The SoutheastPART VIII

A Companion to Chinese Archaeology, First Edition. Edited by Anne P. Underhill.© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

The Neolithic Archaeology of Southeast China

Tianlong JIAO 焦 天 龙

Southeast China, including today ’ s southern Zhejiang, Fujian, and Guangdong prov-inces, Hong Kong, and Macau, is a unique region in Chinese Neolithic archaeology. Both the sequence of cultures and their major characteristics are very different from the rest of China. This, in part, was due to its marginal geographic location. Yet, by no means was this a completely isolated area in prehistory. On the contrary, over time different social groups interacted with each other both intra-regionally and interregionally. These interactions played an important role in the process of social complexity in Neolithic southeast China.

On the other hand, situated on the western side of the Asia-Pacifi c rim, southeast China has been closely connected with Southeast Asia and the Pacifi c throughout history. It has been widely recognized that the Neolithic archaeological records of southeast China carry implications for understanding many key issues in the archaeol-ogy of Southeast Asia and the Pacifi c ( Jiao 2007 ). One of the issues that has attracted much international attention is the origin of the proto-Austronesians. By AD 1000–1100, Austronesian speakers had expanded onto most of the Pacifi c islands from Hawai ’ i to New Zealand, and from Taiwan to Easter Island. It is believed by most scholars that the Neolithic cultures of southeast China are likely the source cultures of the proto-Austronesians ( Chang 1995 ; Bellwood 1997 ).

This chapter describes the current understanding of the Neolithic cultures of southeast China. Unlike the Yellow river and Yangzi river areas, there are still many chronological as well as regional gaps in the archaeological records in southeast

CHAPTER 29

600 TIANLONG JIAO

China. The focus of this chapter will be on a number of major archaeological sites and their signifi cance in our knowledge of southeast China ’ s prehistory.

THE GEOGRAPHIC SETTING OF SOUTHEAST CHINA

A novel understanding of southeast China ’ s prehistory requires a basic knowledge of this region ’ s complex geography. Archaeological evidence clearly indicates that, on many aspects, the geography played an important role in shaping the prehistoric regional cultural variations and social process ( Jiao 2006 ).

More than two-thirds of southeast China ’ s terrain are rugged mountains. The most prominent landmarks are the Wuyi 武 夷 mountains and the Wuling 五 岭 mountains in the west, extending from southwestern Zhejiang to northeastern Guangdong provinces. With an average altitude well above 1,000 m, these mountain ranges serve as a formidable barrier for southeast China, making its topographic relief generally decrease from west–north to east–south. The lands favorable for humans to live are confi ned to the basins, river valleys, and coastal plains. Most rivers fl ow independently into the ocean, cutting the landscape into many narrow valleys. Major rivers include the Min 闽 , Jiulong 九 龙 , Han 韩 and Pearl 珠 rivers. A subtropical climate and high annual precipitation supply plenty of water, making the rivers major transportation pathways until very recently in this region.

The coast contrasts dramatically with the inland terrain in terms of environment and topography. The coastlines are highly irregular, dotted with more than one thousand offshore islands. The irregularity of the coastline is particularly pronounced on the Fujian coast. There are many good bays and numerous offshore islands.

THE PREHISTORIC SEQUENCE OF SOUTHEAST CHINA

The extant evidence suggests that the prehistory of southeast China began with Pal-aeolithic cultures characterized by an assemblage of pebble stone industries and a hunting-gathering economy at least 180,000 years ago ( Jiao and Fan 2010 ). The Palaeolithic cultures persisted into the early Holocene, much longer than in other areas of north and central China, being gradually replaced by Neolithic cultures with a new set of material assemblage consisting of pottery, polished stone tools, and prob-ably rice cultivation. During the Neolithic period ( c. 7000–3500 BP , or c. 5050–1550 BC ), a variety of cultural traditions with diverse assemblages of material cultures and different degrees of social complexity developed. With the appearance of bronze arti-facts around 3500 BP ( c. 1550 BC ), southeast China entered into its Bronze Age. Until the Western Han empire annexed this region in the second century BC , southeast China ’ s indigenous cultures maintained their distinctiveness throughout prehistory.

THE NEOLITHIC CULTURES IN SOUTHEAST CHINA

The timing and origins of the Neolithic cultures in southeast China are still not clear. Most Neolithic sites known so far are later than 7000 BP ( c. 5050 BC ), and they do

THE NEOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY OF SOUTHEAST CHINA 601

not appear to originate locally ( Jiao 2007 ). As will be illustrated more in the follow-ing sections, the earliest Neolithic cultures in the Pearl river delta around 7000 BP (5050 BC ) were likely introduced from the middle Yangzi river area, and the earliest Neolithic cultures on the Fujian coast around 6000 BP ( c. 4050 BC ) were also immi-grant cultures from eastern Zhejiang coast. Nevertheless, as happened in other areas of China, during its middle and late Neolithic periods, the styles of material cultures became increasingly diversifi ed in different regions, and their pathways to social complexity were also different.

