Possible Development of Regional Maritime Networks during ...
Transcript of Possible Development of Regional Maritime Networks during ...
People and Culture in Oceania, 29: 1–33, 2013
* TheSchoolofMarineScienceandTechnologies,TokaiUniversity,Orido3-20-1,Shimizu,Shi-zuoka422-8037,Japan
[email:[email protected]]** ThePublicMuseumofNorthSulawesi,Jl.Supratman72,Manado95123,Indonesia [email:[email protected]]*** BalaiArkeologiManado,Jl.PinkanMatindas92,Manado95123,Indonesia [email:[email protected]]
Possible Development of Regional Maritime Networks duringthe 16th to 19th Centuries: An Excavation Report of the Bukit
Tiwing Site in the Talaud Islands, Eastern Indonesia
Rintaro Ono,* Santoso Soegondho,** and Joko Siswanto***
Thispaperaimstodiscussthepossibledevelopmentofregionalmaritimenetworksorinter-islandhumancontactsintheCelebesSeaduringthe13thto19thcenturies,whichmainlycorrespondtotheAgeofCommerceandtheColonial timesinthisregion.Geographically,theCelebesSeaislocatedinthewesternpartoftheWallaceaarchipelagoandissurroundedby the three large islandsofBorneo (inMalaysia),Mindanao (in thePhilippines), andSulawesi(inIndonesia),aswellas2small islandgroupsincludingtheSuluIslands(inthePhilippines)andtheSangihe-Talaudislands(inIndonesia).Amongtheseislandgroups,wefirstlyreportourrecentexcavationresultsat theBukitTiwingsite in theTalaudIslands,easternIndonesia.Ourarchaeologicalexcavationswereconductedasco-researchwithBalaiArkeologiManadoandOnoduring2004and2005.Theseexcavationsunearthedthousandsofshells,animalandfishremains,potsherds,tradeceramics,bonetools,chertflakes,stoneadzes,nutcrackers,andfragmentsofiron.Amongthesesites,BukitTiwing,whichdatedtoaroundthe15thto19thcenturies,yieldedlateMingandQingtradeceramics,largenumbersofpotsherds,andfaunalremains.Followingtheanalysisofthepotsherds,ceramics,andanimalremainsexcavatedfromBukitTiwing,wealsocomparethesefindingswithpotterypiecesandceramicsexcavatedfromotherarchaeologicalsitesintheCelebesSeatoconcludethattheestablishmentoflong-distancetrademaritimenetworksbetweentheeasternpartof theCelebesSeaandChinatookplacemainlyduringthe16thto18thcenturies,whilethepossibledevelopmentofregionalnetworksorinter-islandcontactsintheCelebesSeacouldbedatedbackpriortothe16thcentury.
Keywords: Bukit Tiwing, Talaud Islands, Celebes Sea, Maritime Networks, Potteries, Trade Ceramics, Rarangunusa, Age of Commerce, Colonial times
R. Ono, S. Soegondho and J. Siswanto2
1. Introduction
ThispaperisapreliminaryexcavationreportoftheBukitTiwingsiteintheTalaudIslands
in theCelebesSea; it alsoaims todiscuss thepossibledevelopmentof regionalmaritime
networksintheCelebesSeaduringthe16thto19thcenturies,aperiodthatmainlycorresponds
totheageofarrivaloftheWesterncolonialpowersinthisregion.Regionalmaritimenetworks
heremeaninter-islandhumancontacts includinghumanmigrationandmaritimetradefor the
exchangeofgoodsintheCelebesSea.Geographically,theCelebesSeaispartlylocatedonthe
westernborderoftheWallaceaarchipelagoandsurroundedbythethreelargeislandsofBorneo
(Malaysia),Mindanao(thePhilippines),andSulawesi (Indonesia),aswellas2small island
groupsincludingtheSuluIslandsinthePhilippinesandtheSangihe-TalaudislandsinIndonesia
(Figure1);hencetheregionisnowdividedinto3differentnation-states(e.g.,Ono,2006,2011).
However,suchgeopoliticaldivisionsandtheexistenceofboundarylinesintheCelebesSea
aretheresultsofmodernandpre-moderncolonialboundariesoriginallymadebytheWestern
suzerainstatesincludingSpainandtheUnitedStatesofAmericaforthePhilippines,theUnited
Kingdomor theBritishEastIndiaCompanyforMalaysia,andtheNetherlandsor theDutch
East IndiaCompanyfor Indonesia,datingback to the18thand19thcenturies.Thehistorical
appearanceoftheseWesterncountriesintheCelebesSeacanbedatedbacktothe16thcentury.
Yet theseWesternpowershardlydominated theCelebesSeaand itsmaritime trade routes
becauseoftheresistanceofsomeIslamizedkingdomssuchastheSultanateofMaguindanao(most
activeduringthe17thto18thcenturies)andtheSultanateofSulu(mostactiveduringthe18thto
19thcenturies)(e.g.,Henley,2005;Reid,1988;Spoehr,1973;Warren,1981,2002)duringthe
16thto19thcenturies.
TheseSultanatesocieties in theCelebesSeahaddevelopedfrommuchsmallerpolitical
societies,possiblyassimplechiefdoms(e.g.,Nishimura,1988,1992)duringroughlythe10thto
15thcenturieswhentheBruneiKingdom1(andtheSultanateofBruneiafter the14thcentury),
whichwastheearlycomplexsocietyoriginallylocatedonthewesterncoastofBorneo,hadmore
powerandcontroloflong-distancemaritimetradewithChinaandregionaltradenetworksinthe
CelebesSea.IntheearlyfirstmillenniumAD,theSouthChinaSeabecameanarenaforintensive
internationaltradesystemsthatinvolvedChinaandSoutheastAsiansocieties.Archaeologically,
theKupangsiteonthewesterncoastofBrunei,datingbacktothe10thcentury,yieldedanumber
ofNorthernSongtradeceramics(Aoyagi,1992).InthePhilippines,onlyonecommunity,which1 AnotherpossiblenameforthiskingdomisPo-ni,andtheChinesehistoricdocumentmentionsthat
Po-nihadcontactswiththeSongDynasty,atsomepointevenenteringintoatributaryrelationshipwithChinabythe10thcentury(cf.ZhufanZhi,publishedaround1225ADduringtheSongDy-nasty).
Possible Development of Regional Maritime Networks 3
wasknowntotheChineseasMa-i,ontheislandofMindoro,participateddirectlyinmaritime
tradewithChinabythelate10thcentury(Bacus,1998).
Such long-distancemaritime tradewithChinawas followedby increasingnumbersof
chiefsactivelycompetingforaccess to,andcontrolover, foreigntraderelations,particularly
after the14thcenturywhenother long-distancemaritimetradenetworkssetupbyIslamicor
ArabicmerchantsreachedSoutheastAsia, includingtheCelebesSea.Forexample,apossible
predecessorstateoftheSultanateofSuluappearedaroundthe14thcentury,asthenameofSulu
firstappearsintheChinesehistoricaldocumentDao Yi Zhi Lue,writtenin1341duringthelate
YuangDynasty.ThepossiblenameofMaguindanaoalsoappearsinthesamedocument,while
detaileddescriptionsoftheseSultanatesweremainlywrittenaftertheMingDynasty(e.g., the
historyoftheMing).Suchhistoricalfactstentativelyindicatethatcomplexsocietieshadbeen
formedafteraroundthe14thcenturyunderthestrongimpactofthelateremergenceofArabic
merchantsandIslamicculture,sincemostofthesecomplexsocietiesintheCelebesSeaformed
asSultanateswithIslamizeddatu,orkings,attheirpoliticaltop.
Intermsofexportedandimportedgoodscarriedbytheearlylong-distancemaritimetrade
withChinaafter the10thcentury,ChineseandSoutheastAsiantraderssoughtvariousmarine,
forest,andagriculturalproducts; textiles;andmineral resourcesfromthearchipelago; these
includedspices,beeswax, resins,woods, tortoiseshellpearls,goldore,andcotton.Chiefs
in IslandSoutheastAsia, including theCelebesSea,soughtgoodssuchasglazedceramics
(porcelains),glassbeads,silk,andiron;theseitemsappeartohavebeenvaluedasstatussymbols
bychiefs,wereessentialinsociopoliticalnegotiations,andenhancedachief’sabilitytomaintain
andincreasehispoliticalauthority(e.g.,Bacus,1998;Laarhoven,1989;Warren,1981).Inlater
times,after the17th to18thcenturies,seacucumbers(or trepan),sharkfins,andbird’snests
wereaddedasexportgoodsfromIslandSoutheastAsia toChina,andJoloIsland, thecapital
oftheSuluSultanate,becameoneofthemajorexportportsformarineproducts(includingsea
cucumbers)toChina,mainlyviaManila,duringthe18thto19thcenturies(Warren,1981).
On theotherhand, themajorgoodsfor localor regionalmaritime trade inandaround
theCelebesSeaafter the17thcenturywereslavesandrice.TheSultanatesofbothSuluand
Maguindanaoexportedrice(asamajor food)andhumanslaves(mainlyas laborresources)
toadjacentislandswhichlackedlandforricecultivationandalsolaborresourcesforfarming,
fishing,andboating.Thereweresomecasesinwhichslaveswereexportedastradegoodstothe
DutchEastIndonesianarchipelagofromtheseSultanatesafter1620,andWarren(1981)estimates
thatover100,000peoplewerecapturedandtakentoSuluandMaguindanaoasslavesduring
thefewhundredyearsafter the16thcentury.Slaveswerealso importantfor theseSultanates
themselvestoincreasetheirlaboringpopulations.Forexample,thetotalmaximumpopulationof
R. Ono, S. Soegondho and J. Siswanto4
MaguindanaoreportedbytheSpanisharmyin1579wasabout7,000,whilealaterinvestigation
bytheDutchEastIndianCompanyin1700reportedthat thepopulationofMaguindanaowas
around21,150,orupto59,650iftheestimatesincludedtheIranunandMaranaoethnicgroups
wholivedaroundtheMaguindanaoandwerefamousaspirateriders(Laarhoven,1989:210).
PirateactivitieswerethemajormethodofprocuringslavesfortheseSultanates,andtheir
humanhuntingwaspracticedinandaroundtheCelebesSea;furthernorthtoLuzonIslandin
thePhilippinearchipelago;southtoSangihe-TalaudandSulawesi;west toJava,Sumatra,and
theMalayPeninsulaorMalaccastraits;andeast totheMalukuIslands(Warren,1981,2002).
ThepiratesweremainlymaritimeorethnicgroupsincludingtheIranun(orIllanun),wholived
aroundLakeLanaoinMaguindanao,andtheBalangingiSamal,wholivedaroundtheBalangingi
IslandintheSuluIslands(Warren,2002).IntheTalaudIslands,forexample,thereareanumber
oflegendsororalhistoriesaboutpastpirateattacks,includingthelegendoftheBarangingicave
site,whichwasnamedafterapastattackbyBalangingipirates.Thesiteislocatedontheeastern
coastofKarakellangIslandandwasexcavatedbyBellwoodin the1970s(Bellwood,1976).
