Welcome!
登入
註冊
美寶首頁
美寶百科
美寶論壇
美寶落格
美寶地圖
首頁
>
生涯 / Life Career
>
公共議題
>
原住民
Advanced
原住民
作者:
主旨:
Tags:
Message:
cmchao Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Social Organization in Neolithic Taiwan > by Chin-yung Chao > A review of Reconstructing Prehistoric Social > Organization: A Case Study from the Wanshan Site, > Neolithic Taiwan, by Chih-hua Chiang. > Chih-hua Chiang’s dissertation offers an > inspiring piece that not only reconstructs a late > Neolithic settlement, but also examines its social > system. To that end, the author analyses how > households were spatially structured within the > village and how social differentiation worked at > the inter-household level. This research analyzes > two sets of primary archaeological records: the > spatial distributions of postholes and stone tools > from the Wanshan site (ca. 3,500-2,700 B.P.) in > Northeast Taiwan. Chiang’s work explicitly draws > archaeological implications from the > anthropological concept of “house society”. > Her work is therefore extremely meaningful not > only to archaeological research in Taiwan but also > to our understanding of prehistoric settlement > pattern in general. > This dissertation consists of nine chapters and > several appendixes. Chapters 1 and 2 introduce the > concept of house society originally proposed by > Lévi-Strauss in 1975 and the refined models > proposed by other scholars since 1990s. This house > society approach has recently become one of the > “hot-spot” theoretical frameworks in > Austronesian studies, in particular Pacific > archaeology [1]. Why is this concept particularly > useful in archaeology? The answer rests in its > potent archaeological implications that link > empirical unearthed records and ethnographic > observations. Based on this concept, Chiang for > example argues that an archaeological site “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” (p. 1). > Chapter 3 reviews relevant archaeological, > linguistic and ethnographical studies on house > societies in Taiwanese Austronesian societies. The > rich data collected since the Japanese Occupation > period has largely provided researchers with a > better understanding on the subtle ways in which > indigenous societies are organized socially on the > village level. However, as Chih-hua Chiang points > out, most Taiwanese socio-cultural anthropologists > discussing similar topics only focus on the > synchronic aspect of the House but their works > “lack any discussion about the role played by > actual physical houses” (p.45). She is very > likely correct in recognizing this long-term trend > in cultural studies on Austronesian aboriginals. > Thus, it is difficult to disagree with her > argument that “this is where the archaeological > research on Taiwanese Neolithic society can better > contribute to our understanding of these > Austronesian societies” (p.46). This aspect has > indeed rarely, if ever, been studied in the > prehistoric archaeology in Taiwan, making > Chiang’s dissertation an original and very > important contribution to the field. > Chapter 4 then turns to a discussion of the > stratigraphy, findings, radiocarbon dates, and > surrounding environment of the chosen site. The > environment also features large in the conclusion > of Chiang’s analysis of lithic resource > exploitation and accessibility among various > groups of houses. Chih-hua Chiang’s work is > particularly important considering that it > contains material from the 1998 excavation of the > Wanshan site which has not yet been officially > published. > Chapter 5 is the center part of this dissertation, > where the author formulates her hypotheses and a > series of analytic methods to interpret the > massive archaeological material from the Wanshan > site. This may sounds routine in the framework > contemporary Western archaeology, but in the East > Asian archaeology it is still fairly novel to > construct a theory-driven thesis in order to > untangle intra-settlement social relations. The > vital question addressed in this dissertation is > how and why prehistoric social groups in the > Wanshan site were different from each other. By > asking this specific question, the author is able > to break down the immense unearthed assemblage > into sub-groups of data that are spatially > meaningful. For example, Chiang sees jade earrings > not only as “cultural prestige goods” but > argues that the specific loci where objects of > this kind were found indicate places where > ancestor-related activities were performed. > Therefore, “the possession of the > zoo-anthropomorphic object separates certain > houses from others” (p.199). In other words, > space and location are meaningful. This is exactly > where I found Chiang’s dissertation to be > particularly intriguing, since this notion has > previously never been examined in the archaeology > of Taiwan and Southeast Asia. Only recently have > other scholars focused on prehistoric > stone-cooking activities possibly comparable to > “ancestral ritual”, arguing that they were > possibly associated with feasts during mortuary > practices [2]. > Chapter 6 turns to an actual analysis of unearthed > features to identify dwellings and groups of > houses. This is an ambitious task considering that > Wanshan is a large, multi-component site on the > top of a hill that was recorded only during a > single-season salvage excavation. Chih-hua Chiang > manages to recognize posthole clusters by > analyzing field data with the help of the > sophisticated Global Moran’s I index. Once the > posthole clusters are identified, she identifies > dwellings by the distribution of other > archaeological material, such as walls and > hearths. This innovative approach is a > particularly important contribution to the > archaeology of Taiwan where humid weather and the > prevalence of salvage projects largely degrade the > integrity of archaeological findings. > Following the identification of dwelling units in > Chapter 6, Chapters 7 and 8 present a spatial > analysis of artifact distributions focusing on > their relations with houses (or groups of houses). > Taken together Chiang’s analyses of lithics, > pottery and features suggest that there is indeed > a difference between the various houses and groups > of houses. It is argued that the differentiation > between contemporary social groups may have a lot > to do with the accessibility to their ancestors. > The accessibility in turn reflects people’s > uneven capacity to exploit natural resources in > the earthly lives. > In the conclusion of her dissertation, Chih-hua > Chiang explores the house society model far beyond > simply using it as a heuristic device by stating > the following: The Houses that own > zoo-anthropomorphic object have a privileged > access to ancestors, a prestige that > differentiates them from other houses that do not. > It follows that one of the potent elements of > social structure among the Wanshan people can be > observed archaeologically in the variation of jade > objects among the associated burials, which > “testifies to the enduring nature of differences > in rank within the society” (p. 200) although it > did not necessarily indicate an concrete social > hierarchy. > Inspired by Lévi-Strauss’s notion of house > society, Chih-hua Chiang offers a fresh and > alternative image of the social life in a late > Neolithic village. The conceptual toolkit and > analytic methods in her theory-driven work provide > a new way to understand ancient > Austronesian-speaking peoples through the lens of > the archaeological record. > Chin-yung Chao 趙金勇 > Institute of History and Philology > Academia Sinica > cooper@asihp.net > Primary Sources > Archaeological laboratory of the Institute of > History and Philology, Academia Sinica. > Suketarō Chijiiwa千々岩助太郎. 1960. > Taiwan Takasagozoku no > jūka台湾高砂族の住家 (Houses of Taiwanese > Aboriginals). Tokyo: Maruzen 丸善 (reprinted in > 1988 by NanTien Bookstore in Taipei). > Bulletin of the Institute of Ethnology > 民族所集刊. > Dissertation Information > University of California, Berkeley. 2010. 269 pp. > Primary Advisor: Ruth Tringham. > Notes > [1] Patric Kirch and Jennifer Kahn, "Advances in > Polynesian prehistory: a review and assessment of > the past decade (1993-2004)," Journal of > Archaeological Research, vol. 15, no. 3 (2007), > 191-238. > [2] Chin-yung Chao, I-Chang Liu, and Kwu-feng > Chun, "On Upper Huakangshan Culture: A proposal" > Field Archaeology of Taiwan, vol. 17, no. 1 > (2013), 53-79.