Fujian coast The available archaeological materials indicate that the Neolithic on the Fujian coast started around 6000 BP . Throughout the Neolithic period (6000–3500 BP , or c. 4050–1550 BC ) in this area, coastal people developed a lifestyle oriented toward the sea. Marine resources constitute the major food supply for most communities, and agriculture became less important. Some of these seafaring societies sailed across the Taiwan Strait around fi ve to six thousand years ago, laying the foundations of the Austronesian cultures on that island ( Chang 1995 ; Tsang 2002 ).

On the basis of styles of pottery and stone tools, at least four Neolithic cultures can be identifi ed: the Keqiutou 壳 丘 头 culture ( c. 6000–5500 BP , or c. 4050–3550 BC ), the Tanshishan 昙 石 山 culture ( c. 5000–4300 BP , or c. 3050–2350 BC ), the Damaoshan 大 帽 山 culture ( c. 5000–4300 BP ), and the Huangguashan 黄 瓜 山 culture ( c. 4300–3500 BP , or c. 2350–1550 BC ). The changes of these four cultures also represent the major chronological sequence of the Neolithic on Fujian coast (Figure 29.1 ).

The Keqiutou culture The Keqiutou culture ( c. 6000–5500 BP ) is named after the Keqiutou site on the Haitan 海 坛 island in eastern Fujian province. The Fujian Pro-vincial Museum conducted the fi rst excavation at this site from 1985 to 1986. In 2004, we conducted a second excavation at Keqiutou, discovering important materi-als for dating and subsistence studies ( Jiao 2007 ).

The materials retrieved from these two excavations demonstrate that Keqiutou was a maritime community around 6000–5500 BP . People heavily relied on the ocean for sustenance, as evidenced by the rich amount of marine shells and marine fi sh bones of the site. Our excavation at Keqiutou in 2004 found a great deal of material on the economy. Despite the fact we applied all possible sampling techniques in the excava-tion, we did not fi nd evidence related to any possible farming activities. Phytolith analysis of soil samples from the site also failed to fi nd any rice remains ( Jiao and Fan 2010 ). On the other hand, we found plenty of marine fi sh, shellfi sh, and wild deer bones. About 19 species of marine shellfi sh were identifi ed from the excavated samples. Whale bones and ocean turtle remains were also found. Ocean exploring was obviously a major component of the Keqiutou economy, supplemented by deer-hunting. Rice farming either did not exist or only played a minimal role in the subsistence pattern.

The material cultural remains of the Keqiutou site consist of pottery, stone tools, and bone tools. Adzes ( ben 锛 ) account for more than 70 percent of the total stone tools. Most adzes are small in size, about 4–7 cm long. This high percentage of stone adzes indicates that woodworking was an important undertaking for the Keqiutou people.

602 TIANLONG JIAO

The Keqiutou culture is also characterized by a unique assemblage of pottery. More than 90 percent of the Keqiutou pottery vessels were tempered with sand or shell fragments. These pottery vessels were hand-made, and some were probably trimmed on a slow potter ’ s wheel. The uneven exterior color of the pottery suggests the fi ring temperature was low and not well controlled. The vessel types include fu 釜 caldrons, guan 罐 jars, wan 碗 bowls, pan 盘 shallow dishes, and dou 豆 stemmed dishes. Some 支 座 zhizuo stands and spindle whorls were also made of ceramic. The decoration designs include cord-marking, impressed dots, and shell-impressed zigzag designs. There are also complex designs consisting of parallel, perpendicular, or crossing lines. Some vessels have dentate rims ( chizhuangwen 齿 状 纹 ). A number of vessels were burnished or had slips on the surface.

Similar pottery and stone tools were also found at a number of sites on the coast of today ’ s Fujian province. Since the fi rst excavation of the Keqiutou site in 1985, scholars have noticed that Keqiutou pottery and stone tools share similarities with some Dapenkeng (TPK) cultural sites in Taiwan and the Penghu archipelago ( Chang 1995 ; see Chapter 30 ). Many agree with K.C. Chang who argues that both the Keqiutou culture and the Dapenkeng culture were parts of the Austronesian ancestral cultures ( Tsang 2002 ; Jiao 2007 ).

Figure 29.1 Location of major sites discussed in the text.

