Foragers, fishers and farmers: origins of the Taiwanese Neolithic

Research

Foragers, fishers and farmers: origins of the Taiwanese Neolithic Hsiao-chun Hung1 & Mike T. Carson2 The Neolithic of Taiwan represents the first stage in the expansion of Austronesianspeaking peoples through the Pacific. N Settlement and burial evidence from the Tapenkeng (TKP) or Dabenkeng culture demonstrates the development of the early Beijing Taiwanese Neolithic over a period of almost 2000 years, from its origin in the pre-TPK of the Pearl River Delta and south-eastern coastal China. The first TPK communities of Taiwan pursued a mixed coastal foraging and horticultural lifestyle, but by the late Taiwan TPK rice and millet farming were practised with extensive villages and large settlements. The broad-spectrum subsistence diversity of the Taiwanese Neolithic was an important factor in facilitating the subsequent expansion of Austronesian-speaking peoples to the Philippines and beyond. 0

km

2000

Keywords: Taiwan, Austronesian dispersal, Tapenkeng (Dabenkeng), broad-spectrum foraging, rice farming, human migration Online supplementary material is provided at http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/hung342

Introduction The Neolithic of Taiwan marks the first settlement of sedentary groups beyond Mainland China, by 4000 BC if not earlier (Tsang 1992; Chang 1995; Rolett et al. 2000). These developments provided the cultural and linguistic foundations for the Austronesian-speaking societies that later expanded around more than one third of the world’s circumference (Bellwood 1997, 2005; Pawley 2002; Blust 2009). Many hypotheses have been proposed for the causes of the expansion, including the spread of food production and resultant population growth (Thiel 1988: 127; Bellwood 2005), demand for valued marine and tropical forest products (Chang & Goodenough 1996: 51), the search for new trade contacts 1 2

Department of Archaeology and Natural History, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia Micronesian Area Research Center, University of Guam, UOG Station, Mangilao, Guam, GU 92963, USA

C Antiquity Publications Ltd. ANTIQUITY 88 (2014): 1115–1131

http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/088/ant0881115.htm

1115

Foragers, fishers and farmers

(Thiel 1988: 127), social-cultural motivations such as founder ideology (Bellwood 1995), and environmental responses (Bellwood 2005: 135). Taiwan’s Neolithic marked the starting point of a journey that brought Austronesianspeaking people from Taiwan to Island Southeast Asia and beyond. Recent discoveries suggest it emerged through a complicated process, perhaps involving different movements across the Taiwan Strait from China, with changing socio-ecological contexts over the course of several centuries. A closer look at the origins of the Taiwanese Neolithic can build a firmer understanding of how ancient Austronesian-speaking populations equipped themselves and ultimately settled throughout the Pacific. Early Neolithic culture in Taiwan has been defined by the emergence of pottery production, polished stone tools, sedentary settlements and food production (Chang 1969). The latter was understood by Chang to comprise horticulture for tubers such as taro and yams, rather than cultivation of cereals such as rice and millet. Archaeobotanical discoveries in the last decade now suggest that Taiwan’s Neolithic began with a broad-spectrum adaptability to variable environments in which tuber horticulture, cereal agriculture, fishing and foraging were all indispensable components of a Neolithic package. Nevertheless, a specialisation in rice and millet agriculture eventually gained prominence.

The Neolithic context in Taiwan The Taiwanese Neolithic was the period of origin for the island’s aboriginal Austronesian populations. As Chang and Goodenough (1996: 38) observed: “Taiwan’s archaeological cultures [. . .] constitute a continuum” that continued unbroken, without any evident population replacement, from the beginning of the Neolithic onwards to the historically known Austronesian groups, that most likely were descended from Taiwanese forebears of the earliest Neolithic, with deeper origins in southern coastal China (Blust 2009). So far, about 40 sites (Hung 2008) (Figure 1) have yielded the coarse cord-marked pottery distinctive of the period, but fewer than 10 have produced reliable radiocarbon dates. The most convincing results refer to younger assemblages (see discussion below) that generally post-date 3000 BC, notably at village sites with evidence of agriculture in south-west Taiwan (Tsang et al. 2006). Other sites could be several centuries older (Chang 1973: 525; Huang 1974: 66; Chu 2003; Yen 2013), but their contexts are not well understood. The origins of the Taiwanese Neolithic are best discussed from a broad regional perspective encompassing Taiwan, south-eastern coastal China and the many small islands in the Taiwan Strait, where archaeological sites reflect mixed Neolithic economies and lifestyles. At least three questions can be addressed: 1) What was the material signature of the early Neolithic, and how did this signature vary chronologically and geographically? 2) What was the starting-date of the early Neolithic, and how does it compare with the dating of other sites in the Taiwan Strait and along the south-eastern coast of China? 3) What can be inferred about the origin and development of early Neolithic economic practices and social contexts in Taiwan? C

Antiquity Publications Ltd.

