2017 Neolithic Cultures in Southeast China, Taiwan and Luzon

speak languages in this family and hence qualify as Austronesians. But they have genetic profiles that are primarily of much deeper indigenous (pre‐Neolithic) Southeast Asian and Melanesian origin. b) Neither does it require mass migration or the extinction of indigenous populations. Initial Neolithic settler groups were perhaps very small, but with high birth rates, and it would have been the numbers of settler females and their birth rates in the new territories that would have determined eventual demographic outcomes. c) The suggested Neolithic population migration from southern China into Taiwan around 5000 years ago does not mean that all modern Southeast Asians have “Han” Chinese ancestry. South China was not Sinitic‐speaking during the Neolithic. The Chinese cultural landscape that exists today originated as a result of dynastic migration and settlement from central China, commencing during the Zhou Dynasty and extending by 100 bce into northern Vietnam. China south of the Yangzi, prior to the Shang and Zhou dynasties (c. 1600–221 bce), and certainly prior to the Qin and Han (221 bce to 220 ce), can be regarded in cultural, linguistic, and population terms as part of Southeast Asia. The small island of Taiwan therefore played a fundamental role as a gateway for the movement of Neolithic populations, material cultures, and languages from southern China into Island Southeast Asia, as underlined by a new analysis of ancestry components in whole genomes across many Southeast Asian populations (Mörseberg et al. 2016). Even as I write, new data come to hand with surprising frequency supporting an Out of Taiwan origin for Malayo‐Polynesian‐speaking peoples. For instance, a major chloroplast DNA clade of the paper mulberry tree (Broussonetia papyrifera), source of an inner bark used across the Pacific Islands and much of Southeast Asia to make bark cloth, has recently been shown to be of Taiwan origin (Chang et al. 2015). Neolithic Cultures in Southeast China, Taiwan, and Luzon An Invited Perspective by Hsiao‐chun Hung In southern China, the oldest evidence for rice agriculture is currently much later than that for pottery production. Although early rice cultivation can be traced before 6000 bce in the middle Yellow and middle‐lower Yangzi valleys, rice farming in southern China, especially in Fujian, Guangdong, and Guangxi, is not yet attested before 3000 bce (Zhang and Hung 2010; Yang et al. in press). Instead, archaeological evidence prior to this date in coastal southern China still indicates a continuing reliance on maritime resources (Zhang and Hung 2014), as represented by numerous shell midden and sand dune sites dated between 5000 and 3000 bce. These include Keqiutou in Fujian and Xiantouling in Guangdong (Figure 7.1), both with sand tempered pottery decorated with stamped and incised motifs. 232 Neolithic Southern China, Taiwan, Philippines The Xincun sand dune site in Guangdong (3350–2470 bce) has also yielded an excellent record of plant foods. Identiied starch grains and phytoliths on the surfaces of grindstones and pounders indicate exploitation of sago starch (Caryota sp.), bananas, lotus roots, Chinese water chestnuts, acorns, fern rhizomes, and seeds of the perennial cereal Job’s‐tears. A small number of phytoliths are also of rice, although there is no information available as to whether any of these plants were cultivated or domesticated. However, because the starch grains were identiied on the working ends of stone tools, deinite food processing is implied (Yang et al. 2013). These Holocene isher‐forager groups eventually underwent varying degrees of cultural transformation, beginning 3000 bce, especially under the inluence of Liangzhu and related agriculturalists spreading from the middle and lower Yangzi Valley into Lingnan (the region south of the Nanling Mountains) and southeast China. In Fujian, the oldest carbonised rice grains date to 2870–2340 bce at Tanshishan (Yan 1989). Phytoliths and pollen in sediments at Zhuangbianshan, one of the largest settlements of the Tanshishan cultural phase, conirm the occurrence of rice during the same time period (Ma et al. 2013). At Shixia in northern Guangdong (2600–2300 bce; Figure 7.1), large quantities