THE NEOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY OF SOUTHEAST CHINA 603

The Tanshishan culture The Tanshishan culture ( c. 5000–4300 BP ) was a middle Neolithic culture developed on the Fujian coast. This culture was named after the Tanshishan site, located in the lower reaches of the Min river, about 20 km away from modern Fuzhou city. Since 1954, 10 excavations had been carried out at this site, making it the most extensively investigated Neolithic site in southeast China. The age of the Tanshishan culture is around 5000–4300 BP ( Fujian and Tanshishan 2010 ).

The Tanshishan culture consists of a distinctive assemblage of pottery, stone tools, bone tools, and shell tools. Adzes are the main stone implements in the Tanshishan culture, accounting for more than 60 percent of the total stone tools. Shell adzes were widely used too. Stone and bone arrowheads are also important components of the toolkit. Most of the Tanshishan ceramic vessels are round-bottomed caldrons, jars, pedestal cups and plates, many of which are sand-tempered. Most of these vessels were daily utensils such as cooking pots, drinking vessels, or food containers, but a few of them were probably made for ritual purposes. The exterior decorations include cord-marks, incised lines or circles, and red slips. Some vessels were painted with a variety of motifs.

Rice grains and domesticated pigs were found at the Tanshishan site, suggesting food production was an important component in the Tanshishan subsistence pattern ( Fujian Museum and Tanshishan Site Museum 2010 ). However, the level of food production was likely low, and the primary methods to procure food were still hunting terrestrial animals and foraging marine resources. Marine fauna such as marine shellfi sh and marine fi sh account for the major portion of the animal remains. Our recent study of stable isotopes of human and animal bones also indicates the marine resources were primary component of the Tanshishan diet, demonstrating marine foraging was still an important subsistence pattern (Krigbaum and Jiao n.d.).

The Damaoshan culture The Damaoshan culture ( c. 5000–4300 BP ) is named after the Damaoshan site on Dongshan 东 山 island in southeastern Fujian province. Two fi eld seasons of excavations were carried out at this site in 2002 and 2006, uncovering a considerable amount of stone tools, bone tools, pottery, animal bones, fi sh remains, and marine shells. The age of the Damaoshan site is around 5000–4300 BP , roughly contemporaneous with the Tanshishan culture ( Jiao 2007 ).

The trend for a specialized maritime subsistence pattern further developed at Damaoshan. The excavated data indicate that this island community relied almost exclusively on marine foraging and hunting for sustenance. More than 30 species of marine shellfi sh and 11 species of marine fi shes were found. Most of the fi sh remains consist of shark ’ s vertebra centra, suggesting that the Damaoshan people engaged extensively in catching sharks. There are also dolphin ( Pseudorca coassidens ) and whale ( Tursiops sp. ) bones. Most of the bone specimens are broken into small pieces, indi-cating they were debris of food consumption. Like at Keqiutou, no evidence of rice farming was found at Damaoshan. However, the presence of deer bones suggests that hunting was practiced by this island community ( Jiao 2007 ).

Damaoshan ’ s ocean-oriented life style was further reinforced by our sourcing study of the stone adzes. Using geochemical techniques such as XRF, ICP-MS, and stable isotope analysis, we found that most of the raw materials of Damaoshan stone adzes came from the Penghu islands, suggesting the Damaoshan people engaged in

604 TIANLONG JIAO

interaction networks across the Taiwan strait through seafaring ( Guo et al. 2005 ; Guo and Jiao 2008 ).

Pottery constitutes the majority of the material cultural inventory. Most of the vessels are sand-tempered, red or yellowish-red and decorated with cord-marks, incised and/or stamped designs and dentate designs. Some sherds have red slips. The vessel types include caldrons, bowls, and dou stemmed dishes. All the spindle whorls were also made of ceramics.

Most of the stone tools are adzes and arrowheads. As indicated above, our geo-chemical sourcing studies indicate that the source of these stone tools is the Penghu archipelago, suggesting the Damaoshan people were involved in an exchange network that crossed the Taiwan strait. This observation was further substantiated by the similar pottery styles between Damaoshan and the sites of Dapenkeng culture in Penghu as well as in western Taiwan. Similar remains were also found at a number of Neolithic sites in southern Fujian, suggesting Damaoshan was a regional archaeo-logical culture.

