New Perspectives in Southeast Asian and Pacific Prehistory
Figure 1.1 Peter Bellwood (centre) attending the 15th Congress of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association at Chiang Mai, Thailand, in 1994, with (from left to right) Trinh Nang Chung, Ha Van Tan, Vu The Long, Nguyen Kim Dung, Hoang Xuan Chinh and Bui Vinh.
Figure 1.2 The 1964 Cambridge Limes Tripolitanus Expedition, photographed in Cambridge; Peter Bellwood is standing at the far right.
Figure 1.3 Peter Bellwood (left) at Bābā Jān Tepe, northeastern Luristan, Iran, in 1966.
Figure 1.4 Peter Bellwood during research at Huahine in the Society Islands, French Polynesia, in 1967.
Figure 1.5 Peter Bellwood (right) at Tingkayu, Sabah, Malaysia, in 1982.
Figure 1.6 Peter Bellwood (centre) at Reranum, Itbayat Island, Philippines, in 2006.
Figure 1.7 Peter Bellwood (right) in discussion with Nguyen Kim Dung (left) and Bui Chi Hoang (centre) at Rach Nui, Long An Province, Vietnam, in 2012.
Figure 1.8 Peter Bellwood (left) at the 14th Congress of the Indo-Pacific Association in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, in 1990 with Roger Green (centre) and R.P. Soejono (right).
Figure 1.9 Peter Bellwood at Fuzhou, China, in 2010 with wife Claudia Morris.
Figure 1.10 Peter Bellwood on a 1965 medieval excavation at Grafton Regis, Northamptonshire, England.
Figure 1.11 Peter Bellwood in 1975 at Rano Raraku, Rapa Nui (Easter Island), Chile.
Figure 1.12 Peter Bellwood in 1982 at Tingkayu, Sabah, Malaysia.
Figure 1.13 Peter Bellwood in 1985 at the International Conference on Anthropological Studies of the Taiwan Area, National Taiwan University, Taipei (with K.C. Chang and Wen-hsun Sung).
Figure 1.14 Peter Bellwood in 1986 at Londa village, Tana Toraja, Sulawesi, Indonesia.
Figure 1.15 Peter Bellwood (seated right) at Nagsabaran, northern Luzon, Philippines, in 2009; Standing (left to right) Jonathan de Asis, Marc Oxenham and Eusebio Dizon; Seated (left to right) Mary Jane Louise A. Bolunia (Owis), Tony Peñarosa, Yi-lin Elaine Chen, Philip Piper, Hirofumi Matsumura, Juliet Meyer, Anna Willis, Hsiao-chun Hung and Peter Bellwood.
Figure 1.16 Peter Bellwood with Truman Simanjuntak in Peter’s office at ANU in 2013.
Figure 1.17 Siem Reap Cambodia IPPA (Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association) Congress Symposium ‘Human dispersals and interactions in Asia and Oceania’, 2014; front left to right: Emiri Miyama, Mariko Yamagata, Ian Glover, Peter Bellwood, Naruya Saitou; rear left to right: Ken-ichi Shinoda, Hirofumi Matsumura, Hsiao-chun Hung, Michiko Intoh, Sofwan Noerwidi.
Figure 2.1 A phylogenetic network of 17 human populations based on genome-wide SNP data.
Figure 2.2 A phylogenetic network of three ancient Jomon populations and 15 present-day populations based on mtDNA haplotype frequencies. Scale bar represents the genetic distance between populations based on mitochondrial DNA haplotype frequencies.
Figure 3.1 The geographic distribution of the islands in the Ryukyu Archipelago, and the location of Shiraho-Saonetabaru on Ishigaki Island.
Figure 3.2 Results of PCR-luminex analysis. Number of each lane shows the sample number. Lane 1 and 2 are positive controls and lane 9 is negative control.
Figure 3.3 Results of amplified product length polymorphism (APLP) analysis. Number of each lane shows the sample number.
Figure 4.1 The locality of Gaomiao in southern China.
Figure 4.2 The representative pottery from Gaomiao.
