30

( )

1 27

1 28

11

o 1957 1960 (

) 11 3

30 50

1964 2

1966

1 .

1 60

1957

1974

1 2 1 3 14

1963

1964 1

1972

1974
1978

1981

1992

3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10 11

1978 1

29

1 5 16

17 18 19 20 21

j 22

4 () .

2 10 ;

80 50

23

24

80

25 26

6 31

230

30 - 2

4 )

74

( 30- 1

( 3 1

2);

12 )

( 3 1

( 30- 1

1 ) ; M20

;
7);

( 30

( 30 -

3)

6)

( 30 - 1
VII

8)

I M6

l ( 30

1 ( 30

11); M20

5 )

( 30

( 30-2

10)

9)

- 2

( 30

- 2

1 2 ) ;

'1J

I1J (

t l

30 - 1

] ( 30 - 2

11 )

9 )

( 30-2

1 ) ;

( 30-2

( 30 1

Jj

13 )

74

( 30-2

10 )

8) ;

74 ( 30

3) ;

( 30

4 )

( 30

- 2

5 ) ;

IJ

t 1 l I

I- 1V

( 30- 1

6 ) ;

( M 1 7

( 30 - 2

7) ; 2

3) I

K BM21

4 ) ( PM1

GM239

( 30-2

2) ; 1

950 I

V VJ

1 ) 3 2

231

M4

34 .v!v![

o v![

IJ

J '

1958 1961

23 2

2 36

Jl P

40

103

l ()

37

(v!

E N

H17

v!

232

0 ( )

1 4 '!li

VI ;

( 3

1 4

) 41

0 +11 2

( 30

1 3

2 3 ) 42

11

4.2

2.9 35

; ~

22

4 l

2. 2 1. 2 5

22 1

1 ; 20

2.7 1. 2 :11: 3

44

J . J .

I E

H V

978 .lV V 10 1 2

'VI H 336 496

233

'V11 286 549

1314 45

VII

15
16

46

12 (

19

11 .

( 1961 )

( 1957

1984

1965 )

4 (

26

( 1990)

11 (

1991

27

12 (

31
32

11 (

1961 )

, (

'

( 1983 ) ;

'

11

12

13

11 ) 1 (

) (

1 2

( 1986

1978

( )

( 1975

( 11 )'

( 1988

: ( )

( 1958

: (

( 1983

()

32

( 1983

;'f

( 1984 )

: ( )

39

'

1979 '

( 1986

1935 )
'1Ii

) .

42

43

1] ) (

1988 )

( 1964 ) ;

2 (

( 1988 )

37

12

38

41

14

1988 )

( 1991 )

: <

<

1992 12

35

) 27 30
10

34

8 '(1985); (

28 '

33

, ( 2 . ( 1965 )

1961 ) 1987 '

: (

1989

: (

1961 )

2 (

, 4 ( 1965 )

1993 5

30
,

( 1989 )

29

( 1985 )

28

( 1988 )

<

: <

1 2

8 ' ( 1983 )

24

25

, < 12 . ( 1961 )

22.

;: <

( 1991

21

23

1991

1983 )

1993.7.5

1991

( 1965

: <)

.
18

20

< )

17

I (

1976

, 10 ( 1965 )

rl

234

} .

32

( 1989

46

1980

:(

) .

10 ' ( 1 987); (

) .

( 1989

 CT
y-"

I.

F--G

4 VDr.

VI.

/\

O
I/r.

V.

o
8

~I

~[

1O.IJ[

II J!

12

vr

4cm

~--'

3 0 -1

l (I )

5 ( VD)
10 (N)

2 (I)

3 Y20 8

1 )

4 ( )

6 ( V )
7 ( )
8 (VI )
9 (VlI)
11 ( 0 E )
1 2 ( ) 1 3 (N )

d 3
Z

1 V][

] ~
3

0:

V.

<
V1l!

f1
7

9r

~/ O

10

t/lt

11][

12

VJ!

30-2 l ( ) 2 4 E ( V )
3 ()
5 M156 : 1 ()
6 (VI)
7 (V )
8 74 ( lV )
9 :7 (n )
10 (

II (

D E

12 (W )

4cm

CU

>

/:7

<Kllt#l1li

c, z

tft t p I

(1:

~<

E-

t\

.=>

31

()

: (( 1990 )

(1 )

( agalmatolite )

1 (

1. 0

2.83

2.0

. 2.58

2 ) (

kaolinite ) (

1937

1938 -

39 1979

1987 -

89

1937

T (

T-section ring ) 8

- 2.5 . 2.6 - 2.63 .

W I]tjj

3 )

4.8 3

2.0

1 1

3 . 9 (

" 4

) .

Ba t ssa

160

1937 ( Schofi <i ld )

SP 1. 5 17
.

180

( XCV ill)

31

9 7 .

N 1- 180 i

2 C

context )

( )

(2

) 56. 1

()

0.07 62
1'1l 15

56.2 20 40
30

60

270 0

240

IJ

1968 56 . 1

0 1 2 0 10 ;

A 1 00

1 975 76

C :

( 1

68 A . (
.

2 )

1975 76

(3) R. J. Frost 68

(4

26 -

30

U )

A B

1985 13

10. 3 1

1991 92

30 14
i

1 968 1975 1976

( 1 )

U )

197 5 1976 l

2 (

4 {

3 4 (

) 56.1

1 933

1 00 B

; J! O ( )

(3

1932 36 .

1980 1990

1933

1990

1 933 A 68.5 ( 27
)( Oaniel

J. Finn

( 1

) 1937

5 E 4 'G 3 .c 2

J( 1 ) .

'K 1'i 2 30

87

31

- 3. 31 -

1 933

22.4c m 5.2cm

H1l

2 : 4 )

(2

( 31

) IV

1990

012 ;

140 0

0.42

120 0 .

,
241

15.5 5.1 3.2

( 31

3.9 ( 31

( 3 )

- 2

2)

1968

3'

4) '

J ( 31

()( 31

1, 2 )

90

110

1 )

(6

1992

()

30.8

2.0

8 .4 1

2.5

3 -

0.5mm 0

( 31

- 1

' 6

3 2 ( 31

- 2

1)

JII

2 )

( 4 ) 1933

5-6

31

90

- 5

2 o 3 4

1 8.6 27

5 6 o 7.

1. 5 15

8 9

1.2 /

12 13

IJ

10.

11

o 1990

( 31

5 -

9)

2 1.1 5.5 1.05 ( 31 -

3 )

(5)1990

()

14C 3110

330B.P ( 1160B.C

4.5

J '

1.1

1990

( 31

- 1

( 31

- 5

3 ' 4)

1993 8

242

IIJJ l

J 1990

J& 1933

( 5 6

86

~t

Maglioni

:lI;

M1 -tI". 31

r JiJ(PAT)' J

1 - 8 10 11

32

IJ

33

r IIIJ

(J '

( 31

1.

- 4

)()

( 1

);

)/ ;

1.

(2

( 3 )/

( 1

r J
;

( 2

) @ ' ()

; II IJ

) @ @

(3

)@-@ AL3

- AL4

'/

i( 199 )

( 19 33 ()

3750 :!: 5% '@-@ 14C

243

3650 90 4509

:t 250

37

3500 3000

1974

lUj- ' 716

1 2.7

2.6

12.7

7.6

( cross-beding )

39 0 50 :'

1933

( 1

( 1-

2)

' 40

2 ) .

. /

( 5

()

- 6)

( Cypreaidea

. 6881

1 3700

E:

1991

) (

true

460

jade (

h emjade

)(

pseudo jade

( ) ( )

1991

11

244

2.

) .: . 1980

( W

&hofi e ld )( 1983. 1975 ) ( Daniel J F inn )

( 1958 ){

274

3950 - 3550B.P.

Deeson , A. F. L., ed. The CoJJects ' Encylopcidae o(

Rocks and Min erals. N. Y.: Clarkson N. Potte.r. 1973

3.

Robe.

16
17

( )

...

r ()

19

2 i1"J .

22

1991

3 .

( 1983 )

. 73

1983 )

. 455

5
25

Sc hofield , Walter: An Archaelogical Site at S h ek Pik.

1975. plO - 12
8

26
27

(.

28

10

1987)

. 8

142

7 .

( 1957) .

).

10 .

21 )

( 1991 )

. S K

665

. 978

11 . (

1991

) 1 -4 -

26

1 985

. 14 7

30 .

Barrett Barcett

c. J.:

1 973 C. J

130

60 -

29

70 -

130

31

12. Finn , Oaniel , ] .: An Archaeological Finds on Lamma

19

:{

IJ
27

33

: ( E
:(

. ( 1 991 ) ' 25 1

1958. p207
13. Peacock , B. A. B. a nd N ixon. Tary n J .P .: Th e H ong
Kong Arc haeoJogicaJ Survey: Subsurface ln ves (g.

tion Reports. H o ng Kong: Antiquities & M onuments

Office occasinoal pa per no.l 1988. p55 - 58

34

: ( )
).

5 (

10

Cyp.

(South C hna M o ming Post > 1 992 s 25

onyx ) (

) 1 992 5 25 e

errones

~~

2 .

( 1991 )

2 .

( 1991 )

. 73

arabi ) (

Cyp

) (

Cyp

Cyp. gracilis

) (

Cyp. viteJJu s

) 10

. 101

1991 )

35. Orr. John: Hong Kong SeasheJJs. 1985, H o ng Kong

The Urban Council

() 1992 5 25 . ( ) 1 992 5 25

( 19 ) . :

32

l sland near H on g K ong. University of H o n g K o ng ,

1 2 .

175 JlJ .

175

: (

) .

Tai W an Re

p.53

considered. JHKAS vo l. IV.

111

44

1980

ArchaeoJogocal Society (J HKAS) Vol. VI. (1 976). 42

150 -

. 561

. 93

).

Sch o fi e ld. Walter: 1975: 34 - 37

10. F rost , R. J ..: S ha C ha u JournaJ 01 the H ong Kong

1977

51 3

).

24

- 467

12 'Kl

Hong Kong Archaeological Society Mo nogr8ph 1,

15

: (

( 1979 )
23

E )

14.

1957)

: (

. 305

2 1.

;;<::) .

11.

147

3 4 . ( 1948 ) :

( 1975)

8.

().

( .

gJ(

( 1976 )

20

1 ;

4 .

: (

) .

( I ) . 1 6 : r

12

IJ ) .

6 . 3 05

262 . 6

18
r

1991

).

W .L., Campbell , T.]. , Rapp. G. R. ed. Encyc

Co. 1990

).

275

Jopedia o ( Min erals , N. Y.: Van Nostrand Reinhold

4.

) .

36.

Dav

Dave D: Investigatng the D iffusio n of Sty-

listic

Innovation.

Advances

in

Archaeological

245

Method and Theory. 1983. p57 - 58 , A cademic Press

lnc
37. Oavis , Dave lnvestigating the Diffus ion of Sty
listic Innovation Hud son l2
( c ial

context

( Kroeber )4

38

: (

(1 988

39. M eacham , Willia m: Archaeology in H ong Kong ,

1980, H ong Kong: Heine man Educational Book Ltd

: (

- 45

' o

1976

' 44

( )

3 O---S0

5 1-100

()

1i

----- |

100-130

13(}-200

( )

31 - 1 : 19 3 7

t!t

( )

()

1975 76

1968

B C

()

( : )

1m

3.5m

oc m

6 5m

AL 1

(}-35cm

AL 1
4.5-4.15m

AL 2

35- 55cm

AL 2
4.15-3.85m

AL 3

7(}77 cm

AL 3

B
I:

5 1- 100cm

5.5- 5m

3 .85-3. 6 3 m

A L4

9(}-120cm

AL 4
3.63- 3.2m

101- 235c m 5- 3.6m

236cm

31 - 2

3.6m

I!! * ( AL=Ac t i vity

layer )

()

()

()

55.8

96.5

IJ

50.8

6 8. 5

12 1. 9

89.9

7 1.1

12 1.9

()

127

73.6

76.2

31-3: 1933

()

43

50.8 (G )

60.9

9 1.4 (J)

96.5

( rlight

potterYJ)

12 1.9

127 (K)

()

152 .4 (D)

172.7(W)

liJ

182.8

31 -4: 1933

11

12

13

16

17

19

10

11

V
V

14

3 1-5

2 1

22

* *
* *
*

23

24

25

26

28

29

* *

()

()

* *

* *

19
20

* *

17

18

* *

15

18

13

16

10

12

1933

1990

--2

~-~

4 cm

3 1-1

1 1990

2 56.1

31-2

1 1992

2 1937

3 1934A 1931

4 cm

()

()

4
/ 4 M

31 - 3

'=

<2

.t.'l

,.J

p'

50 km

"',l

.o C

JO

,
|- 4000-3000

v'

6:3

?
6

..0

Cl\)

Qo

11131- 4


/
l

4'1:-

//
4

4
6

9
31 -5:1-2

3-

4 1990 (A) (B)

5 7 1934
9

2cm
~

8 ()

32

()

Lung Hoa

j 2

Ng u yen

J . 1fiIJ 7

( 32

Lung

Hoa Phung

rJ

P hung

Phu ng Nguyen

Don g Son

Ngu ye n 4

D ong Da u

Go Mun

r J( bracel et" )

Hoa Loc

r T 1
T

P h ung Ng u ye n

( rT

Don g Da u

J ) ( r T J) T

( 32

A :

E T

T T

T ' ( 32 ( 32

- 3 )

1 )

T
1.

Ph ung

Nguyen Dong Dau Go

M un Don g Son

- 4) :

A1 : ~

A2 :

A 3 l

B :
B1 :

256

B2

B3 :

'T

C :
C1 : ~

7
( 3 2

C2 :

A4

C5 . ~

C3 ~

T B3

( )

'T

D .

T (

01 :

A1 ) .

02 :

03 .

E :

C4

- 4

E1 .

E2 :

( 32

- 2 )

Nguyen

Go Mun

T T

Hoa Loc

Phung Nguyen Dong Dau

C B 2 T

Hoa Loc

IJ

Phung Nguyen

Phung

B2 A (T )

Phung Nguyen

6 .

'T

~ 7

'T

'T

 r T J

257

IJ

11 ( )

IJ

Phung Nguye n

Lung

IJ

IJ T

IJ

J 1 3

Hoa

G u a Cha

( E

) (

Ban Kao

C )

Di

Ban Na

T
J '

1 4

'

IJ

T T
T ~

7 T

l. T

2 'T

3 1]7 'T

7 T o

258

4. T

( 1992 3 1993 6 o

(T <" ;0)

77 12

( 1992 )

Ha

Van Tan , Pham Minh Huyen , Nguyen

Dung , Nguyen Giang Hai. Bui Van Liem(Vie n

Jj lJ

Khao co hoc) , Ta Huy Duc , Nguyen Thi Hanh ,

Nguyen Anh Tuan (Vinh Phu)

Nguyen Kim Dung

Kim

'lJ\

rJ

J J

2
3

Lung Hoa

4.

3(Do ng 0')

Dong
Doi

(I ate Phung Nguyen)

Donn Bayard , A Checklist of V tnamese
Radiocarbon Dates". in Southeast Asan ArchaeoJogy
at the XV Pacifjc Science Congress. Vol . edited
by Donn Bayard. (1 984) , pp.305 - 322

Phung Nguyen)

Giam

60

Dau

3330 1 (1 ate

Trang Kenh :
3405 r l! (Iate Phung Nguyen)

- 38 0
, {

{}

( 1984 )

29

} 3 :

( 1986)

: { }

89 :

{}

 r T j

1982)

259

53

7
8

57

: ( )

( 1989 )

( 5

( 6
3

( 1991 ) 1 98 -

( 7

(1987 ) 10-36

( 1959 )

(8

Copenhagen , 1967

Lung

Hoa )

{ )

50

14

1970

' 76

1974

77

W am

M eacham:

. 76 79

' 195

1978

1959 ' 120 -

(ll

198

123

)
1990

'

48

'

1\ 8

1 22

(1 3)

1989

' 34

40 - 41 54

55

(1 4) H oang Xuan Chinh , Bao Cao Kha Quat Dot 1 Dj

Chi Lung Hoa . Vietnam , Hanoi , 1968. pp.76.79

Nguye n

Kim Dung

Trang K enh 8ai Tu T

T
T

( M. W . F.

Tweed The

Stone Age n

M a lay a"

Jo urnal o f the Mala yan Branch o f the Royal A sian c

S." Vol . P a rt 2, 953) , p.4 3
(

7 '

(19 )

46

( Nguyen Kim Dung , Hai Hinh Thuc C h e

Tac Vong Trang S u c 0

Cong Xuong H ong Da

(Vinh Phu)" , Kha o Co H oc.3 , (1 987) , pp.32 - 36. )

( Bui

(1 Vi e n Bao Tang Lich S u Viet Nam ,

Van H oa H on

L oc. Vietnam. Han 1977 , pp.70,75, 135, I38

(1 6 ) Hoa !'l g Xuan Chinh-Nguye n Ngoc Bich , Di C hi
Kha o Co H oc Phung Nguyen. Vietnam ,

Han

1978,pp.81 - 83
( 17 ) Le X uan Diem -Hoang Xuan Chinh , Dj Chi Kha o Co

' 49

(1 2 ) : ( )

51

' 42

1 9

) .

1991 ' 80 - 83

15

( 10 ) : (

tigations in ThajJand. Vol. II, Ban Kao, Part 1,

14

) : ( 15 ) :

(9 )

10. P er Srensen and T. Ha tting , ArchaeoJogicaJ ln ves

13

1 8

12

' 128

1 2 17

1 5

200

: (

1962

12 )

C hi Hoa Bung Bac -

Mo t

Cong X uo ng Che Tao Vong T ay Da 0 Dong Na m

80" , Khao Co H oc, 3 , ( 1992) , pp.14 -

2 l. )

H oc Dong Dau. Vietnam ,

Han

1983 , pp .49 - 50

(8 ) Pham Ly Huong , Di C hi Tu 50n Tu Leu Va Nhan

Thuc" , Kh ao Co Hoc, 4 , ( 1989) , pp.39 - 55
(1 9 ) Ngu yen Kim Dung , " Di C hi Xuong Trang Ken}

(H a i Pho ng) Qua Hai La n Kha i

Qu..

Khao Co

H oc, 3 , ( 1990) , pp.73 - 74

(20 ) Bui V an Lo i-Pham Quoc Qua n , D i Chin Thanh
D e n (H a Noi)" , Vjen Ba o Tang ch Su Vjet Nam

Thong Bao Khoa hoc, (1 991), pp. 103 -

124

(21 ) ] . G. Ander sson, Research es into the Prehistory o f

the C hinese" , Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern
Antiqujrj: No

(1943), p.266

(22 ) Daniel ] . Finn , Archaeo/ogical Finds on La mma Is

land n ear H ong Kong, H o ng K ong , 1958, pp.149 160

( 23) G. de G. S veking Exca vations at Gua C ha ,
K e lantan" , Federation Muse ums Jo urnal. Vo l. 1.11
(1 954 -

( 1

1946 ' 72 - 73
( 2

100

108

(4

1992 ' 84 ' 99

1959

5i

Lanta u Isla nd. Hong K o n g" ,

Asian Perspectives, Vol. IV. Nos. 1 -

2. (1 960) ,

pp.l 83 - 212
(25) R a fael Mag lioni , ArchaeoJogicaJ Discovery in East

) : ( :

(24) S. G. Oavis and Mary Tregea r. "Man Kok T s

Arc h aeolog ica l

( 3

55) , p.89, \O I , p l.6 - 7

. 1 69

175 ' 312 -

313

1 1 :

ern K w angtung, Hong Kong , 1975, pp.57 - 63

(26) W a lter 5chofi eld, An Arc haeo/ogical Site at Shek

Pik , H o ng Ko ng, 1975 , pp. lO - 11 , p l. C 11

260

(27) Bernerd W ilI iams , Hai Dei Wan" , }ournal of the

Hong Kong ArchaeoJogicaJ Society, Vol (1 979) ,

pp.27 - 51
(28) Joyce C. White. Ba n Chia Discovery o[ a

Bronze Age, The University of

LOSf

Pennsylvan Pre ss

1982, p.40
(29 ) Charles Higha m and Amphan Kijingam , Prehis toric

lnvestigations in N orthe as tern ThaiJand, B.A .R Inte ,natio nal Se ries 23 1, 1984 ,pp.69 - 72
(30) Per S rensen. Archaeological Excavations in Th a;.

Jand,

Cope nh age r

1988,p.22 ,52,65,75

(31 ) Cha rles Higham, The ArchaeoJogy o[ inland

Southeast Asia , Cambridge University Press, 1989.

pp.165 - 166
(32) j. B. Noulet. L' Age de la P"e Polie & du Bron ze
au Cam bod ge , 1879, pp.24 - 25. p l. VI
(34) Fine Arts D epartme nt , Archaeological Sites ;n Thai

Jand. Vo J. 1. 11, Bangkok , 1988

(35) Som cha i No Na khonphan Prehistori c Age"
in Racha Bud , edlted by Fne Arts
Bang kok , ( 199 1), pp.67 - 77

Depa rtme

No

3
2

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

M1l

M1002

11
12
13
14

M1004

M121 7

M15

"

A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A3
A1
A1
A1
A1
A4

15
16
17
18
19

j tM18

M701

M12

GI

G2

20

21
22
23
24
25

MI

M2

1::

M1 9

27
28
29

31
32
33

34

35

36

iI1l

37
38
39

A4
A1
A1
Al
AI
Al
Al
A2
Al
A1
Al

32-1

(J 31

tx

( 131

)1987-2
( 2 1
{) 1) 1
{ )1989-4
(31

(4)

(51

(71

(61

(81

{) 1981 - 4 P )46
{) 1979 1 P 102
{ )1986 - 2 pp. 178 180
{) 14-4 p. 314, 316
{) 1984-4 p. 32 325

(21 1

A3
A1
A1

l
l
11
l

A1
A1

9
l

A1
A2
A1
A1
A1

l
I
l

A1
A1
A1
A1
A1
A1

12 1

{ ) 19 -9

..

"

"

1;;"

p. 777

{) 1 985 1 2 p. 1062
{ ) 1991 - 4, p. 463
{) 1991 - 4 pp. 474 {) 1983 11 pp. 92 - 93
{) 1979- 11 , p. 5
{) 1979 -2 p .30
{) 1979- 2, p. 34
{) 1987 10 pp. 7- 8.

(c) 1989 - 5 p. 13, 16

{) 1988- 4 p. 301
111 1
(c) 1991 10 pp. 14 { ) 1 965 - 2 p. 65
(

16

11 1

(251
( 25 1

{) 1961 12 p.656

{)1965-4pp.160-161
{) 1991 ll pp.22 -25
) 1991 11 pp.22 25
{ p.73
{ p.73

{) 18 ( 1957 1,p.1 2

E (241

(261

(271
(22)

( 91

pp. 1 5 16
pp. 74 - 75

(J I

4
I
2
l
l
1
l
4
3

p. 23 33

(5 1

"

40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49

l
l
I
2
1
1
9
10
l
l
6
l
21
l
I
l
l
I
I
I
l
l
l
l

*
*

475

No

50
51
52
53
M
55
56
57
58
59

M26

M 75

M41

MI 2

M2

61
62
63
64
65

67
68
69
70
71
72

73
74
75
76
77
78
79
}

81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92

Vietnam
Phu L
Trang Kenh
Phung Nguyen
Lung Hoa
Do ng Dau
Tu Son
Thanh Den
Mai Dong
Van Dien
Dong Vong
Trieu Khuc
Nui Xai
Nghia Lap
Go Chieu
Go Bong
GoGai
Doan Thuong
Dong Den
Vuon Chuoi
Doi Da
Mao Son
Ma Dong
Bai Man
Den Doi
Thailand
Ban Na Di
Ban Chiang40
Ban Tha Kae
Ban Rai Sanlao
Ban Tannathrao
Tam Chande
Khok Phlap
Maleysia
Gua Cha

AI
AI
AI
AI
AI
AI
AI
AI
A2
AI
A2
AI
AI
AI

l
l
4
2
48
39
5
l
l
2
2
l
l
1
l
l
2
I
7
l

{) 1978 lOpp.9 1
{) 1983 -3p.371
{ ) 1984 - 3p.220
{) 19 4 p .528
{)1956 l p. 58

( 10 )

{) 1975 - 2p.l4 3
{) 1 992 - 2p. 135

{) 1981 - 2 p.243

{)1979 - 6pp.492-494
{) 1988- 12, pp.29- 31

15 )
19 )
( 16 )

(1 4 )

(17 )

(1 8 )

(20)

Al
AI

9
l

AI

l
l
I
l
2

**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**

( 29)

( 28 )
( 3 1)

l
4
3
I
2
l
I
3
l
l
I

A3

AI

(34)

(341
( 30 )

(35 )

( 23 1

**: Nu yen

Kim Dung 1 (Vien Khao Co Hoc , Oanh Sa ch Cac Di

Tich Khao Co Hoc co Lien Quan Dcn Thoi Ky Su Hung Vuong" , Khao Co Hoc 1978- 2, pp. 1- 5. )

11\

B
C
D
E
1 2 123 1 2 3 123 1 2

Hoa Lo
1500SC.? Phu Loc
Phung Nguyen

. 1. . .

LungH

l000B.C

5OO B.C

Trang Kenh
Thanh Den
Tu 50n
Dong Dau
Thanh Den
Thanh Den
Go Mun

. 1.

. 1.

* ( 61 ' 0 III

32 - 2

i:

4
l
1
11
4
1
I

( 13)

f~

( 13 )
p.98
) 1987-2 p. 14 2 1
) 1987 - 2,p.23 ,33
) 1958 - 3 pp.5 1-52.
) 1990 -1 ,p.9, 13
) 1982 - 4,pp .4 53 -454.
) 1982 - 4,pp .4 53 - 454
(2 1)
{) 1983 -1 pp.81- 82
{} 1983 -1

1
I
5

) 1986 2.p.108 1 1O
( ll )
( 15 )

"

{} 1987 - lO, pp.3 - 4

} 1978- 2 pp.l -102
) 1981 - 2 ,pp.230 - 232
) 1988 1 2 p. 16 1 8.

H oa Loc
T

6
1

Somrong Sen
Ban Chiang40Mt
Tam Ongbah
3 2 - 3

l
3
1
4

} 1 8p. 1 2

(32)
(28 )
(30 )

20 .

27

Ti b el

26-21

23-24

11..

. 28-3

1 -1 9

'. &

i'J.

. 32
. :J3
. 52- 53
. 54-56
. 51

. 35
. 59

. 60

. 40- 41

1"

;F

3 2- 1 :

r T

A
J
(

1 2 M 1 2 1 1

1 .

~ .

1 p
9 n00 1

8.

4
II ittM1 004

1 6 M1 l

1 0 M1 002

1 1 12

1 3 mo o

---i3

1 8.

24

32 - 2

: T A 1

( )

lO c

34

38.

29

39

-l=

30

57 M12

46

33 1H

--f::::::r:.::=

.=c3

59 M2

43

FR

62 . V et n a Trang K e n l

61.Vietna .Phu

10c

Vietnam. Tu

64.Vietna Lung

Hoa

67.Vietnam , Thanh Den

32-3

: T A l ()

Son

10 c1

 A
Al

<
Bl

E}-

E-

Cl

E3
D

r:::.
Dl

1132-4

r::.
D2

l
1

:()

k
E2

'

~=: ~

- : :-

~ :

~ -- -. .-. ~==I-

d
--F

85.Thailand , Ban Na Di

fE

T A1()

O
h
22

63.Vietnam ,
Phung Nguyen

65.Vietnam ,
Dong Dau

1 0. M100 2

TA2

OE
15 Ml8

A4

Vietnam , Hoa

10cm

33

( )

'

( )

J 2

l!!J

() 3

1 978 l! IJ

{
88

J 4

( ) . 306 4

234 2

70 (

1 6000 1 000

Ban C hiang

2000 5

15 - 1000 (

Dong

IJ 9

( 1

) ( rj J)

Dau )

1 986

24

() 73 20

2 5 1 ; 1 2400

\JIJ

1 500

10

12

( s

270

56 4400

41 1

14 1 5

80%

J;

95% . (

) o

5%

85%

( S )

(4

1'i

10 6 4

975 498 303

16 17

20 () 71

10 1 60 800

534 167

13

( )

IJ

( )

(2

(5

16 ( )

5 1

IJ

57 ; 180 175

(3

)l

18

17 ( )

8 1 24 1

271

. IJ

( )

I~/J f1

(2

) 1 955

28

: 3335 1 60

19

3115 90 (

90 ) 1 335

:t

1 55

2700 -2000

45 7 :

23 2640 90 (

11 50

690

:t

90 )

1 2350 85 (

2 1

2500 :t 105 ( 550 ) 22 0

24 1 5 75 ( 465 75 )23

9 2460 90 24

6 2065

400 85 ) 2 1

:t

90 25

14

IJ

1 7

65 ( )

300 160

(3

) 1 988

1 989

1 40 4 30

2270 430 l

95%

) 1960

27

IJ 0

( )

9 1 l

IJ ;lilJ

(1

( 4 ) 'J

1975

272

30

IJ

(7

) 1973 1974

7 8

JII ()

()

( )

26 1 4

(5

1 962

3 1

lIJ !

()

1 2 1 3

: l

IJ

j!;IJ

(8

) 1983

1;

7 1]

~II

~ft

(6

) 1972 1 973

IJ !lIJ

IJ JlJ ftJ 1

IJ

14 8

(9

) 1 973

1;

35

;;

( ) ;

;1;

1 4 4 1

f; G

( )

273

3335 ::t: 160"

( 10

) 1 99 1 1992

36

3300

ltlJ 33 -

( )

4500

7000

45

2 1 37

50

ft

l l

( J )

I1

( 11

flJ

11 0

( 983 )

3300

( 33

2933

::t:

- - 4300 (

1 ) IJ

1 350--2350 )

3675

3304 82 ( 1 354

::t:

82 )

::t:

40

85 ( 1725 85 ) 39

::t:

( s

. 4 3532

1 70 40 1 7

::t:

90 4 1

4 4260 1 65

3 945 l ( 1 995 ) 43

( 33

2 )

274

( )

7 (

33 - 3 )

~I l

1lJ~

( 33

6 )

3350

IIJI

3300

; 1

. ~I

( 33

- 4

11 11

( )

( 33

275

: (

( fS)

( ) .

