Long-distance trade in obsidian from sources in the southwest Pacific has been well-documented for the Lapita culture complex, beginning about 1600 BC Analyses of obsidian artifacts from recent

excavations at Bukit Tengkorak in southeastern Sabah (Borneo, Malaysia) indicate the use of obsidian from multiple sources in Melanesia as early as the 5th millennium BC The archaeological

presence of obsidian, up to more than 3500 Ian from its source, is the surviving evidence of what was almost certainly the longest Neolithic trade route in the world. In addition, these results indicate that long-distance trade networks existed in Indonesia at least 2500 years prior to the Lapita culture, and strengthen hypotheses of its origins in southeast Asia

Chia, Assoc Prof. Dr. Stephen, Ming Soon

Tykot, Robert H.

English

Repository@USM

LONG-DISTANCE OBSIDIAN TRADE IN INDONESIAROBERT H. TYKOT ., STEPHEN CHIA **·Department of Anthropology, U. of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620, rtykot@luna.cas.usf.edu**Pusat Penyelidikan Arkeologi Malaysia, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 Penang, MalaysiaABSTRACTLong-distance trade in obsidian from sources in the southwest Pacific has been well-docwnentedfor the Lapita culture complex, beginning about 1600 BC Analyses ofobsidian artifacts from recentexcavations at Bukit Tengkorak in southeastern Sabah (Borneo, Malaysia) indicate the use ofobsidian from multiple sources in Melanesia as early as the 5th millenniwn BC The archaeologicalpresence of obsidian, up to more than 3500 Ian from its source, is the surviving evidence of whatwas almost certainly the longest Neolithic trade route in the world. In addition, these results indicatethat long-distance trade networks existed in Indonesia at least 2500 years prior to the Lapita culture,and strengthen hypotheses of its origins in southeast Asia.INTRODUCTIONObsidian is a natural volcanic glass, typicallY of rhyolitic composltlon and without anysignificant crystalline structure, which was widely used for prehistoric stone tools because of itsconchoidal fracture and extremely sharp cutting edges. Obsidian is fonned only under certaingeological conditions and the number of sources in a single geographic region which are suitable forstone tool manufacture is limited. The combination ofa homogeneous chemical composition withinindividual obsidian sources and a restricted number of potentially exploitable sources almost alwayspermits the confident attribution of an archaeological artifact to a single geological source usingmodern instrumental methods ofelemental analysis, at least in regions where the geological sourcesare known and well-characterized. Numerous provenance studies of archaeological obsidian havedemonstrated the long-distance <trade' of this material while the resulting distribution patterns areusually interpreted in tenns of prehistoric sociopolitical and economic systems [I). Obsidian sourcelists and relevant information are maintained by the International Association for Obsidian Studieson the World Wide Web [2J-At least 66 obsidian sources exist in the southwest Pacific, and these have been studied, analyzedand catalogued over the last 20 years by 1.R. Bird and his colleagues at the Australian NuclearScience & Technology Organisation's Lucas Heights Research Laboratories in Sydney [3-12J- Someobsidian sources were locally exploited as eady as 20,000 BP; the most expansive use of obsidian,however, seems to have occurred during the period when Lapita voyagers colonized the easternMelanesian and