IntheSultanatesofMaguindanaoandSulu,theseethnicgroupswereformedbyout-migration
basedonkinship,group, solidarity, andcommonculture,withnoclearlydefined spatial
boundaries(Warren,2002:47);theycontainedpirateraiders,fishermen,andsometimesfarmers;
andtheybelongedinthemiddletolowerclassesinthesehighlystratifiedsocieties(e.g.,Warren,
2002,2003).Laarhoven(1989:109‒110)estimatesthattherewouldhavebeenperhapsasmany
as90,000to100,000IranunandSamalinthecoastalarea.
In termsof sociopolitical systems in theseSultanates, theTausogethnicgroupwere
dominant andoccupiedhigher status in theSuluSultanate,whichencompassednorthern
Borneo,southernPalawan,andpartsof thesouthernMindanaocoast.Ontheotherhand, the
MaguindanaowereterritoriallydistributedamonganumberofSultanates,ofwhichthemost
importantwereBuayanandCotabato(Warren,2002:27).In1776,forexample,Forrestlistedno
lessthan33Sultanatesdividingupapopulationofsome61,000persons(Forrest,1779).Bythe
18thand19thcenturies,theseSultanatesofMaguindanaoandSulucontrolledcoastalareasinthe
northwesternpartoftheCelebesSeafromnorthernBorneoandtheSuluIslandstothesouthern
coastofMindanao.Theirmajorpreoccupationswerecontroloftheseasaswellasbothglobal
andlocalmaritimetrade.
Theircontrolover theseasandmaritime trade in thesoutheasternpartof theCelebes
Seawasnotasstrongasinthenorthwesternpart, thoughsomehistoricaldocumentsandoral
historiesindicatethattheSangihe-TalaudIslandswereundertheinfluenceofboththeSultanates
ofMaguindanao inMindanaoand theSultanateofTernate in theNorthernMalukuIslands
(e.g.,Hayase,2001;Hayaseetal.,1999).Inparticular, theSangiheIslands,whicharelocated
Possible Development of Regional Maritime Networks 5
inthemiddleofthemajormaritimetraderoutebetweenMindanaoandTernate,werestrongly
influencedbybothSultanates.Therecordof theSpanish(Magellan)expedition in1521, the
firsthistoricaldocumentabouttheSangiheIslands,describes4kingdoms,orraja,onthelarge
SangiheIsland,onerajaonSiauIsland,andonerajaonTagudaranIslandat thetimeoftheir
visit(Pigafetta,2007[1525]).Suchahistoricaldescriptionindicatesthepossibledevelopment
ofasociopoliticalsystemin theSangiheIslandsfromasimplechiefdomsocietywithsome
headchiefs(dato)intoasmallkingdomwithamuchstrongerking(raja)orahighlystratified
societyduring the16thcentury.TheTalaudIslands,whichwere locatedabitawayfromthe
majormaritimetraderoute,mighthavehadamuchlessdirectimpactfrombothSultanates,and
historicaldocumentsdescribingtheTalaudsbeforethe18thcenturyareverylimitedinnumber.
Yetaccordingtosomehistoricaldocuments,theTalaudIslandsmayhavebeenunderthecontrol
oftheSangiheIslands,andtradegoodsincludingtradeceramicsmayhavebeenimportedtothe
TalaudsviatheSangiheIslands(Hayase,2001;Henley,2005).Themajorexportgoodsfromthe
Sangihe-TalaudIslandsseemtohavebeenspices(cloveandnutmeg),sago(onlyfromSangihe),
andcoconutascoprainlatertimes(mainlyafterthe19thcentury).Sincenorajawerehistorically
recordedin theTalaudIslands, theirsocietymighthavebeenasimplechiefdomsocietyora
kedatuanwithsomeheadchiefs(dato),andtheselocalchiefsmighthavebeenunderthecontrol
ofthekingsintheSangiheIslands(Hayase,2001).
Pastarchaeological studies in thePhilippinesargue thatcomplexsocietieshadbegun
toformaroundthe14thcentury in theCentralPhilippineIslands includingSebu,Samar,and
Negros(Hutterer,1973,1976;Nishimura,1988,1992;Junker,1999).Forexample,Hutterer
providedamodelshowingthatdevelopmentofmaritimetradecausedactivehumanmigration
andmovementofvariousethnicgroups,afterwhichcentralizedmajorsettlementswereformed
aroundcoastalareas.Inthedevelopingprocessofsuchcentralizedsettlements,furtherneedfor
tradeandincreaseddemandfortradegoodsalsocontributedtothedevelopmentofsociopolitical
systemsfromsimplechiefdomsocietiestomorecomplexstratifiedsocieties(Hutterer,1976).
Followingthisstudy,andbasedonhisarchaeologicalanalysisoftheexcavatedtradeceramics
andsettlementpatternsofthesites,Nishimura(1988,1992)arguesthatthedevelopmentoflong-
distancemaritimetradeandacomplexsocietyoccurredinSebuIsland,CentralPhilippines,by
the14thcentury.
These previous studies indicate that trade ceramics could be one of the potential
archaeological indicators for thepossibleestablishmentofa long-distancemaritime trade
network—mainlywithChina—into theCelebesSea,while locallymadepotterycanbeone
of thearchaeological indicatorsof thepossible influenceof regionalmaritimenetworkson
inter-islandhumancontact, includinghumanmigrationintheCelebesSeaanditssurrounding
R. Ono, S. Soegondho and J. Siswanto6
area.Furthermore, theemergenceofnewplantandanimal resourcessuchas rice,cassava,
anddomesticatedpigs,dogs,orgoatsintheremoteislandswherenosuchresourcesnaturally
existedbeforetheirintroductionbyhumanscanbeanotherarchaeologicalindicatorofregional
maritimenetworks.Basedonsuchanunderstanding,wefirstreportontheexcavatedartifacts,
includingtradeceramicsandpottery,fromtheBukitTiwingsitewhichdatebacktothe17thto
19thcenturies.Wealsointroducetheresultsofanalysisoftheexcavatedanimalremainsinthe
site,andfinallywecomparethefindingswithotherarchaeologicaldatafromsitesinandaround
theCelebesSeaduringthe15thto19thcenturiesinordertodiscussthepossibledevelopmentof
regionalmaritimenetworksintheTalaudIslandsaswellasotherislandsintheCelebesSea.
2. Talaud Islands and Archaeological Sites
TheTalaudIslandsaregeopoliticallylocatedintheIndonesianregion.Theyformpartofthe
smallislandgroupoftheSangiheandTalaudchain,whichextendsfromnearthetipofnorthern
SulawesitowardthesoutherntipofMindanao(Figure1).TheSangiheIslandsextendnorthfrom
Minahasa(NorthernSulawesi)forabout230km,andcomprisethetwomajorislandsofSiau
andSangihe.TheTalaudIslandsarelocatednortheastof theSangihegroupandareseparated
fromitbyabout120km.TheTalaudgroupisbasicallycomposedof3largeislands(Figure2):
Karakellang(976km2),Salibabu(about95km2),andKabaruan(about90km2),alongwith8
Figure 1. Location of Celebes Sea and Talaud Islands
Possible Development of Regional Maritime Networks 7
smallupliftedcoralislands(about10‒18
km2 each) called theNanusagroup in
thenorth.The threemajor islands are
basicallynon-volcanicandlow-lying(the
summitofMt.Manuk inKarakelong is
thehighestpointat648m).
The isolatedTalaudIslands,which
are located over 100 km from the
nearest islands,were formedduring the
Pleistocene times(last IceAge), though
Talaud has the oldest archaeological
sites in theCelebes Sea.This site is
LeangSarru,whichdatesbacktoaround
35,000yearsago(Figure2).Theprevious
excavationbyTanudirjo(2001,2005)and
ourre-excavationatLeangSarrusite(Ono
andSoegondho,2004;Onoetal.,2010)bothfoundlargenumbersofflakestonetools,mainly
chertwithavarietyofmarineandlandshellremains,datingfromthelatePleistocenetotheearly
Holocene,around7000yearsBP.However,noarchaeologicalsiteshavebeenfoundthatdate
backtobetween7,000and4,500yearsago,anditisstillnotknownwhethertheseearlypeople
whomigratedormovedtotheTalaudIslandsduringthelatePleistocenetotheearlyHolocene
continuallyinhabitedtheseislands.
ThenextoldesttracesofhumanhabitationintheTalaudIslandsexistat theLeangTuwo
Mane’esite,whichislocatedatthenortherntipofKarakellangIsland(Figure2).Theprevious
excavationbyBellwood(1976)andthere-excavationbyTanudirjo(2001)foundaNeolithic
layerwithpotterysherds, includingred-slipped type,datingback toaround3500yearsBP,
whilebothexcavationsalsofoundmucholderlayerswithonlysomeflaketools,butnopottery,
datingbacktoaround5000yearsBP.It isunclearwhetherthisno-potterylayeristhemarkof
thedescendantsoftheLeangSarrupeopleorothergroupsthatmigratedtoTalaud.Ontheother
hand,LeangTuwoMane’emayhavebeenusedcontinuallyafter theNeolithiclayerbasedon
theupperlayersdatingbacktoaround250yearsBP,2andthecurrentvillageislocatednextto
thesitealongthenortherncoastofKarakellangIsland.Althoughthetoplayerwasnotdated,
2 TherearethreeC14datesfromLayer2,whichisconsideredasmainlyEarlyMetaltoLateperiod,andtheseare990±100BP(ANU1715)fromthelowerpartofLayer2,and410±60(ANU1514)and250±70(ANU1513)fromtheupperpartofLayer2(Bellwood,1976:261).
Figure 2. Bukit Tiwing and Other ArchaeologicalSites in the Talaud Islands
R. Ono, S. Soegondho and J. Siswanto8
BellwoodestimatesthatthesitehadbeenuseduntilrecentlybecauseoftheexistenceofChinese
tradeceramicsandRarangunusa-stylepotterieswhichheconsidersashistorictomoderninage
(Bellwood,1976).
AlltheotherarchaeologicalsitesinTalaudarepost-Neolithicsitesdatedafter2000years
BP.Amongthem,theLeangBuidanesiteonSalibabuIslandisasecondaryburialcavesitewith
alargenumberofhumanbones,burialjars,bronzeandironfragments,andaccessoriesincluding
glass, shells,variousstones,andcarnelianbeads (Bellwood,1976,1980).Althoughonlya
thermo-luminescencedatefromtheexcavatedbakedclaymoldsof960yearsBPandaC14
dateofcharcoalexcavatedfromthetoplayerof1440±80yearsweretaken,Bellwoodestimates
thatthesitedatestobetweenAD700and1200(Bellwood,1976:278).Bellwood(1976:270)
reportedthattheburialjarsclearlyrelateinformanddecorationtotheKalanaypotteriesofthe
centralPhilippines(cf.Solheim,1964),ratherthantotheTabonpotteriesofPalawanIsland(Fox,
1970).
