研究论文

台湾海峡古环境变迁与南岛语族起源新探

  • 张遂新 ,
  • 张珂
展开
  • 1.清华大学台湾研究院,北京 100084
    2.中山大学地球科学与工程学院,广州 510275
张遂新,助理研究员,主要从事台湾史、海洋史、两岸关系研究。E-mail: zhangsuixin@tsinghua.edu.cn
张珂,教授,主要从事构造地质、新构造、地貌学与第四纪地质学研究。E-mail: eeszke@mail.sysu.edu.cn

收稿日期: 2023-07-08

  修回日期: 2023-11-30

  网络出版日期: 2024-10-10

基金资助

国家社科基金青年项目(21CZZ042)

A new insight into the origins of the Austronesian by the paleoenvironmental changes in the Taiwan Strait

  • ZHANG Suixin ,
  • ZHANG Ke
Expand
  • 1. Institute of Taiwan Studies, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084
    2. School of Earth Sciences and Engineering, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275

Received date: 2023-07-08

  Revised date: 2023-11-30

  Online published: 2024-10-10

摘要

目前,学界普遍认同南岛语族起源于我国台湾地区和东南沿海地区,但关于南岛先民最初如何抵达台湾地区,进而向其他地区扩散,尚存在诸多疑惑。本文同时考虑末次冰消期后的水动型和地动型海平面变化,提出了一种南岛语族起源的可能性:在全新世早期(大约11.7~7.4 kaBP期间),南岛先民在今天的海峡近岸及台湾浅滩区域创造了“原南岛文化”。随着冰消期海平面回升,其栖居地逐渐被淹没,南岛先民被迫后撤到台湾海峡两岸的滨海高地。如今在海峡两岸发现的大坌坑、壳丘头、富国墩等史前文化遗存,都具有海岛环境特征,是“原南岛文化”向不同方向后撤而形成的不同分支。海峡两岸7.4 kaBP的新石器遗址“稀少”是“幸存者偏差”的表现,应该还有不少全新世早期“原南岛文化”遗存淹没在台湾海峡两侧的水下和台湾浅滩一带,有待水下考古的发现。

本文引用格式

张遂新 , 张珂 . 台湾海峡古环境变迁与南岛语族起源新探[J]. 人类学学报, 2024 , 43(05) : 797 -812 . DOI: 10.16359/j.1000-3193/AAS.2024.0024

Abstract

The Austronesian ethnic group, known for its strong oceanic connection, has been extensively studied in physical anthropology, linguistics, and archaeology for about a century. Scholars generally agree that the Austronesian people originated from the Taiwan region and the southeastern coast of the Chinese mainland. However, the question of how their ancestors arrived in Taiwan and then spread to other oceanic regions remains unanswered. Archaeological excavations along the coastal areas of the Taiwan Strait mainly reveal Neolithic artifacts with common features such as stamped pattern pottery, net sinkers, and layers of seashell middens. Notable examples include the Dabenkeng culture on the Taiwan side of the eastern Taiwan Strait and the Keqiutou culture on the Fujian side of the western Taiwan Strait. These cultures share similarities but also exhibit differences in stone tools and pottery. For instance, Dabenkeng pottery mainly features cord marks, while Keqiutou pottery includes additional patterns such as shell imprints, stamped hemp-dot marks, and engraved parallel lines. Some researchers speculate on a possible hereditary relationship between the two cultures, but they are puzzled by how they managed to cross the vast strait with limited maritime skills and without any clear maritime shift orientations and purposes in prehistoric voyages. It is noteworthy that most of the cultural ages of Keqiutou, Dabenkeng, and other discovered sites in the study area date back no earlier than approximately 7.4 kaBP, coinciding with the rise in sea levels to about the present level after the last deglacial period. Therefore, it is logical to consider the influence of sea-level changes on the origin and migration of the Austronesian people. Based on an analysis of the last deglacial sea-level rise, resulting ancient environmental changes, and current cultural features of excavated sites, we propose a possibility that the Austronesian ancestors emerged during the early Holocene (approximately 11.7~7.4 kaBP). This emergence was centered around the areas of both the nearshore of the Taiwan Strait and Taiwan Shoal, where they developed a “proto-Austronesian culture”. As sea levels gradually rose, their habitat was progressively submerged, compelling them to retreat to the inshore highlands on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. The Austronesian relics discovered, such as Dabenkeng, Keqiutou, and Fuguodun, are actually offshoots of the Austronesian ancestors, inheriting their marine ecological characteristics. A scarcity of Neolithic remains older than 7.4 kaBP in the study area can be attributed to a “survivor bias” phenomenon. According to previous research on cultural relics and molecular anthropology, it is evident that there were at least three lineages for prehistoric humans in the Taiwan Strait area. The first lineage consisted of a late Paleolithic “local” community, which became extinct without leaving any inheritable evidence for later communities. The second lineage consisted of a quasi-local Austronesian community, i.e., the Dabenkeng and Keqiutou cultures, originating from the early Neolithic “proto-Austronesian” culture submerged in the areas of the nearshore and Taiwan Shoal and retaining their marine traditions and island characteristics. The only known example of the “proto-Austronesian culture” is the discovery of Liangdao Man I. The “proto-Austronesian culture” was originated by inheriting and developing the earliest pottery-making techniques and maritime skills, likely in very early Holocene or towards the end of the Pleistocene. The third lineage was an immigrant community that migrated southward from the area of the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River, bringing paddy farming practices. This community merged with the second lineage approximately 4 kaBP, leading to the formation of a widespread middle Neolithic culture in the study area. The incorporation of the second and third lineages advanced voyaging capabilities, providing a foundation for the expansion of Austronesian culture into the open ocean. The submerged areas of the Taiwan Strait nearshore and Taiwan Shoal, considered the cradle of Austronesian culture, await further discovery through submarine archaeological exploration.

