Coastal Connectivity: Long-Term Trading Networks Across the South China Sea

This article was downloaded by: [Australian National University]On: 19 December 2013, At: 16:14Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Island and CoastalArchaeologyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uica20

Coastal Connectivity: Long-Term TradingNetworks Across the South China SeaHsiao-chun Hung a , Kim Dung Nguyen b , Peter Bellwood c & Mike T.Carson da Department of Archaeology and Natural History , AustralianNational University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory , Australiab Viet Nam Institute of Archaeology , Hanoi , Vietnamc School of Archaeology and Anthropology , Australian NationalUniversity, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory , Australiad Micronesian Area Research Center , University of Guam ,Mangilao , Guam , USAPublished online: 19 Dec 2013.

To cite this article: Hsiao-chun Hung , Kim Dung Nguyen , Peter Bellwood & Mike T. Carson (2013)Coastal Connectivity: Long-Term Trading Networks Across the South China Sea, The Journal of Islandand Coastal Archaeology, 8:3, 384-404, DOI: 10.1080/15564894.2013.781085

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15564894.2013.781085

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uica20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/15564894.2013.781085

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15564894.2013.781085

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:14

19

Dec

embe

r 20

13

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Island & Coastal Archaeology, 8:384–404, 2013Copyright © 2013 Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1556-4894 print / 1556-1828 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15564894.2013.781085

Coastal Connectivity:Long-Term TradingNetworks Across the SouthChina SeaHsiao-chun Hung,1 Kim Dung Nguyen,2 Peter Bellwood,3

and Mike T. Carson4

1Department of Archaeology and Natural History, Australian National

University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia2Viet Nam Institute of Archaeology, Hanoi, Vietnam3School of Archaeology and Anthropology, Australian National University,

Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia4Micronesian Area Research Center, University of Guam, Mangilao, Guam, USA

ABSTRACT

Long-distance coastal interactions have shaped much of world history,most evident in social and economic ties through sea-lanes and trade-routes that connect to other regions and potentially throughout theworld. In this way, separate coastal communities on distant shores ofthe same sea, lake, river, or ocean can share more in common with eachother than with their adjacent inland neighbors. The South China Seapresents one case in point, where cultural practices and histories havebeen shared across remotely separated areas but not necessarily amongnearest-neighbor communities. The South China Sea has been one of theworld’s busiest zones of cross-regional commerce, at least since the IronAge if not much earlier. During the operation of the so-called Sa Huynh-Kalanay Interaction Sphere, about 500 BC through AD 100, sites in bothMainland and Island Southeast Asia shared distinctive styles of pottery,precious-stone and baked-clay jewelry, and other tangible markers ofa sea-crossing trading network. Upon closer examination, the evidencefrom Vietnam and the Philippines suggests origins of cross-regionalexchange at least as early as 1500 BC. Over time, different items weremobilized into systems that emphasized the same long-distance contactnodes in shifting configurations, creating complicated and evolving

Received 4 January 2013; accepted 24 February 2013.AddresscorrespondencetoHsiao-chunHung,DepartmentofArchaeologyandNaturalHistory,AustralianNational University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]

384

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:14

19

Dec

embe

r 20

13

Coastal Connectivity

networks. Here we consider how trading partnerships were formed andmaintained over successive generations and centuries, made possibleby social and economic networking across the South China Sea.

Keywords Iron Age, Neolithic, Sa Huynh-Kalanay, Southeast Asian archaeology and his-tory, trading networks

INTRODUCTION

Historian John Gillis (2012) observed thatcoastal communities of the human shoretend to share more in common with eachother than with their immediate landwardneighbors (see also Geertz 1963), due totheir similar coastal ecologies in conjunctionwithongoingwaterborne inter-connectivity.Many historians, geographers, and anthro-pologists have found similar inspiration inBraudel’s (1949) treatment of the Mediter-ranean Sea, with its long-term historical con-nections along separate shores. Anthropol-ogist John Mack (2011) reminds us thatthe history of the Mediterranean Sea has insome ways overpowered Western scholar-ship, and we need to consider other seasand oceans in their own right, as in BarryCunliffe’s (2001) examination of Europe’sunique culture history narratives in FacingtheOcean:TheAtlanticandItsPeoples8000BC to AD 1500. In a world-wide perspective,island and coastal archaeologists have cometo accept that both isolation and connec-tivity co-occurred in varying degrees (e.g.,Broodbank 2008; Callaghan 2008; Erlandson2008; Fitzpatrick and Anderson 2008; Hof-man et al. 2008; Moss 2008; Rainbird 2007;Terrell 2008), yet the actual hard evidence ofcoastal connectivity has not always been asconvincing as some may hope to find.

We propose that the South China Seaoffers an excellent example of coastal con-nectivity,maintainedover longdistancesandthrough deep cultural history. Long-distancetrading flowed across these waters as earlyas 2,500 years ago and perhaps much earlier(Glover 1996). These ancient traditions areknown from linguistic and material archae-ological traces, whereas other contempora-neous trading networks were recorded fordifferent seas and oceans known to Roman,

Indian, and Chinese sources. Without the aidor interference of historical texts, the archae-ological evidence requires a different set ofmental and methodological tools for study-ing the origins and development of tradingacross the South China Sea.

Regardingtheroleof theSouthChinaSeain world history, Gillis (2012:45) comments:

For some two thousand years its rimconnected . . . peoples. Before theexistence of territorial states capa-ble of unifying this vast and diversenetwork of rivers, deltas, archipela-gos, and seas, it was a kind of wa-terland held together by trade andmigration among the multitude ofethnic groups.

Following this lead, we examined thearchaeological records from both sides ofthe South China Sea, casting a broad netacross Mainland and Island Southeast Asia.This net retrieved evidence of coastal con-nectivity among distant communities, butnot necessarily among nearest neighbors.Here we examine the patterns in our net-catch more closely to learn how the histor-ically durable social and economic partner-ships were formed and sustained.

When discussing Southeast Asian trad-ing networks, the Sa Huynh-Kalanay In-teraction Sphere exemplifies the kind ofcross-regional social-economic system thatoperated during the Iron Age. In the yearsapproximately 500 BC through AD 100, aremarkable continuity is witnessed in deco-rated pottery, specific forms of earring, andother specialized goods found on both sidesof the central South China Sea. Other interac-tion spheres operated contemporaneously,and some can be traced to earlier origins.

JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 385

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:14

19

Dec

embe

r 20

13

Hsiao-chun Hung et al.

While we recognize different interpretationsof the dating of Sa Huynh and Kalanay tra-ditions (ranging 500–300 BC as the begin-ning and AD 100–200 as the ending), wefocus here on the operation of cross-regionaltrading.

How did these trade-routes and sea-lanesdevelop over time? What were the mecha-nisms for people to continue using the samecontacts and networks over successive gen-erations and centuries, effective throughoutever-changing social, economic, and politi-cal circumstances? How did these networksand partnerships interface with others in thesame, overlapping, and neighboring areas?To answer these questions, we examine thearchaeological evidence from both sides ofthe South China Sea.

THE WESTERN SHORES OF THE SOUTHCHINA SEA: THE SA HUYNH CULTURE

IN VIETNAM

Sa Huynh was named after a location with nu-merous jarburials in thecoastal sanddunesofQuang Ngai province, central Vietnam. Thesite first was revealed in 1909 by M. Vinet andthen investigated by H. Parmentier (1924),who reported a group of burial jars contain-ing nephrite, glass and precious stone orna-ments, with pottery. Since then, other siteswith similar artifacts have been classified aspart of the Sa Huynh cultural complex.