10 .

( 1987)

: (;j~)
}

5 .

( 1989)

. 17

1985
9

} ..

461

485

1 .

1959

( 1956)

( ) .

( 1959)

} .

9 .

9 .

. 480

( 1963)

11

: (

12

( 1983)

13

: (

14

2 (

459

170

. 53 1

( 1990)

46

6 .

)(

1983 ).

251

543
10

. 244

} .

18

1)

5 .

< }

1975 I . 97 -

156

. 479

7 .

( 1992 )

: <

15

16

( ) .

()

17

()

1993 6 30

. 21

614

24

) 6 . (

1958 ) . 5

1)

2 .

18

( 1986 I

7 .

. 607

( 1964 )

: (

12 .

3 (

19) . 239

266

}
. 220

1983)

<

224

( /

( )

1992 4

19

I . 1
:

19

. 23

43

4 . (

1977 )

. 80

1981

White. j. C )

254

( 1972 )

) }

5 .

3 .

) .

. 76

. 2m

( 1982

I)

( 1978)

( 1977 I

656

26
1989

5 .

: (oi

( 3

( 1991

( . < 6 .

25

Murowchick Robert.E. ) :

()

( . <

24

. 82

20
E (

81

( )

( ) }

22 23

) ..
c

20
21

( )

. 56

( 1975)

( 1979)

: ( 1 ) .

( 1992

I 660

7 .

( 1985)

< 1 1

. < } .

. 250
27

( 1981 )

. 78

276

>>.

() . 10 . ( 1962 ) . 529 -

534

: ('"

).

1 M . ( 1956 )

63

29

1 9) ..

( }

( 1991 ) . 304 -

305

: ( t
) . 1 .

. 33

( 1990 )

34
30

: (

31

1111

)
}

32

11 .

. 588

( 1965 )

- 589

: (

) .
33

(). 12 ( 1983 ) . 1108

1 .

( 1977 )

3 . (

72

1981 )

. 349

- 368

34

: ( t )

: (;

25 .

).

( 1989) . 38

().

3 .

( 1977 )

176

1 77
36

3: (

37

: ( )

38

: (

: (

18 .

( 1985)

() ) )

281
41

. 1 6

/l!IJ (. (;t l.

4 .

4 .

( 1984 )

. 287

( 1978 )

. (

( 1991 ) . ( 1992 ) . 280

42. 1982

43

45

)
46

lI . ( 1992) . 38

)
.

( ) .

( 1991 )

. 3

 33- 1

E~

( )

UV-

MJ14

UI

[2

<?)

~-p

9
[[

[5

[0

/F\

()

[7

()

10

4 5

7 9

33-2

1 3

1 2 14

3 6

15

11

17

1 6 1 8

'((31)2

CI

CI 2)

2) (3)

CI - 3)

( 3)

(4)

(4 )0- (5)

(4)

vh

4 1M
3

5ZiI@
4~A i A

3 =

()

~~3

[~

2W

1 NV

2_

1-

 33 -3

l;;

()

(1 3)

(5

()

(2 4 )

(6

3:1)

()

. 7)

Id 3 g

5
)

(D

()

s
1.

33-4

kf

2.

4 ~

7 1<

8.

9 11

()

5 J\

1 0

10m

12

1m

1 8

9CD

8 7

()

2 4 . 6. 8

1 0

1 3

1 4

11

5 7

1 2

(J)

()

(2)

(3)

(8)

/\(( l 0)

[j

80

11 )

()

13

()

l 2 3 4 5
6 12 7 . 11 B
9

10

1 3

33 - 6 : 1'*:

.c..

()

(D

()

l 7 2
6 8

~J

/
6

-''~

/1 ." ,

"v'"'

34

()

IJ

()

()

()

1933

198

70

1978

114 IJ

2.5 1. 7

t<.

282

10

J
11

30

60

1 983

1986

600

76 l

IJ

4 ( l

) 10 2 6

4 2. 1

2.8 6 3

50

50

1 2

1 985 7 7

4 1

1 988 77

2 1 ( 2.8 1.9

l IJ

17 1 74

20

2 1. 3 o l

IJ

1 97 6

1 :-J

T 52

1 IJ

~J{ 7E

208 5

14.

:t

1984 -

1 985

80 5

......

1928 7

10

1 5

1 983

IJ

283

.*~

11

16

1984

74

17

1 "

24

19

11 7

1979

) (

) ()

3800

22

i'J.'

284

I'J;

- 20
7 .

( 1988 )

'b

=< 1991

: ()

) .

9
8

:1 .

( 1989) . 3:15

1989 274

9.

41

( ) .

( 3 .

( 1992)

( )

10.

( 1987 )

. 1

.iJ; t
) . 26

11

1987

) .

. 40

) . 4

: (

) . .

:i52

( 1989 )

. 1 :1

. 3

( 198=< )

: (

: (i'Ji

1 9

1991 ) . 3:-JO ~ 331

) . .

1 )0 )

. (

("

<>

'"

1984

i } ) .

4 (

19

1['

12

26

( 1988)

2 .

( 1986)

. 9

: ( )

{
13

4 .

2 ( 1989 ) . 1 - 48

13

285

: ( )
) . 7

( 1 9) .

239

248

15.

(i!l ).
. (

16

. 257

1985 )

7 .

( 1988 ) .

. (}

. (

1962

7 - 8

19

20.

. 20
t .

21

: (
)

18

- 573

: ()

(
17

. 572

1986 )

( 1987 )

. 65 2

659

flL

).

[.

( 1983 )

. 117

- 127

22

23

: ( ) ( )

. 23

.
24

[983

1982

:)(

' 11

( 1992)

. 380

382

27

28

( t )

( 1991 )

. 8 1

1979

. [ 42

143

: (

- 22 :

4 32
29

(~*

( 1987) . 14 2

: (

: ( ) .

.
30

96

1982

' 85

: (
3- 4

32. E.

' :
t

[ 97 2 5

!II ).
11 3

19 40

3 (

1989

) [[ 2

la

lb

2a

2b

34 - 1

1. b

2. . b

35

( )

1 937

7 7

lil'i

r FJ

1 938

( 11;
i j( 4

( C.

Hea nle y , 1877 -

1970 )

7 1

1958

1885 -

1886 - 1936

r:p 2

( rF J )

4 7

- 1968

1888

288

( ) .

()

( l

J 9

i

( i 1 o )

E 10 ;

( 101 )

11

( ) (

l )

() (

1J

( 105) .

( )

12

r "J

( 106 )

IJ

289

Q IJ

( 26

( 26

4:4

- 4:3 ) ( T60@A )

23

11

: i 1991
4 )

( 264 - 413 )

( 35

( 10 1 )

14 1 5

9 )

11

( 35

17

7 11

( 26

- 4

1 ) ( 35

( 26 -

8:8, 9 , 10 ) ( 26 -

) ( ) l 4 5 6

7: 1 )

1958 |
20

1:10 )

: ( )

4 9

( 1959

Z ( )

( 1957

( )

( l

) ( )

2-3
8

10 ;

;: (
} 1 1 8

) 21

( 1 05 )

( 35: 3

( 1957

1958

)( )

i
( 26

19

( 1928

( )

1932 1 936 !;c)

8:5 , 6, 7 ) 18

( 26

1.

: (

1 991

: ( )

1 99 1

290

'1) .

( 1981 )

. 236 .

11

11

JtI

.
.

12

11' 231

1 3 15

( 1981 )

. 229 .

5
..

.
14 17 21 22

( 1981

: {

. ( 1981 )

16

).

18

1961

1980

. (

( 1991 )
1

11 )

1987

10 .

1966

).

24

: {

23

: {

. (

19

12 (

. 44

,'

35

l ()

--

2 Ill!( )

4 ( )

\\

36

( )

J J

15

1 9

IJ 10

- 5 1 5

'

88 N 1. 8

- QIJ 7

( 36 -1 ) -

J} IJ :

~r

23 - 7 1

4 5 6

7 8

294

1J ( 36 2 :1 )

20

1 3

IJT

1 2 2 0.62

0.82 7

14

8 15

22

( 36

36 - 2:3

2:4 )

'

2 3

( 36-2:2) f

17 .Ij

l ~J

295

25

;!;:

26

11

: (

2.

1943

r J - I} - 0

42 -

1 .

( 1978 )

46

: (

Ij) (

1981

) 4-5'

: (

) 2 .

: (
)

27

( Pile-dwellings

r 0

( )

'

r W ) 0 ; r J

( 1960)

. 74

75

. (

}.

1958 )

. 73

:
6 .

1 3) . 303 0

296

).

1 2 .

( 13 ) . 31 -

10

46

1 ( 12

) 1 -

} )

IJ

6 (

. 7-8

1958 )

11

: (

12

13

4 . (

1977 ) . 1 -

1 .

( 1982) . 1 -

2 15
14

17

*'

10

( 1982)

. 2 13

: (

().

( 1964 )

12 .

. 7

614

'

15

14

. 6 12 . .

16

1 3

. 205 209

17

. -

2 .

( 1975 )

. 1 35

18

12

19

:() . .

. 209

- 210

1954

20

19

21

: (

. .

1 .
1

3 4

198 1

5 ' .

1-

1 -

. .

3 5 -

22

19 . .

23

:( t

3 4

24

: (&11' ( V)

) 14 ( 1924 ) .

( I (

157

1966)

. 138

. 3 -5 7

25. ( ). 1 2 5 2 1
26 .

: (/< 1: LA }{

27

( 1992) . 3 16 3 18
) .

. (

1943 )

49 59 60

28. Voght. E. Swss Pile.dellings. Antiqujty, N

( 1957 ) , pp .68 72

122

!IiI#E

j - 9E

~!')....&.~

Hrmtdh
..
.;-"

At

l
JJIkt

.\15 M Z

15?
I

- 9

37

( )

10%

( 37

11 )

( 3 7

1:12

IJ

1 : 10 11

37

- 4:5-

4 % 5.3% 0.6%

10

10

M1

2 M2

M1

1 M1 2

1 ( 37

- 1: 1

2 4 6

M 1

l J

M5

2 1 4C 72 10 11 0

( BK87046

) - 6920 :t

200 (

37

- 4 :

1 3 4) .

X s

1
37

M6

- 4:2 )

1 M7

1 ( 37

1:3

BK80281) . 8 7000

7 000

. ! J

m ( 37

- 4:20

( 37 1 :9) .

) M2 1

:l}

( ZK991 ) . 50 - 5200

M11

IJ 6500

1 ( 37

1:8 )

'
M14
( 37

1:7 )

( )

l
13

. /

( 37

- 4:12 -

10 ( 37

- 2:4 )

15 ) T6@:

14 Ltf

( 37

1%

T9 3 r

( 37

2:5 6 ) j
jlJ 9

- 2:7 -

11 )

----

3 1. 6cm

T3 H2

1 ( 37

2:1 )

T1H1

1 4C

( 37 - 2:2) '

6440

( ZK1264

190

1%

f1J

T68 @ : 93 ( 37

- 2:3)

H5

- 3:6)

11

1 2

2 cm 0 ;

0.6cm

14C IJ
5940

:1: 260 ( W ZK892 ) 5235 :1: 120

1 ( 37

. ( )

:J01

14C Ij 7040 :!: 150 (

BK80004

BK76023 ) 4

) . 0.1cm

7000

( 37

- 3:5)

T22@: 6

5940

) -

135 (

6900

{!E

O.2cm

O.7cm

#; T22@:

/il!:

( 37

- 3:4 )

0.2

- 0.3cm

T22

1]

14C

19

1. 2% 20 1 2 .4%i'J 4%

6200

T2@ . 5

@:

12 ( 37

- 3:7 )

5500

( 37 - 3:9)'

( 37-3:3)

( 37

.c

3:2)

--

21 ( 37

( 37

( 37

- 3:1

4:21 -

23

- 4:16 -

19 )

6000

Tl 01@:

( 37

13.8cm

- 3:8 )

. 3.2

. 22

L y

14C Ij

6400

( 37

:!: 260 ( ZK2513 ) 6105 140

3:10

11)

KWG817

) 5105

:!:

195 ( 6255

5750

125 (

:!: 205 ()

'

302

6000

- 5000

23

2. ( H 5) 26

50

( )

4 5 6

68

1.5

s x

880 "(;.

'

70% 20

22%

2.6%

1 2 3 7 -

11

69% f 1 8

1. 3 -

7.4 - 9 .4%

0.3 1. 2%

'

(650

' 52

24%

3.4% { 3.2

8.2%

'

11

t)

39.29%

303

74.82% 1 1. 67% 4.67%

13% 0 28

76.57%
13.33% 93% 0.91%

5000

31

7000

5000

6 DO

()

6500

( )

1992 6

14

: (

: ( )

6000

( 1991
4

( 1986

()

l }

( 1983

304

30

. ( 4 (1 982 )

) . 1 K .

2 .

: (

( '1)

( 1986

: (
.

( 1989 )
10

: (

). 4 . (

1981 )

( 1983 )
11

12

4 (

1988

: (

).

1 . (

1987 ) ;

: (

2 . ( 1989 )
13

5 .

14

( 1989 )

: (
.

. 24

( 1990)

15

16

: ( 7
(

1991

17

18

19

J) .

2).

( 198 1
(

1 990)

20

11 .

( ).

11 .

( 1990

21

22

: (

( 1991 )

<

1991

. 72

23

24

( 1991

: ( )

( 1991 )

. 230

) 2 . ( 1989 )
25

26

5 ( 19 )

: (

5 ' ( 1991 )

27

: (

. (

1989 )

28

29

( 1982 )

( 1991 )
31

<>

( 1984

1982

: (

:(

{
(

1989

Si02 AhO:!

Fe~O;!

Ti02 CaO

MgO

Na20 MnO

P~05

T70@, 110

68.33 5.57

1. 33

0.53

19.31

0 .4 1

3.27

99.09

67.79 5.52

3.4 1

1.18

18.01 0.61

0.69

97.2 1

il

Tl H1 42
1 #!c

Tl 1(J}54

66.4 6 3.68

T74@BH113

71

T11@}

68.12 20.57 2.68

1.64

0.01

0.37

23.97 0 .1 5

0.04

0.03

0.17

22.1 2 1.54

0.21

0.81

3 13

0.01

1. 85

0.43

3.4 5
1. 27

0.75

70.35 20.04 1.63

68.92 3.23

.25

01

820

3.32

10

52.13

5.53

1.98

0.40

11

T2@

2.09

1.1 0

3.57

0.48

2.39

0.98

23.38 0.13

0.09

2.11

0.28

9.39

21.48 0.4 7

0.16

0.04

0.57

0.4 5

748

18.94 0.72

0.11

0.05

1.10

1. 44

l 89

9.49

19.62 1

3.88

6.38

80

1.35

0.80

1 33

11.74

39.29

94

5.84

1.26

19.34 0.03

0.91

3.98

99.03

12

66.24

25.30 2.42

1. 05

1.54

0.4 4

1. 61

0.28

1.74

l 62

900

13

&3.03

29.51 1. 59

147

0.74

0.82

1. 48

0.1 8

1.45

l 30

14

49 .4 8 Z7.75 1.71

1.09

5.33

6.15

1. 79

0.4 4

5.91

49.14 4 1.21

3.34

0.82

0.74

0.17

1. 88

65

0.03

800900

15

1.72

0.03

: 1 1 2 5' {
2 3 4 '
3 6'

{}

4 7 '|{}427 '

5 8 ' 9 {}
6 11' 3 1 4 .
7 12 14 '{}
8 13

{ {

}48

37 - 1

(%) ("C) (%)

Z: <ll E LI Z I

1 :lft

g :Z lft 11

l'L ft ll;1l ~

1 : Zftl!i~

1 :@EL UI

1 : ft l!i'il!

01 l'l Zft ;@LL6 1 : 11 ft l!i .L 8 1: lft l!i.L L

E Z: 1ftl!i! Z l'Z lftl!i~ I ]!!'

I LE

4~~
E

II

01

Ol

~-"-'!'~'E' I'"<<:!'1
~!.7}':"~.:h>.&...

==~.""" _ J

0100 0

'/

LJ
5

/~\

37~2 :

1 13H2: 1

7 T9 @ :32

2 Tl Hl:2

8 19 @ :33

11

10

3 168 <5>: 93

9 T9@:31

4 16 10

10 '1 9 @ :34

5 12@:79

11 19 @ :32

6 12 @: 78

 @611'/

L 1011 8

1:@ 1 L

1: H

y:@8111?&. 11

001

1 m1 r I

6: 61 y

~ e - l

e - Le

11

~~

"

"

/I\

--

fZ

.;--

OOOC
----

m:

m
w
u

-:Hltj '

cxx

-;..~
FH

21

14

15

'

18

19

G1 J J
11

a
~S..3~~

d l.

22

13

ii37- 4

B H12:

l M I :2

19

14 16 <lJ :2 1

23

2 M7:1

9 13 @: 2

2 1 1112

12

3 - 4 M l:

10 ;111 H 12:20

15 18 <lJ : 2

20 : 52

~"

"\)

-y

16

17

~
w

\.

Fbih
?

SZ

.-

nu

5 13 @ : 1 0

11 H 8:

16 1I 0 1 @
22 T20 1

10

1 7 1I 0I: @
23 11 04

18 -

20

6 13 "' :3

1 2 16 <lJ : 1 7

7 1 3 4

1 3 11 2

19 1202:

38

( )

() m

iJ

(
(

Austronesan

Malayopolynesian

()

Island

Easter

3 (

statstic

Lexico

dati G lottoc h rono logy )

4 5

1962

1 2

wood

Peter Bell.

) ) 2

( J

Proto Au-

stronesian

IJ

1889 7

IJ J (

stronesian

((

. IJ

Proto Au

) .

I!

312

)l

()

()

IJ

( )

(); IJ J!

; 1 971

( alocasia )

2000

J 1

J 9

1 973

( ) ( )

Cytospe rma A locasia

() .

IJ

1976 ;IJ

38 -

1: 1

10

~ 13

38

218

. Seedi k

F2

'

IJ

);

2500

0 1964

11 0 JtIJ

19

)( P a iwan)

) ( Yami ) 1 2

:( Ke tagalan ( Luilang )

( Atayal

) (

(Tso u ) (

Rukai

( Puyuma) (

Kavalan

Saisiat

Ami

) (

)(

Bunun

Taokas )

(Pazeh ( Papora H.( Babuza )

( Hoanya ) (

( Sa ) 13

( 38

Siraya

1:2

3 )

22

25

26

20 IJ 5000

) .

. 24

(1)

314

1[

Ij

( 38

(2

- 1

( )

tapa beater

IJ ;

( J)

[ . . . . .

() 100

. .....

(3

..... 4 7mm

6 7mm

( ((

( )

J 28 2 9 0

NTU65

6305 378B. P.

( - 70cm )

NTU64

5799 :t 348B.P .

( 40cm)

N T U63

5458 327B. P. ( lOcm)

) ;

315

r sow

......sow

1954

.!!~J..... flJ

7 IJT 1975

30 . T 1978 10 1979 1 7

32

J34

( )

( 38

- 1:3

5l

J 32

40 - 5000 2

35

; 2000

5000

. Il P

()

. J;)

flJ 37 VJ

IJ

. r . ....

11]

......

flJ

F r. R

Maglioni ) 1936

flJ

(sow ) .l

316

()

To

1.

Dyen , Isdore The Austronesian Languages and Pr

to-Austronesian , in T. A. Sebeak ed. Linguiscs in

Ocean

3.

George W. Grace, Austronesian linguistics and culDy

Isidore A Lexcoistatistical Classification of the

Austronesian Languages. SuppJement to Internation

al JournaJ of American Linguiscs, 31 (1965), Indi

ana University

Oxford University press , 1979

ture history, American Anthropologi .63 (1 961)

4.

Lingliistics, 8 , The

8el1wood. Peter Man 's Conquest of the Paci {j c. New

Trends in

2.

York

Current

Hague: Mouton , 1971

5.

Grace , G.W. Movement of the Malayo-Polynesians

1500 B. . to A D. 50 The Linguistc Evidence ,
Current AnthropoJogy, 5 (1964)

317

() .-

6.

Swadesh. Moris Lexico.statistic dating of prehistoric

28

7.

sophicaJ Society , 96 (1 962)

Kern, Hendrik A. Taalkundige gegevens ter bepaling
van het stamland der Maleisch.Polynesische volk

29. ( 11111

ethnic contacts, Proceedings of the American PhiJo

VersJagen

en

Mededeelingen

Akademie

van

Wetenschappen , afdeeling Letter-

der

1979

30

31

Studies , 1( 1976)
Pawley , Anclrew and Green , Roger Dating the disper-

9_

inference

and

their

relations

to

the

10 . (

1955

14

Raleigh

()

1940

1983

: (
59 .

( 1975

18. Dyen , Isidore The Positon of the

r.. alayopolynesian

La nguages of Formosa , Asian Perspectivcs , 7 (1 964)

19. Chang , K. C. Prehistoric Archaeology of Taiwar

Asian

Perspectiv.

( ) .

: ( ) . ( ) .

1980

t 1

).

23

13 (1970)

( j )

( 1979

13 .

( 1962

l : ( ) 1

) , Asian Perspectives , 7 , (1 963)

24

Chang

K. C. et a 1. Fengpitou , Tapenkeng and the

Prehistory of Taiwan , Yale University Publications

in AnthropoJogy , No. 73 , (1969)

9 . I 1954 )

26

27

Stations pr historiques du Qui-chau et

) 35/36 .

Congress of Prehistorians of the Far East. Singapore,

40 ( 1975 )

) . ( ) .

22

38. Saurin , E

de Thuong-xuan (Nord-Annam) ," Proceedings , Third

: (

H. et

de I'Indochine, Hanoi , 1924

( 1969)

Mansuy

Stations NeoHtheque de Hang-rao .et de

Khe-tong (Annam) , Bulletin du Serv;ce GeoJogique

(

( )

J.Fromag

Ferrell '

21

22. (1980)
37

17.

1987

( 1952 )

1975

the Southeastern Coastal China ," Asian Perspectives ,

17.

36. Chang , K. C A New Prehistoric Ceramic Style in

1966

: (l )

) ( )

I 1961

( 4th edition ) , New Haven: Yale Universsty Press ,

IJ )

5 .

11 .

35. Chang , K. C. The Archaeology of Ancient China

: (

(). 1 . I 1983 )

34. Maglioni , R. ArchaeoJogicaJ Discovery in Eastern

Association, 4 (1983)

K wangtung, Hong Kong Archaeological Society

prehistory , Bulletin of the Indopacific Prehistory

: (

archaeological reoord , World ArchaeoJogy, 8 (1976)

12

I 1984

33

10_ Bellwood , Peter New perspectives on Indo-Malaysian

11

4 .

: (

Blust, Robert Austronesian culture history: Some

Linguistic

32

sal of the Oceanic languages , Oceanic Linguistics , 12

(1973)

( ) 4 . I 1980 )

I 1969 )

1970

kunde 3e Reeks, d. IV , Amsterdam 1889. English tr

8_

. 33/34 .

KoninkJijke

by C. D. McFarland and Shigeru Tsuchida , Oceanic

I 1974 )

39

).

1 .

I 1978

 "CIA

UBH

1COO

/
F

-rJ
~ /M
/

JJIllv

38-1

1 (Peter

"

ellwood

1 83)

2 ( R .Fevell)

I .\'i 38-1 :

38- 2

2 -3 ()

At ,

59.0

At.,

60.0

82.9

5e ,

32.7

37.7

32.7

TT

7 .4

9.0

7 .8

10.9

Th

06.6

08.3

7 .4

13.5

16.3

Bu,

07.8

7.6

6.8

12.2

15.2

28.8

Bu.,

8. 3

8. 3

0 0

1 !.7

16.7

29.2

pz

10.3

08.9

0 6

14.6

14 .3

23.0

20.0

16.1

Am ,

9 .7

08.9

8 . 7

12.9

15.7

25.9

25.4

27.0

19.9

Am~

08.7

08.9

08 .4

13.2

14 .6

25.5

24.0

20.7

75.1

Kv

6.2

6.9

06 .1

10.0

13.9

19.0

8.

23.5

1 9

19.0

18.5

24.7

Pu ~

08.7

7.5

7.8

12.9

14.7

22.5

2 1. 2

2 1. 2

22.0

29.8

24. 1

19.9

7.9

06.8

06.0

09.9

13. 1

16.7

17 .4

15 .4

14.8

20.0

20. 1

15.4

25 .6

Pa ,

9.3

08.0

15.8

16.7

24 .4

23.7

24.5

23.5

27.3

27 .4

20.3

2 7

23.8

Se:!

At ,

At~

Se ,

TT

Th

Bu ,

Bu :,!

pz

Am ,

Am :,!

Kv

Pu :.!

8.
8.

( I. Dy en)

Pa

PU

Am

( At: ;

: K

65.7

Se : Seed i k

: P

';

Th

Bu

8.

39

( )

I:~ 4828

483

6000

I 11;

Jl~

1 933

r()

7 (

:
4570

Tl0 1 @

:t 130B.P

5600 2ooB .P

IJ

594 0-5505)

Mai P h a

J .

IJ

. 1 99 1 )

6100 2ooB .P

5 1 30 1 B.P

14C

J r

lllt

322

IJ 1

1991 11 7

J 2 IJ

6000 - 4500

21

()

50

6000

5 00

60-50

J.

j 5000

00

4000 :tB . P

41

:t

205B.P

3955

:t

380B.P

380B.P. ' 3860 :t 80B. P

8O B.P

3190

1140 B.C
4000

:t

8OB.P

1055

3840

3540

( 39

- 30

:t 90B.C

- 1

()

( )

MI2

323

s ()

JtIJ

7!

) 9 ( 1 }

~J(

1977 3 ) 6

) ( ) 1982 4 ) 8 4

7 9 0

IJ

4 )

11

( 39 1 2 )

X l {

4.

)( } 1984

8 ( ) 10 (
16 (

, (

) ( ) 1990 11 )

7 6500 7)()

)( } 1990 11 )

5 (

) ( } 1982 4 ) 6

2 ) 3

T )(

Ij } 1 ) 7

00

( )

IJ

770

( 6 70 )

1];

6-

5600

:1 24

7 0 - 5000

'3

} 1983 4 P432

3 135 12

IJ

( )

3 )

{~} 13 IJ

1 7

() .

( 39

( )

(1965

1991 ) 14

3790

- 3545B. C

5500 -

6700

- 1991

4334

))(

- 4000B.C

10 45005500 (

325

1.

) .

1973

XV - XVII
L

J .

IJ

o
!

(
55

'

( 4

( 1984

: (

11 .

( 1990

>

>

'

( 1982

( 1990

'

: (}
1

11

>

( 1982

1991

7 '

10

: (

>

11

'

>

12

13

( 1977

3 -

( 1986

'

133

14

1 ' 8

>

( 1991 )

'

135

>
1978

1965 ~

. 42

: (

( 1991 )

>

>

1991

: (

>

>

14C

1991

>'.

1991

n:g

HS

~<J

~'1J

~!

IT

W
)
~

a-eez

gp u gg

: Z- 6

}~~i11i:&~E'~

f)$:liIWIIV. EG GG 11'9'S'E 1IOOl!::E 1. 0. H 1 O l-L ~ , . 1

.\)$:lt!~ : E

zl

(1

P1

91

L1

81

61

1Z

ZZ

(Z

OZ

--'

11

iSEW

1\\\II\\I~

39 - 1

3
>>8:

T M 1 2:

l >>15

4 K5:

3 5
M 3 : 2

:1

T 3

2 1

:1

:8

;g

1:

1 : 9ft ;g
6ft ;g~ I

w I E

l!t ~r);\:!~:m

40

()

()

.ili

'

6000

- 6900

; IIE

? )( ?

);

L ;

332

()

!f1J 423

IJ T ' 4

( 1254 )

527 42%

727 { 58%

368

55%

( H71

. 168 18%

20 2.3%

2%

25

37 f 3%

.5%

95 17.8

4%

14 1.1 %0

74 17.8%
8%

14

RI.IJ

()

1 0.6%

1 6%

4 0.24%

672 f 80% 2

( ) ;

. Jl~

333

( ~ )

; )

()

I!II

I 11

IIJJ

( ) IJ

( )

( )

( 4 1 2 )

(J!)

: Q)

;@

; @

;@;@

:4

F6 ; P4421

Fl

T59F17

T59F17

F17 3

1 2 1

1 1 l 1

T143F42

1 7 1

()(

2 l' 1 1 l

F38

F40

10

4 F42

9 F38

()

: P1160

H8 P4665

; P4740

P4809 P4467

P4380 (

T32

) ZHT14H467

ZHT37H493

H467

32 H493

1 4

9 77H3
1

( )

7824 78Hl

()

: P1157

3:J5

P4741

P 1l60 P 1l 55 P 1l 59

P1002

P1142 P4666

P4692

()

ZHT8@: 2 ZHT42 @ : 7

ZHTll@ : 60 ZHT14 @

1 5 Z HT25@:

4
2

: Q)

T 1l 3

Tl 06

. IIIJ

o E

M129

( P105 5) .

