The Neolithic of Southeast China: Cultural Transformation and Regional Interaction on the Coast 2007006341, 9781934043165

Citation preview

THE NEOLITHIC OF SOUTHEAST CHINA

THE NEOLITHIC OF SOUTHEAST CHINA Cultural Transformation and Regional Interaction on the Coast Tianlong Jiao

YOUNGSTOWN, NEW YORK

Winner of the 2007 Philip and Eugenia Cho Award for Outstanding Scholarship in Asian Studies. Copyright 2007 Tianlong Jiao All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise), without the prior permission of the publisher. Requests for permission should be directed to permissions@ cambriapress.com, or mailed to Permissions, Cambria Press, PO Box 350, Youngstown, New York 14174-0350. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Jiao, Tianlong. The neolithic of southeast China : cultural transformation and regional interaction on the coast / Tianlong Jiao. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-934043-16-5 (alk. paper) 1. Neolithic period—China, Southeast. 2. Tools, Prehistoric—China, Southeast. 3. Excavations (Archaeology)—China, Southeast. 4. China, Southeast—Antiquities. I. Title. GN776.32.C6J544 2007 931’.01—dc22 2007006341

In memory of my mother

TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures .......................................................................................... xv List of Tables ............................................................................................ xx Foreword ................................................................................................ xxv Acknowledgments................................................................................. xxix Chapter One: Introduction ......................................................................... 1 A Historic Perspective of Archaeological Research in Southeast China......................................................................... 3 First Period: 1930–1950................................................................ 4 Second Period: 1950 to the Early 1980s ....................................... 6 Third Period: The Middle 1980s to Present ................................ 11 Summary ......................................................................................... 15 Defining the Study Themes: Chronology, Subsistence Pattern, Exchange Network, and the Austronesian Expansion .............. 18 The Damaoshan and Huangguashan Investigations ........................ 20 Chapter Two: The Environment of Southeast China................................ 23 Geology ........................................................................................... 23

viii

Table of Contents Stage One: Late Proterozoic to Late Ordovic ............................. 24 Stage Two: Late Devonian to Middle Triassic ............................ 24 Stage Three: Late Triassic to Cretaceous .................................... 25 Stage Four: Cenozoic .................................................................. 25 Geomorphology............................................................................... 25 Climate ............................................................................................ 29 Flora and Fauna ............................................................................... 32 Flora ............................................................................................ 32 Fauna ........................................................................................... 36 Sea Level Changes in Holocene.................................................. 38

Chapter Three: The Archaeological Sequence of Southeast China’s Prehistory ...........................................41 Paleolithic Background ................................................................... 42 Transition from Paleolithic to Neolithic .......................................... 43 The Neolithic Cultures .................................................................... 45 Coastal Region ............................................................................ 45

Table of Contents

ix

Inland Region .............................................................................. 66 The Maling Culture ......................................................................... 68 Bronze Age Cultures ....................................................................... 69 The Huangtulun Culture ............................................................. 70 The Fubin Culture ....................................................................... 73 The Baizhuduan Culture ............................................................. 77 Discussion ....................................................................................... 79 Chapter Four: Southeast China and the Austronesian Homeland ....................................... 81 Models for the Austronesian Homeland .......................................... 82 Archaeological Sequence of the Paleolithic and the Neolithic Cultures in Taiwan ........................................... 89 The Paleolithic Cultures in Taiwan ............................................. 89 The Neolithic Cultures in Taiwan ............................................... 91 The Middle Neolithic Cultures in Taiwan................................... 94 The Interaction Sphere Spanning the Taiwan Strait During Neolithic Time: A Geochemical Approach ................... 103

x

Table of Contents

Chapter Five: Stone Adzes, Cultural Changes, and Regional Interactions in Neolithic Southeast China ....... 105 Models for the Typology of Stone Adzes in Southeast China: A Review ................................................................................... 106 Typological Analysis of the Neolithic Stone Adzes in Fujian ....... 114 Typology of the Stone Adzes of the Keqiutou Site ................... 114 Adze Typology of the Tanshishan Site...................................... 116 Adze Typology of the Xitou Site................................................... 119 Adze Typology of the Huangguashan Site................................ 119 Discussion ..................................................................................... 123 Chapter Six: Archaeological Investigations of the Damaoshan Site ...................................................... 125 Background to the Investigation.................................................... 125 The Setting .................................................................................... 128 Excavation Aims and Methods ...................................................... 132 Stratigraphy ................................................................................... 135 Dating ............................................................................................ 140

Table of Contents

xi

Chapter Seven: Analysis of the Damaoshan Archaeological Artifacts ............................................... 143 Typological Analysis of the Artifacts of the Damaoshan Site ....... 143 Pottery ....................................................................................... 143 Stone Tools................................................................................ 155 Other Artifacts........................................................................... 162 Shell Spade ............................................................................... 162 Jade Ornaments ......................................................................... 162 Sourcing Studies of Stone Adzes .................................................. 163 Petrographic, XRF, and ICP-MS Analysis................................ 165 Stable Isotope Analysis ............................................................. 174 Implication of the Adze Sourcing Study ................................... 175 Chapter Eight: Analysis of the Faunal Remains of the Damaoshan Site ................................................... 179 Marine Shellfishes ......................................................................... 180 Sampling and Identification Method......................................... 180 Distribution of the Abundance of Shellfish Species ................. 181

xii

Table of Contents Shellfish Food Processing ......................................................... 186 Marine Fishes ................................................................................ 187 Sampling and Identification ...................................................... 187 Fishing Techniques ................................................................... 189 Non-fish Marine Animals .............................................................. 190 Terrestrial Animal Bones............................................................... 190 Sampling and Identification ...................................................... 190 Animal Food Processing Methods ............................................ 192 Summary ....................................................................................... 192

Chapter Nine: Archaeological Investigations of the Huangguashan Site ............................................... 195 Background to the Investigation.................................................... 195 The Geographic Setting................................................................. 197 Excavation Method and Aims ....................................................... 198 Stratigraphy ................................................................................... 201 T117SE ..................................................................................... 201

Table of Contents

xiii

T156NE ..................................................................................... 202 Features ......................................................................................... 206 Postholes ................................................................................... 206 Ovens ........................................................................................ 207 Pits ............................................................................................ 209 Dating ............................................................................................ 209 Chapter Ten: Analysis of the Huangguashan Archaeological Materials.................................................. 215 Stylistic Analysis of the Artifacts .................................................. 216 Stone Tools................................................................................ 216 Fauna ............................................................................................. 233 Shellfishes ................................................................................. 239 Macrobotanic Remains.................................................................. 246 Phytolith Analysis ......................................................................... 246 Chapter Eleven: Conclusion: Damaoshan, Huangguashan, and the Prehistory of Southeast China ........................ 253 Towards a New Chronology of Southeast China’s Neolithic ........ 254

xiv

Table of Contents Subsistence Pattern Transformation and Material Cultural Change ................................................... 255 The Neolithic Exchange Networks in Southeast China ................ 256 Rethinking the Expansions of the Proto-Austronesians ................ 257 Suggestions for Future Research ................................................... 259

Bibliography .......................................................................................... 261 Glossary of Chinese Characters ............................................................. 277 Index ...................................................................................................... 279

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. The Area of Southeast China ...................................................... 2 Figure 2. Lin Huixiang, Pioneer Archaeologist of Southeast China .......... 6 Figure 3. Major Prehistoric Sites in Southeast China ................................ 7 Figure 4. The Excavation of Tanshishan in the 1950s ............................... 8 Figure 5. Excavation of the Huangguashan Site in 1989 ......................... 13 Figure 6. Topographic Map of Southeast China ...................................... 26 Figure 7. A View of Fujian Coast............................................................. 28 Figure 8. Stratigraphy of the Keqiutou Site ............................................. 46 Figure 9. Pottery of the Keqiutous Site ................................................... 52 Figure 10. Tomb M126 and its Pottery Assemblage of the Tanshishan Site ............................................................. 60 Figure 11. Pottery Assemblage of the Huangtulun Culture .................... 71 Figure 12. Pottery Assemblage of Tomb M13, Hulinshan Site ............... 74 Figure 13. Stone Artifacts of Tomb M13, Hulinshan Site, Fubin Culture .......................................................................... 76

xvi

List of Figures

Figure 14. Bronze Artifacts of Tomb M19, Hulinshan Site, Fubin Culture .......................................................................... 78 Figure 15. Roger Duff’s Typology of Stone Adzes of Southeast Asia .................................................................. 112 Figure 16. Stone Adze Types of the Keqiutou Site ................................ 115 Figure 17. Stone Adze Types of the Tanshishan Site ............................. 118 Figure 18. Stone Adze Types of the Xitou Site ...................................... 120 Figure 19. Stone Adze Types of the Huangguashan Site ....................... 122 Figure 20. Location of the Damaoshan Site........................................... 126 Figure 21. Location of the Damaoshan Site on the Dongshan Island ........ 127 Figure 22. View of the Damaoshan Hill from the Wu’jiao Bay (N–S)................................................. 130 Figure 23. Plan of the Excavation Units at the Damaoshan Site ........... 133 Figure 24. Stratigraphy of T1 and T2 of the Damaoshan Site ............... 137 Figure 25. Stratigraphy of T3 of the Damaoshan Site ........................... 138 Figure 26. Decorations of the Damaoshan Potsherds (rubbing) ............ 149 Figure 27. Jars of the Damaoshan Site................................................... 151

