites, 34–35, 39,140, 145 Homo erectus, 31, 139, 159, 179 Homo luzonensis, 31 Hong Kong, 29, 39, 166–180 house society, 78, 86, 191, 193 Huagangshan site, 11–12, 38, 106, 196, 200, 206; Upper Layer, 83–85, 89, 104, 107, 113, 116, 184, huan bracelets, 62, 74, 79, 82, 169 Huangguashan site, 41, 106, 143, 148, 149, 151–152, 157, 184, 220 Huangtulun culture, 7, 142–143, 153; site, 154

268  Index

Huangyilong Locality, 139 Huilai site, 11–12, 43, 99, 100 Hulinshan site 143, 183 hybrid colonization, 123 Hypsithermal, 16, 17 Ilan Plain, 23, 25, 68, 81, 84, 98, 126, 128, 130 Ilan Vocational High School site, 130 iron, 87; artifacts, 96 109, 122, 156; blade 107; glaze 167; recycling, 13; sand, 13; slag, 94–95, 109–110, 113–114, 134,179; smelting, 87, 95, 101, 114–115; tripods, 171; working 89, 94, 114–115, 193 isolation from China mainland, 1, 56, 116–117, 143, 170, 178, 190 itinerant craftsmen, 87, 193 Japanese traders, 120 jar burials, 62, 73, 81, 114, 189, 203, 206 Jialulan site, 11–12, 112 Jinguishan site, 145 Jiushe site, 72 Juxianglan, site, 84, 87, 108, 110; burials, casting molds 90, 105, 207; glass remains, pottery 110 Kanding site, 8, 11–12, 15, 32, 63–65, 75– 76, 103, 189, 192 Kano Tadao, 14, 37, 81, 83, 90, 92, 131, 207 Keelung, 11–12, 119, 122, 126, 128, 135, 193 Keqiutou site, 7, 142–143, 146, 160, 179 Kikai Island trade center, 120, 177, 217 Kivulan site, 11–12, 16, 209–210, 220; Lower Layer, 98; Upper Layer 128, 130–131,134, 188, 189, 194, 210 Koxinga 127 (see Zheng family)

Lanyu, 65, 96, 108, 114, 189, 196, 204 Liangdao Daowei, burials, 35, 145, Liangdao Man, 145, 200, 213 sites, 35, 41, 145 Liangzhu culture, 4, 26, 58–59, 164, 184, 198, 219 Lianhuachishan site, 138, 139 Lianziwan site, 174 Lingfengdong site, 138–139 Linnei Pingding site, 11–12, 138 Lobsbussan culture, 96, 108, 115 Lutao 114–115, 119, 189, 204 Luliao site, 11–12, 99–100 Lungshanoid culture, 52, 73 Luobi Cave, 173 Luoshayan site, 159 m–Na–Al glass, 91, 129, 209–210 m–Na–Ca glass, 210 Maba site, 179 Malay forging bellow, 95 Manila, 118, 119, 123, 126, 135, 221 Maoergan site, 11–12, 132 marine transgression, 23, 25, 34, 39, 40 megalithic sites, 5,66, 81–82, 86, 108, 189 menhir, 81 “middle range” societies, 5 millet, 13, 36, 47–48, 62, 71, 83, 122, 148,151, 152, 186, 220 Min River, 28, 58, 144; estuary, 145, 147– 148, 149–150 Ming Ban, 123, 217 Minyue Kingdom 108, 155–156 Modaoshan site, 159, 179 molds, 13, 87, 94–95, 109–110, 111–112, 115, 134, 151, 163, 166, 168–171, 207 multipurpose tools, 32, 33, Nan’ao wreck, 218 Nangang site, 54, 55, 198 –199