1116

Research

Hsiao-chun Hung & Mike T. Carson

Figure 1. Pre-TPK and TPK sites in the Jinmen and Mazu Islands, the Penghu Archipelago, and Taiwan. 1) Niumatou; 2) Huilaili; 3) Niupu; 4) Nanguanli; 5) Nanguanlidong; 6) Dachangqiao; 7) Qijia; 8) Bajia; 9) Xinyuan; 10) Gangkoulun; 11) Kongzhai; 12) Fudeyemiao; 13) Liuhe; 14) Fengbitou; 15) Guoye A; 16) Beiliao; 17) Liyushan; 18) Beinan; 19) Donghebei; 20) Xingang; 21) Zhitian II; 22) Changguang; 23) Chengzipu; 24) Zhenbing III; 25) Gangkou; 26) Yuemei II; 27) Xincheng; 28) Xiagudapu; 29) Dabenkeng (Tapenkeng); 30) Yuanshan; 31) Zhishanyan; 32) Xiaguirou II; 33) Yamuku; 34) Zhuangcuo; 35) Gezishan; 36) Linzijie; 37) Xiapidao; 38) Shuiduiwei; 39) Lanweipu; 40) Fuji; 41) Guizishan; 42) Wanlijiatou; 43) Daowei I; 44) Zhipinglong; 45) Jinguishan; 46) Fuguodun.

Material signature of the early Neolithic Taiwan’s early Neolithic sites contain a unique and easily identifiable type of pottery with coarse cord-marking belonging to the ‘TPK’ culture. TPK was Chang’s (1969) abbreviation C

1117



Figure 2. Example of Changguang pottery, regarded as an early TPK assemblage in eastern Taiwan (after Chao 1994: pl. 20).

for Tapenkeng, the site where the pottery type was best defined, but today’s spelling in pinyin is Dabenkeng. Stratigraphic associations differentiate TPK pottery into early and late phases (Figures 2, 3 & 4). Both exhibit coarsely cord-marked exteriors, but the early and late varieties can be distinguished from each other by their incised designs, rim profiles and other traits (Chu 2003; Guo et al. 2005). A pronounced ridge on the rim, a thick rim profile and exaggerated carinations were frequent in the early TPK, becoming less common later. The early/late TPK distinction applies to more than just pottery. In the potentially older sites, shell middens and tool assemblages suggest a strong reliance on coastal-marine zones and possible contributions from tuber-based horticulture (Chang 1969). Domesticated rice and millet both appear after 2800 BC and are associated with late TPK pottery (Tsang et al. 2006), but they are not yet documented in the archaeobotanical archives of early TPK sites. Potential predecessors for the TPK may be traced to islands in the Taiwan Strait and further into south-eastern coastal China, where several sites contain diverse assemblages dating to 5000–4000 BC. Precise connections between these sites and the TPK are debatable because the pottery types and other material signatures are so varied and dispersed over such a broad region. Sedentary agricultural sites became increasingly numerous and widespread at this time in China (Zhang & Hung 2008; Liu & Chen 2012), although hunter-gatherers and maritime foragers persisted in some coastal zones until at least 3000 BC (Zhang & Hung 2012).

Dating Taiwan’s early Neolithic chronology requires reference to earlier (Palaeolithic) and later (middle Neolithic) periods. A thorough review of Taiwan’s archaeological sequence is beyond C


1118

Research


Figure 3. Changguang pottery, regarded as an early TPK assemblage in eastern Taiwan (after Li & Yeh 2001: 48).

the scope of this article, but several versions have been proposed (Kano 1946; Chang 1970; Huang & Liu 1980: 58–74; Tsang 1999: 38; Liu 2002; Hung 2004). The overall chronology is outlined in Table 1. Period-specific radiocarbon dates are provided in the online supplementary material. Palaeolithic sites in Taiwan are completely devoid of pottery, and contain evidence of a stone pebble tool and flake industry, named the Changbinian, dated in caves and rockshelters to as early as 25 000 BC and possibly as late as 5000–4000 BC (Sung 1980; Tsang et al. 2009, 2011; see Table S1 in online supplementary material). Although these different communities probably met together, no material traces of interaction are documented. Palaeolithic Changbinian cave deposits are overlain in some cases by middle or late Neolithic C

1119



Figure 4. Late TPK vessels from Nanguanlidong in south-west Taiwan (scale lacking in original) (after Tsang et al. 2006).

cultural layers (Huang & Chen 1990; Tsang et al. 2009), but nowhere has a Changbinian assemblage shown a direct in situ transition into the succeeding early Neolithic. The only known pottery-bearing early Neolithic assemblages come from open sites far from the Changbinian caves and rockshelters. Taiwan’s early Neolithic had developed into a number of different middle Neolithic cultures by 2200 BC. A clear disjuncture is noted between the Palaeolithic and the early Neolithic: site locations were separate and several new artefact categories such as pottery, polished stone tools and stone bark-cloth beaters appeared. The transition from early to middle Neolithic, however, reflects a continuity of development (Li 1983; Tsang 1992; Liu 2002) and a diversification of sedentary societies throughout the island (Liu 2007). Large-scale excavations within the Tainan Science-based Industrial Park in south-western Taiwan have yielded by far the most abundant evidence of TPK culture (Tsang et al. 2006) at the sites of Nanguanli and Nanguanlidong, securely dated to the late TPK (2800–2200 BC). The excavations documented rice and millet farming, shell crop-harvesting knives, polished stone adzes, settled village occupation, large cemeteries with extended burials associated with grave goods and a tooth-evulsion ritual, domestic dog burials and other attributes associated with Neolithic lifestyles. Which of these late TPK traits can be attested in the earliest TPK sites, and how did they develop over several centuries—potentially since 4000 BC? C