P1158

M45

) (

P 1l 59

W2

) Ij

W18

) ( P4666 ) IJ

ZHT8M168

ZHTll

P4696

( P4691

) (

P 1l42

(
@ :

ZHT25

@ :

4 ) l ;

10

ZHT5M76

) IJ

ili

' )

M169

T55

7)

ZH Tl 4H467

77M3

78H24

a:l6

E:

1) r .~ J r J +
{ }
}

[ : (

1990

13

: (

19 )

1 989

) :

1983

: (

(1 \

l-O III

01

/(\

~ ~

* :

Z- O IlII

41

( )

:t

14 3090

5 0 IJ

3600 70 3495 70

90 3005 90

~l 1

1980 13

( 4 1 1 )

I (

) (

41 -

6 ) ,

II (

) ( 41

1 :

2)

IJ

4240 190bp 4310 190 b p 6

1954 1974

( 5 13 )

1982 -

1960

1984

1 ( 4 1

- 1

4 - 5 )

2 ( 41

7 ( 4 1

1 9)

- 1

12

22

8 , 10

' 4 1

1958

1500

3 ( 41

41

- 2

20

11 - 12 '

340

()

15

8 ( 41 -

18

23 25 )

1 987

1989 1000

4500

Ij

( (7<

Ep

IJ

( 41

- 2

1 - 11 , 15 , 16

3470 220 () IJ

4000

( 41

4000

1-

13 , 15 - 17

10

3500

(:

( ) r

J ll

( 41

( )

- 2 : 14, 24 )

1 958

4000

14 2450 2635

1 2

75

1985

( HTY

' o

8) r

13

( 41

- 1 : 3, 7

1986

J ' r

1988 155

14 ( 4 1

- 2

12

- 13 , 17 )

21

341

J .

( )

( IIIJ

1993 6

IJ

22

1 - 4.

..

5.
6.

7.

( 1984

).

8.

1984

( 1965 ) ;

. 2

).

1 9 )

12

()

1 11959 )

10

( 11

11

19

24 J

39 (

))

2 (

( )

23

( 1 82 )
)

(
.

( ( 0 )) (

( 1983

( 1971

( f..

( 1990

( )

) 12 .

( 1958

342

13 16

: (l!l

14

2 .

19 )

).

19)

15

17

: (

) .

.
18

( 1993

1 )

. (

1991

4 .
( 16 )(

1990 )

20

17

21

2 (
V

1990

)(

23

: ( {)

( 1 9)

24

( !;t ).

IJ

25

( 1985

. 1 991

'

1) I~f
7

yw F
J
/

10

41 - 1

: 19

2.

12

11

3 7

4.

8 10

11 1 2

12

13

14

l nu

11

15

16

smllUTh
17

18

19

Nb
21

,/
23

41-2: 1-11 15

'

1 6 21

20

22

12 13 17

24

18 19 25

20

25

14 24

JO

II

15

14

12

16

20

19

24

J3

18

17

22

21

25

23

26
27

28

29
30

'4 ]-]

18 '

l 13 20

22 24

9'

2' 3'

26

10 11 12 19 21

4 30

'

25

5,

1 7

31

6'

7 14 15 28

2 7 29 i

'

31

!: z - m

il!ilrn l

~ Z

~il! wrnm E

42

()

j 1'[

7 1

( 42

1:2, 4 , 6 -

18

22 )

J'! n 4

C o

z y 4 H

( 42 -

1:1, 3 , 5 21 )

:148

( 42 ~

( )

. f~

?
?

( )

ff

. i\

( )

i1;:

349

()

1I 1J/'

( t~

()

J 7

350

IJ ~

( 4 2

5 )

( 42

3 4)

tx.

4 ;

IJ

351

(1967) (

Te-Kun.ArchaeoJogical studies in Szechwan ,

Cambridge University Press , London

Cheng

( )

, 6

{ )

( )

( 1992

( 1962

( 1981

~J

( 1983

zz

ZZ'

IZ

J~
OZ ' 81-9 z -jji lZ 61 . S B 1 :l;\:~"'f. : l -Z~

61

OZ

,' '

''

',
',

El

vI

LI

81

91

11

ZI

-f O

O~

 91

8]-]1-6

]::;:8

jj<

SI - vl - L- S 01 -

E I

vz-oz

SZ - 81 61 Ll
=-I!);(

81

61

91

- v

ZZ

~Z

1>Z

oz

11

ZI

Ll

1> 1

4 I=!

'

I
s

1>

\v
E

rr\

01

9 g \ -8 E L . l I $';\) E-l~

E~
d~////J

..

A~" "-,
mk')(){XXXX~

\----r--/.7

::> 0'9

:/1.'1>-)(.

S - 6Y

-N

1BI 2)(. : V 6vlll

43

( )

:
~

l&

J 1

'

'

'

J 2

i E

. .

();

358

6 .

5720

rJi

I!i

"*

I!i 1)

F>

);

rJi

I!i

rJi j .

I!i

rJi

()

I!i

359

J 8 .

..

13 {

13 207 103

2 70

j J

36

..

lJ lJ

11. 11& :

i&

J .

J . I

l -

J . N V

. (

. r ..

3550 19 30

17

858

61

... ......

87.5

1000

10 0

rE 1&J

1&

360

. (

m&

24 J;)(

m&J .

) T95

15 .t
j

J 16

. (

. Jl n

50% .

50%

5580

:t

1 60

1 7

( t'I!)

361

I/l J

I!i

IJ

( )

.... .. .

1987

tt

IJ

1 2 ( M1 2

37 )

I/l

I/l

1&

1&

13 3

1&

19 61

I/l o

14

flJ

362

( )

IJ ...

II/i J

5580

11

II/iJ

1992 l

ft

363

1987

24
25

JII {

T'

;
27

29 '
......

()

J '
C{J

1986

:-J:-J

364

. (

J11

ft

J .

"6

"7

1988

"8

365

J . r

7 i

......

...... . o

. I! IJ

1990

() .1&

39

) 0

()

366

....

- 1Jt

41

. (

1Iii1

7 ?

- 1Jt

J 0

11

367

"
2

58
9

16

: ( 1

26

18. A

. 131

1986 )

- 152

) ( )

( ) .

2 .

. 189

( 1987)

. 37

( 1986)

A
)

: <

:l

( 1958 1961

( ) .

( 1991 )

- 211

10 . (

1961

. 3

159

27.

: (

26

. 7

( ) .

: (

161

25

( 1980)

2 .

1 .

195

( 1992) . 301 - 328

23.

24

) .

( 1991 )

jJ : ( t )

7 .

4 . ( 1981 ) . 461 - 4

22

) .

2 1.

660

20

1987 7

34

) .
. (

19

( 3

. : .

(-)
17

) .

164

15

1979 ) . 161 -

107

) 2 . (

E 18:-J

( 1965

J .

>>

14

13

......

( ) .

. 107

93

12

nu1A

1992 )

1992) . 63 - 96

:
j

123

40

66

. 34

( 1985 )

1 . (

. 55

( 1987)

: (

4 .

3 .

) .

206

. 194

: (

( 1983)

( 1989)

. 201 -

215

<i. 3

( 1984 )

. 14

18

) . ( 7 (

1962

368

3 (

).(

. 339 8

1987)

28

t : (

29

30

3 .

( 1982 )

) .

31

. 3

. 17

( 1983 )

)C{)

*'")

i .

32

324

1 .

167

( 1990) .

"

()

( 1989 ) .

47

33

A
: ( (

( 1 982 4 7 - 67
S

""

34

35

2 .

( 1987

) 78

4 (

1979

) 3-

307

70

36

)( ) . : )C

( 1985 ) . 54 1

37. A. lIl<
).

10 . ( 19 )

S~ :(

: .

228 38

1987 )

. 176

101 -

185

40

)() .

39

( 1985 )

242

2 .

( 199 1 )

102

72

) .
.

( 1976)

4 1.: (
102

42

: ( ) . 2 1 5

43

( 1979

( R

44

( )

IIJ

4 5

()

F T

( )

3 1 - 34

2 ( 44

- 1:4 )

JlJ ( 44 - 1

6, 10 )

'1]
1

IJIJ

IIJ

370

4 - 8 10 8

20 9

3 ( 44

1:3 )

):)

2-- 3

()

4 ( 44

1:5

( )

60

10

fiJ

- j

( )

;J 11

( )

(
)( 44 1:1

0.2

371

k H

11 ( 19 )

( .

4.

(1 983

) (

3)().

11 ltII. ( 1990 )

E ( 1
. ( ( ' ( 1983)

. (199 1)

9.

()
10

11

5 .

(1 959

: ()
. ( 1982 )

11

2
2
1

1
4

az-- nu

tEE--s

.E-2

mea-
-

J1
U E

d
EaE

il

aJ

1I-zufa
EtT

aa
-2Ez
--a
''

in

'B
aa-a
a

YEE

.3

aLa

aA '

k --

-1

10

44 - 1 |J l 2
3 4 5 E B 10
7 9 11

11

45

()

2 48 . 3

Tll @

6250 240 ()

31

12

96.25%

1. 33% 2.4%

VJ

. ( )

(T104@:26 )(Tl 14 @:2 )

I ( Tl 01

@ :14

) E ( Tl 09

) ( Tl 04

@ :6

( T105 @ :25

:26

J . J

4 ;

rVJ

( 1 ) 3

M4

6 :

5 1. 6%

2 1. 6

34 .4 1% .

99.7%

. 2

64 . 77%

82.6%

13.98%

.( ) 1 6. 71%

{1. 23%

17% l 1 4 .2%

( ) ( T2 02 @B:5 )

(Tl 09@:1 ) 1 982 1

( Tl 0 1 @ : 7 )

(Tl 0 1 @:9 )

:174

T101@

14c 6255 :I: 260 (

M4

2 :

88 .4%

.f 1 1. 6%

IJ

~ " J

1000 "c

) .

8 1%

19% {

50

~J

r ......

12

{ l
: ( 1

j lO

1ft 11 I

EJ
11> E

j 0

( T2@:5 ) '

y ~J

J .

14c

() . 6m

14c IJ

6500 -

5500

375

~J

IJ 2 1 5

IJ

Jl P

IJ

Cb

D E

@IJ

~J

4828 :t 483

60-5000

f E

90 100 (

) . r VJ

3898 :t

16

390 IJ

;@@@

91%

L@@ @

;{ 9%

4 0

36% .!JIJ

. 62%

13

()!JIJ

IJ

Ij

2 {

37%

.{ 32%

27%

. 4%

Tl ll @ :18

14C IJ

4 6100 2

~J

14C
I

3 -

14 (

1.

(l

10 () ;
2

376

;
4

~
7

24
5

" .

;. ru"]

60 ( ) ;
3

( )

JIJ

:
1.

11 2 3
17 18

13

1 99 1

} 23

J 24

77 20

21

"

] E

C F

. r
.... ..

" 22

;

;

J . J 25

112

377

;
:

:
1 7 8.
.

: ( ).

( 1982

().

( 1985

: (). (

).
4 6

11 ( 13 )

: (

E
<"lt) .
5 9

11 12

<

1- 2 .

( 1986 )

).

1991

1990 9 3

1 4 22

1 991

15

"lt { )

).

1 )

10

11 .

1 978

: (

2.

16

1 978

. ( 1 979 )

17

1 . (

1985

).

19

( 1985

).

18

11 .

2 .

( 1991 )

) 3 ( 1981 )

20

>. <
)

21

3 .

( 1984

23

6 .

19)

) . ( )

24.

< )r.

1986 .

253
: < ) <
)

3 .

( 1992

46

( )

130 ( 46 - 1:

65 - 86

; 90 - 1 30

100 - 11 0

l 1

1 2 2

. r J .

( 46 - 2)

JJ

1 - 110 T"

( 46

T3 (

( )

- 1

) 147

3.8

6 l 1 40

)

22 : 26 1

(1

90T3@:

( 46 - 1 :2 )

' 7.8

3 1 2 .4 10

1 986

()

7 10

1 988 6

3-4

( (

1988 6 13 )

( 46

7 .

1 990 7 19

T T 2

46 - 1

- 3:

90T3@:2' 11

T3

rJ 4.4 1 4.7 11 .3

2X2 :

3)

fl) t ( )

14.6 flJ

T3

'1)

( 46- 3 : 8 ; 1 3 )

(2

CD :

6 ( )

T3CD

800

1.1 Ifl'

* 1 2 - 23

rT J 1

7 - 10 10 19 4 - 0.8

lf!i

( 46

T3 147 T 1

- 3

7 )

T3 140

()

(3

T 1

rS

rS

T 490

2 4

1I IJ r V J

() ( '1

900 "c

14.7

9.5

2 -3

( ( ))

( ) flJ

( 4 )

1990 12

T 1 T 2 T:~

1 5

T 1 T 2 T:l

7 3.2

6 2.5

; t<

5/'

( 5 : 1

1990

46

- 1

1990 1 2

12 - 15 6.5 5

: 8 .4

2.2 6 6.5 1. 3cm

25 7

6 6.8 2cm ( 46

rS

J ;

- 5: 6 -8

1990

12.2

38 1

: tP()

()

'1)

rt 1

) .

~ 3 ()

rS

()

2 (

1 ( 1 ) j

( 3

E ( )

T T" 20

800 ( 2 i') . 6

490 ()f

6 1. 72% 5%

J!I)

. 37.80%

3.9%

13.6%

. 82.5%

J ( ) M

4% 27%

1)

C ( T2 @:5)

{ 96.25% (

) . f1. 33%

j(

1) 37%

32%

2.4 2% f 82.06%

16.71% 1. 23% .

()

BJi() .

1990 360

1991

382

17 14 5.7

0.9 (

l 3 1

6 4

;()

()

6 .4

53 50

10-5.5 1

1008

I'l't

( 1

392

38.9%

5500 IJ

( 1950 ) 5600

()

:t

iiE

6255 260 l1.d

() 4 3

6100 :t 200

. 4570

:t

130

F 4850 -4600

4828

() 900

:t

483

4820

:t

1000"C

120 () .

600 - 5000 C

14

: 5500 550 5340

:t

550

305

; f 87

jPJJ

14

()

1992 8

(2

616

11

6 1. 6%

9 25 - 29

T1 53

T1

53.6%

540 {

11

J( 1990

) . 100 130

46-52

(- 4)

()

l (

92T1

@: 1)' 7 .4 3.7
() (

92T1

@:

2) 1

6.6 6 1.7
(

92T1

@:

3)

30%

302

()
b)

23.61%

238

383

IJ

14

()

14c

IJ() 4820 130 (

KWG 1228 1992

11 17 ) ;

72

5500 550 . 5340 550

7.1% 64

4 .

13 16

9 4 1 8 0.3

0.4

~J 5

IJ :

()

10

20

() 17

53

( 3 )@ i

( 2 )@{1>( 2 )@

f 7

2 )@( 1 )@

2 )@( 1 )@

( 1 )@1ft( 2 )@

() 0

( 2 )@()@

o 57.2%

( 2 )@( 2

24.3% f 11.7% 6.8%

@()()@

:;84

( 2 )@1'J; ( 2 ) @
1'91'9 ( 2 )@( 2
)@@ rN KG J

@ @ @

( M12 1

25 11 (

) 1'9 ( ) 15

10 1

( Y )

24

4 :

@@@ 18

; @@

6 @ j

; E

4300 - 3500

( )

( 60

5500 )

5 (

70 - 80% ;

11;

1)

( )

rS

'

( )

1 :

1)

( )

( )

385

) . 1 989

Mai - Ph a

)( } ) 3

. 1111

J r

J .

1I

7 . r j

J .

) 1986 1

11

J( : ) .

j . /11

J r

1 981 10

r 1IiI1

11

00 -5500

( ( ) }

1 933

1 987 ) .

( 1 936

1 96 1 9 ) .

. J ;

. r

J J .

386

IJ E 7

6200 - 5200

IUj. r J (

19 2 1

5700 - 5000

( )

1977

EZ

J ' '

( )

:&

( ) (

( j )

? J

IJ

l1Jl 1 ......

()

II~

'11

J! D

'*

)1 1

'

1933
60
!

1993.1 1.16

.
;

387

1m

~:J;~

t>

32 1

530

f /
326 4
/

- [

: [T3

5 1cm

)~

- - - - - - -- --- - - --- - ~

"e

//

_.J. ___

(2
t
12

11

10

ab

13

14

18

19

IS

17

16

20

-2

- _U

22

21

1- 3

-9

10

5 6 11 -16 20 T 3 (J) (\-3

T2 , @

2 B 17 1 9-2 1 -22 Tl

1 /4' 1 12

4 Tl

2cm

'--------'

8 T3@:2

2 5 ' 7 () 90T3@
9 9 T3@:1

1'

3, 4'

6 9 T3@

2cm

< 'ZL 11 9Z-6 1 @ '11# 1-1 , t-9t !l:

r-----,
0

oz

Ji d-iFJ

P-I 1-1 ;fi

e1-26

:' ~

E
y ~

Q -iit
~--

>
4
@a

'

[
2

.~
6

t-jcm

46 -5 : 1 ' 2 CTl T2:@) 3 4 C90T3: @)

6' 7 CT2: @) 8 C 90T3

5 C90T3: @)

10

: [-6 Tl T2

T3

C92 Tl (2)

:3 )

7 T3

9 C92 Tl (2)

: [)

47

( )

11 8000 -

5000

6000

l 7000 - 4 500

6500

J 16

11

3 60

9 8

90
6

3 ( 47

1 )

30

8 9 ~ 10

Tapa

11 12 13

14

60

6 500

:l96

1986 )

42

19 21
7

1930

H ean le y

Sc hofi e l d

Shell s h ea r

Finn

19

19 32 S h e ll s hear

1 933 34 Finn Hong Kong

Natura lis t

IIJ
2 1 ( 47

2)

1933 Finn

50

Finn Maglion i
i
Mai Pha

T
7

60

f 9 11

( 1 933

) 22

70

24

25

1979 1990

(1 977) 23 ( 1 968 1974

( 1970

1976 77

1974 7 5

1985

{ 37

28

70

26 ( 1977

( 1989 )

1984 )

29 ( 1977

1982

60 70

1981

) (

1990

( 1980 )

1934 )

1985

32

33 ( 1 985 1989 )

( 1988

1989

35 (

1989 )

36 ( 1990 ) 37 ( 1991

92

) 39

( 1993

( 1960

1987 )

4 0 (

1961 )

41

47

48

T 30
60

397

90

( Season a l ca mp

j i1-

. i ( 47 -

7% .

11>

1. 23% 96.25%

1. 33% 2.4 2%

54% 4 6%

49 ( 16

5 )

) %

l :

J .

2 . o

'

IJ

IJ 5 1

3 :

( lOcm ) ( 30c m

)J IJ

~J

l (

6-20cm ) ( 6cm )

20

A IJ 2jS

40

- 50cm

lOc m 1

- 3cm

398

4 ~

l Oc m

0 2

- 3cm '

3 .4 cm

14C

7.7 4.8 13 ~ 0.2m

1 4C 1l!1] Tl Ol @

7 1 4

5 ,600 :t 260bp 6250 :t 240

60cm

4820

1]

200bp 5 1 100bp 5 230

20

:t

loobp

5 490

1 20 6 100

5 450

220bp

1 50bp

4 880

:t

4 700 120bp

170bp

4 710

:t

1 30bp 4 220 lbp 4 570

1 30 i 4 000 300bp 5 050

1 3990

4 410 bp 4 6 10

1]

160 5 2 60bp

:t 90bp

6 4 828 483bp

:t

:t

55 500 5340

:t

550 (

1990 ) 4 5300
lObp

4 900

:t

:t

690bp

J 57 .

71 5 04 9bp'

52 J

3980 3707bc( ) J '

4 730bp 3633 ~ 3 , 374bc (

1]

399

'

1 2 4

IJ 2

1)

( 12 ( T 20 1

iIi

1. 2 ret

1 3)) 4

1985

2 2 4 2

1')' I ( )

{ 3 6% 25%

9% 30% E

1 990

2 4

:J\

'

JIJ

1991

55

F "J

11-'

2 4 :

IJ i
F

(1)

(1) 1. 3

: 1

Jt2 : 1
(2)

(3) l

(4)

(2)
(3)

(4)

2 2 3 j

4 000

40

11; i
F

l ( 47

- 4

d .

1) :

4 ( 47

- 4

4)

JiI!

a (g

2. ( 47

C E

d
e

5 ( 47

- 4

5 )

j j

- 4

2)

a 1

c
11

b 4

C I1J

d IJ

~ ( 47

- 4

3.

3)

401

. 65

3 4 5

T93

14C

6 440 190 61

5 6

60

14C
6 250

:t

240bp

IJ

'

i'J

E 8km

- 14

62

IJ

IJ 7

S.M.

1974

1974

Bard j F

75

jjJl

/1>

5 7

Ij

14

~J

/1>

63

402

1)

J '

4000

1 2 12. 6c m

3 7oobc

!IIJ

jjJi

23 5 .8c m 0

4 000

- 3 700bc E

4 o

1 7.5 5.7cm

- 37bc

'

12

1 2

14cm

( 47

10.3

5 17 )

8.4 cm

l 14.6

15

12 .2cm

tx.

111

!i\l:

: E

130

10

1 - 3 :'\

1 '

( 47

1 1. 3

- 1

( 47

35

EP ( 47

1 f

5 :

1 ) o

403

I1J

llll

T( 47 1 8 )

11 IJ

1]

IJ LIJ

[t

511

'

IJ

5 km

160km

50

11 9

8 3

1M

J 0

IJ

V j

( 47

Lj

26 7

JIJ~

. Jl P

( 47

2)

19) j

1J:iJ

IJ .

O.lcm l

IIJ

( 47 -

22

21

0.5c m

2cm

0.2cm

l .5 m

250m

Om 2

404

2670 m:

4 - 9

3.1\

70 -

80% il(

IJ

1'.11

14 1.9

75.9km"

1 6km 2

2
15km

IJH
38km

150

296 1 7

8 9

j[j:

- 200m

11-'

11-'

20 km' 1km

E N

1 2 km '

lO krr

30

10m ' 1 5m

1974

1980

- 40cm

'

3.61m ' 0.96m '

59

405

6m cm '

4 74

3 6 70

5 500 j

110 1 82

74

IJT 7 i 71

( 47

75

1992 10 24

'

52.25km

1]

3 30

- 20 ) ,

0 2

T214

72

21

iit

o | o

6 500

406

5 9- 5 200

IJ o

47

23

( 47

76 lilJ 77

j IJ ( 47

- 281 - 2)

5cm

( 47

I 78 lj?i

flJ

M1

79

- 27

1 -

3 7-9 12

- 28

13 )

7)

( )80 81

() 82

83

ffi: 7

7 000 84

M28 4A o

1. 08 0.78m

3 8

8. 8 4 .4 O.2cm 0

4 8. 5

3.8 3cm

IJ

17.8crn ( 47 -

4)

2)

24

( 47 -

24

( 16

4 7

61

1I

'1' 11-

( Corn-gloss )

Tapa beater

) 94

1. 2 3

5 ( 47

30

87

34

86

2 1. 9 6.6 1. 2cm 0 24

O.2cm

1979 -

80 ;1'

36 L

0.5cm ( 47

- 32

13 89

14C 3 200

3 000 o

17 1I

L o

( 47

5 5.5cm 14

- 34

9 2cm .

13 5 2cm

? 1979

A Barkcloth

10

91 92

4 000

( t

Beater

( 47

1 4

- 29

' 47

408

Quartz

syenite )

. (

Monzonite

Aus-

on esi a n ) Ta Tapa

Bellwood

lil

characterizati

95

5_5 2.&m'

Malayo-Polynesian

5 0

99 0 12000 -

7 2 200bp

100

98

12

101

15000

J '

1 2

'-'

Tapa

'

1992

409

000 7 000

8 000 -

7000

( W. Meacham )

Da But

o 8 000

2.

1993

23 11

1988

1988

93

( 1980)

1981

102

375

110

( 1983)

- 114

130

364

)-(1990-1-11)- 3

10

17 J

( 1981 ) -

( 1991 )

220

) .

peer-politi

0 ; ( 9

( 1961 ) 27
)

- (
- 77

. 61

; (

iphery )

( diffusion )( core )( per ,

( 1985)

) , 3 - ( 1987 ) 38

6000

85-89'55

11

I -

1 (

( 1983)

1984 ) - 86 - 87

33 34 - (

12

- 4 - 9

(1JI

1969 )

(l

13. Tsang ,

C. H.. ArchaeoJogy of the P'eng-hu Is1ands ,

the Insttute of Hstory and Philology , Academia

T

Sinica , 1992

410

e
14.

1992

Bard , S .M . , Chung Hom Wan , JHKAS , vo l. \'1

15

(19))

26. W iIl iam , 8., Hai Dei Wan, JHKA S , vo l (1980) ,

~)

()

( 1990 ) 96 - 107

- 49

, (

16

1991 )

28

276

- 288

29

1991 ) ,

18

22

( 1991 ) ,

- 33

cavation at Sai Wan, Cheu ng Chau , JHKAS , vo l. X

, 1 ( 1987 ) 1 -

14

1989

1 , (1 986), pp.116 3 l.

' 328

125

1 9

32. Maglioni , R., Archaeological find s in H oifung , Part

1 , HKN, vo l. 8 , (1 938)

350

Maglon , R., Archaeological Discovery in Eastern

Kwang.tung , HKAS , 1975

19. Anderson , J .G.. Topography of the Hongkong Sit

An Arcl18 e oJogical Site at Shek Hk , Hong Kong

20. Heanley , C. M. and Shellshear,

( 1982) 17 - 23 "

Archaeological Society (HKAS) , 1975

J .L., A Conrribution

34

to the Prehistory of Hongkong and the New Terr;.

tories , Imprimerie D'Extreme-Orient, 1932, Plate 12

35

S hell s hear I 12 .4

11

( 19) 1 -

11

: (

(3/:)

11

( 1990 ) 1 2 -

36. 1989

37

12 tl

Sh e ll s hear1932

2 1. Finn , D .J. Archaeologcal finds

00

38.

near Hong Kong , Part

II

00

Na ralist

Lamma Island

41

42

Ba l'"Teu , C. j., Tai Wan Reconsidered , Journal o( rhe

Hong Kong Archa eoJogica J Socety

(]HKA

W. ,

S ham

45

Wan.

La mma

Is /and.

46

che Prehiscory of Hongkong and the New Terri .

( 1990) 565

)
9

11

32

: ( )

1993 '

( )

( 1972 ) ,

"'a . J.c.Y.,

Archaeological finds in Hong Kong and

their Cultural Connections , JHKAS , vo l. 1 , ( 1969) ,

tories , Imprimerie D'Extreme.Orient, 1932

pp. lO -

Meacham , W. , Tung Kwu , Phase 4 , JHKAS. vol

47.

18

.: (

(1 976) , pp.55 - 66
(1 972) , pp.29 - 33

442

ArchaeoJogical Site Study , HKAS , 1978

25. Toml 5 . , C hung Hom Kok , ]HKAS , vol

12

) :

An

24 . Heanley , C. M . and Shellshear. J.L., A Contribu t on

[0

(>

voJ

N , (1973) , pp.53 - 59
23. M each am ,

4.

( 1961 ) 666 - 668

( 1991 )

197

568
43.

- 53

1991 ) 193 -

})

Lamma Island

n ear Hong Kong , Part IV , HKN , vo 1. 5 , (1 934) , pp .4 6

, HKN , vo 1. 4 , (1933) , pp.66

00

) , 3 (

- 71
Finn , D. J" Archaeological finds

1991 92

39. 1993
40

(HKNJ , vo l. 3 , (1932) , pp.226 - 229

Finn. D .J., Archaeologcal finds

1991

Lamma Island

near H ong Kong , Part 1, H ong Kong

22

30. Rodwell , S. and Wellings. P. , A R eport o f the Ex

, (
( 1991 ) ,

X I - XV
17

1 j )

{}{

105

) , (

m,

M eacham , W . , Hac 5a Wan , Macau , Phase

JHKAS , vo l. X 1 , (1986) , pp. 97 -

( 1979) ,pp.27 - 33

2 ( 1993 43

pp.27

27. Meacham, W.. Hac 5a Wan , Mac JHKAS , vo l. \1 ,

iI<

pp.9 - 25

48

( 1989 24

: ( )

411

( 1981 )

74

: {

{} 4

: .

1 99 1

1993)

78

: {

79

1988

} ..

1991

. 223

82

Hong Kong"
M eac han.

1 990 ' 9

. 227

1991

} .

199 1

1986 )

7 }.

. 40

1991

. 5

65

} .:.

67

1990

. 59

1986

' 237

238

68

: {} . : .

69

70

72.

fl;
.

73

: (

C h .

1 ( 1 9 ) . 7

1987

( 1979). pp. 98

: (

94

1963

1 989

. 229

( )

245

1955

. 37

38

95. Bell wood. P ., M an 's Conquest of rhe Pacific. New

York : Ox{ord. 1979. pp.173 t ve.

K.c.. Taiwa n

175

A rch aeology in Pacific Pers pec

A nthropoJogicaJ Studies o( lhe Ta;w8 n A rea

AccompJishmen ts and Prospects , Taiwan: Nationa l

T ai w a n
97

1 99 2

98

U ni ve rs i.

1989. pp. 87 - 97

li

1992 . 4 6 - 47 "

) .

24 7

1 99 1

324

93

1989 . 24 6 - 257 "

- 23 ..

T.N. a n d W ard , V. , A Barkcloth Beater

96. C h a n g
: .

( 1981 ) l

92

1 43

142 71

- 464 ..

: {

: (

1989

. 46 2

91

1987

1 ! 236

JHKA S , vol

{|

14 )

{} 3 ( 1982 ) . 283 -

( 1992) . 402

1992 6

).

} .

} .

18

: {

90.

: {

89

64

} { 'I} '

. 1

: {

470

: {

( 7:)

87

88

10 (1 990 ) . 88

2 . ( 1984 ) . 193 -

111

. 243

489

86

: {3 }

. 46 1

1979 )

232

253 ..
}

85

18 ..

{
(

( )

84

' ( )

( 1987 )

4 . ( 1983 ) . 427 -

( 1986 )

l .

. 2

X 1 (1 986). pp. 106 - 108

62

4 (

Sequen ce , in the Lig ht o f H ac 5a W a n , ]HKAS , vol

83

( 1982)

jill : {

W _, Note On th e Middle N eolith ic Cultural

1 .

h. {}

57. Meach am , W " )n th e D ating o f P ainted Pottery in

: {

81

24 2

( 1983)

: ( T

}
80

1 .

