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


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


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


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


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


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.


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)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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)


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)


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


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).


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.


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.


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


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.

possible development of regional maritime networks during

Documents