1120

Hsiao-chun Hung & Mike T. Carson Table 1. Palaeolithic and Neolithic cultural phases in Taiwan (modified from Hung 2004). Date

Pottery/culture

Regions

Palaeolithic Early Neolithic

25000–4000 BC 4000–2500/2200 BC∗ coarse cord-marked pottery Dabenkeng (Tapenkeng) Middle Neolithic 2500–1500 BC fine cord-marked with red-slipped pottery Xuntangpu∗∗ Niumatou Niuchouzi Fushan Hongmaogang

Late Neolithic

1500–300 BC

plain pottery (occasionally with decoration) Yuanshan Zhishanyan Wanshan Yingpu Damalin Dahu Fengbitou Huagangshan Beinan

island-wide, coastal north-west central-west south-west south-east between northern Taiwan and central-west Taiwan north-west Taipei Basin north-east central-west Puli Basin south-west south-west central-east south-east

∗

dating results suggest the end of the early Neolithic varied slightly in different regions, falling in the range of 2500–2200 BC. ∗∗ the Xuntangpu culture is dated as early as 2600 BC.

Pre-TPK, 6000–4000 BC Taiwan’s early Neolithic can be understood as a long-term development, with at least three phases: 1) pre-TPK Neolithic sites in south-eastern coastal China dated 6000–4000 BC; 2) early TPK sites dated 4000–2800 BC; and 3) late TPK sites dated 2800–2200 BC. Potential predecessors of the TPK culture included populations living around or prior to 4000 BC, whose descendants later crossed the Taiwan Strait and brought a distinctive material signature to Taiwan (Figure 5). One likely pre-TPK homeland was in south-eastern coastal China, where coarse cord-marked pottery was produced between 5000 and 3000 BC (Chau 1993; Chang 1995; Lin 2005; Jiao 2013). Along the coasts of Fujian and Guangdong, as well as on offshore islands, communities of foragers and fishers coexisted with rice and millet-farming groups further north or inland. Chang (1995) was the first to suggest the Fujian-Guangdong coast as the most probable source of the TPK, specifically the Keqiutou culture of Fujian and the Fuguodun culture on Jinmen (Kinmen or Quemoy) Island. At these Fujian sites, rice grains and domesticated pigs were absent from layers dated 4000–3500 BC, but these definite agricultural markers were evident in later layers of the Tanshishan phase in Fujian (c. 3000–2300 BC) (Fujian C

1121


Research

Phase


Figure 5. Chronology of the expansion of ancient Austronesian-speaking populations from coastal China through Taiwan to northern Luzon.

Museum & Tanshishan Site Museum 2010). However, animal remains and stable isotopes of human and animal bones all suggested that marine foraging continued as a major subsistence strategy (Jiao 2013). Recent studies highlight the Pearl River Delta in Guangdong as a good candidate for an early TPK homeland (Tsang 2005; Hung 2008). Here, about 5000 BC, complex hunter-gatherers produced pottery at sand-dune sites of the Xiantouling (or Dawan) culture (Zhang & Hung 2012). Findings at the Sham Wan (Shenwan) site in Hong Kong suggest mixed subsistence strategies involving gathering, hunting and fishing (Meacham 1978: 270), consistent with stable isotope analysis of the human remains (Lu 2007: 40). Similar polished stone adzes, pottery forms with decoration by incision and coarse cord-marking, and ornaments of shark teeth and other materials were shared across the Taiwan Strait at this time (Hung 2008). Stone bark-cloth beaters were first used in the Pearl River Delta around 4800 BC (Tang 2012), and later appeared in Taiwan’s TPK sites (Chang 1954; Guo C


1122

et al. 2005). Tooth evulsion also was practised in the Pearl River Delta about the same time (Yang 1998). Coastal hunter-gatherers in southern China prior to 3000 BC relied on a broad spectrum of non-domesticated foods from land and sea. In addition to dense middens of shells and animal bones, the plant foods of later coastal hunter-gatherers are currently best documented at the Xincun sand-dune site in Guangdong, dated 3350–2470 BC, and are thus contemporary with the TPK in Taiwan. At Xincun, preserved starch grains and phytoliths on the surfaces of stone pounders (but not in the surrounding sediment matrix) indicate on-site processing of various non-domesticated foods (Yang et al. 2013). Communities living on the islands in the Taiwan Strait demonstrated an even more coastally orientated lifestyle. Most notably in Jinmen and Mazu (Matsu), coastal foraging groups created large shell mounds that commenced around 6000–4000 BC and continued through to 2000 BC or later (see Table S2 in online supplementary material). Although sometimes described as belonging to a single Fuguodun culture (Liu 2011), the pottery types and tool-kits resemble different cultural traditions in coastal China and were not strongly unified. No evidence so far indicates rice or millet farming. The oldest known burial in these Taiwan Strait shell-midden sites comes from Liangdao, Island of Mazu, dated 6380–6099 cal BC (Chen 2012). These islands were easily accessible from the Chinese mainland as sea levels were lower than those of today. The ‘Liangdao Man’ was buried in a flexed position typical of other complex mid-Holocene hunter-gatherer shell-mound cultures, such as Dingsishan in Guangxi, Gaomiao in Hunan, and Da But in northern Vietnam (Zhang & Hung 2012) (Figure 6). Flexed burials with few or no grave-goods are reported at both coastal and inland huntergatherer sites, whereas extended burials with many mortuary objects characterised early farming societies in China and late TPK sites on Taiwan (Figure 7). Due to the absence of burial populations on Taiwan prior to 2800 BC, the timing of this development is unknown. From the early TPK, only two suspected burial structures are reported, at the site of Chengzipu on the eastern coast of Taiwan, but no skeletal remains have been verified (Figure 8). South-eastern coastal China underwent rapid change between 5000 and 3000 BC. Coastal hunter-gatherer groups developed varied subsistence economies and social complexity, and they were in contact, directly or indirectly, with land-based agriculturalists in the middle and lower Yangtze Valley. In the Pearl River Delta, for instance, several episodes of human migration and cultural influence occurred from at least 5000 BC until the regional emergence of rice agriculture around 3000 BC (Zhang & Hung 2010). Many of these groups could have contributed to the formation of Taiwan’s early Neolithic from about 4000 BC.