Today, the Sa Huynh culture is regardedas an Iron Age phenomenon dating from ca.500 BC through AD 100, mostly along thecentral coast of Vietnam. Most Sa Huynhsites, including related Dong Nai Iron Agesites to the immediate south, are locatedalong the coast between Hue in the northand the northern edge of the GreaterMekong Delta in the south. For our presentpurposes, we include Dong Nai sites of thelatter region as part of the Sa Huynh culturalcomplex, although sometimes they havebeen regarded as a separate Iron Age entityin the lower basin of the Dong Nai River(Figures 1 and 2).

According to recent studies (Lam 2011),Sa Huynh and related cultures in central Viet-

nam can be divided into three major phases:Pre-Sa Huynh (prior to 500 BC), Typical SaHuynh (500 BC–AD 100), and Early Cham(AD 100–500). The Typical Sa-Huynh can besplit further into early, middle, and late sub-phases (sometimes labeled 1, 2, and 3 respec-tively). Criteria for these divisions rely onpottery types, bronze and iron products, andother material indicators commonly found incoastal Vietnamese sites.

Jar burials are among the most notablecharacteristics of Sa Huynh assemblages, andthey exhibit their own regional differencesand chronological developments. Lam ThiMy Dzung (2011) recognized two traditionsfor the evolution of jar burials, including Tra-dition I as northern Sa Huynh, and TraditionII as southern Sa Huynh. We will return tothese in later discussion, but here we em-phasize the existence of parallel traditions.

LOOKING ACROSS THE SOUTH CHINASEA: THE KALANAY POTTERY COMPLEXIN THE PHILIPPINES AND LINKS WITH

SA HUYNH CULTURE

Across the South China Sea, the Kalanay Pot-tery Complex first was described at a siteof the same name in the central Philippines,where Wilhelm G. Solheim II (1957) notedthat it presented many characteristics similarto Sa Huynh. In addition to a shared jar-burialtradition, the Sa Huynh and Kalanay sitesshared similar styles of decorated pottery.Later, Solheim (2006:3) proposed a maritimenetwork of interaction in Southeast Asia,based mainly on the widespread distributionof what he termed the Sa Huynh–Kalanaypottery tradition, with its associated jade ear-rings and animal-headed ear pendants.

During the past 50 years, the Sa Huynh-Kalanay Interaction Sphere has gainedconsiderable attention. Many scholars havenoticed similarities between Sa Huynh as-semblages inVietnamandcontemporaneousIron Age assemblages in the Philippines, Bor-neo, and Thailand (e.g., Bellwood 2007; Fox1970; Glover 1996; Loofs-Wissowa 1982).To explain these widespread links, both

386 VOLUME 8 • ISSUE 3 • 2013

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:14

19

Dec

embe

r 20

13


Figure 1. Locations of sites mentioned in the text.

population movement and trade have beensuggested as driving forces (Solheim 1959a,1959b). Choosing between these two expla-nations, or even a combination of both, nec-essarily requires a firm chronology that un-fortunately has been lacking until just veryrecently.

Solheim (e.g., 1964, 2006) proposedthat the Sa Huynh-Kalanay pottery tradi-tion reflected the original movements of theMalayo-Polynesian (Austronesian) speakerswhopopulatedSoutheastAsia.However, theIronAgeassociationof theSaHuynhtradition

makes it clearly too young to have playedsuch a role. The major Malayo-Polynesiansubgroup of the Austronesian language fam-ily already had spread from the Philippinesinto Indonesia and western Oceania by atleast 1500 BC (Hung et al. 2011), more than1,000 years prior to the Iron Age in thisregion. For Sa Huynh, post-dating 500 BC, aconnection with much later Malayo-Chamicmigration from Island to Mainland SoutheastAsia is far more likely for reasons that we willdiscuss later, after considering both archae-ological and linguistic data.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:14

19

Dec

embe

r 20

13


Figure 2. Notional depiction of archaeological associations and distributions, mentioned in the text.Please note that these distributions are approximate depictions, not exact measurements.

COASTAL CONNECTIONS ACROSS THESOUTH CHINA SEA

At least two large-scale cross-regional net-workssimultaneously linkeddifferent shoresaround the South China Sea. The world-famous Dong Son culture of northern Viet-nam generated far-reaching spectacular im-pact via export of ornate kettle-drums intoMainland Southeast Asia and the south-ern islands of Indonesia, including Suma-tra, Java, Bali, and Nusa Tenggara (Bell-wood 2007). Dong Son, however, lacked

any clear presence in the northern and cen-tral reaches of the South China Sea—inTaiwan, the Philippines, and most of Bor-neo. The contemporary but very distinct SaHuynh-Kalanay network served these latterregions and was one of the main catalystsfor their cultural transition into metallurgy(Figure 2).

Unlike China and the countries of Main-land Southeast Asia, the island regions suchas Taiwan and the Philippines lacked aseparate Bronze Age prior to the appear-ance of iron. Between 500 and 300 BC,

388 VOLUME 8 • ISSUE 3 • 2013

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:14

19

Dec

embe

r 20

13


these regions received a sudden influx ofnew types of artifacts and new materials thatwere imposed directly on a Neolithic cul-tural background (Bellina and Glover 2004;Francis 1986, 2002; Glover 1996; Hung andBellwood2010).These included Indo-Pacificglass beads, siliceous stone beads, iron andcupreous metal (copper and bronze), andmoulds of stone or baked clay for castingsmall cupreous items such as socketed adzes

and spearheads (Hung and Bellwood 2010)(Figure 3).

Within our large-scale view of South-east Asian trading networks, more details canbe witnessed in sourcing of nephrite (jade),especially involving Taiwan and the Philip-pines. We also can see evidence of thesesame links as far as East Malaysia, central andsouthern Vietnam, and Peninsular Thailand.Between 500 BC and AD 100, two very spe-

Figure 3. Major categories of artifacts or related manufacturing tools/skills distributed across theSouth China Sea after 500 BC (Sa Huynh and post Sa Huynh). 1. A typical three-pointedlingling-o of Taiwan nephrite from Go Ma Voi, central Vietnam (Hung et al. 2007; Reineckeet al. 2002; courtesy Museum of Sa Huynh and Champa Culture); 2. Unfinished three-pointed lingling-o of (possible) Philippine mica from Khao Sam Kaeo, southern Thailand(private collection, photo by Berenice Bellina); 3. Worked Philippine mica from Khao SamKaeo (courtesy: Berenice Bellina; Hung and Iizuka in prep. b); 4. Square blank of Taiwannephrite from Giong Ca Vo, southern Vietnam (courtesy Vietnam History Museum in HoChi Minh City; Dang et al. 1998:663, Hung and Bellwood 2010:237); 5. Unfinished doubleanimal-headed ear pendant of Taiwan nephrite from Khao Sam Kaeo (private collection,photo by Berenice Bellina); 6 and 9. Stone casting moulds from Jiuxianglan, easternTaiwan (Li 2005:177); 7. Stone casting mould from Chansen, Thailand (Indrawooth2004:133), similar to those found in eastern Taiwan; 8. Stone casting moulds from MyLam, southern Vietnam (Tan 2008:60); 10. Indo-Pacific glass beads from Tres Reyes,Marinduque, Philippines (courtesy National Museum of the Philippines); 11. Indo-Pacificglass beads from Nagsabaran, Cagayan Valley, Philippines; 12. Indo-Pacific glass beadsfrom Guishan, southern Taiwan (Li 2001: plate 17); 13. Indo-Pacific glass beads fromJiuxianglan, eastern Taiwan (Li 2005:36); 14. Precious stone beads from Jiuxianglan,eastern Taiwan (Li 2005), with strong Mainland Southeast Asian affinities (color figureavailable online).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:14

19

Dec

embe

r 20

13


cific forms of nephrite ear ornament madeof Taiwan nephrite occur in sites that con-nect these distant communities. These twoforms are: 1) the so-called lingling-o penan-nular earring with three pointed circumfer-ential projections; and 2) the double animal-headed ear pendant. Despite the large dis-tances involved, many of the recovered ear-rings and pendants are virtually identical insize and shape, suggesting cross-regionallyshared and standardized traditions of manu-facture.

