Reconstructing Prehistoric Social Organization: A Case Study From the Wansan Site, Neolithic Taiwan By Chih Hua Chiang A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the Requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Anthropology in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge Professor Ruth Tringham, Chair Professor Rosemary Joyce Professor You-Tien Hsing Spring 2010 Abstract Reconstructing Prehistoric Social Organization: A Case Study From the Wansan Site, Neolithic Taiwan by Chih Hua Chiang Doctor of Philosophy in Anthropology University of California, Berkeley Professor Ruth Tringham, Chair The purpose of this dissertation project is to identify characteristics of social organization among the Neolithic people in Taiwan. Specifically, this dissertation aims to examine the potential social differentiation at the inter-household level. Archaeological materials from the Wansan site (ca. 3,500-2,700 B.P.) are analyzed through examining the spatial distribution of house structures and archaeological artifacts. This dissertation explicitly utilized the House Society concept to examine how prehistoric Wansan people organized themselves and explore how and why there were differences among the houses. The House Society concept can offer archaeologists a framework to understand how the prehistoric people organized themselves, and assists us to interpret the differences of the quantity and quality of artifacts which might exist at the house/House level. In this dissertation, various archaeological implications derived from the House society concept were proposed and examined using the archaeological material excavated from the Wansan site in northeastern Taiwan. The results of this analysis illustrate that the residential houses in the Wansan society was not only a place where people resided and interacted with other members on a daily basis, but also where the lives of the living members intertwined with the ancestors through situating of deceased members around the residential houses. Furthermore, the correlation between the presence of possible ancestor symbols and the variations of the artifacts among houses suggests that the social differentiation of the Wansan society was probably related to the people’s ability to claim their association with the ancestors. Inspired from the concept of House Society, I thus propose that these residential houses in the Wansan society probably constituted several Houses. The House, which could probably assure their connections with the ancestors, had better knowledge regarding how to manipulate local resources. At the same time, the House could construct a wider social network to share 1 similar artifacts with other Houses in the society. On the contrary, Houses without the ancestral connections lacked the capability to fully explore local resources and were limited to certain options. As a result, the House’s disparate technological tradition expressed in the artifacts resulted from social differentiation that emerged with differential ability to affirm connections with their ancestors. 2 Dedicated to my parents, Sheng-kuei Chiang (江深貴) and Wen-ying Peng (彭文英), for their unconditional love and support i TABLE OF CONTENTS List of figures vii List of tables xi Acknowledgements xiv CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 The House Society 2 1.2 House Societies in Taiwan 3 1.3 Questions 4 1.4 Methods 5 1.5 Results 5 1.6 Interpretation 6 1.7 Dissertation organization 7 CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL FRAMWORK: THE HOUSE SOCIETY 10 2.1 Lévi-Strauss and the House Society 12 2.1.1 Lévi-Strauss: the concept of the House Society 12 2.1.2 Beyond Lévi-Strauss 14 2.2 House Society: some characteristics 15 2.2.1 House as a social unit: rethinking the meaning of kinship 16 2.2.2 House continuity and social memory 17 2.2.3 House as a ritual site 18 2.2.4 House as microcosm 18 2.3 House Society and archaeological research 20 2.3.1 House, heirloom, grave, and social relation and memory 22 2.3.2 Gender relations 23 2.3.C House as a microcosm 25 2.3.4 Temple as “ritual attractor”, as “holy houses” 26 2.4 Discussion 27 CHAPTER 3: HOUSE SOCIETIES IN TAIWAN 29 3.1. Research on Neolithic social organization in Taiwan 30 3.1.1 The prehistoric OLP society 30 3.1.2 The prehistoric Peinan society and the Ciyubin society 31 3.1.3 The impact of rescue archaeology 32 3.1.4 Summary 32 3.2. Linguistic reconstruction of the prehistoric Austronesian society 34 3.2.1 The Austronesian languages in Taiwan 34 3.2.2 The social organization of early Austronesian society: linguistic reconstruction 35 3.3. Ethnographic research on social organization of the Austronesian societies in Taiwan 36 3.3.1 Lineage-centered approach 36 3.2.2 House-centered approach 38 3.4. House society model as an interpretive framework for exploring Neolithic Taiwanese