Early TPK, 4000–2800 BC The dating of the early TPK has been challenging owing to the small number of sites with limited excavations, often containing poorly preserved material. Most Taiwanese archaeologists accept a date range of 4000–2800 BC for the earliest TPK sites, but some evidence could suggest even older dates of 4500 BC (see Table S3 in online supplementary material). C

1123


Research



Figure 6. Human burials in flexed positions, typical of complex hunter-gatherer shell-mound sites in southern China and northern Vietnam. 1) Huiyaotien in Guangxi (courtesy Zhen Li, Guangxi Institute of Cultural Relic Protection and Archaeology, China); 2) Gaomiao in Hunan (courtesy Gang He, Institute of Archaeology in Hunan, China); 3) the ‘Liangdao Man’, Mazu, Taiwan Strait (after Chen 2012); 4) Con Co Ngua, northern Vietnam, Da But cultural phase (courtesy Nguyen Kim Dung, Institute of Archaeology in Hanoi).

Radiocarbon dating is available for only two early TPK sites, Xinyuan and Bajia (or Bajiacun) in south-western Taiwan, where the lower stratigraphic layers contained diagnostic TPK pottery, shell and stone adzes (but no stone knives for crop harvesting), and shell midden. From Xinyuan, three charcoal-based radiocarbon dates span the period 4500– 4000 cal BC (NTU-5586, NTU-5580, NTU-5642; 2σ ) (Yen 2013). From Bajia (Chang 1973; Huang 1974), two oyster shells provided age ranges of 4209–3844 cal BC (SI-1229; 2σ ) and 3497–3238 cal BC (NTU-1412; 2σ ). All dates were calibrated using OxCal v4 and IntCal 09 calibration curve (Bronk Ramsey 2009; Reimer et al. 2009). The Bajia site contained pottery and stone tools resembling those from late TPK sites, so the duration of occupation may have spanned both early and late TPK phases. In most of the suspected early TPK sites, coarse cord-marked pottery occurs in thin layers (generally 300mm or less), or else it is sparsely diffused through thicker depositional units. This suggests short-term occupation by widely dispersed mobile populations along the Taiwan coastline, further reflected in the strong homogeneity of pottery design and overall material culture around the whole island. Potential early TPK sites are most often found in elevated settings on promontories or ridges, originally near ancient coastal zones but today often stranded far inland due to C


1124

Research


Figure 7. The large cemetery at Nanguanlidong, dated to the late TPK phase (after Tsang et al. 2006).

changing sea levels and accumulation of coastal sediments (Chen et al. 2004). On the steepsloped eastern coast of the island, tectonic uplift has placed early TPK sites in even higher elevated positions. These locations characterise Tapenkeng (Dabenkeng) in north-western Taiwan (30–40m above sea level), Fudeyemino, Liuhe and Kongzhai in south-western Taiwan (all about 25–35m asl), and Gangkou (30–40m asl) and Changguang (50–60m asl) in eastern Taiwan. Today’s alluvial plains (generally lower than 20m in elevation) accumulated almost entirely after 3000 BC, especially along the western coastline. Thus, the slightly elevated early TPK sites originally overlooked swamps or shallow-water nearshore environments that are now in-filled with alluvium. Later TPK occupations often continued in the same locations as the early TPK sites, but others appeared within the island’s emergent low-lying alluvial plains. Tellingly, those occupations on the coastal alluvium are dated no earlier than 3000 BC (e.g. Dachangqiao C

1125



Figure 8. Two suspected burial structures found at Chengzipu, an early TPK site on the eastern coast of Taiwan (after Yeh 2004).