of rice grains and stalks in the lower and middle layers are claimed to be of cultivated rice (Yang 1978). Other Guangdong Neolithic rice remains, both grains and phytoliths and all postdating 3000 bce, have been identiied in the pre‐Shixia phase at Shixia itself (Yang 1998; Yang et al. in press), at Shaxia in Hong Kong (Lu et al. 2005), at Guye in Gaoming (Relics from the South 2007), and at Xinghuahe in Kaifong (Xiang and Yao 2006). The list of domestic animals associated with early farmers in southern China is still small, but the available information suggests a north‐to‐south gradient in the assigned ages. In Qihedong Cave (Fujian), bones of domestic dogs are claimed to occur in two cultural layers dated around 13,000 to 7000 bce and 7000 to 5000 bce (Fan 2013:369–370). However, dates for early dog bones are closer to 5000 bce in southern Guangxi (see Lu 2010). Domesticated dogs and pigs have been reported from Tanshishan dated to 2600–2000 bce (Fujian Museum 1984, 2004; Luo 2012). Farther south, bones of domestic dogs and pigs occur at Cuntou in Guangdong, dated around 2100–1200 bce (Zhang Chi, pers. comm.). Assessment of the role of southern China in the Neolithic of Taiwan and the Philippines must also take into account the new craniofacial data from human burials presented in Chapter 4. In his continuing research with me in southern China, Hirofumi Matsumura has also identiied a two‐layer population sequence with Australo‐Papuan hunter‐gatherers followed by Asian Neolithic farmers. The former remained the dominant population until about 3000 bce, represented by burials without grave goods in crouched or lexed positions. After 3000 bce, skeletons were buried in extended positions and often with grave goods. Neolithic Southern China, Taiwan, Philippines 233 Taiwan A similar two‐layer sequence of human population is documented from two adjacent sites on Liangdao (Liang Island) in the Taiwan Strait, as well as on the island of Taiwan itself (for site locations see Figures 7.1, 7.3). Two burials were excavated on Liangdao, the older being an Australo‐Papuan adult male buried in a flexed position about 6300 bce, the younger an Asian adult female buried in an extended supine position about 5500 bce (Chen and Chiu 2013). In Taiwan, the only known Paleolithic burial recovered so far comes from the Xiaoma cave Yanliao Pinglin Fengtian nephrite source Penghu Islands (Suogang, Nangang) TAIWAN 200m isobath Xiaoma Caves Caves Chaolaiqiao & Donghebei Fushan Jialulan Youxianfang Nanguanli Niuchouzi Beinan Fengbitou Ludao (Youzihu) (Green Island) Lanyu (Botel Tobago) (Rusarsol) Kending & Eluanbi BASHI CHANNEL M isanga Mavolis Siayan (Mitangeb) LUZON I tbayat (Anaro) STRAIT Dequey Ivuhos BATANES ISLANDS Batan (Sunget) Sabtang (Savidug) BALINTANG CHANNEL Balintang Babuyan PH I L I P PI N ES Calayan Dalupiri BABUYAN ISLANDS Fuga Camiguin BABUYAN CHANNEL Paoay Paoay Lake Nagsabaran Andarayan Callao Cave Y CAGA AN VALL EY LUZON Irigayen Magapit Magapi t Dimolit Major archaeological sites in italics 100 0 kilometres Figure 7.3 Archaeological sites in southern Taiwan, the Batanes Islands, and northern Luzon. 234 Neolithic Southern China, Taiwan, Philippines complex in the southeast of the island, this being an adult male buried in a crouched posture about 4000 bce. My research with Matsumura suggests that this individual was of Australo‐Papuan affinity, most closely related with Negrito populations in the Philippines. This is particularly interesting since it suggests that a Negrito population once lived in Taiwan, a situation apparently documented in Chinese texts and Formosan oral traditions. With the beginning of the Dabenkeng Neolithic, most burials in Taiwan switched to an extended supine posture, which continued into the Metal Age. The Dabenkeng culture (TPK), dating from possibly 4000/3500 and lasting to 2200 bce, correlates with the Early Neolithic in Taiwan (Hung and Carson 2014). An assemblage of pottery, polished stone adzes (see Plate 4), and village settlements with cemeteries replaced the late Palaeolithic Changbinian assemblages that had characterized the island since at least 25 kya. The Dabenkeng culture developed through early (4000/3500–2800 bce) and late (2800–2200 bce) phases. Early Dabenkeng sites are represented by shell