LeangBarangingionKarakellangIslandandLeangBuidaonKabaruanIslandareboth
datedbacktoaround1000yearsBPorAD1000,andarecontemporarywithLeangBuidane,
althoughbothsitesaremainlyhabitationandnotburialsites likeBuidane(Bellwood,1976,
1980;Onoetal.,2012).Bothsitesyieldalargenumberofpotsherdsandmarineshellremains,
whileLeangBuidaalsohasanumberofotherfaunalremains,includingthoseofpig,dog,goat,
monkey,andfish(Onoetal.,2012).Thepotteriesandtheirmotifsfromthese2sitesseemsto
havesimilaritieswiththeBuidaneones,whileLeangBuidaalsohasnumbersofRarangunusa-
style potsherds,mainly from the upper layers, but also from the bottom layer.Leang
Arandangana,anothersiteonKabaruanIslandthatpossiblydatesbacktothe13thcenturybased
ontheexcavatedmarineshellsamples,alsoyieldsanumberofRarangunusa-stylepotsherds
fromeachlayerand2piecesofChinesetradeceramicsfromtheupperlayers(Tanudirjo,2001).
Withthesearchaeologicalsitesandpreviousexcavations,thebroadarchaeologicalsequence
ofhumanmigrationandhabitation in theTalaudIslandsduring the latePleistocene toearly
Holocene,theNeolithictotheMetalages,andtheHistoricorColonialagesbacktoaroundthe
18thcenturycanbeconfirmed.However,morepreciseanddetailedarchaeologicalsequencesand
therecordsofpasthumanactivitiesineachagearestillunclear,andtheBukitTiwingsite,which
wenewlyexcavatedin2004,canaddmuchdetailtothetracesofpasthumanactivitiesandthe
archaeologicalsequenceduringthe16thto19thcenturiesintheTalaudIslands,aswellasinthe
CelebesSea.
Possible Development of Regional Maritime Networks 9
3. Excavation of Bukit Tiwing
BukitTiwing site is one of the
opensiteslocatedonahill(Bukit)called
“Tiwing”about1km inland from the
villageofBallang,onthewesterncoast
ofSalibabuIslandintheTalaudIslands.
Thesiteissituatedinasecondaryforest
on theflat topofasmall limestonehill
surroundedbycliffs(Figure3).Theflat
areacoversabout15×20m.Fragments
of imported ceramics, probably from
China, are scattered on the surface.
Loca l po tsherds were a l so found
quite abundantly; someof themwere
Rarangunusa type,whichBellwood
originally identifiedas the latest aged
pottery type in theTaraud Islands,
possiblydatingbacktopre-moderntimes
basedonhispreviousexcavationsin the1970s(Bellwood,1976).Thesitewasexcavatedby
BalaiArkiologiManadoandbyOnoin2004.
Wefirstopeneda1×1mtestpit(TP1);laterweexpandedthetestpitmorethan50cmto
thenorthernandsouthernsidesofTP1,namingtheextensionsTP2(north)andTP3(south),
sothatthewholeexcavationcanbeconsidereda2×1mtesttrench.Basicallyanartificialspit
system(1spit=10cm)wasapplied,inwhichwestoppedandchangedthespitnumberwhenthe
naturallayerchanged.Forsieving,wefirstusedboth5mmand3mmmeshfordryscreening,
butbecauseofthewetnessoftheexcavatedsoilwewereunabletousethe3mmsizemeshin
theend.Ourexcavationconfirmed3culturallayersdownto1.0mofmaximumdepthfromthe
surface:Layer1is topsoil;Layer2containsagreatmanyshells,potsherds,andanimalbones
withblackishorganicsoil;andLayer3containsonlysomepotsherdswithyellowishstickysoil
(Figure4).
CharcoalsampleswerecollectedfromallofthespitsuptoSpit7,andsomewerecollected
fromSpit8(bothLayer3).Intotal,4AMSdateswereobtainedfromcharcoals,whiletwoC14
datesweretakenfrommarineshells(Table1).TheC14datestakenfromcharcoalsare294±33
BP(TERRA-070407a24:40cmdepthatLayer2),371±31BP(Wk15741:60cmdepthatLayer
Figure 3. Bukit Tiwing and the Excavated Test Pits(Trench)
R. Ono, S. Soegondho and J. Siswanto10
3),343BP(TERRA-070407a23:70cmdepthatLayer3),and539±81BP(Wk15740:70cm
depthatLayer3).TheC14datestakenfrommarineshellsareabout300yearsolderthanthose
fromcharcoals;theyare700±33BP(TERRA-070407a13:50cmdepthatLayer2)and688±33
BP(TERRA-070407a10:50cmdepthatLayer2).Ifwesupport theC14datesobtainedfrom
marineshells, thesiteagealmostcorrespondswith theLeangArandanganasite inKabaruan
Island,whichcouldbe tracedback to the13thcentury (Tanudirjo,2001).However,asour
C14datesclearlyshow,datingfrommarineshellsamplescarries theriskofmarinereservoir
effects,whichusuallymakemarineshelldateshundredsofyearsolderthancharcoaldates(e.g.,
Nakamura,2004;Yonedaetal.,2004).Withthisunderstanding,wesupportthecharcoaldates
rather thanthemoreunstablemarineshelldates,andconsider thepossibleagesof theBukit
Tiwingsitetobearoundthe16thto19thcenturies.SincealltheC14datesatLeangArandangana
wereobtainedfrommarineshellsandmayhavetheriskofmarinereservoireffects,thesiteage
ispossiblyabityounger—aroundthe15thto16thcenturies—andcorrespondswithBukitTiwing.
Figure 4. Section of Bukit Tiwing
Table 1. C14 and AMS Dates from Bukit TiwingLab.code Sample Location Layer Age(BP)
TERRA-070407a10 Marineshell TP2/spit5 2 688±33BPTERRA-070407a13 Marineshell TP3/spit5 2 700±33BPWk-15740 Charcoal TP3/spit7 3 539±81BPTERRA-070407a23 Charcoal TP2/spit7 3 343±30BPWk-15741 Charcoal TP3/spit6 2 371±31BPTERRA-070407a24 Charcoal TP2/spit4 2 294±33BP
Possible Development of Regional Maritime Networks 11
Theculturalartifactsexcavatedfromthesiteinclude3,613potsherds,manyofRarangunusa
type:70ceramicpieces,6 fragmentsof iron,2bone tools,19 lithicwastes,43stone tools
includingpossiblenutcrackers(38)orhummerstones(5),7coral tools(possiblypestles),and
apieceofbakedclayspindlewhorl(Table2).Amongtheseartifacts, fragmentsof ironwere
excavatedonlyuptoSpit4(upperpartofLayer2),whileceramicswereexcavateddowntoSpit
6(upperpartofLayer3).Animalbonesandmarineshells,togetherwithstoneandcoraltools,
weremostlycollectedfromLayer2(Spits3‒5)andlargelydecreasebelowLayer3(Spits6‒10).
OnlypotsherdswerecollectedfromallthelayersdowntoSpit10.
Besides theseculturalartifacts, faunal remains including terrestrialanimals,sea turtles,
fish,andshellremainswerealsoexcavated.Intotal,114terrestrialanimals,81seaturtles,121
fishremains,3,301shell remains—mainlyofmarinespecies—and1,253unidentifiedanimal
remainswerecounted.Formarinefaunalremains,unknownspeciesofseaturtlesand10fish
familieswereidentified,includingScaridae,Serranidae,Lethrinidae,Lutjanidae,Acanthuridae,
Balistidae,Diodontidae,Scombridae,Tetradontidae,andPomacanthidae,while21families(44
species)wereidentifiedforshellremains,mainlyTurbinidae,Neritidae,Chitonidae,Muricidae,
Trochidae,Conidae,Terebridae,andStrombidae.However,thisarticleonlyexaminestheresult
ofterrestrialanimalremainsanalysisfordiscussingdevelopmentofregionalnetworksinCelebes
Sea;thedetailedresultsoftheexcavatedmarinefaunalremainswerereportedanddiscussedin
anotherarticle(Onoetal.,2008).
Table 2. Excavated Cultural Artifacts from Bukit TiwingTP1,2,3 Layer1 Layer2 Layer3
TotalCategory Spit1 Spit2 Spit3 Spit4 Spit5 Spit6 Spit7 Spit8 Spit9 Spit10
Pottery 169 692 1025 583 586 282 107 116 49 4 3613Ceramic 2 20 30 10 5 3 70Iron 1 5 6Flake 3 2 6 6 1 1 19Nut-cracker 13 3 9 2 7 4 38Hummer 1 2 1 1 5Coraltool 1 2 3 1 7Bonetool 1 1 2ClaySpindle 1 1Total 185 718 1069 604 607 298 109 116 50 5 3761
R. Ono, S. Soegondho and J. Siswanto12
4. Analysis of Cultural Artifacts
4.1. Pottery
Potsherdsare themostabundantartifactsrecovered in thesite. In total,3,613piecesof
sherdswereobtained.Amongthem,176aredecoratedpieces,173arerimparts,6arepedestal
parts,andoneisacoverpart.Thesherdsareallundecoratedbodyparts, thoughmostof the
sherdsaresmallinsize,andreconstructionoforiginalvesselformsisdifficult.Onlyafewsherds
couldberefitted.Theundecoratedsherdswereinitiallyclassifiedinto6groups,denotedBTIto
BTVI,basedonthickness,fabric,andsurfacefinish.
4.1.1 Undecorated Potsherds
BT I:Thistypeofpotterysherdhasareddish-
brownsurface;atotalof1,654pieceswereexcavated.
Theyarebasicallycompactandwell-manufactured.
Thicknessrangesfrom0.5‒0.9cm.Bothdirectand
curved rim formsoccur.Thedirect rimsseem to
representunrestrictedvessels,possiblybowls.This
kindofpotterywasfoundmostfrequentlyinthesite
betweenSpits1and9(Figure5;No.1).
BT II:Potteryofthistypehasareddish-brown
surface;449pieceswereunearthed.Thepottery is
compactandwell-manufactured.Thicknessranges
from0.3‒0.5cm,makingthistyperelativelythinner
thanothertypes.Bothdirectandcurvedrimforms
occur.Thedirectrimsseemtorepresentunrestricted
vessels,possiblybowls.Thiskindofpotterywas
foundmost frequently in thesitebetweenSpits1
and6(Layers1and2).
BT III:Potteryofthistypehasareddish-brown
surface; 171 pieceswere unearthed.Thickness
rangesfrom0.9‒1.5cm,makingthis typerelativelythicker thanother types.Bothdirectand
curvedrimformsoccur.Thedirectrimsseemtorepresentunrestrictedvessels,possiblybowls.
ThiskindofpotterywasfoundinrelativelysmallnumbersandconcentratedinSpits1to6in
Layers1and2(Figure6;No.1‒2).
BT IV:Potteryof this typehasa reddish-brownsurface;79pieceswereunearthed.
Figure 5. Undecorated Potsherds (BTI)from Layer 2
Possible Development of Regional Maritime Networks 13
Thicknessrangesfrom0.3‒0.8cm.Thepaste is temperedwithfine-grainedwhitematerials,
passiblycoralsand.Bothdirectandcurvedrimformsoccur.Thedirectrimsseemtorepresent
unrestrictedvessels,possiblybowls.Thiskindofpotterywasfoundinrelativelysmallnumbers
andconcentratedinSpits1to6inLayers1and2(Figure6;No.3).