Index  269

Nanguanlidong site, 9, 11–12, 38, 39, 43 46; artifacts, 45 187; burials 43; flotation analysis 47; tooth ablation, 48; palaeo health, 97 Nanshikeng site, 11–12, 99–100 Nanyue Kingdom, 8, 89, 155–156, 165, 170–172 191 National Museum of Prehistory, 15, 113, 215 nephrite, 4, 40; adzes, 43; artifacts, 13,18, 76, 79,153,165; arrowhead, 45, 59; bead, 57, 111, burial suit, 171; earrings, 61, 80,85, 93, 116, 193; exchange to Southeast Asia, 204–206, 220; linglingo 84,173; ornaments, 63, 68, 201; processing, 16, 37, 43, 57, 58, 63, 66, 74, 168, 183, 196–197, 199; ring, 74; Xidadun objects, 59, 60, 184 net sinker, 42, 45, 46, 53, 54, 62, 64, 71, 72, 74, 103, 118, 133, 183, 192 Niaosong Culture, 8, 9; site, 11–12, 46, 100–102, 116, 184, 193–194 209 Niulandong site, 159 Niumatou culture, 7, 14, 59–61, 99, 184, 200; site, 11–12, 23 Niuniaogang site, 74, 11–12 Niupu site, 11–12, 43, 187, 194 Non–ceramic culture (Ryukyu), 178 olivine basalt, 13, 37, 41, 44, 45, 52–56, 62, 63, 186–187, 198, 199 oxygen isotope analysis, 71 Paiwan 5, 48, 90, 92, 96, 104, 108, 116, 124, 128, 130, 185, 189, 192–195, 207– 208, 221 Palaeolithic, 7, 30–35, 138–141 palaeopathology, linear enamel hypoplasia, 47, 97; osteoarthritis, 75, osteomylitis, 75; roundworm 75

palynology, 26, 144 pantribal sodalities, 3 Pearl River Delta, 28–29, 36, 37, 41, 71, 86, 160–162, 164, 168, 172, 174, 179, 181–184, 202, 220 Penghu Islands, 10–11, 31, 42, 52–56, 119, 121, 187, 199 perforated human mandibles, 102, 194, perforated human tooth, 44, 45 Philippine sites, 202, 205, 211 Philippine Sea Plate, 20 phytolith analysis, 45, 50, 67, 143, 146, 149, 152, 159–161, 163, 169 pig domestication, 71, 97, 106, 148, 152, 204 Pinglin site, 11–12, 66, 83, 197–198 pipe bowls, 128, 131, 188 pit viper motif, 116, 188, 195 proto porcelain, 154, 155, 164–165 shipwrecks, 95, 117, 120, 218 potter’s wheel, 5, 58, 104, 154, 183, 198 pottery, assemblages, 38, 110; black wares, 56, 58–59, 74, 96, 99, 101, 115, 147, 167, 169, 220; black slipped, 151, 155; black painted, 62, 70, 148, 183– 184; comb decorated, 73, 75, 107; decorated rim, 36, 67; fine corded, 14, 42, 50, 52–54, 114, 163, 212, 220; fine paste, 153, 162, 164, 167; fine red corded, 13, 52, 56, 58–59, 61, 64, 67, 183, 187; fine red painted, 65; fine sandy, 57; fine white, 167; geometric impressed, 86, 98; glazed, 129–130, 133, 142, 154, 156,165,168; gray/black 72, 75, 84, 106, 185; Guishan type, 84, 104, 106, 107, 110, 111; hard fired, 89, 107, 110, 113, 153–155, 163, 167–170, 174, 183, 188 Huagangshan type, 89, 107; paddle impressed, 14; painted, 37, 41, 42, 53, 58, 64–65, 70, 72, 147–