Figure 4.3 The human skeleton M-02 from Gaomiao.
Figure 4.4 The reconstructed skull of M-02 from Gaomiao.
Figure 4.5 Net split tree generated from Q-mode correlation coefficients based on 16 cranial measurements.
Figure 5.1 Map of Java showing locations of the studied specimens. Blue: Pre-Neolithic sites, Red: Palaeometallic sites.
Figure 5.2 Human remains with the mandibles discovered at Song Keplek and Song Tritis sites.
Figure 5.3 Bivariate plot of mesio-distal versus bucco-lingual measurements for LP3.
Figure 5.4 Bivariate plot of mesio-distal versus bucco-lingual measurements for LP4.
Figure 5.5 Bivariate plot of mesio-distal versus bucco-lingual measurements for LM1.
Figure 5.6 Bivariate plot of mesio-distal versus bucco-lingual measurements for LM2.
Figure 5.7 Biplot Graph of PC 1–2 for LP3–LM2 and Map of Axis 1 versus Axis 2.
Figure 5.8 Biplot Graph of PC 1–3 for LP3–LM2 and Map of Axis 1 versus Axis 3.
Figure 5.9 Biplot Graph of PC 2–3 for LP3–LM2 and Map of Axis 2 versus Axis 3.
Figure 5.10 Cluster analysis on LP3-LM2 from all specimens by Euclidean Distance Method.
Figure 5.11 The multiple migrations hypothesis: Australo-Melanesian (Latest Pleistocene), Southeast Asian or ‘Southern Mongoloid’ (Austronesian, 3000 BP), and ‘gracile’ (early AD, perhaps from India).
Figure 6.1 Map of Borneo illustrating the location of the Upper Birang and other key archaeological sites across the island.
Figure 6.2 An illustration of the four walls of Trench KMS/C4 showing the different archaeological layers and units excavated, and the approximate locations of radiocarbon dates.
Figure 6.3 An example of retouched fragments of shell artefact from the Upper Birang River sites.
Figure 6.4 Lithic implements from KMS/C4: utilised flakes (2 & 3), retouched flakes (5 & 6), and utilised and retouched flakes (7–16).
Figure 6.5 Lithic implements from KMS/C4: hammerstone fragments (17 & 18), hammerstone and grindstone (19), and grindstone fragment (20).
Figure 6.6 Incised rim sherds from Lubang Payau.
Figure 7.1 The location of Peñablanca karst formations in northern Luzon, Philippines.
Figure 7.2 The locations of the Callao Cave excavation units.
Figure 7.3 Sections of the west and north walls of Squares 1 and 2 showing the locations of the micromorphological soil samples (white boxes).
Figure 7.4 Sample thin sections from Callao Cave.
Figure 7.5 Sample thin sections from Callao Cave.
Figure 7.6 Sample thin sections from Callao Cave.
Figure 7.7 Stratigraphic correlations between Squares 1 and 2, 3 and 4, and 55.
Figure 8.1 Sites in the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago with jars used as mortuary containers.
Figure 8.2 Stratigraphic section and contents of Sabbang Loang 1999 test burial jar in northwest corner.
Figure 8.3 Large earthenware burial jar at Gua Lampetia sketched by Ambra Calo after its exposure in test pit.
Figure 8.4 Twelve Indo-Malaysian traditions using jars as mortuary containers.
Figure 9.1 Map of An Son and other sites analysed in this contribution.
Figure 9.2 CA plots for the Southeast Asian Neolithic cultural variables. Occupation and burial data separated. Top: sites; bottom: variables. Refer to Table 9.2 for variable codes.
Figure 9.3 CA plots for the Southeast Asian Neolithic cultural variables. Occupation and burial data combined, except for An Son. Top: sites; bottom: variables. Refer to Table 9.2 for variable codes.
Figure 9.4 Distribution of notable non-ceramic material culture in Mainland Southeast Asia.
Figure 9.5 Distribution of notable An Son ceramic vessel forms and dominant tempers in Mainland Southeast Asia. The arrows point to sites beyond the coloured sphere with the specified variable.