List of Figures

xvii

Figure 28. Pedestal Bowls of the Damaoshan Site ................................ 153 Figure 29. Ceramic Spindle Whorls of the Damaoshan Site ................. 154 Figure 30. Duff’s 2A Adzes at the Damaoshan Site .............................. 157 Figure 31. Duff’s 3G Adzes at the Damaoshan Site .............................. 158 Figure 32. Duff’s 3G Variant Adzes at the Damaoshan Site .................. 159 Figure 33. Other Stone Artifacts of the Damaoshan Site ....................... 161 Figure 34. Bone Artifacts of the Damaoshan Site.................................. 163 Figure 35. The Distribution of Basaltic Rocks (black polygons) in Southeast China ................................................................ 166 Figure 36. The Variation between SiO2 and Na2O + K2O for Adzes of Damaoshan and Volcanic Rocks of Whole Dongshan Island and in Comparison with Basaltic rocks from Fujian, Zhejiang Provinces, Penghu Archipelago, and Taiwan Strait .................................................................. 168 Figure 37. Trace Element Comparison. (a) MgO (wt%) vs. Yb (pm) plot; (b) MgO (wt%) vs. Sm (ppm) Plot; (c) Nb / Ta vs. Hf × 100 / Zr Plot.......................................... 169 Figure 38. Comparison of Sr–Nd–Pb Isotopic Ratios of the Damaoshan Stone Adzes and the Penghu Basaltic Rocks .............................................. 176

xviii

List of Figures

Figure 39. Shellfish Species of the Damaoshan Site.............................. 183 Figure 40. Location of the Huangguashan Site...................................... 196 Figure 41. Geographic Setting of the Huangguashan Site ..................... 199 Figure 42. Plan of the Excavated Area of the Huangguashan Site......... 200 Figure 43. Stratigraphic Profile of the West Wall of T117SE ................ 202 Figure 44. Stratigraphic Profile of the Northern Wall of T156NE ......... 205 Figure 45. Features of the Huangguashan Site Excavated in 2002 ........ 207 Figure 46. Oven Z101 of the Huangguashan Site .................................. 208 Figure 47. Pit H101 of the Huangguashan Site...................................... 210 Figure 48. Stone Adzes of the Huangguashan Site (Excavated in 2002) .............................................................. 217 Figure 49. Stone Arrowheads of the Huangguashan Site (Excavated in 2002) .............................................................. 218 Figure 50. Decorations of the Huangguashan Pottery .......................... 227 Figure 51. Painted Ceramic Sherds of the Huangguashan Site ............. 228 Figure 52. Ceramic Bowls, Pedestal Bowls, and Cups of the Huangguashan Site .................................... 229

List of Figures

xix

Figure 53. Unpainted Ceramic jars of the Huangguashan Site .............. 230 Figure 54. Painted Jars of the Huangguashan Site ................................ 232 Figure 55. Spindle Whorls of the Huangguashan Site .......................... 233 Figure 56. Ceramic Supports of the Huangguashan Site ...................... 234 Figure 57. Barley, Wheat and Rice Grains of the Huangguashan Site ..................................................... 248 Figure 58. Photomicrograph of Wheat Phytolith at the Huangguashan Site ............................................................... 251

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Potsherds of the Layer 5 in T403 and T503 of the Keqiutou Site ............................................................................. 51 Table 2. C-14 Age of the Marine Shells from the Keqiutou Site ............. 53 Table 3. C-14 Age of the Marine Shells of the Fuguodun Site ................ 55 Table 4. Dating of the Fuguodun Site ...................................................... 55 Table 5. C-14 Age of the Marine Shells from the Jinguishan Site ........... 56 Table 6. C-14 Dates of the Tanshishan Site and the Xitou Site ............... 61 Table 7. Dating of the Huangtulun Site.................................................... 72 Table 8. C-14 Date of the Fubin Culture.................................................. 75 Table 9. Typology of Stone Adzes at Keqiutou Site .............................. 114 Table 10. Typology of Stone Adzes at Tanshishan Site ......................... 117 Table 11. Adze Typology of the Xitou Site ............................................ 121 Table 12. Adze Typology of the Huangguashan Site ............................. 121 Table 13. C-14 Dating for the Damaoshan Site ..................................... 141

List of Tables

xxi

Table 14. Count and Weight of the Potsherds of the Damaoshan Site ....................................................................... 144 Table 15. T4 / L2 Potsherds Inclusion, Exterior Color, Decoration (Count), and Weight (g)................................................... 146 Table 16. T4 / L2 Core Color Worksheet ............................................... 147 Table 17. T4 / L3 Potsherds Inclusion, Exterior Color, Decoration (Count) and Weight (g).................................................... 148 Table 18. T4 / L3 Potsherds Core Color Worksheet .............................. 149 Table 19. Measurements of the Adze Dimensions of the Damaoshan Site ........................................................................... 156 Table 20. Adze Samples of the Damaoshan Site for Geochemical Analysis .................................................................. 164 Table 21. Geological Samples of the Dongshan Island ......................... 164 Table 22. Major Element Oxides (wt. %) of the Adzes of the Damaoshan Site and the Geological Samples from Dongshan Island ........................................................................ 171 Table 23. Trace Elements of the Adzes of the Damaoshan Site and the Geological Samples in Dongshan Island (ppm) .................... 172 Table 24. Sr–Nd–Pb Isotopic Compositions of the Damaoshan Stone Adzes.......................................................... 174

xxii

List of Tables

Table 25. Weight (g) and Percentage of each Shellfish Species in T2 and T3, Damaoshan Site .................. 182 Table 26. T2(2) Tegillarca granosa Size (Valve Length) Worksheet ......... 185 Table 27. T3(2) Tegillarca granosa Size (Valve Length) Worksheet ....... 185 Table 28. T2(2) Meretrix lusoria Size (Valve Length) Worksheet ......... 185 Table 29. T3(2) Meretrix lusoria Size (Valve Length) Worksheet ......... 185 Table 30. Marine Fishes of the Damaoshan Site.................................... 188 Table 31. Marine Animals of the Damaoshan Site................................. 190 Table 32. Terrestrial Animals of the Damaoshan Site ............................ 191 Table 33. Dating of the Huangguashan Site........................................... 211 Table 34. Re-calibrated Age of Charcoal Samples from Layer 9 of the Huangguashan Site ............................................. 212 Table 35. Stone Debitage at the Huangguashan Site ............................ 219 Table 36. Pottery Sherds of Layers 4–10 of T156NE of the Huangguashan Site .................................................................. 221 Table 37. Terrestrial Faunal Remains of the Huangguashan Site (H101, T116SE, T117SE, and T117SW).............................................. 223 Table 38. Terrestrial Fauna Remains of the Huangguashan Site (T156NE) ................................................ 236

List of Tables

xxiii

Table 39. Abundance Distribution of Animal Species of the Huangguashan Site .................................................................. 238 Table 40. Age Distribution of Pigs of the Huangguashan Site............... 238 Table 41. Sublevels in the Sampling Column of T156NE at the Huangguashan Site ................................................................... 240 Table 42. Weight (g) Distribution of Shellfishes at the Corner Column of T156NE of the Huangguashan Site............ 242 Table 43. Species Distribution of Shellfishes in H101 of the Huangguashan Site .................................................................. 244 Table 44. Size Class of Tegillarca granosa in the Corner Column of T156NE of the Huangguashan Site ............................................... 245 Table 45. Charred Plant Remains at T156NE of the Huangguashan Site .................................................................. 247 Table 46. Plant Phytolith of the Huangguashan Site.............................. 249

FOREWORD

The Neolithic Revolution was a major threshold in human social, cultural, and biological evolution. While opinions among scholars may diverge concerning why it happened, in how many geographic centers it started, and how it spread to neighboring regions, there is no doubt that the ensuing economic and social changes caused by the establishment of farming communities and the emergence of pastoral societies had a major impact on global history. The socio-economic transition from foraging to farming left its imprint on the collective human memory, expressed in various parts of the world in mythological stories. Judging by the myths, the shift from the seemingly leisurely lifeways of hunting and gathering to toiling on the land, sawing, planting, harvesting, and storing surplus grain, was a major shift in the role of both work and gender in society. Many generations of archaeologists, historians, botanists, and zoologists dedicated their time to uncover the story of how humanity succeeded and survived to the present, evolving from the state of prehistoric foragers to settled communities and urban centers. It was not a simple process of constant advance in economy, social organization, and life expectancy. Often the development of village-based agricultural system resulted in poor health. Domesticated animals contributed not only their milk, meat, horn cores, hair and wool, but also increase human exposure to new diseases.

xxvi

Foreword

All agree that the antiquity of Chinese civilization indicated that it emerged from farming societies. The domestication of plants such as millet in northern China and the rice in the south facilitated, with other plant food and a few domesticated animals, the increasing number of people overall East Asia. Not less intriguing, as in other parts of the world, are the issues of expansion of humans with the “agricultural package” from the centers, and how this process is expressed in the emergence and dispersals of languages. It is in this domain of research that the book in front of us is a major contribution to recognizing and understanding cultural changes in southeast China that took place during the local Neolithic period known to span about 3000 years, from about 6500 B.P. until around 3500 years ago. The prehistory of the coastal mainland of this region, and in particular of the Fujian Province, is closely tied with the archaeology of Taiwan, and Southeast Asia as a whole. Seafaring along the coasts of the western Pacific ocean, locally known as China Sea facilitated long range human connects, movements, exchange, and dispersals. The knowledge of employing the sea as a faster way accumulated in this part of the world since the colonization of Australia some 40,000 years ago. Even without the concrete evidence of the types of sea-crafts used by the prehistoric navigators, the maritime routes contributed to the acceleration of social processes in this region. The development of the Neolithic communities in southeast China testify the process of adoption of agriculture either by local foragers or by the colonization of farmers who moved into these territories from the southern basin of the Yangtze River. The mosaic of maritime and agriculture subsistence is neatly represented by the sites reported and discussed in this volume. Similarities with pottery types from the inland reflect the impact of exchange, population expansion or both. One should keep in mind that hunter-gatherers in East Asia made pottery since some 16,000 years ago. Thus, unlike Western Asia, pottery was not a marker of agricultural economy. The main thrust of this volume is the reports from two major sites re-excavated by the author in cooperation with Fujian local archaeologists. Their analysis is joined by the information retrieved from other sites in the same area.

