Archaeological Discoveries and Recent Rock Art in East Kalimantan, Indonesia

by Jean-Michel Chazine
CNRS-CREDO/MAP, Yogyakarta Conference 24-29 September 2005

Since 1992 a large amount of archaeological discoveries has been later gained. Being eventually and mostly involved into the survey of caves and rock shelters of East Kalimantan, a Franco-Indonesian team, has since regularly let merge some parts of the deep past of that archaeological blank area. Altogether more than 100 caves have been visited and checked, within which more than 30 contain totally unexpected and determinant Rock Art paintings.

During the last decade and more precisely, last 3 years, French and Indonesian archaeologists, assisted by cavers, have surveyed two main karstic areas, located, one North of Sangkulirang, the second Northwest of Sangatta.

These two large areas roughly spread over a 40 by 20 kms space each, appeared to be especially well enough geologically structured and rich concerning archaeological remains of all kinds. These large conic karsts, uplifted from tectonic pressure movements after the Myocene, some 60 millions years ago, have developed three geomorphological networks of cavities and galleries.

These superposed strata, located differently in the uplifted outcrops have proved to be dwelled and used differently along the time. At a broad level of description (see Chazine, 2005, for a more precise insight), the lower one has been usually used as common or daily dwelling places since oldest periods, i.e. before 10.000 years ago, at least, before the end of Pleistocene. It contains all the classical occupation remains: food remains (bones and shells), stone tools workshops with their waste piles, charcoals and fireplaces. Ceramics are often present from surface to the upper or latest levels (surface to minus 40 to 60cm), corresponding to post-Austronesian occupation phases. Within many of the adjacent cracks or crevices, funerary ceramics associated with human bones are neighbouring some late "Dayak" or similar cultural communities who have settled around in the vicinity and left their wooden mortuary coffin burials and displayed personal items.

An intermediate net of cavities, located between 50 to 150 m higher in the cliffs, has had various or composite uses. In a few cases, a punctual dwelling has happened, presenting the same occupation clues than the lower level. Nevertheless, the main use of these intermediate caves, cracks or dry rock shelters has been devoted towards succeeding funerary purposes.

There, a very large amount of earthen funerary urns presenting a large set of differenciated decorations had been regularly observed during 2001 to 2003 field sessions. During 2004' field session, while extending a new test pit in Keboboh caves complex, our colleagues Jatmiko and Udin have also unexpectedly unearthed two burials (Jatmiko et al., 2004). Once unveiled from surrounding deposits, they appeared to be in a flexed position, a feature which would correspond to a pre-Austronesian inhumation process.

The third level of cavities, practically located up to 300 m high, has not provided until now, any if almost no occupation remains but paintings. Some of these caves contain a totally specific Rock Art expression, which induces to interpret these places as having had a very specific function. We will see later in this paper, what kind of activities the particular isolation, remoteness and emptiness of these caves and rock shelters would have had in the pasts.

This natural stratigraphy which has been selectively exploited for cultural and precise goals, is one of the specificities observed in East Kalimantan's (inasmuch as Palawan's) karstic outcrops. The regularity of that distribution (29 positive cases upon a total of 32) makes it a noticeable landmark which local communities have themselves emphasied.

Amongst all dwelling and occupations remains largely found in the lowest, and -less frequently- in the median levels, comprising all kinds of lithic and bone remains (to be more precisely presented later in this paper), the earthen wares are bearing a large amount of directly readable data. As it is limited to the "Austronesian techno-culture" phase, starting around 3,500 years ago, it is too early to consider it as a general objective "leading fossil" or "chronological marker". Nevertheless, at least for East-Borneo prehistory, its main characteristics may be used for discriminating styles, periods, inasmuch as local firing processes.

Since our cooperative Franco-Indonesian program has started last 2003, implying excavations conducted in selected caves and rock shelters, findings of different kinds of earthen wares ceramics both on surface and within stratigraphied dwelling places layers, have enabled us to separate common and/or funerary items.

Broadly speaking, the display of motives and shapes of pots which have yet been sorted are very similar to those which had previously been excavated or collected in Sarawak, Sabah and even Palawan island and the North-Western part of South East island Asia. Some of them being directly similar to the basis reference "Sa Huynh-Kalanay style" analysed and proposed long ago by Pr. Solheim II (Solheim II 1964).

They show eventually not much difference with many of those which have been studied long time ago in Sarawak’, Brunei’ or Sabah’ sectors, by numerous and well known archaeologists (Harrisson, Solheim, Bellwood…,etc). In East Kalimantan, styles vary from the oldest periods (around 3,500 BP) to the most recent surviving influences (Iban or so-called communities), not older than 200 to 100 BP. Decorations vary from paddle and anvil technology using different cord, square carved, mat and granulated motives, to all the possible numerous incised decorations. Some cases
present also geometric excised designs or motives. Stamped features (including linear " grain rice-like" impressions) may also be combined within variable incised schemes. The incised motives comprise geometric, curvilinear and/or stenciled/stamped impressions. The use of specific tools, producing sinuous designs obtained from bivalves shells (cardium-like) which has been yet found only once in Sarawak (Solheim II & Tweedie, 1959), has been now also collected within two caves (Gua Tengkorak and Gua Keboboh) along the Marang river. Macro-observations show that the prints differ one from the other, indicating at least two different shells/tools and probably makers.

One amongst other cardium decorated sherds from G. Tangkorak and belonging obviously to the same pot, would be a part of a handle or prehension tag, in the shape of an animal figurine. They show a strong analogy with figurines which have been found in Lubang Angin (Datan, 1993).

Another zoomorphic figurine has just been found during our last fieldsession, a tiny and remote crack-roomy place named Gua Unak. It presents a composite feature: large horizontal ears-like protuberances and side wings or stumps. The remaining part shows that the figurine had a vertical axis of symmetry. The presence of a hole in the lower middle part, associated to the bent edge, would induce to interpret it as a probable lid handle. They should have been thus two or four located in opposite position.

A complementary screening of the small cavity using a 2-4mm mesh, has not provided any complementary part. Considering that the firing of the clay, being very poor and limited to the minimum rending the whole thus very breakable and damageable, it should have normally totally disappeared. Their extreme fragility would explain why these figurines seem to be very seldom yet in SEA (Cameron, 2005).

Within an increasing number of funerary jars checked along our previous and actual surveys, one very specific was discovered in a small adjacent crevice of Gua Kairim. Considering its huge size first, around 1 meter high and 50 cm for the lip diameter, added to the unusual large geometric curvilinear incised motives, it appears to be totally different from all others. Not only in Kaltim’s set, but even in the whole Borneo Island. It displays numerous variations of alternative indented surfaces yet totally unusual in the surveyed area. Its resemblance with Lapita style ceramic was surprising enough to induce to check it with specialised colleagues. Preliminary and first glance identification confirmed a characteristic late Lapita style expression (comm. pers. Noury, in 2004’ report).

Stressing later that possible clue, a double first "lapita-like" sherd, decorated with stamped dentate motives, came to be found in Gua Batu-Aji. Unfortunately located in sub-surface of midden deposits, it could not be dated nor included in any determining process. During the 2005' Liang Jon excavations, another sherd has been found, well embeded in a regular stratigraphy. Laying at minus 40cm within a stabilized occupation layer, that dentate decorated small sherd shows the characteristic stigma of the dentate tool. In that precise case, it is totally similar to some Fijian and New Caledonian samples (Lapita Conf., 2005). It would correspond to the same period as other early earthenware witnesses, and would be thus also synchronic. According to Noury, it would correspond also to the late Lapita
period/influence, around 2800 BP (comm. pers. May 2005). For R. Green (comm. pers. Aug. 2005), it would correspond to a retroverse effect, similar to the Bukit Tangkorak data found in Sabah, by Bellwood (1989), which happened 3200-3100 years ago.

2005 excavations in Liang Jon, based upon previous researches from 2003 and their promising results, have been centred mainly upon two enlarged test pits 1,5m x 1,5m, located on one row, between the two previous surveyed areas. One (A) has been dug until a depth of 3 m, without reaching yet the terminal rock basement, while the second (B) having encountered a burial, has been stopped after a 60 cm depth.
Both of them have provided a very large set of archaeological remains including stone tools and general middens comprising various faunal bone remains and shells of different sources. More interesting, they are also apparent in distinctly separated levels, some almost complete kits related to the preparation and use of red ochre. That late group of artefacts may be related not only to specific or funerary rituals, but possibly to the ornate caves located in the direct vicinity (200 to 500m). Sophisticated physical methods of comparison should thus be employed to compare the different coloured stuffs.