middens or located in sand dunes, and so far no evidence of rice has been found in them. The shell middens are often located on slightly elevated ground originally overlooking swamps or shallow‐water coastal environments, now illed with alluvium. During its later phase (2800–2200 bce), the Dabenkeng culture has evidence for both rice (Oryza sativa) and millet cultivation at the southwestern Taiwan sites of Nanguanli and Nanguanlidong in the Tainan Science Park (Tsang and Li 2016; Hsieh et al. 2011; Tsang et al. 2016, 2017). These two sites contain bones of ish, deer, pigs, and dogs, including four complete dog burials at Nanguanlidong. However, the nature of the Dabenkeng economy before the Nanguanli assemblages remains unclear, owing to lack of archaeobotanical data and an absence of direct dating of the actual plant remains. The question of whether rice and millet were cultivated right from the start of Neolithic settlement in Taiwan, or arrived later to be grafted on to a mainly gathering, hunting, and ishing economy, cannot be answered at present. Direct radiocarbon dates for rice from Taiwan suggest a presence only from 2500 bce, on current evidence. One possible origin for the early Dabenkeng can be traced to the Pearl delta in Guangdong (Tsang 2005; Hung 2008), with other cultural inluences from Fujian and Zhejiang entering northern Taiwan (Liu and Guo 2005). So far, the Dabenkeng cannot yet be traced to any single culturally uniied source. The subsequent Middle Neolithic in Taiwan, around 2500/2200–1500 bce, reveals a signiicantly increased reliance on rice and millet farming. Sites of this period are characterized primarily by the use of ine cord‐marked and red‐ slipped pottery, both generally regarded as a direct development from the coarse cord‐marked Dabenkeng pottery (Li 1983; Tsang 1992; Liu 2002; and see Figure 7.6 below). However, some pottery of this stage still shows connections with coastal China, suggesting continued cultural interaction. Diagnostic Middle Neolithic artifacts include polished stone knives (presumably for rice harvesting), stone adzes, nephrite (jade) ornaments, jar burials, and larger settlements with an implied increase in population number and density. Neolithic Southern China, Taiwan, Philippines 235 The transition from Early to Middle Neolithic has been well documented at Xuntangpu in northern Taiwan (Figure 7.1, no. 12), which has a sequence dated between 2600 and 1700 bce (Liu et al. 2008; Liu 2007). At least 92 sites of the Xuntangpu culture are known (Kuo 2008; Chu 2012). Stone harvesting knives are now common and Dalongdong has produced carbonized rice grains (Chu 2012). Elsewhere in Taiwan during this phase, carbonized rice grains or impressions in pottery occur at Chikan B in the Penghu Islands (Tsang 1992), Kending in southern Taiwan (Li 1985), and Youxianfang in Tainan (Tsang and Li 2016). A recent study of rice phytoliths by Deng Zhenhua in collaboration with the author has conirmed that domesticated rice remains occur in several Middle Neolithic sites in eastern Taiwan, including Chaolaiqiao, dating prior to 2000 bce (Deng et al. in press). Also during the Middle Neolithic, visible diferences developed between Taiwan regional assemblages that exceed those in the earlier and more homogeneous TPK, leading to a recognition of ive geographically separate facies or cultures. These are Xuntangpu in northern Taiwan, Niumatou in central‐west Taiwan, Niuchouzi in southern Taiwan, Fushan in eastern Taiwan, and Hongmaogang between northern and central‐west Taiwan (Liu 2007). More than 300 Middle Neolithic sites have been recorded across the whole island (Tsang 1990; Li 2003), over seven times the number recorded in the Early Neolithic. This is an impressive statistic linked to population growth and presumably an increasing productivity of rice and millet agriculture. At the same time, ofshore ishing and sea voyaging technologies developed considerably, highly signiicant to explain the success of the contemporary Malayo‐Polynesian expansion into the Philippines. Thus, at Eluanbi and Eluanbi II in southern Taiwan (Li 2002), we ind stone net sinkers, ish‐hooks, bones of very large marine ish such as grouper, and especially large pelagic carnivores such as dolphinish and marlin. The last two