Figure 9.6 Distribution of notable modes of decoration on ceramic vessels in Mainland Southeast Asia. The arrows point to sites beyond the coloured sphere with the specified variable.
Figure 10.1 Austronesian settlement zones in the North Pacific.
Figure 10.2 Map of the Ryukyu Islands showing the location of the Nagabaka site, Miyako Island.
Figure 10.3 Peter Bellwood excavating at the Nagabaka site in 2008.
Figure 10.4 Slate sickle from Nagabaka.
Figure 10.5 Slate reaping knife from Nagabaka.
Figure 11.1 The proposed route of Austroasiatic and Austronesian migration into Indonesia and the geographic distribution of sites that have produced red-slipped and cord-marked pottery discussed in the text.
Figure 12.1 The location of Nagsabaran on the east side of the Cagayan River close to Lal-lo in northern Luzon, Philippines.
Figure 12.2 Stratigraphy of Test Pit 9 from Nagsabaran.
Figure 12.3 Pottery production indicating mobile settlement – selection of fabrics in the Early Lapita Arawe assemblages.
Figure 12.4 Selection of fabrics within Later Lapita assemblages: Sedentary signature.
Figure 12.5 Selection of fabrics expected from specialist general production.
Figure 12.6 PCA plot of Neolithic showing CPCRUs.
Figure 12.7 PCA plot of Iron Age showing CPCRUs.
Figure 12.8 Comparison of Neolithic and Iron Age CPCRUs using components 1 and 2.
Figure 12.9 Comparison of Neolithic and Iron Age CPCRUs using components 1 and 3.
Figure 12.10 Image of pottery fabric – Neolithic at 160x magnification.
Figure 12.11 Image of pottery fabric – Iron Age at 160x magnification.
Figure 13.1 Map of Fais Island in Micronesia.
Figure 13.2 Summary diagram of excavated materials from Fais Island.
Figure 14.1 Cultivated green foxtail in the loess in North China (top left).
Figure 14.2 Cultivated perennial wild rice in South China (top middle).
Figure 14.3 Wild perennial rice (Oryza rufipogon) and domesticated rice (Oryza sativa) grains for the comparative cultivation experiment in 2012 (top right).
Figure 14.4 Flowering domesticated rice (bottom left).
Figure 14.5 Harvesting domesticated rice using shell knife (bottom right).
Figure 14.6 Charcoal and phytolith grains found in contemporary farming land of foxtail millet. Magnification about 400X (left).
Figure 14.7 Charcoal and phytolith grains found in contemporary farming land of green foxtail. Magnification about 400X (right).
Figure 15.1 The geographic locations of sites (in italics) where domestic animals have been recorded in the archaeological record prior to 3000 BP.
Figure 15.2 The proposed points of origin and routes of translocation of pigs and chicken across Mainland and Island Southeast Asia.
Figure 15.3 The proposed routes of translocation of dogs across Mainland and Island Southeast Asia.
Figure 17.1 The major subgroups of Oceanic.
Figure 18.1 Map of Southern and Central Vietnam showing the general locations of the pre-Sa Huynh and Sa Huynh sites discussed in the text (1. Sa Huynh, Phu Khuong, Thanh Duc; 2. Long Thanh, Dong Cuom; 3. Phu Hoa, Dau Giay, Suoi Chon, Hang Gon; 4. Go Dinh, Hon Do; 5. Dai Lanh, My Tuong, Go Mun; 6. Con Rang; 7. Pa Xua; 8. Tam My; 9. Go Dua, Binh Yen, Que Loc; 10. Go Ma Voi; 11. Hua Xa I and II, Lai Nghi, An Bang; 12. Xom Oc, Suoi Chinh; 13. Go Que; 14. Hoa Vinh, Bau Hoe; 15. Giong Ca Vo, Giong Phet; 16. Giong Lon, Giong Ca Trang; 17. Hoa Diem).
Figure 18.2 Types of jade/nephrite ornaments recovered from Sa Huynh burials.
