Recent Advances in the Prehistoric Archaeology of FormosaAuthor(s): Kwang-Chih Chang and Minze StuiverSource: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,Vol. 55, No. 3 (Mar. 15, 1966), pp. 539-543Published by: National Academy of SciencesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/57265 .

Accessed: 07/05/2014 17:25

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

National Academy of Sciences is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.136 on Wed, 7 May 2014 17:25:46 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

RECENT ADVANCES IN THE PREHISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGY OF FORMOSA*

BY KWANG-CHIH CHANG AND MINZE STUIVER

DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY AND PEABODY MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, AND

DEPARTMENTS OF GEOLOGY AND BIOLOGY AND RADIOCARBON LABORATORY, YALE UNIVERSITY

Communicated by Irving Rouse, January 26, 1966

The importance of Formosa (Taiwan) as a first steppingstone for the movement of peoples and cultures from mainland Asia into the Pacific islands has long been recognized. The past 70 years have witnessed considerable high-quality study of both the island's archaeology1 and its ethnology,2 but it has become increasingly evident that to explore fully Formosa's position in the culture history of the Far East it is imperative also to enlist the disciplines of linguistics, ethnobiology, and the environmental sciences.3 It is with this aim that preliminary and exploratory in- vestigations were carried out in Formosa under the auspices of the Department of Anthropology of Yale University, in collaboration with the Departments of Biology at Yale, and of Archaeology-Anthropology and Geology at National Taiwan Uni- versity (Taipei, Taiwan), during 1964-65. As a result of these investigations, pre- historic cultures can now be formulated on the basis of excavated material, and be placed in a firm chronology, grounded on stratigraphic and carbon-14 evidence. This prehistoric chronology, moreover, can be related to environmental changes during the postglacial period, established by geological and palaeobiological data. Comparison of the new information with prehistoric culture histories in the ad- joining areas in Southeast China, the Ryukyus, and Southeast Asia throws light on problems of cultural origins and contacts in the Western Pacific region, and suggests ways in which to utilize Dyen's recent linguistic work,4 as well as current ethnologi- cal research. The results confirm Formosa's significant role and point to oppor- tunities for studies in the future.5

Our research indicates that at about 2500 B.C., two distinct cultures spread into Formosa from mainland Asia. One, the Yuanshan Culture, centered in the Taipei basin in the northern part of the island in the drainage of the Tamsui River and its upper courses. According to the excavated material from Yuanshan Shellmound6 and Tapenkeng (excavated fall, 1964), the Yuanshan Culture is characterized by a sandy buff ware; a polished stone inventory including the long, flat hoe, stepped adz, shouldered ax, perforated triangular arrowpoint, and ornaments of jadish ma- terials; and an industry of bone and antler. Its principal ceramic form is a pot with lid, two vertical loop handles attached to the collared, rounded body, and a ring foot of medium height. A brownish slip is the only surface treatment in most cases, but short incised strokes, small ring impressions, net incisions, and coarsely brushed dark red paint decorate many vessels. Archaeological assemblages completely identical with the Yuanshan Culture have not been identified anywhere in the Far East, but the basic forms of pottery and the stepped adz resemble elements of the prehistoric Lungshanoid horizon on the southeast coast of China, and the shouldered ax points in the direction of the Gulf of Tonkin.' Three carbon-14 dates from the She]lmound (Y-1547: 3860 4 80 B.P.; Y-1548: 3540 4i 80 B.P.; Y-1549: 3190 + 80 B.P.) and two from Tapenkeng (Y-1551: 2840 i 200 B.P.; Y-1498: 2030

539

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.136 on Wed, 7 May 2014 17:25:46 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

540 ANTHROPOLOGY: CHANG AND STUIVER PROC. N. A. S.

i 80 B.P.) firmly place the Yuanshan Culture at 21/2 millennia before Christ. During the second half of the Tapenkeng sequence, i.e. after about 500 B.C., there was an intrusion into the Yuanshan Culture of a ceramic ware characterized by impressed check patterns, apparently from the south. At this time the two early prehistoric cultures of Formosa must have come into direct contact in the northern part of the island.