The Huangguashan culture The Huangguashan culture ( c. 4300–3500 BP ) is a late Neolithic culture in northeastern Fujian and southeastern Zhejiang, dating to around 4300–3500 BP ( Jiao 2007 ). An understanding of the Huangguashan culture basically came from the discovery of the Huangguashan site in Xiapu 霞 浦 county, northeast-ern Fujian province. This site was fi rst excavated by the Fujian Provincial Museum in 1989, whose team members discovered a signifi cant amount of material remains ( FPM 1994 ). In 2002, the Fujian Provincial Museum, the Department of Anthropol-ogy, University of Hawaii at Manoa and the Department of Anthropology at Harvard University jointly conducted a second, small-scale excavation at this site, further revealing information about chronology, subsistence patterns, and exchange networks ( Jiao 2007 ).

Farming and animal husbandry developed to a new level at Huangguashan. Although the presence of a large number of marine shells and fi shbone at Huang-guashan suggests that people still extensively explored marine resources, farming and animal domestication started to become increasingly important in the economy. Carbonized rice grains were found at the lowest layer (layer 9) of the Huangguanshan site, suggesting that rice farming was an integrated component of the subsistence pattern in the beginning of this settlement. This observation is further reinforced by the fact that rice phytoliths were found in every layer of the site. Domesticated pig bones were also found in every layer, accounting for 25 percent of all animal bones. This is the highest percentage of domesticated pig bones in all Neolithic cultures in Fujian. Interestingly, a number of barley and wheat grains were also found in the upper layers (layers 2 and 4) of Huangguashan. These are the earliest remains of barley and wheat found in southeast China. However, it is not clear whether people grew these two crops or whether they were exchanged with outsiders ( Jiao 2009 ).

Nevertheless, hunting and foraging were still equally if not more important in the Huangguashan subsistence pattern. Marine shellfi sh, fi sh bones, and wild animal bones still accounted for more than 75 percent of the fauna. More than fi fteen species of marine shellfi sh were collected by Huangguashan people. Although in comparison with early and middle Neolithic periods, food production increased in the Huang-guashan economy, it was still a low-level subsistence pattern.

THE NEOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY OF SOUTHEAST CHINA 605

The artifact inventory includes stone tools, bone tools, and pottery. More than six hundred stone tools were found in the two excavations. About 60 percent of them are stone ben adzes and 27 percent of them are zu 镞 arrowheads.

The pottery of the Huangguashan site displays a number of distinctive character-istics. More than one-third of the pottery sherds have a yellowish-orange surface. Other surface colors include grayish-black, gray, red, and brownish-red. Most pottery vessels are decorated with various designs, among which cord-marking accounts for almost 30 percent. About 57 percent of the pottery has dark slips, a unique charac-teristic among all the Neolithic cultures in southeast China. Painted pottery is another diagnostic feature of the Huangguashan site. More than 5 percent of the pottery was painted with various geometric motifs, and the pigments are mostly dark red. The paint was mainly applied on the mouth and the shoulder area of the vessels, and the motifs include triangular, parallel lines, and net- and ladder-shaped designs. Most ceramic vessels were made by hand and trimmed with a potter ’ s wheel. The vessel types include steamer, jar, basin, bowl, stemmed-bowl, plate, and cup. Other ceramic artifacts include supports and spindle whorls. Most of the spindle whorls are painted with dark-red pigment, and the motifs are basically lines and triangles.

Fujian inland area Separated by high mountains, the inland Fujian region had different Neolithic cul-tural traditions from the coast. The sources of the Neolithic traditions inland were also different from the coast. So far most of the Neolithic sites are later than 5000 BP ( c. 3050 BC ). We still do not know what happened in the early Holocene. More-over, many areas remain a gap in archaeological records. The areas known best is the middle and upper Min river valley. Southwestern Fujian also has some isolated fi nds, but their chronological sequence is not clear. Due to the poor conservation environ-ment caused by the acid sediment at most sites, almost no organic materials have survived. Therefore, our understanding of the subsistence patterns for the inland Neolithic is very limited.

The available archaeological records suggest there are at least two Neolithic cul-tures in the inland Fujian: the Niubishan 牛 鼻 山 culture and the Hulushan 葫 芦 山 culture (Figure 29.1 ).

The Niubishan culture The Niubishan culture ( c. 5000–4000 BP ) was named after the Niubishan site in Pucheng 蒲 城 county, northern Fujian province. It is mainly distributed in northern Fujian. Its representative sites include Niubishan, Heiyatou 黑 崖 头 , and lower Doumishan 斗 米 山 .

In 1989 and 1990, the Fujian Provincial Museum conducted two seasons of exca-vations at Niubishan, discovering 19 burials and more than 300 artifacts, including pottery, stone tools and jades. Most burials were interred with about 10 artifacts, mostly pottery. The biggest burial had 40 funerary objects, indicating the society had some degree of hierarchy.