Foreword

xxvii

Keqiutou is the earliest site, and is similar in its cultural attributes to two others, all of which are situated on offshore islands, but could have been at their time, some 6000 years ago, at the edge of the coastal belt. They seem to indicate a colonization by the bearers of the Hemudu culture, located further north in Zhejiang Province. The maritime subsistence of these sites may reflect the habitation of the last fishers in the area but further research is required to clarify whether like the people of Hemudu culture they also practiced agriculture. Damaoshan and the later Huangguashan and their contemporaries represent a sequence that began about 5000 B.P. and ended ca. 3500 years ago. These sites mark the full advent of agriculture and the incorporation of domesticated pig. Like all farming communities across the world they also exploited the natural resources and in these cases, the sea produced some of the food. By providing a new chronology for the early Neolithic of the coastal areas the author posited a whole new set of questions and demonstrated the urgent need for additional information. By demonstrating the differences between the Damaoshan and Huangguashan sites he was able to record the substantial cultural changes that emerged around 4300 years ago. At that time the impact of the inland cultures on the coastal areas was felt strongly. Fujian is not the sole region where archaeologists discovered similar phenomena. Maritime sources, hunting and plant gathering allowed many groups of foragers to survive for many millennia before the arrival of farmers. The same trend appears to have taken place also in southeast China. The archaeological information reported and discussed in this volume contributes to illuminating the issue of Austronesian languages. The cultural connection between the well-known Dapenkeng in Taiwan and the contemporary sites in southeast China, are considered the origin of the Austronesian speakers who spread across the Pacific. The most commonly debated issue is the motivation for this dispersal and the author succeeds in integrating the various explanations into a coherent scenario that takes into account the social pressures, economic possibilities, gender roles in labor division, and the technologies developed for seafaring. He correctly points out the additional questions and targets for future research that should be the agenda for the next generation of archaeologists.

xxviii

Foreword

In sum, this volume opens up a new important page in Chinese prehistory that will be of interest not only to specialists in East Asian archaeology, but for all those who are interested in the outcome of the Neolithic Revolution that changed the face of earth. Ofer Bar-Yosef MacCurdy Professor of Prehistoric Archaeology Department of Anthropology, Harvard University

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This book is an archaeological investigation on the patterns and processes involved in the cultural changes across the coast of southeast China during the Neolithic period (ca. 3500–6500 B.P.). It is based on my Ph.D. dissertation completed at Harvard University in 2003. Subsequent researches over the past three years have changed some of the initial ideas, and this monograph has incorporated the resulting data as well as the new directions of this research. A modified version of Chapter Five was published in a paper co-authored with Barry Rolett (Jiao & Rolett, 2006), and part of Chapter Seven was published in an article co-authored with my colleagues (Guo et al., 2005). I am indebted to many people and institutions for their generous help during the process of writing this book. First and foremost, I am very grateful to my thesis advisors, Professor Ofer Bar-Yosef, Professor C. C. LambergKarlovsky, Professor Yun Kuen Lee, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University; and Professor Barry Rolett, Department of Anthropology, University of Hawai’i at Manoa. Their guidance ensured progress in the right direction. Ofer graciously agreed to write a foreword for this book. As one of the students who was “dropped on his desk,” I am privileged to continue working with Ofer on a series of expeditions in China after graduating from Harvard. Professor Rolett inspired my interests in Pacific archaeology

xxx

Acknowledgments

when he was a visiting professor at Harvard University, and he provided invaluable support for the excavation in Fujian. I wish to extend my heartfelt gratitude to the late Professor K. C. Chang who sadly passed away just when I started to conduct my dissertation field works. I was privileged to study at Harvard University because of Professor Chang’s special recommendation, and he had been a major source of support and inspiration for my life and research. I thank Harvard-Yenching Institute, Department of Anthropology and the Asia Center at Harvard University, for providing financial support to my study at Harvard University and funds to conduct my dissertation project in China. I wish to thank my home institution, Bishop Museum, for its support to my continuing research in China. In particular, I am very grateful to Dr. William Y. Brown, President / CEO of Bishop Museum, for his enthusiastic support and understanding of the significance of the archaeology of Southeast China. This thesis could not have been written without the generous assistance of many Chinese colleagues. I would first like to thank Mr. Lin Gongwu and Mr. Fan Xuechun, senior archaeologists of the Fujian Provincial Museum, for their great help with the excavations of the Huangguashan and the Damaoshan sites. Their dedication to the excellence of field archaeology is a great source of inspiration, and their hard work has ensured the progress of the projects. With their easygoing personality and joyful working spirits, the hardship of excavating archaeological sites in Fujian became a pleasant experience. Mr. Gao Shaoping, the versatile technician of the Fujian Provincial Museum, was a great assistant in the field. My thanks also go to Mr. Zheng Peisheng, Director of the Fujian Provincial Museum at that time; Mr. Zheng Guozhen, Deputy Director of Fujian Provincial Bureau of Cultural Heritage; Mr. Wang Zhenyong, Deputy Director of the Fujian Provincial Museum, for their support to my research in Fujian. I am grateful to the following experts who helped me analyzing the excavated materials. Professor Huang Yunping, a zooarchaeologist and also a professor of Chinese Palaeolithic archaeology in Peking University, undertook the study of terrestrial animal bones. Professor Wu Xiaohong, Director of the Archaeometry Laboratory of Peking University, not only

Acknowledgments

xxxi

analyzed the dating samples of the Huanguashan site and the Damaoshan site, but also unconditionally re-calibrated the previously published C-14 dates of a number of Neolithic sites of Fujian. Dr. Jimmy Zhao, Deputy Director of the Archaeometry Division of the Institute of Archaeology in Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, conducted analysis of both phytoliths and macrobotanic remains of the Huangguashan site. Dr. Zhengfu Guo, a geochemist in the Institute of Geology and Geophysics in Chinese Academy of Sciences, performed petrographic and geochemical analysis of stone adzes of the Damaoshan site. Professor You Yubo, professor of biology in the Fujian Normal University, identified the species of shells of the Huangguashan site. Professor Li Shuqing, senior ichthyologist of the Fujian Provincial Museum, analyzed the fish remains of both the Damaoshan site and the Huangguashan site. All of them are leading scholars in their field, and their studies have greatly enhanced the contribution of this thesis to the understanding of the Neolithics of Southeast China. They have kindly endured my urgent requests to complete the studies within a short period of time, and some of them had to work under the unexpected threat of SARS. I thank all of them for their extremely generous help! Readers will find a re-interpretation of their analysis in the context of respective chapters. Due to time constraint, some of my interpretations has not been checked by them and I take sole responsibility for any possible mistakes. I would like to thank Professor Qiu Licheng and Professor Li Yan, Deputy Directors of the Guangdong Provincial Institute of Antiquity and Archaeology; Professor Gu Yunquan, Director of Guangdong Provincial Museum, for their help during my visit to Guangzhou. Professor Gu kindly allowed the examination Fubin site materials in storage. Professor Qiu and Professor Li introduced me to the materials of various sites in their institute. I thank Professor Liu Jun, former Director of the Zhejiang Provincial Institute of Antiquity and Archaeology, for introducing me to the Hemudu Site Museum. I learned a lot from his first hand knowledge of Zhejiang Neolithic archaeology. Professor Wang Haiming, director of the excavation of the Haochuan site and the Shizigang site, kindly helped me examine the collections of these two sites. During the process of collecting materials in China, people in many small county museums in Fujian, Guangdong, and Zhejiang Provinces

xxxii

Acknowledgments

have generously helped me. I especially want to thank Mr. Chen Liqun of the Dongshan Museum, Mr. Huang Yizhao of the Xiapu Museum, Mr. Luo Zhaorong of the Shuicang Museum, and Mr. Zhang Jihuai of the Jieyang Museum. Without their kind help, I was probably lost in their mountainous land or island. I want to thank Professor Tsang Cheng-Hwa and Professor Liu Yi-Ch’ang of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica, for their generous help during my two visits to Taipei. Both of them kindly allowed me to examine many unpublished materials in their Institute. I admire their insightful knowledge of Taiwan archaeology and have benefited a great deal from the conversations with them. My thanks also go to Mr. Zhao Jinyong and Ms. Hong Xiaochun. Their research has helped me clarify many understandings of Taiwan archaeology, and their warm reception made my first visit to Taiwan a wonderful memory. This monograph could not come to life without the insightful endorsement of Ms. Toni Tan, Director of Cambria Press. During the process of revising this monograph for publication, Mia La Londe, intern at Bishop Museum, provided valuable editorial assistance. Finally, my deepest gratitude is due to my wife Liu Ruzhen, my son John, and my daughter Amy, to whom I owe everything that matters to me in this world. Their unconditional support has been the most important encouragement for me throughout the years. My parents taught me to value hard work, and it is their expectation that has motivated me to move forward forever in life. My dear mother passed away just after the monograph was accepted for publication, she will always live in my heart and in the way I am in this world!

THE NEOLITHIC OF SOUTHEAST CHINA

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

The patterns and processes involved in the cultural changes in southeast China during the Neolithic period (ca. 3500–6500 B.P) have broad implications for understanding many important issues in the prehistory of mainland China, Taiwan, Southeast Asia, as well as the Pacific. The formation process of southeast China’s Neolithic cultural traditions holds key evidence for examining the impacts of agricultural expansions, population dispersals, maritime adaptation, and seafaring upon human society in prehistoric China. Southeast China has also been increasingly recognized as critical for investigating the origins of the Austronesian Cultures as well as the Austronesian people (Bellwood, 2005, 2006a, 2006b; also see Chapter Four). Yet unfortunately our knowledge of the Neolithic of this strategic area is among the most limited ones in both Chinese and Pacific archaeology. Thus, the primary goal of this archaeological investigation is to put forward new evidence for a better understanding of the Neolithic of southeast China. By focusing on studies of chronology, subsistence pattern and regional interaction spheres, I establish a contextual framework to interpret the mechanism of cultural and social transformation. In accordance with the increasing international attention on the search for the homeland

2

THE NEOLITHIC OF SOUTHEAST CHINA

of Austronesian speakers, the implications of the Neolithic cultural changes of southeast China for understanding the early expansion of the ProtoAustronesians are addressed. The spatial definition of “Southeast China” in this monograph is the area including modern southern Zhejiang Province, Fujian Province, and northeastern Guangdong Province of China. It is generally between latitude 23° ∼ 28° North, and between longitude 117° ∼ 121° East. Some geographers classify this area generally as China’s “Southeast Coast” (Cressey, 1955; Tregear, 1980). However, a series of mountain chains clearly separate the coast from the inland in terms of environment within southeast China. From an archaeological perspective, the coast and inland have had different cultures during the Neolithic period (see Chapter Three). For reasons to be discussed in the following, this monograph will focus on the coastal area (Figure 1). FIGURE 1. The Area of Southeast China

Introduction

3

The period that this monograph concerns is the Neolithic period of southeast China. The definition of the Neolithic here should be the same as anywhere else, which relies on the appearance of an agricultural economy. However, so far the evidence for a Neolithic agriculture in southeast China is ambiguous. The direct traces of agricultural crops have been absent in many archaeological sites in this area. The discoveries of domesticated pig and dog at a number of sites indicate an economy with food production. Other Neolithic markers are artifacts that have been interpreted as associated with an agricultural lifestyle. These artifacts include pottery, polished stone tools, bone tools, and shell tools. The peculiarity of a maritime subsistence pattern on the coastal area further complicates the definition of Neolithic, since most coastal communities relied on foraging marine resources rather than cultivating agricultural plants. Therefore, the understanding of Neolithic in this book is both cultural and chronological. Culturally, it refers to an assemblage consisting of domestication of animals, making of pottery and polished stone tools, and possibly but not necessarily cultivating crops. Chronologically, the Neolithic cultural phenomenon is distinctive in comparison with the previous Paleolithic period and the later Bronze Age. Chipped stone tools represent the Paleolithic cultures in southeast China, and the Bronze Age cultures are characterized by the use of metals. As will be further elaborated in the following chapters, the earliest Neolithic culture on the coastal area so far known can be dated to ca. 6500 B.P. and the earliest appearance of bronzes was ca. 3500 B.P. Therefore, the time period that this monograph concerns is from ca. 6500 to 3500 B.P.