Polynesian islands and brought obsidian and pottery-making skills with them [9,13].The distribution ofobsidian from a 'homelands' area in New Britain and the Bismarck Archipelago,eastwards to Fiji [I4J, represents a linear distance of at least 3300 km.Lapita links to the west ofNew Guinea have been the subject of some debate, with some scholarsfavoring a predominantly Melanesian development of the Lapita culture, and others preferring apredominantly southeast Asian origin. Obsidian artifacts have been discovered at several sites inIndonesia (Bandung Plateau, Bogor, Besuki and Lake Leles in Java; Djambi and Lake Kerinci inSumatra; Rundung Cave in Flores) and the Philippines (RizaJ, Laguna, Bulacan, and CavitaProvinces) but appear to have come from local sources [15-19]. The lone exception is the rock-175Mat. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. Vol. 462 c 1997 Materials Research Societyshelter site of Bukit Tengkorak in northern Borneo, where Melanesian obsidian has been found inlevels contemporary with the Lapita culture [20-21 ].ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCHTest excavations in 1987 by P. Bellwood and P. Koon of the rock-shelter complex at BukitTengkorak ('Skull Hill'), on the coast 5 krn south of Sempoma in southeastern Sabah (Borneo,Malaysia), produced a total of 188 pieces of obsidian (total weight S8 g) from a volwne under 2cubic meters, with 95 of the 99 pieces from secure stratigraphic contexts dating between about 900and 400 BC [20-21). Of the 12 obsidian artifacts analyzed, 5 match the Talasea source (now knownmore precisely as the KutauIBao sub-source) in New Britain and 7 match a few artifacts from theTalaud Islands in Indonesia for which no geological source has yet been identified [22-23].Further excavations were conducted in 1994 and 1995 by a joint Universiti Sains Malaysia andSabah Museum team under the direction of S. Chia, with three additional trenches excavated at therockshelter at the top of the hill, and three more about 30 feet below the rockshelter. In levels datingas early as 4300 Be, traces of Neolithic occupation were discovered. The inhabitants were probablyan Austronesian-speaking people with origins in the Philippines, who may have lived in raised·floorhouses, had domestic dogs, pigs, and chickens, and probably cultivated rice, millet, sugar cane, yamsand other crops, although at Bulcit Tengkorak they also consumed significant amounts of seafoodjudging from the mollusk and fish remains found there. They used polished stone adzes, the bowand arrow, and traveled in canoes, probably with outriggers and sails [24-25]. At Bukit Tengkorak,large clay deposits and abundant pottery wasters in open hearths were found, indicating that the sitewas a major prehistoric ceramic production center. 198 pieces of obsidian (total weight 60 g) werealso discovered, mostly in the form of tiny flakes less than 2 cm in length, along with occasionalbladelets and a few exhausted core fragments. Since no obsidian sources are known to exist inBorneo, the simple presence of obsidian in such early contexts implied long-distance trade prior tothe Lapita period, and the identification of the sources present at Bukit Tengkorak became of greafsignificance for our understanding of Neolithic exchange systems in Malaysia and Indonesia.OBSIDIAN ANALYSISVisual examination of the obsidian assemblage revealed examples ranging from black, highlytranslucent and very glassy, to grey-black, less glassy, and totally opaque, and each artifact wasattributed to one of six visual types based