BT V: Potteryof this typehas a reddish-brown surface; 12pieceswereunearthed.
Thickness ranges from0.3‒0.8cm.Mostof thesesherdsare red-slippedon their interiors,
lips,andexteriors.Bothdirectandcurvedrimformsoccur.Thedirectrimsseemtorepresent
unrestrictedvessels,possiblybowls.Thiskindofpotterywasfoundinrelativelysmallnumbers
andconcentratedinSpits7to8inLayer3.
BT VI:Potteryof this typehas ayellow-brown surface;94pieceswereunearthed.
Thicknessrangesfrom0.3‒0.8cm.Bothdirectandcurvedrimformsoccur.Thedirectrimsseem
torepresentunrestrictedvessels,possiblybowls.Thiskindofpotterywasfoundinrelatively
smallnumbersandconcentratedinSpits7to8inLayer3(Figure6;No.4).
4.1.2 Decorated Potsherds
Mostof thedecoratedpotsherdsseemtobesimilar to the“Rarangunusa”-stylepottery
originallynamedbyPeterBellwoodinthe1970s,basedonhisarchaeologicalresearchinTalaud
Island(Bellwood,1976);somedecoratedpotsherdscollectedon thesurfaceat thesite look
simpler,buttheirfabricandsurfacefinishlooksmorerefinedthanthoseexcavatedfromthetest
pits.Thedecorationofthepotsherdsfoundatthesurfaceisalsocharacterizedasparallelwaved
lineincisions,possiblymadeby2-prongedtools(Figure7;No.1),buttherearenootherincisions
Figure 6. Undecorated Potsherds (BTII, III and VI) from Layer 2 to 3
R. Ono, S. Soegondho and J. Siswanto14
ordecorationsontheirsurfaces.
Rarangunusapotterymainlycomprisesrestrictedvesselswitheverted(orcurved)rims,
globularorcarinatedbodies,androundbases(Tanudirjo,2001).Rimsaregenerallyroundedand
tapering(Figure7;Nos.2‒3).Somerimsarelip-notchedorinflectedoutsidethelip(Figure7;
No.2,Figure8;No.1).Themostdistinctivecharacteristicofthispotteryis that thedecoration
usuallyconsistsofparallelincisionsmostlymadeby2-or3-prongedtools,arrangedinvertical
zones(Figure8;Nos.1‒5).Suchdecorationisappliedontheouterwallofthevessel,generally
fromacarinationorpointofverticaltangencyuptothelip.Amongthepopularmotifsarepaired
verticallines,verticalandhorizontalzigzags,andpairednotcheslinedinaverticalrow.
Thispotterytypehasawidespreaddistribution,especiallywithinthesouthernPhilippines
(Mindanao,Davao,Cotabato,Samar;Solheimetal.,1979;Spoehr,1973)and theSangihe-
Talaudislands(Bellwood,1976;Tanudirjo,2001;Ono,2004a,2006).Bellwood(1976:282‒284)
Figure 7. Decorated Potsherds from Bukit Tiwing
Possible Development of Regional Maritime Networks 15
suggeststhat theRarangunusadecorationstylemighthaveoriginatedinMindanaoandspread
mainly throughwide intermarriageandmovementofpotters inearlyhistoric timesunder
EuropeanorIslamicinfluencepostdatingthe19thcentury.However, theexcavationatLeang
ArandanganaonKabaruanIslandbyTanudirjo in the1990ssuggests that theRarangunusa-
stylepotteryhadbeenproducedsinceamuchearlierdate,possiblyaroundthe13thcenturyAD
(Tanudirjo,2001).
OurexcavationatBukitTiwingadditionallyconfirmsthat thesepotterystyleswerealso
usedduringthe17thto19thcenturies,andwearesurethatthespreadanduseoftheRarangunusa
decorationbeganmuchearlierthanthe19thcenturyasBellwoodestimatedinthe1970s.Atthe
sametime,aswasindicatedbytheresultoftheexcavationatLiangArandanganabyTanudirjo,
thedistributionsofthesemotifsfail toshowanytemporalandspatialpatterning,anditseems
Figure 8. Excavated Rarangunusa Type Potsherds and a Stone Clay Spindle Whorl
R. Ono, S. Soegondho and J. Siswanto16
thatnodrasticchangesoccurredinthesemotifsforhundredsofyears.Bellwoodonceestimated
that theRarangunusastylemighthavesurviveduntilasrecentlyas50yearsago(Bellwood,
1976).Wemayagreewithhisestimation,butaddthepossibilitythatthedesignsandmotifsmay
havebecomemoresimpleandfunctionalthanoldertypes.
4.1.3 Clay Analysis of Excavated Potsherds
Atotalof7excavatedpotsherds, including4undecoratedsherdsand3decoratedsherds,
wereanalyzedbyPalynosurveyCo.,LTD(2005,2006)inordertoexamineclaysources(Table
3).Asshown inTable4, thesesampleswere found ineach layer frombottomto top.Asa
result, theseexcavatedpotsherdscanbeclassifiedinto2majorgroupsbasedontheirmineral
composition.GroupI ismainlycomposedofopaquemineral,amphibole,andepidote,while
GroupIIismainlycomposedofpyroxeneandopaquemineral(Table4).
Interestingly,theanalysisofthisresultshowsthatNo.1undecoratedpotsherdfromLayer
Table 3. Details of Potsherd Samples for AnalysisSample Location Weight(g) Thickness Decoration Color&Mineral Remarks
No.1 TP2/TL Spit9 6.97 thin no Containingfinewhitetransparentminerals
No.2 TP3/BL Spit7 18.38 thick no coiling?
No.3 TP3/BL Spit7 8.05 thin no Containing amounts ofwhite,grey,andbrownmineralparticles
No.4 TP2/TL Spit6 8.76 thick parallelwavedlines
Containingfinetransparentmineral
No.5 TP2/TG Spit4 40.04 thick no Containingfinewhiteparticlesincludingtransparentmineral coiling
No.6 TP2/TL Spit4 16.44 thick pairedverticallines
Containingwhite,blackandbrownsandymineralsparticles
No.7 TP2/TL Spit2 5.05 thick wavedlineincisions
Containingfinewhitetransparentminerals
Table 4. Heavy Mineral Composition of Each Potsherd SampleMineral/Sample No.1 No.2 No.3 No.4 No.5 No.6 No.7
Olivine 0 0 0 1 0 0 0Orthopyroxene 1 1 140 133 38 119 7Clinopyroxene 1 30 66 62 9 42 3Amphibole 62 0 7 1 1 33 40Oxide-amphiboles 5 0 0 0 0 2 1Epidote 30 1 0 0 0 5 62Zoisite 0 0 0 0 0 0 51Garnet 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Orthite 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Rutile 0 0 0 0 0 0 3Zircon 1 0 0 0 0 0 0Opaquemineral 139 3 19 52 199 12 17Other 11 215 18 1 3 37 64
Total 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
Possible Development of Regional Maritime Networks 17
3(Spit9)andNo.7decoratedpotsherdfromLayer1(Spit2)aresortedintoGroupI,andtheir
claysourceswerepossiblycloseinlocation.Allothersamples,includingbothundecoratedand
decoratedpotsherds,canbesortedintoGroupII,andtheirclaysourceswerepossiblyclosein
location.Basedontheirgeologicalnature,claysofGroupIwithamphiboleandepidotemineralare
fromlocationsformedbygraniteandmetamorphicrocks,whileclaysofGroupIIwithpyroxene
mineralsarefromlocationsformedbypyroxeneandesiterocks.Althoughbothformationsshould
belocatedinareasofvolcanicoriginislandandpossiblywithintheTalaudIslands,theanalysis
tentativelyshowsthereareatleast2differentclaysourcesfortheBukitTiwingpotteries.
4.2. Chinese Trade Ceramics
Intotal,70piecesofChinesetradeceramicswere
excavated from theupper layers.Mostof themare
brokenpiecesofceladonporcelainwithsomeflower
andfishdesignsfromthelateMingtoQingDynasty,
yet theycanmainlybe identifiedasQingceramics
(Figure9).Theyarenotsohighinqualityandseemto
berathercheapmass-produceditems,possiblymadeat
kilnsinZhangzhou,FujianProvince,inChina.These
low-qualityChineseceramicswerepossiblyusedas
tablewareindailylife,whileotherChineseceramics
includingmuchhigher-qualityoneswereusedasburial
goodsduringthe16th to19thcenturies inandaround
theCelebesSea.
4.3. A Stone Spindle Whorl
Apieceofvolcanicstone-madespindlewhorl(Figure8;No.6)wasexcavatedfromthe
bottomofLayer2(TP3/Spit5).Aspindlewhorlisatoolbasicallyusedforspinningandtwisting
fibersintoyarn,andmanykindsofspindlewhorlmadeofclay,wood,andothermaterialshave
beenfound inarchaeologicalsitesaround theworldafter theNeolithicage.Althoughstone
spindlewhorlsoccurintheSoutheastAsiaarchaeologicalrecord,examplesaregenerallylarge,
basicallyflatdiscsfromEarlyNeolithicsites(cf.Cameron,2005,2012).Spindlewhorlsareless
commoninIslandSoutheastAsia
(Oliver,1989) thaninMainlandSoutheastAsia,andBukitTiwingis thefirstcaseofan
excavatedspindlewhorl in theSangihe-TalaudIslandsregion.Withsuchabackground, the
excavatedmaterialwasanalyzedbyDr.JudithCameron,whoisaspecialist inAsianspindle
Figure 9. Excavated Trade Ceramic
R. Ono, S. Soegondho and J. Siswanto18
whorlstudy,andwereport theresultsofher
analysishere.
Theartifactmeasured2.1cmindiameter,
1.8 cm inheight, and10g inweightwith
its centralperforationmeasuring0.5cm in
diameter.Thesizeof thefindfallswithinthe
rangeofprehistoricspindlewhorls,andthere
arepossibleuse-wearmarksbesidethecentral
perforation(Figure10).Itsweightsuggeststhat
ifitwasactuallyusedforspinning,itwouldhave
beenusedtospinvery,verylightfibersrather
thanthebasicfibersthatwerespunwithearlier
prehistoricspindlewhorlsfromadjoiningareas(TaiwanandthePhilippines).
In termsofmorphology, theonlyarchaeologicalparallel for suchasmallartifact that
couldbeidentifiedcomesfromJanse’sexcavationsof12th‒17th-centurysitesontheCalatagan
Peninsula inLuzon Islandduring the1940s,whose itemsarenow in thecollectionof the
NationalMuseumofthePhilippines.However, theCalataganwhorl(itemH)wasmadefrom
pottery,notstone(MainandFox,1982).Potteryforms,classifiedastypeXXIVinCameron’s
typologyofSoutheastAsianspindlewhorls(Cameron,2012),arewidelydistributedatSoutheast
Asianprehistoricsites.