The second prehistoric culture, which began in the middle of the third millennium B.C., arrived in southwestern Formosa. Excavations carried out early in 1965 at the site of Fengpitou,8 near Kaohsiung, disclosed a long (3.5 m) deposition of a Neo- lithic culture with a lower stratum devoid of mollusc shells and an upper layer full of them. A series of carbon-14 dates from the upper, shell-midden layer (Y-I 577: 2440 4 100 B.P.; Y-1584: 2670 4 80 B.P.; Y-1648: 2670 4 60 B.P.; Y-1578: 2780 4 80 B.P.; Y-1649: 2900 ? 120 B.P.; Y-1581: 2910 4 80 B.P.; Y-1580: 3310 4 80 B.P.) places this layer between 500 and 1500 B.C. and suggests 2500 B.C.

as the date for the beginning of the whole series. The material culture at the site contrasts sharply with the Yuanshan Culture and is characterized by a polished stone inventory that includes the flat, trapezoidal hoe, spatula-shaped hoe, rectan- gular adz, triangular (but not perforated) and stemmed arrowhead, and perforated slate knife (rectangular and semilunar varieties); a rich bone-antler-shell industry; and a melange of ceramic wares, red, buff, gray, and black in color, which includes painted, incised, engraved, and impressed (check, basket, and mat) decorative pat- terns, and bowls, beakers, and pots with lids, lugs (handles), and ting feet and high pedestals with cutouts. These features identify the culture at the site unmistakably with the Lungshanoid horizon of prehistoric southeast China and give rise to its designation as the Taiwan Lungshanoid Culture. The Lungshanoid was the major prehistorie culture along much of the western coastal area of Formosa south of the Yuanshan domain, and its geometric impressed ware apparently prevailed during the first millennium and laid the foundation for much of the later prehistoric culture ancestral to a large segment of the present aboriginal population.

Both the Yuanshan and the Lungshanoid cultures were undoubtedly based upon highly developed agriculture. The collecting of marine and riverine molluscs, hunting of deer and boar, and fishing played important parts in their subsistence, as is shown by the contents of the kitchen middens and the remains of stone and bone points and net sinkers. Nevertheless, the numerous polished and chipped stone artifacts that by any criteria can be described only as cultivation implements (flat, long hoe, spatula-shaped hoe, slate knife, hache pediforme, and possibly shouldered ax) and wood-working implements (rectangular adz, stepped adz, and chisel), to- gether with the broad cultural make-up (extensive area of settlement, longevity of occupation, and the elaboration and richness of stone, bone, and ceramic artifacts), bespeak cultures characterized by very intensive and advanced agriculture. Tsu- kada9 reports that pollen analysis of a Jih-Yueh Tan core, in central Formosa, dis- closes a sudden increase of chenopodiaceous and large-sized grass pollen at about 4200 B.P., which clearly indicates intensive agricultural activity. In view of Jih- Yueh Tan's location in central Taiwan, this abrupt change in its vegetational his- tory agrees in time with the expansion of the Lungshanoid Culture in Formosa. According to Tsukada, about one third of the grass pollen after 4200 B.P. at Jih- Yueh Tan probably consists of cultivated species, which accords with our knowledge

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.136 on Wed, 7 May 2014 17:25:46 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

VoL. 55, 1966 ANTHROPOLOGY: CHANG AND STUIVER 541

of the Lungshanoid in South China as a rice- and millet-growing culture.10 This raises the further interesting possibility of rice cultivation in Formosa long before the immigration of the modern Chinese, beginning in the sixteenth century, even though ethnologists observe only millet among the aborigines today.1'

Although our investigation has firmly established the fact that intensive grain agriculture in Formosa began around 2500 B.C. with the arrivals of the Yuanshan and the Lungshanoid cultures from mainland Asia, it is as yet unclear what went on in Formosa prior to that time. Kano12 long argued on the basis of distribution that the earliest prehistoric culture of the island was characterized by corded ware, and at several sites-notably Yuanshan6 and Tapenkeng in the north, Shuiyuanti in central Taiwan,13 and Fengpitou in the south-the lowest prehistoric occupation is indeed characterized by potsherds of fairly coarse and thick paste with impressed cord marks, occasional red paint, and group-instrument-incised rectilinear and curvilinear decorative patterns. The shape of the vessel is rather limited in range- low-collared, occasionally with a raised exterior ridge below the rim to emphasize the decorative patterns incised upon it; globular body; low ring foot occasionally with cutouts. The stone inventory associated with the cord-marked pottery is very inadequately known, but it includes pecked river pebbles, perforated tri- angular points of slate, a few chipped ax-hoes, and polished rectangular adzes, some of which exhibit steps of a rudimentary form. Outstanding problems concerning this cultural horizon in Formosa are its origin, its dating, and its subsistence base. Of its origin little can be said except that corded ware in vast variety was wide- spread in East Asia and that the ring foot and rectangular adz are two Lungshanoid elements. Obviously, comparative studies of this horizon cannot be undertaken with confidence without positive knowledge of its age.