29

;j).

1 39

55

60

: (

17 -

152

).

59

77

1J

54

58

. 1 3 1

1986)

l 32 -

31

: ( ).

Hudson , 1983

56

76

52 . B inford , L. R., l n P urs uit o f the P ast , Tham es a nd

53

283

gy o f the H ong Kon g T erritorial W ater s. H ong Kong

(1 986) . 385 - 4 08

F ish eries BuJJe tin , n o.3, ( 1973), pp. 9 -

}
.

51

. 263

1983

75. W a tts, J .C.D. , Further O bservations on t h e Hydmlo

( 1984 ) 4
50

: {
.

84

61 .

1 9) .

412

: ( ( - )

) - 4 - ( 1 2) - 86 - 90-
1 00 : ( 7 7 ) - (
- 29 -( 1 989 ) - 14
101

16

1988 -

3 - 7

102. Renfrew, Colin , What Con ct Did The y Have?

Trade and E xchange , Archaeology - - Theories ,
Methods, and Pract USA: Thames and Hudson.
1991
Ericson, J .E. and Earle. T.K., Co ntexts for Prehislor
ic Exchange , Ne w York: Academic Press , 1982
Earle. T .K . and Ercson , J.E., Exchange Systems in
Prehistory, New York: Academic Press , 1977

cm

O/OAU

nu

ooo
o

20
/

O/0.

of

//

10

cm

:
2

"",

_.
-_.
--

--

-~-

..

..

Arcnae: 38

..

1'.

..

--

--

.
.

91

91

10

11

12

-f

13

14

->>

15

--

16

\\\\~

17

18

I~

19

-&-
h

20
21

o
O
O

23 1~I O

-"..

_..0. .

'
- =

91

-- I "")

...._.-."

FR. I

FR

FR.O
FR.]

FR. I

FR

FR.]

FR.]

Archae: 38

FR

FR.I

01<1

FR. I

.(-

B( )

C (

..

91

"
4

F R. ]

FR

W ( )

47 - 2 :

FR

24

O~

l L

FR-O

FR-O

25

0-

26

I~

./

! O ./~

27

29

31
32
33

I
O

..J 1 O
O

., -"......

--

./...-

'"

Q~

.-_....=

.--0"'"---

"" 7

...

FR-O

D.

5 il!

FR-O

lL

FR-O

FR-O

D.

FB

FR-O

FR-O

FR

FR-O

FR-O

FR

FR-O

FR

FR-O

FR

FR-O

FR

FR-O

FR-O

FR

FR-O

FR

FR-O

D.

FR-O

FR-O

FR-O

44

.-"

0/

FR

FR-O

0-

47-2

FR

|
45

ff|

-~.

36

34 93

t.1....

FR-O

35 1 _ 1

38

..

91

FR

-0'"

37

,dV

91

| O

91

91

91

91

91

Ilt

46 G
47

.o-WJ

II '1 L 8

..0 ~x-

: -

FR.O

FR

FR.O

FR

FR.O

FR

FR.O

L>.

FR.O

FR

FR.O

FR

FR.O

FR

FR.O

FR

FR.O

FR

FR.O

FR

FR.O

FR

FR.O

L>.

FR

FR.O

L>.

FR

FR.O

FR-O

HKN, V5

"""'"d

""""" ..

"""'"

--.

.tr~ -Q-

'Xlr

65

66

67

-td

:
I

.~=

:~:

91

91

.::t l~

FR

FR.O

'"

FR

FR.O

FR

FR.O

L>.

-.0

._-0/1

91 = :

1991
1991
: 91= : 1991
HKN : V5 = H ong Kong Naturalist vol5 , 1934
Archae : 38 = Some aspects of South China archaeologica l fnds , 1938
: 91= :

47 -2

L>.

L>.

| _ _c:J<)

64

jJ(

63 |1 _.

FR.O

FR.O

.- X

1"""

FR

62

gB

.-4. ~ *

|!

FR.O

Archae:

57 x

61

FR

dHQJ~

FR.O

--.

59

8_-A

lN

-. --

55

-0-..

19

10

11

17 'J

1 8

o.:;:::::t'

114' E

1 6

15

1 4

1 3

12

.-'1

D e>

11

505

12km
~

47-2: 1933 Hong Xong Naturalist

5 j

68

1 . 2 3 4

ll

i
lt-

H
Hi

47-3

43

tl

6'

2'

4'

22 26 27 30 40

42

33 - 36 3

il!

i!

7 8 10

'

'

'

37 41

'

42

20 21 28 38 43

29 31 32

11 14 15

9 12 13 16 - 19 24

3'

Jim

24

31
-

26

f'""",ij;
c. :j
tr l1 2
-

UH
35

37

j ~ ~-
l~ )-~ '-i~

l~

--

2cm

LJ

(f%f

47 - 5

2 cm

L-....l........J

2cm

47 - 6

ad

dedp

..

iP'

2cm

4
Y

---

2cm

47-7:1'2

2cm

'Q
UUNV
3

2cm

4 7 -8

2 - 6

47 - 9 :

2c m

FU1

3
C

"

U
6

2cm

L~~

47 - 10

-uunut
2

huN
N
U

U
3

- 11

....2cm

L----


U
ft

'-

2cm

'-----'-'

12:) -3-6

"

',
hHU

U
3

: 1 .2.6.7

JZI
L
47-13

'l>=

11

10

12

12 13

3 . 4 . 8 . 10 .

11

2cm

I 3

10

1\

47 - 14:

1- 8

1 11

12

2cm

' '

URHUU

10

12

- 15

1 B 11 - 14

3 4 7 9 10

2 6

14

15

2cm

----'

15

'3

6 I

---q\\\

db

61t:J
9

Jd < j d j

O
10

11

12

o
2cm

- 1 6

\\

IYJi
J

lMU

?ci
U'

-
UU3

\UUJG
\

\s?

HU
I

nu

11

14

13
47- 1 7: 1

2-5-7 -10 1 2 -14

12

3-6

11

2cm

-?"

1
m
m
o

hd

v f~

-~-

."-

IIfII

47-18

14km

'---'

-19

10

"

47-2 (Watts

"

11410E

"

J. C.D.

' 1973)

7.

47 -21

100m

1 0

1 3

1 6 .

1 1.

12

1 4

15

1 7

18

"/

M
M

WH U
W

47- 22

750m

L-

23

~
a

'"i

01 Q'

OG

C)

---..::-

----

ET

m
7

\?JJLF

2cm

2cm

47-2 4

q
1

, '

D:

4 7-25

2cm

f...a..

wt\

(t\'\\\\.\~"
2

Fe

SYEzl

11

12

F
10

2cm

26

1-3

4 12

fd

V
6

rt

/!

1:Ri:jj

;J

F 7Er:srrtr r TY??