Jade Ear Ornaments

As mentioned, our studies (e.g., Bell-wood et al. 2011; Hung et al. 2007, 2012;Iizuka and Hung 2005; Iizuka et al. 2005a,2005b, 2007) have revealed that the nephriteused for making many of these ear orna-ments, especially those of green jade, orig-inated from the Fengtian nephrite source ineastern Taiwan. The interesting fact is thatthe raw material itself came from Taiwan,

while the ear ornaments themselves wereoften produced locally in the Philippines,southern Vietnam and southern Thailand, us-ing Taiwan raw materials, especially sawnsquare tablets of Fengtien nephrite. We con-jecture that these were blanks, carried by seafrom Taiwan to local workshops in other re-gions of Southeast Asia (Hung and Iizuka inpress, in prep).

The most numerous and geographicallywidespread lingling-o penannular earringshave three pointed circumferential projec-tions (see item 1 in Figure 3). These oc-cur primarily in Taiwan and the northernPhilippines, and extend into coastal Viet-nam. At Savidug, on Sabtang in the BatanesIslands, red-slipped pottery and clay earringsoccur that are similar to specimens datedabout 700–500 BC in certain Vietnamesesites (see more discussion below). Thereis also a possible prototype for the three-pointed lingling-o, of nephrite, dated about500 BC, from Savidug (Figure 4; Bellwoodand Dizon in press). Similar prototypes for

Figure 4. A possible prototype shape for the lingling-o penannular earrings with three pointedcircumferential projections, dated to c. 400 BC or earlier, from Hengchun, southern tipof Taiwan (2); Lanyu Island (3) (courtesy: National Museum of Prehistory, Taiwan);Savidug Dune site, Sabtang (1); and northern Luzon (4, 5) (courtesy: National Museumof the Philippines) (color figure available online).

390 VOLUME 8 • ISSUE 3 • 2013

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:14

19

Dec

embe

r 20

13


Figure 5. Another possible prototype for lingling-o penannular earrings, from Bai Coi, Ha TinhProvince (courtesy: Ha Tinh Museum, Vietnam) (color figure available online).

the three-pointed lingling-o, all made of Tai-wan nephrite, come from Hengchun (south-ern tip of Taiwan), Lanyu Island (southeastof Taiwan), and Arku Cave (northern Luzon,Philippines).

Another possible prototype for thepenannular linglingo earrings with projec-tions might be an example of Vietnameseblack nephrite from Bai Coi, Ha TinhProvince, central Vietnam (Figure 5). Thishas no projections and is flat on one side,like many of the clay lingling-o from Viet-nam and the northern Philippines, which itresembles in both shape and size. It comesfrom a context with Binh Chau style pot-tery that appears to be slightly older than SaHuynh proper (see discussion below). How-ever, more dating is needed to identify theoriginal homeland of this particular type ofartifact.

Mica Ornaments

Greenstone artifacts were made not onlyof Taiwan nephrite, but also of mica. Thisgreen muscovite is popularly calledMindorojade and is sourced generally to Mindoro Is-land in the central Philippines. Occurringmostly in Iron Age sites spread widely in thePhilippines, East Malaysia, southern Vietnamand Peninsular Thailand, green mica wasfashioned into earrings, beads, perforated

pendants, and lingling-o with three pointedprojections (Hung and Bellwood 2010).

On opposite sides of the South ChinaSea,weseeornamentworkshopsitesatKhaoSamKaeoinPeninsularThailandandatAnaroin the Batanes Islands (Hung and Iizuka inprep, in press). Both contain debitage fromTaiwan nephrite and green mica (Mindorojade). The chemical characteristics of thismica, together with its color and geologicalorigin, would appear to be unique, althoughthe precise source remains uncertain. It isremarkable that these two types of raw ma-terial were selected and transported acrossthe South China Sea for jewelry productionat such distant locations.

Baked Clay Ear Ornaments

In Vietnam, baked clay ear ornamentsoccur in Sa Huynh and Dong Nai sites insouthern Vietnam, such as Dong Cuom, GoMa Voi (Reinecke et al. 2002:98), Giong CaVo (Dang et al. 1998:663) and Dai Lanh.The same baked clay ear ornaments occur inPre-Sa Huynh sites such as Binh Chau (Ngo1980:71). Some occur even earlier, in Ne-olithic sites such as Thach Lac in Ha TinhProvince (Figure 6).

These Vietnamese baked-clay ear orna-ments are identical to specimens excavatedin the Philippines, dated to the same periodor earlier, and bear further witness to ancient


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:14

19

Dec

embe

r 20

13


Figure 6. Clay earrings from Vietnam (1–18) and the Philippines (19–30); 1–3, 6–8, and 13–14 fromThach Lac, Ha Tinh Province, central Vietnam; 4. Dong Cuom; 5. Dai Lanh; 9–12. Giong CaVo; 15–16. Go Ma Voi; 17–18. Binh Chau; 19–30. The lower silts at Nagsabaran, northernPhilippines (courtesy: Ha Tinh Museum; Da Nang Museum; Quang Ngai Museum; BinhDinh Museum; Museum of Sa Huynh and Champa Culture; Vietnam History Museum inHo Chi Minh City; National Museum of the Philippines) (color figure available online).

cross-regional interaction across the SouthChina Sea. The examples from Nagsabaranand Magapit in the Cagayan Valley of north-ern Luzon are dated roughly between 1500and 500 BC. Others were present during thefirst millennium BC at Anaro and SavidugDune Site in Batanes (Bellwood and Dizon,in press), and the Tabon Caves on Palawan.The distance between Thach Lac and the Ca-gayan Valley is about 1,600 km. The journeymay have been longer if it involved multiple

way-stations and trading-posts, for examplein friendly settlements scattered along acces-sible coasts.

IRON AGE POTTERY: SA HUYNH ANDKALANAY CONNECTIONS

The diagnostic Sa Huynh pottery has beenidentified across a rather broad geographic

392 VOLUME 8 • ISSUE 3 • 2013

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:14

19

Dec

embe

r 20

13


range, much larger than its original defini-tion in coastal Vietnam, and larger also thanSolheim’s original Sa Huynh-Kalanay formu-lation. Solheim (1964, 2006) noted that pot-tery found in Ko Din Cave on Samui Island,Gulf of Thailand, was identical in form anddecoration to some of the Iron Age incisedand stamped pottery excavated by him fromKalanay Cave in the central Philippines. Re-cently, more of the same type of pottery hasbeen found in Ko Din Cave (Bellina et al.2012), and in Thung Tako on the coast ofpeninsular Thailand (Aude Favereau, per-sonal communication, 2013). Moreover, thediscovery of identical pottery at the south-ern Sa Huynh site of Hoa Diem in KhanhHoa Province has strengthened this trail (Ya-

magata and Bui 2008; Dinh Ma.nh personalcommunication) (Figures 7, 8, and 9). Pot-tery vessels similar to those in Figures 8 and9 also appear in peninsular Thailand (AudeFavereau, personal communication, 2013).