A HISTORIC PERSPECTIVE IN S OUTHEAST C HINA

OF

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH

At this juncture, it is necessary to retrospect the history of archaeology in southeast China and highlight the achievements of previous archaeological investigations. As always, any progress we might be able to make is built upon what has been done in the past, and we may introduce new questions when attempting to solve old problems.

4

THE NEOLITHIC OF SOUTHEAST CHINA

Archaeological investigations in southeast China started in the 1930s. The early archaeological activities were individual expeditions. A number of individuals, including university professors and missionary priests, collected artifacts from the locals and occasionally went out looking for archaeological sites, and their practices pioneered the accumulation of archaeological data in southeast China. Since 1950, the Chinese government has sponsored archaeological surveys and excavations. Until very recently, exclusively Chinese archaeologists from the local provinces and universities have conducted field archaeological projects in southeast China, and consequently their publications are in Chinese. The following summary is mostly based on the available published reports and papers in China, and on my personal communications with archaeologists in Fujian, Guangdong, and Zhejiang Provinces. On the basis of the research topics, the archaeology of the prehistory of southeast China can be divided into the following three periods. First Period: 1930–1950 The first period is from 1930 to 1950. Discoveries were mostly surface collections, and the research was conducted by individual scholars and missionary priests. The most conspicuous figure is Fr. Rafael Maglioni, an Italian missionary priest, who not only collected a large number of artifacts from eastern Guangdong Province, but also visited many archaeological sites. During the period of his missionary service in eastern Guangdong from 1936 to 1946, he collected about “1800 pounds of pottery and 400 adzes from the Hoifeng (Haifeng) sites alone, which constitutes less than half of his total surveys” (Meacham, 1975, p. 9). Maglioni’s surveys, collections, and publications are pioneering works in this area. Most of his collections are the first archaeological discoveries in southeast China. His efforts to organize a chronological sequence for his discoveries merit further discussion. Based on pottery and stone tools, Maglioni named three Neolithic cultures: Sonian (SON), Sakian (SAK), and Patian (PAT). SON (Soa-khe or Shakeng North) was the earliest culture in Maglioni’s chronology, and he suggested a date of 3000 B.C. The artifacts of SON include painted pottery vessels with ring foot, corded and combed pottery, “rough implements of stone,” and

Introduction

5

polished stone axes with lentoid shape. Sakian (SAK) was derived from the previous SON. The material inventory of SAK includes coarse corded pottery, combed pottery, stone axe with lentoid cross-section, and stone arrowheads. SAK was replaced by PAT (Patian), characterized by materials including stemmed leaf-shaped stone arrowheads, stepped stone adzes, and dark, coarse, and sand mixed pottery decorated with cord marks and net impression. Lin Huixiang, a scholar at Xiamen University, was another pioneer in the archaeology of southeast China. Lin collected artifacts from four groups of Neolithic sites, and excavated twenty-one trenches at these sites during his seven-day trip to Wuping in May 1937 (Lin, 1956). The discovery includes 84 stone adzes and 949 pieces of pottery sherds. Lin compared the stepped stone adzes with those in Taiwan and Hong Kong, and speculated that there must have been some relationships between them. He also speculated that the Neolithic period in Wuping ended around 2500 years ago, and the Neolithic people in this area were not the Huaxia people; instead they were the Yue, a group of minorities who lived in southeast China before they were conquered by the Han Dynasty (Figure 2). Maglioni visited Wuping after Lin’s expedition, and he was aware of Lin’s discoveries. Maglioni reported ten sites, all located on the hills surrounding the walled city of Wuping County. According to Maglioni, five of them (Wuping 1, 2, 7, 8, 9) were Neolithic SAK sites, and the rest of them were from the Bronze Age or even later (Maglioni, 1975). One of the problems of these early works is that the materials were mostly collected from the surface without a secure archaeological context. Therefore, neither Maglioni nor Lin was able to distinguish the remains from different periods at one site. Maglioni noticed the artifact difference at some sites, but he still mixed materials from different periods into one culture. Judging from current archaeological information, his SON actually included remains from several different periods (Figure 3). It has been proved that the establishment of a chronology of prehistoric cultures in southeast China is not an easy undertaking. As will be illustrated in the following paragraphs, it remains an unresolved problem to date.

6

THE NEOLITHIC OF SOUTHEAST CHINA FIGURE 2.

Lin Huixiang, Pioneer Archaeologist of Southeast China

Second Period: 1950 to the Early 1980s The second period of Neolithic archaeology of southeast China spans from 1950 to the early 1980s. Archaeologists in Fujian and Guangdong Provinces carried out a number of archaeological surveys and excavations. Southern Zhejiang Province only produced isolated discoveries.

Introduction FIGURE 3.

7

Major Prehistoric Sites in Southeast China

Fujian Province During this period, most archaeological works concentrated on the lower reaches of the Min River. The first archaeological excavation of a prehistoric site was conducted at the Tanshishan site in 1954 (FPM, 1955). By 1974, seven seasons of archeological excavations were carried out at this site (FPM, 1961, 1964, 1976, 1983), making it one of the most extensively excavated sites in Fujian until today. The archaeological records of the Tanshishan site have been employed as a diagnostic reference to estimate the date of other Neolithic sites in Fujian. To a certain extent,

8

THE NEOLITHIC OF SOUTHEAST CHINA

the research history of the Tanshishan site represents the most important part of the history of Fujian Neolithic archaeology. The first excavation of the Tanshishan site in 1954 was a salvage project. The site was found when building a flood-control dike along the Min River. Two trenches, 10 × 1.5 m2 each, were excavated within seven days (FPM, 1955, pp. 55–56). Four layers of deposits were identified in Trench 101, and three layers of deposits were found in Trench 102. In total 2643 artifacts were found, and they were compared with other Neolithic sites in Southern China known until then. The report recognized that an absolute date of the Tanshishan site was difficult to estimate and only generally suggested that it was earlier than the Qin Dynasty (221 B.C.–206 B.C.). As to the subsistence patterns, the report noted that the large number of shells retrieved demonstrated that the main food of the Tanshishan people was procured from rivers. The presence of stone adzes and stone axes was interpreted as an indicator of agriculture. Animal bones and deer antler reflected hunting activities (Figure 4) (Ibid).

FIGURE 4. The Excavation of Tanshishan in the 1950s

Introduction

9

This understanding of the Tanshishan site remained almost unchanged until the sixth excavation in 1964–1965 when an area of 513 m2 was excavated. With the discoveries of 32 burials, 59 pits, 2 hearths, and a large number of artifacts, this excavation significantly expanded the cultural inventory of the Tanshishan site. On the basis of the stratigraphy and pottery styles, Zeng Fan, director of the sixth excavation, divided the Tanshishan site into three periods: the Lower, the Middle, and the Upper Tanshishan (FPM, 1976). Zeng contended that the Tanshishan archaeological materials should be named as “Tanshishan Culture,” an archaeological entity that includes all remains of the three layers of the Tanshishan site. Moreover, Zeng also pointed out that most of the shells at Tanshishan were marine shells, indicating that the coastal line was probably not as far as it is today, which is 65 km to the east. This is the first attempt to use archaeological evidence to reconstruct the ancient coastal line. Zeng reported four species of shells, Corbicula sp., Arca sp., Ostrea sp., and Auricula sp., among which three were marine shellfishes. He also reported two C-14 dates of Ostrea sp. from the middle layer (3090 ± 90 B.P, 3005 ± 90 B.P.). The discovery of 29 human skeletons from the cemetery also provided a chance to study the physical characteristics of the Tanshishan people. These skeletons were examined by physical anthropologists Han Kangxin and Zhang Zhenbiao, who observed that the cranial features of the Tanshishan people resemble both the Southern Mongoloids and the East Asiatic Mongoloids, but they are closer to the Southern Asian branch of the Mongoloid race (Han, Zhang, & Zeng, 1976). During the 1960s and 1970s, Fujian archaeologists also excavated the Zhuangbianshan site (FW, 1961), the Xitou site (FPM, 1980, 1984), and the Dongzhang site (FW, 1965). These three sites all yielded remains similar to those of the Tanshishan site, and they were included as part of the Tanshishan Culture. The two excavations at the Xitou site exposed 1548 m2, making it the second most extensively excavated site in this period in Fujian. The discoveries include 53 burials, 33 shell pits, and a large number of artifacts. The pottery assemblage shares similarities with the Tanshishan site, but also displays difference. Unlike the Upper Layer of the Tanshishan site, there is no yellowish red and painted pottery at the Xitou site, demonstrating that the Xitou Neolithic remains were only contemporary

10

THE NEOLITHIC OF SOUTHEAST CHINA

with the Lower and Middle Tanshishan. The second excavation at Xitou produced two TL date on potsherds (4240 ± 190 B.P., 4310 ± 190 B.P.), providing more data for an estimate of the absolute chronology of the Tanshishan Culture. The excavations of these sites established the basis for the understanding of the Tanshishan Culture. By the end of the 1970s, archaeologists in China reached a consensus that the Tanshishan Culture was a Neolithic culture distributed in the lower reaches of the Min River, and its date was possibly from 5500–4000 B.P. However, the definition of this culture remained one of the most actively debated problems until the 1990s in Fujian Neolithic archaeology. In addition to the above excavation projects in the lower reaches of the Min River, Fujian archaeologists also conducted two large reconnaissance projects in the whole province in the 1950s and the 1970s, and a large number of Neolithic sites were found in Eastern, Southern, and Northern Fujian Province (FW, 1961b, 1961c, 1961d; Zeng, 1955, 1959; Zeng & Huang, 1961). Unfortunately, most of these sites have never been excavated; therefore, their date and cultural characteristics are not clear. Nevertheless, these archaeological reconnaissances provided clues for further archaeological investigations. Eastern Guangdong Province Archaeological investigations in eastern Guangdong were limited to surveys and very few small-scale test excavations during this period. From 1956 to 1960, Guangdong Provincial Museum organized a number of survey projects in 18 counties of eastern Guangdong, and discovered 241 Neolithic sites (GPM, 1961). Guangdong Administrative Committee for Cultural Heritage (Guangdong sheng wenguanhui) also conducted several surveys in Chao’an and Chaoyang Counties (GWGW, 1956, 1961). A number of sites were reported in detail, and these data served as the basis for the understanding of the Neolithic cultures in this area until the late 1980s. The Chenqiao site, the Shiweishan site, and the Meilinhu site in Chao’an County all yielded interesting materials. According to the brief description in the report, all three sites were shell midden, and most of the shells were marine shells such as oyster and clam (GWGW, 1961). The pottery collected at Chenqiao