In comparison with the coastal area, Niubishan pottery and stone tools have unique stylistic characteristics. The most dramatic difference is the presence of a large number of tripods, which was very rare or absent in the coastal area. These tripods have chisel-shaped or tongue-shaped legs. Most pottery vessels are reddish fi ne-clay pots

606 TIANLONG JIAO

with red slips, mostly plain or only partially decorated with appliqués, lines or cut-out holes. In addition to the tripods, there are also pedestaled cups, jars, and kettles. The gui 鬶 tripod with baggy-shaped legs is also a unique kind of vessel not found in the coastal area. The stone tools include axes, adzes, arrowheads, and yue 钺 axes. The stone adzes are mostly trapezoidal, without tangs, different from most tanged adzes in the coastal area. The yue axe likely served as a symbol of power or status because they were always found in the big burials ( Jiao and Fan 2010 ).

Remains of the Niubishan culture have much similarity with counterparts in adja-cent northeastern Jiangxi province and southwestern Zhejiang province, indicating they belong to the same cultural tradition. However, the sources of this tradition are not clear at present. It is very likely there were multiple origins, perhaps some people migrated from the lower Yangzi river area. However, because there are still major chronological and regional gaps, we still have to wait for future investigations to solve this problem.

The Hulushan culture The Hulushan culture ( c. 4000–3500 BP , c. 2050–1550 BC ) is a late Neolithic culture primarily distributed in the upper Min river valley, relatively contemporaneous with the Huangguashan culture on the coast. More than sixty Hulushan culture sites have been found so far, and some of them were extensively excavated ( Jiao and Fan 2010 ). Major sites include Hulushan, Maling 马 岭 , Mao ’ ershan 猫 耳 山 , and Doumishan 斗 米 山 .

More than 80 percent of the pottery vessels had dark slips, a dramatic contrast with the previous Niubishan culture. Most of the vessels are jars, steamers, and ped-estaled cups. Many jars have a concave bottom. A small amount of painted pottery was also found at Hulushan. A small portion of pottery was fi red in a high temperature and decorated with geometric design. Stone tools include adzes, arrowheads, axes, knives, and chisels. Stone ge 戈 halberds and mao 矛 spear heads were also found at some sites.

In terms of the styles of material cultures, Hulushan shows an unprecedented degree of similarity with the coastal Huangguashan culture, suggesting the connec-tions between inland and the coast had increased. The most evident is that the majority of the pottery had a dark-colored slip. Also, many ceramic vessels from these two cultures such as yan steamers, fu caldrons, and guan jars are stylistically similar.

This high degree of cultural similarity suggests a dramatic change in the cultural landscape of prehistoric southeast China. It demonstrates that interregional connec-tions were strengthened. These connections likely included cultural exchange, trade, war, or population migration. The evidence suggests that the coastal area received more infl uence from inland areas. The primary sources of the Huangguashan culture were likely from the inland, and a substantial amount of population probably migrated down the Min river to settle down on the coast. The reason for this kind of popula-tion movement, however, is not clear.

Pearl river delta The available evidence indicates that during the Neolithic period, the Pearl river delta 珠 江 三 角 洲 , including Hong Kong and the adjacent offshore islands, had an inde-pendent cultural tradition. The earliest Neolithic cultures known so far date to around

THE NEOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY OF SOUTHEAST CHINA 607

7000 BP (5050 BC ), marked by an assemblage of painted and red-slipped pottery as well as polished stone axes and adzes. Unlike the shell midden sites on Fujian coast, most of the Neolithic sites on the islands and the coast of Pearl river delta are sand dune sites. They are usually situated on or behind the sand bars of current or ancient bays. Shell midden sites are mainly found along the banks of the Pearl river further inland. A signifi cant number of sites have been excavated, and many of them are well dated, making it possible to establish a chronological sequence. Major sites include Xiantouling 咸 头 岭 , Dahuangsha 大 黄 沙 , Dawan 大 湾 , Shenwan 深 湾 , Hedang 河 宕 , and Yonglang 涌 浪 (Figure 29.1 ). Most scholars agree that these Neolithic sites can be divided into two periods: the early period is from around 7000 to 5000 BP ( c. 5050–3050 BC ), and the late period is from about 5000 to 3500 BP ( c. 3050–1550 BC ). However, as to where the earliest Neolithic cultures came from, there is no consensus. Another issue under debate is how to name the early Neolithic cultural tradition (cf. Xiao 2004 ).