12

2cm

~~~

4 7 -27

;:JKJ

r.:::~

"''''v:!

:...;".......;.

2: tftLLVJ F

If

47-28

2cm

 47 - 29

16 km

10

12

11

L---'

\J

PJ

</

:
E

'

10

2 cm

-~-~

-30

1 . 3 2 5 ' 6 4

l.a 1n! 1':

i\ 1nUi I1 IJ
i!!!
2

47 -31

..

2cm

(;:>

',!
itili

s
v

2c m

L~~

4 7-3 2

Tf

4 rsa

se
-

tJV
EJ2

ff-zr

-:

SReFaw5

NdzaZFF/
Ee2tZE

/
e

2cm

~-~---'

raz4e'

tt'

a:
6

v
-

hj
r spas----BR-4r

J
i
e
--

Jaa&Pa

r;

k
steppk

33 l 2 () 3

ztea ZJFISH

BT

J rR' apt

iEF
i#t?!
~R
ZEbl-hB
's-

''
res-ZA

..
~
o
2cm

3 4

5cm

~7 - 35

fijf;11:JLJj
E; ; .

1 2 ()

48 Yazhang in Viet Nam

Ha Vao Tao
(The Vietnam Institute of Archaeology)

1.

Finds in Vietnam

In 1981 , Han Van Kh an and myse Jf made public

IwO stone objecls unexpectedly found at Xom Ren
archaeological sile in Gia Thanh village , Phong Chau
district , Vinh Phu province (Ha Van Tan and Han Van
Kh an 1981:62-65). This kind of artefacts is rather
commonplace in China , called by different names but
of late have been commonly referred a s yazhang
. AboUI the name 1 shall deal with later in i s
article and in the first pl ac a detailed description
of these objects is indispensable to any studies and
compansons
Both were made of the same kind of stone , similar to
the one used in making axes or adzes by the Phung
Nguyen culture inhabitants. They were polished finely ,
having a long body and a hole next to the handle which
is marked by crenellations on both sides. At the other
end is the blade which is beveJl ed on one face to forrn a
concavely curved edge.
The first plaque is 32 cm long. The distance from the
end of the handle to the centre of the hole is 6.5 cm. The
handle is 4 .5 cm wide and on both sid at the level of
the hole , lwo protruding nodes are found , measured 0.5
cm. The nodes are in the V shape and the hole was drilled
from one face to the other, having 1 cm and 0.3 cm
rpectively in diameters. 00 one face there are six
pa1 lel sha Jlow incised lin th e above and three
under the nodes. The thickness of the plaque is uneven ,
0.6 cm at the handle , 1 cm at the body and 0.8 cm at the
blade. The blade is about5.8 cm widehaving some chips
at the end of its edge (Colour Plate 5:3)
Th e second plaque is broken into five pts. lts
length is 43.2 cm from the end of the handle to the
middle point of the blade and 46 cm from this to the
longest point of the blade. In an overaJl view it is more
sopmsticated th the first plaque. The handle is 8 cm
long and 4 cm wide. The portion of crene Jl ations is
approximately 6 cm 10ng and 4 cm wide , having 4
m or (one broken) and several minor nodes. The
delicate zig- g line of the edge of the bigger nodes is
resulted from minute sawing and filing. On both faces
of tms portion there are several pa1lel incised lines

The hole , 0.7 cm in diameter, is 7. 1 cm away from the

end of the handle. The shortest width of the body is 4.5
cm. At its end the blade flares up to nearly 7 cm. The
thickness of plaque is uneven , 0.7 cm at the handle and
0.3 cm at the blade (Colour Plate 5:4)
The two plaques were found in the cultural layer
of Xom Ren site besides other artefacts including
T -section stone rings, ear rings, beads , stone adzes and
potsherds which are characteristics of the Phung
Nguyen culture
In 1985 , Nguyen Loc announced the finding of two
similar objects at Phung Nguyen , the eponymous site of
the Phung Nguyen culture , in Phong Chau dislrict ,
Vinh Phu province (Nguyen Loc 1985:737 4). The
st objt is made of fme-grained stone of yellow
colour , may be nepite . Unfortunately it is broken and
the remaining part is a fragment of the body with
crenellations on both sides and parallel incised lines on
both faces. Obviously it is a fragment of a yazh'g
plaque (Colour Plate 5: 1)
The second object from Phung Nguyen site is 24 cm
long , made of white stone , may also be nephri
Between the handle and the body, there are two
protruding nodes on both sides. On both faces of the
body , there are also incised paJlel straight lines. But
the edge of the blade is convex , not concave. Thus, it is
not yazhang , but is also a kind of jade in the
Auspicious Objects' (Colour Plate 5:2)
The two objects from Phung Nguyen site were also
found beside such artefacts as beads, arm rings and
po ery which are characteristics of the Phung Nguyen
culture.

2. Name and function

Similar objects have been found in many areas in China
They were known long ago but were regarded as
occasional findings without clear origins. The image of
these artefacts are frequently seen in publications 00
Chinesejadeobjects (Laufer 1927; Nott 1936; Salmony
1938 , 1952; Jenyns 1951).ln the lists ofthese occasional
collections , they are called by different names. Until

452

now , when they are found in archaeological sites of

definite dates , different names retained, as there remains
much ambiguities and controversial points of view
regarding the name and function of these jade
objects
Very often scholars rely upon the book of Zhouli
(Rites ofthe Zhou dynasty) in naming the various types
of Chinese antique jade objects. The chapter Dianrui in
Zhouli deals with the functions of jade objects and their
shapes and measurements are described in the chapter
kIgonj i. Regrettably Kaogongji gives no graphic
illustrations of these jades. Many authors , accordingly ,
made comparisons between descriptions in KaogonJl
and objects found in their times to deterrune eu
names. Some attempts were made to draw pictures of
the objects given by Kaogongji. The most outstanding
work of this kind is Kaogongjitu of Dai Zhen of the
Qing dynasty. However, in the chapter of jades of
Kaogongji there are 00 pictures similar to e type of
jades we are discussing here (Dai Zhen 1955
68-72).
With regard jade objec mentioned in Zhouli Wu
Dacheng in the late 19th century gave graphic
descriptions in book Guyutukao His work
has exerted strong influence 00 researchers of Chinese
jades after him (Laufer 1912; Guo Baojun
1938)
10 Guyutukao , under the tit]e Yangui , Wu
Dacheng drew an object having a cve curved blade
and a hole near the handle. According to Zhou yang Ul
is a jade gui used to destroy depravity and to
change conduct'\Zheng Sinong who made
commentary on Zhou said that whenever a vassal
committed mischie the emperor sent a big figure
from his court taking along with him a yangui as a
symbol of warning and reproaching to this vassal
because yangui had projecting points () serving
as an emblem of murder, conqu st and repression
enabli it to tum evils into good deeds
Relying upon Wu Dacheng's drawing (Wu Dacheng
1889:P 1.21) and Zheng Sinong's com- mentary note in
Zhouli about the projecting point of yangui, Ling Shunsheng a scholar in Taiw classified as yangui
e type of jades we deal with here. Li ng Shun-sheng
further divided this into four subtypes (Ling Shunsheng 1965: 198- 200)
His opinion , however , were ignored by other
scholars. S. c. Nott (1 936) called this type of jades
yazhang while Guo Baojun (1938) called them ge
ln his classification of the jades of the Shang dynasty
Xi aN() narued it knife-shaped upright-blade

implement' (Xia Nai 1983). Minao

Hayashi , a Japanese scholar, otherwise, narued it bone
shovel-shaped jade implement' (Hayashi
1982)
Diffent names have also been used in reports on
discovering these objects at the varous archaeological
sltes
At present, more and ffiore authors have adopted
yazhang in naming these objects. Feng Hanji in his
article on e jade objects discovered at Guangh
Sichuan provin devoted much space to justify these
objects as yazha According to Zhouli 'yazA~g lS
used to mobilize armies and govem troops". Zheng
Xuan in his commentary note for Zhou quoted Zheng
Sinong as saying ya (tooth) symbolizes the arruy ,
then yazhang serves as a fighting order". Feng H~1
wrote: Yazhang is related to e my forces , its function is like h4 later in history. It is called yazhang because ya implies dash , offensive , a show of
force. The three zhang found at Guanghan have an
incurved end of the blade which looks like sharp teeth
protruding forward in an offensive and threatening
position. We therefore think that what Zhouli called
yazhang was very likely meant at these objects" (Feng
Ha 1 1985: 13)

The term yazhang was adopted by a number of

scholars but it was believed to be a ritual insume
having nothing to do with military mobilization (Tang
Chur 1991:8 0- 81)

ln fact , whether these objects are really yazhang or

not remains a question for further study. 1 ae with Li
Xueqin when he spoke of the type of zhang in the
ancient land of Shu (Sichuan today) Our knowledge
about the jade objects called zhang depends heavily on
Zhouli. But what Zhouli spoke about is the only zhang
of the Zhou dynasty , quite limited in time. An essential
characteristic of the Zhou' s zh ng is the slanting edge
at e upper end while the zhang in question here has a
double-pointed end but also named as zhang or
yazhang by many scholars today. Stil1, we do not know
if there is any relation between the zhang of the Zhou
dynasty and the jade objects we are speaking of now ,
but for the sake of convenience 1 also call them zhang
as traditionally nened" (Li Xueqin 1991
72-73)
In this article the author also calls them yazhang as
commonly adopted. 1 do not believe at the term is
quite accurate or unquestionable. However , 1 do
belat these objects were made for ritual pur
p

Y a. zh a. ng in Viet Nam

3.

Connection between Chinese and

Vietnamese Yazhang

In China , the date of a yazhang found at Shimao site

belonging to the Longshan culture in Shenmu di stri
Shanxi province, is now under discussion. Dai Yingxin ,
author of a paper on this si considers this object to be
(chn in his term) while the other jades found there
might belong to the Longshan neolithic culture or the
Yin culture (Dai Yingxin 1977:157 , 172). Li
Xueqin , otherwise , attached it to the Zhukaigou culture
with stone-coffin tombs which was widespread in Inner
Mongolian region and Northem Shanxi. Th is culture has
the same date as the late Lo ngshan culture (Li Xueqin
199\:74). But the date of the Shimao ya z.h ang which is
attached to the Lo ngshan culture is being questioned by
some scholars (Tang Chung 1991 :83 , 89)
So the yazhang plaques recogni zed by man y
scholars as of the earliest dates are the ones found at the
Erlitou site in Henan province. Erlitou represents the
culture of the same name considered to belong to the
early phase of the Shang culture
Yazhang has also been found at Erligang site in
Zhengzhou , Henan province. Erligang is an important
site of the Shang culture
Yazhang , therefore , can be seen as a product of the
Shang Yin culture
Another area in China where yazhang were found in
good number is Guanghan in Sichuan province. Some
yazbang have been found there and made public by
Cheng Te-kun (1982:P I. 14) and Feng Hanji
(l 985:P l.I (4 ,5 ,6)). But only when the Sanxingdui site
in Guanghan was excavated , many yazhangs were
found
Archaeologists have discovered an obvious influence
of the Shang culture on artefacts found at Sanxingdui
and , as a result , its date might be contempy with the
late Shang culture
In South-Eastern Chian , a jade yazhang was
discovered at the Shilu site in Zhangpu , Fujian
province. Zeng Fan , author of the repo named it a
stone ge :JI; (Zeng Fan 1959:274 fig. 5) , but in
our eyes it is a yazhang with a broken 0 blades
In Hong Kong Tang Chung unearthed a jade
yazhang at the Tai Wan s i in 1990. According to Tang
Chuu the yazhang from Tai Wan might be of the
latest date , it belonging to the Waing States Period or
even later (Tang Chung 1991 :89)
In Vietnam , yazhangplaques found atPhung Nguyen
and Xom Ren belonged to the Phung Nguyen culture ,
alongside many artefacts characterizing this culture.

453

The Phung Nguyen culture is an Early Bronze Age

culture in the Red River VaUey. 1n my opinion , the
Phung Nguyen culture can be divided into three phases:
the earl y phase repsented by the 00 Bong site; the
middle by the Phung Nguyen site and the late by the
lower layerofthe Dong Dau site (Ha Van Tan 1974:78;
1978:6-9; 1980:126)
Phung Nguyen and Xom Ren are sites belonging to
the middle phase of the Phung Nguyen culture. At
present C 14 dating of this phase is not yet available , but
Dong Cho , a site of the early phase has a date of 3800 :t
60 BP (Bln-3081) i.e. 1850 :t 60 BC (Ha Van Tan
1986:181-182). The Phung Nguyen and Xom Ren
sites , therefore , should be later than date. Still y
should be earlier than the lower layer of Dong Dau site
with the following dates: 3330 :t I BP (Bln-830);
3050 :t 80 BP (Bln-37 I 1); 3015 :t 65 BP (HCMV053); 3100 :t 50 BP (HCMV-06/93).
If these radiocarbon dates are believable , the middle
phase of the Phung Nguyen culture would lie between
the 17th and 14th centuries BC. Although the dates of
the Phung Nguyen and Xom Ren sites and of the
yazhang found here are not known accurately , we can
see that yazhang in Vietnam has the date contempory
to the Shang cultu in China , even to the early phase of
this cu1ture

The similarity up to details of V ietnamese and

Chinese ya z.h ang suggests one thing: This is rather a
cuJtural exchange or contact th a cul ral convergence.
Since ya z.h ang is a product of the Culture of Central
China , its presence in Vietnam can be seen as a
manife n of the influence of the Shang culture over
Vietnam
Up to now , there has been strong evidence enabling
us to think that the influence of the Shang culture has
crossed the Yangtze River and spread farther to the
South (Oao Zhixi 1981; Li Xueqin 1991:4282). The Vietnamese yazhang s how s that such
influence is rather soon and f
The yazhang at Xom Ren site is very like the one in
Pillsbury Collection in Minneapolis (USA) published
by A. Salmony (Salmony 1938:PI. 6(1); Ling Shunsheng 1965:Pl.Ib). Regrettably it lacks clear origins
The Xom Ren yazhang is also similar to the yazhang
type wth long and narrow body in Guanghan , Sichuan
province , especi a1ly to the one described by Feng Hanji
(l 985:PI.l 94))
Therefore, in my opinion e influence exerted by
the Shang culture on Vietnarn may have come through
the west rout running from Sichuan to Yunnan.
However , there is not enough evidence to exclude the

454

east route which run across Guangdong and Guangx i

although the yazhang in Hong Kong , according to Tang
Chung , belongs to a much late date
A legend in Vietnam has mentioned the Yin invaders
under the Ki ng Hung era. Has the contact between the
Phung Nguyen and Shang-Yin cultures reve ed the
core oftruth relating to that legend?

Hayashi , Minao
1982 ( T}
{)

Jenyns , S

1951
Laufer, B

1927

ze Fan

1959

( )

{ }

Cheng , Te-k'un

The T' ai-ping-ch'ang Culture, Szechwan

Studies ;n Chinese Archaeology. The Chinese
University Press; Hong Kong

Dai , Zhen
1955

D Ying-xin

1977

()

3: 154- 57 , 172
( )

( )

Ling , Shun-sheng
1965
( ) ,
20:163-209

No S.C

1936

Fe Han-ji

1985

Li, Xue-qin

Nguyen , Loc
1985 Strange Artefacts Recently Found at e Phung
Nguyen Site. New Archaeological Discoveries
in 1985. Institute of Archaeology; Hanoi. 7375. (in Vietnamese)

( )

Jade , A Study in Chinese Archaeology and

Religion. Chicago
Archaic Chinese Jades ColleCled in China by A
W. Bahr. New York

1991

6:273- 275

1982

Chinese Archaic Jades in the British Museum.

London

1912
References:

'54

, { }

:.

Chinese Jade Throughoullhe Age. London

Salmony , A

1938

Carved Jade 01 Ancielll China. Berke1ey

Tan Chung

Gao, Zhi-xi
1981 (r1 } ) 2
Guo , Bao-jun
1938 ( ) ,

A Journey inlo Hong Kong's Archaeological

Past. The Regiona1 Council; Hong Kong

X Nai
{ }

20

Ha , Van-tan
1974 Dong Cho site. Khao Co Hoc 16:77-78. (in
Vietnamese)
1978 Th e Phung Nguyen Culture: New Acquisitions
and Prob1ems. Khao Co Hoc 1:5-22. (i n
Vietnamese)
1980 NouveUes ~ berch Prhistoriques et Protohis
tonqu a u Vietnam. Bulletin de l 'cole

Franaise d'Exlrme-OrienI68: 113-154

1986

1991

Radiocarbon Date ofDong Cho Site and the Go

Bong Phase in e Phung Nguyen Culture. New
Archaeological Discoveries;n 1986, Institute of
Archaeology; Hanoi. 181- 182. (in Viet
name)

Ha , Van-tan and Van-khan Han

1981 Two Strange Artefacts from a Site of ePhung
Nguyen Culture. New Archaeologica[ Discovees in 1981. Institute of Archae logy;
Hano16245.(mFetnam)

1983

( )

Wu , Dai-cheng
1889 { }

, { }

49 Some Remarks on the Bronze Culture in the

Lower Basin of the Dong Nai River
Le Xuan Diem
(lnsttute of Social Sciences in Ho Ctti Minh City)

1. Investigation and excavation

Up to now , archaeologists have discovered 00 less
100 archaeological sites of Metal Age (L Pham&Bui
1991 ), in the lowerbasin ofthe Dong Nai Ri ve r. Among
those , more than 10 sites have bronze artifacts related
to the bronze casting metallurgy. Those sites are located
in regions of various landscapes , ecological environments throughout the lower basin of the Dong Nai
Ri ver. Some sites are located 00 the ancient alluvium
terrace such as Doc Chua , Rua isles (Song Be) , Go Me ,
Binh Da (Dong Nai) , Go Sao (Ho Chi Minh City) or on
the f1 ank of Bazan soil-hills , such as Nui Gom (also
called Hang Gon) , Dau Gi Suoi Chon , Go Dua, Vo
Dong II , Luoi Ret Nam , Long Giao (Dong Nai
province). There are a1 so sites located on sand deposit
of ancient seashore a acent to seashore forest such as
Cai Van (Dong Nai province) , Go Cat (Ho Chi Minh
City) or others located in the center of swamp deposit
such as Bung Bac (Baria- Vung Tau province) (F
49- 1)
There are 4 sites being excavated. Among those ,
Doc Chua were dug three times in 1976, 1977 and
1979 (Vu 199Ia). This site is located on the left side of
the Dong Nai River , 00 the f1 ank of aD ancient
alluvium hill , 45 km northeast from Ho Chi Minh Ci
at the latitude of 10' 04'50"N , and the longitude of
106' 43' 50"E. The traces of the ancient settlement
were exposed on the area of 130 m width (east-wes t},
80 m length (north-south) with e maximum depth of
the cultural layer of 2 m 20--2 m 40. In the ancient
settlement, there are remains of extended burials ,
burials scattered with stone or pottery in the discovered
quantity of 40. Artifac in the site were discovered in
large quantity and variety. After our 3 excavations c
artifacts collected total 1,800 items with 32 types of
stone , bronze , pottery. specimens. In addition , there
'e a1 so approximately 250 )() potsherds llected
EsaI m is site, two completed and uncompleted
moulds were found . The quantity of bronze artifacts is
rather lar about 78 objects in c1 uding ax ( 16)
spears (1 2) , javelins (6) , ko" halberds (9) , sickles (7),
animal figurine (1) and 17 potteries

[t is app'ent Doc Chua is a large and ancient

settlement, with bronze casting factory" as well as a
cemetary of various types of burials. The date of this
site is based on the two C 14 dates of ash and carbon
samples from the settlement culturallayer.
The first sample , Z12-422 was discovered at the
depth of 1 m 00 in 1976 and dated 2 ,990 :t 105 years
ago (or 1,040 :t 150 BC). After the ustment of
dendrochronology , the date was determined 3 145
o years ago (1 , 195 1 30 BC).
The second snple BLN 1973 was discovered at
the depth of 0.50 m in 1977 and dated 2 ,495 :t 50 yeS
ago (545 :t 50 BC)
The two above carbon samples dated by C 14 e
situated at different depth , in the 2 adjacent cultural
laye corresponding to the 2 sequential development
stages of Doc Chua site during 500--600 years from
Bronze age to Early lron Age
The second archaeological site was excavated in Cai
Van (Long Thanh - Dong Nai province) in 1978
(Nguyen & Do 1978; Vu 1991 b). This site is located on
the sand deposit of an ancient seashore , on the right
hand side of the Cay Go Spri a branch of the Thi Vai
Ri ver, f1 0wing down the Ganh Rai Bay. The site is
about 30 km south-southeast from Ho Chi Minh City ,
at the latitude of 10' 42' 14"N , the longitude of
106' 58'00"E. The cultural relics were exposed on an
area of20 ,000 m' with the settlement layer of about 50
cm-60 cm, somewhere 90 cm in depth. The artifacts
collected here through excavation and exploration were
about 270 objects and over 1,000 potsherds. Stone
objec lS account for the large quanti among those ,
there we 3 moulds. Nevertheless , various types of
earthenwares such as bullets" .bull-horn shaped"
pottery were also found but bronze artifacts were not
yel discovered
This site is considered a great settlement area along
e ancient seashore in the Bronze Age and has the
date which earlier or the sarne as C 14 date of the
upper 1ayer in Ben Do site (Ho Chi Minh Ci) 3 040
:t 140 years ago (from 1950) and it could exist until the
development period of An Son site (Long An) dated by

456

CI4 2 ,775 :1: 50 yes ago and 2 ,855 :1: 60 yes ago
(from 1950).
5uoi Chon is the third site which was excavated in
1978 and 1979 (Pham 1985a; Le , Pham & Bui 1991)
The site is located on the flank of a bazan soil hill by
the bank of the 5uoi Chon 5pring in Lat Chieu Yillage
(Dong Nai province) , 4 km from Xuan Loc and 80 km
from Ho Chi Minh City. The relics of the ancient
culture were exposed 00 aD area of several ten
thousand square meters. Among those , the relics
which were determined in the Bronze Age are located
in the southem section. He the cultural layer is 1 m
50 depth with many potsherds of various types of
earthenwares. The number of artifacts collected
include 43 objects. 8 moulds and 4 bronze axes were
found here. In addition, 3 other bronze es were
discover d in 1977
This site was a very large habitation deposit in the
Bronze Age and Early Iron Age. There is a group of
bual s in the Iron Age. The date of this site was
estimated to be as old as the site in Doc Chua , about
over 3,000 years ago and could exist until 2,400-2,500
years ago , coesponded to e site of jar burials in Phu
Hoa (Xuan Lc-Dong Nai) which was dated by Cl4
about2 5 :1: 140 years ago and 2 ,590 :1: 200 years ago
(from 1950)
The fourth site excavated is Bung Bac (Ba RiaYung Tau) (5aurin 1963). It is located on an ancient
swamp deposit , 6 km east-northeast from Baria , at the
latitude of 10. 30 '3 2"N and the longitude of
107" 30'47"E. The ancient cultural relics were exposed
on an area of about 3 00000 m' at the depth of 0 m
6 0-9 m 80. The ancienl architecture of wooden pillars
which were buried plumbly and sticked 1 m 00 into the
ground were found in the excavation. Otherwse , there
were also wooden pillars lying horizontally. The
artifacts collected during investigation and excavation
included stone , wood, potsherds and bronze implements
5tone artifacts account for the largest quantity (1 84) ,
among those , there were 10 moulds. Bronze artifacts
include spears es. This site was a settlement 00 a
swamp with wooden architecture and also a bronze
casting factory. 50me wooden samples that were
anal ysed by C 14 indicated different dates
The sample, Le 2692 , at the depth of 0 m 80 was dated

3080 :1: 40 BP
The sample , Le 2691 , at the depth of 0 m 80 was dated
30 1O :l: 40BP
The sample, Le 2690 , at the depth of 0 m 80 was dated
2640 40BP

The sample , Le 2687 , at the

2770 :l: 40BP

dpth

of 0 m 90 was dated

The snple Le 2686, at the depth of 1 m

2310 :1: 40 BP

wa s

dated

The above sarnples were analyzed and dated by the

Laboratory of the In stitute of Archaeology in
Lemingrade. Moreover, 3 other sarnples were analyzed
and da by the Center of Atomic T hnology in Ho
Chi Minh City with the results as follow:
Sample HCMV-Ml: 2,4 50 :t 40 BP
Sample HCMV -M3: 2,570 :t 40 BP
Sample HCMV-M5: 2,370 :1: 40 BP
The relics in Bung Bac could exist in 3,000-2 ,300
BP.
In brief, the four excavated sites all have the date of
about over 23}-3 )() years ago and this is also an
important development period of the bronze culture in
the lower basin of the Dong Nai River in which the
four sites: Doc Chua , Cai Yan , 5uoi Chon , Bung Bac
are consided to be typical for each different ecolog:ical
enVlfonment
In these sit mentioned above, bronze metallurgy
implements especially moulds and bronze artifact s e
very popular and found in considerable quantity
Furthermore , a great deal of moul bronze ti f:ts
were discovered in many unexcavated sit such
Nui Gom (5aurin 1963), Dau Giay (5aurin 1966), Yo
Dong 5uoi Ret Nam , Long Giao , Hiep Hoa, An
Hung , Go Me (Le , Pham & Bui 1991) , Rua isle
(Fontaine 1970) , Go Cat, Go 5ao (Ho Chi Mi City)
(Dan Hoang & Pharn 1988; Dang & Pham 1985)

2.

About moulds and bronze artifacts

In researching the moulds collected , we see that they

were of various types. Among those , moulds for axes
accounted for the largest quantity. Particully 35
moulds were foundinDoc Chua , 2 in Cai Yan, 8 in 5uoi
Chon , 10 in Bung Bac , 2 in Nui Jom , 1 in Dau Giay , 1
in Yo Dong II and 1 in 5uoi Ret Nam. On the other
hand , various types of moulds for spes javeli
arrow heads , fish hooks, sickles , chisels , bracelets , pins ,
ear-rings were found
Most moulds were of two types Two valvemoulds" and three valve-moulds" (having the shapes
of casted objects O 2 sides ofthe central valve) Two
valve-moulds" were the most popular type. They were
made of sand-stone and were elliptic-cylindrical in
form. Each valve was a half of a cylinde r. The inside
surface of a mould was smoothly polished and usua l1 y
had 1 shape of casted objects. However , there were
also moulds with 2 or 3 shapes of casted objects. Those

The Bronze Culture

in the Lower Basin ofthe Dong Nai Ri ver

moulds were of medium and small size, 5- 8 cm length ,

4 cm-7 cm width and 2 cm-3 cm depth. The longest
was 9 cm 40 , the widest 7 cm 20 and the deepest 2 cm
70 (Fig. 49-2; Fig. 49-4:6 ,7 ,8; Fig. 49-6: 1,2a-c ,3). The
three valve-moulds" were considered to be the paUem
for creating the shapes of casted objecls on two valvemoulds" three valve-moulds" were found in Nui
Gom , Oau Giay , Cai Van , Suoi Chon , Bung Bac. They
were f1 retangul vertical sided moulds made of
sand stone and were smooth. 1 to 3 shapes of casted
objects were found on each mould. The sizes of I S
type are 2 cm-2.80 cm depth , 5 cm7 cm w 7cm
leng 12 cm 70 length in maximum (Fig. 49-2 , 494:6-8 , 49-5 :4,5, 49-6:1 ,2a-c,3, 49-7:9-10). In addition
to the completed moulds in use, 12 of uncompleted
moulds in production were also found which featured
e evident traces of the production process of moulds:
shapin engraving the shap of casted objects (Le
1977; Nguyen G. H. 1987). The technique and the
production procs of moulds found here were rather
perfect wi a variety of shapes used on moulds. The
bronze objects were , therefo more diverse
Bronze axes accounted for the largest quantity and
were usuall y not big in size. They had hollow holes for
applying handles, convex body and hyperbole-curved
edge and were rarely decorated. The distinctions
between them were usually in their necks" and
shoulders". The cross section of necks ofaxes was
ellipt ctangular hexagonal. The shoulders was
inclir>ed or wide , narrow or horizontal as oblique (Fig
49-3 :4-6)
In addition to axes which were the most popular and
largest in quantity found in many sites (Doc Chua, Suoi
Chon , Rua isle , Bien Hoa, Lo ng Giao , An Hung), other
types of bronze artifacts we not fo und in large
quantity and seemed to be .found only in a few sites
(Ooc Chua , Bung Bac). Those were spe javelin s
sickles, ko" halberds, bracelets , animal figurines , litt1 e
OO11s, sharp points
Spears were usually medium in size , 14 cm- 21 cm
length , 6 cm width (maximum). Holes for applying
shafts were usually hollow or very hollow wie
maxmum dep of 4 cm; and the cross sections were
round or f1 at-round". The bodies were banyan leaf
shaped or long triangul symme] with f1 at-Iozengic
shaped cross section (Fig. 49-3: 1-3 , 49-7:7 ,8)
The bronze specimens which were almost like
spears but smaller in size were javelins. One pe of
javelins had hollow holes for applying shafts and leafshaped bodies with f1 at-elliptic cross-sections. (Fig
49-4:3). Another type of javelins had deeper holes for

407

applying shafts, long isosceles triangular bodies wi

flat-Iozengic cross-sections. Moreover , there was
another type of javelins which had short barbs slanting
to one side , sligh t1 y c u ed heads and bodies with
elliptic cross-sections. Hafting plates had protrusive
notches for fixing shafts with strings
The fourth type of bronze artifacts were sickles
(couteau-faucille) found in Ooc Chua. The blade ofthe
sickle was a f1 at bronze piece , of 3 cm-4 cm in width ,
10 cm in length and had a thick back and a sharp edge
slanting to one side with a pointed head
The fifth type of bronze artifacts was ko" halberds
with various types of diverse decorations. They were
found in Doc Chua, Long Giao (Xuan L Dong Nai)
In Ooc C hua e ko" halOOrds that were all buried in
burials of the second stage , included 3 different types
The first type had short blades , down-inclined heads ,
f1 at-:ctangular shanks with lateral wings. The wings
were narrow in the fron t and wide in the back. The
hafting plates were thick and had 3 rectangular holes
located verticall y. The wings and the hafting plates
were decorated with protrusive spirals , lozanges , letter
S which were incorporated together to create various
motifs in parallelogram outlines. The second type of
" halOOrds was large in size , smart in appeance
and had short , wide , thick blades , pointed heads , very
long shanks with 2 short wings. Furthermore , another
type of ko" halOOrds with long curved blades , downinclined heads and short shanks with 2 wings were also
found (Fig. 49 -4: la-b
The quantity of ko" halberds found in Long Jiao
was reported to have inciuded about 70. However,
only 19 were collected up to now. Those ko" halberds
were discovered along with one bronze axe and many
potsherds at the depth of 0 m 20 , on the f1 ank of a
bazan soil hill which was ciose to the mouth of a
former valcano in Hang Gon rubOOr plantation. (Xuan
Loc - Oong N ) at the latitude of lOT46'6"E , the
longitude of 1O"49'27"N (00 & Pham 194 ; Pham
1985b)
The general characteristics of ko" halOOrds in Long
Giao were very large in size , heave and harmoniously
and sy mm e tricIy decorated. In general , there were 4
types which were different in form . The first rype had
long , n a'O w straight or curved blades like swords or
scirnitass , with the length of 49 cm-66 cm , the width
of 4 cm 7 c}-7 cm 70 and the weight of 1 kg 1 kg 200.
The second type had in f1 at and curved blades and
pointed heads with the length of 37 cm-44 cm , the
width of 5 cm-9 cm , the length of shanks of 20 cm-24
cm and the weight of 0 kg 800-1 kg 000. The third

458

type resembled the second in appean yet they

were very large in size and weighed about 1 kg 500
The fourth type had straight blades , pointed-wide had
and curved hafting plates. The length of blades was up
to 62.80 cm and the width was 9.50 cm. These four
types of ko" halberds were all characterised by
protrusive decorations with various styl The most
popular patterns were tangent touching spirals , short
parallels , oblique or vertical lines. The decorations
were made to create the motifs of parallelograms ,
pistols" (Fig. 49-5: 1-3).
Another type of bronze artifacts which were
elaborately decorated should be mentioned hereafter
were bracelets. The one found in a burial in Doc Chua
was broken and had the diarner of 6.20 cm , the width
of the body was 1.80 cm and the height of the body was
0.15 Cffi. The outside surface was decorated with some
bands of rice ears. The bracelet was attached to the
sphericallittle bells (grelot) which had the diameter of
1.70 cm , the height of the sphere surface was 0.15 cm
Spherical little bells had a long gap dividing the bells
into 2 hemispheres decorated with spirals (Fig. 49-4:5)
The bronze artifact which was the most typical and
original was the only Qne four-legs-anim a1 figurine
found in Doc Chua (Fig. 49-4:4a-c). The figurine was
rather intact and was elaborately moulded and
engraved. It reflected the appearance of a hunting dog
with long head, opened mouth , straight nose , hollow
eyes , flopping ears , long neck , small breast in
compatison to the belly , four long and large legs , a
long and large penis and a small-curved-up tai!. The
four legs we fixed to a rectangular stand with four
curved comers. A protrusive snake lying straight with
a broken head and curved tail was in the center of the
stand. The body of the figurine was decorated with
short lines and protrusive dots which created a
mysteriously stylish beauty

3.

Analysing and observing

The ingredients of the above-mentioned bronze

artifacts have been determined. Particularly in Doc
Chua, 39 samples ofaxes (12) , spe s(9) ko" halberds
(1 0) , arrow head (l) , bracelets (2) , knife (1) , javelin (1) ,
sharp points (2) , potsherd (1) were analyzed by the
Geology Department of the Institute of Chemistry of
Vietnam (Diep & Nguyen 1987) , the Faculty of
Chemisyofthe Polytechnic University in Ho Chi Minh
City (Nguyen & Dao 1985). The results ofthe analysis
were at the majority of the samples were the alloy of
bronze-tin-Iead or bronze-Iead-tin. The rest included

axe of which was main ingredient was tin-lead , bronze

accounted for only 0.20%; one ko" halberd that was
made mainly from lead , bronze accounted for only
0.50% and one pieces of a bracelet which was made
mainly from lead , tin , bronze accounted for only
0.30%. Other metals such as Fe Zn , AI , Ti , Pt, Co
accounted for only very sma]] percentages and were
considered as miscellaneous substances in the ore
Another analysis made by the lnstitute ofHistory
the Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan , on 3 es
found in Hiep Hoa (Bien Hoa - Dong Nai) indicated
that 1 ofthem were made from an alloys ofbronze and
tin. Other metals such as Pb , As , Ag , Ni , Fe , accounted
for only very small ingredient percentages and were
considered as miscellaneous substances in the ore
(Nguyen D. T. 1987).
Therefore , based on the results ofthe chemi-physical
analys however early or late they were dated , or
whether they belonged to Bronze or Early Iron Age , the
main ingredients ofthe bronze artifacts in these regions
were bronze-tin-lead or bronze-lead-tin in which
bronze usually accounted for lion share (56.00
89.00%) , whereas tin and lead were supplementary
ingredients of various percentages
Bronze artifacts that contained tin solely were
found only in Hiep Hoa , and hardly in Doc Chua
Meanwhile , as we know is kind of alloy (bronze-tin)
played the most important role and was seen as very
popular in prehistoric bronze artifacts in many areas
According to Mr. Selimkhanov, all of the 28 samples
ofbronze artifacts found in Non Nok Tha, northeast of
Thailand, in the middle basin of e Mekong River
were analysed to be of alloy of bronze and tin in which
bronze was the main metal with tin accounting for
8% 12%. Othertypes of metals such as Pb , Ag , Fe , Ni ,
Bi , Mo , P accounted for very small ngredient percent
ages and were considered as miscellaneous substances
in the ore. Still other metals such as As , Sb , Au were
more scarce and were found only in 1 or 2 samples
(Sehimkhanov 1979). Bronze artifacts found in
Samrongsen and MluPrei also had the main ingredient
of bronze d tin at the percentage of about 95% in
eastem Carnbodia (Levy 1936, 1943). According to
Mr. Trinh Sinh , combining lead with the alloy of
bronze and tin was rather popular in Phung Nguyen Dong Son culture system in northern and northern
cenal pl ns of Vietnam. Among 602 samples of
bronze specimens analyzed , there were 366 samples
which contained lead. AIso , in the opinion of M r.
Trink Sinh , most of the samples mixed in with lead
(bronze-tin-lead or bronze-lead-tin) came from the

The Bronze Cu lture in the Lo wer Basn of the Dong Nai Ri ver

sites in the Dong Son period , lron Age. The remainin

44 samples belonged to Pre-Dong Son period (Dong
Dau - 00 Mun) co'esponding to the early period of