Introduction

11

site consisted of coarse sand-tempered pottery, decorated with incised patterns in the neck and shoulder area. Some of them have red slips or are painted. As will be elaborated in the following chapters, the Chengqiao site has drawn much attention from scholars who are interested in the origin of the Austronesians. Unfortunately, it has never been excavated, and there has been no attempt to date this site either. Based on the characteristics of pottery, Mo Zhi, the writer of the survey report, contended that it was an early Neolithic site in Guangdong. Mo also argued that the Shiweishan site was slightly earlier than the Chenqiao site (GWGW, 1961). It is also interesting to note that the Chinese archaeologists never mentioned Maglioni’s investigations during this period. The sites in Haifeng (Hiofeng in Maglioni’s report) that Maglioni visited in the 1930s were re-investigated by archaeologists in Guangdong in the 1950s (GPM, 1961), but they were never evaluated against the information Maglioni reported. The survey report published in 1961 only briefly mentioned these sites in Haifeng were sand dune sites, which “contained rich remains, and there are plenty of stone tools, but the variety and form are simple. The associated pottery is mostly coarse sand-tempered …” (Ibid, p. 651). Southern Zhejiang Province This area was the mostly poorly understood region in Southeast China. From 1950 to 1983, only two brief reports of the discovered Neolithic sites were published (Fang, 1956; Yu, 1983). In 1978, four burials were exposed in a construction project at Longshan, Rui’an County, the Southernmost county in Zhejiang Province. The pottery has dark slips on the surface, similar to those found in northern Fujian (Yu, 1983). In this brief report, Yu also mentioned the collection of painted pottery at the Heyushan site and the Shanqianshan site in Rui’an. These isolated discoveries provided clues for future investigations. Third Period: The Middle 1980s to Present The last two decades of the 20th century witnessed an expansion of archaeological field works in Fujian, southern Zhejiang, and eastern Guangdong Provinces. In comparison to the first and second periods, both the number of excavated sites and the research topics have significantly increased. Just

12

THE NEOLITHIC OF SOUTHEAST CHINA

like the second period, these archaeological projects were conducted by archaeologists affiliated to each of the three provinces. Fujian Province During the 1980s and the 1990s, the horizon of Fujian Neolithic archaeology was significantly expanded. The new materials and sites discovered by excavations and reconnaissance not only filled spatial gaps in many areas of Fujian, they also expanded the chronological sequence of the Fujian prehistory. From 1985 to 1986, the Fujian Provincial Museum excavated the Keqiutou site in Pingtan County (FPM, 1991). This was the first time that a Neolithic site was excavated beyond the Lower Reaches of the Min River. The discovery was a major contribution to the research of the Neolithic in southeast China. As will be elaborated in Chapter Three, the pottery and stone tools of the Keqiutou were different from those of the Tanshishan Culture, and more importantly, the C-14 date of marine shells of the Keqiutou site demonstrate that it was probably from 6000–5000 B.P., much earlier than the Tanshishan site. This discovery subsequently invoked discussions on the relationship between the Keqiutou and the Tanshishan Culture. Most people argued that the Tanshishan Culture was developed from the Keqiutou Culture (Lin, 1993), but others maintained that the origins of the Tanshishan site were not in Fujian (Chang, 1989). I will return to these issues in Chapter Three. The excavation of the Huangguashan site in 1989 was another major contribution to the understanding of Fujian Neolithic (FPM, 1994). This excavation was not only the first archaeological dig in northeastern Fujian but also gives a better understanding of the Neolithic cultures than the later Tanshishan Culture in eastern Fuijan. As mentioned above, since the 1970s, archaeologists have been debating whether the Tanshishan Culture should incorporate all three layers of the Tanshishan site or should only refer to the Lower and Middle Tanshishan. The Huangguashan site yielded pottery and stone tools similar to the Upper Tanshishan, particularly the painted pottery, but it did not have remains similar to the Lower and Middle Tanshishan. This indicates that it represents a different cultural entity later than the Tanshishan Culture (Figure 5).

Introduction FIGURE 5.

13

Excavation of the Huangguashan Site in 1989

Excavations were also conducted in northwestern Fujian, an inland mountainous area where no Neolithic site was excavated until the late 1980s. The Niubishan site (FPM, 1996) and the Doumishan site (FPM, 2001) are the two major Neolithic sites that were extensively excavated by the Fujian Provincial Museum during this period. The information retrieved from these two sites not only filled the gap of our knowledge of the inland Neolithic cultures, they also provided materials for studying the connections between inland areas and the coast (see Chapter Three). A number of Neolithic sites were also reported from southern Fujian. Surveys of the Damaoshan site in Dongshan County, the Lazhoushan site in Zhao’an County, and the Fuchuanshan site in Zhangzhou City were conducted (Fan, 1991). However, no effort was made to excavate these Neolithic sites. As will be elaborated in the following section, these early investigations provided clues for and inspired my excavation at the Damaoshan site in 2002. The Neolithic sites in the Lower Reaches of the Min River continued receiving attention from Fujian archaeologists. From 1982 to 1984, the Fujian Provincial Museum conducted two extensive excavations at the Zhuangbianshan site, exposing 2804 m2 (DPM, 1998). Major discoveries

14

THE NEOLITHIC OF SOUTHEAST CHINA

include 63 burials, 72 pits, and a large number of pottery, stone, bone, and shell tools. These materials further enhanced the understanding of the Tanshishan Culture (see Chapter Three). Eastern Guangdong Province In comparison to the previous period, the research of Neolithic archaeology in eastern Guangdong Province made little progress since the 1980s. Our understanding of the Neolithic cultures is still based on a few Late Neolithic sites. Archaeological surveys were conducted in several counties, and hundreds of Neolithic sites were found (Qiu, Zeng, & Zhang, 1998). However, only two sites were excavated. The Hutoupu site (GPM; SW, & PM, 1984) and the Houshan site (GWK & PM, 1998), both located in Puning County, were excavated in the early 1980s, and the assemblage of the material cultures probably represents two stages of the late Neolithic in this area. Fifteen kilns were found at the Hutoupu site, and ten burials were found at the Houshan site. Unfortunately, no dating samples were produced at these two sites. The date of the Houshan site was estimated as 3500–3000 B.P. based on pottery typology in comparison to the later Fubin Culture, a Bronze Age culture that has been dated to 3000–2500 B.P. The date of the Hutoupu site was speculated to be earlier than the Houshan site. Southern Zhejiang Province During the 1980s and the 1990s, archaeological surveys were conducted at a number of counties in southern Zhejiang Province, and many Neolithic sites were found (Haiming Wang, 1999). However, only three inland sites have been excavated. We still do not have excavated materials from the coastal area. In 1997, the Zhejiang Provincial Institute of Archaeology and Antiquity carried out excavations at three sites: the Shizigang site and the Niutougang site in Taishun County (ZWKY et al., 1999), and the Haochuan site in Suichang County (ZWKY & SW, 2001). These are the first well-controlled archaeological excavations of Neolithic sites in southern Zhejiang, and the discovered materials are significant for studying the connections between the inland and the coastal areas during the late Neolithic period (see Chapter Three).

Introduction

15

SUMMARY In summary, the seven decades of archaeological investigations in Southeast China have produced a significant amount of data for understanding the Neolithic cultures in this area. Chinese archaeologists conducted most of the research, and the issues they explored or debated can be summarized as follows: 1. Regional variations of the material cultures and the definition of archaeological cultures: Chinese archaeologists are preoccupied with the identification of archaeological “culture”, defined as an entity consisting of an assemblage of material remains and features known to be contemporary, associated with one another, and occupying a continuous geographical area. This is V. G. Childe’s concept introduced to China by Xia Nai in 1959 (Xia, 1959). It has been the primary goal of many Chinese archaeologists to define their discoveries as “X” culture, and the practice of archaeology in Southeast China is part of this academic tradition. Due to different understandings of material cultures, Chinese archaeologists constantly engage in debate over the spatial and temporal definition of a particular culture. In Southeast China, the debate on the definition of the Tanshishan Culture has been a major issue. Zeng Fan argued that the Tanshishan Culture included all the remains of the Upper, Middle and the Lower layers of the Tanshishan site (Zeng, 1993), a view that has been criticized by his colleagues (Lin, 1993; Wu, 1981). Wu Mianji argued that the Upper Tanshishan was a mix of Neolithic and Bronze Age remains, and therefore it was not appropriate to incorporate it into the Tanshishan Culture. He instead suggested that, as a meaningful archaeological entity, the Tanshishan Culture should only refer to the Lower and Middle Tanshishan (Wu, 1981). Wu’s theory has been accepted by most archaeologists (FPM, 2004a; Lin, 1993). 2. The subsistence pattern: This issue was only occasionally touched upon in the summary sections of archaeological reports. The presence of domesticated pig and dog bones has been noted by researchers, but the report of the faunal identification was so brief that there was no quantitative information provided. In fact, there has been no effort during the excavation