Once excavated, mainly under GH. Ferrie’s supervision, the skeleton, which appeared around 60cm depth, is lying in a straight elongated position, most of its bones being in apparent connexion. The left hand is applied upon the belly. The right one, although apparent on the right side of the ribs, seems, from the position of the elbow and the missing fore-arm, to have been somehow twisted backwards. But the most strange fact, is that there is no head but a stone in place. The upper part of that stone came to sight only after a circular line of stones containing charcoals and confirming the presence of a fire structure at the previous level, had been removed. The clearing of the skeleton, which was in process, let suppose that the head would have been bent backwards and covered by that late stone. Once removed, it became clear that the corpse had been beheaded. During the extension of the scraping of the layer, some parts of skull appeared, some 60 cm away, just at the foot of the cliff wall. The clearing of that conglomerate of skull pieces has shown that they were corresponding to at least two individuals, (and possibly three). Preliminary observation of the cervical vertebra and the occipital hole(s), has not shown any blow or cutting action tracks. It would thus indicate that the splitting of the head from the body has been done after death, once the decomposition of the corpse was already enough advanced.

The similarity of formal situation is particularly striking with the recent discoveries made in Vanuatu, by Spriggs and his team (Spriggs & al. 2005). There, they unearthed some 20 burials typically belonging to the Lapita period. Some of the skeletons had been beheaded –without provoking stroke wears- and moreover, their head having also been replaced by a stone. More interestingly, some bones have been deliberately taken away, and particularly some fore-arms… From the bio-anthropologists having studied the bones assemblages, they estimate that after one year, it becomes possible, without breaking the bones remaining connexion (pers. comm. Valentin, Lapita Conf. 2005). It implies nevertheless that the body having been buried after death, the head alone had to be unearthed, using then forcibly a location marker. The position of the feet assemblage, inasmuch as the arms and hands would indicate that the body had been toughly and completely wrapped in a mat or
at least with ties (ropes, bark or tapa stripes). Hardness and consistence of the ground has been observed during the excavation process, it appeared that the body had been buried in digging a hole not much larger than the corpse in the ground and later refilled, due to the difference of flat regularity in the deposits. The coincidence of the level from which the burial has been dug and the level of the occurrence of the "lapita-like" postsherd has to be noted. Although it would not constitute yet
a real acceptable proof, it is nevertheless a clue, which has to be kept in mind.

While awaiting C14 datation results for the Liang Jon excavations, that particuliarly significant occurence, should be added to the similarity with the large Lapita inspired funerary urn from Liang Kairim. That convergence would at first and primary approach, confirms, if definitively established, that circulation of cultural items related with the Lapita periods or influence phases, has been even larger than estimated previously. Limited until now to the NE part of Borneo, mainly thanks to Sabah's investigations (see Bellwood 1989), that influence would have extended also Southwards to East Kalimantan. The exchange and circulation process including cultural items, would they be physical : like obsidian from Talasea in New Britain (see Specht 1985), transported and found in NE Sabah, or symbolic like designs or myths, would probably include also some specific decorated ceramics. Wether only
lapita-like pots or their technology, has circulated, missing until now enough identified data, remains a yet unsolved question.

As a matter of fact, birth origins of "Lapita cultural complex" inspiration is still a question debated between scholars (see the numerous Lapita and IPPA Symposia held since the past decades). It broadly varies from Eastern to Western sides of New Guinea, and our late discovery is more precisely trending towards the Western origin or clustering area. Other sites from insular SEA have also provided somehow lapita-like ceramics, although not using the very specific dentate stamped technique.
Some of the most well known originate from Kalumpang area (Sulawesi) and Talaud islands, or even in and around Taiwan, have already been described by Bellwood (1997). The appearance of such ceramics in East Kalimantan, corresponding simply to the extension westwards of its possible influence, is just enlarging the probabilities area and does not present any contradiction with already established hypothesis.

The other important findings from 2005’ excavations (Gua Tebok and Liang Jon) are the numerous artefacts related to ochre uses, excavated between the upper levels and the lowest ones (2,5m deep). They comprise the complete set, from the large raw core (15cm in diameter), to the red wearings pestle, including core flakes, used pencils with wearing marks and flat to hollowed red surfaced anvils. Most of these late anvils are from calcitic-sandstone, whose provenance may be located precisely. They would come from the eastern side of the Gunung Marang itself, where sandstone
dots emerge from pure calcite deposits. It appears quite visibly intermixed in the cave named Gua "tanah lihat" (cave "where earth is visible"), at the bottom of the main cliff (see 2003' report). This complete assemblage of ochre implements, shows how its importance was noticeable. Although Gua Tebok and Liang Jon 2005’ excavations have both provided a remarkable set of ochre, Gua Tebok is presenting the advantage to contain some hand stencils (one of them right in the midle of the huge ceiling, 8m high). They may thus be with high probability directly related to them. That important use has had a lasting activity during a long lap of time because it appears in the different succeeding occupation layers. These late are still awaiting
datations sampling.

Although almost all kind of stone tools and their industry, including raw materials inasmuch as refuses, from upper until lower levels (minus 3m), no real significative change could yet be observed in lithic technology. Surface inasmuch as first 50 to 60 cm layers, which contain ceramics corresponding thus to the "Austronesian" techno-cultural phase, do not present other signature than medium to small flakes industry. Only one broken part of the cutting edge of a polished adze has yet been found during the 3 campaigns, indicating that the introduction and adoption of that new techno-cultural practice, carried by Austronesians, did not spread regularly inside all areas of Borneo. At a broad level of consideration, there is no main noticeable change in the stone tools assemblage. They are mostly flakes, whose statistical distributions appear to vary slightly. As already stressed by Julien Espagne (see 2003’ and 2004’ reports), the frequency of Kutai flakes remains
proportionally high, and lasts from buried ancient levels (yet radiocarbon undated) to sub-surface locations. Nevertheless, the main impression is confirmed that the “Pleistocene knapping technology” has lasted until very recent periods although ceramic technology was spread all over Kalimantan. It shows some seemingly contradiction concerning the acceptation or borrowing of foreign technics, by prehistoric hunter-gatherers. They have clearly conserved or adopted only what was corresponding to their needs and culturally agreeable.

A more precise description of lithic technology by J. Espagne, will appear besides, based upon his study yet in progress. The study of animal bones by HG. Ferrie being still at its beginning and in progress, only a first general draft of his preliminary interpretations is provided hereafter.

Primary and general observations concerning bone study
conducted by Jean-George Ferrié

Within the general frame of archaeological researches conducted in East Kalimantan, we have undertaken the study of faunic bones remains which have been discovered within some sites of the Marang river area.

That study has two main goals. First, it will allow to collect data concerning the different animal species, which were present in the surveyed area during different chronological phases, and to follow their evolution. Being accepted that the absence of one species in the archaeological frame would not mean its general lack in the natural environment: human communities being able to manage many choices within their accessible possibilities.

Second, as a main task, we should be able to bring out original data upon daily life of communities who have settled in this area. Thanks to a detailed taphonomic and
archaeological analyse of bone remains, it should be possible to reconstruct exploitation strategies of the natural environment managed by these populations. Once established for each site, synchronic and diachronic comparisons, for inter- and intra-locations will be performed, with the intention to search possible differences and evolutions in the managing of local animal resources.

A set of test-pits has been dug during the 2005' field session, on Gua Tebok, Liang Unak and Liang Jon sites. They have provided an important quantity of bone remains. The total weight overpasses practically 30 kg. Only Liang Jon and Gua Tebok have yet been submitted to a preliminary sorting and study. Most of the bones are highly fragmented, and depending of test-pits and layers, a large proportion of them is burnt. Within identified taxons, suidae, followed by turtles (mostly shell parts), then cervidae, constitute the main core. Some bones of primates and carnivores have also been identified in a lesser proportion in the different assemblages.

In the Test-pit B in Liang Jon, levels 24, 25 and 26 would differ from others, because of the majority proportion of cervidae. The proportion of suidae and turtles within these layers would be thus lower than cervidae, indicating an important change in the diet or food practices. These primary observations should be confirmed later with more precise observations.

The first sorting of bones has already let appear an important proportion of burnt bones. In Liang Jon, 36% of the total determined remains and 68% of undetermined fragments are burnt. These proportions are respectively 36% and 7 3% in Gua Tebok. If animals constitute an important diet resource, they are also providing an important raw material subside (long hard bones and deer antlers, inasmuch as skin and tendons). In Gua Tebok and Liang Jon, uses for non-dietary purposes have been identified thanks to the discovery of different bone points or needles.