species imply open sea trolling from moving canoes, quite far from shore (Campos and Piper 2009). Stone raw materials were also exchanged widely throughout Taiwan at this time. Olivine basalt from Penghu was used to make adzes, and Fengtian nephrite from eastern Taiwan was used for ornaments and adzes that were carried back to Penghu, as well as to Ludao and Lanyu islands (Hung 2004, 2008). Between Taiwan and Luzon The Luzon Strait is about 350 km wide, between the southern tip of Taiwan and the northern coast of Luzon in the Philippines (Figure 7.3). The major islands here belong to the Batanes and Babuyan groups, the former with crucial archaeological evidence for understanding long‐term interaction between Taiwan and the rest of Island Southeast Asia. The warm Kuroshio Current flows from south to north through this region, leading a few scholars to speculate that Neolithic human migration from Taiwan to the Philippines 236 Neolithic Southern China, Taiwan, Philippines might have been difficult, if not impossible (Solheim 1984–1985:81). But new archaeological data make a north to south crossing a certainty, on more than one occasion. Ludao and Lanyu (Botel Tobago) Ludao and Lanyu are the closest islands to Taiwan, located on the northern side of the Bashi Channel (Figure 7.3). Ludao lies 33 km from the southeast coast of Taiwan, with clear visibility, and was formerly inhabited by indigenous people related to the modern Tao population (previously termed Yami) of Lanyu today (Kano 1946:398–424). The archaeological records of Ludao and Lanyu can be divided into three phases: Middle Neolithic with fine cord‐marked pottery (2200–1500 bce), Late Neolithic Beinan (1500–300 bce), and Metal Age Lobusbussan (after 500 ce) (Liu et al. 1995:36–38; Liu et al. 2000:147). No TPK sites have yet been identified on these islands. So far, the only known Middle Neolithic site is Yugang on Ludao, where fine cord‐marked sherds occurred in low frequency within a larger assemblage of red‐slipped vessels with ring feet and tall rims. This pottery is close to that of the Middle Neolithic Fushan facies in eastern Taiwan. The Late Neolithic Beinan phase in Ludao/Lanyu ailiates with the full Beinan culture of eastern Taiwan, and one of the key sites is Youzihu on Ludao, dated 1620–1455 bce. This site contains many shell beads and artifacts of mainland Taiwan origin – Fengtian nephrite ornaments and worked fragments, slate points, and adzes of a metavolcanic “water melon” rock. At this time, very intense cultural interaction occurred between Ludao and the Taiwan mainland, as well as with Batanes and Luzon to the south. The Metal Age Lobusbussan phase is represented only on Ludao and Lanyu and difered considerably from the contemporaneous Iron Age cultures of Taiwan, suggesting increasing cultural diferentiation at this time. There is at present a curious gap of about 800 years between the end of the Beinan and the beginning of the Lobusbussan phase, and this raises the question of whether or not the ethnohistoric Tao (or Yami) population of Lanyu (and formerly Ludao) descended from Batanes immigrants, as indicated very strongly by the linguistic evidence. Perhaps these islands were uninhabited or only sparsely utilized around 500 ce, and thus available for resettlement. The Batanes Islands Ten islands comprise the Batanes, of which only Itbayat, Batan, and Sabtang support populations today. They lie about 190 km south of Taiwan and 160 km north of Luzon (Figure 7.3). The indigenous inhabitants are the Ivatan (Batan and Sabtang) and the Itbayaten (Itbayat), whose closely related languages belong to the Bashiic subgroup of Malayo‐Polynesian (Li 2001:277; Ross 2005). Neolithic Southern China, Taiwan, Philippines 237 Linguistic reconstructions suggest that Malayo‐Polynesian‐speaking populations have had a considerable time‐depth in Batanes, although much of the actual differentiation between Ivatan, Itbayaten, and Yami (Tao) has been quite recent (see Blust’s comments on Bashiic languages in Chapter 6). The Neolithic in Batanes (see Figures 7.8, 7.9 below) lasted from 2200 until 500 bce or later, when copper and iron made tentative appearances. As with Ludao and Lanyu, there is currently no archaeological evidence for any human settlement of these islands before