Recent excavation of the Xiantouling site has improved our understanding of the early Neolithic culture in the Pearl river delta. Xiantouling is a sand-dune site, located at Dapeng bay 大 鹏 湾 , Shenzhen 深 圳 ， only about 300 m away from ocean. The site was fi rst found in 1981, and since then fi ve seasons of excavations have been conducted. An area of more than 2,300 sq m has been exposed. The most recent excavation in 2006 made signifi cant progress in dating the Neolithic stratigraphy. Li Hairong 李 海 荣 , the director of the 2006 season excavation, divided the Neolithic remains into three periods, covering a time span from 7000 to 6000 BP ( Li 2007 ). In addition to a large quantity of ceramics, the excavation also found zao 灶 ovens and living fl oors paved with burned clays, indicating this was a settlement. Li argues that Xiantouling was the largest early Neolithic settlement in the Pearl river delta, and that it had strongly infl uenced other settlements in the region. The ceramic assemblage includes reddish painted vessels, white pottery, and some black pottery. Round-bottomed fu caldrons, guan jars, and dou stemmed dishes are the major vessel forms in the assemblage. On the basis of the stylistic comparison of the white pottery and the painted pedestal plates, Li argues that the ultimate sources of Xian-touling were the Gaomiao 高 庙 culture ( c. 7800–6800 BP , c. 5850–4850 BC ), Tangjia-gang 汤 家 岗 culture (6800–6500 BP , or 4850–4550 BC ) and Daxi 大 溪 culture (6500–5300 BP , or 4550–5350 BC ) in the middle Yangzi river area (see Chapters 7 , 24 , 25 ).

Although the similarities of the Neolithic cultures in the Pearl river delta and the middle Yangzi river were noticed much earlier ( He 1994 ), the new excavation of the Xiatouling site offered much stronger evidence to support this hypothesis. Most scholars believe a signifi cant number of people migrated to the Pearl river delta. The problem is the current lack of archaeological data about the migration route and for the upper Pearl river area. If this hypothesis is supported by future testing, it carries signifi cant implications for understanding southern China ’ s prehistory.

Nevertheless, similar ceramic assemblages have been found at many sites around the Pearl river delta and many offshore islands including Hong Kong. The homog-enous styles of painted motifs and vessel shapes indicate the exchange networks developed along the delta and adjacent islands to such a degree that people shared a similar cultural tradition. It also suggests that seafaring skills had reached to a level that enabled people to cross signifi cant areas of open ocean. The ancestors of these

608 TIANLONG JIAO

coastal people might have come from inland areas, but they eventually adapted to the ocean setting, becoming one of the earliest seafarers in southern China.

Inland Guangdong-Shixia 石 峡 culture Inland Guangdong had a different cultural tradition during the Neolithic period. A number of cave sites yielded pottery and polished stone tools as early as the early Holocene ( c. 10,000–9000 BP , or 8050–7050 BC ) ( Jiao 1994 ). However, these early Neolithic caves are poorly understood, and their connections with later Neolithic cultures are not clear.

The most well-studied late Neolithic site is Shixia in Qiujiang 曲 江 county, north-ern Guangdong province (Figure 29.1 ). It was extensively excavated in the 1970s and 1980s. The site has four major cultural layers. Layer 2 and its associated 102 burials are referred as “Shixia culture” ( Zhu 2001 ).

A number of C-14 dates indicate that the time span of the Shixia culture is around 4600–4200 BP ( c. 2650–2250 BC ). The Shixia cemetery includes both secondary and primary burials. A unique mortuary practice was that before the dead were interred, all of the burial pits were burnt, making the walls as hard as brick. These burials can be divided into three periods: early, middle, and late. Most early-period burials are small. The number of large burials increased in the late period, and some of them were interred with more than hundred objects, including prestigious items such as jade artifacts. This pattern suggests that the society was divided into differ-ent ranks.

More than two thousand artifacts made from pottery, stone and jade were found in these burials. The most representative feature is the pottery assemblage. The major-ity of the vessels are tripods with tile-shaped legs. More than 70 percent of these vessels are plain with no surface decoration. The decorations on other vessels are cord-marks, cut-outs, thread lines and checked-designs. More than 77 percent of the deceased in the burials were interred with stone tools, including ben adzes, chan 铲 spades, zao chisels, zu arrowheads, chui 锤 hammers, and wangzhui 网 坠 net sinkers. Most of these stone tools are well polished. Some of the stone adzes have a step or tang. Six burials have jade ornaments such as cong 琮 tubes, bi 壁 disks, zhu 珠 beads, huan 环 bracelets, and huang 璜 pendants. The cong tubes and huan bracelets are particularly noteworthy, as they are stylistically similar to those of the Liangzhu culture (5200–4300 BP , or 3250–2350 BC ) in the lower Yangzi river delta (see Chapter 28 ). However, most scholars believe they were made locally rather than imported directly from the Liangzhu cultural region ( Zhu 2001 ).

