De-coding the Archaeological Landscape of Samoa: Austronesian Origins and Polynesian Culture

解碼薩摩亞（Samoa）的考古地景：南島起源和波里尼西亞文化

Mike T. Carson

《南島研究學報》 5卷2期 (2014/12) Pp. 1-41

https://doi.org/10.29884/JAS.201412_5(2).0001

摘要

薩摩亞（Samoa）的考古和亞太文化史有兩項重要關連：第一，薩摩亞群島座落於大約2800年前南島語族拉皮塔（Lapita）文化於遠大洋洲（Remote Oceania）的東界。第二，這些島嶼靠近波里尼西亞文化區的西界，因此，特殊的波里尼西亞語言、文化習俗和考古的物質特徵約於1000年以前在此形成。考慮這兩項要點之間的關連，其可能的詮譯則需依據目前的考古證據，本文將回顧這些證據。對於薩摩亞的最早和最晚的物質文化之間的關係，有兩個主要觀點引發學術爭論。第一種觀點強調長期的連續性，主張南島語族的起源和波里尼西亞居民有直接聯繫。另一種觀點則強調長期的轉化，主張當地最早人類聚落和後來文化發展之間的不相關性。事實上，連續性和轉化不應是絕對對立的，而是代表一個社會變化的不同面向：一個社會或許在某些方面的發展較慢（例如強調連續性），但在其他方面卻更迅速地隨著時間的推移（例如強調轉化）。由於沒有明確的考古證據涵蓋全時限的薩摩亞，連續性和轉化的相對值也就容易被誤解。例如，距今2800至2500年的早期聚落數量相當少，因此，它們有限的記錄難以與1000年前的大量證據匹比。此外，距今2500到1000年間、延續1500年的遺址卻被低估，儘管這些遺址對於幾個問題的理解相當重要，這些問題包括陶器製作的減少而最終消失、住房形式的變化，以及石製紀念碑建築傳統的出現等。本文對薩摩亞考古的回顧，提出了一個新的年代大綱，涵蓋了2800年的年代序列。根據有限的遺址記錄和放射性碳素年代，物質文化和相關的遺留至少可以分為五個階段：1）2800年至2500年前；2）2500年至1800年前；3）1800年至1000年前；4）1000－200年前；5）過去的200年。上述每個階段都有內部變遷，因此根據後續研究可能進行再分期。至於每期之間的轉換，不應被誤解為是精確固定的，將來可運用新證據進一步確認。以年代序列作為基礎底線來處理這些考古學的問題是必要的，否則這些問題可能被忽略或是誤解。重點是要考慮長時間內文化變遷的不同速率。我們可以看到考古記錄的某些方面變遷較快或者其它方面較慢，但這些情形是同時發生的。有些問題或許可以得到更有效地理解，例如關於人與環境的關係會長時間的交互變化、經濟生業策略、土地利用模式或是海外接觸等。本文回顧的薩摩亞考古可以作為文化傳承與轉化隨著時間推移如何調和的案例。這文化傳承與轉化的兩個過程不必然是對立的兩極，他們同時出現在薩摩亞文化史。在此可以看出它們展現的變化速率和節奏；就如同年代層序表中所呈現的，這些變化與不斷改變的文化和環境等因素是息息相關的。

關鍵字

薩摩亞 ； 波里尼西亞 ； 考古學 ； 文化史

並列摘要

The archaeology of Samoa relates to two key points in Asia-Pacific culture history that may or may not be inter-connected. First, the Samoan islands are situated near the eastern limit of the Austronesian Lapita-associated expansion into Remote Oceania about 2800 years ago. Second, these islands are near the western boundary of the Polynesian cultural region, where distinctive Polynesian language, cultural practice, and archaeological material signature developed by 1000 years ago. When considering how these two points might be inter-connected, variable potential interpretations are in need of updating according to the current archaeological evidence as reviewed here. Two primary viewpoints have characterized academic debates about the relationship between the earliest and latest material culture records of Samoa. One viewpoint stresses long-term continuity, so that a direct link is claimed between Austronesian origins and Polynesian identity. Another viewpoint stresses long-term transformation, so that a disjuncture is claimed between first human settlement and later cultural developments. In fact, continuity and transformation are not mutually exclusive of each other, but rather they represent the different aspects of how a society has changed in some ways more slowly (stressing continuity) or in other ways more quickly (stressing transformation) over time. The relative values of continuity and transformation have been misunderstood in the absence of clear archaeological evidence spanning the full chronological range in Samoa. For example, sites of the earliest settlement period 2800–2500 years ago are just very few in number, so their limited records are difficult to compare with the abundant evidence of the last 1000 years. Additionally, the sites dated in the 1500-year-long range between 2500 and 1000 years ago have been under-appreciated, despite their importance in comprehending a decline and eventual loss of pottery production, change in housing forms, and emergence of stonework monument-building traditions. An updated review of Samoan archaeology here proposes a new chronological outline, covering the full sequence of 2800 years. Within the limits of available site records and radiocarbon dating, the material culture and associated contexts can be defined in at least five periods of: 1) 2800-2500 years ago; 2) 2500-1800 years ago; 3) 1800-1000 years ago; 4) 1000-200 years ago; and 5) the last 200 years. Each of these periods involved internal change, so that possible sub-periods may yet be discerned according to continued research. The transitions between each period should not be misunderstood as precisely fixed, but rather they are proposed as approximate estimates that undoubtedly will be refined with further evidence. The chronological sequence serves as a fundamental baseline for addressing several archaeological questions that otherwise have been ignored or misunderstood. The main focus here is to consider the variable rates of cultural change over time. Some aspects of the archaeological record changed more quickly or more slowly than others, but all of these factors were concurrent. Additional questions may yet be addressed more productively, for example concerning chronological change in human-environment relations, economic subsistence strategies, land-use practice, and overseas contacts. This review of Samoan archaeology potentially can serve as an example of how to reconcile notions of cultural continuity versus transformation over time. These two processes were not necessarily opposing forces, but rather they cooccurred throughout the Samoan cultural history chronology. They unfolded at variable rates and rhythms, and they were associated with changing conditions of culture and environment, as outlined in the comprehensive chronological sequence.

並列關鍵字

Samoa ； Polynesia ； archaeology ； culture history