A more detailed analyse is clearly necessary in the intention of establishing the taphonomic history of each assemblage and then in precising the acquisition and exploitation process for each species. These data will be tied and cris-crossed with those of other disciplines, the only procedure permitting to precisely describe the past way of life of the communities who have previously settled in this area. Equally important by their number inasmuch as by their contents are the ornate caves which have been discovered since 11 years in that area. Being established by now that the oldest representations are older than the end of Pleistocene (10.000 years BP), they constitute a determining core of the South East Asian prehistory.

Mainly characterized by a high number of negative hand prints, it shows also different manners of using not only combinations but also overpainted hand stencils. That late characteristic let it differs from all surrounding cultural expressions, and even of all worldwide examples. Its origins are not yet clearly established but analyses have proved to be dated from more than late Pleistocene (10.000 BP). Being unique in that part of the world, and presenting more links with its far neighbours from Australia, than with the closest islands (Sulawesi, Moluccas and Western New Guinea, mainly described by Kosasih, Setiawan, O’Connor, Delanghe & Arifin) this would induce to consider differently the settlement and cultural diffusion of Rock
Art in that large area. One new hypothesis would be that before the end of Pleistocene (10.000 years ago) and during its move towards Australia, a group would have settled –or escaped- in that remote area of East Kalimantan and locally kept that painting tradition and its former usages. The fact is that there is no apparent aesthetic, neither figurative link, between the rock art painted in these caves and any ethnographic "Dayak" style figurations.

Although the presumption of a specific "austronesian" origin has been proposed and would for many cases fit there with the local "prehistory of history", mainly in East Nusantara, by some scholars (Balard, 1992), that explanation does not match observations for East Kalimantan. The presence of a few general figures in some caves, presents some analogies, with some common symbolic "ideograms", in frequent use in South East Asia. For instance, the arborescent feature found in Gua Tewet linking a minimum of 7 differenciated negative hand prints, may evoke possibly the "tree of life" scheme. Another hypothesis is prefering the "visual language" approach and its logical interpretations, is supported by P. Setiawan, our everlasting global partner since 1995.

Apart that possible reference with some "Dayak" cultural expression, it would possibly also be perceptible in what seems to represent the large bees hive and the "honey tree" painted in Kerim cave. It is known from ethnography (Van Geddes, 1959, Hopes, 1997) that much respect was paid to any honey tree and a specific dance used to be performed by communities, after or against bad or difficult events or periods. Would these representations ("tree of life/honey tree") and customs (honey tree dance) pre-exist before the arrival of Austronesians, followed themselves later by generic Dayak cultures, is still a possible hypothesis. This late one, is forming the bulk of possible eventually consequences of the contacts between Pleistocene populations, long time settled in South East Asia. Samples from Niah or Tabon, show that peoples -Homo sapiens sapienswere already living there since 40 to 50.000 years, compared to newcomers like Austronesians, some 5.000 years ago only. What kind of exchanges or inter-influences have thus and then happened, and in which directions, is still a puzzling question, breeding discussions between specialists.
The investigations conducted in Gunung Marang cluster have began to nourish the gap of knowledge still remaining in that large area. Completing –or confronting- other data gathered not only in Eastern Kalimantan, but also the complete Eastern side of Island Borneo, archaeological results converging from all disciplines would provide a determining clue for interpreting the role that this precisely “in the between” location, would have played in the past.

Concerns towards its proper study but also its efficient protection should therefore be strongly linked for future generations. Note on the economico-cultural environment of the Gunung Marang Reserve situation (JM. Chazine/Kalimanthrope) The state of protection of that huge and determinant patrimony is eventually almost null. The burial sites and the painted caves, had remained until recent decades under a traditional and implicit protection. Local communities, mainly Dayak and their more slightly episodic Punan contacts were the only ones to settle within that area. Some caves had thus been devoted to keep funerary remains, jars for older times, and wooden coffins for more recent, like in Gua Lungun or Gua Tengkorak. The dramatic 1997’ hazes, have left nothing but charcoals from these wooden items. The whole area had anyway already been abandoned some decades ago, under common pressure of the Government and the logging companies attractive salaries. Only bird nest collectors, ancient residents or newcomers from the Transmigrasi process, were rovering from caves to caves. Pressure was not that much important, based upon a low and temporary mean human presence. Conditions and incomes produced by some caves has strongly increased and time length during which a new population remains on the spots has totally changed also. Being reduced from 45 days of minimal maturation, it has dropped down to 42 if not 40, decreasing dramatically the natural stock for reproduction. Bands of 6 to 10 men stay all the time near the caves to collect and protect the “goldmine” and consequently predate everything still living around. Large areas are now under a huge and almost wild threaten from free scavengers and logging gangs. Protection and information actions have now to be organised and coordinated, in accordance with the local authorities demands and intentions. Discoveries and findings already gained in that specific area are important enough to help settle local showroom and exhibitions actions for enhancing cultural awareness.

At another level, the groups exploiting the natural resources of these remote and desertified areas do not belong to the new created local culture, i.e. the " Kutai". A neologism which has the advantage to integrate as many people as needed, as long as they have been resident since enough time or generations. It permits also to include in a new generic, common and neutral term, Dayaks or assimilated communities and overpass the cultural complex of inferiority which has been and still is prevalent. A rather little number of "real new Kutai" are permanently involved in logging or forestry industries, inasmuch as bird nest collecting. They use to come there to get a harsh but speed, amount of money and behave just like simple or other predators. They do not feel any cultural, historical neither emotional link with those who have left the archaeological remains that archaeologists excavate and exhume from the ground and the caves. They have in no case their ancestors buried there and will never have. Thus cultural links between previous inhabitants and local authorities do not yet exist at all. Understanding and protection measures are totally foreign constraints for these new scavengers, inasmuch as there is no support for the Administration on the spot. That gap is not the smallest problem which has to be managed and solved to attempt to protect and maybe enhance the cultural consciousness of a morally and geographically distancied population.

Bibliography (quoted in the text only):

Balard, 1992: "Painted Rock Art sites in Western Melanesia: locational evidence for an "Austronesian" tradition", in J. McDonald & L.P. Haskovecs (eds.), Occas. AURA
papers 4, p.94-105.

Bellwood, 1988: "Archaeological research in South-Eastern Sabah". Sabah Mus. Monogr. 2.

Bellwood, 1997 (revised ed.): "Prehistory of Indo-Malaysian Archipelago". Univ. of Hawaii Press.

Burley, (ed) : " Lapita Conference in Tonga". Pre-proceedings papers abstract, Aug.
2005.

Cameron, 2005: "Pottery figurines in the archaeological record of South China, South
East Asia and the Pacific". Lapita Conf. Tonga, Aug. 2005.

Chazine, 2000: " Découvertess de peintures rupestres à Bornéo", in " L'Anthropologie", 104, p.459-471.

Chazine, 2002: "Rock Art and ceramics in East Borneo: logical discovery or new cornerstone?", in "Pacific archaeology: Assessments and prospects", Sand (ed.), Noumea, p.43-52.

Chazine, 2005: "Rock Art, burials and habitations: caves in East Kalimantan", in Asian Perspectives, 44:2, p.219-230.

Chazine, 2005: "Ceramics from East Kalimantan and the Lapita connexion". Lapita Conf.
Tonga, Aug. 2005.

Chazine, Fage & Setiawan, 2002: "The Rock Art of Kalimantan in Indonesian Borneo", in
" Ligabue Magazine", Anno XXI, n°41, p.146-166.

Datan, 1993: "Excavations from G. Sireh and L. Angin". Sarawak Mus. Journal Vol XLV
n°66.

Delanghe & Arifin, 2004: Rock Art in West Papua, Paris, UNESCO.

Geddes, 1973: "Nine Dayak nights". Oxford University Press, New York.

Hopes, 1997: "Ilmu, magic and divination amongst the Benuaq and Tunjung Dayak", Puspa Swara & Rio Tinto Foundation, Jakarta.

Jatmiko, Nazruddin & Bambang, 2004: "Explorasi situs gua dan hunian Prasejarah di pegunungan Marang kabupaten Kutai Timur, Kalimantan Timur", Laporan Penilitian Arkeologi, Puslit Arkenas, Jakarta.

Kosasih, E.A, (1991) "Rock Art in Indonesia", in Bahn, P & Rosenfeld, A (eds), Rock Art and Prehistory:papers presented to Symposium G of the AURA Congress, Darwin,
1988, Oxbow Books, Monograph 10.

O'Connor, S (2003) "Nine new painted Rock Art sites from East Timor in the context of
the Western Pacific Region", in AP Vol.34, No 1, 2003.