the Neolithic (Bellwood and Dizon 2005, 2013). The oldest Batanes pottery from a typological perspective, compared with Taiwan assemblages, comes from Reranum Cave on Itbayat Island (Figure 7.8b). It is predominantly red‐slipped and undecorated, with small quantities showing ine cord‐marking, the latter a signiicant discovery as it is the only one so far in the northern Philippines and strongly linked with the Middle Neolithic ine cord‐marked traditions of Taiwan. Another early pottery assemblage comes from Torongan Cave, lacking the ine cord‐marking but otherwise the same red‐slipped plain ware. In particular, the rim and vessel forms in these Batanes sites resemble those at Fushan, Chaolaiqiao, and other Middle Neolithic sites in eastern Taiwan. By 1200 bce, rich artifact assemblages are known from Sunget on Batan and the basal layer in the Savidug Dune Site on Sabtang. The Sunget assemblage includes red‐slipped and circle‐stamped pottery with ring‐feet and handles, biconical terracotta spindle whorls, adzes made of volcanic stone and Taiwan jade, a Taiwan slate point, and Taiwan‐style double‐notched pebble net sinkers (Koomoto 1983:55–61; Bellwood and Dizon 2013). This assemblage shows clear cultural similarities with the contemporaneous Late Neolithic in Taiwan, especially with the Huagangshan and Beinan cultural groups on the eastern coast. For example, handles attached to the sides of globular vessels with ring feet were common in Sunget, Beinan, and Huagangshan, but absent in the previous Middle Neolithic ine cord‐marked phase, as well as in the subsequent Sanhe (Iron Age) phase in eastern Taiwan. Burial jars in Batanes sites, such as Savidug Dune Site, were identical to many in eastern Taiwan. Jar burial had a long presence in Taiwan, beginning by 2000 bce with red‐slipped burial jars in the Middle Neolithic, particularly in Niuchouzi sites in southwestern Taiwan (Figure 7.6b). It became very common around 1000 bce during the Taiwan Late Neolithic, especially in sand dune sites on the eastern coast such as Huagangshan, Dakeng, and Yanliao (Ye 2001). As well as jar burials, Savidug Dune Site at around 500 to 1 bce also yielded pieces of worked Taiwan jade and a shell “spoon” made of Turbo marmoratus, the latter similar to shell spoons in the Tabon Caves on Palawan (Fox 1970), in many contemporary southeast Taiwan sites such as Jialulan (Egli 1972) and Zhihangjidi (Sung et al. 1992), and in Eluanbi and Eluanbi II at the southern tip of Taiwan (Li 1983).15 Similar objects continued to be used until historic times by the Formosan Amis in eastern Taiwan (National Museum of Natural Science 1990). 238 Neolithic Southern China, Taiwan, Philippines Indeed, the export of raw materials from Taiwan to Batanes evidently occurred on many occasions, commencing by at least 1200 bce, as recorded by the Anaro jade workshop on Itbayat which commenced occupation around this time, contemporary with the late Beinan phase in southeastern Taiwan. Considerable quantities of worked Taiwan nephrite and slate have been found at Anaro, both rocks being absent in the volcanic and raised coral landscapes of the Batanes and Babuyan Islands. Slate is common in the central mountains of Taiwan. The earliest Neolithic cultures that occur from coastal southern China into the northern Philippines can thus be traced back to homelands located north or west, conirmed by the gradient in relevant radiocarbon dates moving outwards from source regions in coastal southern China and Taiwan. The early pottery of the Pearl delta at 5000–3500 bce was characteristically red‐painted and coarse cord‐marked with incised decoration. Later, in Taiwan, similar vessel forms with coarse cord‐marking and incision dominated the TPK Early Neolithic at 4000– 2500 bce, and were later replaced by Middle Neolithic ine cord‐marked and red‐slipped pottery at 2500–2200 bce. Eventually, plain red‐slipped and red‐ painted pottery dominated the later phase of the Taiwan Middle Neolithic at 2000–1500 bce. In Ludao, Lanyu, and Itbayat some of the earliest pottery was still ine cord‐marked and contemporary with the Middle Neolithic in Taiwan. Finally, the commencement of the “Neolithic” in each region was marked by the occurrence of a cultural complex of new traits, including large and presumably