参考文献

[1] Hendrik K. Linguistic evidence for the determination of the original homeland of the Malayo-Polynesian peoples[C]. Oceanic Studies: Linguistics, Anthropology & Sociology, 1:60-81. Trans. of, Taalkundige gegevens ter bepaling van het stamland der Maleisch-Polynesische volken[M], 1889, 270-287
[2] Paul KB. Thai, Kadai and Indonesian: A new alignment in southeastern Asia[J]. American Anthropologist, 1942, 44(4): 576-601
[3] Dyen I. The lexicostatistical classification of the Austronesian languages[J]. Language, 1962, 38(1): 38-46
[4] Wilhelm G, Solheim II. The Nusantao hypothesis: The origin and spread of Austronesian speakers[J]. Asian Perspectives, 1984-1985, 26(1): 77-88
[5] Blust R. The Austronesian homeland: A linguistic perspective[J]. Asian Perspectives, 1984-1985, 26(1): 45-67
[6] Yang MA, Fan X, Sun B, et al. Ancient DNA indicates human population shifts and admixture in northern and southern China[J]. Science. 2020, 369(6501): aba0909
[7] Wang CC, Yeh I HY, Popov A, et al. The genomic formation of human populations in East Asia[J]. Nature, 2021, 591(7850): 413-419
[8] 张光直. 中国东南海岸考古与南岛语族起源问题[J]. 南方民族考古, 1987, 1
[9] 林建红, 臧振华. 台湾大坌坑文化的年代及其来源[J]. 南方文物, 1997, 2: 116-121
[10] Leipe C, Lu JC, Chi KA. Population dynamics in Taiwan from the Neolithic to early historic periods (5000-100 cal BP): Linking cultural developments and environmental change[J]. Archaeological Research in Asia, 2023, 36: 100482
[11] 石谦, 蔡爱智. 闽中-台中古通道的地貌环境——兼议“东山陆桥”的通行条件[J]. 科技导报, 2008, 26(22): 75-79
[12] 周海斌, 吴健. 世界已知最早的风帆——跨湖桥遗址、亮岛人及新石器时代跨台湾海峡迁徙之综合研究[A]. 丝路和弦:全球化视野下的中国航海历史与文化[C]. 上海: 复旦大学出版社, 2019, 221-248
[13] 吴春明. 中国东南与太平洋的史前交通工具[J]. 南方文物, 2008, 2: 99-108
[14] 文尚光. 中国风帆出现的时代[J]. 武汉水运工程学院学报, 1983, 21(3): 63-70
[15] 杨琮. 也论中国樯帆之始[J]. 海交史研究, 1989, 1: 14-20
[16] Nakada M, Lambeck K. The melting history of the late Pleistocene Antarctic ice sheet[J]. Nature, 1988, 333: 36-40
[17] 陈仲玉. 马祖列岛的史前文化与亮岛人[M]. 台北: 联经出版社, 2022
[18] 林观得. 台湾海峡海底地貌的探讨[J]. 台湾海峡, 1982, 1(2): 58-63
[19] 蔡保全. “东山陆桥”与台湾最早人类[J]. 漳州师院学报, 1997, 3: 31-36
[20] 陈立群. 东山陆桥动物化石上的人工痕迹[J]. 化石, 2002, 3: 34-36
[21] 曾五岳. “东山人”化石的年代与价值[J]. 化石, 1989, 2: 1-2
[22] 张光直. 新石器时代的台湾海峡[J]. 考古, 1989, 6: 51-549
[23] 焦天龙, 范雪春, 罗莱. 壳丘头遗址与台湾海峡早期新石器时代文化[J]. 福建文博, 2009, 2: 8-12
[24] 焦天龙, 范雪春. 福建与南岛语族[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2020
[25] 戴国华. 台湾左镇人类化石和长滨文化再研究[J]. 东南文化, 1989, 3: 1114-1119
[26] 蔡保全, 孙英龙, 杨丽华. 东山在闽台旧石器时代文化交流中的地位[J]. 文物季刊, 1995, 2: 8
[27] 加藤晋平, 邓聪. 长滨文化的若干问题[J]. 人类学学报, 1990, 1: 16-19
[28] Chen WS, Yang CY, Chen ST, et al. New insights into Holocene marine terrace development caused by seismic and aseismic faulting in the Coastal Range, Eastern Taiwan[J]. Quaternary Science Reviews, 2020, 240: 106369
[29] Burbank WD, Anderson SR. Tectonic Geomorphology (2nd edition)[M]. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2012