Setiawan, 2003: " Alih pengetatuhan pada nelayan tradisional Pelabuhan Ratu (Thesis).
Progr Pasca Sarjana Antropologi, FISIP, UI, Depok.

Setiawan, 2004: "kawasan Kars Sangkulirang.:Antropologi dan Arkeologi. Research
Report of "The Nature Conservancy", Samarinda, Kaltim.

Solheim II, 1965: "The prehistoric earthenware of Tanjung Kubor, Santubong", in
Sarawak Museum Journal 12 (25-26), p.1-62.

Spriggs & alii, 2005: " Lapita pots and the people: results of two field seasons at the

Teouma site, central Vanuatu". Lapita Conf. Tonga, Aug. 2005.

Valentin, 2005: "Teouma human remains: first descriptions of metric and non-metric
features". Lapita Conf. Tonga, Aug. 2005.
Read More..

George Washington’s Blacksmith Shop

During 1930s, Morley Williams, a landscape architect from Harvard University, was conducting historical and archaeological research at the plantation and he supervised the initial excavations at George Washington’s Blacksmith Shop. The Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association was interested in the smithy as a possible candidate for reconstruction in the early of this decade. Williams and the Association were interested in identifying structures and other features present during 1799, the year of George Washington’s death, to enhance the authenticity of the historic house museum. Besides numerous documentary references to the shop, the structure was depicted on the Vaughan plan drawn in 1787. At some point a brick Ice House was constructed at the site of the Blacksmith Shop and debate over the age of this structure, the date of the demise of the smithy, and the Blacksmith's Shop size and appearance were the goals of this and subsequent excavations conducted over the next half-century.


Morley Williams excavated at the Blacksmith's Shop during the 1930s.

The Association sought physical evidence for the exact location and appearance of the Blacksmith's Shop, as well as about the activities undertaken at the Blacksmith's Shop to support a reconstruction of the building and interpret blacksmithing at the museum, an important component of the plantation economy. Besides Morley Williams’s work in the 1930s, restoration architect Walter Macomber excavated at the site during the 1950s and 1960s as did the Virginia Research Center for Archaeology during their survey and archaeological assessment of the plantation in 1984 -- 85. Dennis J. Pogue, Mount Vernon’s first Chief Archaeologist, completed this final excavation in 1989.


The base of the brick blacksmith's forge.

The archaeological excavations revealed considerable structural evidence for the shop. This included a fragmentary brick foundation that is interpreted to be the base of the forge, and two sections of masonry, running east-west and 16 feet apart, that are remnants of the foundation for the long walls of the shop. The forge base has a characteristic void in the center, marking the location of the fire box. A portion of the forge base and most of the shop’s foundations were disturbed by later construction, including erecting a mid-19th century ice house overlapping with the shop’s footprint.


Postholes such as these show the location for fences near the Shop.

The archaeological evidence indicates that the shop was 16 feet in width, but the other dimension cannot be determined. On the Vaughan plan the building measures roughly 12 by 40 feet, but this is clearly an example of artistic license. The depiction of the shop shown on the earlier Vaughan sketch appears more likely to be closer to the actual dimensions, as it is shown as roughly 18 by 24 feet.


The Vaughan plan depicts the Blacksmith Shop (top left) as 12 x 40 feet. Click image to see the 18 x 24-foot Shop on Vaughan's earlier sketch (#13).

Two rows of post holes and molds mark the location of two fencelines, each of which intersected with a corner on the east end of the shop. The fenceline connecting with the southeast corner turned to form a work yard on that side of the building, turning again to run parallel to the north lane and ultimately connecting with a corner of the Servants Hall, 160 feet distant, just as indicated on the 1787 Vaughan plan. The distance between the square post molds was six feet, and the view of the site shown in a painting executed by Edward Savage circa 1792 indicates that the fence was well finished and painted white. The other fenceline ran from the northeast corner of the shop to the north along the edge of the lane. The round postmolds marking this fence were nine feet apart, suggesting that it was a more rustic, post-and-rail fence. This fence appears to have been replaced by the time that Savage made his painting, as his depiction shows a white fence connecting with the northwest corner of the building, matching the one on the other side of the shop.


This painting from c. 1792 provides important evidence for the Blacksmiths'' Shop and the two fences.

The resulting picture of the Blacksmith's Shop is of a modest structure, supported by a brick foundation, upon which a wooden frame, clapboard siding, and shingled roof were erected. The Savage painting and plantation records indicate that the shop was unpainted, suggesting that it was considered to be a more utilitarian structure than the other outbuildings along the lane, with their white-painted walls and red-painted shingles. The adjoining fenced yard would have served as a handy general work area, being especially useful when repairing large items such as wagons and carriages, and bulky agricultural equipment. Great quantities of coal, slag, and other refuse were found within the yard area, testifying to the common practice of the day of disposing of rubbish, even very messy materials such as smith’s waste, very near their source.


An artist's rendering of what the Blacksmith's Shop may have looked like.

The bottom courses of a robbed brick wall footing were found abutting what is interpreted as the northeast corner of the Shop. This is likely the terminus of the brick Ha-Ha wall that encircled the east lawn of the Mansion, and which is known to have been in existence by 1785. This portion of the Ha-Ha wall was removed and relocated in the 1890s during its reconstruction. At that time the route of the wall was altered to terminate at the corner of the brick Ice House. When the Blacksmith's Shop was demolished, the Ha-Ha would have ended in space, necessitating its extension to the west, where it probably connected with a fence or wall running along the north lane. The Currier plan of 1855 shows the north Ha-Ha connecting with a short section of wall or fence just north of the ice house.


The foundation of the earlier Ha-Ha wall.

Based on the archaeological evidence Mount Vernon reconstructed the Blacksmith Shop in 2009. Today, this important plantation craft is once again practiced at the site. The numerous artifacts and historical information discovered during the investigations help interpret the space for our visitors.
Read More..

Artifacts, Archaeology and Cabeza De Vaca (Part III)

Summary
Museum material culture appropriate to Cabeza de Vaca during his "trader" phase and his journey thence to the Rio Grande would include: arrow points (likely Perdiz, and perhaps Caracara at Falcon Lake), bone-tempered pottery (including restored or partially restored vessels at TARL and, from Choke Canyon, at the Center for Archaeologica Research at The University of Texas at San Antonio, "hide scrapers" (end scrapers) and beveled knives (bison processing equipment), large trade bifaces, manos and metates, mats (as among the Cuchendado, use Lower Pecos examples), bows and arrows, digging sticks, etc. (also derived from Lower Pecos collections but surely identical to what was in the south Texas interior). Photographs of the wooden mortars and pestles reported by Collins (1968) and Prewitt (1981) would be very appropriate, given Cabeza de Vaca's description of mesquite bean processing (the Collins and Hester specimen is from the Lower Pecos, and had prickly pear seeds in the mortar) on the Rio Grande. He clearly describes pestles, and mentions a "jar" which sounds much like the mortars that have been reported. Cabeza de Vaca in Northeastern Mexico.

When Cabeza de Vaca moves west from the Rio Grande, he entered territory that is still very poorly known archaeologically‹especially in Late Prehistoric times. No major excavations or studies have dealt with this terminal portion of the culture sequence in the region, and those that have, usually involved rockshelters (cf Hester et al. 1994)‹not part of Cabeza de Vaca's chronicle. Cabeza de Vaca's reference to rabbit-hunting sticks clearly refer to the "rabbit sticks" present in museum collections at the Witte and at TARL, from the lower Pecos and western Texas; doubtless, they are the same as he recorded in northeastern Mexico. However, there is a much discussed incident involving material culture that I would like to touch upon. This is the "copper" bell or rattle (described as "squat and wide;" M. Wade, personal communication, 1996) given to Dorante "at the base of the mountains" (Covey 1961:110; Ketchum 1988; Epstein 1991). Cabeza de Vaca relates that the gift-givers had obtained the artifact from the "north." This has led many to speculate that it is derived from Casas Grandes, the great trading and craft production center in Chihuahua studied by Di Peso (cf. Di Peso l974, who notes Casas Grandes trade networks reaching to La Junta de los Rios and other northern Mexico locales). It may have indeed come from there, but I suggest an alternate scenario. If the Krieger map is correct (cf Chipman 1987:143), this event probably took place south of Monterrey. This is only 250 miles from the Pavon site, on the Rio Panuco, in the Huastecan culture area. At this site, Ekholm (1944:478-479) reports and illustrates large copper bells (including one strikingly similar to a specimen from Casas Grandes, DiPeso 1974 510), and notes several others, including one in the form of a turtle (the one given Dorante apparently had a "face" or image on it) in the Huasteca. Indeed, Huastecan outposts in the Sierra de Tamaulipas, occupied at the time of Cabeza de Vaca (the Mesoamerican Late Postclassic) were within 100 miles! The Huastecans were very active traders, as seen in their interaction with the hunters and gatherers of the Brownsville complex in the Rio Grande delta, where obsidian, pottery, and jade is documented (see Hester 1995 for a detailed review). Further, despite all the ruminations in the various translations, could the "South Sea" and its riches not be the Pacific or the Bay of California . . . but the Gulf of Mexico with its Huastecan towns and traders?