Asmanyscholarshavenoticed (e.g., Lam2009; Momoki 1999:71; Sakurai 1999:28;Southworth 2004), the Indianized polity ofChampa in central Vietnam provides func-tional parallels for its Sa Huynh predecessor,in that it served as a gateway to the Indian-ized world for the Philippines and Vietnam,and also a gateway to the Chinese worldfor Malaysians and Indonesians. During theHan dynasty, the Chinese historical docu-ments Discourses on Salt and Iron ( )and Book of Han-Treatise of Geography

Figure 7. Highly similar pottery forms and designs within the Sa Huynh-Kalanay network.Group 1 from Ko Din Cave on Samui Island, southern Thailand; group 2 from HoaDiem, southern Vietnam; and group 3 from Kalanay Cave, Central Philippines (re-vised from Solheim 2006:136, Hoa Diem pottery courtesy: Khanh Hoa Museum, Viet-nam; and see Yamagata 2008; Yamagata and Bui 2008) (color figure availableonline).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:14

19

Dec

embe

r 20

13


Figure 8. Pottery with modeled breasts from Hoa Diem, Khanh Province of southern Vietnam(courtesy: Khanh Hoa Museum, Vietnam) (color figure available online).

Figure 9. Pottery with modeled breasts from the central Philippines (courtesy: National Museum ofthe Philippines) (color figure available online).

394 VOLUME 8 • ISSUE 3 • 2013

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:14

19

Dec

embe

r 20

13


( ) record that the Chinese ex-ported gold and silk to the lands aroundthe South China Sea in exchange for glass-making materials, crystal, agate, rhinoceroshorn, aromatic woods, and spices. It wasalso recorded that Champa people were ex-pert traders and sailors (Maspero 1928). Wecan imagine that the Sa Huynh ancestorsof Champa probably traded on many geo-graphic scales, all with considerable impacton neighboring countries.

EARLIER POTTERY TRADITIONS:COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS

PRE-DATING SA HUYNH AND KALANAY

At least some pottery traditions were sharedcross the South China Sea prior to the appear-ance of diagnostic Sa Huynh and Kalanay pot-tery forms. These earlier connections mayhavecreatedthecontacts,channels, andcon-texts that facilitated other networks, suchas we can trace more abundantly with SaHunyh-Kalanay.

Curvilinear Scrolls Filled WithPunctations

Flavel (2006) has listed the distributionof a specific curvilinear scroll motif filledwith punctations (labeled by her types 41a,b, and c) in Southeast Asia. The motif oc-curs in many sites in Indonesia and Malaysia,including Batu Ejaya, Leang Buidane, UluLeang 2 and the Kalumpang sites in Sulawesi;Kalanay, Tabon, and several Visayan sitesin the Philippines; Gua Cha in PeninsularMalaysia; and Ban Chiang in northeast Thai-land. Most of these are Iron Age jar burialsites, similar to Sa Huynh (Flavel 2006:222–223).

In Vietnam, similar incised spiral motifswith punctate infilling occur at Go O Chua(Reinecke et al. 2009) (Figure 10) and manyother sites, from the Pre-Sa Huynh throughSa Huynh phases, at ca. 800–500 BC. Thesame decorative expressions can be foundin the younger Hoa Diem assemblage of thelate Sa Huynh phase. These traditions also re-semble the “three-color ware” pottery fromLubang Angin and Niah in western Borneo

Figure 10. Pottery from Go O Chua (courtesy: Long An Museum, southern Vietnam) (color figureavailable online).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:14

19

Dec

embe

r 20

13


(Ipoi 1993), as well as some of the potteryfrom the Tabon Caves in Palawan (Fox 1970:frontispiece—Manunggul jar).

Binh Chau Pottery

Regarding the Pre-Sa Huynh to Sa Huynhtransition, many Vietnamese archaeologistsacceptacontinuous in situchronologicalde-velopment from Long Thanh through BinhChau to Sa Huynh. Others, however, stressthedifferences inpotterystylebetweenLongThanh and Binh Chau (Pham 1994). Basedon excavations at Bau Tram (Nui Thanh,Quang Nam Province), Bui and Yamagata(2005) have suggested that Long Thanh andBinh Chau were not continuous and succes-sive cultural periods at all, but were insteadindependent of each other. We agree thatsome discontinuities are evident in the pot-tery types, deserving closer attention. Wepropose that the Long Thanh pottery of thePre-Sa Huynh Period derived from a north-ern Vietnamese Neolithic source related toPhung Nguyen, whereas the Binh Chau andSa Huynh pottery types were linked in partwith the Philippines and other regions. Bothcan thus be traced to contemporary and ear-lier Neolithic traditions within Vietnam it-self, but in the case of Binh Chau extra cul-tural linkages are evidenced across the SouthChina Sea.

The Long Thanh pottery is quite differ-ent from that of Binh Chau and Bau Tram(Vu et al. 1993) in terms of its vessel formsand decoration. The decoration of the high-necked Long Thanh vessels bears a strong re-semblance to the presumably older northernVietnam Phung Nguyen Neolithic, especiallyin the curvilinear scrolls and wave-like de-signs created by punctation between curvedincised lines (Figure 11).

The most common vessels in Binh Chauand Bau Tram have everted rims, round bot-toms and carinations, and there are also ring-footed bowls (Figure 12). Incised and im-pressed punctate decoration is fairly com-mon (Ha 1984–1985:144). In terms of rimand vessel shapes, especially the evertedand internally concave rims, and the rimswith inner projecting sharp angles, the BinhChau and Bau Tram assemblages resemble

assemblages from northern Luzon, as wellas Middle Neolithic assemblages in easternand southern Taiwan to a certain degree, alldated prior to 1000–1500 BC (Hung 2008)(Figure 13).

The earliest Neolithic pottery traditionsaround the South China Sea conceivably mayhave shared distant origins about 2000 BCor earlier, but they soon thereafter devel-oped mostly independently in Vietnam, thePhilippines, and elsewhere. We begin to seestronger connectivity again after 800 BC, andmost especially after 500 BC, with the suc-cessive Binh Chau and then Sa Huynh pot-tery traditions in Vietnam bearing close rela-tions with contemporary traditions such asKalanay in the Philippines.

Jar Burial

Jar burial is one of the diagnostic mark-ers of the Sa Huynh culture, but it also devel-oped from Pre-Sa Huynh traditions in Viet-nam (Lam 2011). Tradition I (Northern SaHuynh)wascharacterizedbyegg-shapedandcylindrical jars, traceable from the last fewcenturies BC through about AD 100. Tradi-tion II (Southern Sa Huynh) was character-ized by spherical jars, can be traced backmuch earlier to 1500 BC, and continuedthrough to AD 200–300.

In the southern Sa Huynh sites, the burialjars closely resemble those found eastwardsacross the South China Sea in the Taboncaves, as well as in the opposite directionwestwards on Samui Island (Lam 2011). Fur-ther north, similarities are noted with theburial jars of Savidug Dune Site in the BatanesIslands (500 BC to AD 1) and the Huagang-shan sites in eastern Taiwan (1500–500 BC).

The similar characteristics include:

1. settings frequently in coastal sanddunes (Huagangshan, Savidug, south-ern Sa Huynh sites);

2. the rims of most burial jars were cutoff intentionally by chiseling from in-side the jar (Huagangshan, Savidug, andsouthern Sa Huynh sites such as GiongCa Vo); and

3. association with nephrite jade pro-duction, especially using Fengtian raw

396 VOLUME 8 • ISSUE 3 • 2013

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:14

19

Dec

embe

r 20

13


Figure 11. The Pre-Sa Huynh assemblage from Long Thanh, c. 1500–1000 BC. Photos by NguyenKim Dung and Peter Bellwood, courtesy of the Quang Ngai and Ninh Binh ProvincialMuseums, Vietnam. These items are not reproduced to the same scale.