Available evidence suggests that remains of the Shixia culture are widely distributed in northern Guangdong province but do not reach the Pearl river delta. The differ-ence among the burials with respect to size as well as the quality and quantity of funerary goods indicates that the Shixia culture was characterized by different social ranks.

Most scholars agree that in many aspects the Shixia culture is similar to the Fan-chengdui 樊 城 堆 culture of the upper Gan river 赣 江 area, a tributary of the Yangzi river in modern Jiangxi province. Some even argue that Shixia and Fanchengdui belong to the same cultural tradition, although the origin of this cultural tradition is not clear. The presence of Liangzhu-style jades and pottery vessels suggest that there

THE NEOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY OF SOUTHEAST CHINA 609

were some interactions between the Shixia and the Yangzi river areas, but the process and the nature of these interactions must be clarifi ed by future research.

AN ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE ON THE PREHISTORY OF SOUTHEAST CHINA

In comparison with other areas of China, southeast China ’ s Neolithic societies under-went a different process. Within this region, there also are differences with respect to the coastal and inland areas. Overall, the pace of development of social complexity was much slower in comparison to areas further north, and the population density was relatively low throughout the Neolithic period. Based on the available data, I have recently argued that an economic perspective can help us better understand the course of southeast China ’ s prehistory ( Jiao 2009 ).

In general, the Neolithic economy of southeast China has two distinctive features:

1. Food production never became the dominant subsistence pattern. On the con-trary, all evidence suggests that it was subsidiary to foraging. Throughout the Neolithic, people in southeast China generally had a low-level food production economy.

2. Marine resources played an important role in people ’ s diet on the coastal area. They developed a lifestyle oriented toward the ocean. Some island communities primarily subsisted on marine foraging and hunting, without or only minimally involved in food production activities.

This kind of economic pattern played a very important role in the social process of Neolithic southeast China.

First of all, low-level food production was likely responsible for the low population density throughout the Neolithic period. Despite the fact that a number of govern-ment-mandated surveys were carried out in Zhejiang, Fujian, and Guangdong prov-inces, only a small number of Neolithic sites have been found ( Jiao 2007 ). Our recent systematic survey on Dongshan island further indicates this area was likely sparsely populated in prehistory. Throughout the Neolithic period, the population density in southeast China was never as high as in central and north China. Although the reasons for this situation might be complicated, the limited food resources produced by a low-level food production economy likely prevented populations from growing too fast. As a consequence, the population density remained low in southeast China throughout the Neolithic period.

Secondly, this kind of low-level food production economy and the low density of population are the primary reasons for the slow pace of social change in southeast China. Until the late period of the Shixia culture around 4300 BP ( c. 2350 BC ), the evidence for a stratifi ed society is very limited. Ranked societies probably developed even later in the coastal area. The size of the Neolithic sites is generally small, mostly between 1–2 ha. There is no evidence for a settlement hierarchy at these sites. Until the end of Neolithic period in southeast China around 3500 BP ( c. 1550 BC ), there were no political centers or centralized communities on the coast of southeast China.

610 TIANLONG JIAO

This is in dramatic contrast to what happened in central and north China where there was fi erce competition among powerful chiefdoms or early states during the late Neolithic ( Liu 2004 ).

Thirdly, my colleagues ’ and my research does not support the conclusion that agriculture and population pressure were the primary reasons for population migra-tions in Neolithic southeast China, a theory proposed by Bellwood ( 1997 ). It is very clear that rice agriculture never became intensifi ed, nor did it play a dominant role in the subsistence pattern. As mentioned above, the population did not increase to a degree that might force people to migrate. However, the evidence is also clear that there were several waves of population migration along the coastal area. Some have argued that this population movement represents the earliest episode of expansion by proto-Austronesians, whose descendants later colonized most of the Pacifi c islands ( Chang 1995 ; Bellwood 1997 ). On the available evidence, I believe instead that these population movements were propelled by a set of factors including maritime adapta-tion, environmental change, and maritime trade ( Jiao 2007 ).

REFERENCES

Bellwood , Peter . 1997 . Prehistory of the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago . Honolulu : University of Hawai ’ i Press .

Chang , Kwang-chih . 1995 . Taiwan Strait Archaeology and Proto-Austronesian . In Austrone-sian Studies Relating to Taiwan , ed. Paul Jen-kuei Li , Cheng-hwa Tsang , and Ying-kuei Huang : 161 – 183 . Taipei : Academia Sinica .