Finally, I want to close with some observations on the material culture related to the famed "mouse-teeth" scarification event (Covey 1961: 113). It is hard to say where this took place, though Krieger's route suggests it could have been in the Big Bend area. Of particular relevance here is a basket and contents found at site 41VV171 in the 1930s and in the collections at TARL (see Figure 2). This has never been fully published, though it is sometimes called a "shaman's kit" or a "medicine kit." Among the contents are mescal beans (known hallucinogens) and a number of rodent (rabbit) mandibles. It is not hard to imagine these latter items being used for this type of scarification, especially in the scene described in the Cabeza de Vaca case. Though Cabeza de Vaca describes the event as one of parents' punishing a crying infant, one suspects that it is related to curing rituals. If so, such scarification appears not to have been the domain solely of a "shaman," (cf Ricklis 1994:416) but could be done by anyone. I do not want to stretch this too much, but simply point to this kit (or a photograph of it, again due to Native American concerns) as a possible exhibit item, given the mention of the scarification event and, of course, Cabeza de Vaca's role as a healer during much of his time in Texas and Mexico. (This text initially appeared in Windows to the Unknown: Cabeza de Vaca's Journey to the Southwest. An interdisciplinary symposium hosted by the Center for the Study of the Southwest at Southwest Texas State University, San Marcos.
Read More..

Artifacts, Archaeology and Cabeza De Vaca (Part II)

Cabeza de Vaca in the Interior

Cabeza de Vaca's activities on the margin of the coastal prairies, and then his journey through the interior to the Rio Grande raise several archaeological issues. For example, references to subsistence activities are of interest. While with the Mariames on the lower Guadalupe River (we assume), Cabeza de Vaca and his colleagues where involved in the processing of pecans. This may have involved ground stone manos and metates, or even the use of stone pestles. Alternatively, they may have used wooden mortars and pestles of the sort reported ethnohistorically in Nuevo Leon in the 17th century by Alonso de Leon (Brown 1988; see also Beals 1932), and archaeologically, from the lower Pecos area by Collins and Hester (1968) and Prewitt (1981). In addition, the harvesting and processing of tuna, the fruit of prickly pears might have involved similar gear, or just an earthen pit.

It is of great interest to me that when, in 1532, Cabeza de Vaca and colleagues are involved in the summer harvesting of prickly pear tuna, there is no mention of pottery, which would have been ideal for the storage of beverages made from tuna juices (cf Krieger 1956:53); indeed, he mentions a "lack of vessels" for the juice from the tunas. Either this is specific only to the group with whom Cabeza de Vaca's was associated, or his route across southern Texas was a bit farther south than the "southern route" currently suggests. I can say this with confidence in that the peoples of the southern Texas interior had begun making bonetempered pottery, including olla forms as early as A.D. 1200 1300 (cf. Hester 1980:126; Highley 1986) and continued making this ware through the Late Prehistoric and during the time they were residing in the 18th century Spanish missions. Pottery was being made as far south as Alice, and clearly north of a line running from Dimmit County down to Alice and eastward to Baffin Bay. Thus, the map of his journey might be more accurately drawn as running south of Alice (per Campbell and Campbell 1981 : Figure l) - or his route took a decided southern turn per Wells and Davenport (cf. Chipman 1987:131). I doubt the latter is the case as the Wells and Davenport route would have put the castaways in the South Texas Sand Sheet area, a patch of south Texas that Cabeza de Vaca would have surely remembered ! Indeed, if Cabeza de Vaca was among the Avavares, whose territory included the legendary great prickly pear fields, he would then have been in Webb, Duval and southern Jim Wells County, south of the pottery-making peoples.

While among the Avavares, Cabeza de Vaca was told of the myth of Mala Cosa, the Badthing. Among his deeds was the use of a "flint knife two palms long and a hand wide" (Covey 1961:90) to inflict wounds on hapless individuals. There is no raw material in southern Texas that would have allowed the Avavares to even envision a stone tool of that size (the Uvalde and Rio Grande gravels used for points and everyday tools are relatively small cobbles). A description of such a massive biface may reflect what we see archaeologically in the region, and that is the presence of large, thin bifaces ("knives") that have been traded into the region from the Edwards Plateau (e.g. Taylor and Highley 1995, Hester and Barber 1990). [Such specimens are in both the Witte and TARL collections.] Cabeza de Vaca's projected entry into Mexico near what is today the Falcon Reservoir district is probably accurate. We are just now learning about the Late Prehistoric peoples in that region, and are literally awaiting receipt of radiocarbon dates on several burials (with associated grave goods) that might shed new light on the people of that region in the 16th century (cf. Hester 1995). It should also be noted that this area, especially Starr, Zapata and Jim Hogg Counties, has a high density of prickly pear, but little in the way of creeks or other surface water (Hester 1981). This area and the area to the east could have been the territories of the Avavares (at least seasonally), and certainly the Arbadaos (Campbell and Campbell 1981), and the dire descriptions of their subsistence, during Cabeza de Vaca's eight months in the monte , would certainly fit with the settlement pattern and low-density resource modeled that I have put forth for the region [Hester 1981; why Covey (1961 :92) equates this locale with the Texas "hill country" is indeed a mystery]. Cabeza de Vaca's stay among the Cuchendados (Campbell and Campbell 1981:393 on the Rio Grande demonstrates his adaptation to life in the region (Wade 1996) and his skills at making items of material culture, such as mats, which were greatly prized as house coverings in what appear to have been at least a couple of sizable villages. Cabeza de Vaca offers other insights into subsistence that have archaeological implications. He notes bison in the area of the Mariame (which Covey for some inexplicable reason places in the area of Austin), and clearly there were bison at this period on the coastal prairies (cf. Hester and Parker 1970, Ricklis 1996). He also points to the fact that the Mariame and related groups ate practically everything. This is borne out by the long lists of faunal remains at Late Prehistoric sites in the region (e.g., Black 1986, Highley 1986; Hester and Hill 1975). It is intriguing that he notes the pulverization of bone, to reduce these materials to bone grease to be mixed with other foods. This is a well known practice among southern California Indians (Bean 1972:66). However, faunal remains are so extensive and so well preserved at most Late Prehistoric sites in south Texas that this technology must have been used either with certain species or at certain times of the year (or, in cases of famine/ hunger). Krieger (1956:53) reports that snails (land, or prairie snails; Rabdotus sp.) were also eaten, though I cannot locate this reference in the published translations. Campbell (1983) also reports the eating of snails by the Mariame while they were in the tuna fields. The archaeological evidence is overwhelming in terms of snail consumption. Along the central and southern coast, on the coastal prairies, and into the interior, Late Prehistoric sites have abundant land snails in the middens. Some archaeologists attribute their presence to the scavenging activities of land snails, but this is a facile argument that ignores the archaeological data (e.g., their association with hearths and food processing areas; cf Scott 1982; Black 1986, Highley 1986); if the snails got incorporated into the middens as casual scavengers, then they have clearly changed their feeding habits in South Texas since late prehistory (Hester 1995)! Snail shells are so common at sites in Starr and Zapata Counties, the territory of the Arbadaos (and Cuchendados?) that archaeological sites can be easily recognized during survey‹while riding in a truck‹by the glistening white sheen of the mass of snails eroding out of the sites (Nunley and Hester 1975).