A-D. Four wide-mouthed beakers with incised and impressed decoration, 7-12.3 cm inmouth diameter, found at Long Thanh inside a large lidded burial jar with PhungNguyen style decoration on its lid;

E. Vessel of very similar shape and decoration in Phung Nguyen style from Man Ba. c,Ninh Binh Province, c.1900 BC (Nguyen et al. 2011);

F. Long Thanh pedestal base with scroll decoration of incised lines and stamped circles(color figure available online).

material from Taiwan (Huagangshan,Savidug, Giong Ca Vo).

These specific kinds of jar burials reveala geographic distribution and chronologythat are similar to those of Taiwan nephriteartifacts in Southeast Asia. The oldest ofthese jar burials can be traced at least asearly as 1500 BC, yet the overall popular-ity and widespread distribution across theSouth China Sea strengthened significantlyafter 500 BC. The coastal areas of northernDong Son Vietnam and southern China were

outside this particular region of contact, andinstead engaged in a different network of in-teraction.

Within the Austronesian-speakingworld, the oldest jar burials occur in Taiwanand the Philippines, but other equallyancient occurrences can be found in regionsas far apart as China, India, and Thailand.Southward, Ian Glover noticed that Anyar(in Java) and Roti (in eastern Indonesia) havejar burials of similar age, and he suggestedthat jar burials were invented independentlyin separate regions (Glover 1998).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:14

19

Dec

embe

r 20

13


Figure 12. Vessels from Binh Chau displayed at the Quang Ngai Museum (courtesy: Quang NgaiMuseum, Vietnam) (color figure available online).

RECONSIDERING THE LINGUISTICEVIDENCE

The Chamic languages bear an Austronesianancestry, linked with other parts of Main-land and Island Southeast Asia, but certainaspects suggest a rather shallow time-depth

when compared to other Austronesian lan-guages. Could this language history relate tothe archaeological chronology of strength-ened connections across the South China Seaafter 800 BC, and especially after 500 BC?

The Chamic languages of central Viet-nam (Bih, Chru, Rade, Haroi, Krung, Noang,

Figure 13. Red slipped restricted carinated jar with everted rim (1) and unrestricted footed bowl(2) from the lower silts at Nagsabaran, northern Philippines, c. 1500–1000 BC (courtesy:National Museum of the Philippines) (color figure available online).

398 VOLUME 8 • ISSUE 3 • 2013

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:14

19

Dec

embe

r 20

13


Phan Rang Cham, Rai, Roglai) belong tothe Malayo-Polynesian subgroup of the Aus-tronesian language family (Blust 2009; Grantand Sidwell 2005; Thurgood 1999). Theyare closely related to the Malayic languagesof western Borneo, Sumatra and Penin-sular Malaysia, as well as to Acehneseof northern Sumatra (Blust 1994, 2005;Marrison 1975; Sidwell 2005). The ances-tor of the Chamic languages (Proto-Chamic)was introduced into Vietnam from IslandSoutheast Asia, probably from somewherealong the 1,300-kilometer-long northwest-ern coastline of Borneo. This massive islandliesdirectlyacross theSouthChinaSea,about900 km from the coast of central Vietnam.With Palawan, it is the closest portion of Is-land Southeast Asia to the Chamic heartlandbetween Hue and Cam Ranh Bay, both geo-graphically and linguistically.

As for the date of Chamic arrival in Viet-nam, Thurgood (1999:5) states:

The linguistic record attests to therelatively recent arrival of Chamicspeakers in Vietnam: proto-Chamic,the immediate ancestor of all theChamic languages [was]a singleuni-tary language . . . with an obviouslyshort time depth. . . . The linguisticevidence alone establishes unequiv-ocally that the Chamic speakers ofVietnam represent an incursion ofAustronesian speakers from the is-lands, not the remnants of Austrone-sian speakers left on the mainlandfrom the initial expansion . . .

The actual Chamic spread to centralVietnam can be dated to about 2,000 yearsago (Adelaar 1992; Blust 1984–1985:57,1994, 2006), prior to the arrival of substan-tial numbers of Sanskrit loan words intoSoutheast Asian languages, but after thecommon inheritance of an innovated wordfor iron (Proto-Malayo-Chamic ∗besi—Blust2005) into both the Malayic and Chamic lin-guistic subgroups. The Malay and Cham lan-guagesof theearly Indic inscriptionsofSuma-tra and Vietnam respectively (mid-first mil-lennium AD) are quite close in their sharednon-Sanskrit vocabulary (Marrison 1975).

Thus, there is no linguistic evidence tosuggest an ultimate Austronesian or evenMalayo-Polynesian homeland in Vietnam,and this is supported by the major stylis-tic separation in Neolithic (pre-1000 BC) ar-chaeological assemblages between Vietnamand the Philippines. But was Proto-Chamicthe only Austronesian language ever to reachVietnam in prehistoric times, or were therepredecessors?

The Chamic migration to Vietnam cer-tainly involved substantial numbers of peo-ple, or else the Chamic languages could nothave replaced native Mon-Khmer languagesso extensively. Prior to 1471, the Chamic lan-guages were far more widespread than theyare today, and their current distribution hasbeen seriously circumscribed by historical-era Vietnamese expansion. Peng et al. (2010)challenge the idea that Chamic languagesspread with their speakers by pointing outthat a majority of modern Chamic speak-ers have inherited mtDNA lineages that areindigenous to Mainland rather than IslandSoutheast Asia. But, in the absence of au-tosomal DNA analysis and any data on thenon-recombining portion of the Y chromo-some, it would be premature to suggestpurely from modern mtDNA samples howthe Chamic languages arrived in Vietnammore than 2,000 years ago. Comparative ob-servations of world language history (Bell-wood 2005, 2008, 2010) suggest that anypopulation movement from Island SoutheastAsia toVietnammusthavebeen largeenoughto establish the Chamic languages through-out an area previously inhabited by numer-ous Mon-Khmer speakers with a developedrice-growing economy. Language shift alonewould have been insufficient to explain suchmajor consequences, and there is no reasonwhythemtDNAprofileofasampleofChamicspeakers today should be the same as that oftheir ancestors more than 2,000 years ago.

CONCLUSIONS

How was the Sa Huynh-Kalanay networkstructured across and around the SouthChina Sea? Who exactly were the partic-ipants? Did they share related identities,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:14

19

Dec

embe

r 20

13


Malayo-Polynesian languages, and culturaltraditions? The archaeological evidenceshows us that certain people shared potterystyles, personal jewelry, and jar-burial prac-tices across the South China Sea. Meanwhile,linguistic history shows us that all theseregions were settled by Malayo-Polynesian-speaking populations, including some whoevidently migrated cross-regionally at differ-ent times.

The Pre-Sa Huynh assemblages and ear-lier Neolithic assemblages in central coastalVietnam reflect a certain degree of cul-tural relationship with the Austronesianisland world to the east, commencingmost likely around 1500–1000 BC, demon-strated for instance by the similar bakedclay earrings from Thach Lac, Savidug,and Nagsabaran. These relationships longpreceded the Iron Age arrival of the an-cestral Chamic-speakers in central Viet-nam, and they were perhaps correlatedwith earlier contacts between other (non-Chamic) Malayo-Polynesian-speaking peo-ples. Current linguistic knowledge derivesthe Malayo-Chamic languages from Borneo,not the Philippines, reminding us that peo-ple very likely sustained a number of connec-tions without currently documented archae-ological or linguistic outcomes.