sedentary settlements, advanced technology in pottery manufacture, evidence for animal and plant domestication, and other aspects of material culture such as spinning, weaving, and bark cloth production. Even the widespread bark cloth industry in the Asia‐Paciic region can be traced back to southern China (e.g., Ling 1963; Tang 1997), with stone beaters dated as early as 4000–3000 bce from the Pearl delta (Tang 2003). To the east, bark cloth beaters occur in the TPK sites of Changguang, Dabenkeng, and Nanguanli in Taiwan (Tsang and Li 2016), and in northern Luzon in the Philippines at 1500–1000 bce (Thiel 1986–1987). The recent demonstration by Chang et al. (2015) that paper mulberry (Broussonetia papyrifera) originated in southern China and Taiwan, before being reproduced asexually in the Paciic Islands by human agency, has been referred to above. Northern Luzon Taiwan and northern Luzon have a similar archaeological history in that both received intrusive Neolithic traditions that eventually replaced indigenous Paleolithic assemblages of pebble and flake tools (these being absent in Batanes). In Luzon, the Neolithic is best represented in the Cagayan rift valley, holding the longest river in the Philippines. Since 1971, more than 30 Neolithic and Iron Age shell middens have been found along the lower Cagayan, forming the densest pattern of prehistoric settlement in the Philippines. Some of these sites have yielded red‐slipped plain ware pottery inspired from Middle Neolithic Taiwan at Neolithic Southern China, Taiwan, Philippines 239 about 2200 bce, with very similar rim and vessel forms. Other Cagayan artifacts, such as baked‐clay pendants, spindle whorls, Taiwan jade objects, and bark cloth beaters point congruently to origins in Taiwan (Hung 2005, 2008; Hung et al. 2007; Thiel 1986–1987). So far, the earliest domestic pigs in the Philippines, dated to before 2000 bce, have been discovered from Nagsabaran (Piper et al. 2009). The agricultural repertoire of the early Neolithic phase (2000–1000 bce) in northern Luzon remains unclear, but the Neolithic site of Andarayan near Solana has produced red‐slipped pottery with direct AMS radiocarbon dating of a rice husk inclusion to 2050–1400 bce. A corroborating charcoal date from the site is 1950–1050 bce (Snow et al. 1986:3). Our recent excavations at Magapit have recovered carbonized rice grains and banana phytoliths radiocarbon dated to 1000 bce, and more than 200 carbonized rice grains have been loated from the Neolithic layer at Nagsabaran (ongoing research in collaboration with Deng Zhenhua), above a dense charcoal layer with nodules of low‐ired clay C14‐dated to 2200 bce. This charcoal implies vegetation clearance by the irst settlers of the site. We infer that two types of settlement existed in the lower Cagayan landscape after 2200 bce, as reconstructed by Mike Carson in his following contribution. Nagsabaran represented a village of pile dwellings directly in the valley, close to the river level and adjacent to marshland. Magapit, on the other hand, was established on a low limestone hilltop overlooking the river. The very large alluvial plains that exist within the valley today were not created above river level until after 1500 bce, so the initial Neolithic land‐use pattern there could not have involved any great extent of wet rice farming. Indeed, Paz (2005) has suggested that rice might have been less popular in Philippine prehistory than tuber cultigens such as yam and taro, and Latinis (2000) has stressed the importance of an arboreal‐based subsistence strategy in Island Southeast Asia and Oceania. To explain these changes in subsistence economy from East Asia into Island Southeast Asia and the western Paciic, Dewar (2003:369–388) has suggested that a high variability of rainfall in the northern Philippines (including Batanes) limited the reliability of crops such as rice that require ample water. As discussed later in this chapter, this environmental situation appears to have led to some major changes in the nature of the domesticated plant economy as Neolithic populations spread from Taiwan through the Philippines into Indonesia and Oceania. Coastal Palaeo‐landscapes of the Neolithic An Invited Perspective by Mike T. Carson The Neolithic settlements in, and migrations