Cabeza de Vaca refers to digging of roots, this would have been done with digging sticks, of the kind that survive today only in dry caves (e.g., examples from the Lower Pecos caves in the Witte Museum collections). He also describes the use of earth ovens for cooking roots. Archaeologists working in the region have not conclusively identified such pits, though there are a variety of hearths, including charcoal and rock filled features that might have served in this fashion (as at Choke Canyon, Scott 1982, Hester et al. 1975 report deep rock filled pits from McMullen County that were clearly earth ovens). While Cabeza de Vaca disparages the Indians' use of fire to burn off the prairies, this was a widespread practice in Texas and the Great Plains. Archaeological evidence of such activities is, of course, hard to come by, though McGraw (1983:91) recorded thin lines of charcoal in excavation profiles near Laredo that might reflect such activities. I have always been bothered by Cabeza de Vaca's descriptions of hunger, famine and low quantities of food just about everywhere he went (these descriptions have been embellished; cf. Krieger 1956). This simply does not fit with the archaeological evidence, in terms of faunal remains (animals, fish, marine or freshwater shell, snails, etc.) that occur in sites in the area where he must have traveled. Perhaps his eight months in the monte in the south Texas interior reflected seasonal variations in food availability as recorded by Alonso del Leon (Brown 1988). Or perhaps he was there in a time of drought; having just been in the area currently suffering from a significant drought, I can imagine the shortage of resources he encountered. Or perhaps his descriptions reflect his bias as a European who had to subsist on unfamilar and distasteful foods. The settlement pattern described for the Mariame and associated groups, to be near wood and water, fits what is seen for the placement of prehistoric occupation sites in the region [Cabeza de Vaca later contradicts himself by noting that the Indians "have no familiar places for getting water" (Covey 1961: 83). Perhaps here he referred to groups deeper into south Texas, where creeks and water sources were indeed fewer (the low-density zones described by Hester 1981). The brevity with which the sites were occupied likely suggests repeated occupations over the years, again fitting with the "settlement zones" seen in the areas of higher density resources in the region (Hester 1981). Some sites were apparently occupied long enough for houses, albeit flimsy ones, to be set up. Archaeological evidence for such houses is limited to a few postmolds or trash distribution patterns from a few sites (cf. Black 1986: 266).

The Summary will have to wait for another post...
Read More..

Prehistoric Lithic Artifacts in Mississippi: The Study (Part I)

Kevin L. Bruce

A lithic artifact represents any stone object modified by humans. Archaeologists studying prehistoric and historic Native Americans commonly identify several general types of lithic artifacts including formal tools, ornaments, cores, flake debris, and fire cracked rock (see glossary). In Mississippi there are three basic lithic technologies (flaked, ground, and battered technologies). Flaked stone technology involves the fracturing of fine-grained rock like chert or quartzite, so that fragments or flakes can be produced. These flakes are sharp and can be used in a number of tasks like cutting meat or scraping hide. In addition to producing flakes that can be immediately used and discarded (expedient tools), prehistoric people would also shape cobbles or large flakes to produce tools that are typically used longer and more intensively (formal tools). An example of a formal tool is what most people refer to as an “arrowhead”. Archaeologists refer to these tools as points, because they were used to tip an arrow, spear, or dart, but the term arrowhead is not used since not all points were used with a bow and arrow. Some other kinds of flaked tools found in Mississippi include scrapers, gravers, drills, knives, hoes, and adzes. These tools were used in a wide variety of tasks like hunting, preparing hides, butchering prey, making ornaments, farming, and woodworking just to name a few. Ground stone is commonly made from coarse-grained rock like sandstone and formed by grinding associated with the preparation of plant foods like corn. Other types of groundstone are not formed by use associated with food processing, but by intentional grinding. Some examples include ground axes, celts, stone beads, gorgets, discoidals, and plummets. Most of these tools and ornaments were made on rock that does not flake well, so the prehistoric stoneworkers would use abrasive materials like sand or other coarse stone to shape these materials through grinding. Battered stone was made on durable, coarse stone and used as hammerstones to flake fine-grained rocks like chert. Another use of battered stone was to crack hard-shelled nuts like hickory nuts. These tools often have depressions formed on their surface and are called pitted anvils or nutting stones.

On most archaeological sites in Mississippi, lithic artifacts form the bulk of cultural materials recovered. This is largely due to the fact that organic materials like wood and bone are not commonly preserved on archaeological sites. In the region, the only other artifact class resistant to decomposition is pottery, however; pottery was not adopted until around 2,500 years ago in the region. Since current archaeological evidence indicates that people have been present in the area for at least 12,000 years, a large portion of the prehistoric record consists entirely of lithic artifacts. As a result much of what archaeologist discover about the distant past is based on the study of lithic artifacts.

How do archaeologists learn about the prehistory of Mississippi by studying lithics? Well like modern-day detectives, archaeologists use lithic artifacts to provide clues concerning the environment in which they were produced and used. Common questions archaeologists ask when studying lithic artifacts include: 1) How old are these stone tools? 2) Where did the rock come from? 3) How were these artifacts produced and in what activities were they used? 4) What clues do lithic artifacts provide concerning the lifeways of the people who produced and used them? All of these questions are important because, if solved, they provide information that helps archaeologists reconstruct how prehistoric peoples lived. In order to answer some of the questions listed above, archaeologists must recreate certain activities, like the production of a stone tool, so that it be can understand what the artifacts they recover represent. This is similar to forensics specialists who use experimental simulations to interpret many pieces of evidence recovered from a crime scene. Detectives may not apprehend the culprit at the crime scene, but they do have clues left behind that can be used to identify the guilty party. Archaeologists are not searching for criminals, but they also use clues, like the waste flakes or debris created when Native Americans were making or repairing their stone tools, to identify what prehistoric groups were doing at a site.

Let’s talk about the questions listed above. First, how can stone tools be used to date a site? Well certain tools like points are known to change stylistically over time, as does many parts of our culture today, so they are considered diagnostic of a time period. Archaeologists have used the law of superposition to order stone tool styles over time. The law of superposition says that the older artifacts are deposited first, therefore, they should be found below more recent artifacts. When archaeologists excavate stratified sites that contain thousands of years of materials they apply the law of superposition to identify which tool style occurred first. This only provides a relative date that says which tool style is older than the other, but through use of radiocarbon dating archaeologist have been able to identify an actual date range during which certain tool styles occurred. Chronological information obtained through diagnostic artifacts is very important because archaeologists study how cultures changed over time.

How do archaeologists in Mississippi know where the rock used to make stone tools came from, and what information does this provide? Fortunately, most rocks used to make stone tools are distinctive and can be related to a general area. Many archaeologists have samples of rocks from all over Mississippi and surrounding states, so that they can be compared with artifacts to determine their place of origin. What does this tell an archaeologist? Well it can help archaeologists understand how large a group’s territory might have been, since many prehistoric groups moved around quite a lot. For example, if a site only contains locally available stone it suggests that the inhabitants of the site were primarily based in that area, whereas if a site contained a good bit of rock from a source 100 miles to the west and another source 50 miles to east, it is likely that the group that left these artifacts occupied this 150 mile stretch of territory over the course of a year. In addition, the presence of rock from very distant sources might indicate that a group was involved in exchange with other groups outside their immediate area.

How do archaeologists identify... will be on the next post...
Read More..

Artifacts, Archaeology and Cabeza De Vaca (Part I)

In Southern Texas and Northeastern Mexico

By Thomas R. Hester

Introduction

Of all the various routes published for Cabeza de Vaca over the past century, none make any sense, in terms of the archaeological record, except those of Krieger (1961) and Campbell and Campbell (1981). This route (see also Chipman 1987: 143,145), hereafter referred to as the "southern route," (Figure 1) takes Alvar Nuñez Cabeza de Vaca and his group from the upper and central Texas coast, across southern Texas, and into northeastern Mexico. Since the archaeological record of this region has existed for only a few decades, earlier scholars could not have made full advantage of the Cabeza de Vaca chronicles in considering the various alternatives for the route. Even today, we can push the "southern route" a bit further south than Krieger, Campbell and Campbell because of what Cabeza de Vaca did not record‹and what we have learned archaeologically about the region in the past 30 years. Most importantly in this planning document, and in the Witte Museum/ Southwest Texas State University planning meetings, we can be fairly confident of this "southern route" and use it to predict the kinds of cultures and cultural materials that Cabeza de Vaca encountered. Then, appropriate artifacts and archaeological cultures can be selected from extant collections for interpretative exhibits.