16

THE NEOLITHIC OF SOUTHEAST CHINA

to systematically collect animal bones and other faunal remains. There has been some effort to analyze the marine shells collected from coastal sites such as the Damaoshan site, the Lazhoushan site, and the Keqiutou site. Most reports are limited to the nominal recognition of shell species without further analysis of the collection strategy and their roles in the economy. Plant remains have not been noted until my own excavation at the Huangguashan site. Although many people have argued that there was an agricultural economy in the Neolithic Southeast China, their contentions are essentially assumptions without direct evidence. 3. Social organization: The discovery of the three cemeteries at the Tanshishan site, the Zhuangbianshan site, and the Xitou site has provided data for analyzing the organization of their societies. The arguments made by Chinese archaeologists are confined to paradigms such as patrilineal or matrilineal societies, a Marxist framework that has become the dominant theory in China since 1950. 4. The causes of the cultural change in Southeast China’s Neolithic: Despite the weakness of available archaeological data to substantiate any rigorous theories on the causes of cultural change, a number of hypotheses have been espoused. Based on the factors identified as the change mechanism, we can distinguish the theories into two schools. I shall term them as “exogenous school” and “endogenous school.” The exogenous school views changes as operations that first happened outside the area, and later were brought or diffused into the societies in Southeast China through either direct population movement or regional interaction. The representative proponent of this theory is K. C. Chang who used the term “Lungshanoid” (Longshannoid) to explain the cultural similarities during the period from the fourth to third millennium B.C. which occurred on east coast of China and across the Taiwan Strait (Chang, 1969). This theory was based on the homology of pottery styles, particularly the tripod and the pedestal cup. Chang argued that it was population migration from northern China that led to this pottery assemblage change in southeast China. Later, K. C. Chang substantially modified this population migration theory. He observed that it was an increasingly intensified “interaction sphere” that brought all the changes in the late Neolithic of Southeast China (Chang, 1986, 1989). Chang maintained that this network significantly influenced the development of the

Introduction

17

Tanshishan Culture in Fujian, and he further associated the beginning of Tanshishan Culture with the replacement of the Proto-Austronesian by the Sino-Tibetan speakers (Chang, 1989). Archaeologists who favor an endogenous model to explain the origin of the Tanshishan Culture have disputed Chang’s population migration theory. After the excavation of the Keqiutou site in 1986, most archaeologists working with the materials of Fujian argued that the Tanshishan Culture was developed from the Keqiutou Culture, and the external influence was insignificant or only played a minimum role (An, 1990; Lin, 1993; Wu, 1995). An Zhimin argued that the ceramic tripod, one important indicator of Chang’s “Longshanoid Sphere,” was not a major type of vessel in the Tanshishan Culture. Therefore, it could not serve as a marker of cultural influence (An, 1990). Wu maintains that the integration of Fujian into the Chinese civilization sphere was a complicated process, and it did not happen until the end of the second century B.C. when Han Dynasty annexed Fujian as part of its territory (Wu, 1995). Lin Gongwu proposed that the Taishishan Culture developed indigenously from the previous Keqiutou Culture and no significant external influences were observed in the Tanshishan material assemblage (Lin, 1993). 5. The relationship between the Neolithic cultures of mainland southeast China and Taiwan: This has been an interesting issue for archaeologists both in Taiwan and mainland China. The discussion has been focused on the origins of the Neolithic cultures in Taiwan and the later influences from the mainland to Taiwan. Most archaeologists recognize that Taiwan’s Neolithic cultures originated in the mainland. Chang argued that the Dapenkeng Culture, the earliest Neolithic culture so far known in Taiwan (see Chapter Four), was also distributed on the Mainland coast, and he listed the Keqiutou site, the Fuguodun site, and the Chenqiao site as parts of the Dapenkeng Culture (Chang, 1995). Tsang Cheng-Hwa further elaborated on this issue (Tsang, 1995, 2002). However, An Zhimin disagreed with this model, arguing that the Dapenkeng and the Keqiutou belonged to two different cultural traditions (An, 1990). The influence of the Tanshishan Culture on the Taiwan Neolithic cultures is another debated issue. Chang, and Tsang, among others, argue that the

18

THE NEOLITHIC OF SOUTHEAST CHINA

mainland influences were the main mechanism for the changes in Taiwan (Chang, 1989; Tsang, 1996). Liu Yi-Ch’ang disagrees with this interpretation, and he sees the changes in Neolithic Taiwan as indigenous happenings (Liu, 2000). An Zhiming also had a similar interpretation, but he also argued that Taiwan and mainland China maintained a strong contact network (An, 1990). As will be further discussed in the following section (also see Chapter Four), this issue has direct implications for the study of the origins of the Austronesian-speakers, giving the Neolithic archaeology of Southeast China a much broader significance than the local level.

DEFINING THE STUDY THEMES: CHRONOLOGY, SUBSISTENCE PATTERN, EXCHANGE NETWORK, AND THE AUSTRONESIAN EXPANSION This strategic significance of the Neolithic cultures in southeast China has increasingly received attention from archaeologists who work in China, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific in the past two decades. As will be further discussed in Chapter Four, Southeast China has been one of the focal points in the debate over the origins of the Austronesians. Most archaeologists believe that the ultimate origin of the Proto-Austronesians was on the coast of Southeastern China (Bellwood, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2006; Chang, 1995; Chang & Goodenough, 1996). This theory has been supported by the linguistic model advocated by Robert Blust (1995, 1999) and many genetic studies (Cox, 2005; Hagelberg, 2001; Trejaut et al., 2005). Although a small number of archaeologists and geneticists contend that a possible homeland of the Austronesian ancestors is on the islands of Southeast Asia, this alternative model also recognizes that Southeast China’s Neolithic is important for the study of early Austronesian dispersals (Meacham, 1988; Soheilm, 1975, 1988; Oppenheimer & Richards, 2001). In light of these studies, the Neolithic archaeology of coastal Southeast China has great potential to contribute to the investigation of the earliest Austronesian expansions. The patterns and processes involved in the cultural changes in Southeast China during the Neolithic period may shed light on many important issues in the early history of the Austronesian speakers.

Introduction

19

However, as discussed above, the extant archaeological materials in southeast China only offer a vague picture of the Neolithic of this area. Our understanding of the Neolithic cultures of southeast China has been confined to a small number of archaeological sites excavated with a narrow strategy. The current chronology of Neolithic southeast China is poorly established on a few C-14 dates without a secure archaeological context. The date of many sites is assumed based on the stylistic comparison of pottery and stone tools. Little is known about subsistence patterns, human interactions with the environment, and inter-community exchange. Owing to the small number of excavated sites, the Neolithic cultures in many areas are still not clear. Southern and northeastern coastal Fujian are two such areas. It is with the above understanding of the significance and problems of the Neolithic archaeology of southeast China that I outline my own research in this area, with the explicit aim of outlining the processes of cultural change and their implications for the Proto-Austronesian dispersals. The major issues explored in this monograph include: 1. The chronological sequences of the archaeological sites on the coast of southeast China: This basic archaeological issue, though important for any archaeological inquiry anywhere in the world, remains poorly answered in southeast China. An effort to systematically evaluate the previous archaeological record and to find new dating materials is essential for any further interpretations. Thus, the field work undergirding this book involves new archaeological excavations as well as an analysis of museum collections. As will be elaborated in the following chapters, one of my primary concerns during the excavations was to find more dating samples in order to construct a better chronology. 2. The subsistence economy in the Neolithic of southeast China: Previous archaeological records are particularly ineffective to study the subsistence economy, because the focus of the archaeological excavations in this area has been to find artifacts such as pottery and stone tools. Information related to subsistence were either discarded or only collected on contingency. Therefore, I have systematically collected and analyzed faunal and floral information in my own work. Despite my work being limited to two sites,

20

THE NEOLITHIC OF SOUTHEAST CHINA

the information retrieved has significantly enhanced our understanding of the Neolithic economy in this area. 3. The exchange networks in southeast China during the Neolithic period: The development of exchange networks along the coastal area is not only the key issue in investigating the cultural changes on the southeast China coast, it is also essential for interpreting the expansion of the Proto-Austronesians across the Taiwan Strait (Chapter Four). So far, most studies on this issue have been built on indirect evidence such as a typological comparison of pottery and stone tools. However, archaeologists today have a much broader scope of contemporary techniques at their disposal to find more direct evidences for prehistoric interactions. My study combines the traditional typological analysis of stone adzes with the geochemical approach to investigate the Neolithic exchange networks in southeast China (Chapters Five and Seven).

THE DAMAOSHAN AND HUANGGUASHAN INVESTIGATIONS The Damaoshan site and the Huangguashan site are ideal to address the above themes. The Damaoshan site is located in Dongshan County, southern Fujian (Fan, 1991; Xu, 1988). Previous surveys have reported that it was a settlement with dense deposits of marine shells and fish bones. The collected potsherds and stone tools indicate that people had developed a Neolithic culture. During my visit to this site in December 2001, I found that although part of the site was destroyed, there is still about 300 m2 left intact. Located in southern Fujian, this site had great potential to provide the necessary evidence for the study of cultural development and exchange networks along the coastal area. As mentioned above, the Huangguashan site is located in Xiapu County, northeastern Fujian Province. The rich deposit of marine shells, as thick as 3 m, indicates that the inhabitants of the Huangguashan site developed a strong maritime adaptation. The first excavation in 1989 found a large number of artifacts but did not systematically collect fauna samples and dating materials (FPM, 1994). Since 2000, I have been involved in a research project to study Neolithic seafaring along the Fujian coast (Rolett, Jiao, & Lin, 2002). The sourcing of the stone adzes excavated

Introduction

21

from the Huangguashan site is one of the focuses of this project. After a visit to the Huangguashan site in December 2001, it was determined that it was necessary to conduct further excavation at this site in order to have a better understanding of the chronology and other background information of this site. With the permission from the Chinese National Bureau of Cultural Relics and the Fujian Provincial Bureau of Cultural Relics, I joined the excavation of the Huangguashan site in May and June 2002. In November and December 2002, I went back to Fujian and excavated the Damaoshan site. As will be illustrated in the following chapters, the information retrieved from these two excavations, which is the basis of this monograph, has contributed on many aspects to the understanding of the Neolithic of southeast China and the dispersal of the Proto-Austronesians.

CHAPTER TWO

THE ENVIRONMENT OF SOUTHEAST CHINA

To understand the Neolithic of southeast China it is necessary to know the geological, climatic, and biotic history of this area. Since the time span of this monograph is Neolithic (3500–6500 B.P.), the climatic and biotic changes in the early and middle Holocene are directly relevant to this study. As will be further elaborated in Chapter Three, the configuration of landforms of southeast China had a significant impact on the distribution of Neolithic cultures, and the sea level changes in the Holocene are significant factors for the development of coastal adaptation (Jiao, 2006a).