The classic Sa Huynh culture of IronAge central Vietnam expressed consider-able internal variation in pottery shapes andcovered a very large area, and this diver-sity appears incongruent with a single andtightly defined ethnolinguistic entity suchas Proto-Chamic. Modern linguistic distribu-tions, and especially the recent discoveryof Sa Huynh sites in the inland regions ofthe Thu Bon River Valley (Lam 1998, 2009),make it likely that both Malayo-Polynesianand Mon-Khmer populations played impor-tant roles in the development of Iron Age SaHuynh culture. From a longer term archae-ological perspective, we see in central Viet-nam an in situ native Neolithic culture ofnorthern Phung Nguyen affinity (expressedin theLongThanhassemblage), that receivedputative Island Southeast Asian cultural influ-ences from about 1500–1000 BC onwards.

In many ways, the conspicuous archae-ological record of the Iron Age has dis-

tracted our attention away from the likeli-hood of older cultural links across the SouthChina Sea. In fact, the Iron Age connec-tions very likely followed much older sea-lanes and trade-routes, but new materialsand attendant social practices were intro-duced into the long-running system duringthe Iron Age. New materials, such as glass,metal, precious stones and large burial jarsarguably became dominant in the archaeo-logical record, but most importantly the as-sociated cultural practices became and re-mained pervasive throughout the Iron Agecommunities. For whatever reasons, peoplein widely separated locations began follow-ing many of the same cultural traditions andexpressions, seen in their persistent choiceof the same types of jewelry, pottery, andburial practice. We might ask what other lesstangible activities and beliefs accompaniedthese material records?

We propose that the frequency and per-vasiveness of contact probably were en-hanced during the last few centuries BC,reflected in the abundant and widespreadappearance of lingling-o and double animal-headed ear pendants of nephrite (often Tai-wan nephrite), iron, glass beads, and the spe-cific Kalanay pottery and burial jar similari-ties that link Sa Huynh with the Philippinesand Borneo. Tellingly, these kinds of ob-jects perpetuated deeper cultural linkages,beliefs, and traditions shared by people liv-ing on distantly separated shores of the SouthChina Sea. The archaeological record alonedoes not inform us in which direction thecontacts were being driven, so it may be bestto see them as reflections of ongoing recip-rocal situations.

The seaborne networks are inferredfrom on-land discoveries, but what do weknow about the boats and crews who trans-ported cargo between distant ports? Botharchaeological findings and ancient Chinesedocuments indicate that people used simplecanoes, as well as more complicated boatswith mortise-and-tenon jointed technologyin Vietnam and southern China by aboutAD 1 (e.g., Bellwood and Cameron 2007;Wu 2008). According to historical and ethno-graphic records, bamboo rafts carried sailsfor sea-crossing around Taiwan (Ling 1956,

400 VOLUME 8 • ISSUE 3 • 2013

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:14

19

Dec

embe

r 20

13


1969, 1970). The technology certainly ex-isted to support intensive trading networksacross the South China Sea by 500 BC andperhaps much earlier.

Mobility across the South China Sea cre-ated just one of many trading spheres, whileother routes connected communities overland and through the vast river systems ofSoutheast Asia. During the operation of theSa Huynh-Kalanay network, the Prohear Sitein southern Cambodia contained bronze andother objects dated about 100 BC that can belinked to the Kele Site, 1,740 km distant inGuizhou of southwestern China (Reineckeet al. 2009:166–167). Moreover, Dong Sondrums and Han mirrors occur in Sa Huynhsites in central and southern Vietnam, so re-lations existed among Chinese Han, DongSon, and Sa Huynh communities (Yamagataet al. 2001). Geographically, these connec-tions were most plausible through river sys-tems and following coastlines, in additionto the contacts that ranged fully across theSouth China Sea.

We can look to the South China Sea asa model example of how coastal communi-ties along separate shores of the same largebody of water could share long-term culturalexperiences and histories. In this case, wenote that the deep historical connectivitywas in large part due to both migration andto exchange of materials and ideas, mobi-lized in far-reaching waterborne networks.At least some individuals must have beenmobile with their long-distance shipments,and the early Chamic speakers in particularundertook sufficient migration to ensure thesuccessful implantation of a major linguisticsubgroup in Vietnam. However, the major-ity of people at any one time would haveremained as stay-at-homes, linked by tradingand commerce. We may note that one-thirdof the world’s shipping today transits theSouth China Sea, further enhancing sharedtraditions among its numerous populations.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank colleagues in several museumsand universities in Vietnam (Ha Tinh Mu-seum; Museum of Sa Huynh and Champa

Culture; Da Nang Museum; Khanh HoaMuseum; Quang Ngai Museum; Binh DinhMuseum; Long An Museum; Vietnam His-tory Museum in Ho Chi Minh City; Prof.Nguyen Chieu in the National University ofSocial Sciences and Humanity in Hanoi),the Philippines (National Museum of thePhilippines), and France (Dr. BereniceBellina-Pryce from Centre Nationale de laRecherche Scientifique) who kindly pro-vided us the opportunities to examinemany of the artifacts mentioned here. Twomaps in this article were kindly producedby the Digital Design Office, ANU Collegeof Asia and the Pacific. We wish to thankthree anonymous reviewers for their valu-able comments to improve this article. Thisresearch was supported by ARC researchgrant (project ID: DP 0987081).

REFERENCES

Adelaar, K. A. 1992. Proto-Malayic. Canberra,Australian National University: Pacific Linguis-tics Series C-119.

Bellina, B., G. Epinal, and A. Favereau.2012. Caracterisation preliminaire des poter-ies marqueurs d’echanges en mer de Chinemeridionale a la fin de la prehistoire. Archipel84:7–33.

Bellina, B. and I. Glover. 2004. The archaeology ofearly contact with India and the MediterraneanWorld, from the fourth century BC to the fourthcentury AD. In Southeast Asia-from Prehistoryto History (I. Glover and P. Bellwood, eds.):68–88. London: Routledge Curzon press.

Bellwood, P. 2005. First Farmers: The Origins ofAgricultural Societies. Oxford: Blackwell.

Bellwood, P. 2007. Prehistory of the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago, rev. ed. Canberra:ANU E-Press. (Orig. pub. 1997.)

Bellwood, P. 2008. Archaeology and the origins oflanguage families. In Handbook of Archaeolog-ical Theories (A. Bentley, H. Maschner, and C.Chippindale, eds.):225–243. Lanham: Altamira.

Bellwood, P. 2010. Language families and the his-tory of human migration. In A Journey throughAustronesianandPapuanLinguisticandCul-tural Space: Papers in Honour of Andrew K.Pawley (J. Bowden, N. Himmelmann, and M.Ross,eds.):79–93.Canberra:PacificLinguistics.

Bellwood, P. and Cameron, J. 2007. Ancient boats,boat timbers, and locked mortise-and-tenonjoints from Brone/Iron-Age Northern Vietnam.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:14

19

Dec

embe

r 20

13


The International Journal of Nautical and Ar-chaeology 36.1:2–20.

Bellwood, P. and Dizon, E. (eds.). In press. 4000Years of Migration and Cultural Exchange:the Archaeology of the Batanes Islands. TerraAustralis, vol. 40, Canberra: ANU E Press.

Bellwood, P., H. C. Hung, and Y. Iizuka. 2011.Taiwan Jade in the Philippines: 3,000 Years ofTrade and Long-distance Interaction. In Pathsof Origins: The Austronesian Heritage in theCollections of the National Museum of thePhilippines, the Museum Nasional Indone-sia, and the Netherlands Rijksmuseum voorVolkenkunde (P. Benitez-Johannot, ed.):31–41. Singapore: ArtPostAsia.

Blust, R. 1984–1985. The Austronesian home-land: A linguistic perspective. Asian Perspec-tives 26(1):45–67.

Blust, R. 1994. The Austronesian settlement ofmainland Southeast Asia. In Papers from the2nd Annual Meeting of the Southeast AsianLinguistic Society (K. L. Adams and T. Hendak,eds.):25–83. Tempe: Arizona State University(Program for Southeast Asian Studies).