270  Index

148, 151–152, 160, 163, 167–168, 174, 183, 184, 189, 203; plain, 77, 61, 65, 66, 73, 76, 77, 102, 104, 133, 147, 149, 203; polished black, 72, 73, 74, 86; pottery paddle, 63; red slipped, 52, 58, 148, 174, 200, 203–204; sandy reddish 76; slab–built, 49, 58, 78, 185; stamped, 73, 83, 84, 104–106, 108, 110, 115–116, 142, 147, 148, 154, 155, 163, 167, 168, 170 184,188, 191, 205, 220; yellowish red, 151 pottery vessel shapes, bag shaped, 101; basin, 74, 102; bottle, 74; bracelet, 19, 52, 57, 61, 62, 65, 67, 70, 101, 192; burial jar, 62–63, 81, 114, 189, 203; cauldron, 58, 72, 147, 148, 163, 170, 174; elevated stand, 82, 220; globular, 36–37, 41, 44, 59, 65, 90, 101, 104; jar, 45, 91, 41, 42, 44, 62, 121, 130, 169; ring foot, 44, 58, 77, 83, 91, 101, 104, 142, 146, 169, 203 Preceramic, 6, 7, 32–35, 64, 70, 173, 200, 220, 221 Provintia (Fort), 125 Puli Basin, 23–24, 52, 60, 73, 189, 197 Qihedong site, 140, 145, 147 Qilin culture, 76, 81–82 Qiantie Cave, 173 Qingtang site, 159 Quanzhou, 21, 118–119, 127, 130, 157, 179, 203, 214, 217, 218 radar, 78 raiding, 5, 52, 125–126 195, 219 recontextualization, 4 resistivity, 78 rice cultivation 13, 20, 36, 47, 48, 67, 71, 94, 97, 123, 144, 220; Fujian, 142 148, 149 150; Guangdong, 142, 161, 163,

169, 179; husks 204; pollen, 143; reaping knives 63, 83, see also phytoliths, flotation Rift Valley, 22, 66, 76–77, 81, 84, 104, 188, 196, 200, rock–cut stone coffins, 83 Ryukyu Island sites, 174–179 Ryukyu kingdom, 118–119, 177, 179, 217–218 Sakishima Islands, 29, 176, 177–179, 214–217 Sakitari Cave, 175, 176 Sanbaozhu site, 9, 11–12, 74, 75 Sanhe culture, 8, 77, 83–84, 89, 106, 108–110, 114–116, 195, 206, 209, 221 Saoba site, 11–12, 83 Saqacengalj, 192 sea level, 23, 24, 25, 30, 32, 33, 40, 44,48, 72, 103, 140, 143, 150, 151, 153, 160, 167, 169, 179, 181, 182, 192, 214 Sha Ha site, 169 Sha Po site, 95, 168, 180 Sham Wan site, 167–168, 180, 184 Shang period, 72, 142, 152–153, 154 Shanyanwang site, 77 shark tooth, 43, 45, 46, 64, 103, 177 shell impression, 44, 146 shell knife, 45 Shenei site, 9, 11–12, 120, 121, 133 Shimotabaru site, 177–178, 216 shipwrecks, 13, 87, 95, 115, 119 Shiqiao site, 11–12, 101–102 Shiraho Saonetabaru site 177–178, 215 Shisanhang, beads 209–210, 220; bronze daggers; 92 207; burials, 116; culture, 8; 189; metal objects, 93, 94; metallurgy, 87–89, 95–96; palaeo–health, 47,97; pottery, 91 101, 128; site, 11–12, 16, 42, 90. 113, 115, 122; trade goods, 187

Index  271

Shixia site, 7, 161, 164, 179 shouldered stone implements, 37, 45, 71, 81, 83, 174,184, 201, 220 Shuijiaoshe site, 11–12, 133 sickles, 71, 82, 85, 108–109, 148 Sinicization, 136, Siraya, 9, 116, 124, 133–134, 186, 189, 190, 195 site protection, 17, 75, 125–126, 190, 218 smelting, 87, 95, 101, 114–115, 166, 168 smithy, 87 social context of archaeology, 2, 4 social hierarchy, 14, 86, 112, 210 social inequality, 116, 153, 164, 169, 190, 194, 209, 219 social processes, 1, 4, 213 South China Sea Maritime trading Network, 112 Spanish Period, 126 specialist, 89, 114, 124, 187, 191, 194; full– time, 197; part–time, 13, 68, 196 spindle whorl, 41, 45, 46, 57, 59, 63, 73, 74, 77, 83, 94, 101, 103, 141, 148, 152, 160, 162, 174, 185, 192 stone upright, 76, 81, 83 subsidence, 23, 25, 98 Successive Period of Dabenkeng, 50, 78, 217, 101 Suogang site, 9, 11–12, 52–56, 1464, 184, 189, 200 Tai Wan site, 169, 180 Taichung Basin, 23, 39, 59, 61, 72–73, 99 Tainan Science Park, 6, 9, 10, 11–12, 15– 16, 17, 39, 49, 62, 68, 73, 74, 75, 101, 133, 187, 190, 215 Taipei Basin, 22, 23–25, 33, 42, 70, 86, 187, 198 Taiwan frontier 2–4, 127, 190, 219

