索羅門群島出土 Lapita 陶器的來源與製作技術分析 - 以 Nendö 島 SZ8 遺址為例

The Provenience and Manufacturing Technologies of Lapita Pottery from the SZ8 Site of Nendö Island

洪瑞恬(Jui-Tien Hung)

指導教授 ： 陳瑪玲

共同指導教授 ： 邱斯嘉(Scarlett Chiu)

國立臺灣大學/文學院/人類學研究所/碩士(2019年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201902999

摘要

Lapita 文化叢大約是在 3500-3200 B.P. 左右出現在美拉尼西亞西北的俾斯麥群島。文化形成之後 Lapita 人便快速的向外擴張，橫越了近四百公里的海域來到 Reef/Santa Cruz 島群，成為第一批進入遠大洋洲的人群。本次研究的 SZ8 遺址位於 Lapita 人航行至遠大洋洲的第一站 Santa Cruz (Nendö) 島，研究主要分析該遺址出土的 Lapita 陶器，探討其原料來源與製作技術等面向。
研究的分析架構主要依據操作鍊的概念，從陶器製作的原料取得、原料準備、初步形塑、次要形塑、裝飾形塑、乾燥與燒陶、後續處理等步驟一一進行分析、討論，其中又特別著重在原料取得的部分，並且透過切片的物理性岩象與化學成分分析來探討陶器原料的來源問題。結果發現 SZ8 陶片的塑形、裝飾與燒製等大致符合前人對於 Lapita 陶器的分析。塑形主要採用泥條與泥片等方式，甚至還有泥團的運用。紋飾方面素面陶數量大於裝飾陶，裝飾又以壓印為最常見的施紋方法。至於燒製屬於氧化燒，推測應為低溫燒陶。
在陶器原料的來源部分，SZ8 陶片內的摻和料大致符合 Santa Cruz 島嶼的玄武岩火山地質特性，推測該遺址的陶器應屬於當地製作而非外來者，換言之，Lapita 人從俾斯麥群島來到 Santa Cruz 時應該不是帶著陶器而是技術而來的，現有資料也沒有看到兩地間有陶器的交換。至於陶片內欠缺 SZ8 環境所富含的鈣質砂，顯示陶匠刻意避開此類摻和料，是一種有意識的技術選擇行為。不過，確切的取料地點仍需更多資料才能判斷，從現有的地質等其他資料僅能推測 SZ8 北邊或東北河流區域為可能的地點，但此一推論仍需更多證據支持。最後，研究觀察的陶片切片可以根據摻和料種類與數量而區分為六大類，然而這些類別除了摻和料的差異之外，在塑形與裝飾上並沒有顯著的不同，因此研究傾向於推測這些類別反映的是不同的取料地點，而非不同的製作群體。

關鍵字

Lapita ； Santa Cruz ； Nendo ； SZ8 遺址 ； 操作鍊 ； 來源分析 ； 岩象 ； 化學成分 ； 技術選擇

並列摘要

Known for its dentate-stamped pottery, the Lapita Culture Complex appeared in the Bismarck Archipelago in northwestern Melanesia around 3500-3200 B.P. After the formation of the culture, the Lapita people began to move outward from their homeland and navigated across almost 400 kilometers of ocean to arrive in the Reef/Santa Cruz islands, becoming the first people to settle in Far Oceania. This research studies the SZ8 site on the main Santa Cruz island (Nendö) and explores the provenience and manufacturing technologies of its Lapita pottery.
The analytical framework of the research is based on the concept of chaîne opératoire (operational sequence) and covers pottery manufacturing processes such as the acquisition and preparation of raw materials, primary formation, secondary formation, decoration, drying and firing, and post-treatment. While the discussion of the decoration and drying and firing techniques relies heavily on previous research, special focus is given to the provenance of pottery raw materials through petrographic and chemical analysis.
It is found that the forming, decorating, and firing techniques of Lapita pottery in SZ8 conform to those in other Lapita sites as discussed in the literature. Clay slabs, coils, and even chunks were used in the primary forming process. Plain sherds were the majority while decoration was often applied using the stamping/impressing method. With preliminary observations and a reference to previous studies, it appears that the pottery was fired in a low-temperature oxidation environment.
The provenience is demonstrated by the tempers in the thin section samples, which match the characteristics of the basaltic volcanic bedrock of Santa Cruz. Therefore, it is likely that the Lapita pottery in SZ8 was locally made rather than imported, and that the Lapita people arrived in SZ8 with pottery manufacturing technology, not finished products. Interestingly, while coral beach sand was present in the Lapita layer, calcareous or shell tempers were almost entirely missing in the samples observed. This indicates that the SZ8 potters intentionally avoided this type of temper and chose to source materials from outside of SZ8. Areas along the rivers north and northeast to SZ8 are potential raw material collecting points but more data is required to support this speculation. Finally, the sample thin sections in this research are classified into six groups based on dominant temper types. Examination of the actual sherds of these thin section samples shows no differences in forming technologies or decoration. It is therefore hypothesized that the grouping of these samples more likely reflects different locations for sourcing raw materials rather than different groups of potters.

並列關鍵字

Lapita ； Santa Cruz ； Nendo ； SZ8 site ； chaine operatoire (operational sequence) ； provenience analysis ； petroghraphy ； chemical analysis ； technical choice

參考文獻

〈中研院邱斯嘉附研究員標本整理分析室之解圖手冊 Ver. 2.04〉檔案。下載時間 2019 年 6 月 5 日。

〈中研院邱斯嘉附研究員標本整理分析室之有關 Vessel Form Coding Table〉檔案。下載時間 2019 年 5 月 27 日。

王冠文等 2012〈鈣質砂摻和料和鹽的使用對陶器燒製的影響〉。《考古人類學刊77:1-22》

台大地質科學數位典藏博物館 http://nadm.gl.ntu.edu.tw/nadm/cht/class_detail.php?serial=37&serial_type_1=8&serial_type_2=4&serial_type_3=6。2019年5月20日上線。

邱斯嘉 2008〈陶器與古代社會研究: 以西南太平洋新喀里多尼亞 13A 遺址與索羅門群島三個 Lapita 遺址所出土之 Lapita 陶器研究為例〉。發表於中央研究院歷史語言研究所八十週年學術研討會-- 臺灣史前史專論，台北：中央研究院歷史語言研究所，2008-10-22 ~ 2008-10-23。