on these characteristics. Fifteen samples each fromtrenches G 17 (levels 13-26) and J 19 (levels) 2-24) were selected for analysis with aU visuaJ typesrepresented. The electron microprobe, equipped with wavelength dispersive X-ray spectrometers,was chosen for the analysis since this technique provides rapid, inexpensive and quantitativeconcentration data for all major and minor elements. A detailed description of the application of thistechnique to obsidian analysis has been published elsewhere and need not be repeated in its entiretyhere [26].Only a small, 1 mm sized sample is required, so the method is minimally destructive. Thesamples were mounted in one-inch diameter epoxy disks and polished flat using a succession of finergrit grinding wheels and diamond paste, a process which is necessary to produce quantitative resultsand which also eliminates surface Jayers subject to chemical aJteration by abrasion, leaching andhydration. After sputter-coating with carbon to prevent electrical charging, the samples wereanalyzed for 11 elements by the authors using the Cameca MBX microprobe located in the176Department of Earth & Planetary Sciences at Harvard University, using a 15 KeY beam with adiameter of 40 microns. The X-ray detectors were calibrated against pure mineral standards and ahornblende reference material was repeatedly analyzed to insure inter-laboratory and inter-methodcomparability. Three different points on each sample were analyzed to protect against the potentialheterogeneity ofmicrolite inclusions. Two of the ninety measurements were rejected; the results foreach sample were then averaged and nonnalized to 100% (Table I).DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONExploratory statistical and graphical examination of the data revealed that obsidian from at leastthree chemically distinct sources was utilized at Bukit Tengkorak (Figure 1). Group A consists of17 samples, all of which belong to the very glassy, highly translucent visual types; group B consistsof 12 samples, all but one of them less glassy, and less translucent or even opaque; one sample, alsoless glassy and totally opaque, represents group C. Careful comparison of our microprobe data withthe Lucas Heights database [7,27] indicates that group A matches the very well characterizedKutaulBao (Talasea, New Britain) source, already known for its wide distribution in Melanesia (andalso to Bukit Tengkorak) in the Lapita period. Group 8 matches the Talaud artifact group, definedby only a handful of specimens from the Talaud Islands and from the earlier excavations at BukitTengkorak. The single sample in group C comes from one of the Admiralty Islands (Lou Island)which consists of a succession of volcanic flows: three (Solang, Umrei, Wekwok) match group C.These three sources are extremely similar in their major/minor element composition, and thepotential for slight differences between analytical methods warrants against a unique attribution untilwe have the opportunity to analyze sufficient source material ourselves.Most of the KutaulBao samples come from later levels at Bukit Tengkorak (15 in levels 12-19;2 in levels 22-24), while most of the Talaud group samples come from earlier levels (8 in levels 22-24; 4 in levels 12-19), suggesting chronological changes in the relative importance of differentobsidian sources. It has been argued that geographical proximity ofarchaeological site to geologicalsource was the most important factor in earlier periods, while mobility patterns and social networksbecame of greater significance in later