4.4. Lithic Wastes and Stone or Coral Tools
Elevenlithicwastepieceswerefoundduringtheexcavation.Mostarereddishigneousrock
suchaschert,rhyolite,diabase,andsilicifiedrock.Allstonewastepiecesindicateintentional
detachmentfromacore,somostofthemarehardtoidentifyclearlyasflakes.Only3specimens
wereprobablyusedastools(Figure11;A).Fivepiecesofhummerorgrindingstones(Figure11;
B)and38pebblestonetoolpieceswerepossiblyusedasnutcrackers(Figure11;C).Thesestone
toolswerepossiblyusedforopeningthehardhullsofnutslikeCanariumnuts.Suchnut-cracking
usingstonesispracticedeventodayinTalaud.Sevenpiecesofexcavatedcoralpestles(Figure
11;D)werepossiblyusedforgrindingsuchnutseeds.
4.5. Iron Fragments
In total, 6 fragmentsof ironwere excavated, only from theupper layers.They are
possiblyparts of ironhatchets or knives, though the exact originof these iron tools is
unknown.Sincenohistoricalorethnologicalrecordsofpast ironproductionandblacksmith
Figure 10. Possible Use-wear Marks besideCentral Perforation(PhotobyJudithCameron)
Possible Development of Regional Maritime Networks 19
activities exist in theTalaud Islands, these ironmaterialswerepossibly imported from
neighboringregionssuchas theSangiheIslands,Sulawesi,orMindanao,whereblacksmith
activitieswerepracticed,atleastduringthehistoricalage.
4.6. Bone Tools
Twopiecesofbonetoolswereexcavated.Oneisaknife-shapedtoolpossiblymadeofpig
bone(Figure12),butitcouldhavebeenusedaspartofaloomornament,possiblyasaclothroll
orapronbarforweaving.Theotheroneisarectangle-shapedbonefigurewhoseuseisunclear.
Figure 11. Excavated Lithic Wastes and Stone or Coral Tools
Figure 12. Excavated Bone Tool
A:Lithicwaste(TP3/Spit3)
C:Nutscrackers
B:Hummerorgrindingstone
D:Coralstonepestle
R. Ono, S. Soegondho and J. Siswanto20
5. Analysis of Terrestrial Mammal and Sea Turtle Remains
Intotal,1,448items(3128g)ofterrestrialmammalandseaturtleremainswereexcavated,
and77%ofthemwereunearthedfromLayer2(Table5).Domesticatedpig(Sus celebensisor
Sus scrofa),sea turtle(Chelonioideasp.),monkey(Macacasp.),dog(Canis familiaris),goat
(Capra hircus),andrat(Rattussp.)wereidentified.Amongthem,thelargestnumberwerepig
bones,whichwererecordedas101NumberofIdentifiedSpecimens(NISP)and12Minimum
NumberofIndividuals(MNI).Thesecondlargestnumberofremainswereseaturtlebones:81
NISPand5MNI.Therewerealso9monkeymandibles(MNI=6),2dogmandibles(MNI=1),
onegoat tooth,andonerat tooth.Otheranatomicalelementsbesidesteethandmandiblesare
notyetanalyzedordividedintotaxa,thoughpigbonesseemtooccupythelargestnumberand
volumeamongthem.
Considering these results,pigsmighthavebeen themajor sourceof animalprotein,
followedbyseaturtlesandmonkeys.Furtheranalysisofexcavatedpigteethconfirmsthatmost
ofthepigindividualswerekilledatyoungerages,around6to20monthsold.Manyofthepig
femurboneshavethesamebitemarksasthedogbones,whiledogandmonkeymandibleshave
somecutmarks.Thesetracestentativelyshowthatdogsandmonkeyswerealsoeateninthepast
inTalaud.Anotherinterestingfindingisagoattooth,whichpossiblyindicatesthatgoatswere
alsodomesticatedintheTalaudIslandsorthatgoatmeatwasimportedfromotherlocationsby
the17thto19thcenturiesatthelatest.
Exceptforseaturtles,all terrestrialordomesticatedmammalswereclearlyintroducedto
theTalaudIslandsbyhumans,sincetheTalaudIslandshadnowildterrestrialmammalsexcept
Table 5. Number of Identified Taxon and Unidentified Animal Bones
TaxonLayer1 Layer2 Layer3
Total1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Pig(tooth) 5 13 15 29 10 3 0 0 75Pig(mandible) 0 4 2 16 4 0 0 0 26Pig(total) 5 17 17 45 14 3 0 0 101(12)*Seaturtle 0 3 22 41 10 5 0 0 81(5)Monkey(mandible) 1 0 4 1 2 1 0 0 9(6)Dog(mandible) 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2(1)Goat(tooth) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1(1)Rat(tooth) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1(1)UnidentifiedbonesTooth 1 3 9 14 8 1 0 0 36Vertebra 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 4Other 29 174 361 385 184 76 4 0 1213
Total 36 197 417 488 219 87 4 0 1448*()=MNInumber
Possible Development of Regional Maritime Networks 21
for14speciesofbat,5speciesofrat,4speciesofflyingfox(Pteropus spp.),and2species
ofcuscus(Ailurops ursinusandStrigocuscus celebensis)beforehumanintroductionofother
terrestrialmammals(cf.Rilley,2002). It is interesting thatmonkeyswerealso introducedto
theislandsbyaroundthe16th to18thcenturiesatthelatest, thoughwedonotidentifythemat
thespecieslevelinthismomentbecauseofthelackofcomparativemodernspecimens.Therat
toothisnotidentifiedatthespeciesleveleither,andwearenotsurewhethertheexcavatedratis
oneofthewildspecies(e.g.Melomys caurinus, Melomys talaudium)intheislandsoraspecies
newlyintroducedbyhumansinthepast(e.g.,Rattus rattus, Mus musculus,andpossiblyRattus
argentiventer,whichisonlyfoundtodayinKarakellangIsland).
6. Discussion
Oneoftheaimsofthispaperistodiscussthepossibledevelopmentofregionalmaritime
networks in theCelebesSeabydescribingandcomparingrecentarchaeologicalexcavation
results.WenowcomparetheexcavationresultsofBukitTiwingwithotherarchaeologicalsites
producingChinesetradeceramicsandpotteryinandaroundtheCelebesSeamainlyduringthe
13thto19thcenturies.
6.1. Excavated Trade Ceramics and Possible Long-distance Trade Networks
Tradeceramicsareusuallyoneofthebestarchaeologicalindicatorsfortheestablishment
ofalong-distancemaritimetradenetworksystemmainlywithChinaandotherregions.Wefirst
examinethetradeceramicsexcavatedbythepresentandpreviousstudiesandtheiragesinthe
CelebesSea.Table6showsthemajorarchaeologicalsitesthatyieldedsometradeceramicsand
porcelainsintheCelebesSea(Figure13fortheirlocations).Someofthesesitesareburialsites,
Table 6. Major Archaeological Sites Producing Trade Ceramics in the Celebes SeaNo SiteName Location SiteAge SiteType Reference1 Batudatu SuluIslands AD1200‒1800 Habitation/burial Spoehr,19731 Palan SuluIslands AD1400‒1800 Habitationsite Spoehr,19732 BungaoRockshelter South-westMindanao AD1400‒ Campingsite Spoehr,19732 FortPilar South-westMindanao AD1635‒ Fortress Spoehr,19733 MagarinCave SouthMindanao AD1300‒ Habitationsite Solheim,19794 DeArceHouse SouthMindanao AD1400‒ Habitationsite Solheim,19795 BukitSilam EastBorneo AD1200‒ Habitationsite Aoyagi,19925 MadaiCaves EastBorneo AD1500‒ Habitationsite Bellwood,19896 LeangBuida TalaudIslands AD1000‒1800 Campingsite Onoetal.,20127 LeangTuwoMane’e TalaudIslands AD1500‒1800* Habitation/burial Bellwood,19768 LeangArandangana TalaudIslands AD1350‒1800 Habitationsite Tanudirjo,20019 BukitTiwing TalaudIslands AD1600‒1800 Habitationsite thispaper*ageofupperlayersproducetradeceramicsandRaraungunsastylepotteries
R. Ono, S. Soegondho and J. Siswanto22
whilemanyofthemarehabitationorcampingsites,andtheyalsoyieldedpotterytogetherwith
otherartifactsandfaunalremains.
AsshowninTable7,theoldesttradeceramicsfoundorexcavatedintheCelebesSeaare
ChineseceramicsoftheSouthernSongDynasty(AD1123‒1279),whichdatebacktoaroundthe
12thto13thcenturies.TheseSongceramicswerefoundbyasurfacesurveyattheBatuDatusite
onJoloIslandintheSuluIslands(Spoher,1973).Thesite,knownasthelocalchief’sresidential
Figure 13. Major Archaeological Sites with Trade Ceramics in and around the Celebes Sea(BasedontheDatabyAoyagi,1992;Bellwood,1989;Solheimetal.,1979;Spoher,1973;Tanudirjo,2001;Onoetal.,2012)
Table 7. Types of Trade Ceramics from the Major Archaeological Sites in the Celebes Sea
No SiteName Ceramictypes*
Ceramicnumber Beads** Iron OtherArtefacts
1 Batudatu A/B/E/F/G 4733 × × none1 Palan C/D/E/F/G 5167 A Netsinkers,shellornaments,etc.2 BungaoRockshelter B/C/D 360 A Shellrings,obsidians,flakes,etc2 FortPilar E/F/G 1606 × ◎ Shellornaments,goldbracelets,etc.3 MagarinCave E/F 25 × ○ Bonetools,shells,bonesetc3 DeArceHouse A/E 4 × ○ Faunalremains,humanbones,etc.4 BukitSilam B/C/D/E ? A/B ○ Goldrings,etc.5 Madaicaves C/D/E/F/G 345 A ○ Potteries,etc.6 LeangBuida ? 2 × ○ Netsinkers,shellornaments,etc.7 LeangTuwoMane’e A/B afew B ○ Shellbracelets,faunalremains,etc.8 LeangArandangana E/F/G 50 × ○ Shellbracelets,faunalremains,etc.9 BukitTiwing E/F/G 61 × ○ Faunalremains,bonetools,etc.
*Ceramictypes A:SouthernSong B:Yuan C:Siam D:Vietnam E:Ming F:Qing G:Europe**Beadstypes A:Glass B:Others
Possible Development of Regional Maritime Networks 23
andburialplace,yielded4,733piecesof tradeceramics.Amongthese tradeceramics,4,723
pieceswereChinesewares,including687piecesofblueceladonpossiblymadeatTong’anand
QuanzhoukilnsinFujianProvinceanddatingbacktotheSouthernSongDynasty,563piecesof
grayglazewares,whicharethesametypesasthoseexcavatedfromtheSantaAnasiteinManila
andpossiblydatingbacktothe13thto14thcenturies,and1,362blueandwhitewaresdatingto
the14th to19thcenturies.However, thesiteproducednoSiameseorVietnamesewares,which
werelargelyexportedduringtheMingDynasty.Basedontheseresults,Spoherestimatesthatthe
sitewaspossiblyformedat2differenttimes,(1)duringthe12thto13thcenturiesand(2)during
the14thto19thcenturies,butmainlyaroundthe17thcentury(Spoher,1973:210,218).