Figure 18.3 Sa Huynh Ornaments found across Southeast Asia.
Figure 18.4 Sa Huynh beads and pendants.
Figure 18.5 Gold objects in Sa Huynh cultural sites.
Figure 19.1 Locality map of sites relating to this chapter. Circle: Distribution sphere of the Sa Huynh culture in Vietnam.
Figure 19.2 Typical jar, lid, and funerary goods of the Sa Huynh culture.
Figure 19.3 Sa Huynh pottery locally called ‘noi’, found at the Sa Huynh and Thach Bich sites; (right) height: 11.0 cm; (left) height: 12.5 cm.
Figure 19.4 A spherical burial jar uncovered from the site of Hoa Diem (Burial No. 07HDH1M6, max diameter: 55–59 cm; height: 42.6 cm).
Figure 19.5 Burial jars (left) and lid (right, a pedestal vessel laid upside down upon the jar) decorated with the impression of a shell edge uncovered from Hoa Diem (Burial No. 07HDH1M14, height of jar: 27.1 cm; height of lid: 23.5 cm).
Figure 19.6 Pottery from Kalanay (7–9), Hoa Diem (4–6), Samui (1–3). Rim diameter: 4. 10.2 cm; 5. 15.0 cm; 6. 20.2 cm. Size unknown; 1–3, 7–9.
Figure 19.7 Funerary accessory pottery vessels found at Hoa Diem (top: height 9.5 cm with rim diameter of 9.4 cm (outer); middle: height 4.7 cm with rim diameter of 12.5 cm; and bottom: height 15.6 cm with rim diameter of 15.1 cm).
Figure 19.8 Extended burial and skull at Hoa Diem 2 (Burial No. 10HD2M1) and inhumation jar burial and skull at Hoa Diem 1 (Burial No. 10HD1H3M4).
Figure 19.9 Neighbor-net tree based on 16 craniometric data sets (symbols: see Table 19.1).
Figure 20.1 Map showing the location of the Lo Gach site.
Figure 20.2 Matting impressions remaining on the clay floor surface at Lo Gach: a. Sample SA3-29; b. Sample SA3-33; c. Sample SA1-70.
Figure 20.3 (a) Schematic diagram showing the construction of plaited matting; (b) Contemporary woven reed floor mat purchased in a market at Tan An, Long An Province in 2014.
Figure 20.4 Location of Neolithic matting sites in the lower Yangzi Valley mentioned in the text.
Figure 21.1 Location of Non Ban Jak in Northeast Thailand.
Figure 21.2 Plan of Non Ban Jak, showing the two areas excavated.
Figure 21.3 The first inkling that residential structures would be found at Non Ban Jak came as white walls and a floor were revealed.
Figure 21.4 The surface of layer 5.2 in the eastern square showing superimposed buildings. A. is the eastern wall of the later structure. B. is the eastern wall of the earlier building, which was laid out on a different orientation. C. is the clay floor bearing what are probably bamboo impressions. D. is a ceramic kiln laid out on the same orientation as the earlier of the two structures. E. is an infant burial cut through the floor, and F. is the kitchen area. In the foreground, one can see the charcoal, ash and burnt daub of the floors and collapsed walls of the earlier building.
Figure 21.5 Layer 2 in the eastern square, showing the mortuary chamber containing the graves of an adult, a child and an infant. A rectangular clay floor can be seen in the distance, cut by a rectangular pit. A lane between two buildings runs north–south on the left of the photograph before turning a right angle.
Figure 21.6 The plan of the western mound excavation showing unit numbers, and the layout of graves and structures during the third mortuary phase.
Figure 21.7 The western square included a wall ending with a large stone against which an infant jar burial had been interred. An adult burial had been cut through the floor and a second lay at right angles to the right. Another infant burial jar is seen in the centre of the image.
Figure 21.8 Domestic activity associated with the houses is seen in the many cooking hearths. In this instance, a set of stones surrounds ash and a broken cooking vessel.
Figure 21.9 Three graves were cut through the clay floor of this walled chamber in the western square.