through, southern China, Taiwan, and the Philippines took place in landscape settings that were under constant change as a result of geomorphic processes. Paleo‐landscape research offers a 240 Neolithic Southern China, Taiwan, Philippines way to learn about the ancient environmental contexts of Neolithic sites, many in tropical Island Southeast Asia now obscured by thick layers of sediment or hidden within altered landform configurations (Carson 2011, 2014). Present‐day coastal landscapes often bear little resemblance to those of early Neolithic contexts, and to track the changes in such landscapes it is necessary to plot the depths and dates of ancient ground surfaces and sedimentary units relative to available records of sea level change and tectonic movement, the latter being most active in this region through processes of continental plate subduction. The terrain models presented here were generated with freely available online geospatial data managed by the governments of Taiwan and the Philippines, reined with elevation contours interpolated from the 2013 Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) Version 3. Land‐cover units were assigned as geological formations and soil types based on geospatial data plus ield observations in 2013–2015. Contour lines were coded according to diferent time intervals, each with an adjusted value for elevation according to the rate of tectonic uplift plus the dating and thickness of sedimentary layers in each land‐cover unit. The models were adjusted for sea level variation according to their chronology. The two paleo‐landscape reconstructions presented are for key periods in the Holocene records of Taiwan and the northern Philippines, each undergoing a transition from maximum postglacial sea level to subsequent marine regression and alluvial sedimentation. China’s southeastern coastline at 4000–3000 bce, the approximate time of irst Neolithic migration to Taiwan, consisted of hillslopes lanked by narrow beach pockets and deep and narrow high sea level estuaries, often with a number of small ofshore islets. Lowland sediments had not yet begun to accumulate and the most suitable lands available for rice farming would have been situated in inland locations where sedimentary build‐up had already illed valley loors prior to 4000 bce. In coastal zones, sedimentary proiles show that signiicant build‐up from alluvial (riverine) and colluvial (hill slope) sources began after 3000 bce, most likely accelerated by inland forest‐ clearing and agricultural activities. However, these newly forming lowland sediments still remained at or beneath sea level during the +1.5–2.5 m high stand from 3000 through 1000 bce (Zong 2004; Zong et al. 2009). A good example of a settlement of this date is Tanshishan (3000–2300 bce), in the Fuzhou basin, opposite Taiwan. Here, the population lived on low hills and promontories along an estuary that reached nearly 80 km inland from today’s shoreline (Rolett et al. 2011). Available wet rice land then would have been quite limited, as also in Taiwan, where the irst Neolithic settlers probably occupied incipient but stable beach ridges. By 2800 bce in Taiwan, alluvial sediments began to accumulate along the western coastline, likely due to increased slope erosion prompted by forest‐clearing. Residential sites began to develop on these new landforms, as revealed archaeologically at Nanguanli and Nanguanlidong in the Tainan Science Park, both now buried under 7 m of alluvial sediment and Neolithic Southern China, Taiwan, Philippines 241 more than 20 km inland (Tsang 2005), a distance increased in part by a lowering of sea level after 1000 bce (Chen et al. 2004). The landscape of uplifted eastern Taiwan consisted of hilly terrain directly lanked by aquatic habitats at 3000 bce, and difered signiicantly from the gently shelving west coast attached to the shallow Asian continental shelf (Figure 7.4). Today’s coastal plains and river terraces did not emerge and stabilize until after 1500 bce, allowing very large Late Neolithic settlements such as Beinan (Plate 5) to develop thereafter, adjacent to good agricultural lands. The previous Middle Neolithic communities here lived at sites such as Fushan and Chaolaiqiao on what are now roughly level hilltops created from