GEOLOGY The amount of literature of geological study for this area is beyond the scope of this chapter to summarize, and for the purpose of this monograph, it is not necessary to dive too deeply into the details of geology. In China, the geological surveys are usually carried out within the boundary of modern provinces, and the publications of geological studies in southeast China

24

THE NEOLITHIC OF SOUTHEAST CHINA

are thus divided into the Zhejiang, Fujian, and Guangdong Provinces. For the sake of brevity, the following summary is relies on the information from Fujian Province. As part of the landforms of the Eastern Eurasian continent, the modern tectono-geomorphic characteristic of southeast China is closely related to the development of the Marginal-Pacific Tectonic Domain beginning from the late Triassic (Ren et al., 1987). However, the beginning of the geological history of this area can go back to the Late Proterozoic. Since modern Fujian Province has the biggest landform in southeast China, its geological history can represent the general situation of this region. In summary, the tectonic configuration in Fujian underwent the Yangtze-Caledonian cycle, the Variscan-Indosinian cycle, the Yanshanian cycle, and the Himalayan cycle in its geological history. Most Chinese geologists agree that the geological evolution in Fujian can be divided into four stages (FDK, 1985; Song et al., 1998). Stage One: Late Proterozoic to Late Ordovic This stage is geosynclinal. During the early period of this stage,that is, before the early Sinian, the whole region was a vast marine basin. In the late Ordovician, a series of tectonic movements generated deep and large faults. The region was folded and uplifted, and its geosynclinal history was ended. Stage Two: Late Devonian to Middle Triassic This is a paraplatform to miogeosynclinal stage. Eastern Fujian was still under marine condition during this stage. Southwestern Fujian was a littoral sea in late Devonian, but northern Fujian had become land. During the early period of this stage, new depressions were generated based on Caledonian folded basement, and vocaniclastic formation was active in central Fujian. In the early part of the late Triassic, the Indosinian movement formed a series of Northeast complex anticlines and synclines, and therefore ended the paraplatform and miogeosynclinal history in this region. Folds were asymmetrical with the fold axial planes dipping Northwestward. Transversal and crossed faults developed and formed the edge of depression.

The Environment of Southeast China

25

Stage Three: Late Triassic to Cretaceous The geological history of Fujian entered into the Marginal-Pacific Tectonic Domain stage. During the late Triassic, the subduction of the Pacific Plate under the Eurasian Plate caused a series of fault depressions, and as the subduction accelerated, volcanism became active in vast areas and volcanic eruptions happened along faults. After the accumulation of thick volcanic rocks, strong compression associated with intensive faulting occurred. After the Yanshanian orogenic movement, the whole region became a landmass. Stage Four: Cenozoic The current continental configuration was formed, and the whole region entered into a steadily uplifting stage. During the end of the Tertiary stage, the Himalayan orogenic movement continuously uplifted the tectonic structure in southeast China, and the Taiwan Strait was formed along the Eastern coast. A number of volcanic eruptions occurred in the late Tertiary stage in the coastal area, with small basin deposits and alkaline basaltic eruptions in the interior. During the Pleistocene, the vertical fault movement continued, and terraces were formed along the river courses. There were probably glacial in the inland regions, and a bay was formed in the river mouth. During the early Holocene, part of the tectonics along the coast subsided to a certain degree, but later the areas south of the Min River mouth were uplifted. This brief summary of geological history suffices to demonstrate that the current geomorphology of Southeast China was formed by various tectonic movements. The stage of Marginal-Pacific Tectonic Domain had a significant impact on the coastal area. This long and interactive geological history created an enormous diversity of landforms in southeast China, and these lands and seas were homes for the Neolithic people whose lives are the subject of this monograph (Figure 6).

GEOMORPHOLOGY Southeast China’s physical features vary in type and size. Mountains occupy more than two-third of the total areas. Basins, plains, and low hills

26

THE NEOLITHIC OF SOUTHEAST CHINA FIGURE 6. Topographic Map of Southeast China

are distributed among the mountains. The coastal line is highly irregular and very rocky in some areas. According to the records of Fujian Province, high mountains, and low hills account for 82.39% of the region, whereas plains and rivers account only for 17.61%. Among the mountains, 3.25% are higher than 1000 m in altitude, 32.87% are 500–1000 m high, and 58.88% are 50–500 m. The Wuyi Mountain system, extending from southwestern Zhejiang to northeastern Guangdong Provinces, lies in the west of the whole region. This mountain system is 30–50 km wide in the north and more than 100 km wide in the south. The average altitude is above 1000 m. The highest Huanggang Mountain is about 2157.80 m in altitude. These high mountains are steep and vertical on their western sides, and relatively gentle on their eastern sides. They serve as natural barriers separating southeast China from central China. The areas favorable for humans to live in are small basins and narrow riverine banks. This kind of landscape had significant impacts on Neolithic cultures. The general orientation of mountains, valleys, and the coastal line is north northeast, south southwest, and northeast–southwest, respectively. The topographic relief decreases from west north to east south. On the basis of landform configuration, surface components, and climate, the physiography of Southeast China can be divided into three zones: The West Zone, the Middle Zone, and the East Zone (Xie et al., 1998).

The Environment of Southeast China

27

The West Zone encompasses the Wuyi Mountain system and the north-south or longitudinal Zhenghe-Dapu Fault to its east. The landform of this zone was a result of active uplifting and faulting throughout geological times. A number of basins were developed in the middle part of the zone. Inside the Wuyi Mountain system, many corridors were developed along the faults or ancient river courses. These corridors serve as important passes for the cold winds blowing into the region during winter. Historically, they were also strategic points for military action. Almost all rivers in southeast China originated in this zone. The riverbanks are intermittently narrow and wide, in conformity with the width of the valleys. In some areas, river terraces were formed, and two lines of fault basins developed in the middle of this zone. The Middle Zone is also a mountainous area. The main mountain system is the northeast southwest oriented Donggong Mountain–Jiufeng Mountain– Daiyun Mountain–Boping Mountain. The width of this mountain system is 60–180 km. The Yandang Mountain and the Taimou Mountain constitute another mountain chain in the northeast of this zone. Under the influence of the Yanshanian Orogenic Cycle, this area was significantly uplifted. The elevation of most mountains is 1000–1200 m, and some of them reach 1800 m. The tectonic uplifting movement resulted in two asymmetric slopes in this mountain system. The western slope is sharper than the eastern slope. The topographic relief decreases from west to east in a stepped fashion. As will be elaborated in Chapter Three, in the Neolithic period, this middle mountainous zone served as a natural barrier to cultural exchange and population movement. Archaeological evidence shows dramatic material cultural differences between the mountainous area and the eastern coastal area. The Eastern Zone includes the whole coastal area to the east of the mountainous zone. The topographic relief descends from west to east, and the average elevation is below 500 m. Low hills are the predominant landforms to the north of the Min River delta. There are only a limited number of plains and they are generally small. The topography to the south of the Min River Delta includes hills, red soil platforms on peninsulas and islands, river-flooded plains, and ocean-deposited plains. The Zhangzhou Plain is about 30 by 30 km, covering about 900 km2. The Chaoshan Plain, including the Hanjiang River Delta and the Huanggang River Delta, covers 1200 km2, and it is the biggest plain in this region.

28

THE NEOLITHIC OF SOUTHEAST CHINA

The coastal lines are highly irregular, including bays, beaches, dunes, marsh flat, deltas, estuaries, and rocky shores. There are more than 1000 offshore islands in the East China Sea, and Haitai Island and Dongshan Island are the two biggest islands. The irregularity of the coastal line is particularly pronounced in the Fujian coast. From Fuding to Zhao’an, the total length of the coastal line is 3051 km, while the straight-line distance is only 535 km. The irregularity ratio of the line curve is therefore 1:5.7. There are 1202 islands in Fujian, and the total length of the island coastline is 1779 km. The coastal line to north of the Min River mouth is rocky. Because most of the rivers flowing to the sea cover short distances, they bring only small amounts of sediment into the sea. Therefore, there are many good bays and harbors (Figure 7). This kind of physiographic feature determines that the rivers in southeast China have small drainage areas, and most of them flow independently into the East China Sea. From north to south, the main rivers include the Ou River (Oujiang), the Min River (Minjiang), the Jin River (Jinjiang), the Jiulong River (Jiulongjiang), and the Han River (Hanjiang). Between these major rivers, there are hundreds of short-distance streams flowing separately into the East China Sea. The descending topography from west to east in some areas creates high speed river flow. A subtropical climate and the high annual precipitation means that the water level in these rivers is usually high. These east-flowing rivers are barely navigable in the interior mountains, and they

FIGURE 7. A View of Fujian Coast

The Environment of Southeast China

29

become gentle near the sea. Most of these rivers have a short distance and small drainage area. Only the Min River, the Han River, and the Jiulong River have drainage areas of more than 10,000 km2. The Min River is the longest river in this region, about 541 km long with a drainage area of about 61,000 km2, almost half the size of the whole Fujian Province. Joined by many tributaries from the mountainous areas to the coast, the Min River has numerous shoals and rapids, making it difficult for navigation. The Han River is the second longest river, and it is about 325 km long with a drainage area of about 34,000 km2. There are many gorges and rapids in its upper and middle reaches, and it breaks into several channels upon entering the delta plain, before emptying into the East China Sea. The Jiulong River in Southern Fujian is about 258 km long with a drainage area of 14,741 km2.