[30] Clark PU, Dyke AS, Shakun JD, et al. The Last Glacial Maximum[J]. Science, 2009, 325: 710-714
[31] Xiong HX, Zong YQ, Qian P, et al. Holocene sea-level history of the northern coast of South China Sea[J]. Quaternary Science Reviews, 2018, 194: 12-26
[32] Tanabe S. Stepwise accelerations in the rate of sea-level rise in the area north of Tokyo Bay during the Early Holocene[J]. Quaternary Science Reviews, 2020, 248: 1-17
[33] Rasmussen SO, Andersen K, Svensson AM, et al. A new Greenland ice core chronology for the last glacial termination[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research (Atmospheres), 2006, 111: D06102
[34] deMenocal P, Ortiz J, Guilderson T, et al. Coherent high and low latitude climate variability during the Holocene warm period[J]. Science, 2000, 288: 2198-2202
[35] Chang CH, Kaifu, Takai M, et al. The first archaic Homo from Taiwan[J]. Nature Communications, 2015, 6037: 7037
[36] 陈立群. 旧石器时代的澎湖在闽台文化交流中的地位[J]. 闽台文化交流, 2006, 1: 95-100
[37] 陈立群. 福建东山岛旧石器时代文化[J]. 汕头大学学报, 2006, 22(5): 73-82
[38] 蔡保全. 台湾海峡晚更新世人类肱骨化石[J]. 人类学学报, 2001, 20(3): 178-185
[39] 何传坤. 台湾陆桥史前动物及人类化石的新发现[J]. 历史月刊, 2000, 148(5): 12-17
[40] 吕锦燕. 福建漳平奇和洞遗址一期文化石核的初步研究[J]. 福建文博, 2015, 4: 31-34
[41] 福建博物院, 龙岩市文化与出版局. 福建漳平市奇和洞史前遗址发掘简报[J]. 考古, 2013, 5: 7-19
[42] Kaishi Y, Fujimotoa S, Hiroaki A, et al. A possible new oldest pottery group in the Southern Ryukyu Islands, Japan: Comparative analysis of elemental components of potsherds from the Shiraho-Saonetabaru Cave Site[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 2019, 26: 101879
[43] 吴卫, 王银平, 李福生. 台湾海峡区域视野下南岛语族起源与扩散的考古学观察[J]. 东南文化, 2021, 5: 112-122
[44] 吴秀杰, 范雪春, 李史明, 等. 福建漳平奇和洞发现的新石器时代早期人类头骨[J]. 人类学学报, 2014, 33(4): 448-459
[45] Bellwood P. First Islanders: Prehistory and Human Migration in Island Southeast Asia[M]. Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell, 2017
[46] Chen CY. Perspectives on Early Holocene Maritime Ethnic Groups of the Taiwan Strait Based on the “Liangdoao Man” Skeletons[A]. In: Wu CM, Rolett BV(eds). Prehistoric Maritime Cultures and Seafaring in East Asia[C]. Singapore: Springer, 2019, 207-215
[47] 程玲. 台湾海峡两岸史前聚落的扩张和海洋适应[A]. 百越研究(第四辑):中国百越民族史研究会第十六次年会论文集[C]. 厦门: 厦门大学出版社, 2013, 240-251
[48] 董建辉, 徐森艺. 闽台史前文化与南岛语族[J]. 考古, 2022, 10: 90-99
[49] 吴卫. 试论福建史前海洋文化的发展脉络及内涵[J]. 文物春秋, 2020, 6: 11-17
[50] 左昕昕, 戴锦奇, 吴卫, 等. 东南沿海地区7500年前水稻种植的微体化石证据[J]. 中国科学:地球科学, 2022, 52(12): 2403-2415
[51] 张之恒. 台湾新石器时代文化综述[J]. 史前研究, 1985, 4: 39-45
[52] 范雪春, 卢珊珊, 温娟. 闽台史前文化的历史渊源[A].福建省首届海洋文化学术研讨会论文集[C]. 2007, 180-187
[53] 陈龙. 远古时期闽台文化渊源关系的考古学观察[A].海峡两岸五缘论:海峡两岸五缘关系学术研讨会论文集[C]. 2003, 169-188
[54] 付琳, 官民伙. “重建海上丝绸之路史前史:东亚新石器时代海洋文化景观”国际学术研讨会综述[J]. 南方文物, 2019, 3: 236-242
[55] 高玉, 董广辉, 杨晓燕, 等. 史前农业传播:从中国南方到中南半岛[J]. 中国科学:地球科学, 2020, 50(6): 723-734
