Aportes al Proceso definido

The precise nature of the relationship between the Hoabinhian and the Dabutian (Đa Bút) is ambiguous. Bui Vinh (1991) has stipulated that Đa Bút, as well as other Neolithic cultures with a coastal focus, developed out of the Hoabinhian culture around 6,500–6,000 BP. Conversely, Higham and Thorsarat (2004b, 154–5) believe the origins lie further towards the coast and that these sites are probably now submerged underwater.

What is clear is that there are a number of significant transitions between the Hoabinhian and the Đa Bút period, particularly an increase in settlement size and an increasingly complex faunal exploitation strategy.

Dabutian sites were originally named after the site of Đa Bút excavated by Etienne Patte (1932). They are characterised by coarse pottery that varies little in form or material

with mat or cord-impressed designs (Bui Vinh 1991; Nguyen Viet 2005). Net sinkers and edge-ground axes commonly comprise the tool kit and the use of net sinkers at CCN and Go Trung represents the earliest evidence for fishing with nets in Vietnam (Nguyen Viet 2005, 90).

Vietnamese archaeologists believe Dabutian sites are restricted to the coastal plains and banks of the Ma River in Thanh Hoa province (Bui Vinh 1991; Nguyen Viet 2005).

According to Nguyen Viet (2005, 89) eight Đa Bút sites have been recorded in Thanh Hoa and Ninh Binh provinces (Table 3-3). In general, Vietnamese Hoabinhian sites are largely based in mountainous areas geared towards inland resources while Đa Bút sites shifted to coastal lowlands and display a greater diversity in location as well as habitat exploitation (Bui Vinh 1991; Nguyen Viet 2005; Rabett 2012, 248–9). A number of scholars have suggested this transition in site location and economic focus is an adaptation to the higher sea level of the Mid Holocene (Bui Vinh 1991; Nguyen Viet 2005; Rabett 2012, 249).

Bui Vinh (1991) and Nguyen Viet (2005) have attempted to characterise and summarise the chronology of the Đa Bút period (Table 3-4). Both suggest there is evidence for a decline in sea level during the period, which prompted development in fishing technologies.

One of the major debates is how to interpret the presence of edge-ground axes in Dabutian assemblages. Some Vietnamese archaeologists have argued the presence of edge-ground axes represents initial agriculture at CCN and Go Trung (Bui Vinh 1991;

Nguyen Khac Su et al. 2004). Other scholars remain sceptical since there is no basis for

Phase Date Exploitation strategy Sites

1 c. 6000 BP Exploitation of estuarine, lake, and swamp environments. Middens of molluscs (Corbicula) are common.

Da But, Ban Thuy, lower layers of CCN 2 c. 5500 BP Decline in sea level resulted in seasonal exploitation

of mountainous environments and development of

3 c. 5000 BP Expansion along coastline, fishing with nets and stone weights. Go Trung Table 3-4 Summary of Bui Vinh 1991 and Nguyen Viet’s 2005 chronology for the Đa Bút period.

Province Site

this assumption and no evidence of rice cultivation (Higham 1996; Higham and Thosarat 2004b, 154–5; Nguyen Viet 2005; Matsumura et al. 2011). Matsumura et al. (2011, 157) regard Đa Bút communities as foragers with a degree of sedentism (as evidenced by large cemeteries), and marked marine resource dependency. Similarly, Nguyen Viet (2005, 89) argued Đa Bút communities were hunter-gatherers with a complex subsistence strategy drawing from a variety of environmental niches, such as, coastal, freshwater swamps, lakes, rivers, and mountainous habitats. Nguyen Viet (2005, 92) finds the sudden appearance of polished adzes in the Đa Bút period puzzling and suggests it may be related to housing construction or manufacturing of implements.

The argument for agriculture based on edge-ground axes is probably related to assumed ‘progressive’ cultural trajectories based upon European or Chinese models.

Sedentism or the presence of ceramics is not necessarily an indicator of agriculture or domestication. Indeed, Higham and Thorsarat (2004b, 154–5) argue the Jōmon culture in Japan is analogous to the Dabutian. Jōmon sites are also located along the coast and developed ceramics, polished stone tools, and cemeteries without the presence of agriculture (Crawford 2011).

3.4.1. Fauna from Đa Bút sites

One of the commonalities between Đa Bút sites is that they are essentially middens with an emphasis on molluscs and large mammalian species. Apart from CCN, the two sites that have reports summarised in English or French are Đa Bút and Go Trung. The latter was excavated in 1977 and covered a 170 m² area (Bui Vinh 1991, 129). For this site there is only a basic summary available in English, which mentions the vast majority of faunal remains were from marine species of fish (80%) and almost 200 net sinkers were excavated in addition to a possible spindle whorl (Bui Vinh 1991; Nguyen Viet 2005, 90).

The dominance of fish is probably related to the coastal location of the site.

The site of Đa Bút is in the same valley as CCN. It was excavated twice, the first time by the French scholar Étienne Patte in 1932 and secondly from the 1960s onwards by a Vietnamese team from the Museum of History. Patte (1932) noted that Đa Bút was a large shell midden measuring approximately 50 m long, 32 m wide, and 5 m high. The lithic artefacts were ground-edge axes similar to Bac Son (local Hoabinhian style), but unlike the Hoabinhian culture there was also coarse mat-impressed pottery (Patte 1932; Bui Vinh 1991, 127). The 12 burials that were excavated were found in a squatting position

Taxa Common name 1932 1960s

Table 3 5 Summary of taxa excavated from Đa Bút during the 1932 and 1960s excavations *indicates presence.

and Patte (1932) believed they were probably bound before burial.

The main shellfish species recorded were from an estuarine habitat (Table 3-5) and pollen indicated the presence of a salt marsh (Patte 1932, 49; Higham and Thosarat 2004b, 154). Although there were a number of species of shellfish recorded, Patte (1932, 50) emphasised Corbicula sp. were by far the most common. In terms of large mammalian fauna, Muntiacus, Cervus, Sus sp. and Bovidae were listed but without mention of NISP or MNI. Patte (1932, 48) also noted the presence of a dog ulna and that it was similar to a dingo. However, Patte did not compare the bone to Cuon or other canid species, which makes its domesticated status uncertain at best.

Since the 1932 excavation the site was unfortunately partly destroyed due to road construction and the faunal remains excavated by Patte have since been lost (Vu The Long 1979). During the 1960s Vietnamese teams excavated a 50 m² area and discovered bi-polished axes as well as coarse pottery, which convinced the archaeologists the site represented a separate culture to the Hoabinhian (Bui Vinh 1991, 128). Further, four shell dates were obtained from different layers ranging between c. 6,500–6,000 BP which is significantly later than the majority of Hoabinhian dates. The faunal remains were analysed by Vu The Long (1979) and summarised in a short report (Table 3-5). The faunal assemblage was extremely small (TNF = 60; NISP = 42) but apparently showed signs of burning and butchery marks. Vu The Long (1979) wrote that there were six cattle bones and teeth that were of comparable size to domesticated cattle and suggested that people may have practiced agriculture and initiated animal husbandry, but still exploited the local natural resources. Later Bui Vinh (1991, 128–9) exaggerated Vu The Long’s suggestions by claiming Đa Bút had “6 teeth of domesticated bovid”.

In summary, Đa Bút sites are characterised by large shell middens that display a focus on molluscs and mammals from a variety of environmental niches. Đa Bút itself and CCN are the two key sites from this period due to the quantity of human and faunal material excavated from both sites as well as the availability of published material.