(Hung 2013), Nanguanli, and Nanguanlidong (Tsang et al. 2006)). These sites, now buried 5–7m below the modern ground surface, confirm initial alluviation had occurred by then, but they show that still greater levels of deposition post-dated late TPK site-use (2800–2200 BC). The two early TPK sites of Xinyuan and Bajia occur in slightly mounded localities within the alluvial plains of south-western Taiwan. Prior to 3000 BC, these settings may have been small natural mounds, less than 5m high, among swampy or shallow-water coastal zones. At Xinyuan, the early TPK deposit was constrained to a small area, now completely buried beneath the widespread alluvium, and no later TPK-associated occupation continued at this site. Bajia is located on the boundary of the Zhongzho Plateau, about 19–21m asl, compared to the surrounding alluvial deposits which are about 16–18m asl. Initially, as we have noted, Chang (1969) suggested a coastal foraging economy and possible horticulture for the earliest TPK sites, as represented at Dabenkeng and Fengbitou. This inference was based on the presence of dense shell midden and the absence of typical crop-harvesting tools (e.g. stone reaping knives). A few polished adzes indicated limited land-clearing, but their numbers could not compare with those found so abundantly in later sites associated with rice-production. This initial assessment found support in a study of 10 potsherds from the Dabenkeng site, where preserved phytoliths were reported to be most likely wild (non-domesticated) rice (Chen 2006). Many questions linger about early TPK sites, such as their precise chronologies, subsistence economies and burial practices. The dating suggests that early TPK culture had developed by 4000 BC. Evidence for rice and millet farming is still unknown in early TPK assemblages: available evidence indicates coastal and marine resource collection, with variable roles for cultivated and non-cultivated plant foods. C


1126


The late TPK culture is well documented at sites dated from 2800 to 2200 BC. Extensive village settlements covered about 3ha at Nangaulani and 7ha at Nanguanlidong. Sizeable populations are evidenced in the large cemeteries of formal burials, concurrent with expansion into new territories on the emergent coastal alluvial plains. Identified plant remains include rice (Oryza sativa) and foxtail millet (Setaria italica) (Hsieh et al. 2011). Large numbers of windowpane oyster (Placuna placenta) shell knives were used as harvesting tools. Basalt adzes in Nanguanli, Nanguanlidong and other western Taiwanese sites can be traced back to a quarry in the Penghu Archipelago, indicative of a maritime network connecting these islands and Taiwan (Rolett et al. 2000; Hung 2004). Additionally, Cellana testudinaria-shell bracelets may have been transported from Penghu (Tsang et al. 2006). According to faunal analysis, late TPK people relied heavily on fishing and hunting. At Nanguanlidong, the excavated vertebrate faunal material was dominated by fish and other marine animals (54.7 per cent) and hunted terrestrial mammals, such as deer and wild pigs (44 per cent) (Li 2011, 2013). Additionally, large quantities of shellfish stress that coastal zones provided a steady supply of food well into the late TPK period. Late TPK sites situated on the coastal alluvial plains offer excellent preservation not possible at the hilltop sites. The alluvial build-up sealed many deposits, allowing in situ preservation of living surfaces, complete graves and whole pottery vessels, often in waterlogged conditions.

Transition into the middle Neolithic and later expansion More than 300 middle Neolithic sites have been recorded across Taiwan (Tsang 1990, Li 2003), characterised by: red-slipped and fine cord-marked pottery; polished stone knives, axes, sickles and adzes; nephrite (jade) production; and larger settlements with increasingly dense populations. Slight differences developed within the regional cultural assemblages, so sites are classed in five regional groups: Xuntangpu in northern Taiwan; Niumatou in centralwest Taiwan; Niuchouzi in southern Taiwan; Fushan in eastern Taiwan; and Hongmaogang between northern Taiwan and central-west Taiwan (Liu 2007) (Table 1). The total recorded number of middle Neolithic sites in Taiwan is more than seven times that of early Neolithic sites, even though the middle Neolithic was appreciably shorter in its time span (about 1000 compared to >1800 years). Available radiocarbon dates indicate that the middle Neolithic spanned the period c. 2500 to 1500 BC. The increase in the number of sites was most likely related to population growth, possibly linked to the productivity of rice and millet agriculture. Most Taiwanese archaeologists agree that the diagnostic pottery typical of the middle Neolithic developed directly from the coarse cord-marked TPK pottery (Li 1983; Tsang 1992; Liu 2002). The earliest transition from early to middle Neolithic has been detected at Xuntangpu in northern Taiwan, occupied from 2600 to 1700 BC (Liu et al. 2006; Liu 2007). The site’s copious stone harvesting knives, sickles and polished adzes suggest that farming was well established there since 2600 BC, overlapping with the food production evidenced in late TPK sites of south-western Taiwan. C

1127


Research

Late TPK, 2800–2200 BC


Rice and foxtail millet agriculture had certainly emerged in Taiwan by the time of the late TPK sites, and is ultimately traceable to much older development of rice cultivation in the middle to lower Yangtze Valley, c. 5000–3500 BC (Zhang & Hung 2008; Fuller et al. 2009). The developments there definitely contributed to the later expansion southwards into coastal China, Taiwan and beyond. Taiwan is regarded as the source of populations who subsequently expanded further into Island Southeast Asia and eventually into the Remote Pacific (Bellwood 1997; Blust 2009). Red-slipped pottery, personal ornaments and other artefacts in the northern Philippines suggest that the oldest Neolithic settlement here, dated to approximately 2000 BC, derived from Taiwan’s middle Neolithic (Hung 2005, 2008). Possible connections between Taiwan and the southern Ryukyu Islands in this period are still uncertain.

Conclusions The early Neolithic TPK culture (4000–2200 BC) expressed a clearly different set of material culture traits from the preceding Palaeolithic Changbinian culture. Taiwan’s Neolithic origins can be traced across the Taiwan Strait to south-eastern coastal China, but the establishment of what ultimately became a regionally complex Taiwanese Neolithic cannot be attributed to a solitary event or single movement of people at the very beginning of the TPK. The late TPK culture (2800–2200 BC), best represented in southern Taiwan, bears witness to rice and millet farming, extensive village settlements, large cemeteries and maritime trade with islands in the Taiwan Strait. These characteristics have not been confirmed for the early TPK, and it is not known to what extent early Neolithic subsistence was based on food production. Even during the late TPK, faunal remains suggest substantial contributions from gathering, hunting and fishing. A mixed foraging and food-production subsistence economy may have been inherited from south-eastern coastal China. Several hypotheses have been developed about the causes of Austronesian language and population expansion from Taiwan into Island Southeast Asia. Current evidence indicates that rice agriculture and population growth had significant impacts during the middle Neolithic (c. 2000 BC). Nevertheless, demographic pressure need not have been the sole reason for expansion. Other factors should also be considered: 1) The modes of land-use and subsistence economy prevalent in Neolithic Taiwan were not necessarily transplanted wholesale into the new Austronesian settlements in more tropical regions of Island Southeast Asia. 2) Subsistence diversity of the early Neolithic continued into the middle Neolithic, especially along the eastern coast and southern tip of Taiwan (the most likely sources of early migrants to Island Southeast Asia) (Hung 2008). This broad-spectrum adaptability allowed groups to explore different environments, and may have been crucial for the eventual southward migration. Key strategies of horticulture, arboriculture, coastal fishing and shellfishing were low labour-input activities that could facilitate the early stages of colonisation in new territories, although food-producer options might also have been utilised. 3) An impressive sea-voyaging tradition is indicated by the Penghu basalt adzes and bones of large deep-sea fish found in late TPK and middle Neolithic sites. The expansion C


1128


Although food production was one of the major stimulants for ancient Austronesian migration, it does not necessarily follow that the early migrants from Taiwan engaged exclusively in rice or millet farming. Sather (1995: 236) made this same point as an ethnographer working in Island Southeast Asia, where he proposed that groups practised “a comparatively broad spectrum of economic activities, including trade and, in addition to farming, elements of secondary foraging, fishing and marine collection”. Indeed, foragers and fishers may have played key roles in the first steps of Neolithic exploration and movement from coastal China to Taiwan, as well as from Taiwan to Island Southeast Asia and beyond. Acknowledgements We thank Dr Chin-yung Chao of Academia Sinica, Taipei, for his valuable opinions about TPK in Taiwan, and Professor Peter Bellwood of the Australian National University for his useful comments. We are also grateful to three anonymous reviewers for their significant comments towards improving this manuscript.

References BELLWOOD, P. 1995. Hierarchy, founder ideology and Austronesian expansion, in J. Fox & C. Sather (ed.) Origins, ancestry and alliance: 18–40. Canberra: Department of Anthropology, Australian National University. – 1997. Taiwan and the prehistory of the Austronesian-speaking people. The Review of Archaeology 1997(Fall): 39–48. –2005. First farmers: the origins of agricultural societies. Oxford: Blackwell. BLUST, R. 2009. The Austronesian languages. Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University. BRONK RAMSEY, C. 2009. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51: 337–60. CHANG, K.C. 1954. Contributions of the Yuanshan excavations to the prehistoric study of Taiwan. Dalu Magazine 9(2): 36–41 (in Chinese). – 1969. Fengpitou, Tapenkeng and the prehistory of Taiwan. New Haven (CT): Yale University. – 1970. Prehistoric archaeology of Taiwan. Asian Perspectives 13: 59–77. – 1973. Radiocarbon dates from China: some initial interpretations. Current Anthropology 14: 525–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/201377 – 1995. Taiwan Strait archaeology and Protoaustronesian, in P.J.K. Li, C.H. Tsang & Y.K. Huang (ed.) Papers for the international symposium on Austronesian studies relating to Taiwan: 56–81. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica.

CHANG, K.C. & W. GOODENOUGH. 1996. Archaeology of southeastern China and its bearing on the Austronesian homeland, in W.H. Goodenough (ed.) Prehistoric settlement of the Pacific: 36–56. Philadelphia (PA): American Philosophical Society. CHAO, C.Y. 1994. Report on the archaeological excavation of the Changguang site in Taidong. Unpublished MA dissertation, National Taiwan University (in Chinese). CHAU, H.W. 1993. Periodisation of prehistoric cultures in the Pearl River Delta area, in H.W. Chau (ed.) Collected essays on the culture of the ancient Yue people in South China: 40–55. Hong Kong: the Urban Council of Hong Kong (in Chinese). CHEN, C.Y. 2012. Excavation at Daowei-I, Liangdao, Matzu. Taipei: Academia Sinica (in Chinese). CHEN, W.S., S.H. SUNG, L.C. WU, H.D. HSU & H.C. YANG. 2004. Shoreline changes in the coastal plain of Taiwan since the last glacial epoch. Bulletin of the Department of Anthropology 62: 40–55 (in Chinese). CHEN, Y.B. 2006. TPK’s subsistence pattern: an analysis of phytoliths found in pottery. Bulletin of the Department of Anthropology 66: 125–54 (in Chinese). CHU, C.Y. 2003. Rethinking the cultural sequence of the southwest plain of Taiwan, part I: the periodisation and content of the Dabenkeng culture. Paper presented at Recent Studies of Prehistory and Ethnology in Taiwan: Special Conference in Honor of Professor Wen-Hsun Sung’s Eightieth Birthday, Taipei, 2003.