[56] 周振宇. 山海之间:考古学视野下的南岛语族人群早期文化交流[J]. 南方文物, 2021, 6: 1-9
[57] Rolett BV. Social Reciprocity Facilitated Overseas Exchange in Early Austronesian[A]. In: Wu CM, Rolett BV(eds). Prehistoric Maritime Cultures and Seafaring in East Asia[C]. Singapore: Springer, 2019, 195-206
[58] Bellwood P. Man's Conquest of the Pacific[M]. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979
[59] Bellwood P. Prehistory of the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago[M]. Sydney: Academic Press, 1985
[60] 赵昭昞. 台湾海峡演变的初步研究[J]. 台湾海峡, 1982, 1(1): 20-24
[61] 蓝东兆, 张维林, 陈承惠, 等. 台湾浅滩中粗砂的时代与成因[J]. 台湾海峡, 1991, 10(2): 156-161
[62] 计宏祥. 四不像鹿属地理分布的变迁[J]. 古脊椎动物学报, 1985, 23(3): 214-222
[63] Bao JJ, Cai F, Shi FY, et al. Morphodynamic response of send waves in the Taiwan Shoal to a passing tropical storm[J]. Marine Geology, 2020, 426: 1-11
[64] He C, Sha L, Zhao D, et al. Sedimentary environmental evolution of the western Taiwan shoal area since the late Pleistocene[J]. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 2021, 9: 1150
[65] 王利波, 李军, 陈正新, 等. 晚更新世以来台湾浅滩西部地层结构与古环境演化[J]. 沉积学报, 2014, 32(6): 1089-1099
[66] Huang HC, Zhang C. The Origins, Expansion and Decline of Early Hunter-Gatherers along the South China Coast[A]. In: Wu CM, Rolett BV(eds). Prehistoric Maritime Cultures and Seafaring in East Asia[C]. Singapore: Springer, 2019
[67] Chen YG, Liu TK. Holocene uplift and subsidence along an active tectonic margin southwestern Taiwan[J]. Quaternary Science Reviews, 2000, 19(9): 923-930
[68] Kuo SC. Tapa Beaters from 5000 to 4200 BP in Taiwan[A]. In: Wu CM, Rolett BV(eds). Prehistoric Maritime Cultures and Seafaring in East Asia[C]. Singapore: Springer, 2019, 251-268
[69] Tang MH, Nguyen KD, Tang MH, et al. Double-shouldered Barkcloth Beaters and Prehistoric Seafaring in South China and Southeast Asia[A]. In: Wu CM, Rolett BV(eds). Prehistoric Maritime Cultures and Seafaring in East Asia[C]. Singapore: Springer, 2019, 269-291
[70] Dizon EZ. Prehistoric Migration and Cultural Change in the Philippine Archpelago[A]. In: Wu CM, Rolett BV(eds). Prehistoric Maritime Cultures and Seafaring in East Asia[C]. Singapore: Springer, 2019, 293-314
[71] 臧振华. 再论南岛语族的起源与扩散问题[J]. 南岛研究学报, 2012, 3(1): 87-119
[72] Guo ZF, Jiao TL. Searching for the Neolithic Interactions across the Taiwan Strait: Isotopic Evidence of Stone Adzes from Mainland China[J]. Journal of Austronsian Studies, 2008, 2(1): 31-39
[73] Tsang CH. Maritime adaptations in prehistoric Southeast China: Implications for the problem of Austronesian expansion[J]. Journal of East Asian Archaeology, 2001, 3(1-2): 15-46
[74] 松村博文, 洪晓纯, Higham C, 等. 颅骨测量数据解释欧亚大陆东部史前人群扩散的“二层”模式[J]. 南方文物, 2020(2): 226-241
[75] 丁见祥. 浅谈大陆架考古及其意义[J]. 中国文化遗产, 2022, 5: 79-88
文章导航

/