Chang , Kwang-chih , and Ward Goodenough . 1996 . Archaeology of Southeastern China and Its Bearing on the Austronesian Homeland . In Prehistoric Settlement of the Pacifi c , ed. Ward Goodenough : 28 – 35 . Philadelphia : American Philosophical Society .

FPM [ 福 建 省 博 物 馆 ]. 1994 福 建 霞 浦 黄 瓜 山 遗 址 发 掘 报 告 (Report on the Archaeological Excavation at the Huangguashan Site, Xiapu, Fujian) . Fujian Wenbo 1: 3 – 37 .

Fujian and Tanshishan [Fujian Museum 福 建 博 物 院 and Tanshishan Site Museum 昙 石 山 遗 址 博 物 馆 ] . 2010 . 闽 侯 昙 石 山 遗 址 2004 年 考 古 发 掘 简 报 (Report on Excavation of the Tansh-ishan Site in Minhou in 2004) . Fujian Wenbo 2004 ( 1 ): 1 – 12 .

Guo , Zhengfu , and Tianlong Jiao . 2008 . Searching for Origins of the Austronesian Seafaring Culture: Isotopic Evidence from Southeast China . Journal of Austronesian Studies . 2 ( 1 ): 31 – 40 .

Guo , Z. , T. Jiao , B. Rolett, J. Liu , X. Fan , and G. Lin . 2005 . Tracking Interactions in South-east China: Evidence from Stone Adze Geochemistry . Geoarchaeology 20 ( 8 ): 765 – 776 .

He , Jiejun 何 介 均 . 1994 . 环 珠 江 口 地 区 彩 陶 与 大 溪 文 化 (Circum-Pearl River Delta Painted Pottery and the Daxi Culture) . In 南 中 国 及 邻 近 地 区 古 文 化 研 究 (Studies of Ancient Cul-tures in South China and Adjacent Areas) , ed. Deng Cong 邓 聪 : 321 – 330 . Hong Kong : Hong Kong Chinese University Press .

Jiao , Tianlong 焦 天 龙 . 1994 . 更 新 世 末 至 全 新 世 初 岭 南 地 区 的 史 前 文 化 (Prehistoric Cultures from the End of the Pleistocene to the Beginning of the Holocene in Lingnan) . Kaogu Xuebao 1994 ( 1 ): 1 – 23 .

–– 2006 . Ancient Environment and Cultural Changes in Southeast China during the Neolithic Period . Antiquity 80 : 615 – 621 .

–– 2007 . The Neolithic of Southeast China . New York : Cambria . –– 2009 . 福 建 沿 海 新 石 器 时 代 经 济 形 态 的 变 迁 及 意 义 (Implications of the Changes of the

Neolithic Economy in Fujian) . Fujian Wenbo , Special Issue: 47 – 54 . Jiao , Tianlong 焦 天 龙 , and Fan Xuechun 范 雪 春 . 2010 . 福 建 与 南 岛 语 族 (Fujian and the

Austronesians) . Beijing : Zhonghua Shuju .

THE NEOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY OF SOUTHEAST CHINA 611

Krigbaum , John , and Tianlong Jiao . 2010 . Reconstructing Palaeodiet at the Tanshishan Site, Fujian Province, China. Unpublished MS in draft.

Li , Hairong 李 海 荣 . 2007 . 2006 年 度 深 圳 咸 头 岭 遗 址 考 古 的 重 要 发 现 (Major Archaeological Discoveries at the Excavation of the Xiantouling Site in 2006) . Gudai Wenming Yanjiu Tongxun 2007 ( 1 ): 37 – 39 .

Liu , Li . 2004 . The Chinese Neolithic . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press . Tsang , Cheng-hwa . 2002 . Maritime Adaptation in Prehistoric Southeast China: Implications

for the Problem of Austronesian Expansion . Journal of East Asian Archaeology 3 ( 1–2 ): 15 – 45 .

Xiao , Yiting 萧 – 亭 . 2004 . 先 秦 时 期 的 南 海 岛 民 - 海 湾 沙 丘 遗 址 研 究 (Pre-Qin Islanders in the South China Sea – A Study of Sand Dune Sites) . Beijing : Wenwu .

Zhu , Feisu 朱 非 素 . 2001 . 论 石 峡 遗 址 与 珠 江 三 角 洲 古 文 化 的 关 系 (A Study of the Relation-ship Between the Shixia Site and Ancient cultures in the Pearl River delta) . In 广 东 省 文 物 考 古 研 究 所 建 所 十 周 年 文 集 (Papers for the 10th Anniversary of the Institute of Antiquity and Archaeology of Guangdong Province) , ed. 广 东 省 文 物 考 古 研 究 所 : 24 – 63 . Guangzhou : Lingnan Meishu .