the site in Doc Chua and were of the a1 loy of bronze
and tin without lead (Trinh 1989)
Thus , it shou1d be noted that e popu1ity of 1ead
in bronze artifacts was one of the typical aspects of
bronze casting techno10gy in the lower basin of the
Dong Nai Ri ver in at period. As we know , the alloy
of bronze blended with lead was characterised by
melting the metals at a 10wer temperature lhan lhe
alloy of bronze and tin , without damaging moulds ,
whi1e being able 10 produce smooth surface on casled
objecls , creale objecls of various shap and thus
economize malerials. Perhaps , thanks 10 the quality of
the alloy used , the bronze casting technology in the
lower basin of the Dong Nai Ri ver developed rapidly
And , mould makin g one important stage in casting
lechnology , was broughllO perfection
Many uncompleled moulds in production and
completed moulds found in Doc Chua and olher sites
in this area probably indicated that e mou1d-making
technique was a reasonable and accurate process
which measured up 10 the basic standards of ancient
moulds. Inls arl besides lhe popular two valve
moulds" ,three val ve-moulds" al had cenlral valves
with lhe shape of casted Objecls on two sides were also
in use. The current view-point , is that these tools can
be considered to be unique" , or at least orignal" in
the mould-making technique in 18 area
Thanks to the original" mould-making lechnique ,
productivity of the casting technology increased which
in tum significantly increased the pr uction of bronze
objects. Unfortunate1y , nol many , only approximately
100 bronze specimens were found and collected
Hence , the practical contempory production has not
yet been correctly reflected. However, in examining
lhe shapes of casled objects on moulds and the
excavated bronze artifacts , it is obv ous that lhe
quan t.J. was quite abundanl as well as the types and
fonms. Axes were found in largest in quantity. There
were at least 6 types of s pes and ko" ha1berds and
other types of bronze artifacts such as javelins, knives ,
sickles , chisels , arrow heads , poisonous poims , shP
points , bells , little bells, bracelets , ear rings and pins,
etc
We can conclude that lhe diver ty in types and
Viety in fons of the bronze artifacts are also
important and unique pect of the bronze casting
technology here which is app'ently not re f1 ecled in
the bronze artifacts of other areas i

45

China and islands of Southeast Asia. This unique

aspect was formed partially by the material and
technological factors (ore and moulds) as above said ,
ld also , importantly, by the cultural convergence
process (endrogenous-exogenous). This process ilself
led to the creation and imitation of particular forms
and aspects of each type of bronze artifacts
As we all know , many scientists supported the concepl that all bronze artifacts through-out southem
In do-China helonged to lhe same culture , generally
called Dong Son mrichonal e" (Bemard 1966). We
have not come to know and understand this concept
fully , however, according 10 the available documenlS
on lhe sites of bronze culture in the lower basin of lhe
Dong Nai River, we can say that the above concepl is
not necessarily accurate
[n general , bronze artifacls here can be categorised
inlo 2 calegories. Tbe flfst category includes local"
bronze products and lbe second category indudes
titated exotic produclS". The local" category is
large in quamily and diverse in form. There are various
types ofaxes , spes javelins, knives , sickles , aows
points , poisonous points , simple bracelets , hooks
These bronze specimens .. clearly distinctive from
those of Pre-Dong Son (Dong Dau - 00 Mun) in
types, shap and decors (Le 1970; Ngo 1987). [n
comparison wilh lhose found in Non Nok Tha
(Thail for instance , bronz axes moulds of
middle period , we can find many similarities (Smi&
Walson 1979) , and when comp'ed with some stone
and bronze objects such as bronze sickles , bronze
axes , stone moulds (Le vy 1943) in MluPrei more
similarities can he found. Probably there was the cultural and technical exchange between the middle and
lower basin of the Mekong River and the Dong Nai
Ri ver during that period. However , based on the differences in the ingredients of the above-mentioned
bronze specimens , there are obvious distinctions can
be found in the bronze artifacls of the lower basin of
the Dong Nai Ri ver. These are bronze produc made
locally since moulds here almost mesh bronze axes
found in the sarne place. Nevertheless , bronze wasles
and scories were found in Doc Chua and Nui Gom
(Dao 1979) , bowls for pouring melting bronze and
containers for melting bronze (?) were also discovered
in 00 Me , Binh Da (Nguyen , Pham & Luu 1982) (Bien
Hoa - Dong Nai province). Furthermore , various
types of bronze artifacts and casted objects were discovered in Doc Chua and Suoi Chon but not yet in
other cultural areas. Particularly , in Bau Hoe sile ,
forrn

460

1987) , some bronze artifacts buried in jar burials were

collected , They were almost similar with the bronze
artifacts of the same types in Doc Chua, including
axes, sickles and ko" halberds (Fig. 49-7:1-6). This
site that was esteemed to be the Qne of Proto-Sa
Huynh" or Sa Huynh 1" , might have been a local
manifestation of the expanded culture known as Sa
Huynh with many elements of Dong Nai cu1ture
(Fontaine & Davison 1983). In fact when examining
the whole collection of artifacts found in various
investigations and excavations (l 98 G- 1984), espec ly
stones , pottery and bronze objec we can conclude
that is site contains many elements of bronze culture
in the lower basin of the Dong Nai River rather than
those of Sa Huynh culture. (Le , Pham & Bui 1991)
The category of local" bronze artifacts we in fact
distributed Qver a large area, in the lower basin of the
Dong Nai River, as well as in the extreme south of
central Vietnam. Furthermore , there were some
indications that they could have been related to the
Late Neolithic Culture in this area. The clearest
evidenc is the closeness in shape of shouldered stone
es and e bronze es. They were very distinguished
from the category of imtated exotic" bronze products
which originated from other culture
The fITst objects discussed here e ko" halberds
which were discoved in the burials in Doc Chua
(Fontaine 1970), Long Giao (Trinh 1989) and Bau Hoe
(Le , Pham & Bui 199 1). According to available
documents ey were also found in Udom , Nan Muong
(north and northwest of Thailand) (Smith & Walson
1979; Pham 1985) and were detennined to belong to
Dong Son cu1ture , the Early lron Age in Vietnam and
to other Bronze and Early lron Culture in China
This type of bronze weapons were in fact disibuted
over a large area simultaneously and ey were very
diverse in types and decors. The ko" halberds found
in the lower basin of the Dong Nai River were rather
similar to those in Dong Son culture , especially in
their decors. They were evidently distinctive in shapes
as well as some motifs. Their most significant
characteriics were at dense and elaborate decors
were found on shanks, even on wings, on hafting
plates and blades of ko" halberds with various
geometric motifs. In addition , many strange styles
were found such as ko" halberds with long blades like
scimitars (Fig. 49-4:9) , and one with narrow blades
and pointed heads like eagle-bills (Fig. 49-5:3). It is
possible to even think that they were imitated exotic"
produc Bronze ko" halberds found here had many
unique characteristi

smart. The earliest date of these ko" halberds was

about at least several hundred yes later the
local" category , based on C 14 late date (2405 50
ye s ago or 549 :!: 50 B C) of the second culturallayer
inDoc Chua
In addition to e ko" halberds, other types of
bronze artifacts such as bracelets decorated with
rce-ears and litt1e bells decorated with spirals were
actual1 y 'imitated exotic products" from Dong Son
cuJture area. The special product, a dog-shaped
figurin was hardly found in Dong Son cultuea
art except for the decors of protrusive dots and shent
lines. Therefore , we cannot consider the animal
figurine which is both realistic and stylistic" to be the
original in the bronze culture in the lower basin of the
Dong Nai River
Finally , bronze drums found in this ea should be
briefly discussed. Those we Binh Phu bronze drums ,
Loc Tan drums (Song Be) d Vung Tau bronze drums
(Trinh 1984; Nguyen D. T. 1988; Le 1986). Their
decors were simplified , the shapes of Lo" birds and
the bands of decorations were replaced geometri
cal patterns. Those drums belonged to Dong Son
culture and were dated to about the 1st and 2nd century
before Christ where the bronze culture in the lower
basin of the Dong Nai River had terminated its
h torical roles

4.

The summary on the report

The bronze culture in the lower basin of the Dong Nai

River had existed and developed for more than
thousands of yeas before Chris t. The archaeoJogicaJ
sites such as Doc Chua, Cai Van , Suoi Chon , Bung Bac ,
Long Giao were important relics of this culture. Here ,
bronze artifacts were casted with the alloy of bronze ,
tin and lead in moulds which inc1 uded 2 or 3 valves
made of sand-stone. Bronze artifacts could be
categorised into local" products such as various types
ofaxes , spears , javelins, barbed javelins , a ows
ckles bracelets and imitated exotic" products which
imitated or contained cultural elements from Dong 50n
or other bronze culture in the middle and the lower
basin of the Mekong River. The second category
in c1 uded ko" halberds , little be l1 s, bracelets and
bronze drums, etc
The local" products were bom in the first stage ,
over 3,000 yes ago. The imitated exotic" products
appe ed in the second stage , several hundred years
later. And , both existed in the first and second
centuries before Christ

46 1

The Bronze Culture in the Lower Basin of the Dong Nai River

References
Bernard , Philippe Groslier
1966 lndochi. P. Mounich Nagel-Genye: 194
Dang. Van-thang and Huu-mi Pham
1985 Investigation and Findings in 00 Cat Site (Ho
Chi Minh Ci t y). Recent Archaeological
Discoveries: 120- 121
Dang , Van -th an. Van-tuan Hoang and Huu-cong Pham
1988 Investigation in Go Sao Site (Ho Mon-Ho Chi
Mi City). Recent Archaeological Discoveries:
59-60
Dao , Linh-con
1977 Excavation in Doc Chua. Khao Co Hoc 4:2932
1979 The Excavation in Dua - The Third
Phase (Long Be). Recent Archaeological
Discoveries: 129-1 3 1
Diep , Dink-hoa and Tan-buu Nguyen
1987 Spectrographic Analysis on Bronze Art ifacts
in Doc Chua. Recent Archaeological
Dis coeries: IO107

Do, Ba-nghiep and Duc-manh Pham

1984 Archaeological Discoveries in Long Giao
Recent Archaeological Discoveries: 129-131
Fontaine , Henri
1970 De ' co uverte d' une nou ve ll e s tation
nolithique dans la province de Bien Hoa. Archives gologiquesdu Vietnam 13 , fase . 2: 112
Fontaine, Henri and Jemery H. C. I. Davison
1983 The Archaeological Site of Hoa Vinh near
Phan Thiet , Central Vietnam. Asian Perspec
tive XXIII , No. 1:95
1 Xuan-diern
1970 Dong Dau Culture - A Development Step of
Hung Vuong Dynasty Culture. Khao Co Hoc
7-8: 12 , fig. 1-6
1977 Ancient Bronze Mou lds in the Dong Nai River
Region. Kao Co Hoc 4:44-4 8
1986 Reviewing Binh Phu and Vung Tau Bronze
Drums. Recent Archaeological Discoveries
162- 164
Le , Xuan-diem , Qua -son Pham d Chi-hoang Bui
1991
Dong NaiArchaeology. Bien Hoa; Dong Nai
Publishing House
Le vy , Paul
Prehistorique.
Re ue
1936 L ' indochine
Anthropologique 18-12:278.
1943 Recherches Prehistorique dans la rgion de
MluPrei. PEFEO. Hanoi: 38.
Ngo , Li-hony
1987 Back to Dong Dau and a F sh Knowledge of
lt. Khao Co Hoc 2:29 g.l -4
Nguy Cbi-hau , Quang-lon Pham and Anh-tuyet Luu
1982 Survey and Investigation in the Archaeological
Si 00 Me (Dong Nai). Recent Archaeological

Disco'eries: 151- 154

Nguyen , Duy-ty
1977 Continuing e Excavation in Doc Chua. Khao
Co Hoc 4:33-40
1984 Excavation in Ba Que Station. Recent
Archaeological Disco eries: 147-149.
1987 The Results of Spectrographic An alysis on e
Bronze Axes in Hiep Hoa. Recent Archaeologi
cal Dis ries: III - 112
1988 Loc Tan Bronze Drum. RecentArchaeological
Discoveries: 67- 69
Nguy Duy and Li nh-con Dao
1985 The Technique of Bronze Metallurgy in Doc
Chua. Khao Co Hoc 3:24- 30
Nguyen , Giang-h
1987 Through the Ancient Bronze Moulds in Bung
Bac Site Considering the Ancient Moulds in
Vietnn. Recent Archaeological Discoveries

103 105

Nguyen , Manh-loi and Ba-nghiep Do

1978 Excavation in Luoi Chon (Dong N). Recent
Archaeological Discoveries: 223- 227
Pham, Duc-manh
1985a Investigaqon in Bung Bac Station. Recent
Archaeological Discoveries: 118-120
1985b The 'ko' Halberds in Long Giao. Khao Co Hoc
1:37-68
1987 The Group of Chuan Hai Site in La Huynh
Complex. Khao Co Hoc 2:42 , fig. 19-21
Saurin , Edmond
1963 Station Prehistorique a Hang Gon prs Xuan
Loc (Sud Xuan Loc). BEFEO TLI fa. 2: 43 0452
1966 Un site Archologique Dau Giay (Long
Kh a1). BlRA IV:90- 104
Sehimkhanov ,l. R
1979 The Chemical Characteri s of Some Metal
Findings from Nonnoktha. Ea rly SO uJ heast
Asia. R. B. Smith and W. Walson New
York , Kuala Lampur, Oxford University Press ,
1979:33-38
Smi R. B. and W. Walson
1979 Early Southeast Asia , New York, Kuala Lam
pur, Oxford University Press
Trinh , Sinh
1984 AboUl4 Dong Son Bronze Drums Discovered
in Southern Vietnam. An Giang CuIture and
information Office: 153-159
1989 Lead Bronze Alloy - The Hung Ki ng and
Dong Son Cu l tu Khao Co Hoc 2:43-50
Vu , Quoc-hien
1991a Cai Van Site (Dong Nai). The Scientific Report
0/ Vietnam Historical Museum: 61 - 75
1991 b Suoi Chon Site - The Second Excavation
The Scientific Report of VI m Historl
Museum: 12 6 138

462

Vu , The-Iong
1977 About the Bronze Animal Figurine Recently
Discovered in D Chua. Khao Co Hoc 1:41
43

List of Abbreviation
BEFEO = Bulletin de l' Ec ole Franaise d'ExtrmeOrient
PEFEO = Publication de l'Ecole Franaise d'ExtrmeOrient.
BIRA = Bulletin de ) ' Institut des recherches
archeologiques

Fig.4 -1:

The Positions of the metal age sites in the lower basin of the Do ng Nai river

20km

8111
iitilth-'-

,-

-J

Fig , 49- 2: Axe stone moulds CDoc Chua)

--

-o

F
W

:
\

O
o
4

qu

)
Er nz e ar t 1 f act s ( DoC Chua

F1 g 49

- _.

>

2cm

Fig.49- 4: Bronze a rt ifacts (Doc Chua ) la-b , g ko"halberds 2 sick les

stone moulds (Doc Chua) 6 arrow-head 7 pn 8 javelin

3 javelin

,.>

4a-c animal figurine

LJcm

5 brace let.

6 cm

5cm ."p?7l7i'7%

Fig.49-5: }-3 bronze ko~halberds (Long Giao)

4 .5 stone moul ds (Suoi Chon )

2.

LJcm
2c

10

o 2cm

Fig.49-6: 1.2a- c stone mould s (Suo i Chon ) 3 stone mou ld (D Chua)5 stone bracel et (oc Chua)
stone implement (Doc Chua) 1 10 stone poli shers (Doc Chua )

2cm

4cm

~~

;:-,:"1
2

.\

, ,\

,\
..
1":.,.,' \

r.'

:"
2
.

..

. '
a

,.

-O

l nu

4cm

Fig.4 -7: 1-3 bronze axes ( Bau H ) 4 , 5 bronze sickles ( Bau H) 6 bronze ko"hal be rds ( Bau Hoe)
7 , 8 bronze spears (Bung Bac) 9 , 10 stone mou lds CBung Bac)

L-Jcm

49 8

nor on ze

r UE ( vun

ob

Fl

Tau)

50 Painted Pottery in Viet Nam

Pham Ly Huong
(The Vietnam Institute of Archaeoloy)

1.
Father D .J. Finn was the first archaeologist who
compared the prehistoric pottery of Hong Kong at
of Vietnam. He made observation 00 the similarity
between the designs of tbe pottery found at Mai Pha site
(Lang Son province) in Vietnam and those ofthe pottery
found in Lamma Island of Hong Kong (Fn 1958). He
persuasively defined that Mai Pha pottery is not the
vessels for buming incense as Mansuy (1 920) thought,
but it is just pierced ring-feet
However. in this case , Father Finn made one
comparison between the p nted pattems ofHong Kong
pottery and incised pattems of Vietnamese pottery
It should be said that painted pottery was not a
distinguishing cultural feature of any prehistoric or
protohistoric cultures in Vietnam. Obviously Vietnamese
painted pottery has not drawn much attention of
archaeologists in their studies
The painted pottery of the Bau Tro culture , a
neolithic culture in Central Vietnam, was in the same
situation for a long time , after a few potsherds wi
painted red-ochre bands or spots were discovered at
Bau Tro site by Patte (1 952). In fact , some painted
pottery of the Bau Tro culture was ignored. But since
the late seventies it has been p d more attention to a
series of archaeological excavations at new sites
belonging to e Bau Tro culture. And then pottery
pnted with red-ochre and black-graphite has been
mentioned as a special feature which distinguishes the
Bau Tro culture from other late Neolithic or Early
Metal Age cultures in northern and north central
Vietnam and relates it with the pre-Sa Huynh and Sa
Huynh cultures in central and south-central Vietnam
(Ha Van Tan 1980)
SaHuynh p nted pottery is another complex which
was known long ago but has only been researched
carefully for a few recent decades. Th e first discoveries
and publications about Sa Huynh were made by French
scholar (Parmentier 1925; Colani 1935). Among
foreign researchers, Solheim has my publications on
Sa Huynh pottery (Solheim 1959a, 1959b , 1959c ,
1964, 1974).ln their publications , pnted pottery had a

small part. Even Solheim mentioned it briefly in his

introduction of Sa Huynh pottery and related pottery
known in other sites in South-east Asia. Obviously
Solheim has never considered p nted pottery
important feature among the characteristics of the so
called Sa Huynh-Kalanay pottery tradition. The major
basis of his reconstruction is the decoration but at first,
it is only the incised pattems. '
Some Vietnamese archaeologists have criticised
Solheim' s unfounded statements on the Sa HuynhKalanay pottery tradition (Ha Van Tan 1978b, 1984
1985 ; Vu Cong Quy 199 1: 151- 166). But in their
criticism , painted potlery has not been mentioned yet
In my opinion , painted pottery should not be
disregarded in the so-called on the Sa Huynh-Kalanay
pottery tradition or complex in spite of its small
quantity as well as its variety not so much as in other
p nted pottery centres in the world
Of course there is a reason for Solheim's and other
Western scholars' indifference towards the Sa Huynh
painted pottery. Clearly , at the time of Sa Huynh EIy
lron Age culture , painted pottery tradition started its
declining trend. Vietnamese painted pottery which had
been rare and simple , now became less in number and
simpler in fonn. But the discoveries of Vietnamese
archaeologists over the last 20 years have actually
widened our knowledge of painted pottery with plenty
ofvarious materials which were not known previously
A number of pre-Sa Huynh sites were explored and
excavated in central Vietnam , the main area of
distribution of the early lron Age Sa Huynh culture
In fact , there were many publications concming the
pottery of the cultures existing before the Sa Huynh
culture (Ha Van Tan 1984-1985; Ngo Si Hong 19841985 , 1989; Bui Vi11984; Pham Thi Ninh 1991) but
there were only a few specializing in p nted pottery
(Pham Ly Huong 1982)
Therefore in this paper 1 would like to show a
detailed description of Vietnamese painted pottery
before the Sa Huynh culture of the lron Age , exactly of
the painted pottery in the Bau Tro culture and pre-Sa
Huy cultural types such as Lo ng Thanh and Binh Chau

472

2.
The Bau Tro culture is distributed in the coastal pln
from Nghe An province to Quang Binh province. It has
two local fa Thach Lac type in Nghe An and Ha
Tinh provinces and Bau Tro in Quang Binh province
Generally there were 4 phases of developmen t. Accordmg e materials in hand, the sequence of these 4
phases is clearly shown in Thach Lac facies whereas the
early phes have not yet been found in Quang Binh
Some reasonable evidence allows us to find the origin
ofthe Bau Tro culture (Thach Lac type) from the Quynh
Van culture , which existed before that in the same 'ea
Probably , Bau Tro inhabitants , in the late phases ,
expanded their settlement areas to the south. We do not
have radiocarbon dates for Bau Tro tes but the C 14
dates ofthe related cultures can be used for dating. The
Quynh Van site has dates of 4785:!: 75 B.P. (Bln 91411)
and 4730:!: 75 B.P. (Bln 914/2). Therefore , the earliest
phase of the Bau Tro culture could not have been more
than 4500 yes ago. Its latest phase is believed to be
contempory with the early phase ofthe Phung Nguyen
culture in North Vietnam which has C 14 dates of 3405
:!: 100 B.P. (Bln-891) , 3340:!: 70 B.P. (AA-2773) , 3280
:!: 55 B.P. (AA-2772) , 3050:!: 80 B.P. (Bln-3711). So the
final limit of the Bau Tro culture can be speculated to
be 4000 - 3500 years ago
Bau Tro painted pottery seemed to appear at the end
of the second phase , become popular in the 3rd phase
and get polymorphic in the 4th phase. In the 2nd phase ,
only some sherds have been found simply covered with
a very thin layer of red-ochre. It is remarkable at
red-ochre painted pottery appeared simultaneously
with the appearance of the incised decoration. In terms
of form. painted pottery was similar to other contem
porary pottery with cord-impressed decoration or
without decoration. Most of them were vessels with
round bottoms. The ones with ring-feet were very rare.
In the 2nd phase of the Bau Tro culture , the red
ochre p pottery was sc'ce and in my cases It
was difficult to di stinguish 15 painted decoration from
pottery slip. But in the 3rd phase , red-ochre p nted
pottery became popular and it is easy to recognize its
deliberate decorative puose. It was possible to study
this painted pottery with the materials from some
typical sites such as Trai Oi (Nghe An province). Here
e painted pottery made up 15.2% of pottery sherds
collected in only one excavation. Painted pattems here
were simple and unvaried , there were simply tWQ
p'allel red-ochre bands horizontally painted around
the mouth of the vessel (er outside or inside or at
both sides).

decoration but it was always combined with incised

decoration such as line-incising , cord-impressing ,
comb-impressing. These vesse!s were often found
They were decorated with two red bands around the
mouth , between these two bands were S-shaped incised
pattern , and the body was impressed with cord or
carved paddle. The pigment seemed to have been
painted on the vessels after firing so it faded easi1y. In
the cultural layer of the si some red-ochre pieces
were found , a few of which should grinding marks
They must have been colouring material for pottery
decorating here
The painted pottery in Trai Mung si which is nol
far from Trai Oi site , was in quite a similar situation
There were some sherds with a red-ochre band around
mouths or necks of the vessel
Further to the south is the Ru Ta site which has the
same cultural characteristics as Trai Oi , including e
presence of red-ochre painted pottery though it is in
smaller amoun t. In this site the painted pottery with one
or two red bands around the vessel mouths made up
only 6% ofthe pottery sherds collected.
The typical exarnple of the 3rd phase of the Bau Tro
culture is the group of Thach Lac-Thach Lam sites (Ha
Tinh province). And Thach Lac is also used to name the
cultural local facies of Bau Tro which is distributed in
the area of Nghe An and Ha Tinh provinces (Ha Van
Tan 1978a) or to name a period of development of the
Bau Tro cu!ture (Nguyen Trung Chi Vo Quy 1987)
The collection of remains from these sites is basically
similar to at of Trai Oi , particular!y in regard to e
painted pottery. They are vessels decorated with one or
two red bands near the rim in combination wi other
incised or impressed pauerns on the body. It is
noticeable e incised pattems made with dentate
tool were fairly popular in this phase and this is
considered a typical characteristic.
In the coastal plain of Quang Binh, where Bau Tro
site was dlscovered in the twenti some new sites with
similar characteristics have been found and 4 of them
were already excavated. They are Bau Tro , Con Nen ,
Ba Don 1 and Ba Don II sites. As mentioned above
there did not seem to exist any early phases of the Bau
Tro culture. In the ve earliest layers at Bau Tro or Ba
Don sites , the red-ochre painted pottewas as popular
as at Trai Oi or Thach Lac sites. In Ba Don 1 site , in the
survey pit with 4 m2 scale red-ochre painted pottery
sherds made up 26% of the pottery collection while this
percentage in Ba Don II was 12% and in Con Nen
8 .4%. But there is a clear difference between the
painted pottery in the Q

Painted Pottery in Viet Nam

Thach Lac third phase type. That is the black-graphite

colouring. According to the materials of Bau Tro
exploration , the black-graphite painted pottery was
found here in the deepest cultural layer. At Ba Don 1
site they found a large number of sherds with black
graphite bands horizontally painted inside the mouth or
at the rim , the same as those at the Bau Tro site
The problem is at the presence of graphite painted
pottery can be considered as a local characteristic of the
Bau Tro facies in the Bau Tro culture or as a cultural
element of a new phase of development the 4th phase
of the Bau Tro culture. The problem is still open for the
last conclusion. Is it possible to be both of these? lt
expressed a local characteristic e earlier appear
and greater popularity in the Bau Tro cultural facies as
well as a period characterisitc - the impossibility to
appear earlier than the 3 phase in the Bau Tro facies
and possibility to be a popular typical element of the
4th phase in both Bau Tro and Thach Lac facies
In the area of Thach Lac facies (Nghe An and Ha
Tinh provinces) there are some sites of the 4 phase
such as Den D Ru Nghen , Bai Dien Di Ru Nai
Among them Den Doi is a typical site. Den Doi painted
pottery as the earlier phase , kept on developing the
p nted patterns with red-ochre painted bands around
the vessel mouth (i nside or ou ide). The a new kind
of painted pottery appeared: bowls with tall ring-feet
Th ese bowls were decorated with fine complicated
patterns which were the beautiful skilful combination
of incising designs , comb-impressed bands , polishing
and painting areas. It is on this new kind of pottery at
appeared a new element: the black colouring. This
black colouring on Den Doi pottery was not quite
SItilar to that on Bu Tro pottery. It was not made of
graphite but probably of organic carbon or sin. An d
this polished black colouring was used between incised
lines to set the pattems off
The level of development and cultural features of
other sites belonging to the Bau Tro culture in Quang
Binh area are basically similar to those of De Doi site
Con Nen site could belong to a later phase. There they
found some bronze remains and sherds of crucible. And
the black painted pottery was a typical characteristic of the latest phase of the Bau Tro culture , in
spite of the fact at it appeared earlier in Bau Tro
facies in Quang Binh
Based on a number of cultural characteristics there
have been many opinions that in many ways is phase
of the Bau Tro culture was contemporary with the
Phung Nguyen culture in Red River va11ey. 1 have
s

'I:{

at

in the early phase of the Phung Nguyen culture

there was also the technique to blacken the undecorated
areas 00 pottery , similar to at of Den Doi painted
pottery. However, the Phung Nguyen culture could not
be considered as a cul re with painted pottery like Bau
Tro or Sa Huynh
The characteristics of the painted pottery of the Bau
Tro culture can be listed as fo11ows
1. Bau Tro p nted pottery was mainly decorated with

colour-covering not with colour painting

2. The colours used were red-ochre and black (graphite
or organbon) but red pigment was much more
popular than black
3. The painted patterns were simple and almost
unchanged during a11 the phases of developmen t.
4. The painted pattems were not used as single form of
decoration on aoy vessels but always combioed with
one or several traditional incised an d/or impressed
pattems
5. Most of painted pottery had common shapes just like
other kinds of pottery , except for the d and black
painted bowls with tall ring-feet found in Den Doi
site. Perhaps they had some religious functions or
were used as burial objects. The inside vessel mouth
position of painted bands and the easily wom out
colouring show that this painted pottery were not
much used in everylife in the Bau Tro c ture
Until now there is 00 reason to think of the exotic
origin of Bau Tro painted pottery. The appearance of
pottery decoration with re ochre bands 00 vessels
evolved naturally , from being rare to being popular,
through continual development phases without any
signs of inteuption or mutation. Red pigment from
ochre-clay had been used as a colouring material in
burial rituals (to cover the corpse) long before , so the
use of red-ochre painting on the pottery which were
used in religious rituals or as burial objects , as a matter
of fact , was a natural transformation. Black pigment
painted on pottery appeared later and seemed to be a
result of a certain remarkable change in ee nomlC
social Iife of Bau Tro inhabitants. Obviously the role of
gathering and hunting then was decreasing. It was
mainly an endogenous change but it should not exclude
the possibility of an reciprocation with other
contemporary cultures. There have not been materials
available to discuss the problem
ln Solheim' s Prehistoric Pottery of Southeast Asia"
olheim 1974) he did not mention anything about
painted pottery similar to Bau Tro one , of any other
cultures dated earlier than e Bau Tro culture. ln the

474

publication on Niah three colour ware (Solheim , H

risson , Wall 1961) , the authors dated them to e
middle of the first millennium B. C. There are some
things in common between Niah and Vietnamese
painted pottery , especially Bau Tro pottery. The coast
of south China is the area where panted pottery
appe ed early , about the 4th millennium B. C. (Tang
Chung 1991) , It is easy to see that this area is not far
away from the area of distribution of the B.u Tro culture
and it is convenient for coastal water transportation
Could it be reasonable to look for the origin of Bau Tro
painted pottery here? To my mind , painted pottery of
there two areas is generally differen t. Perhaps the only
simility is the presence of some painted pottery ware
decorated with a combination of colouring element and
some incised and impressed patterns. But these incised
and impressed patterns are common for all Southeast
Asian pottery complexes so it is difficult to consider
them as criteria to compe. The pattems on the pottery
from the coast of south China were painted on the
vessel body or bowl with ring-foot with brushes or
some simple tools before firing. The patterns were
wave-shaped or S-shaped. Whereas Bau Tro painted
pattems were mostly red and black bands (at any width)
around the vessel mouth inside or outside. In the early
phase , red-ochre pigment was sometimes used to CQver
the inside surface of the vessels. Red and black
pigments were probably applied on Bau Tro pottery
after firing
1 wish to have more materials of painted pottery
complexes in our in order to find a reasonable
answer for the problem of Bau Tro painted pottery
ongm

3.
Up to now , Vietnamese archaeologists think that Bau
Tro pottecomplex was followed by a number of
pottery complexes of pre-Sa Huynh date. Like the Sa
Huynh culture , the pre-Sa Huynh sites distributed along
the coastal plain in Southm Central Vietnarn
To date , some archaeologists suggest a sequence of
pre-Sa Huynh development from Long Thanh to Binh
Chau.
The Long Thanh site in Quang Ngai province has
two C 14 dates of 3370 40 B.P. (Bln-1972) and 2875
:!: 60 B.P. (Bln-2094). 1t is the eponymous site of a
cultural type in this area. Some researchers classify the
Long Thanh type as ofthe early phase ofthe Sa Huynh
cultu. Others think it belonged to the pre-Sa Huynh
culture. One of the cultural elements of Long Thanh

type is the presence of red-ochre and black-graphite

painted pottery
Long Thanh pottery was abundant and varied in
form and decoration. And it was technologically better
made in comp ison to Bau Tro pottery. A good
number of unbroken vessels have been found in burial
jars. So we can have a detailed picture of the pottery of
this period. The most popular and typical form is the
kind of vessels with low ring-feet, high necks , little
flared mouths , short bodies , biggest swells at the
bottom. All of them were decorated with complicated
combinations of incised , cord-impressed 1m
pressed, shell-impressed pattems and painted patterns which is the most interesting to us. These
combinations covered all the vessel surface from the
rim to the ring-foo t. Long Thanh decoration had a
special style easily distinguished from that of other
pottery complexes
On Long Thanh pottery painted decoration was not
used independently but always combined with other
kinds of decoration , especially its black-graphite
element became much more important than that of the
Bau Tro pottery. The colour used in Long Thanh were
still red and black but black was predominan t. Some
wares were painted with red pigment before firing and
the colouring layer stuck fast to the vessel surface.
Some specimens were covered with this red layr
inside and outside as a slip and after that , over this red
sl they were decorated wi the patterns of incising
and impressing. The areas with no decorative patterns
were often polished. The red colouring material here
must be a kind of colorant, not simply a kind of pigment
like ochre clay as in Bau Tro. But black colouring
material was only a pigment which is easily identified
as graphite. It can be recognized that graphite was
ground or crushed into ponder, dissolved in water and
then painted on vessels with brushes or simple tools. 1n
the cultural layers in Long Thanh a great number of
graphite lumps used for this puose were found. It has
not been confirmed whether the black pigment was
applied on wares before or after firing. That black
colour stuck fast to the pottery surface , but on the other
hand , it did not make a clear layer which had been fired
just like the red slip mentioned above
No vessels with a11 the surface covered with black
pigment were found. The most cornmon pattern is
horizontal black bands bordered by incised lines. These
bands are s'aight or wavy with some variation. On
high-necked vases (flower vases) there could be six or
seven of these black bands staggered with bands of
mClsm comb-mpressin shell-impressing. Fairly

Painted Pottery in Viet Nam

common were the patterns with winding lines ,

variations of triangles, rectangules , arcs which did not
keep to rhythmical or syrnrnetrical principles. In these
black-graphite was p nted on the areas between two
incised lines to set off the incised patterns. 10 several
cases black pigment was applied over the surface inside
the vessels, from the neck to the rirn. The black
graphite w very thin and faded easily
Most of Long Thanh painted pottery did not have a
slip. The colouring was painted directly on vessel
bodies. But owing e techniques of surface proc S
ing (e.g. trimming , rubbing and sometimes polishing) ,
e pottery surface was usually smooth , and sometimes
shiny. The vessels with black painting on a red back
ground slip were very rare. The combination of black
and red decoration on a single item was hardly found
So it may be said that on Lo ng Thanh painted pottery
the monochrome decoration was major, the bichrome
very rare and the polychrome absen t. The two latter
kinds of painted decoration could be seen in Binh Chau
pouecomplex

Binh Chau cultural type was dated later than Long

Thanh type. Bronze artefacts and traces of bronze
working were found common here. Binh Chau pottery
was sophisticated and had many special characteristics
so it was easy to distinguish from other complexes
Majority of Binh Chau pouery was decorated with
incising , impressing and painting. The cornrnon fotts
of Binh Chau painted pouery are pots with f1 ared