ThePalansite,which isanoldvillagesitealso locatedonHoloIsland,yieldeda large
numberoftradeceramicsincluding3,505piecesofChineseceramics(mainlyQingwaresmade
afterthe18thcentury)and1,662piecesofEuropeanceramicsproducedaroundthe19thcentury;
noSiameseorVietnamesewareswereexcavated,andonlyafewpieceswerecollectedassurface
findsbySpoher(1973:209).Basedontheseresults,Spoherestimatesthatthesitewasmainly
formedafterthe18thcentury.TheverysmallnumberofSiameseandVietnamesetradeceramics
foundonHoloIslandpossiblyindicatesthattheseceramicswerenotlargelyimportedtotheSulu
Islands.
On theotherhand, theBungaocave site locatedaroundZamboanga in southwestern
MindanaoyieldedChineseceramics(mainlyMingDynasty),Siamese,andVietnamesewares
madeduringthe14th toearly15thcenturies.AnothersiteinZamboanga,FortPilar,whichisa
17th-centurymilitarydefensefortressbuiltbytheSpanishcolonialgovernmentin1635,yielded
bothlateMingandQingwaresproducedduringthe17thto19thcenturies,whileonly5piecesof
Europeanwareswereexcavated(Spoher,1973).Althoughonly25pieceswerefound,Magarin
cavesitelocatedinsouthernMindanaoalsoyieldedChinesetradeceramicsproducedduringthe
14thto17thcenturies(Solheimetal.,1979).TheonlyexceptionistheDeArcehousesite,which
yielded4cachesoftradeceramicsestimatedasSong(1piece),Ming(82pieces),andlateQing(1
piece).Althoughthedetailoftheseexcavatedceramicsisunclear,Solheimestimatesthatthesite
waspossiblyformedaroundthe15thcentury.However, thesearchaeologicalresultstentatively
indicate thatmostof the tradeceramics insouthwesternMindanaoareMingandotherAsian
waresproducedafterthe14thto15thcenturies.
TheexcavatedtradeceramicsfromthearchaeologicalsitesontheeasterncoastofBorneo
arealsomainlyMingandQingwares(Bellwood,1988).IntheMadaiCavescomplexlocated
about30kminlandfromthepresentcoast,theMadai1siteyieldedanumberofMingwareswith
afewpiecesofSiameseandVietnamesewaresfromitsupperlayer.Ontheotherhand,Bukit
Silam,whichistheoldportsitelocatedontheeasterncoastofBorneo,yieldedalargenumber
R. Ono, S. Soegondho and J. Siswanto24
of tradeceramicswithgoldandglassornaments.TheexcavatedceramicsaremainlyMing
wares,whileafewYuan,Siamese,andVietnamesewaresarealsoconfirmed(Aoyagi,1992).
Unfortunately,noC14dateshavebeencollected,andtheexactageofthesiteisunclear,butthe
BukitSilamcaseindicatesthatlong-distancemaritimetradenetworkswerepossiblyestablished
aroundthelate13thto14thcenturiesontheeasterncoastofBorneo.
IntheTalaudIslands,locatedattheeasternendoftheCelebesSea,mostoftheexcavated
tradeceramicsarelateMingandQingwares,andtheirnumbersarebasicallylimited.Among
thefoursitesintheTalaudIslandslistedinTables7and8,theLeangBuidasiteyielded2thick
fragmentsofporcelainfromthe lowest layerdatingbacktoaroundthe10thcentury(allC14
datesaretakenfromcharcoalsamples;Onoetal.,2012).Althoughtheoriginandageofthese
porcelainfragments(oneispartofabottomwhiletheotheroneispartofthebodywithsome
brownishglaze)areunknownyet,theyarepossiblypartofthesameporcelain,whichisclearly
notlikeeitherMingandQingwaresorSiameseandVietnamesewares,andpossiblyisamuch
oldertype.SuchapossibilitycanalsobesupportedbytheC14dates.
Bellwood(1976:266)alsoreportsthatthetoplayeroftheLeangTuwoMene’esiteyielded
asmallnumberofChinesewarespossiblyidentifiedasSongandYuanwares.Tanudirjo’sre-
excavationofthesitealsocollectedapieceofblueandwhiteporcelainandapieceoflightgreen
celadonwhichare identifiedbyhimassmallfragmentsfromthetoplayer.AlthoughnoC14
dateswerecollectedfromthistoplayer,threeC14dateswerecollectedfromtheupperpartof
Layer2bytheseexcavations(Bellwood,1976;Tanudirjo,2001)as786‒674BP(Turboshell),
410±60(charcoal),and250±70(charcoal).Consideringthat theoldestdatewastakenfroma
marineshellandpossiblyhasariskofmarinereservoirinfluence,theexactdatesoftheupper
layersmaybeyounger—aroundthe15thto18thcenturies—asindicatedbythetwocharcoaldates.
Ifso,itisunclearwhethertheseSungandYungwaresidentifiedbyBellwoodwereimportedto
theTalaudIslandsduringthe13thto14thcenturies(theagetheywereproduced)ormuchlater
asantiquematerials.Unfortunately,nodetaileddescription,photo,ordrawingoftheseexcavated
tradeceramics is reportedbyBellwood(1976),and it ishardforus to judgewhether these
ceramicsareSongandYungwaresornot.
Ontheotherhand,otheryoungersites includingLeangArandangana(Tanudirjo,2001)
andBukitTiwingyieldonlylateMingtoQingwaresfromtheupperlayers.AsshowninTable
8, thenumbersof thesetradeceramicsaremuchlarger thanotherolderceramictypes;hence
weconsider that long-distancemaritimetradenetworkswerepossiblyestablishedaroundthe
late15th to16thcenturiesintheTalaudIslands.However,Bellwoodcollectedsomefragments
ofpossibleTangandYuanceramicsaswellasRarangunusa-stylepotsherdsassurfacefindsat
LeangTimpaloonSangirIslandintheSangiheIslands(Bellwood,1976:282).Wehavealso
Possible Development of Regional Maritime Networks 25
beenshownsomepossibleSongandYuantradeceramicsbylocalantiquedealersduringour
surveysinSangirIsland.Accordingtothem,theseceramicswereillegallyexcavatedorcollected
intheSangiheIslands.Ifwetakethisinformationintoaccount,theestablishmentdateoflong-
distancemaritimetradenetworkstotheSangiheIslandswaspossiblymuchearlierthanthatof
tradetotheTalauds,possiblyaroundthe13thto14thcenturies.
BasedonthearchaeologicaldateofexcavatedtradeceramicsinthePhilippinesandother
major sites inSoutheastAsia,Aoyagi (1992)distinguishes5major stages for thepossible
establishmentoflong-distancemaritimetradenetworksbetweenIslandSoutheastAsianregion
andChina,andhearguesthat thefirststagedatesbacktoaroundthe9thcenturywiththelate
Tangceramics(seealsoFigure11fortheseearliersites).Followingthesefivestages,Chinese
tradeceramicsstartedtoappearintheCelebesSeainthe3rdstage(the12thto13thcenturies)with
SouthernSongceramicsinsomesites,whiletheappearanceoftradeceramicsinmanyothersites
andregionsseemstobemuchlater,duringthe4thstage(thelate13thto14thcenturies)orthe5th
stage(thelate15thtoearly16thcenturies).
Suchcurrentarchaeological results tentatively indicate that theestablishmentof long-
distancemaritimetradenetworksin theCelebesSeawasrather later thaninotherregionsin
IslandSoutheastAsia,includingthenorthernandwesternPhilippineIslands,thewesterncoast
ofBorneo,MalayPeninsula,Sumatra,andJava,wheremucholdertradeceramics,includinglate
TangandNorthernSongceramics,wereusuallyexcavated(e.g.,Aoyagi,1992;Burton,1977;
Fox,1970).Oneof thepossiblereasonsforsuchlateestablishment in theCelebesSea is its
geologicalposition,farfromthemajormaritimetraderoutesmainlyintheSouthChinaSeaand
thestraitofMelaka.However,asindicatedbythesmallnumbersofolderceramicslikeSongand
Yuanwares,aswellaspossibleTangwares,foundinsomelocationsintheCelebesSea,minor
contactsshouldalsohaveoccurredbeforethe13thcentury.
6.2. Excavated Potteries and Possible Development of Regional Maritime Networks
Besidestradeceramics,potteriescanbeoneof thepotentialarchaeological indicatorsof
regionalmaritimenetworksorinter-islandhumancontactsintheCelebesSeaanditssurrounding
area,andwealsoexaminethepotteriesexcavatedbythepresentandpreviousstudiesandtheir
agesintheCelebesSea.Table8showsthemajorarchaeologicalsitesthatyieldedanypottery
fragmentsintheCelebesSeaduringthe13thto19thcenturies,andtheybasicallymatchthemajor
sitesproducingtradeceramicslistedinTables6and7(seealsoFigure13fortheirlocations).
AsshowninTable8, therearebasically8confirmedstylesofpotteryforms.Themajor
formsamongthesitesintheCelebesSeaare(a)roundedbottomcarinatedpots,(b)deeperpots
orjarswithrestrictednecksandevertedrims,and(c)unrestrictedorrestrictedbowls.Coversand
R. Ono, S. Soegondho and J. Siswanto26
plateswerealsoexcavated,buttheirnumberisverylimited.Bottle-stylepotteriesandpotsor
bowlswithapedestalorringfootwereonlyexcavatedattheMadaiCavescomplexoneastern
BorneoIsland.ThesepotteryformsareoneofthemajortypesfromtheNeolithictoMetalages
intheCelebesSeaandthePhilippineIslands,hencetheverylimitednumberofthesetypesafter
the13thto14thcenturiesindicatethattheybecameunpopularorseldomused.Ontheotherhand,
potterystovesarepopularmaterials in theSuluIslandswitha largerpopulationofmaritime
people,suchasSamalandBajau,whohaveproducedandusedsuchpotterystovesuntilrecently
(e.g.,Ono,2007); theother2sites(BatuDatuandPalan)alsoproducethesepotteries,while
LeangBuidaintheTalaudIslandsproducesafewofthem.Potterystoveswerealsoexcavated
fromtheBukitTengkoraksite,whichisoneofthemajorNeolithicsitesintheCelebesSea(e.g.,
Bellwood,1989;Chia,2003;Ono,2004b),andtheymayhavebeenoneofthepopularformsin
theCelebesSeaforalongtime.
ManyoftheexcavatedpotsherdsintheCelebesSeaaresmallfragmentpiecesandtherefore
hardtoreconstruct,andthusitisnotsoeasytocompareeachpotteryformprecisely.Ontheother
hand,decorationsormotifpatternsoneachpotterypiececanbepotentialindicatorsfromwhich
tojudgethesimilaritiesordifferencesbetweenpotteryassemblagesineachlocationorisland.In
theCelebesSea,mainly7motifsordecorationpatternsareconfirmed:(a)plain,(b)red-slip,(c)
cordmark,(d)paddleimpressed,(e)impressed,(f)stamped,(g)incised,and(h)painted.Among
these,thenumberofpotterieswith(b)redslipontheouterorinnerripsurfaceand(c)cordmark
impressedpotteriesareveryfew,althoughtheywereoneofthemajorpotterytypesduringthe
NeolithictoMetalages.AsshowninTable9,only3sites, includingtheBatuDatusiteinthe
SuluIslands,Bugaosite inMindanao,andMadaiCaves ineasternBorneo,produceasmall
numberofred-slippotsherds.