Cabeza de Vaca and Coastal Native Groups

Based on the recent archaeological studies by Robert Ricklis (1994) on Galveston Island, new insights can be added to the initial phase of Cabeza de Vaca's capture and subsequent movements among coastal peoples. There is little doubt that the Narvaez expedition, of which Cabeza de Vaca was a member, was shipwrecked on Galveston Island or a nearby area of the upper Texas coast. The descriptions of the peoples they encountered match closely the archaeological remains found by Ricklis, though they are perhaps broadly representative of upper coastal cultural adaptations in the early 16th century. Cabeza de Vaca records the use of the bow and arrow, fish weirs or traps and a heavy reliance both on fish and roots during fall and winter on the island. Special mortuary treatment was reserved for children and for "medicine men" (who were cremated). Though the current political situation prevents us from utilizing, in a museum exhibit, any burial materials, Ricklis found that most grave goods were lavished on adult males and children. One adult burial contained what Ricklis (1994:476) describes as a "rat-tooth bloodletting instrument," which he infers to be a "shaman's possession," albeit not with a cremation. If one looks at the Cabeza de Vaca chronicle, the reference to the use of such an item in bloodletting involved a child (probably in northern Mexico or in the Southwestern United States), and the bloodletting, with the use of "sharp mouse teeth" (Covey 1961: 113) was apparently not done by a shaman or medicine man. I will return to this matter at the end of this paper. Ricklis' excavations also produced examples of dwellings (postmold patterns and artifact concentrations) that would be more in line with a long-term occupation by a sizable group of up to several hundred people, perhaps in the fall-winter situation described by Cabeza de Vaca, although he did not specifically describe their houses. Whether these peoples were Karankawa, Akokisa, or some other group, they are more complex in term of social organization and belief systems than Cabeza de Vaca recorded. Clearly, some of the domestic artifacts dating to the early 16th century from Ricklis' excavations, now housed at the Texas Archeological Research Laboratory [TARL], at The University of Texas at Austin would be especially appropriate for exhibit. These include arrow points and other stone tools, bone and shell artifacts, and pottery (Covey 1961:55 notes that an "earthen pot" was one of the objects stolen from a native hut on the island; a recent translation of Cabeza de Vaca by Maria Wade of the UT Austin Department of Anthropology indicates that this "pot" was an olla) In addition, reconstructions of house floors (postmold patterns) and food processing areas (hearths) could be done. As I noted above, use of burial goods or even photographs of burials/burial goods would likely result in complaints from Native American groups.

It is during Cabeza de Vaca's presence among the coastal groups that we learn the most about material culture, especially the kinds that survive archaeologically. This is the role of trader that Cabeza de Vaca begun in 1530 when he lived among the "people of Charruco" in the coastal zone south of Galveston Island. Much has been written about Cabeza de Vaca's role as a trader (e.g., Corgan 1969; Wade 1996), but here I will focus specifically on the material goods that he exported and imported, and what that tells us archaeologically. Wade (personal communication, 1996) in her translation of Cabeza de Vaca, indicates that the items he took with him from the coast were: pieces of "sea snails" (conch or other gastropods) and their "hearts" [here, he must be referring to the columella of the conch, widely prized as a raw material], and shells to cut a fruit-like bean with which they cure and make bailes and fiestas [this "bean" would not have survived archaeologically, though a discussion of the identify of this vegetal item would be important].

With these goods, Cabeza de Vaca was able to travel into the interior, apparently crossing territories without conflict. I think this is the result of a trading system of great time depth in southern Texas, in which he just happened to get involved. There is ample archaeological evidence, on which I have written a number of times, of prehispanic trade in southern Texas (cf. Hester 1971a,b, 1980,. 1995). Once in the interior, he traded his coastal goods for the following items, again based on Wade's recent translation: "skins," "red dirt with which they grease and paint their faces and hair" [hematite or red ocher], chert (pedernales) points of arrows, hard cane to make arrow shafts (flechas). glue, and "some tassels which they make of skin of deer and dye red."

Cabeza de Vaca's trading endeavors closely match the archaeological record of the central Texas coast and southern Texas, perhaps even into central Texas and the lower Pecos. Covey's (1961) suggestions of his incursions going into East Texas and Oklahoma can be discounted. The Texas coast was without chippable stone (chert or "flint") and since Archaic times, there is ample evidence of south and central Texas cherts being obtained by coastal peoples to make spear and arrow points. This may have even accelerated in Late Prehistoric times, roughly the era of Cabeza de Vaca, when bison hunting became important on the coastal prairies‹and thus the need for more chert for arrow points, end scrapers, knives, and perforators (Hester and Parker 1970) Chert of pretty good quality is available on the lower Nueces and the lower Guadalupe 15-50 miles upstream from the coast (Chandler 1984). Red ochre or hematite appears in coastal burials (e.g., Hester 1969), as well as in those on the coastal/interior ecotone, such as the Archaic cemetery at Loma Sandia (Taylor and Highley 1995). Skins, arrow shafts, and tassels have left no archaeological trace. I am not sure what "glue" the coastal peoples desired from the interior, perhaps sap from mesquite or similar trees which make a good mastic, however, they had available, and had used since at least 600-800 B.C., asphaltum that washed up on the beaches, and which could be melted and used as an adhesive.

In the interior, marine shell is present at many sites (cf. Hester 1971 a,b, 1980, Black 1986; Highley 1986). Indeed, ornaments of marine shell imported from the Texas coast are found as early as 5800 years ago at the Bering Sink mortuary site in Kerr County (Bement 1994). Marine shell usually occurs as scattered specimens, especially conch shell fragments, conch columella (often made into either tools or disc-shaped beads), and fragments of ribbed cockle shell such as Dinocardium robustum. Here again, it is my distinct impression that the very late Late Prehistoric peoples had more of this material, as at the Hinojosa site near Alice (Black 1986) and site 41LK201 on the Frio River west of Three Rivers (Highley 19860). An alternative to trade would be interaction between coastal and interior groups; Ricklis (1996) has suggested contemporary cohabitation of a coastal margin site, 41RF21, and perhaps during such events, trade would have taken place. But given the time depth of such trade in the interior of south, central and lower Pecos Texas, I suspect that some other mechanism led to an intensification of exchange in the Late Prehistoric. Certainly once shell artifacts had been obtained by interior groups, they could have been "redistributed" through trade during the annual prickly pear harvests.

Cabeza de Vaca in the Interior will have to wait for another post...
Read More..

The Archaic of Thailand (Part II)

The second day of our trip started in Kanchanaburi, where we headed north towards U-Thong, another Dvaravati site. Before we got there, though, we turned down a small side road until we came to a school with a small building off in the corner.







The small building turned out to be a museum, however it was locked. The key was, fortunately, with a person at the school on the same grounds. It turns out that there had been an excavation, and a small museum had been erected to house the artifacts found. Unfortunately, it is unclear just who is responsible for the museum, so it has not been kept up very well. However, we were able to handle some amazing artifacts that the man from the school simply handed around. One was a bracelet approximately 2,000 years old. While the decrepit state of the facilities was lamentable, the opportunity to be that close to history was incredible.



We next traveled to U-Thong. Like many Dvaravati sites, it was surrounded by an irregular moat. The ruins of this chedi (above) were actually on the outside of the moat, surrounded by urban development (as it probably had been for centuries). There is more to be discovered here, but most of it is occupied by squatters, making it difficult to access.







The museum at U-Thong is very much worth the visit. I was doubly impressed because they allowed us to take photos. They have excellent examples of Dvaravati art, including some incredible rare bronze Buddha statues.



Continuing on our tour is like moving forward through the centuries. In Suphanburi, the moat around the old city is almost rectangular, much like later moated cities. Wat Pra Si Rattana Mahatat was once the central temple of the complex, with a Khmer style prang still visible at the back of the current temple complex. Much of the complex relief work can still be seen on the visible plaster.

While at Wat Pra Si Rattana Mahatat, we were fortunate to be able to view an ordination ceremony--one of the happiest moments in a man's life. The entire community comes together for these festivals, and it is a joyous occassion. This parade was traveling clockwise around one of the temple buildings--I believe it was the viharn. The ordination candidate was being carried around beneath a large umbrella, throwing out candy and lucky coins (little 1 Baht coins with a ribbon tied on).

We continued our journey to two temples: Wat Pratu San and Wat Makham No. These temples both contain excellent examples of Lao, Thai, and Chinese influences in the murals all along the inside walls. The primary artist was a displaced Lao brought back from wars in the east in the late 18th, early 19th centuries. He was brought here to work, where he found his brother was also working nearby. Together they both created works that are still admired today.



Our last visit was to Wat Pa Lelai Worawihan, an ancient temple still in use. Much of the temple is new or reconstructed--including this seated Buddha which was built where, it is believed, an ancient Buddha statue once sat. It is, today, one of the most recognizable symbols of this region, and draws a plethora of pilgrims and tourists at all times of the year.





Carved into the plaster of the walls to either side were this monkey and elephant, reverencing the Buddha. These two animals are apparently a common symbol in Buddhist temples.

With nothing more on the itinerary, we returned to Bangkok and the modern world. This has truly been an incredible trip, and I am sure you will here of many more in future posts.
Read More..