mouth , low neck, spherical body and pointed round
bottom. vases in the same shapes the pots mentioned
have ring - fe bowls with tall ring-feet which were
complicatedly and sophisticatedly shaped.
One of the special characteristics of Binh Chau
painted poUery is the presence of painting in white
although the patterns were quite simple: only groups of
short parallellines. These were painted on the red back
ground slip outside stepped ring-fee t. These white
painted patterns were not used independently but
usually combined with black and lines of shellimpressed dots.
This decorative combination of black bands , groups
of short parallel lin incised and irnpressed pattems
was also found on the mouths and necks of other kinds
of pottery. Gen eral black-graphite horizontal bands
were the most popular. On each pouery item there
could be several horizontal black bands at a relatively
fixed positions, such as inside or outside the mouth , on
the upper part of body d on the tall ring-foot
Black-graphite was rarely used to draw , even some
simple designs. However, some patterns in bl

4 7

found: short p'allel lines (similar to .those in white

mentioned above) , rice ear-shaped desi sque
shaped designs, pticuly there was a bowl with 11
ring-fool which was painted in black-graphite on lhe
surface inside. The pattern consisted of 4 pairs of
rows dividing its inside into 4 equal p Bes ide s
there were a few pairs of arc lines and some bands
around its mouth. In this case e pottery I tem was
decoraled with only paintin g method withoul
combining with olher kinds of decoration
It must be said that Binh Chau painted pottery still
followed the principle of combining painted pauems
with other kinds of decoration but the painted elements
were of greater importance in comparison with other
Vietnarnese painted pottery complexes. In some cases ,
P nted decorating pat rns was used independently.
The black-graphite bands were not bordered by incised
Ii nes as on Long Thanh pottery.
Long Thanh pottery and Binh Chau pottery seem to
be rather different than similar. The difference is
c1 early visible in d to the fo rm, decorative patterns,
decorating techniqu etc. Whereas the similarity is
Ju st e popul presence of black-graphite colour and
the way to make some traditional patterns which are
common for many other cultures such as cord-impressin
comb-impressing , inci sing , s heel-impre ssin the
remarkable difference between these two pottery
complexes in general and between their painted pottery
mpti cular is one of the reasons which make some
researchers hesitate when they come to detenine the
position of Binh Chau type in the sequence of cultural
development in the Metal Age in the coastal area of
central Vietnam. The later dale and the higher degree of
development of Binh Chau type in comparison with
Long Thanh type e easily accepted but it is impossible to agree with the opinion to put it in the sequence
of the three-period development Lo ng Th anh-Binh
Chau-Sa Huynh. So the problem of the origin of Binh
Chau type in general and of Binh Chau painted pottery
III P ti c ular has not yet been solved. Binh Chau
p nted pot ry was influenced by Long Thanh pottery
but it is not certain that it grew up directly from Long
Tha1 although Binh Chau type appeed later than
Long Thanh and it was also distributed in the same area
of Quang Ngai province.
Recently there was a new discovery of painted
pottery in this area. It was a collection of specimens of
painted potteactually unearthed in e survey in Xom
Con site (near Cam Ranh seaport , Khanh Hoa
province). The designs were p nted in light grey on
crearn or pinkish backgrou

476

broken into small sherds 80 it has oot been able to

identify the form of the vessels or to restore a11 the
decorative pattems. 00 some sherds it is vi ble that
there were colour lines were painted as parallel
Perhaps they were parts of the pattems of concentric
circles Qr spirals. These patterns were popular 00 Ban
Chieng painted pottery in Thailand. On some sherds the
designs were simpl just some short slanting para11el
lines around the outside of vessel mouth
There had already been some investigations ld
excavations in Xom Con site but similar painted pottery
sherds had never been found before. The archaelogists
have oot yet agreed 00 the cultural position of this site.
Some of them put it in the pre-Sa Huynh period. Others
think it and some other similar sites belonged to
anoer cultural period or even another culture , the
Xom Con culture. 1 have no evidence to talk about this
problem. 1 just focus on the pottery specimens painted
in some unfamiliar colour. They enrich our poor
knowledge of Vietnamese p nted pottery. Except for
the painted pottery sherds , the co11ection of Xom Con
remains generally shows that this site was at a lower
level of cultural development an Binh Chau type and
it probably belonged to a period earlier than Binh Chau ,
it may have been contemporary with Long Thanh type
If this is rig the method of colour painting of Xom
Con existed before Binh Chau type. Is it possible that
Binh Chau inhabitants leamt the method and technique
of Xom Con? In Xom Con type the was also the
decorative pattern with groups of dentate-impressed
lines which was oot bordered between two incised lines
as they usua11y were in other cultures. And this pattem
were very popular in Binh Chau. However , it is
necessary to notice that except for the similarity of the
methods of colour painting and dentate-impressing,
there was a remarkable difference between Xom Con
and Binh Chau potteries . The researchers are in
agreement about the origin of Long Thanh painted
pottery. They rcognize that e main founding factor of
Long Thanh type was Bau Tro. Long Thanh black
graphite and red-ochre colouring and its combination
of colour painting and other kinds of decoration
obviously succeeded to Bau Tro painted pottery
tradition. However, there was a fairly great difference
between these two types. Long Thanh pottery was at a
much higher level of development and had plenty of
new features which could oot have grown out of Bau
Tro type. So the discussion on the origin ofLong Thanh
pottery should be continued
Long Th

as the colour and the decorative style but its popularity

decreased a lot. Colour painted elements were badly
overwhelmed by other traditional decorative patterns
such as cord-impressing , shell-impressing and incising.
This situation has been mentioned in many publications
00 the Sa Huynh culture 80 it is oot necessary to repeat
here
Fina11y , 1 would like 10 say a few words about the
situation ofpainted pottery in Dong Nai River valley in
south Vietnan1. Painted pottery sherds have been found
in severaI sites belonging to the late Neolithic to early
Metal Age. In the early period there were mainly vessels
painted with large red-ochre bands inside or outside the
mouths , in many cases , red-ochre was applied over the
surface outside the vessels and thus was difficult to be
distinguished from slip
In the late Bronze to early lron Age real colour
painted pottery appeared. In Bung Bac site (Dong Nai
province) , archaeologists have found bowls with tall
ring-feet which were decorated with colour painted
pattems inside and outside the mouths and on the feet
The painted designs were black or light brown slanting
para11el lines or spiraI lines on the polished ye110wish
grey pottery slip. The C14 dates ofthis site are of2450
:t 40 B.P. , 2570 100 B.P. , 2376 :t 40 B.P. (Le Xuan
Diem , Phan1 Quang Son , Bui Chi Hoang 1991 :114)
In Doc Chua site belonging to the early Iron Age some
sherds of small containers with colour p nted decoration
have been found. Th e painted designs are black and
brown bands of separated triangles or simple colour bands
around the mouth or neck (Nguyen Duy Tyu 1977)
The available materials of south Vietnamese painted
pottery are not sufficient for further discussion. 1
suppose that except for red-ochre painted wares , the
appe.ance of the painted pottery specimens in south
Vietnam was due to cu 1tural contacts

4.
Owing to e situation of Vietnamese paintd pottery
which is generaIly and briefly mentioned here , it is
sensible to confirm the existnce of a special painted
pottery tradition of Vietnam. It has its history of
evolution and its own characteristics to be easily
distinguished from the painted pottery of other areas in
the world. Its stting date was linked with the late phase
of the Bau Tro culture , in about the last quter of the
3rd mi11ennium B. C. and the ending date was linked
with the late phase of the Sa Huynh culture , in about the
1st or 2nd century B.C. In studying the two mi11ennia
developng process of Vietnamese painted pottery , we

Painted Ponery in Viet Nam

can c1 early recognize a succeeding development which

was demonstrated best in the colours and colouring
materials, in the style of combining colour painted
patterns with other traditional decorative patterns of
impressing and incising and in e presence of some
main patterns from the very beginning period to the last
one. On the other hand, in comparing painted pottery of
di ~erent cultures in Vietnam, we also rea Ji ze that a
number of differences have prevented our researchers
from fi nding an adequate answer to the question of the
forrning process of painted pottery type in each culture
There was a remarkable di fference between Bau Tro and
Long Thanh pottery, including painted ones. And there
was a visible difference between Long Thanh and Binh
Chau pottery. But Sa Huynh pottery was much more
similar to Long Thanh than to Binh Chau, although in
tens of time sequence and level of development, Binh
Chau existed later than Long Th an h. So were there any
intermediaries between Bau Tro and Long Thanh? Or
be s id es e Bau Tro factor did Lo ng Tha nh receive and
su from the influence and assimilation of any other
cuJture? And if so, what were they? There afe simi1 ar
questions about Binh Chau and Sa Huynh. It is necesSY to find ffiore evidence and persuasive accounts.
And o ne of the important sources to seek answers is
fro m e sea, i.e. Southeast Asian islands and probably
the southem coast of China as wel1

References:
Bui , Vinh
1984 The Decrat i ve Art 0 0 Pottery at Den Doi
(Nghe Tinh ). Khoo Co Ho c 3:3 1- 42. (in
Vetnamese)
Colani , M
1935 La Ceromique de So Huynh. The 2nd Congress
of Far-Eastern Prehistorians in Manila ,
Finn, D. J
1958 Archaeological Finds on Lammo Island. Ri cci
Publications; Uni versity of Hong Kong
Ha, Van-tan
1978a Nghe Tinh in Prehistoric and Early Historic
Vietnam. Khoo Co Hoc 2: 21- 29. (in Vietnamese)
1978b The Phung Nguyen Culture: New Acquisitions
and Problems. Khoo Co Hoc 1:5- 23. (in
Vietnam)

1984 - 1985. Prehistoric Pottery in Vietnam and its

Relationshi ps wi th Southeast As ia , Asian
Perspective XXVI(I ): 135 146
Le, Xuan-diem, Quang-son Pham and Chi-hoang Bui
199 1 Dong Noi 's Archaeology. Pu blishing House
Dong Nai. (io Vietnamese)

177

Mansuy, H.
1920 Contribution l' tude de la Prhistoire de
l' lndochine II Gisements Prhistoriques des
Environs de Lang-Son et de Tuyen Quang
Bulletin du Service Gologique de l'lndochine
VlI: 2
Ngo, Si-hong
1984-1985 TheSaHuy1 Culture: RecentDiscoveries
Asian Perspectie XXVI(I):153-155
1989 Decoration of Pottery in Ea rl y Sa Huynh Culte. Khoo Co Hoc 1:54- 63. (in Vietnarnese)
Nguyen, Duy-ty
1977 Continuing to Excavat on at the Doc Chua Site
Khoo Co Hoc 1:33- 40. (in Vietnamese)
Nguyen, Trung-chien and Quy Vo
1987 Periods of the Neo \i thic in the Coastal Plains of
Northern and Central Trung Bo. Khoo Co Hoc
4: 17-30. (in Vietnarnese)
Parmentier, H
1925 D p de jarres Sa Huynh (Quang N A n
Nam). BEFEO XXIV( I- 2): 325-343
Pat E

Le Kj kenmdding Nolithique du Bau r ro

Tarn roa Prs du Dong Hoi (An Narn). BEFEO
XXl V: 225- 267
Pham, Ly-huong
1982 Colour-Pottery Cu1ture and Colour-Pottery in
Viearn . Khoo Co Hoc 2:1- 13. (in Vietnamese)
Pham, Thi -ninl>
1991 Pottery of the Bau rro Culture , its Characteristcs and Place in the Pottery Sequence in
Central Vietnam. Khao Co Hoc 3:17- 24. (i n
1925

V namese)

Solheim, rr w. G
1959a Sa Huynh Pottery Re lationships in Southeast
Asia. Asioll Perspective 1JI(2): 47- 50
1959b Intrruction to Sa Huynh. Asian Perspective
1JI(2):97- 108.
1961 Sa Huynh Related Pottery in Southeast Asia
Asion Perspective III(2): 17 7-18
1964

Further Re1ationships ofthe Sa Huynh-Kalanay

Pottery Tradition. Asioll Perspective vm(l )
1 92 11

Prehistori c Pottery of Southeast Asia. Eorly

Chinese Art nd its Possible lnfluence in the
Pacific Bosin. Taiwan: 507- 532
Solheim, rr w. G., B. Harrisson and L. Wan
1974

I96
1

Niah
t
:oric

Pottery from Bomeo. Asian

lJI(l ): 167- 176
Tang , Chung

Pe rs
pe
'cll

A Joumey in10 Hong Kong 's Archaeological

Post. Hong Kong
Vu , Cong-quy
199 1 The So Huynh Culture. Ha Noi
199 1

51 On the Dating of Painted Pottery in

HongKong
William leacham

(Hong Kong Archaeological Society)

1. In troduction
The first discovery of painted pottery in Hong Kong
was made by F r. Finn in 1933-34 at Tai Wan , Lam ma
(Finn 1958:38). From the considerab le depth at which
the painted pieces were found and their completely
different styles , Finn surmi sed at this type of pottery
was ear1ier than the geometric wares. Another early
archae ologi Walter Schofield , divided the geometric
pottery into two phases: Bronze Age with high fired
stoneware , and Late Neolithic wi soft fine paste
geometric pottery. Thusom the pre-war work in
Hong Kong , and from the early work by Chinese archaeologists in Guangdong and Fujian , it was c1ear that
the soft geometric pottery dominated the later part of
the Neolithic. The painted pottery found in e 1930's
by Finn at T Wan and by another priest , Fr. Maglioni
(1 975:32- 35) , in Heifeng distri. was assigned to an
earlier phase of the Neolithic , but the precise date of
this phase was the subject of much speculation
The matter rested there until the 1960 when K.c.
Chang' s theories of a Lungshanoid" expansion from
the Central Plains into South China began to be applied
locally. Jarnes Watt (1968: 13- 15) believed at the
Lungshanoid expansion brought painted and other fine
pottery types into Guangdong , and provided the basis
for the early geometric pottery which followed. Chang
himself (1967: 107 ) cited some pottery traits from
Maglioni's site in Haifeng as evidence of a deep
penetration of the Lungshanoid in to coastal South
China. Watt believed that the Lungshanoid only
reached Hong Kong very late , and was followed
c1 0sely by the early geometric. Dating remained largely
a matter of conjecture, especially after the C 14 dates
from South China in the late 1970' s began to unravel
the very concept of a Lungshanoid expansion
The excavations at Sham Wan in the 1970 's
(Meacham 1978) brought the question of painted
pottery into sharper focus , on account of its total
absence in a rich cultural deposit that was c1early
pre-geometric and that had most of the other traits
formerly attributed to the Lungshanoid. However , at
another Larnrna island site , Tai Wan , excavated in 1979

(Peters and Bard 1982) , painted sherds were found in

abundance and seemingly from the same culture as
present at Sham Wao. It was the consensus among
Hong Kong archaeologists at the time at e painted
ware was contemporary with the other fine incised
chalky wares found at Sham Wan , since the forms of
painted vessels were virtually identical to those of the
plain and inc d wares. The survival of the pigment
was deemed to depend on the soil conditions at each
S l while the possibility that painted wares were
reserved for ritual or burial areas was also considered
This phase, believed to have had both pnted and
incised chalky wares , was termed Middle Neolithic" ,
and at Sham Wan it was very clearly separated
stratigraphically from e soft geometric phase, termed
Late Neoli\The Middle Neolithic was estimated
at aroun d 4000-2000 B.C. based on a small number of
C I4 and TL dates from Sham Wan and other Hong
Kong and Guangdong sites , in addition to the belief
that the earliest geometric pottery probably dated to
arou nd 2000 B.C.

2. Relative dating based on stratigraphy

The crucial point in our understanding of the periodization ofthe local Middle Neolithic came with the excavations at the Hac Sa Wan site in Macau. There , two
d tinct Middle Neolithic layers were identified: the
upper with pottery types c1 0sely related to Sham Wan
incised wares , and the lower with painted pottery. In an
article written shortly after the Macau excavation , 1
argue d at the existence of an earlier painted pottery
phase should be recognized , and proposed a dating of
-3500 B.C. In the light of the data from Macau , it
was possible to see that
The was in fact some evidence already for such a subdivision of the Middle NeoJithic , but it had escaped notice
until the recent work at Hac Sa. Several sites had a high
occurrence (i e greater than 1%) of painted pottery , notably
Tung Kwu, Tai Wan , Hai Oei W while other sites such
as Sham Wan , Sai Wan and the chaeologicallyexcavated
parts ofChung Hom W yielded not a single painted sherd

480

among the ...... tens of thousan

(Meacham

1986:107)

A recent re-examination of the 1979 material from Tai

Wan showed that the ShamWan-type incised or plain ,
white or buff yellow chalky ware was prevalent in c
upper levels , whereas buff red or orange painted or
plain pottery was prevalent in the lower levels. The
arbitrary 20cm collection levels may have obscured the
separation of earlier and later occupation of the site
during the Middle Neolithic , or the deposit may not
have been well separated s'atigraphically. But the
tendency for the whte incised wares to be in the upper
levels and the pnted red pieces in the lower levels is
clear. Re-examination of the field notes from Hai Dei
Wan indicate that the few pieces of painted pottery
were at the very base of the Middle Neolithic deposit
Excavations on Chek Lap Kok in 1991 brought to
light another example of painted pottery underlying
ShamWan-typ' white incised pottery. In one area near
Sham Wan Tsuen , two small squares yielded painted
pottery. Although no clear-cut division could be
discemed from the soil stratigraphy , the white incised
ware s clearly belonged to one brief occupation ,
underlain by a sterile zone and then another cultural
deposit containing painted pieces only. The existence
of the sterile zone and the fact at the p nted pottery
was fragmentary , scattered about , and present in two
different squares strongly s uggested at It was an
earlier phase raer than a special burial pottery from
the Sham Wan phase
Finally , recent excavations at the Yung Long site
near Tuen Mun revealed an extensive , stratigraphically
distinct painted poUery cultural deposit; the Sham Wantype white incised chalky pottery was totally absent
from the site. The cultural layer was a typical activity
deposit of potsherds , stone tools and discoloured areas:
no complete vessels were found. There is thus no
question of the deposit representing a special burial
ea of the Sham Wan phase.
ln summary , there is strong evidence for an earlier
phase of the Middle Neolithic represented by painted
pottery , while the later phase of the Middle Neolithic
well known from Sham Wan stratum F" does not
appear to have painted pottery at all. The two phases
are seen in relaton to each other at Hac Sa, Sham Wan
Tsuen , and probably at Tai Wan and Hai Oei Wan,
while the painted pottery phase is seen in isolation at
Yung Long

3. Absolute dating based on C14

The first indication of the antiquity of painted pottery

was the C 14 date from charcoal at the base ofthe cultural

deposit at Hai Oei Wan , giving a result of 5100 B. C.+/
100, calibrated to 4221-3700 B.C. At the time this
date was obtained it was the earliest date om 1
archaeological context in Hong Kong. However, for the
reasons cited above , a separate painted pottery phase
had not been recognized , so the date was simply seen as
establishing e earlierchronologicallimit ofthe Middle
Neolithic culture
The excavation of a culturallayer clearly belonging
e painted pottery phase at Yung Long in 1992- 3
provided the opportunity to obtain C 14 dates 00 this
phase without confusion with the later Sham Wan
phase, which was not present at the site. Charcoal was
sparse , and in some instances samples from two
different squares had to be pooled to provide enough
carbon for a meament. The first two dates obtained
(54626 and 54627) were very consistent , at ca. 45003800 B. C. Other dates obtained later ranged from
3780- 3047 B. C. at the latest to 4838- 3816 B. C. at the
earliest. The C14 dates from Yung Long seem to fall
into two groups: those clustered around 4700 - 4800 BP
(l ab result) and those clustered around 5100- 5400 BP
But it should be noted at most of the dates do overlap
at two sigma (95 % probability) , and a weighted
average of all the dates available on the painted pottery
phase gives a result of 5049BP or 398 0-37 7B.C
This series of dates i1l ustrates the importance of not
relying on one or two CI4 dates (Fig. 51-1). There are
well-known possibilities of charcoal being older than
the culturallayer in which they occur (old wood used by
the occupants or old charcoal uptumed from an earlier
deposit) , or younger (contaminaton from humic acid in
the ground water or intrusion from an overlying layer)
These site or sample idiosyncrasies will eventually be
smoothed out when a large number of dates have been
obtained. The total of seven dates for the painted pottery
phase is still relati vely small , but it does seem to me at
the time range suggested by the weighted average ,
around 4000-3700 B. C., should be close to the reality
The Sham Wan phase also has some internal
discrepancies , and more sults which do not overlap
The two early dates from Fu Tei (42857 and 63461)
stand out in this regard , and they are ear1ier than some
of the dates for the painted pottery at Yung Long. There
lS a spec 1 problem at Fu Tei in that immediately
below the cultural deposit is a sterile residual soi1
which has some bits of charcoal. One sample of IS
geological charcoal dated ca 11 ,000 ye

On Dating

of Painted Pottery in Hong Kong

calibrated to 5807- 5582 B. C. This date is more than

1000 years earlier an the painted potdates and
clearly cannot be correct for the Sharn Wan phase
Furtherrnore, the nearby site of K wo Lo Wan has the
same culture as Fu T and its two dates (45150 and
60795) give average considerably later th that of
the two aforementioned early dates from Fu Tei
Once again , the overa11 pauem is more important,
and the weighted average of the eight dates for the
Sham Wan phase is 4730 BP or 3633-3374 B. C. This
time frarne fo l1ows directly on from the pnted poUery
phase , and seems a reasonable approximation of the
e age of the Sharn Wan phase , perhaps extending up
to around 3000 B. C.
In conclusion , the evidence at present strongly
pom a date of 4000-3700 B.C. for e p nted
poUephase of 3600-3300 B.C. for the Sham Wan
phase (Fig. 51-2). The earliest geometric pottery
probably dates from just after 3000 B. C. What is still
totally lacking is any evidence on the period 45004000 B. C. which probably witnessed the early development of painted potte in this region
August 1993

References:
Ch g

Kwang-chih
1967 The Archaeology oJ Ancient China. Yale
University Press; New Haven and London
Finn , Daniel J. , S .J
1958 Archaeological Finds on Lamma Island. Ricci
Publications , University ofHong Kong (reprint
of a series of artic1es published in 1933-36 in
The Hong Kong Naturalist)
Maglioni , Fr. Rafael
1975 Archaeological Discovery in Eastern
Kwangtung. Joumal Monograph ll; Hong Kong
Archaeological Society (based on a manuscript
written in 1951-53).
Meacham , William
1978 Sham Wan , Lamma Island; an Archaeological
Site Study (editor). Joumal Monograph 1lJ;
Hong Kong Archaeologic a1 Society
1986 Note on the Middle Neolithic Sequence in the
Light of Hac Sa. Journal of the Hong Kong
Archaeological Soci xi:106- 108
Peters , Heather A. and S.M. Bard
1982 Tai Wan. Journal 01 the Hong Kong Archaeological Society ix:41 -45
Watt, James
1969 Archaeological Finds in Hong Kong and their
Cultura1 Connections. Journal 01 the Hong
Kong Archaeological Socie i:l0 18

481

LABNO
(Painted pone culture)
Har-2522
54626
54627
60313
60315
62188
62189
(Incised potte

LAB RESULTB.P

CAL. RESULT B. C

SITE

51 +1- 1

4221-3700

5230 +1- 1
5450 +1-150

434 -3789

HaiDeiWan
YungLong
Yung Long
Yung Long
Yung Lo ng
YungLong
YungLong

5490 +1-220
4880 +1- 170
4710 +1-130

culture)

1-8827

4220 +1 100
4570 +1- 130

R-4585

4000 3

42857
42858
63461
45150

5050 +1-1
3990 +1- 160
5200 +1-
4410+1- 80
4610 +J.

Har 6

795

3076-2505
3640-2920
3360-1696
4040-3640
3990-3137
4221-3817

Sai Wan
Chung Hom Wan
ShamWan
FuTei
Fu Tei
Fu Tei
Kwo Lo Wan
Kwo Lo Wan

3350-29

3628-3039

Ca l. Result B. C. is based 00 the calibration program 1987 (Rev. 2.0) published by the Quaternary lsotope Lab ofthe
Uni versity of Whington
Laboratory numbers are from Beta An alytic , USA except Har (Harwell. UK) , 1 (Teledyne Isotope USA) , and R (Institute of
Nucle Scienc New Ze aland)

Notes:

Fig.e

4665-3980
3775-3100
4838-3816
4034-3199
3780-3047

47 +1-120

51-1:

CI4 Dates 00 Charcoal from Middle Neoliic Sit in Hong Kong

1700

4585/1
240-

Har
6

26(

2800

8827

3
60313

62187

60795
42858

62188

3203403

Har
2522
54626

380

60315
54627

4200

4800

Figure: 51-2

INCISED

PAINTED

52 Fortified Villages in Northeast Thailand

Nitta Eiji
(Kagoshima University)

There are many moated sites in northeast Thailand

Elizabeth H. Moore collected data from these sites in the
Mun Ri ver basin and c1 assified eir types by checking
them against the aerophotographs of the Williams-Hunt
Collection (Moore 1988). Many of them belonged to
historical ag for example , Dvaravati and Khmer
periods. Recent excavations of prehistoric sites
conducted by Thai archaeologists and the author
provided important information 00 the birth , sequence
and styles of the moated sites , or fortified villages in
northeast Thailand. These sites are Ban Dong Phlong ,
Non Yang and Muang Fa Daed Sung Yang. Painted
pottery was also found in these three sites

1. Three excavations of Ban Dong Phlong,

Non Yang and Muang Fa Daed
Ban Dong Phlong is situated near the Mun in Satuk
Distri Buriram Province. This was a big moated
settlement enclosed by three moals and earthworks
About 290 people of Kh mer ethnic lived on the mound
of the site. Nitta carried out the excavation in 1990 in
order to unearth the prehistoric iron-smelting site here
(Nitta 199 1). Seventeen iron-smelting fumaces were
excavated in the southwestem part of the mound (Fig
52-2: 1). They were shaft furnaces lhat produced
wrought iron by using iron nodules as iron material , and
charcoal as fue l. Archaeometallurgical analysis
revealed that iron nodule was widely distributed in the
Khorat Plateau. Many sherds of p nted pottery were
associated with the iron-work layers. There were black
or red painted pottery which were associated with the
iron-work layers. Black or red painted verticallines or
d01S were found on the rims. Punctured dots were found
on the rims of some of the other sherds. The sarne typ
of painted wares were discovered at Non Yang site about
fifty kilometres east ofBan Dong Phlong. Ten CI4 dates
from the iron-smelting fumaces and the layers showed
thal they belonged to the three or second century BC
Seven human burials were found under the iron
smelting layers (Fig. 52-2:2). Under lhe buriallayer,
Qne small ditch was discovered in a sub trench. It was

dug in the west to east direction. It was impossible tell

whether it was circul or straight because the sub trench
was 100 small to determine its shape. No CI4 sarnplS
were collected from the ditch. Many sherds were
collected under the buriallayer. They were not painted
potte of which the rims were omamented by a few
lines of punctuations
Non Yang is a habitation mound. Non Yang was
once test-excavated by Pornchai Suchitta. It was
excavated by the author in 1989 in the sarne project as
that of Ban Dong Phlong. It is localed on the left bank
of the River Mun in Chumphonburi District, Surin
Province. Two-third of the original mound were
completely destroyed and washed away by the yearly
river flood. Only the northern part of the mound
remained (Fig. 521:1). Water level varies up to five
meters between dry and wet seasons every year. At is
moment Non Yang mound measus approximately
eight meters higher than the surrounding rice field
level , about 250 meters long in the east-wesl direction
and 75 meters long in the north-south direction. Twelve
naturallayers were identified by the excavation.
Two ditches were excavated in Layer 10, and one
big ditch or moat in Layer 4 (Fig. 52-1:3). Ditch A in
Layer 10 measures 50 to 100 cm wide and more than 70
cm deep ld stretches out in the north to northeast
direction (Fig. 52-1 :2). Thirteen postboles were dug
along the east wall at the bottom of this ditch. They
measure 20 to 45 cm in diarneter and were dug 60 cm
ap1 from each other in a gently curved line. Blackish
brown soil with no traces of water filled the ditch. The
soil in the ditch showed at it was buried and filled
with one rush after diggi This means at Ditch A
was a foundation laid to make construction of a wood
fence easy. Ditch A was dug first , then postholes were
dug at the bottom of the ditch. Wood pillars were en
erected by being put into the holes. Finally , the ditch
was refilled with a rush. Afler the pillars were erected ,
they we tightly connected with each other with some
kind of malerial. This wood fence enclosed the habitation area to protect it against enemies or certain kinds
of dangerous wild anima1s such as crocodiles. An iron

484

axe or 3n iron digging spade was .found in this layer

Di tch B measures 60 90cm wide d 70 cm deep
(Fig. 52-1:2). It was dug about 80 cm east ofDitch A
and ran parallel to it. This ditch was dug to make a
fence which was unfinished and abandoned
The ditches and fence were constructed after the
ground was flattened by c1 earing the wrecks of the fire
structures that belonged to the second century BC. The
fence might have been erected in the first century BC.
A big ditch or moat was discovered in the cenal
part ofthe excavated trench (Fig. 52-1:2). It lies in the
east to northeast direction. The cross section is V.
shaped. This ditch measus about 3 m wide and 2 m
deep at the west wall of the trench and about 4 .4 m wide
and 1.7 m deep at the east wall. No water flowed or was
stored in this ditch for a long time. This means that it
was constructed not for water control but for the
protection of the village. The wall of the ditch revea1ed
that it had been repeatedly repaired. Many potsherds of
late types of Tung Kula Wh ite or Roi Et Ware were
found fallen and s tratied in the filled soil from both
banks. The ditch was dug according to the contour lines
of the mound. This mean s at Non Yang village was
surrounded by a ditch. The height from the bottom to
the top of the eanhwork might have measured more
than 3 4 meters in i original condition when the
bank was constructed by heaping soil dug along the
ditch. Non Yang was a village enclosed and protected
by a ditch and an earthwork at that time. No CI4 dates
e available in this layer. Higham excavated and found
the same type of pottery which belonged to the date
before the seventh century AD. Because a Kh mer
monument was constructed Qver the layer that
contained these sherds (Higham 1977)
The following sequence is distinguished from the
excavation and the test cutting of the expo:d c1 iff of
Non Yang mound. Phase 1: The initial occupation
occurred in the eighth layer on the c1iff. Some burial
jars that contained human skulls we found in this
layer, the exact date of the first settlement at Non Yang
is not available at present. Topological study on the
pottery found at Non Yang and Ban Dong Phlong
shows that Phase 1 is estimated to be in the third or
founh century B C. Phase 2-5: Intermittent occupations
continued from the seventh to the founh cultural1ayers
recognized on the c1 iff. Bumt c1 ay layers indicated that
they used fire frequently. Jar buria1 tradition continued.
Phase 6: Four ground structures were buil t. There were
a base of wood "Or bamb c1 ay floor and c1 ay walls. To
these buildings rice cu1tivation h

According to CI4 dates , Phase 6 can be dated back to

around 250 and 100 BC. Phase 7: Period during which
the occupation was linked with the construction of
defensive wood fence en c1 0sing the habitation area of
Non Yang. Iron-works and defensive wood fence
enclosing the habitation area were moved to another
place on the mound. Jar burial cemetery was
established. Phase 9: J burial cemetery could still be
found in the excavated area. Phase 10: Non Yang
mound was largely reoccupied. The village was
enclosed and protected by constructing a large ditch
and an eanhwork. Phase 11: The ditch was buried
People again used this area as jar burial ce me ry . After
this period this area was never in habited again
1uang Fa Daed Song Yang (Fig. 52-2:3) is located
at Ban Sema in Kamalasai District, Kalasin Province in
the Chi basin. This site revealed a very impottant
moated city in the Khorat Plateau in the Dvaravati
period. More 100 sema stones, which served as
boundary markers in e religious monuments, were
erected in this site. The site measures 2 km from north
to south and 1. 3 km from east to wes t. An ov a1 mound
encircled by moats and earthworks is situated at the
nonhwest corner of the site. It is called Non Muang
Kao ," which means 01d City Mound." The Southern
p of Muang Fa Daed was a rectangular in shape plan
It initially grew from the oval mound and then stretched
out to the eastem side. The site might have extended
several times to the southem side in the Dvaravati
period. First settlement was found at the oval mound of
Muang Fa Daed. The moats and eanhworks of the oval
mound were the rs t ones built at Muang Fa Daed. We
have yet to determiIe dates of e constructton
The Fine Ans Department and Silpakom University
excavated the oval mound. the flfst habitation area in
1991 (Indrawooth 1991 , 117-21 ; Indrawooth et al
1991). Five test pits of 4 by 4 m square were excavated.
Three of them were found in the first enclosu one
near the westem earthwork and the other one oUl side
the site. Phasook Indrawooth numbered the test pits
from 1 to 5. They found artifacts of the Dvaravati and
the Kh mer periods in the upper layers from a11 tes Ils
It was very significlt at some painted pottery such
as red-on-buff pottery had been discovered in the lower
layers. Three human skeletons were found along with
painted potsherds in Test pit No. 1. Many painted
sherds of red-on-buff were collected below the layer
where three human burials of the Dvaravati period were
excavated
Red-on-buff pottery found in the lower layers at
Muang Fa Daed disp

F ed Vill in

Northeas[ Thailand

wave pattem. 1ts motif consisted of wide red p nted

bands and wavy lines. They we the same as those of
painted sherds found in layer 9 of Ban Chiang Hian in
Muang Di strict , Mahasarakham Province (Chan
taratiyakarn 1984; Fig. 12-9). Layer 9 of Ban Chiang
Hian was contemporary to the late period of Ban
Chiang dated back from 3 o BC. to 100 AD. The old
city mound of Muang Fa Daed was settled as early as
the end of the first rnillennium B C. The ditch or moat
had not yet been dug. Therefore , we cannot pinpoint yet
the exact date when the surrounding ditch or moat of
the old city mound was dug. But it is possible to figure
that the ditch was first dug at the end ofthe first millennium BC., and was later enlarged and expanded. Eventually , the moat was expanded eastward and southward
in the Dvaravati period.
There are many moated sites where human habita