CLIMATE Southeast China is between Northern Latitude 22° ∼ 28° and it is on the front edge of the Eurasian continent facing the Pacific Ocean. This geographic location determined that its climate is a typical subtropical climate influenced by the monsoon. In winter (October to March), the predominant wind blows from the north, which brings cold weather; in summer (June to August), the predominant wind blows from the south, bringing moist and hot weather. Both the temperature and the precipitation are determined by the monsoon. Since modern Fujian Province occupies most of the landforms of southeast China, its climate features represent the general pattern of this region. According to a study of the climate in Fujian (Cai et al., 1998), this kind of monsoon climate has the following characteristics: 1. The change of seasons is brought by the switch of monsoon direction; 2. Short winter and long summer. Based on temperature, the duration of summer is 5–6 months, and southern Fujian does not experience winter. The annual mean temperature is 17 ∼ 21 °C. The annual mean of days that have temperatures above 10 °C are 250–360 days. Many areas have more than 300 days without frost; 3. The winter is warm, and the temperature difference is big between the north and the south. The summer is relatively cool, and the

30

THE NEOLITHIC OF SOUTHEAST CHINA

temperature difference is small between the north and the south. January is the coldest month, and the mean monthly temperature is 6 ∼ 13 °C. The number of days with temperatures below 0 °C is usually 20 days in Central and Northern Fujian. However, in Southern Fujian, the number is zero. In areas of higher altitude, the number could be more than 30 days. July is the hottest month, and the mean monthly temperature is 26 ∼ 28 °C. The number of days with temperatures above 35 °C is usually 20 days in most areas. In coastal areas, the number is usually 10 days; 4. The dry season and wet season is clearly divided. The wet season is from March to September, and the dry season is from October to February. The annual precipitation in Fujian is 1000 ∼ 2000 mm and most areas have an annual mean precipitation of more than 1500 mm. More than 80% of the precipitation is from March to September. Cold winds are predominant in the dry season (October to February), and the total precipitation in this period only accounts for 15–20% of the annual precipitation; 5. Because of the diversity of the landforms, there are many regional variations in the climate. There are three climatic realms in Fujian, and each realm can be divided into several sub-realms. Both the precipitation and mean temperature vary in each sub-realm. The first climatic realm is the Southern Subtropical Climate Realm, covering areas of Eastern middle to Southern Fujian. The coastal area (Pingtan to Dongshan) is a semi-arid region. The annual precipitation is 1000 ∼ 1200 mm, but the annual evaporation is above 2000 mm. Therefore, during the dry season, drought is a problem for this region. The second climatic realm is the Middle Subtropical Climate Realm, covering areas of Northern and Northeastern Fujian. Most areas are semi-humid regions with substantial annual precipitation. The third climatic realm is the Middle Subtropical Montane Climate Realm, covering the mountainous areas in Western Fujian. It is a humid region with annual mean precipitation above 1800 mm. However, the temperature and rainfall vary greatly with the specific features of the landforms. The climate can be very different at different altitudes, on windward or leeward slopes, and between

The Environment of Southeast China

31

basins and hillsides. Climate conditions particularly change with altitude; 6. Disastrous climatic phenomena frequently occur. Floods are a problem in the rainy season, typhoons and associated flooding come in summer. Typhoons are a problem especially in the coastal areas. These typhoons originate in the Pacific to the east of the Philippines and Taiwan, and usually move west and northwest, many striking the coasts of Fujian and Guangdong Provinces. Typhoons bring with them torrential rains and hurricane winds of 150 kph and more. The sea level rises dramatically, wreaking havoc on shipping and property bordering the sea. According to the records from 1949 to 1984, on average, two typhoons have landed on Fujian each year with the maximum number being four in a year, while six to one dozen others pass over the nearby sea. Most of these typhoons occur from July to September (Cai et al., 1998). Now the question is whether this kind of climate pattern was also typical of the early and middle Holocene periods in southeast China. In order to put the Neolithic cultures of southeast China into a meaningful climate context, it is necessary to investigate the climate changes in the Holocene. The evidence for Holocene climate history in southeast China is from palynological studies. According to a study conducted by Zheng and Li in Hanjiang Delta, eastern Guangdong Province, the Holocene commenced with a cool Younger Dryas ca. 10,300 years ago (Zheng & Li, 2000). This climate was evidenced by a drastic increase in grassland, associated with a reduction in the evergreen forest. However, the duration of this cool period is not determined yet. According to Zheng and Li, from ca. 8300 C-14 year B.P., a monsoon evergreen forest (mainly Castanopsis) and diverse mangrove elements appeared in the Hanjiang Delta, indicating a warm climate. The higher levels of precipitation and moist conditions can be inferred from the increase in fern spores. It is estimated that annual rainfall was probably 100–400 mm greater than today (Ibid, p. 336). However, Zheng and Li’s study did not produce evidence for the duration of this warm period. Another major reduction of the evergreen broad-leaved forest occurred ca. 2000 C-14 year B.P., and it was attributed to human impact rather than climate change.

32

THE NEOLITHIC OF SOUTHEAST CHINA

The middle Holocene in China was a period of climatic optimum. According to Tang et al, this optimum started around 8900 ∼ 7500 B.P, and ended around 4300 ∼ 2500 B.P. in southeast China (Tang et al., 1996). This demonstrates that the Neolithic cultures in southeast China were developed in this generally warm and moist period. During this optimum period of more than 5000 years, the annual mean temperature was 1 ∼ 3 °C higher than today. Although there were intermittent cooler phases during this period, in general, the scale of climate fluctuations in southeast China was not significant.

FLORA AND FAUNA Flora The subtropical climate determines that the vegetation basically consists of subtropical species in southeast China. The dramatic elevation differences of the landforms influence the components of the vegetation species significantly in different areas. Furthermore, the current vegetation in southeast China has been altered by humans in the past thousands of years, and non-indigenous vegetation was introduced into this area. I will summarize the general distribution pattern of the current vegetation first, and then proceed to examine the evidence for the reconstruction of vegetation in the early and middle Holocene. The current flora of southeast China comprises four kinds of vegetation: the temperate deciduous forest, the northern sub-tropical evergreen deciduous forest, the middle sub-tropical evergreen forest, and the southern sub-tropical evergreen forest. The coastal areas and most of the low altitude inland regions are covered by subtropical vegetation. In mountainous areas, temperate deciduous forests and conifers predominate. The subtropical vegetation mainly consists of species in the following families: Myrtaceae, Lauraceae, Rubiaceae, Myrsinaceae, Euphorbiaceae, Annonaceae, Leguminosae, Melastomataceae, Moraceae, Sapindaceae, and Fagaceae. Along the coastal areas, there are mangrove species in the Rhizophoraceae family. Pinaceae, Taxodiaceae, and Cupressaceae grow on the areas with higher elevation. Heavy rainfall and subtropical temperatures ensure a good forest cover. Despite all the farming and timber-cutting activities, until the end

The Environment of Southeast China

33

of the 1980s, about 40% of Fujian Province was still covered with forest (Zhou, 1992). Major trees include masson pine, China fir, cypress, camphor, manmu, sassafras, evergreen chinquapin, and moso bamboo. Bamboo has provided materials for numerous purposes from pens to tables, and one of its uses relevant to this study is the bamboo raft, possibly a major sea-going craft in the Neolithic period. It is noteworthy that in the mountainous area to the west, the components of vegetation vary at different elevations. The subtropical forest grows on the foot of mountains and lower slopes, but herbs and conifers are the major vegetation in areas above 1000 m in altitude. Today, the southeast is one of the most densely populated areas in China. According to a census in the late 1980s, population density averages 232 m−2 (Zhou, 1992, p. 201). A majority of the population lives in the coastal region and narrow river valleys. The mountainous character of the area and the deep, narrow valleys limited the arable land to about 8% of the whole region. Today, rice is the predominant crop in southeast China, and it is grown wherever possible. According to the record of 1987, rice paddy accounts for more than 76% of the cultivated areas in Fujian Province, and rice yields account for more than 85% of the grain total (Zhou, 1992, p. 208). However, archaeological evidence shows that domesticated rice did not originate in southeast China. When and how rice agriculture was introduced into this region will be further elaborated on in Chapter Three. Other important food crops are sweet potatoes, vegetable oils (rapeseed and sesamumseed), beans, peanuts, and vegetables. On highlands and the windy offshore islands where the soil is unsuitable for growing rice, the local people mainly plant peanuts and sweet potatoes. Subtropical fruits are produced in quantity. Six major species are grown in southeast China: longans, litchis, oranges, tangerines, bananas, pineapples, and loquats. Southeast China is also the major producer of sugarcane in China today. Historically this region is the most famous tea-growing area in China. Since the 1870s, Fujian has been known to the Europeans for its famous “Bohea” tea (Tregear, 1980, p. 306). This international tea trade used to account for 90% of the world’s total tea exports (Zhou, 1992). Today, Fujian is still one of the major tea-producing provinces in China. The tea trade might be a recent historical phenomenon,

34

THE NEOLITHIC OF SOUTHEAST CHINA

but the trading of ceramics and other kinds of goods with Southeast Asian Archipelagoes, and as far as the West African coast, goes far back to early history. Archaeological evidence from the excavation at the Damaoshan site indicates that similar kinds of trade across the Taiwan Strait existed in the Neolithic period. This will be discussed in later chapters. Climatic fluctuations in the Holocene also had impacts on the vegetation in southeast China. In order to understand the interrelationships between the Neolithic people and their natural environment, we have to study the early and middle Holocene vegetation history of this area. The changes in vegetation in the early and middle Holocene in southeast China were associated with climate fluctuations. During different periods of the early and middle Holocene, the distribution area and the assemblage component of each kind of forest were also different. Tang et al. (1996) divided southeast China’s Holocene vegetation transformation into four periods. Period One: 11000 ∼ 8000 a B.P. or 10000 ∼ 8500 a B.P. Deciduous evergreen forest cover steadily increased during this period. The major components of the forest were broad-leaved Pinus and Quercus, in association with a high ratio of herbs. The general trend of the vegetation change was from forest to savanna to forest. Period Two: 8500 ∼ 6500 a B.P. This was a prosperous period for the evergreen deciduous broad-leaved forest, which consisted of deciduous Quercus, evergreen Fagus, and Gastanopsis / Lithocarpus. It reached its peak during this period. The boundary of this forest reached modern northern Jiangsu Province, an area further north to its current northern limit. The Hanjiang Delta in eastern Guangdong had a well-developed mangrove forest. Period Three: 6500 ∼ 3500 a B.P. The ratio of herbs and Pinus increased during this period, indicating that the vegetation had changed to a mixed forest consisting of evergreen and conifer species. This change was not prominent in the early period, but the ratio of evergreen deciduous species significantly decreased after 5000 B.P.

The Environment of Southeast China

35

Tang et al. maintained that human impact was possibly an important factor for this change (Ibid). Period Four: 3500 a B.P. to today The vegetation of southeast China is a mixed conifer and broad-leaved forest. Pinus and Quercus are the main classes of trees. The vegetation has been significantly transformed by human activities. A large area of savanna landscape appeared on the Chao-Shan Plain in eastern Guangdong (Ibid, p. 105). The vegetation evolution in the Hanjiang Delta of eastern Guangdong provides a case profile of the flora changes in southeast China during the Holocene. Zheng and Li identified four Holocene pollen zones (H1–H4) from the borehole SH5 near Shantou (Zheng & Li, 2000). Zone H4, dated to 11,000 ∼ 8600 C-14 years B.P. This pollen zone “contains a high percentage of aquatic and marsh herbs, mainly Typha (416%), Cyperaceae (10–36%), and Poaceae (8–37%). Fern spores are less abundant (