Table 8. Styles and Motifs of Potteries from the Major Archaeological Sites in the Celebes Sea
No SiteName Potteryform* MotifPatterns*
Potsherdnumbers** ExcavatedArea Reference
1 Batudatu A/B/C/H a,b,e,f,g 615 surfacefindsonly Spoehr,19731 Palan A/B/C/F/G/H a,f,g,h 18000 126m2 Spoehr,19732 BungaoRockshelter A/C a,b,c,d,e,g 895 25m2 Spoehr,19732 ForPilar A/C/F/G a,g,h 7891 43m2 Spoehr,19733 MagarinCave A/B a,d 490 1.5m2 Solheim,19793 DeArceHouse A/B a,e,g 76 9m2 Solheim,19794 BukitSilam ? ? ? ? Aoyagi,19925 MadaiCaves A/B/C/D/E/F a,b,c,d,g 500+ 18m2 Bellwood,19896 LeangBuida A/B/C/F/H a,e,g 8509 10m2 Onoetal.,20127 LeangTuwoMane’e A/B/C a,e,g 6251 11.5m2 Bellwood,19768 LeangArandangana A/B/C a,e,g 4263 3m2 Tanudirjo,20019 BukitTiwing A/B/C a,e,g 3594 2m2 thispaper
*Potteryform; A:roundedbottomcarinatedpot B:jar C:bowl D:bottle E:ringfoot F:coverG:plate H:stove**Motifpatterns; a:plain b:red-slip c:cordmark d:paddleimpress e:impress f:stamped g:incised h:colored(orcolorpainted)
Possible Development of Regional Maritime Networks 27
On the other hand, decorationswith (e) impressed, (f) stamped, and (g) incised
characteristicsaremorecommonandpopularfrommanysites,andparticularly(g)comb-incised
parallelwavylines,pairedverticallines,andverticalandhorizontalzigzags.Forexample,Pusu
SamangTasCavesiteintheMadaiCavesproducesalargenumberofpotterypieceswithcomb-
incisedparallelwavyorhorizontallinesaroundtheneck,withorwithoutcheck-impressingon
itsbody(Figure14).Thesetypesarecalled“PSTpottery”byBellwood(1988:207‒212).Among
the106individualexamplesofPSTpotteries,about58%arecheck-impressedaroundthebottom
of theirbodies,while39%areplainand2%arecord-marked(Bellwood,1988:212);hence
comb-incisedlineswithcheck-impressedtypesaremorecommonatthesite.
PSTpotterieswerealsoexcavatedfromtheupperlayersatsomeothersitesintheMadai
Cavescomplex,whilesimilarpieces(Figure14A)werealsoexcavatedat theCalatagansite,
whichyieldedmanyChinesetradeceramicsproducedduringthe16thto17thcenturiesinLuzon
Island(Figure14B),asreportedbyMainandFox(1982).Accordingtothem,thesepotteriesare
unusualtypesinLuzon,andtheyestimatedthesewerepossiblyimportedfromsomeunknown
placeoforigin.Bellwood(1988:212)mentionsthatthePilarsheltersiteinnortheasternPanay,
centralPhilippines,yieldedasimilartypewithcomb-inciseddecoration.Althoughthesurfaces
areplainfromthebodytothebottom,BukitTiwingyieldedasimilartype,asshowninFigures
7and13C.It isinterestingtopointoutthatBukitTiwingalsoyieldedapieceofstonespindle
whorlwhoseshapecloselyresemblestheclayspindlewhorlfromtheCalatagansiteinLuzon,
and theseartifactsmayindicatepossible inter-islandcontactsbetweenLuzonIslandand the
Figure 14. PST Potteries from Madai Caves (MAD4) and Calatagan Site(A:ModifiedfromBellwood,1988;Figure11.20,B:ModifiedfromMainandFox,1982)
R. Ono, S. Soegondho and J. Siswanto28
TalaudIslandsintheCelebesSea.
SomepotsherdsexcavatedfromtheFortPilarsite insouthwesternMindanaoalsohave
comb-incisedwavy,vertical,andhorizontallines,butalsowithstampimpressing(Spoehr,1973).
Thesearchaeologicaldataindicatethatcomb-inciseddecorationswereoneofthemajormotif
techniquesduringthesecondmillennium,bothinandaroundtheCelebesSea.Continuingthis
comb-incisedtradition,Rarangunusa-stylepotterieswithcomb-incisedpairedvertical lines,or
verticalandhorizontalzigzags,andwithparallelvertical impressedlineswereanothermajor
potterystyle,andpossiblyestablishedsomewhereintheeasternpartoftheCelebesSeaaround
MindanaotoSangihe-TalaudorNorthernSulawesi.AmongthesiteslistedinTable9,allthosein
theTalaudIslandsyieldnumbersofRarangunusa-stylepotsherds,whiletheDeArceHousesite
insouthernMindanao(possiblydatingbacktoaroundthe15thcentury)yieldsasmallnumber
ofverysimilarpotsherdswithcomb-incisedpairedverticallinesandparallelverticalimpressed
linesonoraroundtheneck(Solheimetal.,1979).BungaorockshelterinsouthwesternMindanao
alsoyieldsapieceofpotsherdwithsimilardecoration(Spoher,1973:164).
AmongthesitesinthewesternpartoftheCelebesSea,onlysomesitesintheMadaiCaves
complexyieldasmallnumberofRarangunusapotteries,withvertically-zonedandmultiple-
prongedincisionsfromtheupperlayers(Layer3‒1),whichdatebacktoaroundthe17thcentury
or later times(Bellwood,1988).Bellwood,whofirst identified theRarangunusastyle inhis
Talaudreports(Bellwood,1976,1980),consideredthat thisstyleoccurswithQingwaresand
presumed thatexistenceof suchapotterystylealong theCelebesSea reflects inter-island
contacts(e.g., intermarriage)aroundtheCelebesSeaduringthepastfewcenturies(Bellwood,
1988:190).Wealsoconsider thispossibility for theRarangunusa-stylepotteries.However,
basedonourexcavationofBukitTiwing,aswellasLeangBuida(Onoetal.,2012)andLeang
Arandangana(Tanudirjo,2001),thisstylealsooccursatthelatestwithlateMingwares,andtheir
appearanceshouldbemucholderintheTalaudsandMindanao.
Furthermore,ourrecentarchaeologicalsurveysandexcavations in theNorthernMaluku
Islands,mainlyonMorotaiIslandandnorthernHalmaheraIsland,alsofindverysimilarlystyled
potteries.Althoughwedonothavetheexactdatesof thesepotteriesyet,sincemostof them
aresurfacefinds,theexistenceofsuchpiecesverysimilartotheRarangunusastyletentatively
indicates that thepossible inter-islandcontactsarenotonlywithin theCelebesSea,butalso
furthersouth to theMalukuIslands.Also,ouranalysisof theheavymineralcomponentsof
theexcavatedpotteriesfromLeangBuidaonKabaruanIslandreveals that thereareat least3
differentclaysourcesfortheBuidapotsherds,andoneofthemisthesameasthesourceofthe
BukitTiwingpotteries(Palynosurvey,2006).Thisresult indicates thatexchangesor transfers
ofpotteriesorclaysbetweenislandswerepracticed,atleastwithintheTalaudIslands.Another
Possible Development of Regional Maritime Networks 29
clayanalysisusingSEMofthreeRarangunusapotsherdsexcavatedfromLeangArandanganaby
Tanudirjo(2001:273)alsosuggeststhatthisstyleofpotterymighthavederivedfromdifferent
sourcesofproduction.However,westill lackthelocalgeologicalrecordsanddetaileddataon
themineralandfabriccomponentsofclaysineachislandorlocationatpresent,andweneed
moredataandstudytoexaminethequestionofprecisesourcesfurther.
7. Conclusion
TheexcavationoftheBukitTiwingsiteandcomparativeanalysisoftheexcavatedpotsherds
andtradeceramicsfromthesiteandothermajorsitesintheCelebesSeaconfirmthatregional
maritimenetworksintheCelebesSeapossiblydevelopedafterthe16thcentury.Thedevelopment
ofsuchinter-inlandcontactsandtheincreasednumberofimportedtradeceramicsintheCelebes
Seacorrespondedwith,orfollowedtheemergenceof,someIslamizedkingdomssuchas the
SultanateofSuluintheSuluIslandsandtheSultanateofMaguindanaoinwesternMindanao
aroundthe14thcentury,asdiscussedintheIntroduction.3
It shouldbenoted that all of theseSultanatesorhighly stratifiedcomplex societies
emergedearlierinthenorthwesternpartoftheCelebesSea,whiletherearenosuchrecordsof
anySultanatesinthesoutheasternpart, includingtheTalaudIslandstoNorthernSulawesi.In
addition, thereisnogoodevidenceforanydirectextensionof14th-centuryMajapahitcontrol
intotheseregions(e.g.,Vlekke,1943),andtheydonotappeartohavebeenIslamizedduringthe
15thcentury(Bellwood,1976:284).TheonlypossibleexceptionistheSangiheIslands,which
hadmoreinfluencefromMaguindanaoandTernte,andwhere4localchiefscalled“Raja”were
recordedin1521(Pigafetta,2007[1525]).However,it isnotclearthatthistermindicatesany
highdegreeofpoliticalintegration,sinceitsusewassowidespreadinandaroundtheCelebes
Sea.All theevidencemaysuggest that theTalaud IslandsandnorthernSulawesi regions
remainedsmall-scalepagan tribalsocietieswhenChristianitybegan tospreadafter the16th
centuryunderthePortugueseorDutchcolonialgovernments.
Archaeologically, thereissofarnoevidencetocontradictsuchaview,andidentification
ofsocialandpoliticalchangesintheTalaudtonorthernSulawesiregionsisstilldifficultonthe
basisofpresentarchaeologicaldataalone.Yetthepresentarchaeologicaldataandouranalysis
of theexcavated tradeceramicsandpotsherds, including thedistinctiveRarangunusastyle
fromBukitTiwing,dosuggest that inter-islandcontactsandregionalmaritimenetworkshad3 ThenameofSulufirstappearsintheChinesehistoricaldocument“DaoYiZhiLue,”writtenin
1341duringthelateYuangDynasty.ThepossiblenameofMaguindanaoalsoappearsinthesamedocument,whilethedetaileddescriptionsoftheseSultanatesweremainlywrittenaftertheMingDynasty(e.g.,The History of Ming).
R. Ono, S. Soegondho and J. Siswanto30
continuallyexistedpriortothe16thcenturyaswell.Theexistenceofdomesticatedpigs,goats,
anddogsalongwithmonkeyspecies,aswellassomeweavingmaterialsfoundatBukitTiwing
alsosupportthispossibility.Anothersite,LeangBuida,alsoyieldsdomesticatedpigsandgoats
datingbacktothe10thcentury,andtheintroductionofsuchdomesticatedanimalswaspossibly
muchearlierintheTalauds.Ontheotherhand,ourexcavationsandthepreviousstudiesinthe
CelebesSeahavefailedtofindorexcavateavarietyoffloralremains,especiallydomesticated
plants,makingit impossible todiscuss thepotential introductionandspreadofagricultureor
farmingactivitiesamongtheislands.Weneedtofindandcollectmanymoreartifacts,including
faunalandfloralremains,aswellastoconductmoredetailedcomparativeanalysiswithlocal,
Chinese,andEuropeanhistoricaldocumentsinourfuturestudies.