Blust, R. 2005. Borneo and iron: Dempwolff’s∗besi revisited. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Pre-history Association 25:31–40.

Blust,R.2006.WhencetheMalays? InBorneoandthe Homeland of the Malays (J. T. Collins andA. Sariyan, eds.):64–88. Kuala Lumpur: DewanBahasa dan Pustaka.

Blust, R. 2009. The Austronesian Languages.Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

Braudel, F. 1949. La Mediterranee et le MondeMediterranean a l’Epoque de Philippe II.Three volumes. Paris: Armand Collin.

Broodbank, C. 2008. Not waving but drowning.Journalof Island&CoastalArchaeology3:72–76.

Bui, C. H. and M. Yamagata 2005. Dia diem khaoco hocBau Tram (NuiThanh,QuangNam) (Thearchaeological site of Bau Tram, Nui Thanh,Quang Nam). Khao Co Hoc 2005(1):27–49 (inVietnamese).

Callaghan, R. T. 2008. On the question of the ab-sence of Archaic Age sites on Jamaica. Journalof Island & Coastal Archaeology 3:54–71.

Cunliffe, B. 2001. Facing the Ocean: The Atlanticand Its Peoples 8000 BC to AD 1500. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Dang, V. T., Q. H. Vu, T. H. Nguyen, T. P. Ngo,K. D. Nguyen, and L. C. Nguyen. 1998. Prehis-tory and Protohistoric Archaeology of Ho ChiMinh City. Ho Chi Minh City: Yonth Press (inVietnamese).

Erlandson, J.M.2008. Isolation, interaction,andis-land archaeology. Journal of Island & CoastalArchaeology 3:83–86.

Fitzpatrick, S.M. andA.Anderson.2008. Islandsofisolation:Archaeologyandthepowerofaquaticperimeters. Journal of Island & Coastal Ar-chaeology 3:4–16.

Flavel, A. 2006. Sa Huynh-Kalanay: Analysis of theprehistoric decorated earthenware of South Su-lawesi in an Island Southeast Asian Context. InArchaeology and Culture in Southeast Asia:Unraveling the Nusantao, Contributions (W.SolheimII,ed.):193–237.QuezonCity:TheUni-versity of the Philippines Press.

Francis, P. 1986. Bead Report, XVIII: The Asianbead study tour, part IV: A little tube of glass.Ornament 10(1):54–57,74–78.

Francis, P. 2002. Asia’s Maritime Bead Trade:300B.C. to the Present. Honolulu: University ofHawai’i Press.

Fox, R. 1970. The Tabon Caves. Manila: NationalMuseum of the Philippines.

Geertz, H. 1963. Indonesia Cultures and Com-munities. New Haven: HRAF Press.

Gillis, J. 2012. The Human Shore: Seacoastsin History. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

Glover, I. 1996. The southern silk road: Archaeo-logical evidence for early trade between Indiaand Southeast Asia. In Ancient Trade and Cul-tural Contacts in Southeast Asia (A. Srisuchat,ed.):57–94. Bangkok: National Culture Com-mission.

Glover, I. 1998. The archaeological past of IslandSoutheast Asia. In Messages in Stone—Statuesand Sculptures from Tribal Indonesia in theCollection of the Barbier-Mueller Museum (J.P. Barbier, ed.):17–34. Milan and Geneva: Skira.

Grant, A. and P. Sidwell. 2005. Chamic andBeyond: Studies in Mainland AustronesianLanguages. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

Ha, V. T. 1984–1985 Prehistoric Pottery in VietNam and its relationships with Southeast Asia.Asian Perspectives 26(1):135–146.

Hofman, C. L., A. J. Bright, M. L. P. Hoogland,and W. F. Keegan. 2008. Attractive ideas, de-sirable goods: Examining the late ceramic agerelationships between Greater and Lesser An-tillean societies. Journal of Island & CoastalArchaeology 3:17–34.

Hung, H. C. 2008. Migration and Cultural In-teraction in Southern Coastal China, Taiwanand the Northern Philippines, 3000 BC to AD100: the Early History of the Austronesian-speakingPopulations. Ph.D.Dissertation.Can-berra: Australian National University.

Hung, H. C. and Bellwood, P. 2010. Movement ofraw materials and manufactured goods acrossthe South China Sea after 500 BCE: from Taiwanto Thailand and back. In 50 Years of Archaeol-ogy in Southeast Asia: Essays in Honour of Ian

402 VOLUME 8 • ISSUE 3 • 2013

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:14

19

Dec

embe

r 20

13


Glover (B. Bellina, E. A. Bacus, T. O. Pryce, andJ. W. Christie, eds.):235–245. Bangkok: RiverBooks.

Hung, H. C., M. T. Carson, P. Bellwood, F. Z.Campos, P. J. Piper, E. Dizon, M. J. L. A.Bolunia, M. Oxenham, and C. Zhang. 2011.The first settlement of Remote Oceania: ThePhilippines to the Marianas. Antiquity 85:909–926.

Hung, H. C. and Y. Iizuka. in prep. Nephrite andMica industries: A link towards the Austrone-sian world. In Khao Sam Kaeo ArchaeologicalReport (B. Bellina, ed.).

Hung, H. C. and Y. Iizuka. in press. The Batanesnephrite artefacts. In 4000 Years of Migrationand Cultural Exchange: The Archaeology ofthe Batanes Islands (P. Bellwood and E. Dizon,eds.). Terra Australis, vol. 40. Canberra: ANU EPress.

Hung, H. C., Y. Iizuka, P. Bellwood, K. D. Nguyen,B. Bellina, P. Silapanth, E. Dizon, R. Santiago, I.Datan, and J. H. Manton. 2007. Ancient jadesmap 3000 years of prehistoric exchange inSoutheast Asia. Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences of the United States ofAmerica 104(50):19745–19750.

Hung, H. C., S. L. Yang, K. D. Nguyen, Y. Iizuka,andP.Bellwood.2012.Taiwannephrite inover-seas and their characters of Beinan culture.Field Archaeology of Taiwan 15(1):19–40 (inChinese).

Iizuka, Y., P. Bellwood, I. Datan, and H. C. Hung.2005a. Mineralogical studies of the Niah WestMouth jade lingling-o. Sarawak Museum Jour-nal 82:19–29.

Iizuka, Y., P. Bellwood, H. C. Hung, and E.Dizon. 2005b. A non-destructive mineralogicalstudy of nephritic artifacts from Itbayat Island,Batanes, northern Philippines. Journal of Aus-tronesian Studies 1:80–105.

Iizuka, Y., and Hung, H. C. 2005. Archaeominer-alogy of Taiwan Nephrite: Sourcing Study ofNephritic Artifacts from the Philippines. Jour-nal of Austronesian Studies 1:35–81.

Iizuka, Y., H. C. Hung, and P. Bellwood. 2007. ANoninvasive Mineralogical Study of NephriteArtifacts from the Philippines and Surround-ings: The Distribution of Taiwan Nephrite andthe Implications for the Island Southeast AsianArchaeology. In Scientific Research on theSculptural Arts of Asia (J. Douglas, J. Jett, and J.Winter, eds.):12–19. London: Archetype Publi-cations.

Indrawooth, P. 2004. The archaeology of the earlyBuddhist Kingdoms of Thailand. In SoutheastAsia: from Prehistory to History (I. Glover andP. Bellwood, eds.):120–148. New York: Rout-ledge Curzon.

Ipoi, D. 1993. Archaeological Excavations at GuaSireh (Serian) and Lubang Angin (Gunung MuluNational Park), Sarawak, Malaysia. SarawakMuseum Journal, Special Monograph 6.