societies 40 ii 3.4.1 House structures 40 3.4.2 Burials 41 3.4.3 Anthropomorphic motif, inalienable possessions, heirloom valuables 43 3.5 Conclusion 45 CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH BACKGROUND: THE WANSAN SITE AND THE 1998 EXCAVATION 47 4.1 The Ilan Plain and the Wansan site 47 4.1.1 Natural environment: geologic formation, climate, Holocene transgression 49 4.1.2 Current population: the Austronesian peoples in Ilan 51 4.1.3 Previous research on the Wansan site 52 4.2 The 1998 excavation 53 4.2.1 Rescue archaeology 53 4.2.2 Excavation 53 4.2.2.A Excavation area 53 4.2.2.B Excavation method 55 4.2.3 stratigraphy 55 4.2.3.A The First Layer I (Recent agricultural field) 55 4.2.3.B The Second Layer 55 4.2.3.C The Third Layer(the Second Phase of the Settlement) 55 4.2.3.D The Fourth Layer (the initial phase of the Wansan society) 56 4.2.4 Radiocarbon dates 56 4.2.5 Empirical findings 59 4.2.5.A Features 59 4.2.5.B Artifacts 62 4.3 Discussion 66 CHAPTER 5:RESEARCH QUESTIONS, HYPOTHESES, DATASETS, AND METHODS 68 5.1 Questions and hypotheses 68 5.2 Datasets 69 5.3 Methods 70 5.3.1 Identifying dwellings from the distribution of postholes 70 5.3.2 Examining the presence of dwelling groups from the distribution of features and artifacts 73 5.3.3 Examining temporal change 73 5.3.4 Examining the association between ancestral rituals and the dwellings/ dwelling groups 74 5.3.5 Examining the association between the zoo-anthropomorphic objects with the dwellings/ dwelling groups 74 5.3.6 Analyzing the variety of artifacts among the dwellings 75 5.3.7 Analyzing artifact attributes among dwellings 76 5.4 Conclusion 77 iii CHAPTER 6: SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF FEATURES: IDENTIFYING THE NUMBER AND EXTENT OF DWELLINGS 79 6.1 Identifying the number of dwellings: spatial distribution of postholes 79 6.1.1 The distribution of the postholes 80 6.1.2 Analysis of the horizontal distribution of postholes 80 6.1.2.A The Northern Excavation Area 80 6.1.2.B The Southern Excavation Area 82 6.1.3 Analysis of the depth of postholes 83 6.1.3.A The Northern Excavation Area 83 6.1.3.B The Southern Excavation Area 83 6.1.4 Summary 83 6.2 Identifying the extent of the dwellings: the spatial distribution of features 84 6.2.1 The distribution of the features 84 6.2.1.A Stone walls 84 6.2.1.B Hearths 84 6.2.1.C Stone tool workshop 85 6.2.1.D Storage pit: Underground carved holes 85 6.2.1.E Possible ritual locus 85 6.2.1.F Stone coffins 85 6.2.1.G Urn burials 85 6.2.2 Discussion: the possible number of dwellings 89 6.3 Identifying dwelling groups 91 6.3.1 Distribution of lithic artifacts 92 6.3.1.A The Northern Excavation Area 93 6.3.1.B The Southern Excavation Area 93 6.3.2 Distribution of pottery artifacts 96 6.3.2.A The Northern Excavation Area 97 6.3.2.B The Southern Excavation Area 98 6.3.3 Discussion: the number of dwelling groups 101 6.4 The spatial association between the identified dwellings and ritual activities 102 6.5 Summary: the development of the dwellings/ dwelling groups 103 CHAPTER 7: SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF ARTIFACTS:IDENTIFYING THE USE OF EACH HOUSE CLUSTER 105 7.1 The distribution of the zoo-anthropomorphic object 107 7.2 Lithic artifacts 111 7.2.1 Temporal change 111 7.2.2 Spatial variation 113 7.2.2.A The Initial Phase: the Fourth Layer 113 7.2.2.B The Second Phase: the Third Layer 116 7.2.3 Summary of the distribution of lithic artifacts 121 7.3 Pottery artifacts 123 7.3.1 Temporal change 123 7.3.2 Spatial variation 124 7.3.2.A The Initial Stage: The Fourth Layer 124 iv 7.3.2.B The second Phase: The Third Layer 131 7.3.3 Summary of pottery artifacts 138 7.4 Discussion: daily life in the Houses 139 CHAPTER 8: SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF ARTIFACTS WITH DIFFERENT ATTRIBUTES 141 8.1 The distribution of jade artifacts among dwellings 142 8.1.1 The variations of artifact type among dwellings 142 8.1.2 The variations of the artifact attributes 145 8.1.3 Summary 147 8.2 The distribution of lithic artifacts with different attributes among dwellings 147 8.2.1 Raw Material 148 8.2.2 Stylistic attributes 154 8.2.2.A Knife 154 8.2.2.B Adze-axe 158 8.2.2.C Arrowhead 160 8.2.2.D Spearhead 164 8.2.2.E Net sinker 165 8.2.2.F Bracelet/earring 167 8.2.3 Summary of lithic artifacts 171 8.3 The distribution of pottery artifacts with different attributes among dwellings 172 8.3.1 Vessels 172 8.3.1.A The distribution of ware types among dwellings/ dwelling groups 173 8.3.1.B The distribution of rim forms among dwellings/ dwelling groups 175 8.3.1.C The distribution of other parts of jars among dwellings/ dwelling groups 178 8.3.2 Non-vessel 184 8.3.2.A Spindle whorl 184 8.3.2.B Bracelet 186 8.3.2.C Figurine 188 8.3.3 Summary of pottery 189 8.4 Summary: difference between the dwellings/ dwelling groups 190 CHAPTER 9: DISCUSSION