Acknowledgements
WewouldliketoacknowledgeLembagaIlmuPengetahuanIndonesia,KementerianRiset
danTeknologiIndonesia,andAsistenDeputiUrusanArkeologiNasionalfor theconsiderable
supporttheseinstitutionsprovided.Theexcavationandlateranalysisofexcavatedmaterialswere
fundedbyGrants-in-AidfromtheJapanSocietyforPromotionofScience(JSPS) toRintaro
Onoin2004and2005(Post-DoctoralResearchFellowship),2011(Grantnumber:23720385),
and2012(Grantnumber:24101702).WearealsogreatlyindebtedtoDrs.BoonyTooy,thehead
ofBalaiArkeologiManado,forhiskindsupportandassistanceintheresearch.Lastly,Figure3
waspreparedbytheBalaiArkeologiManadoteam,andFigure10waspreparedbyDr.Judith
Cameron.WealsoacknowledgeDr.Cameronforherkindhelpandanalysisof theexcavated
spindlewhorl.
References
Aoyagi,Y. (1992)Asian traceceramics in thePhilippines:Ninth tosixteenthcenturies.The
Journal of Sophia Asian Studies10:144‒176.(inJapanese)
Bacus,E.A. (1998)StylesofAlliance?:DecoratedEarthenwares inLatePrehistoricand
ProtohistoricPhilippinePolities.InJ.N.Miksic(ed.),Earthenware in Southeast Asia,pp.
39‒51.Singapore:SingaporeUniversityPress.
Bellwood,P. (1976)Archaeological research inMinahasa andTalaud Islands,Northern
Indonesia.Asian Perspectives19:240‒288.
Bellwood,P.(1980)TheBuidanecultureoftheTalaudIslands,north-easternIndonesia.Bulletin
of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association2:69‒127.
Possible Development of Regional Maritime Networks 31
Bellwood,P.(1988)Archaeological Research in Southern Sabah.SabahMuseumMonograph2.
KotaKinabaru:SabahMuseum.
Bellwood, P. (1989)Archaeological investigations atBukitTengkorak andSegarong,
southeasternSabah.Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association9:122‒162.
Burton,L.(1977)SettlementandburialsitesinButuanCity:Apreliminaryreport.Philippine
Studies25:95‒112.
Cameron,J.(2005)Spindlewhorls.InC.F.W.Higham(ed.),The Origins of the Civilization
of Angkor, vol. 1: The Excavation of Ban Lum Khao,pp.211‒216.Bangkok:FineArts
Department.
Cameron,J.(2012)Thespinningtools.InC.F.W.HighamandA.Kijngam(eds.),The Origins
of the Civilizations of Angkor, Vol. 5: The Excavation of Ban Non Wat Part III. The Bronze
Age,pp.492‒500.Bangkok:FineArtsDepartment.
Cameron,J.,andM.Mijares(2006)ReportonananalysisofspindlewhorlsfromCallaoCave,
Pen-ablanca,North-eastLuzon,Philippines.Hukay9:5‒13.
Chia,S.(2003)The Prehistory of Bukit Tengkorak as a Major Pottery Making Site in Southeast
Asia.SabahMuseumMonograph8.KotaKinabalu:SabahMuseum.
Forrest,T.(1779)A Voyage to New Guinea and the Moluccas from Balambangan: Including an
Account of Maguindanao, Sooloo and Other Islands.London:C.Scott.
Fox,R.B.(1970)The Tabon Caves.NationalMuseumMonograph1.Manila:NationalMuseum.
Hayase,S.(2001)The History of Maritime Islamic Societies: Mindanao Ethno-history.Tokyo:
IwanamiPublisher.(inJapanese)
Hayase,S.,D.M.Non,andA.K.Ulaen(1999)Silsilas/Tarsilas (Genealogies) and Historical
Narratives in Sarangai Bay and Davao Gulf Regions, South Mindanao, Philippines, and
Sangihe-Talaud Islands, North Sulawesi, Indonesia.Kyoto:KyotoUniversityCenterfor
SoutheastAsianStudies.
Henley,D.(2005)Fertility, Food and Fever: Population, Economy and Environment in North
and Central Sulawesi 1600‒1930.Leiden:KITLVPress.
Hutterer,K.L.(1973)An Archaeological Picture of Prehispanic Cebuano Community.CebuCity:
UniversityofSanCarlosPress.
Hutterer,K.L. (1976)Anevolutionaryapproach to theSoutheastAsiancultural sequence.
Current Anthropology17:221‒242.
Junker,L.L. (1999)Raiding, Trading, and Feasting: The Political Economy of Philippine
Chiefdoms.Honolulu:UniversityofHawaiiPress.
Laarhoven,R. (1989)Triumph of Moro Diplomacy: The Maguindanao Sultanate in the 17th
Century.QuezonCity:NewDayPublisher.
R. Ono, S. Soegondho and J. Siswanto32
Main,D.,andR.Fox(1982)The Calatagan Earthenwares: A Description of Pottery Complexes
Excavated in Batangas Province, Philippines.Manila:NationalMuseum.
Nakamura,T.(2004)Calibrationofradiocarbonagesformarinesamples.Proceedings of the
16th Symposium on Researches Using the Tandetron AMS System at Nagoya University15:
103‒112.
Nishimura,M. (1988)Longdistance trade and thedevelopmentof complex societies in
prehistoryofthecentralPhilippines—TheCebuArchaeologicalProject:Basicconceptand
firstresults.Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society16:107‒157.
Nishimura,M. (1992)Longdistance trade and thedevelopmentof complex societies in
prehistoryofthecentralPhilippines:TheCebucentralsettlementcase.Ph.D.dissertation,
UniversityofMichigan.
Oliver,DouglasL.(1989)Oceania: The Native Cultures of Australia and the Pacific Islands.
Honolulu:UniversityofHawaiiPress.
Ono,R. (2004a)Anarchaeological andethno-archaeological researchon settlement and
subsistencepatternsatSangihe-TalaudIslands,NorthSulawesiProvince.QuarterlyReport
submittedtoLembagaIlmuPengetahuanIndonesia,Jakarta.
Ono,R. (2004b)Prehistoric fishingatBukitTengkorak,eastcoastofBorneo Island.New
Zealand Journal of Archaeology24:77‒106.
Ono,R. (2006)Developmentof longandregional tradenetworksandcomplexsocieties in
CelebesSea:Anarchaeologicalperspectivebasedonpotteryandceramicanalysis.The
Journal of Sophia Asian Studies23:179‒200.(inJapanese)
Ono,R.(2007)EthnoarchaeologyofpotterystoveproductionanduseamongtheSama,east
coastofBorneo.People and Culture in Oceania22:31‒51.
Ono,R. (2011)Marine Exploitation and Fishing Strategies in Celebes Sea: Area Studies in
Maritime Southeast Asia.Kyoto:KyotoUniversityPress.(inJapanese)
Ono,R.,andS.Soegondho(2004)Ashortreportforthere-excavationatLeangSarrusite,Talaud
Islands.Jejak-Jejak Arkeologi4:37‒50.
Ono,R.,S.Soegondho,andJ.Siswanto(2008)Naturalresourcesuseandsubsistencestrategy
inEasternCelebesSeaduring17th to19thcenturies:CaseofBukitTiwingsite inTalaud
Islands,Indonesia.Journal of Southeast Asian Archaeology28:143‒154.(inJapanese)
Ono,R.,S.Soegondho,J.Siswanto,andM.Yoneda(2012)Marineresourceuseandfishing
technologyinCelebesSeaduring11thto18thcenturies:CaseofLeangBuidasiteinTalaud
Islands,EasternIndonesia.Journal of Southeast Asian Archaeology32:13‒28.(inJapanese)
Ono,R.,S.Soegondho,andM.Yoneda(2010)Changingmarineexploitationduringthe late
PleistoceneinnorthernWallacea:ShellfishremainsfromLeangSarrurockshelterinTalaud
Possible Development of Regional Maritime Networks 33
Islands.Asian Perspectives48(2):318‒341.
PalynosurveyCo.Ltd. (2005)AReport for theanalysisofheavymineral componentson
excavatedpotsherdsfromBukitTiwingsite.Manuscript,PalynosurveyCo.Ltd.
PalynosurveyCo.Ltd. (2006)AReport for theanalysisofheavymineral componentson
excavatedpotsherdsfromBukitTiwingandLeangBuidasite.Manuscript,Palynosurvey
Co.Ltd.
Pigafetta,A. (2007)First Voyage around the World, 1519‒1522:?An Account of Magellan’s
Expedition.Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress.
Reid,L.A.(1988)Southeast Asia in the Age of Commerce, 1450‒1680, vol. 1: The Lands below
the Winds.NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress.
Riely,J. (2002)Mammalson theSangiheandTalaudIslands, Indonesia,and the impactof
huntingandhabitatloss.Oryx36(3):288‒296.
Solheim,W.G.(1964)The Archaeology of Central Philippines.Manila:BureauofPringing.
Solheim,W.G.,A.M.Legaspi,andS.N.Jaime(1979)Archaeological Survey in Southeastern
Mindanao.Monograph8.Manila:NationalMuseumofthePhilippinesandtheUniversity
ofHawaii.
Spoehr,A. (1973)Zamboanga and Sulu: An Archaeological Approach to Ethnic Diversity.
EthnologyMonographs1.Pittsburgh:UniversityofPittsburgh.
Tanudirjo,D.(2001)Islandsinbetween:PrehistoryofthenortheasternIndonesianarchipelago.
Ph.D.dissertation,TheAustralianNationalUniversity.
Tanudirjo,D.(2005)Long-continuedorshort-occasionaloccupation?:ThehumanuseofLeang
SarrurockshelterintheTalaudIslands,NortheasternIndonesia.Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific
Prehistory Association25:15‒19.
Vlekke,B.H.M.(1943)Nusantara: A History of Indonesia.Brussels:LesÉditionsàManteauS,A.
Warren,J.F.(1981)The Sulu Zone, 1768‒1898.Singapore:SingaporeUniversityPress.
Warren,J.F.(2002)Iranun and Balangingi: Globalization, Maritime Raiding, and the Birth of
Ethnicity.QuezonCity:NewDayPublisher.
Warren,J.F.(2003)TheBalangingiSamal:Theglobaleconomy,maritimeraidinganddiasporic
identitiesinthenineteenth-centuryPhilippines.Asian Ethnicity4(1):7‒29.
Yoneda,M.,R.Suzuki,Y.Shibata,M.Morita,T.Sukegawa,andT.Akazawa(2004)Isotopic
evidenceof inland-water fishingbyaJomonpopulationexcavated fromtheBoji site,
Nagano,Japan.Journal of Archaeological Science31:97‒107.