uplifted former coastal terraces (Hung 2008). Today, these sites lie about 40–50 m above sea level, but when occupied they were less than 20 m above, prior to rapid tectonic uplift at a rate of about 7–9 mm per annum in the southeast and 4–6 mm in the northeast. These are some of the most rapid rates of uplift in the geological record (Liew et al. 1993) and would have caused signiicant erosion and loss of soil, with very high rates of river incision, perhaps a factor in encouraging people to search for new land to the south. (a) Conditions at (b) Modern conditions 3000–2200 BCE Dabenkeng culture sites 3000–2200 BCE km 0 40 Dabenkeng culture sites 3000–2200 BCE km N 80 0 40 N 80 Figure 7.4 The Taiwan coastline during the Dabenkeng phase (3000–2200) bce compared with today. Note the separate Dabenkeng phase eastern coastal island created by the subduction process. Sites: 1. Fuji; 2. Wanlijatou; 3. Dabenkeng; 4. Yuemei 2; 5. Gangkou; 6. Changguang; 7. Fengbitou; 8. Kongzhai; 9. Liuhe; 10. Fudeyemiao; 11. Gangkoulun; 12. Xinyuan; 13. Bajia; 14. Qijia; 15. Dachangqiao; 16. Nanguanlidong; 17. Nanguanli; 18. Anhelu. Source: igure by Mike Carson. 242 Neolithic Southern China, Taiwan, Philippines By 2200–1500 bce, when sea level was still about 2 m higher than today, several Neolithic sites were occupied in the lower Cagayan Valley of Luzon, the longest and widest valley in the Philippines. Prior to 500 bce the immediate riverside here consisted of marshy terrain close to a very large inlet of the sea (Figure 7.5), not yet covered by the alluvial sediments that support irrigated rice ields today. In these former marshlands, slightly elevated areas were chosen for stilt houses close to the water level, as at Nagsabaran (Hung 2008). Nearby limestone blufs on the valley edge ofered stable rocky surfaces well elevated above the river, and one was utilized for the settlement at Magapit. The marine coastline of the lower Cagayan Valley did not ofer accessible coastal plains for settlement until after the sea level lowering that began around 1000 bce. In each of the above examples, newly arrived Neolithic coastal communities occupied sites with access to mixed aquatic zones and lowland hill slopes, without much of the lat terrain most suitable for wetland rice farming that exists so extensively today. Wetland rice probably appeared on any large scale long after the initial migrations, and the food‐producing economies of the irst Neolithic communities most probably focused on dryland rice cultivation, (a) Conditions at 2200–1500 BCE Ocean Wetland Lowland Hilly terrain 0 Early Neolithic sites, 2200–1500 N 10 20 km Figure 7.5 The Cagayan Valley coastline at the start of the Neolithic compared with today. Note the huge expansion of coastal and riverine lowland since 2000 bce. Source: igure by Mike Carson. Neolithic Southern China, Taiwan, Philippines 243 (b) Modern conditions Ocean Alluvial and coastal plains Lowland Hilly terrain Early Neolithic sites, 2200–1500 0 10 20 N km Figure 7.5 (Continued) supported by fruits, tubers, and animal resources. The signiicance of these observations is that one cannot easily reconstruct, anywhere in the world, ancient food‐gathering or food‐producing strategies purely from the characteristics of landscapes as they exist today. Further Observations on Neolithic Cultures in Taiwan As related by Hsiao‐chun Hung above, the Neolithic in Taiwan commenced around 3500 bce with the establishment in coastal locations of the Ta‐p’en‐k’eng culture (henceforth TPK, and now spelt in pinyin as Dabenkeng), first introduced to the archaeological world in detail by K.C. Chang (1969) through his excavations at the coastal sites of Dabenkeng and Fengbitou, both located on high points just inland from the western coastal plain (Hung and Carson 2014). Initially, the TPK was poorly understood due to erosion and poor preservation of organic materials, as well as a virtual absence of reliable chronometric dates. But the recent excavations of twin waterlogged sites at Nanguanli and Nanguanli East (Nanguanlidong) on the outskirts of Tainan City have caused a revolution in knowledge similar to that sparked by the discovery of sites such as Kuahuqiao, Tianluoshan, and Hemudu in lower Yangzi China. 244 Neolithic Southern China, Taiwan, Philippines