periods [10-11]. We must be cautious, however, in theinterpretation ofour Bukit Tengkorak data since the analyzed samples were not selected randomlyfrom the overall assemblage. The single piece of Admiralty Island obsidian is from one of the laterlevels.In conclusion, our findings demonstrate that long-distance, maritime trade networks existedbetween southeast Asia and Melanesia by the late 5th millenniwn BC. This suggests that at least one:,>ulI(Heasl ASU1.rtte archaeOlogical presence at bukltfengkoraK of obSidian more than 3S0u ionfrom its source is the surviving evidence of what was almost certainly the longest stone-age traderoute in the world.ACKNOWLEDGMENTWe thank David Lange for his assistance in operating the electron microprobe.177Table I. Electron microprobe data for obsidian from Bukit Tengkorak.Sample Level SiOz Alp) Ti02 FezOJ MgO CaO NazO KzO P205 MnO BaO TotalJ 19/445 12 76.63 12.50 0.22 1.22 0.22 1.17 3.97 3.88 0.05 0.06 0.08 -100.00119/411 12 76.78 12.54 0.23 1.19 0.21 1.14 3.90 3.89 0.02 0.05 0.04 100.00JI9/408 12 76.72 12.56 0.23 1.22 0.22 1.13 3.91 3.88 0.03 0.05 0.05 100.00119/135 12 76.77 12.56 0.24 1.17 0.22 1.12 3.87 3.90 0.03 0.05 0.07 100.00JI9I3606 12 76.66 12.54 0.22 1.25 0.22 1.17 3.88 3.92 0.05 0.05 0.05 100.00017/21 13 76.72 12.57 0.23 1.15 0.22 1.16 3.89 3.88 0.03 0.06 0.08 100.00G17/356 14 76.66 12.54 0.22 1.26 0.22 1.16 3.85 3.93 0.04 0.05 0.07 100.00Jl9/342 14 76.61 12.60 0.22 1.21 0.22 LIS 3.85 3.96 0.04 0.04 0.09 100.00119/354 14 76.81 12.49 0.23 1.23 0.22 1.'13 3.87 3.88 0.04 0.06 0.04 100.00GI7/3133 15 76.66 12.57 0.22 1.23 0.23 1.16 3.87 3.91 0.04 0.07 0.02 100.00017/3130 15 76.75 12.50 0.22 1.20 0.22 1.16 3.86 3.90 0.04 0.06 0.07 100.00017/2637 17 76.69 12.58 0.24 1.19 0.22 1.14 3.84 3.92 0.05 0.06 0.08 100.00G17/2636 17 76.70 12.54 0.23 1.24 0.22 1.15 3.87 3.87 0.03 0.06 0.07 100.00017/1240 18 76.65 12.51 0.22 1.25 0.22 1. 15 3.88 3.94 0.03 0.06 0.07 100.00GI712403 19 76.73 12.52 0.23 1.24 0.22 1.16 3.86 3.86 0.03 0.06 0.08 100.00G17/928 22 76.57 12.53 0.23 1.23 0.22 1.16 3.95 3.92 0.03 0.06 0.09 100.00119/2539 24 76.75 12.45 0.22 1.22 0.22 1.13 3.94 3.89 0.04 0.05 0.07 100.00Group A mean 76.70 12.54 0.23 1.22 0.22 1.15 3.89 3.90 0.04 0.06 0.07 100.00sd 0.06 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00119/369 14 71.64 14.68 0.19 1.78 0.10 0.17 4.94 5.76 0.02 0.11 0.00 100.00J19/3261 15 71.26 14.91 0.21 1.69 0.10 0.79 5.06 5.86 0.03 0.08 0.00 100.00G17/3112 16 71.25 14.85 0.20 1.83 0.10 0.80 5.02 5.81 0.03 OJl 0.01 100.00G17/123I 18 71.31 14.84 0.20 1.80 O.ll 0.79 5.01 5.80 0.03 0.10 0.02 100.00119/3215 23 70.58 15.23 0.25 1.73 0.13 0.83 5.19 5.93 0.03 0.09 0.00 100.00119/3199 23 71.36 14.69 0.20 1.90 0.10 0.79 5.02 5.81 0.03 0.09 0.0 I 100.00119/2538 24 71_70 14.59 0.18 1.90 0.09 0.80 4.93 5.66 0.01 0.10 0.02 100.00G17/2648 24 71.36 14.79 0.21 1.80 0.10 0.79 4.96 5.84 0.02 0.11 0.02 100.00GI7/949 24 71.32 14.82 0.20 1.82 0.10 0.78 5.01 5.82 0.02 0.11 0.01 100.00119/2521 24 71.39 14.85 0.21 1.76 0.10 0.78 4.92 5.87 0.02 0.09 0.00 100.00GI712151 25 71.30 14.90 0.21 1.73 0.09 0.76 4.98 5.90 0.03 0.10 0.01 100.00G17/1383 26 71.50 14.86 0.20 1.80 0.10 0.79 4.99 5.83 0.02 0.10 O.OJ 100.00Group B mean 71.33 14.83 0.21 1.80 0.10 0.79 5.00 5.82 0.02 0.10 0.01 100.00sd 0.27 0.15 0.02 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00119/3049 15 12.80 13.78 0.30 2.44 0.24 1.14 4.98 4.13 0.04 0.06 0.08 100.00Group C178•14Al203 (%)15 16AoBc•Figure I. Bivariate plot of AI20) and CaO concentrations in obsidian from Bukit Tengkorak.REFERENCES1. CE. Skinner and K.l. Tremaine, Obsidian: An Interdiscip1inaa Bibliography (InternationalAssociation for obsidian Studies Occasional paper 1, 1993).2. http://'-'\\tw.peak.org/obsidianlobsidian.html.3. l.R. Bird, L.H. Russell, M.D. Scott and W.R. Ambrose, Analytical ChemistI)' 50,2082-84(1978).4. P. Duerden, J.R. Bird, M.D. Scott, E. Clayton, L.H. Russell and D.D. Cohen, NuclearInstruments and Methods 168,447-452 (1980).5. . l.R. Bird, W.R. Ambrose, L.H. Russell and M.D. Scott, The Characterisation of MelanesianObsidian Sources and Artefacts Usin~ the Proton-induced Gamma-Ray Emission (PIGME)Technique (Report No. El51 0, Australian Atomic Energy Commission, Lucas Heights, 1981).6. l.R. Bird, P. Duerden, W.R. Ambrose and B.F. Leach, in Archaeological Studies of PacificStone Resources, edited by B.F. Leach and l. Davidson (British Archaeological Reports 104,Oxford, 198'1), pp. 31-43.7. P. Duerden, E. Clayton, l.R. Bird, W. Ambrose and F. Leach, in Archaeometry: FurtherAustralasian Studies, edited by W.R. Ambrose and J.M.J. Mummery (Australian NationalUniversity/Australian National Gallery, Canberra, 1987), pp. 250-260.8. l.R. Bird and N. Shahgholi, in 7th Australian Conference on Nuclear Techniques of Analysis(Australian Institute of Nuc1ear Science and Engineering, 1991), pp. 110-113.9. J.R. Bird, in La Pierre Prehistorique, edited by M. Menu and P. Walter (Laboratoire deRecherche des Musees de France, 1992), pp. 59-66.17910. G.R. Summerhayes. J.R. Bird, M. Hotchkiss, C. Gosden, 1. Specht, R. Torrence and R.Fullagar, in 8th Australian Conference on Nuclear TechniQues of Analysis (Australian Instituteof Nuclear Science and Engineering, 1993), pp. 107-109.II. l.R. Bird., R. Torrence, G.M. Bailey and G. Summerhayes, in 5th Australasian Conference onArchaeometry (University ofNew England, Annidale. NSW, forthcoming).12. G. Summerhayes, l.R. Bird, R. Fullagar. C. Gosden, 1. Specht and R. Torrence, inArchaeological Obsidian Studies. Method and TheaIY, edited by M.S. Shackley (Plenum, NewYork, 1997).13. G. Irwin, The Prehistoric Exploration and Colonisation of the Pacific (Cambridge UniversityPress. 1992).14. S. Best, Archaeology in Qceania 22,21-32 (1987).15. H.~G. Bandi, in Suseestudien. Gedenkschrift zur Erinnerune an Felix Speiser, edited by H.-G.Gandi et al. (Museum fur Volkerkunde und Schweizerischen, Basel, 1951), pp. 127-161.16. N.A. Subagas, Modem QuatemaQ' Research in Southeast Asia 5, 35-41 (1979).17. H.R. van Heekeran, The Stone Age of Indonesia (Nijhoff, The Hague, 2nd edition. 1972).18. RO. Beyer, Bulletin No. 29 National Research Council of the Philippines (Quezon City,1948).19. R.B. Fox. The Tabon Caves (National Museum Monograph 1, Manila, 1970).20. P. Bellwood and P. Koon, Antiquity 63,613-622 (1989).21. P. Bellwood, Bulletin aCIDe Indo-Pacific PrehistorY Association 9, 122-161 (1989).22. 1.R. Bird, Bulletin arIDe Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 9, 161-162 (1989).23. P. BeIJwood, Asian Perspectives 19,240-288 (1976).24. P. Bellwood, Journal oCWarld PrehistorY 1,171-224 (1987).25. P. Bellwood, Borneo Research Bulletin 24, 7-16 (1992).26. R.H. Tykot, Journal of Archaeological Science 24 (1997).27. J.R. Bird, Pacific Obsidian Studies (Department of Prehistory, Research School of PacificStudies, Australian National University, Canberra, forthcoming).180

Long-Distance Obsidian Trade In Indonesia.

http://eprints.usm.my/11114/1/Long_Distance_Obsidian_Trade_in_Indonesia_(Robert_H._Tykot_-_Stephen_Chia).pdf

Long-Distance Obsidian Trade In Indonesia.

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Repository@USM