The Neolithic of Southeast China: Cultural Transformation and Re ...

However, An Zhimin disagreed with this model, arguing that the Dapenkeng and the Keqiutou belonged to two different cultural traditions (An, 1990). The influence of the Tanshishan Culture on the Taiwan Neolithic cultures is another debated issue. Chang, and Tsang, among others, argue that the mainland influences were the main mechanism for the changes in Taiwan (Chang, 1989; Tsang, 1996). Liu Yi-Ch‘ang disagrees with this interpretation, and he sees the changes in Neolithic Taiwan as indigenous happenings (Liu, 2000). An Zhiming also had a similar interpretation, but he also argued that Taiwan and mainland China maintained a strong contact network (An, 1990). As will be further discussed in the following section (also see Chapter Four), this issue has direct implications for the study of the origins of the Austronesian-speakers, giving the Neolithic archaeology of Southeast China a much broader significance than the local level.

Defining the Study Themes: Chronology, Subsistence Pattern, Exchange Network, and the Austronesian Expansion

This strategic significance of the Neolithic cultures in southeast China has increasingly received attention from archaeologists who work in China, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific in the past two decades. As will be further discussed in Chapter Four, Southeast China has been one of the focal points in the debate over the origins of the Austronesians. Most archaeologists believe that the ultimate origin of the Proto-Austronesians was on the coast of Southeastern China (Bellwood, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2006; Chang, 1995; Chang & Goodenough, 1996). This theory has been supported by the linguistic model advocated by Robert Blust (1995, 1999) and many genetic studies (Cox, 2005; Hagelberg, 2001; Trejaut et al., 2005). Although a small number of archaeologists and geneticists contend that a possible homeland of the Austronesian ancestors is on the islands of Southeast Asia, this alternative model also recognizes that Southeast China‘s Neolithic is important for the study of early Austronesian dispersals (Meacham, 1988; Soheilm, 1975, 1988; Oppenheimer & Richards, 2001).

In light of these studies, the Neolithic archaeology of coastal Southeast China has great potential to contribute to the investigation of the earliest Austronesian expansions. The patterns and processes involved in the cultural changes in Southeast China during the Neolithic period may shed light on many important issues in the early history of the Austronesian speakers.