Taiwan Land Bridge Fauna, 30 Taiwan Strait, 9, 20–21, 24, 27, 30, 52–53, 76, 96, 115, 149–150, 180–184, 190, 212, 219, 220 Taiwan–Sakishima voyage, 215 Taiyuan Phase 81–83 Tanshishan, burials 151, 154, 189; culture, 7; lower layers; 41,53; pottery, 148; site, 142–143, 147–148,188, 220 184; subsistence 150 161; upper layers; 72 tapa beaters, 85, 201 Tayouan, 118, 125, 132 tectonic movement, 24–25, 32–33, 39, 64 Terminal Middle Late Pleistocene Penghu Fauna, 31, thick flake, 33 tooth ablation, 43, 48, 53, 65, 78–79, 88, 102–103, 112 Tung Wan Tsai site, 170 underproduction, 186, 190 underwater sites, 17, 120 v–Na–Ca glass, 99, 129, 209–210 viewscape, 82 Visayan people, 119 Wako seafarers, 218 Wang Xing culture, 33 Wansan, house society, 195; nephrite ornaments 85, 194–200; site 11–12, 84 Wanshouyan site, 138 west coast shoreline, 25, 33, 57 wooden burial slabs at Kivulan, 98, 130 Wucheng culture, 72, 153–154 Wujiancuo sites, 9, 11–12, 74, 75, 101, 193, 209–210 Wushantou culture, phase, 9,73, 101; site, 11–12,73, 75

272  Index

Wuyi mountains, 28, 90, 148, 154, 156– 157, 191 Wuyue Kingdom, 120 Xiagukeng site, 11–12, 34, 119 Xiantouling site, 7, 41, 160–162, 179 Xiaoma Cave, 11–12, 32, 34, 65, 200 Xidadun site, 11–12, 58–59, 60, 180, 184, 220 Xiliao site, 11–12, 101–102, 209–210,125 Xincun site, 163 Xiqiaoshan site, 162 Xitou site, 142–143, 147–148, 151, 182 Xuntangpu culture, 7, 37, 38, 40, pottery, 58, 203; site, 11–12, 57, stone tools Yangzi 4, 26, 28, 58, 137, 141–143, 153, 155–156, 158, 160, 163–165, 169, 179, 186, 191, 214, 219, yazhang scepter, 153, 167, 169, 180 Yingdun site, 173–174 Yingiana site, 11–12, 61, 208 Yingpu, culture, 8; site 11–12, 24, 59, 61, 72–73, 86, 99, 104–105, 108, 184, 220

Youxianfang site, 9, 62, 63, 186 Yuanshan, culture, 7 42, 57, 90, 128, 184, 199; site 11–12, 70, 208; stone tools, 71; subsistence, 71 Yue people, 8, 155, 165, 171–173, 179, 190 Yuemei site 11–12, 40 Yuliao phase, 9, 75 Zeelandia Fortress, 11–12,118, 127, 132 Zhangzhou 28, 119, 129, 138, 153, 218 Zhao Mo 171 Zheng family, 96, 117, 124, 127, 133–134, 191 Zhishanyan, culture 38, pottery, 183– 184; site, 7, 11–12, 70, 208, 268 Zhiwuyuan culture, 7, 11–12, 72, 83, 86 Zhongguang site, 11–12, 66, 197 Zhuangbianshan site, 41, 58, 72, 142– 143, 147–152, 188–189, 220 Zhuoshui River 23, 72, 132 Zooanthropomorphic nephrite earring, cover photo, 80, 85, 93, 136, 187, 193, 197 Zuoying Fortification, 11–12, 133 Zuozhen, 11–12, 34

About the Author

Richard Pearson is professor emeritus at the University of British Columbia. His recent publications include Ancient Ryukyu: An Archaeological Study of ­Island Communities (2013), Osaka Archaeology (2016), and The Archaeology of Medieval Towns: Case Studies from Japan and Europe (coauthor) (2020).