From stratigraphical evidence it is certain that the earliest manifestation of the Corded Ware stratum in Formosa predates both Yuanshan and Lungshanoid, i.e., it is earlier than 2500 B.C. But how much earlier? The excavations at Tapenkeng disclose the fact that, from stratigraphic and soil data, there is a marked chrono- logical discontinuity between the Corded Ware stratum and the Yuanshan occupa- tion14:

(1) A layer of andesite slabs separates the two loamy occupation layers, prob- ably indicating a talus structure.

(2) Peaks of ihleite and kaolinite minerals appear throughout the strata at the site under an X-ray refractometer, but such peaks become obscure in the layer be- tween the two occupations, suggesting a long interval of exposure and weathering.

(3) The vertical distribution of chemical components, especially A1203, Fe2O3, and TiO2, discloses that the soil of these two occupations contains somewhat differ- ent components and that, again, considerable weathering occurred after the Corded Ware debris ceased to accumulate and before the Yuanshan remains began to appear.

All these phenomena suggest that the Corded Ware stratum at Tapenkeng was separated by a considerable time interval from the Yuanshan Culture. Bits of black material, seemingly charcoal, obtained from the Corded Ware stratum within an area of 6 i2, in direct and indisputable association with pottery, give a radio- carbon date of 19,670 i 450 B.P. (Y-1552), but another sample from the same area yields a date of only 3080 i 350 B.P. (Y-1496). The latter date falls within

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.136 on Wed, 7 May 2014 17:25:46 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

542 ANTHROPOLOGY: CHANG AND STUIVER PROC. N. A. S.

the Yuanshan range and the sample was probably contaminated, but a recheck of the behavior of the former sample (Y-1552) in the laboratory confirms its normalcy. This date, however, is clearly beyond the maximal limits of acceptability within current prehistoric knowledge, and we reserve judgment on its interpretation.

The Corded Ware stratum, however, clearly falls chronologically within the first half of the vegetational and climatic Zone Rf (11,000-4,200 B.P.) of the Jih-Yueh Tan core reported by Tsukada.9 Its pottery, with appreciably elaborate form (in- cluding the pedestaled variety) and decoration, -and its stone implements, which include polished rectangular adz and chipped hoe-ax, suggest that it is not be- yond the range of possibility that cultivation of plants was a part of the subsistence base of this stratum. Beginning at about 11,000 B.P., the Jih-Yueh Tan core ex- hibits a disturbance of notable magnitude in the vegetational history of the area around the lake, which includes the increase of secondary growths of trees and shrubs, as well as an increased amount of charred fragments. If this disturbance and the continuation of forest burning and secondary vegetational pattern can be at- tributed to human rather than natural agency, as is likely, then there is no other prehistoric culture on Formosa that could have been held responsible than the Corded Ware stratum. It is possible, provided that more evidence comes to light in the future to substantiate beyond doubt the existence of plant cultivation during the Corded Ware stratum, that root and fruit crops were more probably involved than grain crops; this would have great and far-reaching significance in the prob- lem of the invention of pottery (a problem related to the Japanese Jomon pottery which has been carbon-dated to some 10,000 years ago15) and also in the long-stand- ing question about the history of agriculture in Southeast Asia.