C

1129


Research

from Taiwan to the Philippines in about 2000 BC represented an extension of pre-existing capabilities for maritime exploration, associated with maritime trade networks, deep-water fishing and other ocean-going activities.

Foragers, fishers and farmers Fujian Museum & Tanshishan Site Museum. 2010. Report on excavation of the Tanshishan site in Minhou in 2004. Fujian Wenbo 2004(1): 1–12 (in Chinese). FULLER, D., L. QIN, Y. ZHENG, Z. ZHAO, X. CHEN, L.A. HOSOYA & G.P. SUN. 2009. The domestication process and domestication rate in rice: spikelet bases from the Lower Yangtze. Science 323: 1607–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/ science.1166605 GUO, S.Q., Y.C. LIU & R.C. DAI. 2005. Study of adaption and migration in Jinmen Island. Taipei: Association of National Parks in the Republic of China, Taiwan (in Chinese). HSIEH, J.S., Y.C. HSING, T.F. HSU, P.J.K. LI, K.T. LI & C.H. TSANG. 2011. Studies on ancient rice—where botanists, agronomists, archeologists, linguists, and ethnologists meet. Rice 2011: 178–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12284-011-9075-x HUANG, S.C. 1974. Archaeological investigation at Bajia, Guiren Xiang, Tainan, Taiwan. Bulletin of the Department of Archaeology and Anthropology 35–36: 62–68 (in Chinese). HUANG, S.C. & Y.B. CHEN. 1990. Archaeological excavations for reconstructing the prehistoric culture of Donghe. Taipei: Anthropology Department, National Taiwan University (in Chinese). HUANG, S.C. & Y.C. LIU. 1980. Investigations and suggestions on the reconstruction of the major archaeological sites in Taiwan Province. Taipei: Department of Anthropology, National Taiwan University (in Chinese). HUNG, H.C. 2004. A sourcing study of Taiwan stone adzes. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 24: 57–70. – 2005. Neolithic interaction between Taiwan and northern Luzon: the pottery and jade evidence from the Cagayan valley. Journal of Austronesian Studies 1(1): 109–33. – 2008. Migration and cultural interaction in southern coastal China, Taiwan and the northern Philippines, 3000 BC to AD 100: the early history of the Austronesian-speaking populations. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Australian National University. – 2013. From coastal southern China to the Pacific—an update of archaeological perspectives on early Austronesian expansion, in K.T. Chen & C.H. Tsang (ed.) New lights on East Asian archaeology: 279–331. Taipei: Academia Sinica (in Chinese). JIAO, T.L. 2013. The Neolithic archaeology of southeast China, in A.P. Underhill (ed.) A companion to Chinese archaeology: 599–611. Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley & Sons. KANO, T. 1946. Studies in the ethnology and prehistory of Southeast Asia, Vol. II. Tokyo: Yajima Shobo (in Japanese). C

LI, K.C. 1983. Problems raised by the K’en-ting excavation of 1977. Bulletin of the Department of Anthropology 43: 86–116. LI, K.T. 2011. Ecological approach of archaeological study. Paper presented at Re-read Taiwan: Review and Perspicacity of One Hundred Years of Anthropology Conference. Anthropology and Ethnology Association of Taiwan, Taipei, 18–19 November, 2011 (in Chinese). – 2013. First farmers and their coastal adaptation in prehistoric Taiwan, in A.P. Underhill (ed.) A companion to Chinese archaeology: 612–33. Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley & Sons. LI, K.X. & M.Z. YEH. 2001. History of Taidong County: the prehistory. Taidong: Taidong County Government (in Chinese). LI, T.J. 2003. Red cord-marked pottery in Taiwan, in National Taiwan University (ed.) Recent studies of prehistory and ethnology in Taiwan: a special conference in honour of Professor Wen-Hsun Sung’s eightieth birthday: ch. 9. Unpublished conference proceedings produced by the National Taiwan University (in Chinese). LIN, G.W. 2005. Neolithic cultures in coastal Fujian, in C.Y. Chen & J.G. Pan (ed.) The archaeology of southeast coastal islands of China conference: 75–90. Mazu: Lienjiang County Government (in Chinese). LIU, L. & X.C. CHEN. 2012. Archaeology of China: from the Palaeolithic to the Early Bronze Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. LIU, Y.C. 2002. The history of Formosan aborigines: prehistory. Nantou: Taiwan Historica (in Chinese). – 2007. The earliest Austronesians and their movements inside Taiwan: settlement patterns and possible forcing factors, in S. Chiu & C. Sand (ed.) From Southeast Asia to the Pacific: 49–74. Taipei: Academia Sinica. – 2011. The interaction between the early peoples of Taiwan Strait: reconsidering K.C. Chang’s theory, in C.H. Tsang & C.Y. Chen (ed.) 2011 International symposium on oceanic environment and culture of the Matzu Archipelago: 109–23. Lianjian: Lianjian Government of Fujian Province (in Chinese). LIU, Y.C., Y.S. CHUNG & T.Y. YEN. 2006. Preliminary report on the excavation at Xuntangpu site in Bali Township, Taipei County. Paper presented at the Annual Archaeological Conference in Taiwan, Academia Sinica, Taipei, 5–6 May 2006 (in Chinese). LU, T.L.-D. 2007. Natural resources and subsistence strategies in prehistoric Hong Kong. Kaogu 6: 36–45 (in Chinese). MEACHAM, W. 1978. Sham Wan, Lamma Island: an archaeological site study (Journal Monograph III). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Archaeological Society.


1130

PAWLEY, A. 2002. The Austronesian dispersal: languages, technologies and people, in P. Bellwood & C. Renfrew (ed.) Examining the farming/language dispersal hypothesis: 251–73. Cambridge: MacDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. REIMER, P.J., M.G.L BAILLIE, E. BARD, A. BAYLISS, J.W. BECK, P.G BLACKWELL, C. BRONK RAMSEY, C.E. BUCK, G.S. BURR, R.L. EDWARDS, M. FRIEDRICH, P.M. GROOTES, T.P. GUILDERSON, I. HAJDAS, T.J. HEATON, A.G. HOGG, K.A. HUGHEN, K.F. KAISER, B. KROMER, F.G. MCCORMAC, S.W. MANNING, R.W. REIMER, D.A. RICHARDS, J.R. SOUTHON, S. TALAMO, C.S.M, TURNEY, J. VAN DER PLICHT & C.E. WEYHENMEYER. 2009. IntCal09 and Marine09 radiocarbon age calibration curves, 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 51: 1111–50. ROLETT, B.V., W.C. CHEN & J.M. SINTON. 2000. Taiwan, Neolithic seafaring and Austronesian origins. Antiquity 74: 62–74. SATHER, C. 1995. Sea nomads and rainforest hunter-gatherers: foraging adaptation in the Indo-Malaysian archipelago, in P. Bellwood, J.J. Fox & D. Tryon (ed.) The Austronesians: historical and comparative perspectives: 229–68. Canberra: Australian National University. SUNG, W.H. 1980. The archaeology of Taiwan, in C.L. Chen (ed.) Taiwan of China: 93–220. Taipei: Zhongyang Wenwu Gongyingshe (in Chinese). TANG, C. (ed.). 2012. Origins of Clothes—Barkcloth exhibition catalogue. Hong Kong: Chinese University of Hong Kong (in Chinese). THIEL, B. 1988. Austronesian origins and expansion: the Philippine archaeological data. Asian Perspectives 26: 119–29. TSANG, C.H. 1990. Fine cord-marked pottery of Taiwan. Field Archaeology in Taiwan 1(2): 1–31 (in Chinese). – 1992. Archaeology of the Penghu Islands. Taipei: Academia Sinica.

– 1999. The archaeology of Taiwan. Taipei: Council for Cultural Affairs, Executive Yuan (in Chinese). – 2005. Recent discoveries at the Tapenkeng culture sites in Taiwan: implications for the problem of Austronesian origins, in L. Sagart, R. Blench & A. Sanchez-Mazas (ed.) The peopling of East Asia: 63–73. London: Routledge Curzon. TSANG, C.H., K.T. LI & C.Y. CHU. 2006. Footprints of ancestors: archaeological discoveries in Tainan Science-based Industrial Park. Tainan: Tainan County Government (in Chinese). TSANG, C.H., W.S. CHEN, K.T. LI & Y.X. ZENG. 2009. Report of the Baxiandong Cave sites, Changbin, Taidong County (the first year). Taipei: Academia Sinica (in Chinese). – 2011. Report of the Baxiandong Cave sites, Changbin, Taidong County (the second year).Taipei: Academia Sinica (in Chinese). YANG, S.T. 1998. Essays of Linnan archaeology. Guangzhou: Guangdong Map Press (in Chinese). YANG, X., H.J. BARTON, Z. WAN, Q. LI, Z. MA, M. LI, D. ZHANG & J. WEI. 2013. Sago-type palms were an important plant food prior to rice in southern subtropical China. PLoS ONE 8(5): e63148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0063148 YEH, M.C. 2004. Report on the test excavation at Chengzipu site, Taidong County. Taitung (Taidong) Historical Journal 10: 57–90 (in Chinese). YEN, T.Y. 2013. A preliminary report on Shin-yuang site and related issues. Field Archaeology in Taiwan 16(1): 85–118 (in Chinese). ZHANG, C. & H.C. HUNG. 2008. The Neolithic of southern China—origin, development, and dispersal. Asian Perspectives 47: 299–329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/asi.0.0004 – 2010. The emergence of agriculture in southern China. Antiquity 84:11–25. – 2012. Later hunter-gatherers in southern China, 18 000–3000 BC. Antiquity 86: 11–29.

Received: 25 October 2013; Accepted: 5 February 2014; Revised: 7 February 2014

C

1131


Research