Lam, T. M. D. 1998. The Sa Huynh culture inHoi An. In Southeast Asian Archaeology 1996-Proceedings of the 6th International Confer-ence of the European Association of SoutheastAsian Archaeologists (Klokke M. J. and BruijnT. D., eds.):13–27. Hull (UK): Center for South-East Asian Studies, University of Hull.

Lam, T. M. D. 2009. Sa Huynh regional andinter-regional interactions in the Thu Bon Val-ley, Quang Nam Province, Central Vietnam.Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 29:61–67.

Lam, T. M. D. 2011. Central Vietnam during theperiod from 500 BCE to CE 500. In Early In-teractions between South and Southeast Asia:Reflections on Cross-cultural Exchange (P.-Y.Manguin, A. Mani, and G. Wade, eds.):3–15. Sin-gapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Li, K. T. 2001. The Significance of Perforated Hu-manTeethUnearthed fromKuei-shanSite,Nearthe Southern Tip of Taiwan. Bulletin of theInstitute of History and Philology AcademiaSinica 72(3):699–722 (in Chinese).

Li, K. X. 2005. Salvage Excavations in the Jiuxi-anlan Site, Taidong. Taidong: County Govern-ment (in Chinese).

Ling, S. S. 1956. Formosan sea-going raft and itsorigin in ancient China. In Bulletin of the In-stitute of Ethnology 1:1–54. Taipei: AcademiaSinica (in Chinese).

Ling, S. S. 1969. The double canoe and deck canoein ancient China and Oceania. Bulletin of theInstitute of Ethnology 28:232–272.

Ling, S. S. 1970. Study of the Raft, Outrigger, Dou-ble, and Deck Canoes of Ancient China, thePacific, and the Indians Oceans. Taipei: In-stitute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica (in Chi-nese).

Loofs-Wissowa, H. 1982. Prehistoric and proto-historic links between the Indochinese Penin-sula and the Philippines, as exemplified by twotypes of ear-ornaments. Journal of the HongKong Archaeological Society IX:57–76.

Mack, J. 2011. The Sea: A Cultural History. Lon-don: Reaktion Books.

Marrison, G. 1975. The early Cham language,and its relationship to Malay. Journal of theMalaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Soci-ety 48:52–59.

Maspero, G. 1928 Le Royaume de Champa. Paris:G. van Oest.

Momoki, S. 1999 A short introduction to Champastudies. In The Dry Areas in Southeast Asia:Harsh or Benign Environment (F. Hayao,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:14

19

Dec

embe

r 20

13


ed.):65–74. Kyoto: Center for Southeast AsianStudies, Kyoto University.

Moss, M. L. 2008. Islands coming out of conceal-ment: Traveling to Haida Gwaii on the north-west coast of North America. Journal of Island& Coastal Archaeology 3:35–53.

Ngo, S. H. 1980. Bin Binh Chau (Nghia Binh): AnewlydiscoveredBronzeAgesiteonthecentralVietnamese coast. Khao Co Hoc 33:68–74 (inVietnamese).

Nguyen, K. D., M. Yamagata, S. Watanabe, and P.Bellwood. 2011. The Man Bac burial pottery.In Man Bac: The Excavation of a NeolithicSite in Northern Vietnam (M. Oxenham, H.Matsumura and K. D. Nguyen, eds.): 169–185. Terra Australis, vol. 33. Canberra: ANU EPress.

Parmentier, H. 1924. Depots de jarres a SaHunyh (Quang-ngai, Annan). Bulletin del’Ecole Francaise de l’Extreme Orient 23:325–343.

Peng, M. S., H. H. Quang, K. P. Dang, A. V. Trieu,H. W. Wang, Y. G. Yao, Q. P. Kong, and Y.P. Zhang 2010. Tracing the Austronesian foot-print in Mainland Southeast Asia: A perspectivefrom mitochondrial DNA. Molecular Biologyand Evolution 27:2417–2430.

Pham, L. H. 1994. Painted pottery in Viet Nam.In Ancient Cultures of South China andNeighbouring Regions (C.Tang,ed.):471–478.Hong Kong: the Chinese University of HongKong.

Rainbird, P. 2007. The Archaeology of Islands.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Reinecke, A., V. Laychour, and S. Sonetra 2009.The First Golden Age of Cambodia: Exca-vation at Prohear. Bad Langensalza: ThomasMuntzer.

Reinecke, A., C. Nguyen, and T. M. D., Lam. 2002.Neue Entdeckungen zur Sa Huynh-Kultur:das Graberfeld Go Ma Voi und das kulturelleUmfeld in Mittelvietnam. Koln: Linden-SoftPress (in German and Vietnamese).

Sakurai, Y. 1999. The dry areas in the history ofSoutheast Asia. In The Dry Areas in SoutheastAsia:HarshorBenignEnvironment (F.Hayao,ed.):27–36. Kyoto: Center for Southeast AsianStudies, Kyoto University.

Sidwell, P. 2005. Acehnese and the Aceh-Chamiclanguage family. In Chamic and Beyond: Stud-ies in Mainland Austronesian Languages (A.Grant and P. Sidwell, eds.):211–246. Canberra:Pacific Linguistics.

Solheim, W. G. II. 1957. The Kalanay pottery com-plex in the Philippines. Artibus Asiae XX:279–288.

Solheim, W. G. II. 1959a. Introduction to Sa-huynh. Asian Perspectives 3:97–108.

Solheim, W. G. II. 1959b. Sa-huynh related potteryin Southeast Asia. Asian Perspectives 3:177–188.

Solheim, W. G. II. 1964. Pottery and the Malayo-Polynesians. Current Anthropology 5:360,376–406.

Solheim,W.G. II. 2006.Archaeology and Culturein Southeast Asia: Unraveling the Nusantao.Quezon City: The University of the PhilippinesPress.

Southworth, W. A. 2004. The coastal statesof Champa. In Southeast Asia—From Pre-history to History (I. Glover and P. Bell-wood, eds.):209–233. London: RoutledgeCurzon.

Tan,H.2008.VietNam:FromMyth toModernity.Singapore: Asian Civilisations Museum.

Terrell, J. E. 2008. Islands and the average Joe.Journalof Island&CoastalArchaeology3:77–82.

Thurgood, G. 1999. From Ancient Cham to Mod-ern Dialects. Honolulu: Oceanic LinguisticsSpecial Publication 28.

Vu, Q. H., C. Trinh, and T. T. Ho. 1993. The Ex-cavation of the Bau Tram site (Quang Nam, DaNang). Scientifique Communiquee of the Na-tional Museum of Vietnamese History (in Viet-namese).

Wu, C. M. 2008. Prehistoric transportations inSoutheast China and the Pacific. Relics fromSouth 2:99–108 (in Chinese).

Yamagata, M. 2008. Sa Huynh culture and thehuman migration hypothesis. Paper presentedat the conference entitled “Archaeology of theTransitional Period from Prehistory to Early His-tory in Central and South-Central Vietnam”, HaNoi University, Vietnam, January 12, 2008 (un-published).

Yamagata, M., and C. H. Bui. 2008. RevisingSa Huynh - Kalanay pottery tradition. Pa-per presented at the international confer-ence EurASEAA12 in Leiden, The Netherlands,September 1–5, 2008 (unpublished).

Yamagata, M., D. M. Pham, and C. H. Bui. 2001.Western Han bronze mirrors recently discov-ered in central and southern Viet Nam. Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association Bulletin 21:99–106.

404 VOLUME 8 • ISSUE 3 • 2013

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:14

19

Dec

embe

r 20

13

Coastal Connectivity: Long-Term Trading Networks Across the South China Sea

Documents

Transcript of Coastal Connectivity: Long-Term Trading Networks Across the South China Sea