Losari Temple, Indonesia (Part II)

With only a finding that perwara temple is small it makes the team's research, whether in the surrounding areas there is still another temple, or only a single temple. To answer the problems in the year 2008 conducted research stage II. This research is still working with the Foundation as Tahija donors. Based on the experience of years ago to reduce the obstacles in the implementation of the activities - especially the number of water in the rainy season - the phase II study was conducted during the dry season. Research was conducted over 20 days from the date of 5 to 28 August 2008.

However, in the implementation of this research, Archeology Center of Yogyakarta does not stand alone, because there are various institutions that competent on this site. Therefore, in the research reveals Losari Temple Sites Phase II, also involves a variety of institutions, such as: District of Magelang - in this case the Office of Culture and Tourism of Magelang Regency - as the most competent as the owner of the location of the site and as the parties that will take advantage of the existence of the Losari Temple site. Involvement of Culture and Tourism Office Regency of Magelang also supported by the Culture and Tourism Office Province of Central Java. Central Conservation ancient heritage of Central Java based on the basic tasks and functions very competent to save, preserve and restore the Losari Temple. Department of Archeology at the Faculty of Cultural Sciences of Gadjah Mada University as an institution of great academic competent to develop the science through research, notably with the discovery of the new site.

Central Conservation ancient heritage of Central Java with the cost of the installation itself has been doing re-roof the perwara temple's components that had been found. With the discharged of the roof then the temple has been back to the original habitat. Although not perfect yet, because there were some stones of the roof of the temple had not been found yet, especially the top of it, but the form of the temple has begun to appear vertical. The research team of Archeology Center of Yogyakarta supported by students and lecturers of Archeology at Department of Archeology at the Faculty of Cultural Sciences of Gadjah Mada University started the excavation. The involvement of students and lecturers of Archeology is funded by the Office of Culture and Tourism of Central Java, who is also finance the making of the film about Losari Temple.

It is not easy to dig up the excavation boxes because the land is very hard. It takes perseverance, patience, and hard work to be able to reveal Losari temple. Not necessarily for the digging to get the results expected. The first five failed to get results, although the determination of the location of the box has been using geoelectric survey. Failure is not sour and discourage the members of the research team. Boxes in the new lay out and began to be extracted one by one. Apparently they do not struggle vain, in the box on the P22 depth 145 cm appeared a piece of stone cross north-south, that is the bottom of the relief from the usual. The findings are part of the threshold on the second perwara temple. It has raised new hope to be able to find other temples (the third perwara temple and the main temple).

Finally, one by one the parts of the main temple and the perwara temple start to appear. After the second (middle) perwara temple started to show the door entrance, the third (south) perwara temple also began to appear, but the front of the dogs already. Temple perwara third (south) is found in the P28 and P30. Estimated the third perwara temple has the same size. After the third perwara temple was found then the main temple could be found more easily. It is usually located in front of the middle perwara temple. The part of the main temple began to be found, the first stone temple ruins found in the P29. After the box had been dug deeper and eventually extended to the south then the wall structure of the building was found. It was the body wall of the main temple in the east of the entrance of the left temple. On the wall is found mahakala relief, one of the gods guard the entrance of temples. Besides the P31 found in the structure of the body wall of the main temple or the back of the west main temple and the temple on foot. With the two sides found the body temple and the top of the foot temple temple parent's area can be estimated. Body temple is squares shaped with an estimated 360x360 cm² width, while the foot temple is 500x500 cm² width. So the problems have been solved, Losari temple is a Hindu temple, which consists of a main temple and 3 perwara temples. That have not been found successful in this research is the surround fence.
Read More..

The Archaic of Thailand (Part I)

Siam Society trips are organized around Asia and elsewhere, and can be simple daytrips to 3 week tours. There, we can get a chance to visit the ruins of an ancient 6th century civilization, and handle a 2,000 year old bracelet.

The first ruin was the ruins of Wat Phra Men in Nakhon Pathom. Likely built in the 7th century in the Dvaravati style, it was later abandoned, along with the rest of Nakhon Pathom. The four seated buddha statues that would have adorned four alcoves in the central prang, or tower, appear to have been moved to other temples. Bricks were later taken to rebuild the chedi or Wat Phra Pathom, and much of it was looted by robbers. Still, a considerable amount of artifacts were uncovered by archaeologists in the early 20th century, but they were removed from the site and now reside at various museums.




We went to Chula Pathon Chedi, near the center of the old moated city of Nakhon Pathom. There were actually two Pathon Chedis--this was called 'Chula' because it appears to have been much smaller than 'Phra' Pathon Chedi. It has been built and rebuilt several times, and the additions, usually extending the base, can clearly be seen in places. While researching this chedi, a series of bas reliefs were found that had survived the ages--some had been covered by later additions, while others had been simply been covered with dirt and sediment over the centuries. This is still an active archaeological site, and there had been a dig going on only a week before we had arrived.



Phra Pathon Chedi has long been in use, but only recently 'discovered'. The old structure was covered in earth and hidden, and only the new prang-style chedi at the top was visible. Excavations have uncovered the actual brickwork, and in some instances you can clearly see where the newer brick was laid over the old.



Our last stop in Nakhon Pathom was Wat Phra Pathom, one of the oldest Buddhist sites in Thailand and now one of the tallest chedi in the world. The current structure was actually built by King Rama IV, and is built over the old chedi, like a shell. Because of its size, engineers had to build a slight slope into the rising walls to support the weight, and beneath it all are support beams linked with a giant iron chain to help spread the load evenly in all directions. This is one of the most visited pilgrimage sites in Thailand, and it houses a museum of archaeological artifacts from around the region.

We continued up the road to Pong Tuk, in the Tha Maka district. This unassuming site, with its remains of a laterite brick structure, has yielded some important--if potentially controversial--finds for the understanding of Thai history. One such find are these:

They have been called 'stone bells', and have been hung like this for display. Some archaeologists--our guide among them--posit a different theory. You see, in the 6th century, much of inland Thailand was actually part of a large bay. Slowly the bay silted up through deposits left by the rivers flowing in from all sides. In its day, however, there would have been major shipping lanes throughout what is now inland Thailand. Charting out the various Dvaravati sites on top of this extended bay, one sees that most of them sit along the edges of the water--likely for the obvious purposes of fishing and trade. These large stones, left over when the waters receded, were likely boat anchors, similar to ones found in the Mediterranean. The concept of drilling a hole through a stone and then using it as an anchor or anchorage point is not new, and may explain these large stones.

This was also the site where archaeologists found a rare Roman or Byzantine lamp (experts disagree, though the 6th century Byzantine provenance seems much more likely, in my opinion). Apparently it was found in two separate pieces by villagers, who didn't Together with evidence such as 3rd century Roman coins, marked with Victorinus, it shows the extent of trade in the early centuries of the first millenium. We saw a replica of the lamp in the treasure storeroom of a nearby temple.



Our final destination on the first day is at Prasat Muang Singh, in the modern province of Kanchanaburi. After passing through one more archaeological site and museum at Ban Kao we hit the westernmost outpost of the Angkorian Khmer Empire of Jayavarman VII. Built in the Angkorian style of laterite stone during the 13th century, it was probably built to express the power of the Khmer kings on their western frontier.



King Jayavarman VII spread Buddhism to all corners of his empire, and is responsible for perhaps building more Buddhist temples of the Khmer style than any other king. It was not, however, an entirely altruistic gesture, for Jayavarman VII used himself as the model for the statues of the Buddha which he sent out. Thus, he used these constructions to express his power and rule throughout his kingdom.



While Khmer structures often used laterite, the buildings in Angkor, at the heart of the kingdom, covered most exposed sections in carved sandstone. The structure at Prasat Muang Singh was more likely covered in plaster. The relief above would have been the rough carving, with the plaster used to create a more detailed image. I would guess that plaster would have been cheaper--being on the edges of the empire, it would not be expected that the king would exert as much time or resources. This is shown in tremendous detail with a later structure behind the main complex:



While Khmer structures were usually very symmetrical, this later structure shows obvious errors, with many of the rooms being offset slightly--possibly due to an error on the part of the engineers. Such lapses are probably indicators that the knowledge of the building techniques were being lost on the fringes of the empire, corresponding with a general decline in the Khmer empire's power in the outlying regions. Soon, the local Thai people--the Siem or Siam--would begin to carve out their own kingdoms in places like Ayutthaya and Chiang Mai.

That evening we returned to Kanchanaburi, to a hotel on the Kwai river--yes, the one from the movie. The famous bridge was just down the river (Ellen went down to get the shot the next morning). From there we headed up to U-Thong and Suphanburi, but that will have to wait for another post...
Read More..