tions were found before the Christian era in Northeast
Thailand. Ban Chiang Hian is also a moated village in
the Chi basin in Mahasarakham Province (Fig. 52- 2:4).
Chantaratiyakarn excavated it and exposed the layers
dated back from the end of the second rnillennium B C.
to the historical age. He found burials along wi th
painted pottery at belonged to 300 BC. to 100 AD
(Chantaratiyakarn 1984, 565"89). Non Muang site in
Chum Pae District , Khon Kaen Province is a big
moated site where some sema stones were erected (Fig
52- 2:5). It was twice excavated by the Fine Arts
Department and subsequent1 y by Kasarnaa Kaosaiyar>
in 1991- 92. Several burials along with painted pottery
were found in the lower layers in the 1991 - 92 excava
tion (Kaosaiyan 1992 , 172-86). Non 1uan g was set
tled by man in the prehistoric age and a moat was dug
afterwards. Elizabeth Moore also excavated prehistoric
burials along with bronze bangles at a moated site , Ban
Takhong in Buriram Province (Buriram Province
tourist Office 1990). Many of the excavated moated
sites in Northeast Th ailand showed that human settle
ments began in a prehistoric age and people began to
dig ditches or moats around their habitation areas at a
later stage

2. Discussion
Prehistoric settlements are found in moated sites in
Northeast Thailand. People had to live on mounds to
guard against floods in rainy seasons. They had to heap
soil to make the mounds higher. and they had to drain
the water off to make their habitation environment COffifortable. Early sett1ers at Ban Dong Phlong began to li ve
on a low mound that was surrounded by swampy land

485

They dug a ditch to drain water off to make their

habitation land less hurnid. Pottery collected in the layer
of iron-smelting activities is of the same type as that of
N on Yang Phase 6 at can be dated back from the third
to second century BC. This type of pottery pr ented
by a vase of which the rim is ornarnented by many dots
or short verticallines in red or black colour, whereas the
rim of another type of pottery is ornarnented by dot
punctuations. Both types of pottery were found at Ban
Chiang Hian Layers 6 and 7. The layers of iron-smelting
activities at Ban Dong Phlong and Phase 6 at Non Yang
are contempor us to Layers 6 d 7 at Ban Chiang
Hian. 5till another type of pottery was found under the
burial layer at Ban Dong Phlong. The rirn of which has
the omamentation of oneor a few lines of dots punctured
from the right side by a bamboo or a wood stick. 1 did
not find this type of pottery at Non Yang.
The ditch at Ban Dong Phlong was dug before the
jrd century BC. on the ground of the typological
study of potlery. C14 dates also supported this
estimated date. C14 dates from the iron-works layers
concentrate on the third to the second century BC
The fence at Non Yang was constructe not to
control water but to defend the village. The excavation
revealed at no water flowed or was stored in the ditch
The protective installation was erected for the first time
jn the Kh orat P1ateau. No C 14 dates were avai1able.
The fence was constructed just after the structures
(dated back to the second century BC) were burnt down
and cleared away. The pottery associated with the fence
was pajnted on the rim with four groups of more than
four red verticallines. This type of pottery is one of Roi
Et Ware named by C. Hi gbarn. Iron had a1ready wide1y
spread in the Kh orat P1ateau. The fence was probab1y
constructed in the first century BC.
In the 1ate first millennium BC. some ancient
industries such as bronze-works , iron-smelting and
salt-mabng activities were widely and actively cried
out in Northeast Thailand , especially in the Mun and
e Chi basins (Nitta 1992, 63-71). Ri ce cu1tivation
was a1so widespread in the Kh orat P1ateau. Northeast
Thailand was prosperous by producing not only rice but
also mineral ores such as copper, iron , bronze , iron
tools and sa1!. People gathered to live along the mai n
rivers such as the Mekhong , the Mun and the Chi
There were many po1itical groups in the Nortbeast, of
which chiefs wanted 10 Qwn bronze drums as prestigious goods. Strong points were constructed a10ng the
important transportation routes. Bronze drums were
found at

486

first millennium BC. Social tension did exist among

them. Therefore , defensive installation had to be
constructed to protect their Qwn villages against
enemles
The V-shaped ditch at Non Yang which was much
smaller than those of the Dvaravati period was dug at a
later stage
Many chiefdoms and kingdoms were born in
Southeast Asia after the Christian era. Population
growth led various village chiefdoms to resolve the
problem by expanding their villages. The villages were
surrounded by expanded moats. Big moats and
earthworks were constructed around the habitation
area. These moats were not only for protection but also
hydraulic control pue

3. Concluding remarks
There are four stages of fortifying villages in Northeast
Thailand. The first stage appeared before the third
century BC. Small ditches were dug to improve living
condition in swampy area. The main aim of digging a
ditch was to drain water off.
The second stage appeared in the first century BC
Defensive installations such as ditches and fences were
constructed. Economic and social development based
00 rice cultivation and industries iofluenced the social
systems and created tensions among the villages and
chiefdoms in the Northeast
The third stage came after the Christian era
Economic and social development caused many
problems. Bigger ditches were dug around the habita
tion area to ensure protection for their soci aJ groups
The fourth stage was the Dvaravati period
Chiefdoms and kingdoms were bom in Southeast Asia
In Thailand Dvaravati kingdom influenced many
villages in the Northeast. Big moats d ear works
were constructed for protection and hydraulic control
The constructions of moats were carried out 00 the
basis of strict planning in advance

Reference:
Buriram Province Tourist OflC
1990 Discover Buriram. Buriram
Chantaratiyakarn , P.
1984e POllery from B Chiang Hian and Related
Sites. in C. Highn and Amphan Kijngarn
Prehistor;c Investi gations in Northeast
Tha i /a nd. BAR Intemational Series 231(i)
Oxford: 59~21

Higham , C.
1977 Th e Prehistory of the Southem Khoral Plateau ,
North East Thailand wi Particular Reference
to Roi Province. Modern Quaternary
Research in Southeast Asia 3: 103-4 1
Indrawoo P

1991

Archaeological Excavation at the Ancent City

of Fab Daed Soang Yang . Muang Boran
Joumal17- 3: 117-21
Indraw P. , Sincbai Kr abuansang aod Payao Narkwake
1991 Muang Fa Daed Song Yang: NewArchaeological Evidence. Paper presented at the Second
FrancQ-Th ai Symposium Recent Archaeological Researches in Thai1 and
Kaosaiyan , K
1992 Archaeological Excavation of Non Muang
Muang Boran Journal 18-3 .4: 172- 86. (in
Thai)
Moore, H.E
1988 Moated Sites in Early North East Thailand
BAR In temational Series 400. Oxford
Nit E

1991

Niua, E
1992

Archaeological Study on lhe Ancient lronSmelting and Salt-Malting Industries in the

Noeast of Th land. Jou l7l l 01 Southeast
AsianArchaeology 11: 1-46
Ancient Industries , Ecosystem and Environment. Kagoshima UnierSl Historical Science
Report 39: 61- 80

Suchitta, P
1983 Characteristics of Ancient Pottery in the
Mun-Chi Basin. Muang Boran Journal 1
85- 91

E
z

8ue uON l B Salnl 3nl1S Ie3!8oIo~e lV E 8ueA uON lB 3PG pU ~3UC).'I Z ~H S BUB UON 1 :1- Z!l '8!.

<-_7;;--= ;'--':C..i:_.....- . - '"

WOOl

/,

,
,

200 m

'--

= ~G HIAN

e---

"-

29u)n4hh
lhatg n n phi ona
r ac
gt
9
an C nt ar
n
an
y ak a n 984)
h

FO

ua ua

t Bada
ph o n
gd r ngg
oaa
nn
nen
ruo
s as
acy(
eak
nr gt2
- eat lao
35 gs DN
(a
h e a
n a
nn ngo
f
t
u
)
a
y n
a

g kd2 2 l

R
F

M
O

500 m
J


The Publication List of Professor Cheng Te-k'un

Hs Chih-mo y chieh-sheng-fa" Yenta yeh 'an Peking

1930 M yths and Legends in e Shan-hai -ching" Shih-hueh nien-pao , Pekjng
1929
1931

1932

On e

Duplication of Geographical Names in China"*, Yenching hseh-pao, Pekjng; also Tung-pei ts'ung-k'an ,
Mukden
Translation: Languages and Di aJ ects in China" byP. C. VonMllendor Hung-ch 'iao Month Pekjng
Shan-hai-ching and lts

Commentaries Shen-chou-kuo-kuang-sheh

Shanghai

Sketches of An Archaeological Investigation Trip to Hopei , Honan and Shantung" , Yenching hseh-pao ,
Supplement, No. 1
Chung-kuo ming-ch' . in collaboration with Shen We-chun ,
Waseda Universi Tokyo , 1958; Taip 1973
1933

Harvd- Yenching Institu

Peking; reprinted at

Shui-ching-chu pan-pen k' ao"*, Yenching hseh-pao

Y-kung ch'an-che pien-ch'ien k' ao"*, Shang-shu yen-chiu chiang-yi , Part D , by Ku Chieh-kang , Pekjng
University Press
Shui-ching-chu Chao Tai kung-an chih p' an-cheh"* , Yenching hseh-pao.
Chih-li Huangho ti wo chien" Tung -Jang tsa-ch Shanghai
Shui-ching-chu yin-te Harvard- Yenching Institute , Pekjng
Shui-ching-chu t' u MS prepared for the Harvard- Yenching Institu Pekjng
Translation One Hundred Years ofHistorical Researches in China" by A. W. Hummel , Shih-hseh nien-pao.
Translation: Mu-I'ine-tsu chan , The Travels of Emperor Mu , Part 1" , Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society ,
North China Branch , Shanghai.

1934 'The Travels of Emperor Mu , P II" Journal ofthe Royal Asiatic Society , No China Branch.
Readings on Chinese Historical Geography' , Amoy University Press , Amoy
Shui-ching-chu shu-mu lu"* , Journal ofthe University Library , Amoy
1935

A Histo of Ancient China Amoy University Press

Readings on the Hislory ofthe Chinese people Amoy University Press
A List of Books Quoted in the Shui - ching-chu' Quarterly Bulletin of Chinese Bibliography, Pekjng
Translation 'Tai Tung-yuan and the Sh ching-chu"* by S. Mori , Ti -li tsa-ch Pekjng.

1936

A History ofthe Amoy University Canu Amoy University Press

Shui ching-chu Chao Tai kung-an chih p'an-chueh" , Yenching hs -pao.
A History of Chinese CultureAmoy University Press
An Ill ustrated Catalogue ofthe Chinese Mortuary Objects in the Uni'ersity Museum Amoy University Press
Cannons of the Opium War" , China Journal , Shanghai

l93

7
1938

Po--j en k ' ao"*

Shuo-wen

yeh-k'an , Chungking

1939
l
94o

Anln
trod

cttlO

nt
ot
hePrl

'ehist

or
'icAr

ch

lae

0/
ogyofMan

d
chur

i
r
a MSp Pe

d forthe

ePea

body

1941

Prehistoric Archaeology of Szechwan , Ph. D. Thesis

1942

'T he Li thic Industries of Prehistoric Szechwan" , Journal of the West China Border Research Society , Chengtu.

1943

Museum , Harvard

490

1945

The Royal Tomb of Wang Chien" , Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies

Chinese Jade , WCUU (West China Union University) Museum Guidebook Series, No. 1, Chengtu.
An lntroduction 10 Ihe Tibelan Culture , in coJlaboration with Michael SuJlivan , WCUU Museum Guidebook
Series No. 6
An Introduction 10 Szechwan Potte WCUU Museum Guidebook S No.2
An lntroduction to the Southwestern Peoples ofChina , in collaboration with Liang Ch' ao-!' ao , WCUU Museum
Guidebook Series , No. 7.
An Early History ofSzechwan , WCUU Museum Offprin! Seri No.8
Translation: Hsi-nan-yi lieh chan by Ssu-ma Ch'i The Southwestern Barbarians , WCUU/Museum
Translation Seri No.1

1946

Jade in Chinese Folk:lore Wen-shih tsa-ch Chungking.

AHi
st
or
y ofAnc
ient S.
zechw

va

n*
WCUUMu
se

umMono

ogra

ph Serie

:s

No. 1
'The

e Slate Tomb Cul!ure of Li

-f
'an"
" Harvard JoumaL of Asiatic Sludies.
Tibetan Painting , WCUU Museum Guidebook S No.9
Translation: The Prehistoric Perio by Lauriston Ward, WCUU Museum Translation

1947

Seri

An lntroduction to Szechwan Archaeology , WCUU Museum Guidebook Seri No.3

Tun-huang Studies in China , WCUU Museum Offprint Series , No. 10. Chinese pape
Guidebook Series , No. 10
An Introduction 10 Early Chinese Potte WCUU Museum Guidebook Seri No. 11
Archaeological Chronology in Szechwan" , Antiquity

No. 2.

WCUU

hr Dated

Museum

1948

Chinese Mirrors" , Oriental A London

Szechwan pot!ery'\ Appolo Annual , London
Seven Yin Sculp!ures from Anyang , Archi of the Chinese Art Society of America , New York
he Excavation of the Royal Tomb of Wang Chien" , Sinologi Base l.
Review 'A rchaeological research in Jndo-China" , Vo byO. R.T. Jan H rvard Journal ofAsiatic Studi
Chinese lron work; Gold and Silver Omarne n!s; and Jewellery" , Chambers's Encyclopaedia , London.
West China Union University Museum" , Museum , UNESCO , Paris

1949

The T'ai-p'ing-ch'ang Culture", Hsieh-ta Journal ofChinese Sludies , Foochow.

1950 Wo men t wen-hua" Kuofe Hong Kong

An Introduc!ion to Chinese Civilization (a series of ten articles)" , The Orient, Hong Kong
1951

Man and cullure in China (Offprin! ofthe above) , Hong Kong

The Story of Shui-hu-chan , Path of Learni Hong Kong
Chinese Art and Archaeology in Singapore" , Nan-yang hseh-pao , Singapore

1952Ta-ti

ti

k' fa"

Nan-yang yeh-pao , Singapore.

1953

Review Chinese Calligraphy'\by Chiang

1954

Catalogue of an Ex hibition of Chinese Painlings , Fi!zwiJlm Museum, Carnbridge

1955

T' ang and Sung Jades" , Transactions ofthe Oriental Ceramic Society , London

1956

Journal ofthe Central Asiatic Society , London.

The Religious Outlook of the Chinese , China Society , Lo ndon

The Ya-Iu-kuei" , Oriental Art

The Pu blcation Li st of Professor Chel g Te-k'un

4 ~ Jl

1959

Introduction to Ch'ien Hsan 's Hsi-yi chin ao t'u , In stitute of Humanistic Studies, Kyoto
Archaeology in China , vo l. 1: Prehistoric China , Heffer, Cambridge. (Translated into Japanese by Hisakazu
Mauz chIT goku k ko gaku - Sen shiji no chIT go yil san kal 1974 . )
Review: 'Ancient Japan" , by J. E. Kidder , Antiquity.

1960

Catalogue ofan Exhibition ofChinese Ceramics , Oriental Ceramic Society

Review: Beginnings ofChinese Civilization" , by Li C Journal ofthe American Oriental Socie New Haven

1961

Archaeology in China , vo l. ll: Shang Chou , He'er Cambridge. (Translated into Japanese by Hi sakazu
Matsuzaki , chIT goku k ko gaku tai kei - ln dai no chIT go YIT san kaku , 1974.)

1962

lntroduction to Lee Kay Yeow' s Forty years of Painting and Calligraphy , Kuala Lumpur
Revi 'A ncient China" , by W. Watson , Antiqui.

1963

Archaeology in China , vol. lll: Chou China , Heffer , Cambrid . (Translated into Japanese by Hisakazu
Matsuzaki , chIT goku k ko gaku tai kei - ShIT d no chITgol YIT san kaku , 1974.)
Chung-kuo ti ch 'an-t'ung wen-hua Singapore
Animal Styl in Prehistoric and Shang China'\ Bu l/ etin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities ,
Stockholm
Chou Archaeology" Papers Presented at Ihe Formal Opening ofthe stasiatiska Muse Stockholm
,

1964

New Light on Ancient China" , Antiqui

Review': The Le gacy of China"; ed. by R. Dawson, Journal of the Royal Society of Arts
Re

Vl
ew
:

Journ
t
aloft
he Roy.

al Soc
i et
yofAr
ts.

Review Handbook to the Co l/ ection of Early Chinese Antiquities" , by W. Watson , Alltiquity

Review Chinese History of Fifty Centuries" , vo l. 1: Ancient times , by Chang Ch'i-yn , Antiquity
Comments Prehistoric and Early Historic Culture Horizons and Traditions in South China" , by Chang
Kwang-chih , Current Anthropology, Chicago
l
96

Stockholm.

Archaeology in Communist Ch" The China Quarter London

Review: Foundations ofChinese Art" , by W. Willets, Journal ofthe Royal Society of Arts.
Revi ew Nei-meng-ku ch 'U-I'u wen-wu hsan-ch t', by Li Yi-yu and others, Man , London
1966

New Li ght on Prehistoric China , Archaeology in China , vo l. 1, Supplement, Heffer, Cambridge

, Artibus Asi Ascona
Review Early Civilization in China" , by W. Watson , Antiquity
Review: Ancient China l Transition" , by Hs Cho-y Antiquity.

Some Standing Jade Figures of the Shang-Chou Period"

1967

Saraw< k'ao-ku kuan-kan" Nan-yang wen-che, also Nan-yang hseh-pao , Singapore , 1969.
Archaeological Evidence of Chinese Activities in Ancient Saraw" Sinological Researches , Tokyo.
'The Peoples of China" , Nan-yang hseh-pao
Review The Chinese Theory of Arf' , by Lin Yu-tang , Journal ofthe Royal Society of Art.

1968

Chung-kuo Wen-hua Jen-lui-hseh Nanyang Universi Singapore

Review Ancient China" , by J. Gernet, Antiquity

1969

Archaeology in Sanvak Heffer, Cambridge.

'J ade Fl owers and Fl oral PaUems in Chinese Decorative Art" , Journal ofth e Institute ofChinese Studies , Hong

Kong.
1970

'T' ang Ceramic Wares of Ch' ang-sha" , Journal of the Institute of Chinese Studies , Hong Kong.
Review Blanc-de chine" by P. J. Donnelly, Journal ofthe Royal Socie of Arts

Review Fengpitou, Tapenket and the Prehistory ofTaiwan" , by Chang Kwang-chih and others , Antiquity
Review Excavations 01 the Prehistoric Jron lndust in Western Borneo" , by T. Hamsson and S. J. O'Connor ,
Antiquity
1971

The Inconstancy of Character Structure in Chinese Writing" , Journal of Ihe Institute of Chinese Studies

492

Review Archa logy

of the Ryukyu Islands" , by R. J. Pe50n Asia Maj or

1972 Some Chinese Islamic Magic Square" Porcelain" , Wen-wu lui-k'an , Singapore.
Review: The Archaeology of Ancient China" , by Chang Kwang-ch Asian Perspectives , Honolulu
Review:
Review Chinese Conno isse urship e Ko-ku yao-lun'\ translated by Sir Percival

D av

Asia Major.

1973 'The Study of Ceramic Wares in Southeast Asia" , Journal of the Institute of Chinese Studies , Hong Kong
The Beginning of Chinese Civ ilition" Antiquity. Japanese translation, Tokyo , 1974.
Reln

in China" , Our religions , edited by H. A. Guy , London

An Introduction 10 Chinese Art and Archaeology - the Cambridge Outline and Reading
Numerals of Ancient China Journal of the Chinese Univeity of Hong Kong.
Review : Chinese Literati on Painting" , by S. Bush , Asia Major

Lis C nbridge

1974 Painting as a Recreation in China" , Journal 0/ the lnstitule of Chinese Studi Hong Kong
The Prehistory of China" , T' oung-pao , Leiden
Metallurgy in Shang China" , T' oung-pao, Leiden
New light on Shang China" , Antiquity
Prehistoric Agriculture in C hina" Studia Asiatica in Felicitation ofthe Seventy-fifth An ni versary ofProfessor
Ch'en Shou-yi
The Chinese TraditionaL Culture* , Taipei
Legends in Shui-Ching-chu' , Taipei
Review Japanese Culture, a Short Hi story" , by H. P. Varley and Japanese Ill ustrated Books , by L. G. Dawes ,
Journal of the Royal Socy ofA rts

1975 Exhibition of Archaeological Finds in China" , Journal ofthe Institute of Chinese Studies , Hong Kong
Some New discoveries in Prehistoric and Shang China" , Studies in Han and Pre-Han China , in Honor of
Professor Herrlee Creel ' s Seventieth Birthday

1976 Jade Carving in China" , The Bulletin ofthe Oriental Ceramic Society of Hong Kong , No. 2.
Ceramic Wares from Southeast Asia" , The Journal of Asian A Singapore.
Archaeological Fieldwork and Prehistory in China"' , Journal ofthe Institute of Chinese Sllldies , Hong Kong
Twenty Ming l-min Painters in the Mu-fei C o llection" Journal of the Institute ofChinese Studies , Hong Ko

. Some

1978 Chinese Nature Painting" , Renditions , The Chinese U ni ver ty of Hong Kong
Man and Culture in China

Hong

Kong

The Beginnings of Chinese His try. Race and Cultures in Paleolithic Age" Proceedings of 30th A nn iversa
if Ta

Kun g Pao republished in Hong Kong , Hong Kong

Chin-Han Architectural Remains" , Journal ofthe Institute of Chinese Studies , Hong Kong.
1980

in

The World ofthe Chinese -A Struggle for Human Uni

Chinese


()

D e pa rtment of Anthropology , P ea body Muse um , H arvard

Unive rsity , 11 Divinity Avenue , Cam bridge.

Massac hu sett

2 1 38. USA

103

1 3 0

32

27

27

2 1

32

~IJ

20

6
27

27

2 1 5

2 1

343

iilJ

27

21

92

Ha V a n Tan

Professor

32

27

Director

I nstitute of Archaeology , National Centre for Social Science

of Vi etnam , 61 Phan Chu Trinh Street, Hanoi , Vietnam

Le Xuan Diem

Professor

Institute of Social Science , 49 Nguyen Thi Mi nh Street , Ho

Chi Minh City , Vi etnam

Pham Ly Huong

Professor

Institute of Archaeology , Nationa l Centre for Social Science

of Vietnam , 61 Phan Chu T rinh Street, Hanoi , Vietnam

W 1l iam M eac ham

Chairman

Hong Kong Archaeo logical Society , c/o Hong Kong Museum

of History , Block 58 , Kowloon Park , Tsim S ha Tsui , Hong
Kong

N tta Eiji

Professor

Departme nt of Archaeology. Kagoshima

30, Kagoshima 890 , Japan.

Universi

1 - 21-

English Abstract
Tang Chung
(Th e Chinese University of Hong Kong)

1. These essays were published for the second

lnternational Conference on Ancient Cultures of South
China and Neighbouring Regions, held by the Centre
for Chinese Archaeology and Art of the lnstitute of
Chinese Studies of the Chinese University of Hong
Kong , on the 25th and of February of 1994. We
would like to respectfu11y dedicate these essays to our
world-renowned archaeologist, Professor Cheng Te
K'un 00 the occasion of the sixtieth anniversary of his
academic career.
2. Altogether fifty-two essays were included , fortyseven in Chinese and five in English, along with
sixteen pages of colour plates , twenty-one pages of
plates and one hundred and fi fty-two figures
3. Some sixty representatives from China , Japan ,
Vietnam , the United States of America , Hong Kong
and other areas attended this conference
4. The contents of these essays directly involved
regions such as China, Vietnam, Thailand , Hong Kong
and other areas. Archaeological studies in China
involved sixteen provinces and regions 8uch as Beiji
Hebei , Shanxi , Shando Zh iang Jiangxi, Fujian,
Taiwan , Henan , Hub Hunan , Guangdong , GugXl
Shaanxi, Xinjiang , Sichuan and Yunnan. Reports on
archaeological studies of North ld South Vietnarn
were carried out by e Vietnarn In stitute of Archaeology
and the lnstitute of Social Sciences in Ho Chi Minh
City. Archaeologists from the University of Tokyo ,
Kyoto University and Kagoshima University reported
their archaeological studies on China and Southeast
Asia
5. The main theme of this conference is to inquire
into the issue of prehistoric cultural exchange between
South China and its neighbouring regions, focusing
especially on the painted pottery and yazh19 . ln
December of 1990, the Centre for Chinese Archaeology
and Art of the Chinese University of Hong Kong and
the Department of Anthropology of Zhongshan
University excavated the Dai Wan site on Lamma
Is1and in Hong Kong and discovered several cultural
layers with buried painted pottery and yazhang , which
were found to be closely related to those discovered in

China , Vietnam, Southeast Asia and other areas.

Archaeological studies done on the Hong Kong region
must be thoroughly analyzed and compared with the
inforn>ation pertaining to the southern part of East
Asia
6. Yazh ang was a kind of exceedingly valuable jade
o ect prevalent during Lo ngshan Cultu Period
ti11 the Shang Dynasty or even up ti11 the Western Zhou
Dynasty. It was co11ected a11 over in the museums of
Europe , the United States of America and Japan. This
time , we have gathered all the yazhangs found from the
archaeological sites in China, Vietnam and Hong
Kong; and as far as possible , we invited the archaeologists and scholars who personally discovered
and studied on these yazhangs to write repo S 00 their
research. ln this book, we have collected very rare
colouplates of yazhangs unearthed from Shando
Shanxi , Henan , Sichuan , Hunan , Fujian , Shaanxi ,
Vietnam and Hong Kong. There have been a few
significant findings of recent studies of yazhallg
A. Early yazhallg in China can be traced back to as
early as the period of Longshan Culture. Yazhang of
earlier period were found in Shandong and Shaanxi
provmces
B. The style of the Erlitou yazhang from Henan
province obviously inherited the characteristics
of its countets of the past but at the same time
bore features which indicated a trend of further
?evelopment
C. The discoveries of ya l. hangs in recent years in areas
outside the Central Plains of China such as Sichuan ,
Hunan , Fujian , Guangdong , Hong Kong and
Vietnam , contributed very important infOImation to
the studies on the spread of Shang Culture along the
peripheral areas of East Asia. For the two yazhangs
found from Xom Ren in Vietnam , one clearly
displayed the style of the yazhang of the Longshan
Culture , while the other had close resemblance of
the yazhang of the Shang period excavated in
Guanghan , Sichuan. This reflects the complexities
of yazhang itself in e spreading process

496

D. The yazhangs discovered in Shandong and Sichuan

indicated that they might have been used in
sacrificial activities. Discoveries" in Henan Erlitou
and Hong Kong Dai Wan revealed that yazhangs
were found in graves and therefore they might have
served as mortuary objects
7. The appearance of painted pottery in the
Circum-Pearl De It a area about 6 ,000 years ago
indicated the close relationship between the prehistoric
cultures of PearJ River basin and Yangtse River basin
The painted pottery of Vietnarn could be dated back to
around 4 ,000 years ago , relatively later an that of the
Circum-Pearl Delta area. Some twenty Neolithic Age
sites of 5,000 to 6,000 years ago have been explored in
the Circum-Pearl Delta area, and eleven of were
located on nine islands. These archaeological findings
revealed important evidences of the fact that people
bad already resorted to exploring marine protein
resources as early as around 6,000 years ago. AIso, a
large amount of barkcloth beaters dated around 5,000
to 6 )() years ago and excavated from the twelve sites
in the Circum-Pearl Oelta area, provided relatively
early scientific infonnation regardin e production of
bark cloths , and had great significance in e studi of
the origin of Tapa culture in e Circum- Pacific a
8. We "e especially thankful to the scbolars from
China , Vietnam , Japan and the United States of
America who .ttended this meeting and graciously
contributed their essays. We are all the more grateful to
Professors Cheng Te-k'un , J.o Tsung-i , Chang
Kwang-chih , An Zhi-min and Shang Zhi-tan for their
encouragement and guidance in the publication of these
essays. We would also like to expr s our Slllcere
gratitude to D r. Lee Jung-sen for his concern and
all-out fin cial support .od to Dr. Cheo Fong-ching ,
Oirector of the Institute of Chinese Studies for his
unreserved support throughou t.

1. li 1994 2 25 # 28

,:: b 1: 2 v' ~iIJ L J? li

60 L T

47 5 b 52 16

21

12

3 . :: -r.b.

4 . l

7 .;l 1) : v'1::(7) 60 L

' r -r.b.

11 I::~' < L

1::1 6 r -r .b. li"

li

.( V';f;

"' r A L li
1; v' 7 './ 7

i v' 't L t

1990 12 1:: :'--7

l 7 "71; ~ ' tr3 L

li A

tU

7 './ 7 E l.. t-: k < ~ F)

li 7 './7

6.

r J

;1: # ~

?y . -:

7 ;l 1)

~ ' ? LI:

K U ""{'~ 'i

r -r.l v' ? k -:>

L

(.,

c" ~ iJ' t!f F)

(.

' -r.b.

S v'" (. L I: i k fl" ~ n 3 li i L

U 1:: ~ (J) >t Mf 1

T

(J) li

v' L I:""{'~ 2

l 't L~' 111-- T .o i::~ 3 :

r -r.b.""{'E I
7 './ 7 Lt.; .0 . ~ -r.b.

Xom Ren

f 1 ~ 1 11-- i:: 11 4 L 1 I
3 3 Ill:: M o

l U L ~ 4

T li <~ .0 L

1 iJ' (. n l: li 1:: 1; iJf~ 1::

n .o

7. ? lt 6.000 i k 1t<;i.

r -r A l 4.000?

t 5.000-6.000 l 10 20 7" tU
11 7"'&1 1:'

4..

6.0 li

< ;i.? 7 ? Il 12 7"7J' t

( r ) .. iQ Tapa

Culture

<;i.

8. '-r A

;;'1) ; (t! t::

t I:.j L '1 "f L 1:. ;tH' /Jj

v' E l i
I. t.::.t:!
V' t L ^ C" 11.. L C" ;i. Q

( :111:)

2 47

5 1 6 2 1 1 52

Xom

Ren

16

7 6 000 7

4 000 tt

5000-6000

11

6 0

r J '

Tapa Culture

8 l

IJ

11

( )

6.

Contents

Biographical Notes of Professor Cheng Te-k'1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Colour Plates . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. .. . ... . . . ... . .. ... .

ix

Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

xxv

List of Colour Plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

xx

List of Plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xx

List of Figur.

xxxiv

Preface
Chang Kwang-chih . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

xxxix

I.
1.

A Brief Discussion on Ar tefacts such as Yazhang in Viet Nam Originating omChina

!ao Tsung-i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1

2.

A Preliminary Discussion on Yazhang and its CuJ tural Background.

Li Xue-q.

3.

A Short Discourse on Yazhang.

Zheng Guang . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9

4.

N otes on Yazhang.
ZIng Xue-hai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19

An Introduction on Yazhang.
Gong Qi-ming, Yang Ya-cng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

27

Examinations on the Uses of Yazhang.

Hao Ben-xing, Zhang Wen-bin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

33

A Study on Yazhang
Teng Shu-p'ing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

37

5.
6.
7.
8.

on the Origin, Development and Uses ofYazhang.

WangKe. n .. .. .... . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ... . . .. . . . . .. .... . . ... . . . . .. . 51

9.

Jade Scep Found

in Shenmu
Zhang Chang-shou . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

10. A Preliminary Analysis of the Prehistoric Jade Sceptre from China

Yang Hong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

59

11

le

Significance of Shang Dynasty's Yazhang's Moving Route from the Central Plains to the
Southeaslem Coast
Pei An-ping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

12. Shinlao Yazhang and their Remarks

Dai Ying-xin . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . ... . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . 79
13.

ADcussion on the Variety , Origin and Religious Signcance of the Sanxingd Yazhang.
Chen De.an . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 87

14. A Study on the Yubi Unearthed from the Site of Houma Oath of Alliance
Tao Zheng -gang . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

101

15. On the 12001 Grave in the Guo Guo Graveyard

Jiang Tao , Li Xiu-ping ... . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

107

11.
16. A Preliminary Study on the Yazhang from the Tai W Site of the Lamma 1s1and in Hong Kong
Yang Bo-da .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

119

17. A Discussion on the Yazhang from the Tai Wan Site of the Lamma 1s1and in Hong Kong
HayashiMio .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

U5

18. On Hong Kong Yazhang and Other Related Issues

Li u Dun-yuan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ..

l35

19. Inquiries on Lamma Island Yazhang

Mou Yong-kang . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

145

20

le

Significance and Date of the Yazhang Unearthed in Lamma Island of Hong Kong
Li Bo-Q n. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

155

2 1. An Investigation on the Yazhang Unearthed in Fujian and Hong Kong.

Zeng Fan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

161

22.

on the Yazhang of Tai Wan in Hong Kong and Some Related Issues
Shang Zhi.tan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

167

23. A Preliminary Discussion on the Yazhang of Guangdong and Hong Kong and Some Related Issues
Yang Shi-ting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 173
24. A Short Discourse on Ta WanJade Yazhang
Wang Bing-hua . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

183

25. A Discussion on the Influence of the Spreading of Ancient Culture from the Cenlral Plains to
Lingnan in View of the Yazhang Unearthed in Hong Kong
Ye Wan-song . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

189

26. A Prelinlinary Excavation Report on the Tai Wan site at Lamma Island of Hong Kong
Au Ka 1at, Feng Yong-qu, Li G" Tang Chung , Shang Zhi.tan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

195

27. The Date of Tai Wan Yazhang and Some Related Issues
Au Kat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

209

28. Comparative Observations on Stone Objects of the Phung Nguyen Site in Viet Nam and the Tai Wan
Site in Hong Kong
Tang Chung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 215

III.
29. The Shell Mound and Sand Dune Sites and their Settlements in the Pearl Delta Area
Zhu Fei-su . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

219

30. An Investigation on the Stone H alberds Unearthed in Lingnan

Jiang Ti ng-yu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

229

3 1. Stone Halberds of Shang and Zhou Unearthed in Hong Kong

Ng Wai-hung, Chan Kwan-shan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

239

32. A Study of "T-Section Jade R19S"

Yoshi Masato . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

............... . ......

255

33. The Relations Between the Bronze Culture and the Late Neolithic Cu!ture in Yunnan
Wang Da-dao . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

269

34. Coral and Se a Shell of e Southeast Coastland Unearthed in Xinjiang

Zhang Yu-zhong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

281

35.

APliminary

Discussion on Prehistoric Pottery Unearthed in Hong Kong

.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '

287

PileDw ellings in An cient South China.

An Zhi-min . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

293

PengShin

IV.
36.
37.

on the Whi te POery of Prehistoric South China.

Ren Shi n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

299

38. Archaeology at the Southeastem Coast of Chin a and e Orign of the Ausonesi
Chang Kwang-chih . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

311

39.. Prehistoric Painted Pottery and the Daxi Cture at the Circum-Pearl Delta.
HeJie un . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

321

Notable

Issues in the Studies of the Significance of Painted Pottery Decorations

Yang Ya-chang, Gong Qi-ming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

331

4 1. Painted Pottery in the Fujian Coastal Area

Li Ji n-an . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

339

42. A Discussion on the Techno!ogical Characteristics of the Daxi Culture Pottery

Li n~n

.............................. ................... . . w

43. A Brief Discussion on the Re!ations between the Qujialing Culture and e Daxi Culture.
Lin Bang-cun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.

357

An Experimental Study on the Manufacturing of the Pottery Designs from the Prehistoric Sand

Dune Sites in Shenzhen.

Feng Yong-qu , Wen Ben-heng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
45. An Investigation on the Chronology of the Neolithic Sand Dune Site in Shenzhen and
Some Re!ated Issues
Yang Yao-l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

369

.'

373

46. A Discussion on the Painted Pottery Discovered Zhongshan Longxue and Baishmg.
Yang Shi-ting, Lin Zai-yuan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

379

47.

on Tai Wan Culture in the Circurn-Pearl Delta

Tang Chung, Wong Wan-cheung . . . . . . . . ... .... .. ... . . . . .. . . . .... ... ...

395

48. Yazhang in Viet Nam

Ha Van-tan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

451

49. Some Remarks on 1e Bronze Culture in the Lower Basin of the Dong Nai River
Le Xuan-diem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

455

50. Painted Pottery in Viet Nam

Pham Ly-huong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

471

V.

51. On the Dating of Painted Pottery in Hong Kong.

William Meacham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

479

52. Fortified Villages in Nor1east Thailand.

Nitta Eiji . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .

483

List of Bib 1iography of Professor Cheng Te K'un . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. ' . . . . . . . . . . . .

489

List of Conlributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

493

Eng1ish Abslracl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

495

JapaneseAb.

497

Postscript
Tang Chung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

499

Eng1ish Cont.

501

.'

~ ', ' . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

"1Z

.vI

!\~
1>\-'
EI

.& 1

fllliII
lI/"S 1

l b l 1t

2 jjf . &

iI

lla

nHUUU

1b

10

~ .

q ".

|l

12 .

1 6.

2 0 . .

19 .

800klo