Whatever the position of the Corded Ware stratum turns out to be in the future, the prehistory of Taiwan has been firmly established for the period after about 2500 B.C., when the Yuanshan and Lungshanoid Cultures came from across the Formosan Strait. It is noteworthy that in Dyen's new classification of the Austro- nesian languages4 no less than two-Atayalic and Tsouic-from Formosa are described as being "lexicostatistically prime," i.e., languages with a low critical percentage of cognates and thus thought to have separated from the ancestral stock at an early date. Even without risking the use of the uncertain glottochron- ological postulates, it is an inescapable inference that two linguistic populations entered Formosa some millennia before our era. Linguistic entities do not ineces- sarily coincide with archaeological cultures, but they must leave a trace that is archaeologically identifiable. Insofar as the currently available archaeological data are concerned, Yuanshan and Lungshanoid are the only two identifiable arehae- ological cultures-aside from the much earlier Corded Ware occupation-on the is- land of Formosa at this early date, and these two cultures and the two prime languages must be connected in somie way. There is little question that these cul- tures came to Formosa from mainland Asia; but this tends to reaffirm the tradi- tional hypothesis deriving the earliest Austronesians from the Asiatic mainland, which is in irreconcilable conflict with the Melanesian homeland hypothesis. 16 Pre- historic cultures on Formosa of apparent southern derivation-mainly in the southern and eastern coastal areas-did not appear until a much later time period than both Yuanshan, and Lungshanoid Cultures.

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.136 on Wed, 7 May 2014 17:25:46 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

VOL. 55, 1966 ANTHROPOLOGY: M. TSUKADA 543

The authors wish to thank Professor C. C. Lin, of the Department of Geology, and Professor Wen-hsun Sung, of the Department of Archaeology and Anthropology, National Taiwan Univer- sity, for collaboration in the field. A comprehensive report of the 1964-66 work is being prepared and will appear under the title Fengpitou, Tapenkeng, and the Prehistory of Formosa. For pre- liminary reports besides this paper, see references 5 and 9.

* The archaeological data are based on field research since April 1964, supported by the National Science Foundation (GS-410). The radiocarbon dates reported herein were determined by the Radiocarbon Laboratory, Yale University; the dating project was supported by NSF grant GP- 4879.

1 Kanaseki, T., and N. Kokubu, Quart. Rev. Taiwan Culture, 5, 9 (1950). 2 Mabuchi, T., et al., Minzokugaku-Kenkyu, 18 (1953). Chang, K. C., Asian Perspectives, 7, 195 (1964).

4Dyen, I., Intern. J. Am. Linguistics, Mem. 19 (1965); Asian Perspectives, 7, 261 (1964). 5 Chang, K. C., Asian Perspectives, 9 (1965). 6 Chang, K. C., Mainland Magazine, 9, 36 (1954). 7Chang, K. C., Current Anthropology, 5, 359 (1964). 8 Tsuboi, K., Proc. Fourth Far-Eastern Prehistory Congr., 1, 277 (1956). 9 Tsukada, M., these PROCEEDINGS, 55, 543 (1966). 10 Chang, K. C., The Archaeology of Ancient China (New Haven and London: Yale University

Press, 1963). 11 Segawa, K., Minzokugaku-Kenkyu, 18, 49 (1953). 12 Kano, T., in Studies in the Ethnology and Prehistory o-f Southeast Asia (Tokyo: Yajima Shobo,

1952), vol. 2, p. 176. 13 Sung, W. H., and K. C. Chang, Bull. Dept. Archaeology and Anthropology, National Taiwan

University, 3, 26 (1954). 14 Observation and laboratory data supplied by Professor C. C. Lin. 15 Oba, T., and C. S. Chard, Asian Perspectives, 6, 75 (1963). 16 Murdock, G. P., Ethnology, 3, 117 (1964).

LATE PLEISTOCENE VEGETATION AND CLIMATE IN TAIWAN (FORMOSA)*

BY MATSUO TSUKADA

DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY, YALE UNIVERSITY

Communicated by Irving Rouse, January 26, 1966

Pollen analysis can help to establish past climatic changes, but data from the Asiatic subtropics have not been available. During 5 months of field work in 1964. led in Taiwan by K. C. Chang,I six lacustrine cores from Taiwan and five from Japan were collected. This paper traces the vegetational and climatic history of one lake core from almost the beginning of the last glacial age in Taiwan.

Present Vegetation.-Six major forest types cover the wide range of altitude in Taiwan today.2' 3 Four of these, directly related to the present palynological study, are briefly described here.

The subtropical rain forest (confined to the inaccessible lowlands below ca. 500 m in altitude) consists mainly of Liquidambar formosana, Trema orientatis, Mallotus paniculatus, M. philippensis, M. japonicus, Diospyros spp., Celtis formosana, Styrax suberifolia, Moraceae, and various bamboo species.

The warm-temperate forest (ca. 500-1,800 m), as characterized by the Lauro-

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.136 on Wed, 7 May 2014 17:25:46 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions