Utilizing Rock Art to Trace Human Migration: Case Studies From

UTILIZING ROCK ART TO TRACE HUMAN MIGRATION: CASE STUDIES FROM

SARAWAK, MALAYSIAN BORNEO

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI‘I AT MĀNOA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

ANTHROPOLOGY

DECEMBER 2016

Rachel B. Hoerman

Dissertation Committee:

Miriam Stark, Chairperson Christian Peterson Paul Taçon John Peterson Kirstin Pauka

Keywords: Borneo, Southeast Asian Rock Art, “Neolithic”, Austronesian Painting Tradition, Austronesian Engraving Style

ii Dedication

This is for Elaine, whom I miss daily. Part of me rests, prairie-bound, with you. This is also for Lena. I would give the world to spend another afternoon baking with you. And Rose, Elmer, Ruth, Eddie, Mable, Ginger and Ebony for their light hearts and love without strings.

iii Acknowledgements

I thank my Aunt Barb for her wisdom, insight and introducing me to the world. You have always inspired me, and I love you.

My graduate career and research have benefitted endlessly from Dr. Miriam

Stark’s consistently stellar (and truly superhuman) guidance, advocacy and support. The last near-decade has been an unparalleled education in the exemplary kinds of teaching, mentoring, research, service and morality that hallmark exceptional academics and human beings.

Extreme good fortune led to our lives intersecting in paradise. Thank you all for showing me family: Shanna Clinton, Chris Filimoehala (and for the dissertation graphics!), Adam Lauer, Darby Filimoehala, Jana Suverkropp, Antonia Alvarez and Ruben

Campos. And the women who showed me the pleasure of female friendship: Heather

Youngs, Bianca Schoultz-Wallace and Cheryl Koffley.

Kim Wiegert, Greg Schroepfer and Terry Schroepfer: the way you held us together during the worst years of our lives made me so proud. And Sharon Schroepfer - the selfless, loving compassion you showed a dying woman was beautiful. The Gallenbergs,

Hafners and countless great aunts, uncles and extended family provided loving support.

Your tales of the Old Country, Northwoods pioneers, and World War II fostered the childhood love for archaeology that brought me here.

I thank Lawrence University as an institution for an education and buffet of opportunity I did not appreciate until years later. Every professor and class I had prompted an epic paradigm shift. Dr. Mary Blackwell nominated me for a life-changing

iv scholarship that made Vienna, Eastern Europe and Madrid each home for a while. Frank

Lewis effused an infectious passion for art and conservation. Dr. Michael Orr’s wit and intellect were searing. Dr. Monica Rico and Dr. Franklin Doeringer made history come to life in numerous independent studies. Dr. Mark Dintenfass’ fiction courses were some of the most enjoyable classroom time I have ever logged. Dr. Gerald Podair’s lectures were absolutely electric.

Thank you, Dr. Alison Carter, for inspiring my appreciation of Southeast Asian archaeology with your own, and for infinitely enjoyable life parallels in Madison and

Phnom Penh and at every conference since. Cheers, Dr. Jason Yaeger and Dr. Jaime Awe, for making a summer of wonder in Belize possible. Dr. Christian Peterson provided astonishingly accurate advice regarding the pursuit of a Ph.D. and career in archaeology.

Thank you, Dr. Paul Taçon, for granting me an incredible introduction to the rock art research world and for your time, communications and generosity through the years and across the ocean.

Since this project began, colleagues and local people in Borneo have been extraordinary sources of opportunity, advice and collegiality. Research support from the administrators and staff of the Sarawak Museum Department made this project possible. Very special thanks to Mr. Ipoi Datan, Dr. Charles Leh, Sherman, Hans van de

Bunte, Yasmin, Mr. Bonnie, Mona, Miza and Zaffrey for their collegiality, enthusiasm and innumerable kindnesses. Franca Cole and Christine Horn deserve to be recognized for their incredible intellect, work ethic and collegiality that included sharing images for this project. Kading Sultan of Ba’Kalelan should be recognized for his professionalism,

v the vegetarian meals he prepared from the Bornean jungle that were greatly appreciated, and the concern he harbors for his community, their history and the legacy left future generations. Cheers to Mike and Koon Boon and John Ting for your warm welcome and the field trips, dinners and insightful, enjoyable conversations that ensued. Lisa, meeting you was worth the recce! Thanks for the lovely Big Island spring break and friendship that has since fluoresced. Thanks also to the enthusiasm and kindnesses of Tom McLaughlin, the lovely Suriani and Dzul.

Generous subsidy for field research and results write-up was provided by the

Anthropology Department and Colleges of Arts and Sciences at the University of Hawai'i at Mānoa, the American Association of University Women (AAUW) – Honolulu Branch and the national AAUW.

vi Abstract

This study uses rock art as a proxy to track human movement on Borneo during the poorly understood “Neolithic” peopling of Island Southeast Asia, c. 6 - 2 ka. This pivotal time period involved major population movements and the advent of agriculture; it also brought with it new “Neolithic” material culture throughout the region. Rock art is a neglected archaeological data source in Southeast Asian archaeology, and Borneo’s rock art holds great potential for studying modern human movement and symbolic behavior. This dissertation inventories the breadth and depth of Bornean rock art and generates a techno-chronological timeline for Bornean rock art to establish a basis for delineating endemic and intrusive rock art design systems from the Paleolithic through modern periods. It evaluates the Bornean presence of two diagnostically “Neolithic” rock art traditions found elsewhere in Island Southeast Asia and the Pacific: the Austronesian Painting Tradition (APT) and Austronesian Engraving

Style (AES). Multiple synchronic and diachronic rock art practices are described, including a distinctly Bornean version of the APT and a single instance of the AES that expand our understanding of the Bornean and Southeast Asian archaeological narratives. This work additionally underscores the continued utility of stylistic analysis, relative dating and long-term, innovative rock art conservation in archaeological research.

vii Table of Contents

Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………………………………………….iv Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….vii List of Tables.…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………xi List of Figures…………………………………………………………….…………………………………….………....xiii

Chapter 1 Introduction 1

1.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………..1 1.2 The archaeological importance of Borneo and Bornean rock art.…....………………….4 1.3 Research aims………………………………………………………………………….…………………………8 1.4 Research methods…………………………………………………………………………………………….10 1.5 Research assumptions, limitations and restrictions…………………………..………………11 1.6 Rock art as archaeological data…………………………………………………………………………12 1.7 Rock art terminology…………………………………………………………………………………………13 1.8 Research results……………………………………………………………………………………………….18 1.8.1 Establishing the character, dates and cultural affiliations of Bornean rock art....17 1.8.2 The Austronesian Painting Tradition (APT), Austronesian Engraving Style and other “Neolithic” rock art practices on Borneo….…………………………..…………………20 1.9 Thesis Structure…………………………………………………………………………………………...….21 1.10 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………..………22

Chapter 2 Archaeological Approaches to Human Migration, Neolithic Horizons, Maritime Interaction and Diagnostic Rock Art Traditions 23

2.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………..…23 2.2 Part One: Global archaeological approaches to migration, the “Neolithic” and diagnostic rock art traditions…………………………………………………………………………….25 2.2.1 Archaeological approaches to migration…………………………………………………………..25 2.2.2 Rock art research and migration……………………………………………………………………….28 2.2.3 World Neolithic conventions and Southeast Asian “Neolithic” horizons……………30 2.2.4 Southeast Asian and Western Pacific “Neolithic” maritime migrations/ interactions………………………………………………………..…………………………………………….33 2.2.5 Diagnostic rock art traditions and the Austronesian Painting Tradition (APT) and Austronesian Engraving Style (AES) ………………………………………………………………….36 2.3 Part Two: Bornean rock art and archaeology…………………………………………..……….42 2.3.1 Bornean rock art as an untapped source of archaeological data……………………….42 2.3.2 Chronometric rock art dating methods…………………………………………………………….54 2.3.3 Relative dating and style in rock art research…………………………………………………..58 2.3.4 Age estimations for Borneo’s rock art…….……………………………………………………..…59 2.3.5 The Bornean “Neolithic”……………………………………………………………………………………68

viii 2.4 Summary and approach……………………………………………………………………………………76 2.5 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………………..…………77

Chapter 3 Research Design, Fieldwork and Analysis 78

3.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………..78 3.2 Data procurement: library, archival and field research Stages I-III…………………….79 3.2.1 Research Stage I……………………………………………………………………………………………….80 3.2.2 Research Stage II………………………………………………………………………………………………81 3.2.3 Research Stage III………………………………………………………………………………………..……81 3.2.4 Notes on Research Stages I-III………………………………………………………………………..…83 3.3 Methods and analysis……………………………………………………………………………………….84 3.3.1 Characterizing Bornean rock art……………………………………………………………………….84 3.3.2 Formal approaches……………………………………………………………………………………………87 3.3.3 The Austronesian rock art tradition on Borneo…………………………………………………91 3.3.4 Informed methods…………………………………………………………………………………………….92 3.4 Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..95

Chapter 4 Results and Discussion 96

4.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………..96 4.2 Fieldwork results..…………………………………………………………………………………………….97 4.2.1 Kampung Santubong, Kuching, Malaysian Sarawak…………………………………………..99 4.2.2 Sungai Jaong, Kuching, Malaysian Sarawak……………………………………………………….99 4.2.3 Salumon’s Pool, Bako National Park, Malaysian Sarawak………………………………..100 4.2.4 Fairy Cave, Bau, Malaysian Sarawak……………………………………………………………….100 4.2.5 Gua Sireh, Serian, Malaysian Sarawak…………………………………………………………….100 4.2.6 Gua Bumo I, Serian, Malaysian Sarawak………………………………………………………….101 4.2.7 Gua Bumo II, Serian, Malaysian Sarawak…………………………………………………………101 4.2.8 Gua Kain Hitam, Niah Caves Complex……………………………………………………………..102 4.2.9 Lobang Tulang, Niah Caves Complex……………………………………………………………….102 4.2.10 Kading Sultan’s Stone……………………………………………………………………………………..102 4.3 Analysis, results and discussion………………………………………………………………………103 4.3.1 Statistical analysis……………………………………………………………………………………………103 4.3.2 Locational analysis………………………………………………………………………………………….109 4.3.3 Identifying and seriating Bornean rock art styles…………………………………………….114 4.4 Results of additional formal analysis………………………………………………………………127 4.5 Discussion..…………………………………………………………………………………………………….136 4.6 Summary………….…………………………………………………………………………………………….148 4.7 Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………………….………………149

ix Chapter 5 Rock Art Perspectives on the Bornean “Neolithic” 151

5.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………151 5.2 The Austronesian Painting Tradition (APT) on Borneo…………………………………….152 5.3 The Bornean Austronesian Engraving Style (AES)…………………………………………...165 5.4 Discussion……………………………………….………………………………………………………………166 5.5 Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………………..168 5.6 Conclusions……………………………………….…………………………………………………………...168

Chapter 6 Summary and Conclusions 170

6.1 Project summary……………………………………….……………………………………………………170 6.2 The depth and breadth of Bornean rock art……………………………………………………170 6.3 Bornean rock art and “Neolithic” human migration………………………………………..174 6.4 Bornean rock art’s implications for island-wide and regional archaeological narratives……………………………………….………………………………………………………………177 6.5 Additional implications of Bornean rock art……………………………………………………180 6.6 Recommendations for future research……………………………………………………………181

Appendices 182 Appendix A: Bornean Rock Art Sites Alphabetically by Region…………………………………...183 Appendix B: Library, Archival and Field Research Stages I-III………………………………………198 Appendix C: Summary of Bornean Rock Art Site Data and Sources Alphabetically by Region……………………………………….……………………………………….………………………………………200 Appendix D: Bornean Rock Art Database Key……………………………………………………………..211 Appendix E: Bornean Rock Art Database………………………………………………...…………….……220 Appendix F: Newly-discovered Bornean Rock Art Images and Sites…………………….………221 Appendix G: Bornean Rock Art Typology…………………………………………………………………....229 Appendix H: Presence/absence of Bornean Rock Art Types by Technology………………..234 References Cited…………………………………………………………………………………………………..……242

x List of Tables

Table 2.1. Chazine and Setiawan’s East Kalimantan archaeological sequence………………50

Table 2.2. Taçon’s Bornean rock art typology………………………………………………………….52-53

Table 2.3 .Bornean rock art chronometric dates and age estimations……………………..61-62

Table 2.4. Revised techno-chronological sequence of Bornean rock art (dark gray indicates definite/likely dates; light gray indicates possible dates)……………………………….64

Table 2.5. Bornean archaeological chronology……………………………………………………………..66

Table 2.6.Chronology of Bornean Holocene, “Neolithic” archaeological evidence between 6 and 3 ka…………………………………………………………………………………………………70-75

Table 3.1. Austronesian rock art traditions in the Pacific and Southeast Asia, including projections for Borneo……………………………………………………………………………………………93-94

Table 4.1. Sarawak fieldwork results…………………………………………………………………………….98

Table 4.2. Bornean rock art technologies by site……………………………………………………..…108

Table 4.3. Bornean rock art types by site…………………………………………………………….114-116

Table 4.4. Niah Cave Complex rock art seriation (2 sites: Lobang Tulang and Gua Kain Hitam).…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...... 117

Table 4.5. Gua Sireh rock art seriation…………………………………………………………………119-120

Table 4.6. Kampung Santubong rock art seriation………………………………………………………122

Table 4.7. Sungai Jaong rock art seriation…………………………………………………………..………123

Table 4.8. Gua Hagop Bilo rock art seriation……………………………………………………………….125

Table 4.9. Presence/absence of the Bornean engraving/bas relief tradition………..128-131

Table 4.10. Early to late phases of the Bornean bas relief and engraving tradition………….. ……………………..………………………………………………………...... 133-134

Table 4.11. Refinements (bold) to Taçon’s Bornean rock art typology…………………139-142

xi Table 4.12. Expanded (additions in bold) Bornean rock art absolute dates and relative age estimations…………………………………………………………………………………………………..144-145

Table 4.13. Revised techno-chronological sequence of Bornean rock art (dark gray indicates definite/likely dates; light gray indicates possible dates)……………………………..147

Table 5.1. Presence/absence analysis of signatory Austronesian rock art characteristics……………………………………………………………………………………………………..154-157

Table 5.2. Revised model for the Bornean Austronesian Painting Tradition (APT)……………. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………161-162

Table 6.1. Revised (additions in bold) Bornean archaeological chronology………….178-179

xii List of Figures

Figure 1.1. The island of Borneo (circled) in Southeast Asia (graphic by Rachel Hoerman using base map from Australian National University)…………………………………………….…….…5

Figure 1.2 Figure 1.2. Map showing the modern geo-political divisions of Borneo (map by Rachel Hoerman using base map from Lonely Planet.com)………………………………..……..7

Figure 1.3. Bornean rock art sites mentioned in the text (map by Chris Filimoehala)……..9

Figure 1.4. Nested hierarchy of rock art terms used in the text (graphic by Rachel Hoerman)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….15

Figure 1.5. An illustration of rock art terms used in the text (photo and graphics by Rachel Hoerman)………………………………………………………………………………………………………….16

Figure 1.6. An illustration of rock art terms used in the text (photo and graphics by Rachel Hoerman)………………………………………………………………………………………………………….17

Figure 2.1. Select prototypical Austronesian “tool” and “mask” designs after Ballard (1988:149; Ballard 1992: 98) (drawing by Rachel Hoerman)………..…………….………….…….37

Figure 2.2. Select prototypical Austronesian concentric circle designs after Ballard (1988:149; Ballard 1992:98) (drawing by Rachel Hoerman)…………….……………………………38

Figure 2.3. Select prototypical non-figurative Austronesian designs after Ballard (1988:149; 1992) (drawing by Rachel Hoerman)….……….…………………………….………….…….38

Figure 2.4. Wilson’s (2004) Austronesian “scroll-like motifs” (graphic by Rachel Hoerman after Wilson (2004)….……………………….……………………………………….………..……………………….39

Figure 2.5. Wilson’s (2004) example of motifs from Specht’s (1979) Austronesian Engraving Style (drawing by Rachel Hoerman)….……………………….………………………………...40

Figure 2.6. Motifs comprising the Austronesian Painting Tradition on East Timor after O’Connor and Oliveira (2007) (graphic by Rachel Hoerman after O’Connor and Oliveira (2007).…………………………..……………………………………….……….………………………..…………………40

Figure 2.7. Map of Bornean rock art sites mentioned in the text (map by Chris Filimoehala)…………………………..……………………………………….……….………………………..…………44

Figure 2.8. Black rock drawings of anthropomorphs and a possible zoomorph at Gua Sireh (photo by Rachel Hoerman)………………………………………………………………………….……..46

xiii Figure 2.9. A wall panel of black-drawn anthropomorphs and an animal-human hybrid (center) at Gua Sireh (photo by Rachel Hoerman)…………………………………………………….….46

Figure 2.10. Black rock drawings from an unknown location in the Bukit Sarang Caves Complex (image courtesy of the Sarawak Museum Department)…………………………………47

Figure 2.11. Portion of a contiguous 30 meter wall panel of red rock paintings at Gua Kain Hitam, Niah Caves Complex (photo by Rachel Hoerman)………………………………….....47

Figure 2.12. Indigenous Bornean style bas relief of a human figure from Sungai Jaong (image courtesy of the Sarawak Museum Department)……………………………………………….49

Figure 2.13. Indigenous Bornean engraving featuring a British flag and water buffalo from Batu Narit Long Kesi (image courtesy of the Sarawak Museum Department)………49

Figure 3.1. Map of Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo denoting rock art sites and regions mentioned in the text (map by Chris Filimoehala and Rachel Hoerman)………………………78

Figure 4.1. Sarawak rock art sites mentioned in the text (map by Chris Filimoehala)……96

Figure 4.2. Bornean rock art site quantities by state and country.………………………….….104

Figure 4.3. Bornean rock art site location types……………………………………………………..…..105

Figure 4.4. Bornean rock art site technological types….……………………….………………….…106

Figure 4.5. Technological types found at cave rock art sites………………..…………………..…107

Figure 4.6. Distribution of hand stencil rock art sites on Borneo (map by Chris Filimoehala)…………………………………………………………………….…………………………………………110

Figure 4.7. Distribution of rock painting sites on Borneo (map by Chris Filimoehala)….111

Figure 4.8. Distribution of rock engraving sites on Borneo (map by Chris Filimoehala).112

Figure 4.9. Distribution of black rock drawing rock art sites on Borneo (map by Chris Filimoehala)……………….………………………………………………………………………………………………113

Figure 4.10. Superimposed red rock painting traditions (thin and thick lined) at Gua Kain Hitam (photograph by Rachel Hoerman)……………….……………………………………………………118

Figure 4.11. Early (right) and middle-stage (left) rock drawings at Gua Hagop Bilo (image courtesy of the Sarawak Museum Department)…………………………………………………..…….126

xiv Figure 4.12. An historic-era rock drawing at Gua Hagop Bilo (image courtesy of the Sarawak Museum Department)……………………………………………………………………….…………126

Figure 5.1. Bornean sites containing a preponderance of signatory Austronesian features (map by Chris Filimoehala)…………………………………………………………………………………………159

Figure 5.2. Black rock drawings of rayed circles (left) and red rock paintings of spirals and boats (right) – elements of the Bornean APT………………………………………………………………164

Figure 5.3. Characteristic APT-style black rock drawings from Liang Kaung (drawing by Rachel Hoerman after Fage 1989:35)………………………………………………………………………….164

Figure 5.5. Mask-like engraving from Kampung Santubong and potential example of the Bornean AES……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….166

Figure F1. Newly-discovered mud paintings at Fairy Cave – original (above) and digitally enhanced (below)………………………………………………………………………………………………………220

Figure F2. A black drawn anthropomorph from newly-discovered Gua Bumo I………….221

Figure F3. Enhanced view of “new” black rock drawings zoomorphs from Gua Bumo..222

Figure F4. A “new” panel of black rock drawings from newly-discovered Gua Bumo I..222

Figure F5. “New” black rock drawings of possible Japanese characters at newly- discovered Gua Bumo II……………………………………………………………………………………………..223

Figure F6. A “new” panel of black rock drawings at Gua Sireh…………………………………….223

Figure F7. A “new” panel of black rock drawings at Gua Sireh (left: untouched; right: enhanced)………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….224

Figure F8. An engraved and bas-relief face at Kampung Santubong……………………………225

Figure F9. An eroded, newly-discovered linear engraving at Kampung Santubong…..…226

Figure F10. A “new” panel of red rock drawings at Gua Kain Hitam, Niah Caves Complex (left: untouched; right: enhanced)……………………………………………………………………………..227

xv CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction From c. 12.5 through 2 ka, most human societies transitioned from hunting, gathering and foraging to more settled, agricultural ways of life (Renfrew 1987; Thomas

1999: 7; Ammerman et al. 2003). Researchers worldwide, and especially in Southeast

Asia (Barker and Richards 2013; Barton and Denham 2011; Bellwood 1997; O’Connor

2015; Spriggs 2011; Solheim 1996; Peterson 2009), disagree over the timing, nature and factors that motivated the spread and adoption of agriculture.

This research mobilizes Bornean rock art, an underutilized source of archaeological information, to inform on human movement and interaction in

“Neolithic” Southeast Asia between c. 6 and 2 ka. It evaluates Bornean rock art for two diagnostically “Neolithic” design systems - the Austronesian Painting Tradition (APT) and

Austronesian Engraving Style (AES) - and explores their implications for understandings of the Southeast Asian “Neolithic”. This work identifies a distinctly Bornean version of the APT whose stylistic diversity suggests the tradition originated on Borneo before migrating to Southeast Asia and the Pacific. Auxiliary goals of this project include the evaluation of previously proposed Bornean archaeological sequences and rock art typologies and long-term conservation of the Bornean rock art corpus.

Two opposing grand narratives and a third quasi-model (the only to incorporate rock art) offer alternative understandings of Southeast Asian “Neolithic” horizons.

Solheim (1996) proposed a “Nusantao Maritime Trading Network” - an indigenous, nomadic, maritime-oriented cultural complex and network of ocean-faring traders – to

1 explain the appearance of rice agriculture and new material cultures throughout

Southeast Asia between c. 6 and 2 ka. His Network originated in Indonesia and the

Philippines before spreading throughout Southeast Asia in nodes that grew to incorporate coastal swathes of China, Korea and Japan. Cultural interaction and diffusion occurred throughout the Network, producing simultaneously similar, but uniquely localized, cultures and material goods. Contrastingly, Bellwood proposed that

Austronesian-speaking people dispersed from Taiwan beginning 5 ka and bore a

Neolithic cultural package to Island Southeast Asia that included voyaging technology, reliance on maritime resources, agriculture (especially rice), stamped and incised red- slipped pottery, domesticated pigs and dogs and stone adzes. Rejecting both perspectives, Barker and Richards (2013) argue social change in “Neolithic” Southeast

Asia was complex, variable, dynamic and highly localized. They argue focused studies of continuities and discontinuities in data relating to cultural practices (material culture and subsistence), modes of occupation, demographics and genetics generate the best understanding of the time period. As with other researchers (Barton and Denham 2011;

O’Connor 2015; Spriggs 2011), they correlate Holocene shifts in subsistence, technology and human populations to social and ideological shifts in ancient societies.

Migration thematically unifies this project’s convergent streams of discourse.

Migration was integral to archaeological research until its virtual abandonment during the Processual Era. Resurgent interest in the topic marks recent scholarship and validates migration as a detectable and knowable human social process. Contemporary researchers concentrate on the localized nature and chronologies of migration events

2 and their implications for synchronic understandings of subjects like H. sapiens’ African exodus and human dispersals associated with the spread of farming, languages and material culture, bundled frequently into “Neolithic” complexes worldwide (Bellwood

2013, 1997; Diamond and Bellwood 2003; Renfrew 1987).

This study considers prolific distributions of distinctive, complete and partial artifact types/iconographies/styles within a constricted timeframe, when supported by additional lines of corroborating evidence, as acceptable proxies for migration events and processes. Genetic, linguistic and archaeological information – including diagnostic rock art traditions, styles, iconographies and motifs – are indicators of human movement. Anthropologists frequently use style and iconography to detect and map human dispersals (Bellwood 2013: 18,19; Pawley 2004; Ross 2008). Generally, similar artifact types/styles/iconographies with a widespread distribution are correlated with human movement, interaction and cultural change. Ceramic and lithic sequences serve as accepted chronological anchors that frequently (but not always) are consonant with discrete cultural groups (Carson et al. 2013).

Correlating material culture with group identity to study synchronic migration events and diachronic migration processes can be problematic. For example, Collett

(1987) observed ceramics “behaved” differently in two African migrant communities: indigenous styles were transplanted with one migrating population and discarded by another. However, material culture, style and iconography can be transmitted through space and time in discrete packages. Over long periods of time, most material types, styles and iconographies undergo archaeologically detectable processes of localization,

3 creolization, and hybridity (e.g. evolutions of iconography, style and motif) that alter their signatory elements (see Card (ed.) 2013 for a collection of examples).

This chapter broadly outlines the scope and aims of this research – the utilization of Bornean rock art to generate information regarding Southeast Asia’s “Neolithic” horizons. It geographically and archaeologically contextualizes the project and introduces rock art as an archaeological data source. It briefly discusses the project’s theoretical framework, main goals and methods, synthesizes its results and explains the structure of this thesis.

1.2 The archaeological importance of Borneo and Bornean rock art Borneo (Figure 1.1) is the world’s third-largest island, divided between the geopolities of Malaysia, the Sultanate of Brunei and Indonesia. Until 12 kya, Borneo was attached to the Asian subcontinent (Voris 2000). The equatorial island is characterized by a highly diverse biota that includes tracts of ancient tropical rainforest and thousands of unique species of flora and fauna. Through time, the rapidly fluctuating coastlines and inland river systems found throughout Southeast Asia further shaped Borneo’s rich environment, plant and animal life. This included the movement, subsistence and settlement patterns of ancient humans present at least 50 ka at Niah Cave, Malaysian

Sarawak, through historic times (Barker et al. 2013).

Figure 1.1. The island of Borneo (circled) in Southeast Asia (graphic by Rachel Hoerman using base map from Australian National University).

This research augments multiple strains of evidence indicating Borneo is important to understanding the Southeast Asian “Neolithic”. The island possesses seven of Southeast Asia’s 50 “Neolithic” archaeological sites (Arifin 2006; Barker 2005;

Bellwood and Koon 1989; Chazine 2005; Chia 2003; Datan 1993; Datan and Bellwood

1991; Doherty et al. 2000; Spriggs 2011: 517-520; Wibisono 2006). Geographic proximity to epicenters of “Neolithic” culture like mainland Southeast Asia and Taiwan, as well as

5 early occurrences of pottery and rice on the island, underscore Borneo’s import

(Bulbeck 2008:32). Linguistic and archaeological data indicate the “Neolithic” may have begun on Borneo with an incursion of Austroasiatic taro and rice farmers prior to the arrival of Austronesians. Ample linguistic evidence supports Borneo’s role in “Neolithic” migrations and an ancient presence of Austronesians on Borneo: seven of Borneo’s 10 main spoken languages belong to the Austronesian language family (Adelaar 2008; Blust

1988: 57). Borneo’s geographic location and the contents of its extensive archaeological record uniquely position it to address the timing and movement of people throughout the region. Borneo’s plenitude of rock art is an uninvestigated source of archaeological information on an island, and in a world region, whose ancient past is poorly understood.

Fieldwork for this project took place in the Malaysian state of Sarawak (Figure

1.2). Sarawak occupies the coastal southwest segment of Borneo Island and encompasses a variety of terrain, including coastal and riverine floodplains punctuated by limestone karst outcroppings riddled with caves, coastal mangrove and forest habitats and dense mountain and highland jungle rainforests. In each of these environmental zones, rock art was known or discovered to be present.

Figure 1.2. Map showing the modern geo-political divisions of Borneo (map by Rachel Hoerman using base map from Lonely Planet.com)

Field research focused on Malaysian Sarawak for numerous reasons. First,

Sarawak possesses the densest concentration of scientifically investigated and reported archaeological sites on the island (Chin 1984; Datan 1993; Higham et al. 2009; Lloyd-

Smith 2012; Plagnes et al. 2003; Taçon et al. 2011). Second, the Niah Caves complex,

Bukit Sarang Caves complex and Gua Sireh are Sarawakian rock art sites with rare,

7 securely dated “Neolithic” assemblages. Third, Niah Cave hosts a contiguous 32-meter wall panel of red rock paintings depicting predominantly anthropomorphic, zoomorphic and boat images stylistically associated with 1 ka “Neolithic” assemblages (Barker 2005:

90,91; Szabó et al. 2008). Sarawak’s rock art is an excellent data set with which to evaluate the existence of the APT and AES, as well as other endemic and intrusive rock art practices and their island-wide and regional archaeological implications.

This dissertation focuses on rock art because it is a neglected data source in

Southeast Asian archaeology. Rock art is non-utilitarian, additive or reductive, human modification of naturally occurring, fixed-in-place stone. Globally, rock art is virtually omnipresent and unique amongst archaeological data as in situ, fixed-in-place, direct evidence for human creative behavior. Borneo’s rock art holds great potential for studying modern human habitation and symbolic behavior. Until now, a lack of chronological and cultural affiliations for the majority of Borneo’s diverse body of rock art has prevented its employment as a valid source of archaeological information.

1.3 Research aims This research asks whether and how Bornean rock art (Figure 1.3) can be used to study migration during the Southeast Asian “Neolithic”. It evaluates the Bornean record for diagnostically “Neolithic” rock art traditions found elsewhere in Island Southeast

Asia and the Pacific: the APT and AES. Four questions structured this research: 1) What are the chronological and cultural affiliations of Bornean rock art? 2) Do discrete endemic and intrusive rock art traditions exist on the island and how do they affect previously established rock art typologies and archaeological narratives? 3) Which

Bornean rock art practices can be associated with the Southeast Asian “Neolithic”? 4)

8 Are the APT and AES observed in other Southeast Asian and Pacific locales present on

Borneo? Are there localized components to their styles? Auxiliary goals of this research include the evaluation of previously proposed Bornean archaeological sequences and rock art typologies and long-term conservation of Bornean rock art.

Figure 1.3. Bornean rock art sites mentioned in the text (map by Chris Filimoehala).

9 1.4 Research methods Library, archival and field research stages between 2010 and 2015 generated data for the project from 63 rock art sites in Malaysian and Indonesian Borneo. New discoveries made during fieldwork in Malaysian Sarawak were included in the analysis. A techno-chronological sequence of Bornean rock art provided temporal control for the study. Individual rock art figures/motifs were sorted into an inventory and typology to serve as units of analysis.

This study uses form-based analysis to characterize the contents of the currently known Bornean rock art corpus, recognize temporally/culturally diagnostic rock art types and evaluate them for evidence of migration and interaction, specifically during the Southeast Asian “Neolithic”. Nearly complete rock art site image/motif inventories from Malaysian Sarawak, combined with the available data from the rest of Borneo, serve as the contextual basis for the focused study of intrusive, endemic and hybrid

“Neolithic” rock art design systems. This research assesses the applicability of projected

Bornean versions of the APT and AES amongst the island’s “Neolithic” rock art traditions and uses the results to expand understandings of Bornean rock art and “Neolithic” human migration in Southeast Asia.

Form-based qualitative and quantitative methods were used here to date, order and chronologically/culturally affiliate Bornean rock art, when possible. Relative dating and stylistic analysis, foundational mainstays of rock art research, are integral to this research. This study asserts that constellations of rock art iconographies, images, motifs and technologies (“style”) can synchronically and diachronically inform on human

10 movement and interaction if they are abundant, corroborated with additional evidence and subject to seriation and multivariate analysis.

“Informed” rock art research methods (Taçon and Chippindale 2002:6) were also used in this project. Informed methods generate information about rock art by consulting living populations or historical narratives from people with empirical, scientifically-proven connections to bodies of rock art.

1.5 Research assumptions, limitations and restrictions This research is bounded by a series of limitations, assumptions and restrictions.

It assumes Bornean rock art can be soundly associated with the “Neolithic”. Seven

Bornean archaeological sites, including three possessing rock art, have already been reliably dated to the “Neolithic” (Arifin 2006; Barker 2005; Barker et al. 2008; Bellwood and Koon 1989; Chazine 2005; Chia, 2003; Datan 1993; Datan and Bellwood 1991;

Doherty et al. 2000; Spriggs 2011: 517-520; Wibisono 2006). This study hinges on the logical assumption that additional Bornean rock art sites date to the “Neolithic” on the basis of multiple lines of corroborating evidence: their affiliation with dated archaeological materials from established “Neolithic” archaeological sites; portrayals of diagnostically “Neolithic” images and motifs; and, Bornean rock art displaying culturally diagnostic Austronesian elements.

Numerous factors restricted the demographic and geographic parameters of this dataset. First, its contents are incomplete because much pertinent gray literature on archaeological and rock art research in Sarawak has been lost or is inaccessible due to the major reorganization and renovation of the Sarawak Museum Department. Second, the dataset is weighted towards Malaysian Sarawak – the only Bornean state for which

11 complete rock art site inventories were available. Relatedly, finances, logistics, the

Museum’s schedule, and the permissions secured from the State Planning Unit and

Museum, restricted the field research portion of this project to select areas within the

Kuching, Serian, Bau and Miri Districts of Sarawak.

Lastly, the nature of the data itself places a number of limitations on the research results. Rock art is notoriously difficult, but not impossible, to date; thus definitive rock art chronologies are challenging to establish. Likewise, definitive cultural associations between rock art and the archaeological record are difficult, but not impossible, to make.

1.6 Rock art as archaeological data This study relies on rock art’s distinctiveness and accessibility as archaeological data to expand understandings of human movement and interaction during the

Southeast Asian “Neolithic”. Rock art’s idiosyncratic qualities and informative potential are integral to this research. Rock art is unique amongst archaeological data as in situ, fixed-in-place, direct evidence for one or multiple instance(s) of human creative behavior. It is a practically omnipresent material expression, a symbolic communication of information, concepts (Conkey 1978; Gamble 1982; Smith 1992) and aesthetics ensconced in landscapes worldwide.

Once marginalized, rock art research is currently a dynamic and rapidly expanding archaeological subfield (Conkey 2012: xxxii; McDonald and Veth 2012).

Historically, researchers’ inability to establish rock art dates and connections to other archaeological materials and the intangible motivation(s) and meaning(s) behind its creation relegated rock art to the peripheries of archaeological study, where it was

12 perpetuated by a dedicated few individuals. Even as rock art research burgeons, rock art researchers must still champion its acceptance and importance in mainstream archaeological practice and this should not be so: rock art’s antiquity, chemical and material qualities, landscape contexts and technologies can be scientifically understood

(Sanz 2012: 307); its stylistic features are as qualitatively and quantitatively knowable and ethnographic dimensions as accessible, for example, as those underpinning ceramics. In short, as archaeological data, rock art holds as much promise, and is subject to as many pitfalls, as other archaeological material cultures (e.g. lithics, ceramics). Rock art researchers have established a unique vocabulary to facilitate sub disciplinary discourse.

1.7 Rock art terminology The specialized rock art terminology used here requires definition (Figures 1.4 –

1.6). This research endorses the International Federation of Rock Art Organizations’

(IFRAO 2013) glossary. Rock art is defined as non-utilitarian, additive or reductive, human modification of naturally occurring, fixed-in-place stone. Image refers to a singular, discrete, contiguous piece of rock art. Figures and motifs interchangeably refer to components of contiguous rock art images (e.g. recognizable boat and zoomorphic forms combined to form one image). Forms constitute recognizable animal, human or hybrid bodily forms. Geometric forms, linear forms and patterns are non- representational figures/motifs. A design field is a surface bearing rock art. Rock art panels are unbroken, uniform stone surfaces bearing image groupings. Medium refers to the material(s) and technique(s) used to create the rock art. Rock drawings are created by the application of dry pigment to a rock surface, while rock paintings are made with a

13 combination of pigment and one or more diluents/binding agents (e.g. water, oil, resin, fat). Rock engravings and rock carvings interchangeably refer to reductive rock incisions executed with a sharp tool. Bas reliefs, by contrast, are produced through the removal of rock surface around a desired form and result in a raised figure/motif. Stencils are silhouettes of rock art images/motifs created by the application of rock art medium over/around an object (e.g. hands, tools, animals). Cupules are concave, spherical rock engravings created by repetitious percussion. Also included as rock art are human modifications/enhancements of fixed-in-place natural stone features. This vocabulary is employed throughout this work to discuss rock art and human migration between 6 and

2 ka in Southeast Asia and the Pacific.

Figure 1.4. Nested hierarchy of rock art terms used in the text (graphic by Rachel Hoerman).

Figure 1.5. An illustration of rock art terms used in the text (photo and graphics by Rachel Hoerman).

Figure 1.6. An illustration of rock art terms used in the text (photo and graphics by Rachel Hoerman).

17 1.8 Research results 1.8.1 Establishing the character, dates and cultural affiliations of Bornean rock art This research expands the range and breadth of known Bornean rock art practices and design systems. It quantifies Bornean rock art technologies from most to least plentiful: hand-stencils, engravings/bas relief, black rock drawings and rock paintings (including mud paintings). It also identifies hand-stencils, human-like figures, human-animal hybrids, animals, boats and ships as the most commonly-depicted motifs.

The stylistic range of Bornean rock art is shown to include: naturalistic (hand-stencils, flora and fauna) and stylized (x-ray, stick figure, geometric, text, symbols) representations and recognizably indigenous iconography.

Age estimations, cultural associations and seriations established by this research revise Bornean rock art chronologies and typologies. Previously considered less than

1,000 years old throughout Borneo (Fage and Chazine 2010; Taçon 2013:77) and

Southeast Asia (Aubert et al. 2014), black rock drawings of swords with a terminus post quem of c. 2000 BP (Higham et al. 2011; White and Hamilton: 2009) superimposed over multiple, stylistically different black drawing episodes make “Neolithic” origins for the tradition possible. Similarly, Harrison (1958a; 1978b) argued style and ethnographic information dated Bornean bas relief and engravings to the last millennia. This work delineates phases of Borneo’s endemic bas relief and engraving tradition possibly extending from the Metal Age through modern times. Seriations of intra and inter-site bas relief and engravings, rock paintings and black rock drawings expose stylistic variability within the Bornean rock art ensemble. This stylistic variability across rock art practices likely represents chronologically and culturally distinct phases of rock art creation. Comprehensive site documentation and dating are required for a deeper understanding of the archaeological significance of the variability recognized here.

Definitively indigenous rock art practices are restricted to open-air sites that cluster in the interior highlands but can be found island-wide. Contrastingly, distinctive rock art traditions with regional connections are restricted to cave and open-air locations in the coastal and near-coastal zones of the island. Paleolithic hand stencils occur only in East Kalimantan and resemble hand stencils in Papua New Guinea and

Australia while multi-chrome paintings of animals and humans likewise occur only in

East Kalimantan stylistically resemble Australian rock art practices (Arifin and Delanghe

2004; Taçon 2013:77). Bas relief figures and engravings of ships, Indic and possibly

Buddhist symbols, Chinese, Arabic, Japanese and Roman script and Malaysian evince the foreign arrivals and cultural admixture occurring along Borneo’s shores from the first millennium C.E. through modern times.

This research also identified endemic and intrusive rock art traditions on the island and evaluated previously established rock art typologies and archaeological narratives in light of the results. Rock art practices restricted to Borneo include phased bas relief and engravings of indigenous iconography and possibly a red and black geometric, linear and patterned motif painting tradition as well earlier phases of black rock drawings. Intrusive rock art traditions, established by stylistic similarities with older art, archaeological material and iconography outside of Borneo, include Paleolithic hand stencils, layered multi-chrome rock paintings, black rock drawings of “bird-men”(Taçon

2013:77), Japanese script and World War II iconography and aircraft, engravings of

19 Arabic and Chinese script and symbols possibly reflecting Pali or Indic influence (Taçon et al. 2011).

This work illustrates that Bornean techno-chronological rock art traditions, including those with cultural affiliations, pattern spatially. The majority of Bornean rock art is found at inland and near-coastal, cave locations and open-air sites. Association with water is rare, but the island’s fluctuating coastlines and river courses make past aquatic associations a possibility. Pan-island rock art traditions include: endemic engraved and bas relief open-air boulders concentrated in the Bornean Highlands, but found in small quantities in lowlands and coastal areas; early black cave drawings found across the island and a possibly endemic black and red cave painting traditions of geometric and linear motifs restricted to the coastal and near-coastal zones.

1.8.2 The Austronesian Painting Tradition (APT), Austronesian Engraving Style (AES) and other “Neolithic” rock art practices on Borneo This study systematically identified evidence for a Bornean subset of the APT: multichrome drawings and paintings of infilled, non-figurative geometric and linear motifs (rayed, concentric circles as well as curvilinear, geometric and scrolling motifs) and infilled, stylized figurative images (humans, domesticated animals, boats and portable material culture) at cave sites that sometimes, but do not always, possess ancient or historic funerary associations. One engraving of a mask-like face fitting the criteria of the AES was also identified.

The components of the Bornean APT are highly stylistically variable and broadly distributed across the island. This patterning indicates the design system gestated and coalesced on Borneo before it was transported and localized throughout Southeast Asia

20 and the Pacific. In other words, the distribution and contents of the Bornean APT identify Borneo as the homeland of the tradition.

1.9 Thesis structure This dissertation is a synthesis and characterization of Bornean rock art whose primary focus is to systematically quantify and analyze Bornean versions of “Neolithic”

APT and AES design systems to inform on human movement and interaction. Additional goals include chronologically and culturally affiliating intrusive and endemic Bornean rock art traditions as well as honing previously-proposed archaeological sequences and rock art typologies for the island. This chapter introduces the project’s goals, environmental and archaeological contexts and applicability. Chapter 2 defines the specialized rock art terminology used throughout the study, discusses the promises and limitations of rock art as an archaeological data source, and summarizes the archaeological approaches to human migration, “Neolithic” horizons, maritime interaction and diagnostic rock art traditions that comprise the theoretical platform of the research. Understandings of the Bornean archaeological narrative, “Neolithic” horizon, rock art corpus, techno-chronological sequence and typology, are also synthesized. Chapter 3 discusses the rationale dictating fieldwork, data recovery and analysis. In Chapter 4, form-based quantitative and stylistic analyses characterize

Bornean rock art as diverse and highly variable through space and time. Chapter 5 identifies the Bornean version of the APT and a single example of the AES. Chapter 6 summarizes the depth and breadth of Bornean rock art and its implications for

“Neolithic” human migration throughout the region and concludes by highlighting future research directions.

21 1.10 Conclusion Broadly, this dissertation research utilizes a new body of archaeological data

(Bornean rock art) to illuminate archaeological frontiers (Borneo and Southeast Asia). It demonstrates that numerous chronological and culturally diagnostic rock art traditions exist on Borneo that enhance archaeological knowledge of the island and region, including a Bornean version of the APT and one AES-style engraving. The following pages define the terminology and theoretical foundation employed throughout this work, then detail the project’s methodology, results and contributions to Bornean and Southeast

Asian archaeology. Chapter 2 establishes the theoretical foundation of this project through discussion of “Neolithic” horizons, migration and diagnostic rock art traditions, including the APT and AES, and their relevance to Southeast Asian and Bornean archaeology.

22 CHAPTER 2. ARCHAEOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO HUMAN MIGRATION, NEOLITHIC HORIZONS, MARITIME INTERACTION AND DIAGNOSTIC ROCK ART TRADITIONS

2.1 Introduction This chapter reviews the theoretical perspectives structuring this research and current understandings of Bornean archaeology, rock art and the island’s “Neolithic” past. Part 1 examines archaeological approaches to migration, the “Neolithic” and diagnostic rock art traditions globally and in Southeast Asia. It describes the characteristics and distribution of the Austronesian Painting Tradition (APT) and

Austronesian Engraving Style (AES) throughout Island Southeast Asia and the Pacific.

Part 2 synthesizes Bornean rock art, the Bornean “Neolithic” and how this research expands understandings of them both.

Southeast Asia’s archaeological record is poorly understood, especially during the mid-to-late Holocene – a time period hallmarked by major population movements, the advent of agriculture and “Neolithic” material culture(s) throughout the region and in the neighboring Pacific. Borneo’s geographic situation and archaeological record uniquely position the island to address the chronology and nature of population movements during the Southeast Asian “Neolithic”.

This study operationalizes rock art through formal and quantitative analysis to inform on the “Neolithic” movement and cultural associations of people on Borneo. It uses formal analysis and informed methods to stylistically seriate, then chronologically and culturally affiliate, Bornean rock art traditions. It then asks how Sarawak’s rock art traditions impact our limited understanding of the Southeast Asian “Neolithic” chronology/cultural landscapes. This research isolates the localized characteristics of the

23 Bornean APT and an example of the AES. It also identifies other intrusive and indigenous

Bornean “Neolithic” rock art practices that increase knowledge of Bornean archaeology and refine the island-wide rock art typology proposed by Taçon (2013).

Research goals were achieved by asking: 1) What are the chronological and cultural affiliations of Bornean rock art? 2) Do discrete endemic and intrusive rock art traditions exist on the island and how do they affect previously established rock art typologies and archaeological narratives? 3) Which Bornean rock art practices can be associated with the Southeast Asian “Neolithic”? 4) Are the APT and AES observed in other Southeast Asian and Pacific locales present on Borneo? Are there localized components to its style?

Six inter-related bodies of archaeological thought contribute to the theoretical platform of this research. Global approaches to detecting and understanding the nature of human migration and varied understandings of the Southeast Asian “Neolithic”, migrations, and the regional appearance of “Neolithic” domesticates, technologies and material, contextualize the theoretical contributions of this case study. The culturally diverse patchwork of people living, moving and interacting throughout the Southeast

Asian “Neolithic” (including the fringes of western Polynesia) explain the geographic and cultural backdrop of this research. Reviews of the APT and AES observed in other

Southeast Asian and Pacific locales identify distinctly Austronesian attributes to seek in the Bornean rock art assemblage. Lastly, Chazine and Setiawan’s (Chazine 2005a, 2005b;

Chazine and Setiawan 2008) archaeological phases for East Kalimantan and Taçon’s

(2013) typology of Borneo’s rock art are evaluated in light of these research results. The

24 theoretical streams combined in this project form a globally contextualized approach to understanding human migration and interaction in “Neolithic” Southeast Asia.

2.2 Part One: Global archaeological approaches to migration, the “Neolithic” and diagnostic rock art traditions 2.2.1 Archaeological approaches to migration For decades, migration has been an integral but controversial topic of archaeological study, approached and disavowed from various angles. Cultural migration and diffusions of technology/style served as the primary explanations for cultural change during the culture historic period, and central feature of Vere Gordon

Childe’s brand of archaeology. During the Processual Era, migration was cast as an ill- defined, ad hoc explanatory tool and relegated to the ideological sidelines for the next two decades (Adams et al. 1978). An interest in the mechanics and nature of migration emerged during its prolonged rejection from mainstream archaeology and fluoresced with resurrected interest in the topic (Anthony 1990, 1997; Renfrew 1987; Rouse, 1986).

Present global, interdisciplinary approaches to the process and impacts of migration are concerned with topics ranging from the exodus of our species from Africa through the historic period (Anthony 1997; Ashley 2013; Bellwood 2013; De Maret 2013).

Information generated by historical linguists greatly influences what archaeologists study in their research on global “Neolithic” migrations. Historical linguists use language family phylogenies, modern geographic distributions and lexicons to identify linguistic homelands and migratory routes, track change through time and inform on subsistence and culture (Blench 2013; Sanchez-Mazas 2008). Archaeologists often expand on those perspectives by using distributions of material artifacts, styles and iconographies, to gauge population movements and interaction (Bellwood 2013).

25 Lithic types and assemblages, ceramic forms, styles, and iconography were - and are - treated as prime indicators of cultural movement, interaction and change.

Advances in genetics have expanded and complicated our understanding of ancient migrations (Diamond and Bellwood 2003) globally, including in Southeast Asia.

The completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003 (Lander et al. 2001; International

Human Genome Sequencing Consortium 2004) and the International HapMap Project in

2005 (The International HapMap Consortium 2003) made available data sets foundational to synthetic global studies of plant, animal and human genomes through space and time. The field of archaeogenetics resultantly emerged, focused primarily on the study of micro and macro-scale human evolution, migration and interaction. The interpretation of results and reconciliation of genetic, linguistic and archaeological information are persistent difficulties forecast to improve through inter-disciplinary scientific advances (Ermini et al. 2015; Renfrew 2010: R165). Archaeogenetic research in

Southeast Asia echoes the main thrust and problematic issues defining the sub discipline, and focuses particularly on clarifying Holocene movements of people, plants and animals to study regional patterns of domestication (Denham 2004; Dobney et al.

2008; Donahue and Denham 2010; Kennedy 2008; Matisoo-Smith 2015).

The Indo-European and Bantu dispersal debates exemplify classic archaeological research on migration and current views on the nature of the social process. Indo-

European and Bantu are two of the world’s largest language families/subfamilies with broad present-day distributions in Europe and Africa, respectively. Their ancestral speakers are associated with some of the largest population and language dispersals in

26 human prehistory. Signature Neolithic complexes - farming, pastoralism, plant and animal domesticates, suites of new technologies and material cultures - to new world regions at the conclusion of the last ice age and onset of the warmer Holocene epoch are associated with the Indo-European and Bantu migrations. Research concerns include the origins, migratory paths, transition to farming and modern distribution of Indo

European and Bantu (Eggert 2005; Ehret 2001; De Maret 2013). Researchers use genetic information, language phylogenies, distributions of distinctive pottery styles and funerary practices to identify possible homelands, trace and date migratory routes and determine whether the Indo-Europeans and Bantu were discrete linguistic/cultural complexes. Majority opinion views a mixture of demic/population and cultural pressures as motivations for human migrations (Fort 2012,2015; Wotzka 2006: 281).

In both these cases, migration is a dynamic, synergistic process that can result in unique regional responses and archaeological signatures. The Indo-European language family originated 8.5-6.5 ka in either Anatolia (Renfrew 1987, 1999) or the Russian steppes (Anthony 2007; Gimbutas 1956, 1980) 6-8 ka then dispersed in a two-pronged expansion into Southwest Asia, then Europe (Ruhlen 1994). Researchers disagree on the cohesion of the linguistic and cultural complex and whether it spread by dispersal or diffusion. Uneven data patterning of archaeological, genetic and linguistic data for the

Indo-European expansion indicates a high degree of variation and selective adoption of language, material culture and subsistence patterns characterized the migration

(Dequilloux et al. 2012). The Indo-European migration was spotty and opportunistic, and initial routes avoided in situ populations. Integration and elite cultural domination

27 appear to be the vehicles through which Indo-European language, agricultural complex and material culture spread (Anthony 2007: 117).

In contrast, the Bantu migration began 3-5 ka in Central Africa and persisted in southerly directions along much-debated streams and corridors through 1100-1700 CE

(De Maret 2013: 629; Russell et al. 2014, Wotzka 2006: 281). Archaeological ceramics and iron, supported by genetic and linguistic data, are used to date and trace contested migration routes (Li et al. 2015; Phillipson 2005). Archaeological and genetic information suggest Bantu speakers spread their language and culture chiefly through cultural and linguistic assimilation of hunter-gatherer and pastoralist populations (Heyer and Rocha

2013; Tishkoff et al. 2009).

2.2.2 Rock art research and migration Rock art research has made diffuse, understated contributions to global understandings of human migration, primarily through stylistic seriations and tracking chronologically diagnostic rock art motifs/styles through space and time. Dated rock art sites, images and styles buttress chronologies for the Paleolithic modern human evolution and settlement in Africa (Di Lernia and Gallinaro 2010), Europe (Clottes 2003,

2008), Australia (Davidson 2010), the Americas (Benson et al. 2013; Neves et al. 2012) and most recently, Southeast Asia (Aubert et al. 2014; O’Connor 2010; Plagnes et al.

2003). Rock art has also been used to produce in-depth studies of human migration and interaction in Africa, Australia and the Pacific (see next paragraph for an expanded discussion), including thematic explorations of first-contact scenarios (Balme and

O’Connor 2014; May et al. 2013; Taçon et al. 2012) and maritime realms of trade and interaction in Europe (Ling 2013; Ling and Uhnér 2014). For example, Ling and Uhnér

28 (2014) use rock art styles and depictions of metal artifacts to explore pan-Europe Bronze

Age metal exchange and ideological commonalities from the coasts of Scandinavia to

France and Spain. In Africa, rock art researchers focus on classifying and comparing hunter-gatherer, pastoralist and settled agriculturalist traditions (Smith 2013).

Pacific rock art researchers employ style/iconography to understand colonization chronologies, population dynamics and the development of localized rock art practices.

Lee and Stasack’s (1999) use formal and motif analysis to typologize Hawaiian rock art, and buttress their typology with statistical analysis, historical ethnographies, and scientifically-derived dates. They establish a developmental chronology for Hawaiian rock art that defines patterns of inter-island and regional human migration and interaction. Wilson (1998, 2002, 2004) conducts quantitative analysis of stylistic similarity and difference in themes, motifs and figures in Western Pacific rock art, then compares emergent patterns against popular models of settlement and contact for the region. Wilson found Pacific rock art mediums comingle and motif types broadly cluster

(2004) to become more localized and variable through time (2002). In a synthesis of known and newly discovered Fijian rock art sites, Cruz Berrocal and Millerstrom (2013) identify two distinct traditions: a prevalent body of traditionally Polynesian motifs and smaller group of unique images/motifs. Fijian rock art differs significantly from rock art found on neighboring archipelagos and throughout the Pacific, leading the authors to suggest rock art may not have been part of the region’s colonization package, but an in situ development. This research applies successful uses of rock art to study human movement and synergy from the Pacific to the Southeast Asian “Neolithic”.

29 2.2.3 World Neolithic conventions and Southeast Asian “Neolithic” horizons Archaeologists projected Eurocentric iterations of the Neolithic concept onto world archaeological narratives and its genesis is key to understanding its contested application to the Southeast Asian record. The idea is rooted in researchers’ initial attempts to disentangle European prehistory on a regional scale. John Lubbock originated the term to delineate an epoch “characterized by beautiful weapons and instruments made of other kinds of stone” (Lubbock 1865:3), subdividing Danish museum curator Christian Jurgensen Thomsen’s (1836) chronological, classificatory variant of the Three Age (stone, iron and bronze) System. The European Neolithic became defined by assemblages of ground and polished stone tools, ceramics and evidence for agriculture over the course of the next century. Presently, the Neolithic is associated with societies that practice “mixed farming economy” subsistence strategies

(Thomas 1999: 7). Globally, the Neolithic has come to mean the time period between

12,500 and 3,000 years ago when most human societies transitioned from predominantly hunting, gathering and foraging to more settled, agricultural ways of life

(Ammerman et al. 2003).

Historically, opposing schools of thought explained the timing, nature and particulars of the Southeast Asian “Neolithic” (Bellwood 1997; Solheim 1996). Both agreed the expansion of the Austronesian-speaking people into Southeast Asia occurred, but disagreed over the chronology and character of the migration, its impacts, and the broader Southeast Asian “Neolithic” backdrop. The “Out of Taiwan Model”

(Bellwood 1997) states the Austronesians dispersed rapidly from their Taiwanese homeland beginning 5 ka, bearing a Neolithic cultural package to island Southeast Asia

30 that included: voyaging technology, reliance on maritime resources, agriculture

(especially rice), stamped and incised red-slipped pottery, domestic pigs and dogs, stone adzes and. By 3.5 ka, the Austronesians reached eastern Island Southeast Asia and the west Pacific and admixed with local cultures, eventually prompting the emergence of the Lapita culture (Denham et al. 2012; Spriggs 2011; Summerhayes 2007). In contrast, the “Nusantao Maritime Trading Network” (Solheim 1996) is an indigenous, nomadic, maritime-oriented cultural complex and network of ocean-faring traders associated with the appearance of rice agriculture in Southeast Asia. The Network originated in

Indonesia and the Philippines before spreading throughout Southeast Asia in nodes that grew to incorporate coastal swathes of China, Korea and Japan. Cultural interaction and diffusion occurred throughout the Network, producing simultaneously similar, but uniquely localized, cultures and material goods. Descendants of the Network’s participants can be found in scattered pockets throughout Asia today - boat-dwelling ocean-oriented communities such as the Bajau, Samal and Tausug of Island Southeast

Asia and the Ebune in Japan, for example.

Recent scholarship offers alternative scenarios for “Neolithic” Southeast Asia.

Researchers collectively argue Island Southeast Asia’s complex linguistic and archaeological records defy blanket hypothetical explanation and instead evince that multiple dispersals, dynamic interactions and variability characterized Southeast Asia well before “Neolithic” archaeological signatures - pottery, polished stone tools, shell technology, plant and animal domesticates appear in the regional record 6-5 ka

(Anderson and O’Connor 2008; Barker 2005; Bulbeck 2008; Donohue and Denham 2010;

31 O’Connor 2006 and 2015; Oppenheimer 2004; Oppenheimer and Richards 2001;

Peterson 2009; Spriggs 2011). Spriggs (2011:513-515) delineates multiple “Neolithic” migrations of people - an early dispersal of Austro-Asiatic speaking agriculturalists (see also Blench 2010:33), the Austronesians, and an influx of agriculturalists from Papua

New Guinea – and a material “Neolithic” package comprised of novel pottery styles as well as new shell, cloth and bark cloth technologies. Barker (2005:102) notes stratigraphic sequences at Niah Cave suggest human dietary practices changed little over time, and that farming in Island Southeast Asia was the culmination of a long process of experimentation and adaptation rather than a sudden behavioral change or foreign introduction. Szabo and O’Connor (2004:626) observe that shell technology appears and evolves in Island Southeast Asia long before the “Neolithic” begins.

Researchers presently understand the Southeast Asian “Neolithic” as a dynamic time of increased maritime human movement and interaction that involved the selective spread, adoption and localization of a distinctive Austronesian ideology/iconography (Blench 2012, 2014; Bulbeck 2008; O’Connor 2015; O’Connor and

Veth 2005; Spriggs 2011); general characteristics underscored by multivarious, highly- localized chronologies, practices and technologies. Peterson (2009:55) views the

Southeast Asian “Neolithic” and Austronesian migration as one of many rapid explosions and swarms of human fluidity along networks of kinship and alliance that sprawled organically through a maritime landscape. Filios and Taçon 2016 incorporate the

Southeast Asian “Neolithic” into a greater backdrop of human movement and changes in material culture and subsistence practices that swept Holocene Oceania.

32 For the purposes of this dissertation, the Southeast Asian “Neolithic” begins c. 6 ka and terminates c. 2 ka with the concurrent appearance of bronze and iron in Island

Southeast Asia (Higham et al. 2011; White and Hamilton: 2009). I consider its signatory features an influx of Austroasiatic and Austronesian-speaking people as well as new ideologies, iconographies and material cultures like polished stone tools and pottery and animal domesticates that appear in chronologically and geographically staggered, periodically localized constellations throughout the region. I endorse Bellwood’s

(2013:2) definition of migration as “the permanent movement of all or part of a population to inhabit a new territory separate from that in which it was previously based”. I also use dispersal, expansion and migration interchangeably to reference synchronic events and diachronic processes.

2.2.4 Southeast Asian and Western Pacific “Neolithic” maritime migrations/ interactions Archaeological, linguistic and genetic evidence show diverse groups of people throughout mainland and island Southeast Asia, as well as the western Pacific, were engaged in fluctuating pulses of interaction, migration, voyaging and trade since at least the early Holocene (Solheim 1996: Bellwood 1997; Bellwood et al.2011; Blench 2010;

2013; Bulbeck 2008; Denham and Donohue 2009; Lape 2003; Peterson 2009; Spriggs

2011). Bulbeck’s (2008:34) criteria for maritime realms of inter-island exchange - faunal transport, cultural exchange and migration – are used here to identify spheres of interaction that included Borneo during the “Neolithic”.

Geographic and chronological proximity, as well as archaeological, linguistic and genetic data, indicate three primary geographic realms of human interaction likely

33 impacted Borneo between c. 6 and 2 ka: 1) the South China Sea, 2) the Philippines corridor, and 3) the Western Pacific. Each area is best understood as a maritime and terrestrial realm through which material goods, technologies, plants and animals traveled through a spectrum of human interaction ranging from trade to migration.

For millennia, the South China Sea and its adjacent landmasses and waterways hosted a robust complex of coterminous trade routes and human interactions. Four of these interactional realms directly affected Borneo. First, sometime between 8 and 4 ka, there occurred an expansion of Austroasiatic-speaking agriculturalists from a mainland

Southeast Asian homeland into Borneo prior to the arrival of the Austronesians (Blench

2010; Sidwell and Blench 2011: 333). Austroasiatic migrants relied heavily on taro supplemented with rice agriculture and a material cultural repertoire that included shouldered adzes, paddle-impressed pottery and mouth-organs. Entrenched

Austroasiatic speaking populations and cultural traditions were assimilated into

Austronesian populations when the latter reached the island (Sidwell and Blench 2011).

Second, beginning at least 3.5 ka, a vigorous trade in objects and ideas between India and Southeast Asia occurred along various sea routes across the Bay of Bengal via the

South China Sea (Glover 2000: 94).

Concurrently, communities proximal to bodies of water throughout Southeast

Asia were trading and interacting by at least 3.5 ka, if not earlier. By roughly 2.5 ka their connections evolved into an established trade network - the Sa Huynh-Kalanay

Interaction Sphere – through which the exchange of distinctively patterned, stamped pottery, sourced nephrite, ceramic and carved stone beads, ear ornaments and jar

34 burial practices persisted through roughly 1.8 ka (Higham 2002: 179-181;Hung et al.

2013).

Contemporaneous with the Sa Huynh- Kalanay, the Dong Son cultural complex emerged in present-day northern Vietnam from 2.5 ka and persisted through to Han conquest in 43 C.E. (Bellwood 1997; Higham 1996; 2002:170-179). The Dong Son were agriculturalists and seafarers who practiced boat burials and manufactured sophisticated bronze material culture hallmarked by intricately decorated ritual bronze drums (Higham 1996; 2002:170-179).

In addition to the South China Sea, contemporaneous pulses of human migration and interaction involving Borneo occurred in the Philippines and Western Polynesia

(Denham 2004; Denham et al. 2004; Dobney et al. 2008). The Philippines corridor, a terrestrial and maritime “highway” tracing through and around the archipelago, hosted the contested migratory paths of Austronesian-speakers, as well as the dispersal of domesticated pigs (Sus scrufa) from Mainland through Island Southeast Asia (Dobney et al. 2008). Terrestrial and aquatic stretches of easternmost Island Southeast Asia and the westernmost Pacific were another realm of interchange through which agricultural practices, pottery, material culture and plant and animal domesticates flowed. Evidence for an injection of the New Guinean plant domesticates banana and sugarcane on

Sulawesi suggest the influx could have reached Borneo. However, the extent of their distribution and mode of transport has yet to be established (Denham 2004; Denham et al. 2004; Denham and Donohue 2009).

This research clarifies the geography and timeline of Austronesian migrations

35 during the Southeast Asian “Neolithic” that eventually led to the colonization of the

Pacific. Competing models explain the dispersal of Austronesian speakers into Western

Polynesia, the ethno genesis of the Lapita cultural complex and its role in the settlement of Polynesia. The “Express Train” version holds the Austronesians, bearers of the Island

Southeast Asian version of a “Neolithic” cultural complex, dispersed from Taiwan, through the eastern fringes of Southeast Asia and into Oceania beginning roughly 6 ka

(1995, 1999; Diamond 1988; Diamond and Bellwood 2013). Alternatively, the “Slow

Boat” model, holds the Austronesians developed and dispersed their signatory

Southeast Asian “Neolithic” culture in Wallacea before migrating into Polynesia

(Oppenheimer and Richards 2001a, 2001b). Austronesian expansions preceded and prompted the Lapita cultural complex’s development and the human colonization of the

Pacific; Borneo’s little-known archaeological record indicates the island, and indigenous and exogenous Borneans were integral to the earliest of these dispersals.

2.2.5 Diagnostic rock art traditions and the Austronesian Painting Tradition (APT) and Austronesian Engraving Style (AES) Worldwide, archaeologists associate specific rock art styles and motifs with hunter-gatherer, horticulturalist agricultural and pastoralist groups (Hampson 2015:

37,88; Smith 2013; 149, 150). Differentiation and variation in these diagnostic bodies of rock art are correlated with cultural change, including interaction, migration and the transition to agriculture in many world regions (Hayward and Cinquino 2012; Lewis-

Williams 2012; Rozwadowski and Lymar 2012; Taçon et al. 2012). Africa’s rich rock art corpora are divided thusly, and current rock art research agendas there use ethnographic information and archaeological data to interpret rock art traditions

36 associated with discrete cultural groups and chronological time periods (see Smith 2013, for a comprehensive overview).The APT and AES are diagnostically “Neolithic” rock art traditions in Island Southeast Asia and the West Pacific. Specht (1979) first proposed the existence of a distinctive Western Pacific rock art tradition consisting of predominantly engraved curvilinear designs at open-air locations proximal to water and associated with territories occupied by present-day Austronesian speakers. Expanding on Specht’s observations, Ballard (1988, 1992) incorporated data from Timor and lowland New

Guinea to study the landscape and ethnographic contexts of painted rock art sites.

Ballard (1992:98; Figures 2.1-2.3) proposed the existence of a uniquely Austronesian

Figure 2.1. Select prototypical Austronesian “tool” and “mask” designs after Ballard (1988:149; Ballard 1992: 98) (drawing by Rachel Hoerman).

Figure 2.2. Select prototypical Austronesian concentric circle designs after Ballard (1988:145; Ballard 1992: 98) (drawing by Rachel Hoerman).

Figure 2.3. Select prototypical non-figurative Austronesian designs after Ballard (1988:147; Ballard 1992: 98) (drawing by Rachel Hoerman). painted rock art tradition hallmarked by: prominent situation in hard-to-access areas, coastal locations, ocean orientations, painted motifs executed predominantly in red

38 pigment, non-figurative (rayed concentric circles and other geometric designs), figurative (animals and anthropomorphs) and boat motifs, as well as proximal association and stylistic connections to indigenous mortuary practices.

Recent research refines the hallmarks and evolutionary trajectory of the APT in the West Pacific and Island Southeast Asia. Wilson’s research (2002, 2004) involved multivariate analysis of an expanded data set to evaluate Specht and Ballard’s models for an APT and AES. Wilson’s examination of rock art’s spatial and motif/image distribution in the West Pacific did not uphold Specht and Ballard’s geographically clustered groupings of rock art mediums. Instead, Wilson’s work identified “two distinct but homogeneous motif groups that overlap” (2004: 186). Wilson (2002, 2004; Figures

2.4 and 2.5) also identified a localized version of the APT on Vanuatu characterized by: prominently situated, inaccessible coastally-oriented locations; red paintings; predominantly infilled, unidentifiable images interspersed with a small number of stencils. Over time, APT patterns of style and motif use on Vanuatu disintegrate and diversify, becoming more localized.

Figure 2.4. Wilson’s (2004) Austronesian “scroll-like motifs” (graphic by Rachel Hoerman after Wilson (2004)).

Figure 2.5. Wilson’s (2004:250) example of motifs from Specht’s (1979) Austronesian Engraving Style (drawing by Rachel Hoerman).

O’Connor and Oliveira (2007: Figure 2.6) detect an East Timorese variant of Wilson’s APT wherein red paintings dominated by infilled anthropomorphs, depictions of material

Figure 2.6. Motifs comprising the Austronesian Painting Tradition on East Timor after O’Connor and Oliveira (2007) (graphic by Rachel Hoerman after O’Connor and Oliveira (2007).

40 culture and scrolling, geometric forms occur in caves rather than inaccessible coastal locations (O’Connor 2003; O’Connor and Oliveira 2007; Wilson 2002). On Indonesian

Sulawesi, Aubert et al. (2014) argue style and depictions of domesticated animals delineate another strain of Austronesian rock art - black rock drawings depicting anthropomorphs, zoomorphs and geometric motifs. Lastly, Taçon, et al. (2014:1062) recognize the APT as a Southeast Asian rock art horizon of stylized human, animal and geometric motifs distinctive from previous naturalistic, hunter-gatherer traditions that include handprints and life-like portrayals of animals. Throughout the Western Pacific and Island Southeast Asia, the APT and AES display intermixed geographic patterning that becomes increasingly localized through time (Wilson 2002, 2004; O’Connor and

Oliveira 2007; Aubert et al. 2014).

Borneo’s geographic location, deep archaeological record and the wealth of rock art it contains, ideally and plausibly situate it to evaluate whether localized variants of the APT and AES are present on the island and what characterizes them. Bulbeck

(2008:43) notes the presence of the APT in Island Southeast Asia is presently restricted to sites bordering the Banda Sea: East Timor, Buru, Seram, southwest New Guinea, and

Kei. Models for the APT and AES have not yet been applied to Bornean rock art.

While Wilson’s work (2002; 2004) shows the AES does not geographically pattern as originally proposed by Specht (1979) and Ballard (1992), I argue the AES is still an applicable model worth evaluating using Bornean rock art for several reasons.

First, the AES recognizes the occurrence of a culturally-diagnostic strain of rock art that could help trace human migration: predominately geometric, curvilinear, concentric and

41 mask-like images engraved on boulders in open-air locations situated near water

(Specht 1979: 74). Second, Borneo is replete with rock engravings that have received little attention or analysis.

2.3 Part Two: Bornean rock art and archaeology 2.3.1 Bornean rock art as an untapped source of archaeological data Borneo’s rock art is a rich, yet marginalized source of chronologically and culturally diagnostic archaeological material for archaeological narratives of the island and region. This research appraises the ability of rock art types to contribute to chronological, geographic and cultural understandings of Southeast Asia’s “Neolithic” horizon on Borneo. Competing models use language, genes and archaeological materials to argue either that a wave of Austronesian migration(s) introduced a “Neolithic” cultural complex to Southeast Asia (Bellwood 1997; Solheim 1996), or that geographically variable Southeast Asian “Neolithic” cultures we know very little about emerged from a synergetic, dynamic regional succession of Holocene human interactions (Anderson and O’Connor 2008; Barker 2005; Bulbeck 2008; Donohue and

Denham 2010; O’Connor 2006; Oppenheimer 2004; Oppenheimer and Richards 2001;

Peterson 2009; Spriggs 2011). Diagnostically Austronesian rock art traditions have been identified in the Pacific and East Timor and hunter-gatherer, pastoralist and agriculturalist rock art typologies are used to track human movement in Africa and

Europe (Hayward and Cinquino 2012; Lewis-Williams 2012; Rozwadowski and Lymar

2012; Smith 2013:149, 150; Taçon et al. 2012). However, Bornean rock art’s informative value regarding the Southeast Asian “Neolithic” and Austronesian expansion has not been evaluated.

42 Bornean rock art has a sporadic history of investigation that has become more strategic, systematic and scientific in the last two decades. Through the 1950s, vague, narrative accounts of rock art site locations and imagery were reported in travelogues, geological surveys (Wilford 1964), by Tom and Barbara Harrisson and colleagues in the

Sarawak Museum Journal (T. Harrisson 1958b; Harrisson and Harrisson 1970; Harrisson and Reavis 1966) and in reports to the Sarawak Museum Department (Reavis 1964) presently stored throughout myriad institutional archives. Since the 1950s, archaeological investigations of rock art have been restricted to the northwestern

(Malaysian Sarawak and Sabah; Crawford 1986; Datan 1993; Chia 2003; Chia and Datan

2003; Taçon, Sauffi and Datan 2010; Taçon 2013) and northeastern (Indonesian

Kalimantan; Chazine 2005; Chazine and Setiawan 2008; Fage and Chazine 2010) portions of the island. Fieldwork for this project expands the data set of Malaysian Sarawak’s known rock art through archaeological inventory, survey and discovery. Currently known from 63 sites, Borneo’s rock art is characterized by plenitude, variety and several regional as well as pan-island traditions (Figure 2.7; Appendix A). The central Bornean

Highlands are replete with rock engravings and bas relief on free-standing boulders

(Barker et al. 2009: 155; Chin 1984: 23; Forest Department Sarawak 2009:24;

T.Harrisson 1958a: 396-397, 1973b; Harrisson and Harrisson 1970) practices indigenous

Borneans maintained through the 1950s (Barker et al. 2009: 155). A tradition of black rock drawings, predominantly found in the mid-to-upper reaches of limestone karstic cave complexes, spans the entire northern half of the island (Fage 1989). 28 cave rock art sites located in the uppermost reaches of limestone massifs in coastal

43 Figure 2.7. Map of Bornean rock art sites mentioned in the text (map by Chris Filimoehala).

44 Indonesian East Kalimantan contain hundreds of black rock drawings, 1,938 hand stencils, one hand print and 265 polychromatic rock paintings in a wide range of imagery: geometric designs, zoomorphs, anthropomorphs and animals (Chazine 2005a,

2005b; Chazine and Ferrié 2008; Fage and Chazine 2010). Direct dating and images of extinct Pleistocene fauna prove some of the hand stencils are at least 9,900 years old

(Plagnes et al. 2003: 172, 173, 178) and motif/image superimposition lead researchers to postulate phased production of the stencils, paintings and drawings: an initial period of prolific hand stencil creation; a second period of hand stencil modification and addition of more hand stencils to form complex images and motifs; multiple stages of ochre paintings; and, a final period of black drawings (Chazine and Setiawan 2008:6;

Fage and Chazine 2010). Northwestern Borneo’s rock art (the Malaysian states of Sabah and Sarawak) consists predominantly of black rock drawings of anthropomorphs, zoomorphs, ships and geometric and linear motifs in limestone caves and a singular red rock painting site - Gua Kain Hitam, Niah Cave Complex (Figures 2.8-2.11).

Figure 2.8. Black rock drawings of anthropomorphs and a possible zoomorph at Gua Sireh (photo by Rachel Hoerman).

Figure 2.9. A wall panel of black-drawn anthropomorphs and an animal-human hybrid (center) at Gua Sireh (photo by Rachel Hoerman).

Figure 2.10. Black rock drawings from an unknown location in the Bukit Sarang Caves Complex (image courtesy of the Sarawak Museum Department).

Figure 2.11. Portion of a contiguous 30 meter wall panel of red rock paintings at Gua Kain Hitam, Niah Caves Complex (photo by Rachel Hoerman).

47 Rock engravings and bas reliefs, some of traditional indigenous imagery (Figures

2.12 and 2.13) and others with possible Hindu and Buddhist devotional affiliations, are also present (Harrisson 1958a: 400; Harrisson and Reavis 1966: 260, 261; Harrisson and

O’Connor: 1968: 45-46; Harrisson 1973a: 141-143; Crawford, 1986:11; Chia and Datan

2003: 125; Taçon et al. 2010). Historic-era rock art on Borneo includes engravings of indigenous iconography, Arabic text and graffiti in English, Malaysian and Chinese.

Figure 2.12. Indigenous Bornean style bas relief of a human figure from Sungai Jaong (image courtesy of the Sarawak Museum Department).

Figure 2.12. Indigenous Bornean spiral designs engraved on a boulder at Kampung Santubong.

Figure 2.13. Indigenous Bornean engraving featuring a British flag and water buffalo from Batu Narit Long Kesi (image courtesy of the Sarawak Museum Department).

49 Recent scholarship attempts to summarize, contextualize and analyze Bornean rock art (e.g. Chazine and Fage 2010; Taçon 2013; Tan’s 2014 comprehensive synthesis of Southeast Asian rock art). Chazine (2005a: 221) and Chazine and Setiawan (2008:4) seriate the East Kalimantan archaeological sequence according to site type and location

(2.1). Chazine (2005a) suggests three rock art traditions within their “Decorated Caves” period based on image/motif superimposition and rock art medium: an initial hand stenciling phase, followed by a second in which new hand stencils join/overlay older images to form elaborate, sometimes panels of hand stencil patterns and images.

Chazine describes a last phase of linear, painted images and motifs superimposing hand stencils. He also notes either hand stencils or rock paintings dominate site rock art assemblages, and that decorated cave sites display a notable lack of other archaeological materials Chazine (2005a, 2005b) attributes to ritual use.

Table 2.1. Chazine and Setiawan’s East Kalimantan archaeological sequence Site Type Location Archaeology Chronology Reference Decorated Upper Polychromatic rock At least 10 ka; Chazine 2005a: Caves reaches of paintings, rock Pre- 222; Chazine karstic cave engravings and black “Neolithic” and Setiawan systems rock drawings of and 2008:6; Plagnes anthropomorphic and Austronesian et al. 2003 zoomorphic figures, floral images and geometric motifs Domestic Lower Animal bone and shell, Pre- Chazine Sites reaches of stone tools, charcoal, Austronesian 2005a:228 karstic cave pottery (in upper layers) (11.75 ka) systems through modern occupation Funerary Middle Human bones, cord- c. 3.5-1.5 ka Chazine 2005a: Sites reaches of impressed, incised, ka/based on 226 karstic cave punctated and stamped ceramics systems ceramics sequence

50 Taçon (2013) incorporates Chazine and Setiawan’s (Chazine 2005a, 2005b;

Chazine and Setiawan 2008) observations into a nine-part island-wide rock art typology characterized by a high degree of regional, stylistic and chronological variation (2.2).

Taçon considers some Bornean rock art traditions exclusively indigenous, and sees others connected to regional trends. Taçon also notes the existence of recently- discovered handprints, but does not include them in his typology. In addition to examining “Neolithic” dispersals in Southeast Asia, this research uses an expanded

Bornean rock art dataset to evaluate the applicability of Chazine and Setiawan’s staged archaeological sequence to other parts of Borneo and to refine Taçon’s typology.

51 Table 2.2. Taçon’s Bornean rock art typology Rock Description Location Associated Sites Regional Associations Chronological Sources Art Associations/ Type Methods A Stencils East Regional tradition Older than Plagnes et al. Kalimantan, (present in Papua New 9900/TH/U-14 dating 2003; Fage Indonesian Guinea, of calcite drapery and Chazine Borneo Australia)restricted to over rock paintings 2010 Australasia B Ochre East Perhaps regional – paintings of Kalimantan, possible similarities to animals and Indonesian northern and western humans phase Borneo Australia 1 C Ochre East Peninsular Malaysia Tan 2010; Tan paintings of Kalimantan, association? and Chia 2010 animals and Indonesian humans phase Borneo 2 D Early painted Sarawak, Gua Kain Hitam, Broader Southeast 1 ka/ stylistic Ballard 1992; ships and Malaysian Niah Cave Asian tradition? association with Barker 2005: humans Borneo Complex “Neolithic” 90,91;Szabó assemblages et al. 2008

E Recently Sabah, Gua Hagop Bilpo “Links from afar” Bellwood drawn ships Malaysian 1988 and humans Borneo F Other black Sarawak, Gua Sireh Bornean, peninsular rock drawings Malaysian Malaysian and southern

52 Borneo Thai tradition? G Engravings of Sabah and Sungai Jaong, humans and Sarawak, Kampung curvilinear Malaysian Santubong, designs Borneo H Bas relief Sarawak Sungai Jaong Widespread Bornean T.Harrisson ,Malaysia, tradition with links to 1958a; Kalimantan nearby regions Harrisson and highlands, O’Connor Indonesia 1970; Barker et al. 2009 I Santubong- North Kampung Indic visitors? 10th - 13th centuries Taçon et al. type engraved Sarawak, Santubong AD /Associated with 2011: 105 symbols Malaysian nearby Hindu, Borneo Buddhist archaeology

53 2.3.2 Chronometric rock art dating methods A brief review of chronometric and relative rock art dating and methods of stylistic research is necessary because this research hinges on the generation of reliable age estimations and seriations for Bornean rock art. Rock art researchers employ chronometric and relative dating methods to date rock art as well as establish chronologies and evidential bridges to other archaeological materials (see Ruiz and

Rowe 2014, Pike 2016, Steelman and Rowe 2012 and Whitley 2012 for reviews of dating methodologies). It is not currently possible to directly-date instances of rock art creation with confidence. Instead, the three primary chronometric dating methods – radiocarbon

14 14 ( C ) using Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS; hereafter “AMS C”), Uranium-

Thorium (U-TH) and Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) produce chronometric ages of rock art by dating pigment components or stratigraphically-associated calcite cave patinas. Cross-dating using two methods to corroborate chronometric rock art dates is optimal. Relative dating methods are form-based, and use style/seriation/chronologically-affiliated images (e.g. material culture and technology, flora and fauna, etc.) to estimate rock art age. Researchers are sharply divided on rock art dating methodologies and the validity of their results (Aubert et al. 2007; Clottes

2012; Pike et al. 2012; Pike et al. 2016; Pons-Branchu et al. 2014; Ruiz and Rowe 2014;

Sauvet et al. 2015) Opinion, rock art technique (e.g. drawing, painting, engraving), potential age range (e.g. Paleolithic, Neolithic, historic), archaeological and environmental contexts determine the dating method used.

14 AMS C is the most prolific method of dating rock art pigment ingredients and

54 archaeological or natural materials associated with rock art. Pigment used in roughly

200 rock paintings worldwide, mostly in Europe, Africa, Australia and North America, has been radiocarbon dated in the last twenty-five years (Clottes and Geneste 2012:600-

14 601; Ruiz and Rowe 2014:2037; Steelman and Rowe 2012: 567). AMS C direct-dating of organic materials embedded in rock art pigment reliably measures the chronometric age of its ingredients (e.g. charcoal, wood, incidentally-included pollen, other organics), but not the instance of rock art creation itself because old wood/charcoal/pollen could have been included in pigment recipes (Aubert 2012: 575). Discerning anthropogenic pigment from natural materials/compounds and procuring viable samples of organic materials from ancient drawn and painted mediums are significant challenges (Clottes et al. 1995;

Russ et al. 1990; Steelman and Rowe 2012: 566; Valladas et al. 1990, 1992). The best

14 candidates for AMS C dating are figures made of beeswax as in northern Australia followed by charcoal rock drawings or paintings, though Ruiz and Rowe (2014:2038)

14 note AMS C “has been widely used to date carbon-bearing accretionary crusts (like calcium oxalate skins) or organic matter inclusions in mineral coatings (amorphous silica skins)”. Harvesting organic materials from dilutants combined with inorganic colorants is

14 a less successful technique and the only way to AMS C date the majority of colored rock art pigments (Alcolea & Balbin 2007; Ruiz and Rowe 2014: 2037; Steelman and

Rowe 2012: 566).

The U-TH series disequilibrium method is less frequently employed to date rock

14 art and the validity of its results are more greatly disputed than AMS C . The U-TH

55 series disequilibrium method directly dates the formation of calcite layers and has been used in every major world region to produce minimum, maximum or bracketed rock art ages (Aubert et al. 2007; Aubert et al. 2014; Plagnes et al. 2003; Pike et al. 2012). Critics

(Clottes 2012; Pons-Branchu et al. 2014; Sauvet et al. 2015) allege the possibility of

“open system” calcite cave deposits as environments susceptible to uranium loss, thorium increase and contamination that each could yield inaccurately ancient dates.

Proponents of the method (Aubert et al. 2007; Aubert et al. 2014; Pike et al. 2012; Pike et al. 2016) argue calcite layers form a “closed-system” that effectively wards off contamination and upholds the validity of their results. Researchers also disagree over the controversial inclusion, through destruction, of rock art pigment in dating samples to ensure the production of a maximum age (Aubert et al. 2007; Pike et al. 2016: 6). U-

14 TH series dates can be verified in two ways: through cross-dating using AMS C (Sauvet et al. 2015) and demonstrating the “closed system” integrity of the sample field by producing a cross-dated stratigraphy of calcium carbonate layers seriating from oldest

(deepest layer) to youngest (shallowest layer) (Pike et al. 2016: 2).

Researchers have developed an array of additional, contested, infrequently- employed chronometric dating methods. OSL (optically-stimulated luminescence) dates rock art pigment, or patinas stratigraphically associated with rock art, by measuring the time elapsed since inclusions of quartz/feldspar were last subject to sunlight (Aubert

2012:575). Establishing clear connections between quarts/feldspar inclusions and rock art are challenging and essential (Aubert 2012: 576). Pioneered in Australia (Roberts et al. 1997), the method has detected Paleolithic rock art in Egypt (Huyge et al. 2011).

56 Four controversial, yet promising, chronometric dating methods have been applied to date rock engravings: micro-erosion analysis, cation-ratio dating, varnish microlamination (VML) and gauging rock varnish manganese levels (see Ruiz and Rowe

2014: 2040-2041 and Whitley 2012: 606-607 for detailed technical summaries). Micro- erosion analyses are a suite of techniques developed by Bednarik (Bednarik 1992;

Bednarik 2002) that measure weathering on rock engravings and correlates it with age.

Brief mention of the natural processes meted out on rock surfaces and art is necessary here. Over time, exposed rock faces naturally accrue coatings of variegated, climatically and environmentally-determined mineral composition. Bard (Bard et al. 1976; Bard

1979; Whitley 2012: 608) is credited with the first attempts to date rock art using rock coatings – layers of mineral accretion that give rocks their perceived hues and include

14 calcium oxalate and the silica mineral skins that can be AMS C and U-series dated.

Rock varnish is a specific type of rock coating Whitley (2012: 607) defines as “a hard- fixed dust coating that is cemented to a rock face by natural processes”. Cation ratio dating, pioneered by Dorn (1983; 1994), measures the chemical constituents of rock varnishes and dates them through a regional calibration curve (Whitley 2012: 610).

Microlamination analysis derives age estimates from climate-specific rock varnish layers that have accrued and results require independent regional calibrations to verify. Based on the principle that rock engravings expose new rock surfaces whose low manganese levels increase from through time, Lytle et al. (2008) and Rogers (2010) developed a field technique to measure manganese levels in rock varnish layered over petroglyphs using a non-destructive pXRF device.

57 Significant problems with micro-erosion analysis and measuring rock varnish manganese levels prevent their widespread acceptance and usage amongst rock art researchers (Whitley 2012: 608; Ruiz and Rowe 2014: 2040, 2041). Each method requires knowledge of specific environmental and climatic circumstances as well as subsequent calibration. Sampling practices and results for each method currently lack independent scientific verification by qualified professionals. Currently, AMS 14C and U- series are the most accurate and promising ways to directly date materials used in rock art production and generate timeframes for instances of rock art creation. Given the complex challenge of procuring direct rock art dates, rock art researchers rely heavily on relative dating and style to produce rock art age estimations and sequences.

2.3.3 Relative dating and style in rock art research Historically, delineating and sequencing stylistic traditions and establishing relative chronologies were the core goals and foundation of rock art research (Pettit and Pike

2007). Before the 1950s, stylistic studies and relative dating were the only means researchers had to study rock art’s antiquity and formal similarities/differences. The advent of chronometric dating techniques upheld, refined or invalidated entrenched stylistic sequences and relative chronologies in Europe, Africa, Australia and locations throughout the Americas (Ruiz and Rowe 2014:2036).

Stylistic studies and relative dating methods persist as cornerstones of modern rock art research. Researchers use formal analysis (e.g. superimposition, style and chronologically/ culturally diagnostic imagery) to establish style sequences and typologies, study variation and construct relative chronologies. The information they generate is also used to buttress chronometric dating results. This research uses

58 foundational rock art research approaches - stylistic analysis and relative dating methods, alongside additional form-focused methods - to comparatively study variation, similarity, differences, and identify culturally/chronologically diagnostic rock art groups/practices in Bornean rock art.

Rock art researchers employ multivarious definitions of style and methods, often drawn from interdisciplinary perspectives, to establish and investigate its archaeological significance (e.g. Solomon 2011; Sanz 2012). Style was traditionally treated (but rarely explicitly defined) by researchers as formal variation and used to date and seriate rock art (Lorblanchet and Bahn 1993). Present definitions of style include subjective and formal similarities that are distinctive or combined (Chippindale and Taçon 2002) and cluster through space and time (Conkey and Hastorf 1990), the way rock art is visually depicted (Smith 2006; Solomon 2011) and figures/motifs affiliated with time periods and individual/group identity (Sanz 2012: 311). Calls for transparent discussions and deployment of “style” characterize current research (Solomon 2011; Sanz 2012) and include requests to explicitly define the term and units of analysis, acknowledge theoretical orientation, build chains of empirical evidence between style and the factors

(e.g. social changes, human behaviors) one believes related to it.

The current orientation of theoretical discussions regarding style avoids over- generalization by acknowledging what style “can be” rather than asserting what style

“is” in a framework that recognizes, rather than obscures, the variety of human behaviors that could be represented in the archaeological record. In this project, style is defined as clusters of subjective, formal and techno-chronological rock art qualities

59 related to distinctive social groups through formal and informal methods that aggregate through space/time.

2.3.4 Age estimations for Borneo’s rock art Chronometrically-dated Southeast Asian rock art constitutes key evidence for

Pleistocene and Holocene modern human behaviors elsewhere in the region (Aubert et al. 2007; Aubert et al. 2014), but has been met with limited success on Borneo. Indirect

AMS and U-Series dating of calcite covering hand stencils at Gua Saleh, Indonesian East

Kalimantan I produced an age estimation of at least 9,900 BP (Plagnes et al. 2003: 172).

Recent direct-dating attempts to corroborate 1,000 year-old age style-based age estimations for the red rock paintings at Gua Kain Hitam, Niah Cave Complex were unsuccessful (Szabó et al. 2008:167).

There are scientifically grounded, empirically sound age estimates for the rock art at 6 additional Bornean sites (Table 2.3). The archaeological chronologies used to date rock art through association are drawn from a small number of sites with securely- dated archaeological contexts and materials: Niah Cave, Lake Tingkayu sites, Gua Hagop

Bilo and the Madai Caves. Rock art at two East Kalimantan sites is dated to the terminal

Pleistocene by depictions of fauna that went extinct during that time (Chazine and

Setiawan 2008: 6). Stylistic associations with proximal, directly-dated archaeological assemblages indicate Gua Kain Hitam’s red rock paintings are 1,000 years old (Harrison

1958; Szabó et al. 2008: 162). Similarly, style dates the indigenous engraved and bas- relief rock art at Kampung Santubong to anytime in the last 1ka and the site’s deeply- engraved Pali and Hindu-like symbols possibly to the 10th-13th century (Barker et al.

2009: Harrisson 1958c: 700; Taçon et al. 2011:118).

60 Table 2.3. Bornean rock art chronometric dates and age estimations Site Rock Art Chronological Associations/ Sources Methods Gua Saleh, Hand stencil Older than 9900/TH/U and C-14 dating of calcite drapery Plagnes et al. 2003; Indonesian East over rock paintings Fage and Chazine Kalimantan, Borneo 2010 Gua Ilas Kenceng Hand stencils, rock Zooarchaeological association of bovid image with Chazine and paintings and species that went extinct during the Pleistocene Setiawan 2008: 6; drawings Fage and Chazine 2010: 92, 93; Plagnes et al. 2003:176 Gua Ilas Kerim Seriously damaged Zooarchaeological association of bovid image with Fage and Chazine rock paintings/ species that went extinct during the Pleistocene 2010: 114-115; drawings Chazine and Setiawan 2008: 6

Numerous sites in Rock paintings and Superimposition of multiple painting episodes over Fage and Chazine East Kalimantan black rock drawings handprints and covered with black rock drawings 2010 indicates terminus post quem of the Paleolithic era

Gua Kain Hitam, Red rock paintings 1 ka/ stylistic association with “Neolithic” assemblages Harrisson 1958c; Niah Cave Complex, Szabó et al. 2008: Malaysian Borneo 158,159

61 Kampung Spiral and bas relief Within last 1 ka/ suggested age of indigenous rock art Barker 2009; Santubong, face tradition Harrison 1958c: Malaysian Borneo 700; Taçon et al. Deep rock engravings 10th - 13th centuries AD /resemblance to Pali script and 2011: 118 Hindu symbols/rock art Lobang Balang Rock carvings Carving marks indicate Metal Age or later Barker et al. 2009: 141, 142; Lloyd- Smith et al. 2013: 39 Liang Lumba Cave, Black rock drawings Estimated 100 years ago based on images bearing Grabowsky 1888 in Mount Mandella* (Datan 1993:137; stylistic similarity to Western, Islamic and local Kusch 1986; Bellwood 1988:94) indigenous traditions (Bellwood 1988: 94) Bellwood 1988 :94; Datan 1993:137

62 Exempting rock art from Lobang Balang and Liang Lumba, for which no images or detailed descriptions are available, the remaining rock art sites can be linked to relatively-dated rock art technological practices, making a chronology of known Bornean rock art techniques possible (Table 2.4). Paleolithic hand stencils are perhaps the most ancient rock art on Borneo and possibly persisted through the “Neolithic” alongside early painting traditions. Superimposition of rock art technological traditions in East

Kalimantan indicate at least two stages of rock painting on the island post-date the stencil tradition. The engraving tradition is considered less than 1 ka based on ethnographic information and style. Superimposition in East Kalimantan, depictions of metal swords in Sarawak and modern, historic ships in Sabah’s black rock drawings lead researchers to postulate the tradition is contemporaneous with, or more recent than, the engraving tradition (Bellwood 1988:94; Chazine and Ferrie 2008; Datan 1993:137).

63 Table 2.4. Revised techno-chronological sequence of Bornean rock art (dark gray indicates definite/likely dates; light gray indicates possible dates) Transitional Holocene/ "Neolithic" Historic/ Paleolithic Mesolithic (c. 6000/5000 Metal Age Modern (Before (11,500 - -4000-2000 (c. 2000-500 (500 BP - 11,500 BP) c.5000/4000 BP) BP) BP) present) Evidence (Source)

U-series and c-14 date of calcite covering paint Hand (Plagnes et al.'s 2003); occurrences of layered and paint-modified hand stencils (Chazine 2005; Fage stencils and Chazine 2010)

Layered and paint-modified hand stencils (Chazine 2005; Fage and Chazine 2010); Paintings depicting possible Pleistocene fauna(Chazine and Setiawan 2008); stylistic association between Niah Cave paintings and ship of the dead burial culture/practices persisting to c. 500 BP (B.Harrison Paintings 1967; Szabo et al. 2008:158,159)

Style, ethnography and correlations with material culture suggest indigenous engraving tradition is 1 ka (Barker 2009; Harrison 1958c: 700) and that visitors or pilgrims to Borneo left engravings throughout the Santubong Peninsula (Taçon et al. Engravings 2011:118)

Superimposition in East Kalimantan, depictions of metal swords (kris?) in Sarawak and modern, historic ships in the black rock drawings in Sabah lead researchers to postulate the black rock drawing tradition is contemporaneous with, or more recent than, the engraving tradition (Bellwood 1988:94;Chazine and Ferrie 2008;Datan Drawings 1993:137)

64 Bornean rock art is one of the most plentiful sources of archaeological data on the island, yet a lack of chronological and cultural affiliation has prevented its employment as a source of archaeological information. Considered collectively, the current geographic spread and tenable ages of most Bornean rock art sites indicate its archaeological record is replete with rock art throughout space and time, with a large number of sites awaiting discovery and a multitude having Holocene chronological and cultural affiliations.

This research surveyed for additional rock art and fully documented as many known rock art sites in Sarawak as possible with the aim to integrate Bornean rock art into archaeological narratives (Table 2.5) for the island and region. Results are limited by our sparse knowledge of Borneo’s archaeological record.

65 Table 2.5. Bornean archaeological chronology Period Timeframe Archaeological materials* Associated human behaviors Reference(s) Initial Human c.50,000 - Cranial and skeletal remains; Terrestrial mammal, primate, T. Harrisson 1958b; Occupation 35,000 BP stone and bone tools; resin; mollusk and aquatic reptile Krigbaum and Datan pigment; mollusks, freshwater exploitation; butchery; root, tuber, 199: 2005; Reynolds shells; starch grains and macro- fruit and nut exploitation; land et al. 2013: 147, 148, plant remains; biomass burning management; resin use?; craftwork 162 and personal adornment? Late 35,000- Stone and bone technology; Continued terrestrial mammal Barton et al. 2013: Pleistocene 11,500 BP mollusks, rock art (?) (especially pig) primate, mollusk and 214; Bellwood 1984: aquatic reptile exploitation; caves as 40; Plagnes et al. short-term camping/hunting 2003 stations; composite and projectile hunting technology; rock art (?) Transitional 11,500 - Cranial and skeletal remains; Root, tuber, fruit and nut Bellwood 1984: Holocene/ c.5000/4000 inhumations; polished tone exploitation; ritual use of stone and 47,48; Chazine 2005: Mesolithic BP tools; anvils mortars and shell; seated, fetal position and 222; Lloyd-Smith pestles; ochre/pigment; plant mutilated burials; rock art; ochre 2013; Rabett et al. fiber; worked bone, tooth and usage; regional trade 2013: 233; Plagnes et shell; brackish water shellfish al. 2003 remains; composite hunting and fishing (?) technologies; domesticated rice by 8,000 years ago(?; Rabett et al. 2013:252), rock art “Neolithic” c. 6000- Earthenware pottery, worked Multivarious burial practices; Bellwood 2007: 237, 2000 BP bone and shell; pigment; stone pigment application to tools, faunal 241; Chazine 1999, tool technology; rock art (?) and human remains; rice as pottery 2005; Datan 1993: temper; regional trade; domestic 163; Lloyd-Smith

66 dogs and pigs (?);rock art (?) 2013 “Metal Age” c. 2000-500 Pottery, including glazed trade Jar and boat burials; regional trade Bellwood 1984: 50; BP wares; burials; iron, copper, contact Chin 1984: 15,16; bronze, semi-precious stone and Lloyd-Smith 2013; glass objects; gold; domestic Szabó et al. 2013: dogs; appearance of Buddhist, 299 Hindu, Islamic material cultures (shrines, statues, worked gold and stones); Malay and Chinese trade Historic to c. 500 BP - Chinese trade wares; gold Chin 1984: 16,17; Modern present mining; continued influx Islamic Datan 1993:129, 164 Periods material culture and people

67 2.3.5 The Bornean “Neolithic” Borneo’s role, as well as the extent to which Borneans participated in regional interactions during the “Neolithic”, are largely unknown. Barker and Richards

(2013:261) emphasize the impact sea-level fluctuations throughout Island Southeast

Asia during the late Pleistocene and early Holocene had on human movement and subsistence patterns, leading to the development of a “foraging culture with strong maritime orientation,” but note a paucity of dated archaeological sites and materials prevents a fuller understanding of the extent and nature of the pivotal changes.

Archaeological and linguistic evidence (Blench 2010; Peterson 2009; Plagnes et al.

2003; Piper et al. 2008: 88) suggest the Bornean “Neolithic” commenced between 6-5 ka, either with the arrival of Austroasiatic or Austronesian migrants.

Our knowledge of Borneo’s “Neolithic” horizon is sparse (Table 2.6).

The presence of Austroasiatic migrants prior to the arrival of the Austronesians (Blench

2010: 133), as well as chronologically and spatially disparate sequences of signatory

Austronesian material culture (Donohue and Denham 2010: 234; Spriggs 2007), plant

(Barton 2012: 97) and animal domesticates (Larson et al. 2007: 4827) and cultivation practices (Hunt and Rushworth 2005: 460), show a great deal of variation typifies the time period in Borneo. The chronology and geography of an Austronesian presence on

Borneo is gauged largely by stamped pottery and burial practices with possible stylistic affiliation to the group from a cluster of roughly 38 sites in Indonesian Kalimantan

(Chazine and Ferrié 2008: 21). In Malaysian Sabah, archaeological assemblages from

Bukit Tengkorak, Melanta Tutup and Bukit Kamiri are reported to have yielded signatory “Neolithic” red-slipped, incised, impressed pottery; however, their

68 association with purported radiocarbon-dated materials, as well as the sampling methods used to obtain the dated materials, are unclear (Chia 2003:2-4). Evidence from 35 Sarawak archaeological sites shows rice was used as pottery temper in Borneo, though there exists sparse evidence for its cultivation and dietary prominence (Barton

2012: 97; Doherty et al. 1998: 147). Genetic studies indicate pigs were not part of the initial Austronesian migration into Borneo (Larson et al. 2007: 4837). A concentration of modern languages belonging to the Austronesian family (Adelaar 2008; Blust 1988:

57) round out the minimal body of evidence.

69 Table 2.6. Chronology of Bornean Holocene, “Neolithic” archaeological evidence between c. 6 and 2 ka Site(s)* Rock Art Other Archaeological Archaeological Archaeological Comments Reference *Rock art Evidence Evidence Analysis Evidence Date sites in bold Sabah, Malaysian Borneo Baturong Black drawings Intensive human Radiocarbon and “Neolithic” Cave contains Bellwood (Madai) superimposed habitation from 11 to thermo- human habitation evidence of 1984 Caves with a white 7 ka: lithics, anvils or luminescence sequence dated intensive to bird mortars; shell dating to 4000-2500 KA intermittent human midden and faunal use from 11 ka remains; human through modern habitation from 4 to times 2.5 ka with red- slipped pottery and stone tools; relatively recent jar burials Bukit - Charcoal, shells, Radiocarbon Roughly 3 ka Bellwood Tengkorak faunal remains, stone dated charcoal 1989:122 artifacts and pottery, stratigraphically including sherds associated with bearing “impressed, archaeological incised, red-slipped materials and perforated designs” Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo Niah Cave Red rock Radiocarbon dates, Palynological, 50 ka to present Paleoenvironmental Barker et al. Complex paintings (Gua algal microfossils, geochemical, evidence for human 2007; Hunt Kain Hitam) palynofacies, archaeological, presence and use and granulometry, AMS radiocarbon beginning roughly Rushworth

70 Black rock geochemistry, dating 50 ka and persistent 2005: 467; drawings environmental and through time for Hunt et al. (Lobang vegetation changes; various purposes 2007: 1953 ; Tulang) archaeological and (hunting and Lloyd-Smith bioanthropological gathering, living, 2012 evidence of human burial) use Lake Loagan - 40 m core sequence Palynological Early Holocene Human Hunt and Bunut of marginal-marine analysis (11.33 – 6.75 ka) presence/activity Premathalik deposits from earliest e 2012: 105, Holocene- 106 “repeated markers for open and disturbed habitats, plus occasional imported and probably-cultivated taxa” (106). Niah Cave See above Evidence for Palynological 6 ka “pollen associated Hunt and Complex anthropic land analysis with cleared Rushworth management landscapes and rice 2005: 460 practices, “most cultivation is evident probably linked to in the sedimentary rice cultivation” (460) record from before 6,000 cal yr BP” (460) 35 sites, Red rock Rice temper Microscopic Roughly 4.9 -2.5 Rice was at the Doherty et primarily paintings (Niah observed in pottery analysis of ka coastal plains of al. 1998: along the Cave earthenware Niah by 4.99 ka and 147-149

71 southwest Complex); potsherds in the interior at coast, Black rock Gua Sireh by 4.3 ka central drawings (Gua but not used in the interior and Sireh and Bornean interior northeast of Sarang Caves until late historic Sarawak Complex); times (including Gua Sireh) West See above Rice husk moulds and AMS radiocarbon Roughly 4.9 -2.5 Rice was at the Doherty et Mouth, Niah fragments observed dating ka coastal plains of al. 1998: Caves in pottery Niah by 4.99 ka and 147-149 Complex in the interior at Gua Sireh by 4.3 ka Gua Sireh Black rock Stamped, incised and AMS radiocarbon 3.85-3.6 ka Clear evidence for Beavitt et al. drawings red-slipped pottery; dating of a the Austronesian 1996: 29; rice temper observed carbonized rice introduction of rice Datan 1993: in pottery grain; carbonized and pottery, 38-45;Datan rice husks exploitation of and stratigraphically coastal resources Bellwood associated with beginning 5 ka 1991: 393 AMS-dated levels (Datan and Bellwood 1991: 403) Kalimantan, Indonesian Borneo Gua 40 red hand Animal bone and AMS radiocarbon 11750 +- 50, 7200 - Arifin 2006: Tengkorak stencils shell, lithic tools, dating of +- 40 and 4020 +- Chazine chert flakes, undisclosed 50 BP 2005:228 charcoal, pottery materials (present only in uppermost strata)

72 Gua Saleh 140 hand - Cross dating Rock art - Plagnes et stencils and (Th/U-14C) of sequence is at al. 2003: 60+ additional calcite drapery least 9.9 ka and 172, 173, superimposed overlaying hand could extend 178 rock art stencil through the images Holocene Gua Ilas Seriously “one-meter high vase “Neolithic”/stylist - Chazine and Kerim damaged rock decorated with ic association Setiawan paintings/draw etched designs” with 2008: 6; ings characteristic Fage and “Neolithic” Chazine: pottery 2010: 115 Leang Kuang Black rock A human dwelling - 3,030 +/- 40 BP – “Neolithic” and Fage and drawings of and paddle- date of site perhaps Chazine zoomorphs, impressed pottery abandonment/ Austronesian 2010 anthropomorp AMS radiocarbon affiliation based on hs, linear and dating of surface date and paddle- geometric assemblage impressed pottery motifs Liang Jon N/A, but One “‘Lapita-like’ Stylistic 2.8 ka “Neolithic” and Chazine extensive dentate stamped Austronesian/ possible 2005b:6; evidence(raw sherd”; supine burial stylistic Austronesian Chazine and materials, with post-mortem association with affiliation Ferrié 2008: pestles, skull removal and characteristic 21 “pencils”, stone burial markers “Neolithic” pigment- pottery stained tools) for pigment processing and

73 use Gua Batu-Aji - two “‘Lapita-like’ Stylistic Austronesian “Neolithic” and Chazine dentate stamped phase/ stylistic possible 2005b: sherds” association with Austronesian Chazine and characteristic affiliation Ferrié 2008: “Neolithic” 21 pottery Gua Hand stencil Surface scatter of - “Neolithic”/stylist - Fage and Kambing cord-wrapped, ic association Chazine Rock drawings paddle-impressed with 2010: 73 ceramics characteristic Rock “Neolithic” engravings pottery Gua Tebok Hand stencils “pottery of the Stylistic “Neolithic” or Possible “Neolithic” Chazine and extensive ‘Austronesian’ Austronesian or Austronesian 2005b:6; evidence(raw techno-cultural phase/stylistic affiliation Chazine and materials, phase, medium to association with Ferrié 2008: pestles, small-sized stone tool archaeological 21; Fage and “pencils”, flake materials- Chazine pigment- 2010:159 stained tools) for pigment processing and use Gua Tintang ? Lithics and ceramics - - - Fage and Chazine 2010: 77 Gua Unak - Incised and stamped stylistic - “Neolithic” and Chazine and pottery; clay animal possible Pacific Ferrié 2008:

74 figurine cultures affiliation 19 Kimanis - Two tightly-flexed - Early - Arifin 2004 human burials Holocene/stratigr aphic association West Kalimantan, Indonesian Borneo Liang Kaung Black rock Chert tools, crushed Stratigraphic 3000 BP “Neolithic” Chazine drawings bones, paddle- association to 1999:217; of zoomorphs, impressed potsherds radiocarbon- Fage anthropomorp radio-carbon dated dated layer 1989:33 hs, linear and to 3,000 BP geometric motifs

75 Borneo’s plenitude of unexamined rock art, some of which is temporally, spatially, stylistically or culturally associated with “Neolithic” archaeology, is a new source of information regarding the time period. Rock art is found at 11 of the 54

Bornean archaeological sites that have yielded “Neolithic” archaeological materials. The

Harrissons (T. Harrisson 1958c; B. Harrisson 1967) stylistically associated the red rock painting panel at Kain Hitam, Niah Cave, with proximal “Neolithic” assemblages, an assertion supported by later scholarship (Barker 2005; Szabo et al. 2008). Liang Jon, an additional Bornean “Neolithic” site, contains no rock art but has yielded extensive evidence such as raw and worked hematite, and hematite-covered tools, for pigment processing (Chazine 2005b:6; Chazine and Ferrié 2008:21). This research hinges on the logical assumption that additional Bornean rock art can be demonstrably chronologically, stylistically or culturally associated with the “Neolithic”.

2.4 Summary and approach Archaeologists currently approach migration with a renewed interest that emphasizes regionally regionally-distinctive processes, trajectories and their relationship to world Neolithic horizons. Linguistic, genetic and archaeological data, as well spatial patterns of style and iconography, are used to track human movement. Rock art research plays a foundational, and largely unacknowledged, role in studies of human migration and interaction and has been pivotal to the study of Pacific colonization and interaction. Contested understandings of the Southeast Asian “Neolithic” rely heavily on material and stylistic artifact distributions, in addition to genetic and linguistic evidence, but rock art has thus far been excluded from consideration.

When supported by multiple lines of corroborating evidence, rock art, style and

76 iconography can be used to synchronically and diachronically understand migration and interaction. Evaluating the applicability of models for diagnostic rock art traditions to the Bornean record establish new landscapes of human movement, cultural hybridity and localization. Defining culturally distinctive rock art practices, then using stylistic seriation and quantitative analysis of spatial/temporal rock art image/motif patterning facilitate the study of human movement and synergism.

2.5 Conclusion The archaeological narrative for Southeast Asia is largely incomplete. This chapter demonstrates that Borneo’s deep, rich and underexplored archaeological past - and the rock art it contains - stands to make a substantial contribution to our understanding of human movement and interaction during the Southeast Asian

“Neolithic”.

Sarawak (and Southeast Asia’s) corpus of rock art is a vein of largely untapped archaeological information. This research identifies indigenous and endemic Bornean rock art traditions, including evidence for the APT and AES on Borneo, then refines rock art typologies and archaeological sequences for the island and region using methods detailed in Chapter 3. The upcoming chapter focuses on the multiple stages of fieldwork that generated data for this project and the array of analysis used to stylistically group, seriate, date and culturally associate the resultant data set.

77 CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH DESIGN, FIELDWORK AND ANALYSIS

3.1 Introduction Research design, fieldwork and analysis are the focus of this chapter. It details the scope and results of multiple episodes of field research in Sarawak, Malaysian

Borneo (Figure 3.1). The methods of quantitative and formal rock art analysis used to characterize, seriate, date and culturally affiliate Bornean rock art are reviewed.

Figure 3.1. Map of Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo, denoting rock art sites and regions mentioned in the text (map by Chris Filimoehala and Rachel Hoerman).

The primary goal of this research is the detection of chronologically/culturally signatory “Neolithic” rock art practices including the APT and AES. Subsidiary goals include using rock art to refine and expand archaeological narratives and rock art typologies (Taçon 2013) for Borneo. Fieldwork and analysis were structured to produce

78 synthesis, characterizations and analysis of Bornean of Bornean rock art that included: archaeological inventory, paradigmatic classification, stylistic seriation and quantitative analysis examining similarity/dissimilarity and the spatial/temporal distribution of images and figures.

3.2 Data procurement: library, archival and Research Stages I-III Data for the project was secured in three stages of library, archival and field research between 2010 and 2015 (Appendices B and C) at the University of Hawai'i at

Mānoa (UHM), Honolulu, Hawai'i United States and Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia. Library research took place primarily at UHM. Supplementary library research in Kuching resulted in an incomplete catalogue of pan-Bornean rock art site locations, images and forms/motifs incorporated into this project for contextualization and comparative purposes. Archival research at the Sarawak Museum Department and fieldwork in

Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo concentrated on generating the most comprehensive inventory of the state’s rock art possible. As historically-rich sources of rock art, limestone karst massifs throughout the state were targeted for archaeological survey in the districts of Bau and Serian, along the Santubong Peninsula and at Bako National Park in Kuching District and at Niah Cave, Miri. Fieldwork included: the archaeological inventory survey of caves in the districts of Bau and Serian , the re-survey and complete documentation of four previously-known rock art sites (Gua Sireh, Kain Hitam, Kampung

Santubong and Salumon’s Pool); the re-survey and incomplete documentation, due to environmental and safety constraints, of two previously-known rock art sites (Sungai

Jaong and Kading Sultan’s Stone); the complete documentation of new discoveries at four previously-known rock art sites (Gua Sireh, Kain Hitam, Kampung Santubong and

79 Salumon’s Pool); the comprehensive survey and documentation of three newly- discovered rock art sites (Fairy Cave, Gua Bumo I and Gua Bumo II), and the harvest of limited data available on the remaining known rock art sites in Sarawak (Bulangan, Batu

Balang, Batu Pilipus, Lobang Tulang, Sarang Caves and dozens of purported sites throughout the Northern Highlands).

Data for this project is drawn from Borneo’s 63 presently-known rock art sites

(31 in Sarawak; 28 in East Kalimantan; 3 in Sabah; 1 in West Kalimantan) found throughout modern Malaysia and Indonesia and includes new discoveries made during fieldwork. Complete and partial inventories of rock art site contents were included in order to make the study as comprehensive as possible (Appendices D and E).

3.2.1 Research Stage I The unknown nature of Sarawak’s 50 ka archaeological record prompted an initial stage of dissertation reconnaissance in August 2010 to test the feasibility of a long-term rock art discovery and documentation project in the state. Kuching, Sarawak’s provincial capital and headquarters of the Sarawak Museum Department, was a logical base for the reconnaissance. The aims of Research Stage I were to establish official support for the research program, access archival resources and conduct preliminary site visits. Meetings with Museum staff successfully garnered support for the project.

Files in the Museum’s Archives and Archaeology Departments showed numerous rock art sites had been reported/investigated between 1880 and 2010 throughout Sarawak, but little documentation survived or was accessible. Visits to the known rock art sites of

Kampung Santubong, Sungai Jaong, Gua Sireh and the Niah Caves Complex provided familiarity with fieldwork costs and logistics. Changes in Museum administration and the

80 time required to secure research permits and funding meant this research groundwork could not be operationalized for another four years.

3.2.2 Research Stage II Research Stage II commenced in 2014 at three previously known rock art sites:

Kampung Santubong, Sungai Jaong and Gua Sireh. Stage II began with a two-week pilot program to re-establish professional connections and research feasibility and conduct further archival research to help direct fieldwork and supplement field data. Fieldwork focused on the survey and comprehensive paper and digital documentation of rock art sites (if possible, given weather and environmental conditions) and adjacent coastlines, limestone massifs and cave systems in the Kuching, Serian, Bau and Miri Districts.

Discussions with local tour guides, non-governmental agency workers and researchers in and around Kuching provided valuable additional information and research leads. Rock art sites often cluster on landscapes, and surveying areas adjacent to known sites proved an effective way to locate new rock art images/sites at Kampung Santubong,

Gua Sireh and the Niah Caves Complex.

3.2.3 Research Stage III Research Stage III involved sustained archival research and fieldwork from

January through May 2015 at sites proximal to Kuching, as well as the Niah Caves

Complex in Miri. The aim of this Stage was procuring a robust body of Sarawakian and

Bornean rock art images and motifs from archival materials, the complete documentation of previously known rock art sites and further archaeological survey.

During Research Stage III: archival data on one rock art region and five rock art sites was obtained; Kampung Santubong was revisited and additional rock art found; the

81 previously-known rock art sites of Gua Kain Hitam, Salumon’s Pool and Kading Sultan's

Stone were surveyed and documented; and, four new rock art sites - Fairy Cave, Gua

Bumo I, Gua Bumo II and Gua Kain Hitam II – were discovered and recorded.

Comprehensive paper and digital records that included descriptions, maps, catalogs and digital photographic inventories were generated for every rock art site in Sarawak visited/discovered, with the exception of Sungai Jaong.

Archaeological surveys during Research Stage III targeted limestone karstic regions in the Serian and Bau Districts, as well as Bako National Park, that host a concentration of caves and previously-known archaeological and rock art sites.

Excessive rain and the resultant shifting landscapes Kampung Santubong, Sungai Jaong and Gua Sireh prompted numerous site re-visits to ensure the most complete inventory and documentation of rock art possible. Monsoon rains prevented the re-survey and documentation of Sungai Jaong – a swampy, densely-overgrown site. Re-visitation of

Gua Sireh and Kampung Santubong facilitated the discovery of additional drawn and engraved rock art motifs and images. Additionally, rock art from two sites in the Niah

Caves Complex were included in this research: Gua Kain Hitam because it was accessible for fieldwork, is stylistically associated with “Neolithic” assemblages (Barker 2005:

90,91) and despite being the largest contiguous concentration of rock art in Sarawak, has never been fully documented, the proximal Lobang Tulang and newly-discovered site of Gua Kain Hitam II. Permissions as well as budgetary and time constraints prevented the re-survey of the Sarang Caves Complex and relocation/documentation of the Lobang Tulang site.

82 3.2.4 Notes on Research Stages I-III Pan-Bornean rock art imagery and information procured through library and archival research were also incorporated into this project. An incomplete, tremendously variable depth and breadth of Sarawak Museum archival data was available on sites located throughout Borneo. Few rock art sites in Sarawak’s Northern Highlands are well- documented; in most instances, vague descriptions with no accompanying imagery were available – incomplete information included here in order to maximize accuracy and understanding of Bornean rock art’s plenitude and distribution. Some rock art site information and imagery was available for the 28 cave sites and one open-air site in

Indonesian Kalimantan. Incomplete records of site contents and a selection of cupules, engravings of linear and geometric motifs, hand stencils, black drawings and multi- colored ochre paintings reported from the region provide bases for comparison with rock art from the rest of the island (Fage and Chazine: 2010).

During Research Stages II and III, the Sarawak Museum Department’s archives, collections and files were in a state of transition due to the internal reorganization of the Museum and concurrent planning/construction of a new Museum campus that resulted in the exposure of new, previously-inaccessible files, photographs and information. It was revealed that the Archaeology Department archives at the Museum contained undated, digitized photographs of rock art from the Baturong/Madai Caves

Complex, Sungai Jaong, and Lobang Tulang (Niah Caves Complex) sites as well as numerous Bornean highland locations. The archival data was included in this research, with caveats important to note: no records accompanied the digitized photographs, therefore it is unknown whether they provide a complete record of each site’s rock art;

83 likewise, their locations on-site and relative to each other are unknown.

3.3 Methods and analysis 3.3.1 Characterizing Bornean rock art The primary purpose of this research is to systematically quantify the characteristics of intrusive, indigenous and possibly other Bornean rock art practices, archaeologically contextualize them, and evaluate prevalent models for patterns of

Southeast Asian “Neolithic” human movement, existing regional models for the APT and

AES, Chazine’s East Kalimantan archaeological sequence (2005a, 2005b) and Taçon’s

(2013) Bornean rock art typology in light of the results.

A mixture of primarily form-based quantitative and qualitative methods delineate and define temporally-restricted Bornean rock art stylistic/technological traditions and, when possible, establish their cultural affiliations, seriate them and refine their chronologies. An inventory and typology characterize the Bornean rock art ensemble and provide a basis for additional analysis (Appendices A and B). During initial analysis, a timeline of Bornean rock art technologies constructed from previous research provides temporal control. Maps of Bornean rock art types facilitate the study of spatial distribution. Quantitative multivariate analyses examine spatial variability and patterning in Bornean rock art styles and technologies. Site form/motif counts, percentages and presence/absence studies enable the study of similarity/dissimilarity and formation of rock art groups/regions.

Rock art groupings and intra and inter-site rock art chronologies are refined through formal methods after Taçon and Chippindale (2002), combined with approaches that construct rock art groupings with ethnographic and archaeological

84 significance (Hampson 2015), isolate and assess form/motif variation within prehistoric rock art (Wilson 2002, 2004; Franklin 2007) and methods for seriating historical archaeological materials, here applied to rock art.

Chronologically-anchored rock art groups are linked to indigenous Bornean and intrusive-to-Borneo human groups using: ethnographic information, chronologically and culturally diagnostic rock art forms/images and inter and intra-site seriations of superimposed rock art forms/motifs. Borneo’s rock art is then mobilized to inform on the “Neolithic” movement of distinct human groups by mapping the distribution of discrete Bornean rock art practices and culturally/chronologically diagnostic imagery and technological traditions through space and time. Results of the distributional and spatial analysis are compared with regional and island-wide archaeological chronologies

(Chazine 2005a, 2005b) and Taçon’s (2013) Bornean rock art typology.

Presence/absence accounts of rock art forms and motifs related to the “Austronesians” in other Pacific and Island Southeast Asian locales are used to determine the presence and characteristics of the Bornean APT and AES and to detect any localized style components. Supplementary lines of archaeological and ethnographic information are used to buttress, refine and explore the additional implications of this study’s results.

This research uses formal rock art characteristics to study style, establish cultural associations and refine regional as well as island-wide archaeological sequences and chronologies. Rock art images, figures and motifs served as the primary units of analysis.

Secondary considerations informing the analysis and enabling nuanced conclusions included and cultural and chronological rock art associations.

85 A Bornean rock art techno-chronological sequence developed from previous research by Chazine and Setiawan (2008), Taçon et al. (2011) and Taçon (2013) provided temporal control for this study. Absolute dates and form superimposition indicate stencils were produced beginning in the Paleolithic and extending through the transitional Holocene/Mesolithic where the practice overlapped with paintings.

Superimposition, imagery and stylistic parallels with archaeological and living material cultures suggest engravings and drawings appear during the Metal Age and persist, alongside paintings, though the modern historic period. These staged technological rock art traditions served as baselines for rough rock art groupings and sequences.

Maps illustrating the distribution of Bornean rock art technological traditions allowed for the examination of their locational variability. The Bornean techno- chronological sequence’s distribution through space and time was refined (re-charted and re-mapped) during results analysis.

Data acquired through fieldwork, library and archival research was situated into a 29 variable database noting geographic, spatial, temporal and form-based rock art characteristics (Appendices D and E). The compendium focused on recording formal rock art qualities in order to delineate the technological and stylistic traditions present in the Bornean rock art ensemble and as a way to characterize variability this study asserts is related to chronology, technology and style. Panels, images and motifs discernible by the naked eye, as well as those rendered visible using Decorrelation

Stretch digital enhancement software, were included in the database. Faint marks or stains suggestive of additional possible rock art were noted, but not factored into the

86 form-based analysis described here.

A unique, individual identification number was assigned to panels of contiguous rock art imagery, as well as singular images and forms/motifs. The majority of database information collected focused on the rock art’s formal characteristics: size, color, technological tradition, style, the specific figural or abstract forms/motifs depicted

(when recognizable). General locational information and contextual site information and associated natural features/components were recorded to study the geography and spatial organization of rock art sites.

3.3.2 Formal approaches Formal archaeological analysis delineated by Taçon and Chippindale (2002) analyzed the resultant rock art groups and data patterning. Taçon and Chippindale

(2002) distinguish between “informed” and formal” approaches in rock art research as two means of information generation. “Informed” studies incorporate insight from people with tangible connections to the rock art’s creation and use (Taçon and

Chippindale 2002:6) and contributed minimally to this research. “Formal” approaches are image-based, empirical and do not rely on insider rock art information (Taçon and

Chippindale 2002:7,8). This research uses Taçon and Chippindale’s (2002) formal methods to culturally affiliate and refine dates for Bornean rock art through stylistic association with images, motifs and their component parts as well as to study data set difference, similarity and patterning. An approach using Taçon’s (2013) and Hampson’s

(2015) models for the understanding rock art landscapes and their contexts was used to identify indigenous and intrusive Bornean rock art traditions and, when possible, to develop more nuanced understandings of their temporal or cultural contexts.

87 Initial analysis characterized the Bornean rock art corpus. A typological and classificatory scheme incorporating rock art technological and previously-recognized stylistic types (Chazine 2005; Taçon et al. 2011; Taçon 2013) enabled recognition of the ensemble’s defining features. Rock art images, forms and motifs were categorized as either forms, non-figurative images, geometric motifs or linear/dotted motifs, then acquired nested labels of specificity describing their formal attributes. Site form/motif counts, percentages and their comparisons quantified the ensemble and were foundational to the study of intra and inter-site similarities, differences and patterning.

Intra-site seriations were constructed using a meld of archaeological principles and methods developed by Wilson (1998, 2004) and Franklin (2007) for prehistoric rock art and Dunnell (1970, 1978) for rock art from the historic period. These methods resulted in complete stylistic seriations for the rock art of Sarawak (the only Bornean state for which complete rock art site inventories were available), and postulated sequences based on the incomplete data available on rock art from rest of the island.

Superimposed rock art forms/motifs were first grouped, then ordered. Rock art figures/motifs were grouped according to stylistic similarity to form distinctive traditions

– a process lubricated by the pronounced formal differences in rock art found at the majority of Bornean rock art sites. The engraved, bas relief sites of the northern

Bornean Highlands are notably uniform exceptions. Motif and image superimposition was used to seriate figure/motif groups.

Wilson (1998, 2004) and Franklin’s (2007) formal and quantitative analysis were used to isolate and study variation within specific, prehistoric Bornean chrono-

88 technological rock art traditions. Wilson (1998) uses figure/motif-based quantitative analysis to conduct spatial, comparative analysis of stylistic similarity/difference in West

Pacific rock art. Results returned a spectrum of spatial persistence and disintegration of figures/motifs through time that were correlated with regional, localized and endemic stylistic traditions. The resultant patterns of formal “separation and closeness” (Wilson

1998: 163) were used to test models of settlement and contact. Franklin (2007) employs presence/absence accountings (as well as correspondence analysis and group cluster analysis not included in this work) to examine spatial within the Australian Panaramittee rock art tradition, previously treated as a cohesive, uniform stylistic tradition. She identifies five distinct geographic Panaramittee rock art regions. Presence/absence analysis checked for the existence of the APT and AES on Borneo. Spatial distribution and variability within Bornean rock art traditions was studied by plotting rock art sites and using style to identify, seriate and compare traditions.

Intra and inter-site stylistic seriations enabled the examination of spatial and temporal variation in the Bornean rock art corpus potentially related to chronology and human interaction. Methods for the seriation of historical archaeological materials were employed to delineate early, middle and late stages of historic rock art in the black rock drawings, red rock painting and highland engraving and bas relief traditions. An island- wide Bornean rock art seriation was also created using inter-site comparisons of stylistic commonalities between orderings of figures/motifs. For both seriations, chronological/cultural affiliations of rock art motif and image varieties were established through depictions of dateable objects, animals and stylistic designs of undated rock art

89 traditions, when possible. Inter-site comparisons of stylistic sequences augment extant conceptualizations of the Bornean rock art types and the island-wide, staged rock art typology.

The Bornean rock art that could not be seriated was assigned cultural-temporal associations, when possible, through formal means. Image and motif chronological associations were established through the identification of extinct fauna, datable items of material culture such as swords, boats, text and clothing, and stylistic associations with characteristic “Neolithic” material culture. Culturally distinctive and hybrid rock art traditions were identified on the basis of archaeological and living material cultural design elements, styles and iconographies.

The spatial distribution of Bornean rock art sites was studied by mapping specific techno-chronological traditions, styles and style components. Localized through island- wide rock art technologies and styles were recognized through site patterning and distributional comparisons.

A combination of additional formal methods drawn from Taçon (2013) and

Hampson (2015) characterized Bornean rock art and enabled the study of relatedness and change through the identification of empirical similarities/differences. Frameworks developed by Taçon (2013) and Hampson (2015) enable layered analysis of rock art landscapes through foci on synchronic/diachronic contents and patterns in rock art corpora. Taçon’s (2013) framework is used here to comprehensively study relationships, difference and patterning in the Bornean rock art ensemble. Taçon (2013:74) stylistically divides rock art landscapes into regions, provinces, junctions and gateways and uses the

90 groupings to differentiate between internal/external and environmental/social change.

Taçon (2013) offers ways of thinking about rock art landscapes synchronically as internally consistent zones bordered by gateways and junctions where cultural interactions occurred. Diachronically mapping the shifting contents of rock art junctures and gateways enables the examination of cultural interaction and change through time.

Hampson (2015) proposes the formation and analysis of rock art groupings

(hereafter regions) based on recognizable, knowable rock art styles, motifs and images to the least knowable rock art components. Here, ethnographic information, stylistic parallels with cultural items and Hampson’s knowable to least knowable rock art landscape divisions enable the delineation of distinctively Bornean and intrusive, including Austronesian, rock art traditions.

3.3.3 The Austronesian rock art tradition on Borneo Defining features of a Bornean Austronesian rock art practice were postulated based on the signatory traits of the tradition elsewhere in Southeast Asia and the West

Pacific (Table 3.1). Because the Austronesian rock art archetype is known to break down and localize through time, I hypothesized the presence of additional, diagnostically

Austronesian characteristics in the Bornean rock art corpus such as: engravings, based on observed stylistic affinity between engraved Bornean rock art motifs and images and

Austronesian rock art identified elsewhere (Specht 1979); red rock paintings and black rock drawings based on the Austronesian rock art tradition noted on Sulawesi by Aubert et al. (2014); cave rock art sites associated with archaeological or anthropological funerary contexts as found throughout Island Southeast Asian and the West Pacific

(Wilson 2002). I argue Bornean subsets of the APT and AES are likely to include:

91 engravings, black rock drawings, infilled red rock paintings and stencils, non-figurative curvilinear and geometric motif styles, figurative anthropomorphs and zoomorphs as well as material cultural depictions of boats/portable objects and caves associated with ancient/modern funerary contexts/materials and overlap in location, either presently or in the past, with Austronesian-speaking people. Including black rock drawings as part of the Bornean APT may require the revision of the term (e.g. the Bornean Austronesian

Painting and Drawing Tradition) as it applies to the island.

3.3.4 Informed methods Informed methods (the use of archival and historical ethnographic data and regarding rock art resources during Sarawak fieldwork) contributed minimally to this research. Archival and historical ethnographic data provided information on indigenous

Bornean rock art practices persisting to modern times.

92 Table 3.1. Austronesian rock art traditions in the Pacific and Southeast Asia, including projections for Borneo. Country/ Rock Art Rock Art Rock Art Motifs Rock Art Images Rock Art Site Cultural or Austronesian Reference(s) geographic Types(s) Color(s) Landscape Location archaeological speakers region funerary inhabit(ed) association? the region? West Engravings N/A Curvilinear motifs Open-air locations Cultural and Yes Specht 1979; Pacific near water archaeological Ballard 1988, 1992; Wilson 2002, 2004 Paintings A range of Infilled non- Infilled figurative Prominent situation (predominant predominantly figurative motifs: images: in hard-to-access medium) red hues; rayed, concentric anthropomorphs, areas, coastal yellow, black circles; zoomorphs and location/ocean curvilinear, boats orientation Stencils geometric and (infrequently scrolling motifs Territories occupied occurring) by present-day Austronesian speakers East Timor Paintings A range of Infilled scrolling Infilled Caves Yes O’Connor predominantly and geometric anthropomorphs 2003; red hues, some designs and depictions of O’Connor and superimposed material culture Oliveira 2007 by white pigment Indonesian Drawings Black “wide range of Anthropomorphs, Caves N/A N/A Aubert et al. Sulawesi geometric signs” zoomorphs 2014:223 (including domesticated species) Borneo Drawings Black Caves Yes Donohue and Denham Engravings 2010: 228

93 Stencils

Paintings A range of Infilled non- Infilled figurative predominantly figurative motifs: images: red hues; rayed, concentric anthropomorphs, perhaps other circles; zoomorphs colors? curvilinear, (domesticated geometric and animals), boats, scrolling motifs material culture

94 3.4 Summary The methodology outlined here procured and analyzed data requisite for the identification of chronologically and culturally distinctive Bornean rock art traditions that help clarify the island’s “Neolithic” timeline and human geography. Archival research and fieldwork involving the comprehensive survey, documentation and discovery of rock art in Malaysian Sarawak resulted in an assemblage of over 1200 rock art images/motifs drawn from 12 sites. The Sarawak data was combined with archival and library information on pan-Bornean rock art in a database aggregating geographic, technological and formal information. A classificatory scheme and stylistic seriation were developed in order to study rock art image/motif variables related to frequency, variation, distribution and patterning, and its data subject to multivariate analysis. The resultant data patterning, evaluated through formal methods, enables the identification of cultural rock art groupings and refinement of their chronologies.

The results of this analysis expand previous Bornean archaeological sequences, models and rock art typologies as well as delineate endemic, intrusive, creole/hybrid and regional rock art traditions. Through results discussed in Chapter 4, these methods date and characterize a marginalized body of archaeological evidence from an archaeological frontier and contribute to regional understandings of human migration during the Southeast Asian “Neolithic”.

95 CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Introduction This chapter reports results from form-based and quantitative analysis of

Bornean rock art foundational to the identification of “Neolithic” traditions and their archaeological contexts discussed in Chapter 5. It begins by discussing fieldwork results from Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo (Figure 4.1), and characterizing Bornean rock art.

Statistical analysis of rock art technological and stylistic demographics, as well as distribution and spatial patterning, are discussed. Bornean rock art styles are then identified, defined, seriated and archaeologically contextualized.

Figure 4.1. Sarawak rock art sites mentioned in the text (map by Chris Filimoehala and Rachel Hoerman).

96 Form-based quantitative and stylistic analysis identified a wide range of Bornean rock art technologies and styles. Spatial patterning hallmarks Bornean rock art technologies and styles and enables the identification of singular, regional and island- wide rock art traditions. Phased instances of red painted, black drawn, bas relief and engraved rock art spanning the ancient through modern periods were identified.

Indigenous and intrusive rock art traditions are present, systematically quantifiable and associated with general time periods on Borneo. Multiple Bornean “Neolithic” rock art traditions exist. Results reported here from fieldwork in Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo, generated complete site inventories and new discoveries that comprised the bulk of the dataset - the most comprehensive inventory of Borneo’s 63 known rock art sites currently possible - used in this project.

4.2 Fieldwork results Fieldwork in Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo comprehensively inventoried and documented seven rock art sites, including 133 “new” rock art figures/images at previously-known sites and the contents of three newly-discovered rock art sites (Table

4.1; see Appendix F for photographs of newly-discovered rock art).

97 Table 4.1. Sarawak fieldwork results Site Rock Art Details Previously-known sites documented during fieldwork Salumon’s Pool, Rock engravings 1 engraving (three lines of Arabic text); 1 Bako National Park possible ship-like engraving

Previously-known sites with newly-discovered rock art Gua Sireh Black rock drawings 26 panels of at least 333 previously- discovered black rock drawings

At least 73 newly-discovered black rock drawings Kampung Rock engravings 22 previously-discovered rock Santubong engravings and one bas relief figure

At least 54 newly-discovered engravings Gua Kain Hitam, Red rock paintings At least 148 previously-known, complete Niah Caves Complex rock paintings as well as evidence for additional rock paintings

6 newly-discovered panels of badly disintegrated red rock paintings Newly-discovered rock art sites Fairy Cave Mud rock paintings 8 mud rock paintings Gua Bumo I Black rock drawings Over 350 complete and partial anthropomorphs, zoomorphs, boats, human-animal hybrids, geometric, curvilinear and linear motifs Gua Bumo II Black rock drawings 11 panels of at least 16 black rock drawings, some obscured by guano deposits Previously-known rock art sites that could not be fully documented Kading Sultan’s Rock engraving(s) Undecipherable, moss-covered Stone engraving(s), 67 engraved notches Sungai Jaong Rock engravings Hundreds of purported rock engravings and bas relief and bas reliefs, 19 relocated and documented Previously-known rock art sites that could not be relocated Lobang Tulang, Niah Black rock paintings 3 geometric and linear images Caves Complex Previously-known rock art sites that could not be visited Sarang Caves Black rock drawings 2 panels of mostly anthropomorphs Complex

98 4.2.1 Kampung Santubong, Kuching, Malaysian Sarawak Kampung Santubong is a beach front rock art site bordering Santubong village and the estuary where the Sarawak River meets the South China Sea. It occupies an ever-shifting coastal landscape of water and sand; oceanic and riverine tidal activity inundate the site at least twice daily, with increased frequency during king tides and rough seas, particularly during monsoon season. Taçon et al. 2011 recorded 11 natural boulders featuring 22 linear engravings and one bas relief of a human-like face at

Kampung Santubong and attributed them to indigenous people and possibly Buddhist or

Hindu influence/pilgrims. 2015 fieldwork for this project discovered additional rock art at the site: an engraved and bas relief human face, 54 deeply-carved engravings linear and geometric designs with possible Indic or Buddhist affiliations and three shallowly- pecked ship-like motifs situated on free-standing boulders scattered along the beach.

Multiple site visits over a six month period undoubtedly facilitated the new discoveries.

4.2.2 Sungai Jaong, Kuching, Malaysian Sarawak Sungai Jaong is located in a low-lying, heavily forested swamp on the Santubong

Peninsula. Extensive evidence of iron processing, including prolific surface deposits of iron ore and smelted iron is present the site (Doherty et al. 2007). Harrison and

O’Connor (1968) report over 100 boulders bearing bas relief and engravings of human figures, some resembling indigenous iconography, and symbols from the site. Museum photographs of the rock art indicate some of the markings could be natural (Untitled photo series of Sungai Jaong rock art, Sarawak Museum Archives). Dense foliage and heavy flooding for the duration of this project prevented the relocation, confirmation and documentation of the majority of Sungai Jaong’s rock art.

99 4.2.3 Salumon’s Pool, Bako National Park, Malaysian Sarawak Salumon’s Pool is an engraved rock art site located on Pulau Lakei, an island within the boundaries of Bako National Park. The site features several lines of Arabic text, perhaps from the Quran, engraved onto natural boulders situated in a stream bed in the center of the island as well as additional shallow engravings of ship-shapes similar to those found at Kampung Santubong. Proximity to the grave of the Muslim mystic

Ibrahim and rumored special properties mean the site experiences heavy pilgrimage traffic. It has been heavily manicured and altered by various state and government agencies including the Sarawak Forest Department.

4.2.4 Fairy Cave, Bau, Malaysian Sarawak Fairy Cave is a cavernous cave complex situated in one of the many limestone karstic massifs characteristic of the Bau District. The cave is heavily developed, touristed and graffitied, especially with Chinese characters. Eight mud paintings – one of a simian figure and seven other indeterminable forms - were discovered on a rock wall in a side chamber at Fairy Cave during field research. No record of archaeological investigation exists for the site, but a test unit was observed in the sediment deposit beneath the rock art.

4.2.5 Gua Sireh, Serian, Malaysian Sarawak Gua Sireh, Gua Bumo I and Gua Bumo II, are proximal cave rock art sites located in a heavily vegetated limestone karstic massif. All three sites contain similar and different black rock drawings clustered primarily on cave wall panels. Archaeological deposits at Gua Sireh date from the pre-“Neolithic” through historic periods and indicate the cave was used primarily for temporary habitation (Datan 1993: 138, 163-

164; Datan and Bellwood 1991). A carbonized rice grain recovered from a hearth dating

100 to 3.85-3.6 ka (Beavitt et al. 1996: 29; Datan 1993: 38-45; Datan and Bellwood 1991:

393) is the earliest evidence for rice on Borneo. Black drawings of anthropomorphs, zoomorphs and objects dominate the Gua Sireh rock art assemblage, which is divided into 26 numbered panels investigated and monitored by the Sarawak Museum

Department repeatedly over the last century (Sarawak Museum Archives, author unknown 1967; Jungel 1968; Datan 1993). During fieldwork for this project between

2010 and 2015, at least 73 additional individual black rock drawings were discovered at

Gua Sireh, including a vertical cave wall panel of interacting anthropomorphs and zoomorphs and another of geometric and linear motifs.

4.2.6 Gua Bumo I, Serian, Malaysian Sarawak Roughly 350 black rock drawings, aggregated mostly on wall panels, were discovered at Gua Bumo I cave. Figural and anthropomorphic figures dominate the assemblage, as do depictions of various animals and material cultural items such as hilted swords and possible headdresses and fringed clothing. At Gua Bumo I, the drawings cluster in panels depicting a wide range of interacting anthropomorphic, human-animal hybrid and zoomorphic figures. Many of the anthropomorphs carry objects in outstretched hands, notably including hilted swords. Less common drawings of black infilled quadrupeds; boat depictions; hollow, geometric-patterned quadrupeds; hollow, geometric-patterned bipeds; and, geometric, circular, rayed, ovular and linear designs are also present. Freshwater shell, circular guano harvesting pits and modern plastic trash was observed throughout the cave.

4.2.7 Gua Bumo II, Serian, Malaysian Sarawak Gua Bumo II's black rock drawings are badly obscured by guano and cave

101 deposits. Discernible figures include black drawn stick figures resembling those found at

Gua Bumo I and Gua Sireh and Japanese writing surrounding the plan view of what appears to be an airplane (?). Additionally, a single panel of black arrows and a black swastika are drawn on a low-hanging ceiling, above a limestone outcropping deep within the cave, but camera equipment failure prohibited their documentation.

4.2.8 Gua Kain Hitam, Niah Caves Complex, Miri, Malaysian Sarawak Kain Hitam and Lobang Tulang are located in the Niah Cave system – a series of interconnected and proximal cave chambers and tunnels in a limestone karstic massif that rises from the swampy plains of West Borneo. Gua Kain Hitam houses a contiguous

30 meter panel of “Neolithic”/Metal Age red rock paintings of anthropomorphs, zoomorphs, numerous boats and a few geometric motifs and an associated mortuary archaeological deposit (Szabo et al. 2008). Six new panels of badly disintegrated red rock paintings were documented at Gua Kain Hitam, including ceiling paintings of red dotted and zigzag motifs that resemble no other rock art at the site.

4.2.9 Lobang Tulang, Niah Caves Complex, Miri, Malaysian Sarawak Reavis (1964) discovered and photographed black rock paintings of concentric circles radiating with nested v-shapes and additional indiscernible forms at Lobang

Tulang, but the rock art could not be relocated during the present survey. Possible

“Neolithic”/Metal Age archaeological deposits that include polished stone tools and worked shell underlie historic-era ceramic trade wares recovered from Lobang Tulang

(B. Harrisson 1959; Cole 2011: 172), but cannot be directly associated with the rock art.

4.2.10 Kading Sultan’s Stone, Northern Highlands, Bario, Malaysian Sarawak Kading Sultan’s stone is a boulder bearing notchings and an indecipherable engravings located in a stream bed in an indeterminate highland jungle location

102 between Ba’Kalelan and Bario. The boulder is known to hunters and poachers but was unknown to the Sarawak Forest Department. Another boulder bearing possible engravings was located nearby, but encroaching dusk and our expedition’s need to find camp before nightfall prevented its proper investigation.

4.3 Analysis, results and discussion A typology of Bornean rock art figures and motifs characterizes the formal qualities of the Bornean rock art assemblage (Appendices G and H). Hand-stencils and anthropomorphic, human-animal hybrid, zoomorphic and boat and ship representations dominate the highly variegated corpora. Eleven distinct animal forms as well as additional quadrupedal and indeterminate figures are present. Infrequent depictions of airplanes, and portable material culture including swords, fishhooks and possible shoulder baskets also occur. Twenty-five varieties of geometric (close-bodied motifs) figures and twenty-six kinds of linear/dotted (open-bodied motifs and patterns) motifs constitute the remaining, smaller, proportion of the assemblage.

4.3.1 Statistical analysis Statistical analysis of the data compendium reveals basic characteristics of individual sites and the Bornean rock art assemblage as a whole. Contextualized against the relative dearth of overall archaeological research island-wide, the current political- geographic distribution of Borneo’s rock art sites (Figure 4.2) likely reflects political, cultural and geographic issues of accessibility and research bias, constituting veins of discovery on an island replete with rock art.

103

Figure 4.2. Bornean rock art site quantities by state and country.

Bornean rock art is found at cave and open-air sites throughout the island. Over half of sites cluster in cave locations and the remainder are open-air sites (Figure 4.3).

All cave sites and a majority of open-air sites are restricted to inland locations. Proximity to water is exceptional within the assemblage: only five sites are located in or near rivers and only one site, Kampung Santubong, borders the sea.

104 Figure 4.3. Bornean rock art site location types.

Comparative, form-based analysis of techno-chronological Bornean rock art practices (discussed in Chapter subsections 2.3.1 and 3.4) enable a detailed understanding of the rock art styles defining each sequence. Multi-chrome Paleolithic hand stencils appear as singular and combined images as well as forms layered and altered through time with the addition of linear and geometric shapes and patterns.

Multi-chrome rock paintings display a great deal of stylistic variety and depict a range of naturalistic and stylized flora, fauna, and anthropomorphs. Black rock drawings depict naturalistic animals as well as stylized animals, humans, animal-human hybrids, geometric and linear motifs.

Distributions of technological rock art traditions (Figure 4.4) echo the patterning of cave and open-air site locations. One-quarter of Borneo’s rock art sites contain engravings and bas relief, the majority of which are in open-air locations. Most open-air engraving and bas relief sites cluster in the Northern Bornean Highlands and can be

105 stylistically associated with indigenous Bornean iconography. Conversely, the lowland engraving/bas relief sites of Kampung Santubong, Sungai Jaong and Salumon’s Pool are rock art practices associated with groups - Indians, Chinese and Muslims, respectively - intrusive to Borneo’s coasts during the historic period. Cave sites contain a greater variety of technological rock art practices (Figure 4.5) – nearly equal proportions of hand stencils, black rock drawings and rock paintings. Few caves contain engravings.

Figure 4.4. Bornean rock art site technological types.

106

Figure 4.5. Technological types found at cave rock art sites.

There are several possible explanations for the exclusivity of engravings and bas relief at open-air sites and diversity of cave rock art types. The paleobathymetric fluctuations and shifting coastlines that characterized the 50 ka history of human habitation on the island (Hanebuth et al. 2009; Voris 2000) possibly explain rock art site distribution– perhaps most coastal rock art sites and their contents were erased from the record. On Borneo, as throughout Southeast Asia, cave archaeological sites exponentially outnumber open-air sites – a pattern that could be reflected here.

Differences in site function are another possibility. From deep time through the present,

Bornean caves were utilized for a variety of short and long-term domestic, economic and funerary activities including the creation of rock art (Barker 2013; Chazine 2005;

Datan 1993). Research in the Bornean Highlands (Barker et al. 2009) is revealing unanticipated open-air complexes and settlements, but current knowledge of these

107 kinds of settlements on Borneo is limited. Ethnographic information hints at the use of open-air spaces for shorter-term human activities. Rock art performed a different function in open-air spaces as commemorations and memorials as well as boundary markers and warnings to rival groups (Forest Department Sarawak 2009; Harrison

1958a, 1958c,1973a, 1973b; Lloyd-Smith et al. 2013; Kading Sultan, personal communication).

The demographics of Bornean rock art technologies by site illustrates their frequency (Table 4.2). One third of sites contain engravings/bas relief and nearly one- third contain hand stencils. Drawings and paintings are the least frequently occurring technological types and are found only at a minority of Bornean rock art sites.

Table 4.2. Bornean rock art technologies by site Rock Art Sites Total Sites Technology Drawings Gua Hagop Bilo, Baturong Mountains; Gua Sireh; Gua 18 Bumo I; Gua Bumo II; Lobang Tulang Niah Caves Complex; Batuh Puteh and Lobang Ringen, Sarang Caves Complex; Liang Lumba; Liang Kaung; Gua Ilas Kenceng; Gua Jufri; Gua Tam; Gua Kambing; Gua Kenyato; Gua Mardua; Gua Payou; Gua Saleh; Gua Tam Paintings Fairy Cave; Kain Hitam Niah Caves Complex; Lobang 17 Tulang, Niah Caves Complex, Gua Hagop Bilo, Baturong Mountains; Gua Harto; Gua Ham; Gua Ilas Kenceng; Gua Jufri; Gua Karim; Gua Mardua; Gua Payou; Gua Pindi; Gua Saleh; Gua Tam; Gua Tamrin; Gua Tewet; Liang Sara II Hand Gua Berak; Gua Ham; Gua Harto; Gua Ilas Kenceng; 23 stencils Gua Jufri; Gua Kambing*; Gua Kayu Sapung; Gua Kecabe; Gua Kurang Tahu; Gua Mardua; Gua Masri I; Gua Masri II; Gua Payou; Gua Sahak; Gua Saleh; Gua Tam; Gua Tamrin; Gua Tebok; Gua Tembus; Gua Tengkorak; Gua Tewet; Liang Kerim; Liang Sara II

108 Engravings/ Kampung Santubong; Santubong Peninsula; Sungai 29 bas relief Jaong; Salumon’s Pool; Batuh Kalung, Cihan River*; Batu Balang; Batu Kalung; Batu Kelabet; Batu Liban; Batu Narit Arur Bilit; Batu Narit Batu Beret; Batu Narit Long Beruang; Batu Narit Long Kesi; Batu Narit Pa’ Ukat Batu Pilipus; Batu Narit Punang Pa’Umor; Bulongon; Gua Harto, Gua Payou; Gua Kambing*, Kading Sultan’s Stone; Lawas; Liang Sara II; Lobang Balang; Long Lelang; Long Semadoh; Long Po; Long Umok; Pa Bangar; Pa Sia; Pa’ Upan; Batu Tuked Rini; Ulu Tomani ** Site with exclusively bas relief * Precise location unknown

4.3.2 Locational analysis Mapping the distributions of techno-chronological rock art traditions reveal isolated, regional and pan-island rock art practices. Paleolithic hand stencils are restricted to the Marang Mountain Range of Indonesian East Kalimantan (Figure 4.6).

Possibly contemporaneous rock paintings cluster along with hand stencils in East

Kalimantan and four additional rock art sites in near-coastal locations (Figure 4.7). No painted rock art sites from the Bornean interior have yet been published. Engraved rock art sites cluster in the Northern Bornean Highlands, but occur in small numbers – and mostly different styles - along the west and east coasts of the island (Figure 4.8).

109

Figure 4.6. Distribution of hand stencil rock art sites on Borneo (map by Chris Filimoehala).

110

Figure 4.7. Distribution of rock painting sites on Borneo (map by Chris Filimoehala).

111

Figure 4.8. Distribution of rock engraving sites on Borneo (map by Chris Filimoehala).

Black rock drawings are a pan-Bornean rock art practice (Figure 4.9). Usually considered contemporaneous with rock engravings, black rock drawing locations and

112 engraving sites do not conspicuously overlap. Fage and Chazine (2010) mention black rock drawings from East Kalimantan in passing, but do not describe them in detail. Full descriptions and inventories of East Kalimantan black rock drawings would undoubtedly impact and enrich these research results.

Figure 4.9. Distribution of black rock drawing rock art sites on Borneo (map by Chris Filimoehala).

113 4.3.3 Identifying and seriating Bornean rock art styles Sites for which complete rock art inventories are available were the best candidates for delineating and seriating rock art types. Formal stylistic variation also made a grouping and ordering of the incomplete rock art records from Gua Hagop Bilo possible.

Site figure/motif superimposition, rock art grouped by similarity and the ordering of distinctive stylistic traditions identified multiple instances of rock art creation (Table

4.3) and ordered them from earliest to latest, when possible. The majority of Bornean rock art motifs/images are not superimposed. Therefore in most cases, formal analysis of stylistic similarity and dissimilarity, ethnographic information and historical data generated chronological and cultural affiliations for the distinctive rock art styles identified.

Table 4.3. Bornean rock art types by site Site Rock Art Groups/Types Niah Cave Lobang Tulang Complex A) Black rock paintings – concentric circles, patterns of nested linear (2 sites) designs, dotted patterns

Gua Kain Hitam A) Thin, dark-red lined red rock paintings depicting anthropomorphs, zoomorphs, ships, felines

B) Thicker-lined, lighter red paintings depicting anthropomorphs, zoomorphs, ships

C) Cave ceiling rock paintings of dark red geometric, linear dotted patterns, lines and zigzag motifs Gua Bumo I A) X-ray rock art images on cave walls

B) Curvilinear rock art forms on fallen boulders

C) Large, infilled anthropomorphs and zoomorphs on same vertical level

114 on wall panels

D) Geometric rock art images and hollow, square-bodied stick figures on cave wall

E) Panels of sometimes hollow-headed and hollow-bodied anthropomorphs without swords – rock art shelves and crevasses

F) Panels of infilled, smaller figures and anthropomorphs, some with arm fringes and swords – rock art walls in panels with nested composition – most figures are facing forward, includes some large, sketched, infilled and triangular-bodied anthropomorphs

G) Darkest lines - jumbled panels of anthropomorphs, many holding material culture, some in profile interacting with each other, a few zoomorphs – all on similar vertical level throughout cave

H) Dark black boat shapes

I) Possible Japanese writing and figures lightly sketched on bottom of rock wall curtain

J) Words and letters in the Roman alphabet, numeric dates drawn in black or spray painted, including the signatory red spray-paint of the Forest Department Sarawak

Gua Sireh A) Singular oval-bodied forms with curved appendages and ovular heads on the large rock wall

B) Clusters of larger, triangular-bodied forms with outstretched, fringed arms made with sketchy, irregular lines

C) Vertical panels of smaller, infilled forms with arm fringes and numerous zoomorphs

D) Predominantly anthropomorphs of varying sizes (some very large) in loose horizontal compositions interacting with each other, interspersed with comparatively few depictions of material cultural (including swords), human-animals and zoomorphs– majority of panels are in this style

E) Sketchy, over-lapping graffiti drawn in black rock drawings mimicking rock art on left wall of cave entrance

F) Words and letters in the Roman alphabet, numeric dates drawn in

115 black or spray painted Kampung A) Engravings/bas relief of faces, spirals, flowers stylistically associated Santubong with indigenous Borneans

B) Deeply-engraved linear motifs of possibly Pali or Indic influence C) Shallowly-pecked engravings of ship-shapes and linear motifs

D) Possibly functional rock modifications

E) Chinese writing with worn edges

F) Words and letters in the Roman alphabet, numeric dates engraved or spray painted Sungai A) bas relief anthropomorphs with spread arms and legs Jaong B) Pecked engravings of anthropomorphs, geometric and linear motifs Gua Hagop A) Infilled drawings of full frontal anthropomorphs, zoomorphs in profile Bilo* and geometric and linear motifs

B) Boats, human forms and likely swords

C) An in-profile male figure superimposing or superimposed by complete/partial human figures, geometric and linear forms * Site records are incomplete and based on drawings found in the Sarawak Museum Archives.

Two rock art sites from the Niah Caves Complex– Lobang Tulang and Gua Kain

Hitam feature five distinct rock art types. Figures/motifs from the sites are seriated together (Table 4.4) based on their proximity and similarity of the other archaeological materials found at each site (Cole 2011:155; B. Harrison; 1958; Lloyd-Smith et al.

2013:302). Black rock paintings of concentric circles radiating with nested linear design patterns are the only rock art type found at Lobang Tulang. Three additional types are found at Gua Kain Hitam (Figure 4.10): dark-red, thin-lined red rock paintings depicting anthropomorphs, zoomorphs and ships; thicker-lined red rock paintings, and a dark red rock painting tradition of geometric and linear motifs and dot patterns.

116 Table 4.4. Niah Cave Complex rock art seriation (2 sites: Lobang Tulang and Gua Kain Hitam) Chronology Phase Technique(s)/medium Description Reasoning Earliest 1 Black rock drawings Concentric circles, patterns of Stylistic similarity with Gua Mardua, (Lobang Tulang) nested linear designs, dotted East Kalimantan, and that style’s patterns superimposition over Paleolithic hand-stencil tradition 2 Dark red rock paintings Thin, dark-red lined red rock Underlies Phase 3 (Gua Kain Hitam) paintings of anthropomorphs, zoomorphs, geometric and linear motifs, ships, felines

3 Red rock paintings Thicker-lined, lighter red Superimposes Phase 2 Latest (Gua Kain Hitam) paintings depicting anthropomorphs, zoomorphs and ships ? Dark red rock paintings Dark red rock paintings on a Cannot be seriated; resembles (Gua Kain Hitam) cave ceiling depicting Neolithic pottery styles and based geometric, linear dotted on that resemblance could be patterns, lines and zigzag contemporaneous with any of motifs Phases 1-3

117

Figure 4.10. Superimposed red rock painting traditions (thin and thick-lined) at Gua Kain Hitam (photograph by Rachel Hoerman).

There is no superimposition in Gua Sireh’s rock art assemblage, so seriation relied on style, depictions of figures/motifs with chronological associations and the rock art’s in situ location. Both unique and regional rock art types are present at Gua Sireh

(Table 4.5). Several forms with ovular heads, bodies and outstretched arms are distinctive to the site, whereas the forms with arm fringes in Types B-D are similar to rock art styles beyond Borneo.

118 Table 4.5. Gua Sireh rock art seriation Chronology Phase Technique(s)/medium Description Reasoning Earliest 1 Black rock drawings Singular oval-bodied forms Stylistically dissimilar with other with curved appendages and traditions at site, but similar to ovular heads on the large rock forms at Liang Kaung wall 2 Black rock drawings Vertical panels of smaller, Distinctive panel location, vertical infilled forms with arm fringes composition, and large numbers of and numerous zoomorphs zoomorphs depicted

3 Black rock drawings Clusters of larger, triangular- Lack of swords, body and stylistic bodied forms with similarities to Type D Latest outstretched, fringed arms made with sketchy, irregular lines 4 Black rock drawings Predominantly Presence of swords anthropomorphs of varying sizes (some very large) in loose horizontal compositions interacting with each other, interspersed with comparatively few depictions of material cultural (including swords), human-animals and zoomorphs– majority of panels are in this style

119 5 Black rock drawings Sketchy, over-lapping graffiti Archival documents from the drawn in black rock drawings Sarawak Museum Department’s mimicking rock art on left wall Archaeology Division mentioning of cave entrance schoolboys mimicked the rock art in graffiti on the walls of the site during the 1960s 6 Black rock drawings Words and letters in the Modern graffiti Roman alphabet, numeric dates drawn in black or spray painted

120 Five stylistically distinct rock art types (including modern graffiti) are distinguishable in the Kampung Santubong assemblage (Table 4.6). One type, consisting of two carved/bas relief faces and engravings of flowers and spiral motifs are depictions of indigenous design motifs – likely products of an endemic rock art traditions.

Discounting the modern graffiti (a current rock art practice) the three remaining rock art types at Kampung Santubong can be associated with one unknown and two historic period intrusive groups.

Two distinctively different rock art types are present at Sungai Jaong (Table 4.7), a rock art/iron smelting archaeological site proximal to Kampung Santubong. One bas relief tradition can be stylistically associated with indigenous Borneans. Pecked engravings of anthropomorphs, geometric and linear motifs at the site resemble no other rock art on Borneo.

121 Table 4.6. Kampung Santubong rock art seriation Chronology Phase Technique(s)/medium Description Reasoning Earliest 1 Engravings, bas relief Engravings/bas relief of faces, Indigenous rock carving tradition spirals, flowers stylistically could have been undertaken associated with indigenous anytime in the last 1 ka Borneans 2 Engravings Shallowly-pecked engravings Stylistic dissimilarity to Phase 3; of ship-shapes and linear related to early trade and visitors to motifs Borneo?

3 Engravings Deeply-engraved linear motifs Stylistic similarity to archaeological of possibly Pali or Indic cultures in the region between the Latest influence 10-13th centuries

4 Engravings Chinese writing with worn Chinese miners arrived in the region edges in the 18th century

5 Engravings, spray paint Words and letters in the Modern graffiti Roman alphabet, numeric dates engraved or spray painted ? Engravings, drilled Arrow and line engravings and Cannot be seriated; rock holes sequences of squarish drilled modifications related to fishing? holes evidence of quarrying activity?

122 Table 4.7. Sungai Jaong rock art seriation Chronology Phase Technique(s)/medium Description Reasoning Earliest 1 Bas relief bas relief anthropomorphs Indigenous rock carving tradition with spread arms and legs could have been undertaken anytime in the last 3 ka

2 Engravings Pecked engravings of anthropomorphs, geometric and linear motifs

Latest

123 Unique rock art types without Bornean or regional parallels, as well as lack of figure/motif superimposition, prevented the seriation of rock art styles at some of the

Sarawak sites. At Gua Bumo II, there are two distinct styles of rock art: indiscernible black marks on the cave walls and Japanese letters, depictions of an aircraft and a swastika on the cave walls and ceiling. The phased ordering of these types is not currently possible, but the depiction of modern aircraft, Japanese lettering and a swastika dates the latter to during or shortly after WWII. The mud paintings at Fairy

Cave are unique and cannot presently be associated with chronometrically-anchored

Bornean rock art traditions. They are technologically and stylistic dissimilar from the rest of the Bornean rock art assemblage, and the only recognizable form depicted – a simian

– cannot be definitively associated with a specific date or culture.

The identification of distinctive rock art styles and their tentative order was possible at Gua Hagop Bilo (Table 4.8) despite incomplete records being available for the site. Complete documentation of the site’s rock art is necessary to verify this hypothesis. Infilled drawings of front-facing anthropomorphs and zoomorphs in profile, as well as geometric and linear motifs are stylistically similar to the black rock drawings at Gua Sireh and Gua Bumo and are perhaps the earliest instance of rock art at the site

(Figure 4.11). Stylistically dissimilar images of what appear to be turbaned Malay seafarers carrying swords possibly were created next (Figure 4.10), followed by a large anthropomorph in profile – a style of depiction associated with modern rock engravings in the highlands (Figure 4.12).

124 Table 4.8. Gua Hagop Bilo rock art seriation Chronology Phase Technique(s)/medium Description Reasoning Earliest 1 Black rock drawings Infilled drawings of full frontal Stylistic similarity with other black anthropomorphs, zoomorphs rock drawings traditions in profile and geometric and superimposed by depictions of linear motifs swords

2 Black rock drawings Boats, human forms and likely Images of possible Malay seafarers swords with swords who arrived in Borneo during the 1st millennium C.E.

3 Black rock drawings An in-profile male figure Stylistic similarity with historic, Latest superimposing or highland engravings of humans in superimposed by profile complete/partial human figures, geometric and linear forms

125

Figure 4.11. Early (right) and middle-stage (left) rock drawings at Gua Hagop Bilo (image courtesy of the Sarawak Museum Department).

Figure 4.12. An historic-era rock drawing at Gua Hagop Bilo (image courtesy of the Sarawak Museum Department).

126 4.4 Results of additional formal analysis A presence/absence account of stylistic and locational characteristics (Table 4.9) also delineated stylistic groupings of engraving and bas relief whose possible explanations (e.g. that the variation represents change through space and time) require the full documentation of Sarawak’s bas relief and engraving traditions to confirm. A small number of cave site engravings are restricted to East Kalimantan and portray a limited repertoire of distinctive linear motifs that include zigzags and clusters of intersecting lines. Another stylistically distinctive rock art group consists of bas relief and engravings of one or multiple front-facing, spread-eagled anthropomorphs unique to the Bornean Highlands that usually appear in association with notched engravings or heads. Two additional groups of Bornean bas relief and engraving rock art are more stylistically similar to modern indigenous iconography: boulders bearing bas relief and engravings of interlocking linear, curvilinear and anthropomorphic designs like human figures and heads concentrated in the highlands but also found elsewhere, and boulders engraved with linear and curvilinear motifs and zoomorphic forms. Engraving of anthropomorphs and faces in profile featuring modern material culture like flags alongside domestic animals like water buffalo constitute a fifth tradition.

127 Table 4.9. Presence/absence of the Bornean engraving/bas relief tradition SITE ROCK MOTIFS FORMS LOCATION REFERENCE ART TYPES

eagle

erial culture erial

air, inland air, riverine/coastal air,

- -

Engravings Relief Bas Notches Spirals Linear Curvilinear Geometric profile Anthropomorph, Footprints Buffalo animal Other Hornbill Ship mat Other Cave Open Open Anthropomorph(s), forward Anthropomorph(s), spread facing, unknown Anthropomorph(s), Face/heads Sabah, Malaysian Borneo Pa Sia Datan 1998: 41

Ulu Harrisson Tomani 1973a: 141- 143; Datan 1998a: 41 Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo Bulongan ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Kusch 1986: 103 Batu Sarawak Balang Museum Archives: “Batu Balang”; crocodiles are

128 depicted Batuh ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Kusch 1986: Pilipus 103 Kampung Solheim 1983: Santubong Taçon, Sauffi and Datan 2010: 105, 106 Batuh Forest Kelabet Department Sarawak: 15; Barker et al. 2009: 156 Batuh Forest Narit Department Batuh Sarawak: 30 Beret Batuh Forest Narit Long Department Beruang Sarawak:15 Batuh Forest Narit Long Department Kesi Sarawak:24 Batuh Forest Narit Pa’ Department Ukat Sarawak:33 Batuh Forest Narit Department Punang Sarawak: 32 Pa’Umor

129 Batuh Forest Tuked Rini Department Sarawak: 27 Lobang Barker et al. Balang 2009: 141, 142; Lloyd- Smith et al. 2013: 39; feline depicted Long ? ? ? ? ? T. Harrisson Lelang 1959: 20 Long Po T. Harrisson 1959: 14-16 Long Chin 1984: 27 Semadoh Long Datan 1998:40 Umok Pa Bangar Chin 1984: 24; Sarawak Museum Archives: “Pa Bangar” Batu Narit Forest Arur Bilit, Department Pa Umor Sarawak: 30 Village Kading ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 2015 fieldwork Sultan’s Stone

130 Pa Upan Doherty et al. 2007:87 Sungai Chin 1984: 21; Jaong Harrisson and O’Connor 1968: 24,25, 45-46; Solheim 1983: 37 East Kalimantan Batu Fage and Kalung Chazine 2010: 43,44 Gua Harto Fage and Chazine 2010:150 Gua Payou Fage and Chazine 2010:72, 73 Liang Sara Fage and II Chazine 2010: 74,75

131 These results make a phased relative chronology of Bornean bas relief/engraving traditions possible (Table 4.10). On the basis of stylistic dissimilarity from other Bornean rock art traditions, cave locations and association with Paleolithic rock art, I situate the linear motifs of East Kalimantan as the earliest engraving tradition on the island. The following phase, delineated by stylistic dissimilarity and the combined use of bas relief and engraving techniques, consists of bas relief and engravings of one or more front- facing, spread-eagled anthropomorphs unique to the Bornean Highlands that are usually accompanied by notched engravings or heads. Two subsequent, possibly contemporaneous, traditions are more stylistically similar to modern indigenous iconography: boulders bearing bas relief and engravings of linear, curvilinear and anthropomorphic designs like human figures and heads concentrated in the highlands, and boulders engraved with linear and curvilinear motifs and zoomorphic forms – a pan- island practice that occurs in inland, coastal and riverine environments. Deeply engraved linear and geometric forms with possible Buddhist or Indic influences (Taçon et al. 2011) and engraved lines of Arabic script at singular, coastal Sarawak sites are intrusive traditions. Engravings of anthropomorphs and faces in profile featuring modern items and domestic animals like water buffalo are also restricted to the highlands, can be confidently associated with the historic period and are the last phase in the sequence of engraved/bas relief rock art produced on Borneo. The archaeological affiliations of

Borneo’s earliest engraving tradition are unclear. Style indicates four of the seven distinct phases of engraving/bas relief production originated on Borneo, while two can be associated with cultural traditions intrusive to Borneo over the last millennia.

132 Table 4.10. Early to late phases of the Bornean bas relief and engraving tradition Chronology Phase Technique(s) Landscape Geographic Style, Motifs Archaeological/Cultural Location, Distribution Affiliations Environments Earliest A Engraving Caves, inland East Linear motifs of Occurs at sites environments Kalimantan, zigzags and clusters containing Paleolithic Indonesian of lines through modern Borneo cultural materials B Engravings Open-air Bornean Stylized, front-facing, Indigenous Borneans and bas boulders, inland Highlands spread-eagled relief environments anthropomorphs, notches, heads C Engravings Open-air Pan-island Interlocking linear, Indigenous Borneans (contemporaneous and bas boulders, inland curvilinear and Latest with D?) relief environments anthropomorphic designs like human figures and heads D Engravings Open-air Pan-island Linear, curvilinear Indigenous Borneans (?) (contemporaneous boulders, inland, motifs and with C?) riverine and zoomorphic forms coastal environments D Engravings Open-air Coastal Deeply engraved Buddhist or Indic boulders, inland, linear and geometric influences? riverine and forms coastal environments

133 E Engraving Open-air Island Engraved script Arabic/Malay boulders, inland, riverine and coastal environments F Engravings Open-air Bornean Stylized, in-profile Indigenous Borneans boulders, inland Highlands anthropomorphs and environments faces, modern material culture from the last 200 years, and domesticated animals

134 Methods developed by Hampson (2015), buttressed by ethnographic connections to living Bornean cultural groups and Taçon’s Bornean rock art typology, identify the defining features of what I argue are indigenous rock art practices that originated and developed solely on the island and intrusive rock art traditions.

While obviously intrusive Bornean rock art does not currently occur frequently enough to constitute a trend with clearly established linkages to outside human populations, rock art linked to known immigrants to the island include: the inscription of

Islamic verse at Salumon’s Pool, Pulau Lakei and the Indic inscriptions at Santubong.

Bornean rock art traditions displaying regional connections that could possibly be intrusive, exported or a combination of the two include: stencils, ochre paintings, early painted ships and humans, black drawings of bird men and an additional black drawing tradition. Only the engravings and bas reliefs of humans and curvilinear designs rock art tradition concentrated in the Northern highlands, but found elsewhere as well, remains as a potential contender for an entirely indigenous Bornean rock art style tradition.

Informed methods applied to a singular Bornean rock art tradition: the rock engravings and bas reliefs that cluster in Bornean interior. Archival and ethnographic data is available for the complex of carved boulders and bas reliefs (Barker et al. 2008;

Forest Department Sarawak 2009; Lloyd-Smith et al. 2013: 39; 43-45; T. Harrison 1958a:

396-397) in the Northern Bornean Highlands and indicates that multivarious, diachronic iterations of rock art creation have taken place on Borneo from ancient through modern

– and possibly very recent – times. A publication by the Forest Department Sarawak

(2009) containing images, descriptions and ethnographic information on cultural

135 resources in the Northern Highlands was an additional ethnographic resource. Outside the highlands, modern communities near the rock art sites surveyed and documented during field research in Sarawak were either unaware of, or did not recognize a relationship to, the rock art.

4.5 Discussion The main objectives of this research are the delineation of Bornean rock art traditions and their chronological and cultural affiliations and to evaluate the pan-

Bornean rock art corpus for evidence of migration and interaction, especially during the

“Neolithic” time period.

Distinctively “Neolithic” rock art sites are distributed throughout the island of

Borneo. Some painted rock art sites, rock drawing sites and possibly engraving sites from West Kalimantan (a singular site, Liang Kaung), East Kalimantan, the Bornean highlands and coastal Sarawak can be associated with the “Neolithic” on stylistic and formal grounds. Stylistic parallels with Gua Mardua suggest the concentric circles at

Lobang Tulang could date to the early Holocene. At least some evidence for “Neolithic” black rock drawings exists in Sarawak, as well as a stage of cave painting at Niah predating the roughly 1 ka 30 meter panel of rock art there. Black rock paintings of concentric circles and nested u-shapes from Lobang Tulang, Niah Cave Complex are similar in style and patterning to rock paintings found at Gua Mardua, East Kalimantan, and other sites nearby (Chazine 1999:219) and constitute possible traces of an island wide rock painting tradition. If correct, the association hints at the existence of a pan-

Bornean iconography and means the black rock drawings predate the red rock art at

Gua Kain Hitam. The unique red rock paintings at Niah Cave have no parallels in the

136 Bornean rock art ensemble. Stylistically, they are associated with 1 ka archaeological assemblages at the site. The red rock paintings at Niah Cave display a blend of indigenous motifs and images that bear stylistic affinity to Dong Son iconography suggesting they embody intrusive rock art practices localized through fusion with indigenous iconography over time. Engravings and black rock drawings are the youngest rock art traditions in Sarawak and persisted through modern times.

Recognizably indigenous and intrusive rock art traditions are present, systematically quantifiable and can be associated with general time periods on Borneo.

Boulders, sometimes notched, containing engraved and bas relief human figures and scrolling, inter-locking geometric and linear motifs display stylistic continuity with indigenous iconographies and are a multiple phases of an indigenous rock art tradition found only on Borneo. Another rock art tradition endemic to Borneo consists of black rock drawings of geometric, hollow-bodied anthropomorphs, geometric forms and curvilinear motifs.

These results enabled the detection and definition of multiple new Bornean rock art practices that refine and expand Taçon’s Bornean rock art typology (Table 4.11).

First, they enable the recognition of multiple stages within the Bornean indigenous rock art tradition: one phase of cave engravings that occur only in East Kalimantan, three phases of engravings restricted to the highlands and one pan-Bornean tradition of linear, curvilinear motifs and zoomorphic forms.

Early, middle and later stages of the black rock drawing tradition can be detected and defined through superimposition, stylistic differences and depicted indicators of

137 chronology. Square, hollow-bodied anthropomorphs, geometric and curvilinear motifs define the earliest black rock drawing tradition, followed by drawings of “x-ray” zoomorphs and anthropomorphs interacting on a 3-dimensional plane. The latest stage of the black rock drawing tradition consists of paneled clusters of interacting anthropomorphs, many of who bear hilted swords.

New discoveries made during fieldwork in Sarawak, combined with stylistic and formal analysis, enable the recognition of synchronic instances of rock art creation at several sites. Mud drawings from Fairy Cave represent a rock art technique new to the record, while stages of black rock drawings from Gua Bumo I and II possibly began in the

“Neolithic” and persisted through World War II (and modern times, if the graffiti rife at each site is to be included).

138 Table 4.11. Refinements (bold) to Taçon’s (2013) Bornean rock art typology Rock Description Location Associated Sites Local and Regional Chronological Sources Art Associations Associations/Methods Type A Stencils East Regional tradition Older than 9900/TH/U- Plagnes et al. Kalimantan, (present in Papua 14 dating of calcite 2003; Fage Indonesian New Guinea, drapery over rock and Chazine Borneo Australia)restricted paintings 2010 to Australasia B Ochre paintings of East Perhaps regional – After 9900 animals and Kalimantan, possible similarities BP/superimposition humans phase 1 Indonesian to northern and Borneo western Australia C Ochre paintings of East Peninsular Malaysia Tan 2010; Tan animals and Kalimantan, association? and Chia 2010 humans phase 2 Indonesian Borneo D1 Black and red Sarawak, Lobang Tulang, Part of pan-island ? painted geometric Malaysian Niah Cave painting tradition? and linear motifs Borneo Complex Gua Mardua, East Kalimantan D2 Early painted ship, Sarawak, Gua Kain Hitam, Broader Southeast 1 ka/ stylistic Ballard 1992; humans Malaysian Niah Cave Asian tradition? association with Barker 2005: Borneo Complex “Neolithic” 90,91;Szabó assemblages et al. 2008

D3 Red painted Sarawak, Gua Kain Hitam, geometric and Malaysian Niah Cave

139 linear motifs Borneo Complex

E Early black rock Pan-island Pan-island Endemic, pan-island ? drawing tradition Bornean tradition? of anthropomorphs, geometric and linear motifs including curvilinear forms F Recently drawn Sabah, Gua Hagop Bilpo “Links from afar” Bellwood ships and humans Malaysian 1988 Borneo G Later black rock Sarawak, Gua Sireh, Gua Bornean, peninsular drawings Malaysian Bumo I, Gua Malaysian and Borneo Bumo II, Sarang southern Thai Caves; Liang tradition? Lumba; Liang Kaung; Gua Ilas Kenceng; Gua Jufri; Gua Tam; Gua Kambing; Gua Kenyato; Gua Mardua; Gua Payou; Gua Saleh; Gua Tam H1 Engravings of East Sites throughout Fage and linear motifs like Kalimantan, the Marang Chazine 2010 zigzags and Indonesian Mountain Range

140 clusters of lines Borneo H2 Engravings and Bornean Sites throughout Indigenous tradition bas relief of Highlands the Bornean stylized, front- Highlands facing, spread- eagled anthropomorphs, notches, heads H3 Engravings of Bornean Sungai Jaong, Indigenous tradition linear and Highlands Kampung curvilinear motifs Santubong, Batu and zoomorphic Kalang forms H4 Shallowly-pecked Sarawak, Kampung engravings of ship Malaysian Santubong shapes and linear Borneo motifs H5 Bas relief Sarawak,Ma Sungai Jaong Widespread Bornean T.Harrisson laysia, tradition with links to 1958a; Kalimantan nearby regions Harrisson and highlands, O’Connor Indonesia 1970; Barker et al. 2009 H6 Santubong-type North Kampung Indic visitors? 10th - 13th centuries Taçon et al. engraved symbols Sarawak, Santubong AD /Associated with 2011: 105 Malaysian nearby Hindu, Buddhist Borneo archaeology H7 Engravings of Sarawak, Salumon’s Pool Local Malay Arabic script Malaysian

141 Borneo H8 Engravings of Sarawak, Kampung Local Chinese Post-1700 Chinese letters Malaysian Santubong community (?) Borneo I Modern graffiti Sarawak, Sites throughout 20th and 21st century Numeric dates in and Sarawak Malaysian Sarawak and East visitors graffiti; historical Forest Borneo; Kalimantan content (Japanese Department tags East lettering and a Kalimantan, Swastika) Malaysian Borneo

142 Two new, empirical rock art age estimations were generated as a result of this research (Table 4.12). At Gua Bumo I, the black rock drawings of anthropomorphs bearing swords provides the rock art a terminus post quem of 2000 BP (Higham et al.

2011; White and Hamilton: 2009). At neighboring Gua Bumo II, terminus post quem 20th century – swastika motif observed (technical difficulties mean no digital image is available).

143 Table 4.12. Expanded (additions in bold) Bornean rock art absolute dates and relative age estimations Site Rock Art Chronological Associations/ Sources Methods Gua Saleh, Hand stencil Older than 9900/TH/U and C-14 dating of Plagnes et al. 2003; Indonesian East calcite drapery over rock paintings Fage and Chazine Kalimantan, 2010 Borneo Gua Ilas Kenceng Hand stencils, rock paintings Zooarchaeological association of bovid image Chazine and Setiawan and drawings with species that went extinct during the 2008: 6; Fage and Pleistocene Chazine 2010: 92, 93; Plagnes et al. 2003:176 Gua Ilas Kerim Seriously damaged rock Zooarchaeological association of bovid image Fage and Chazine paintings/drawings with species that went extinct during the 2010: 114-115; Pleistocene Chazine and Setiawan 2008: 6

Numerous sites in Rock paintings and black rock Superimposition of multiple painting Fage and Chazine East Kalimantan drawings episodes over Hand-stencils and covered 2010 with black rock drawings indicates terminus post quem of the Paleolithic era for the hand stencils Gua Bumo I Black rock drawings Sword depictions establish a terminus post quem of c. 2000 BP for head-dressed stick figures with swords, stylistic seriation indicates several earlier traditions present at site

144 Gua Kain Hitam, Red rock paintings 1 ka/ stylistic association with “Neolithic” Harrisson 1958b; Niah Cave assemblages Szabó et al. 2008: Complex, 158,159 Malaysian Borneo Kampung Spiral and bas relief face Within last 1 ka/ suggested age of indigenous Barker 2009; Harrison Santubong, rock art tradition 1958b: 700; Taçon et Malaysian Borneo Deep rock engravings al. 2011: 118 10th - 13th centuries AD /resemblance to Pali script and Hindu symbols/rock art Lobang Balang Rock carvings Carving marks indicate Metal Age or later Barker et al. 2009: 141, 142; Lloyd-Smith et al. 2013: 39 Liang Lumba Cave, Black rock drawings (Datan Estimated 100 years ago based on images Grabowsky 1888 in Mount Mandella* 1993:137; Bellwood 1988:94) bearing stylistic similarity to Western, Islamic Kusch 1986; Bellwood and local indigenous traditions (Bellwood 1988 1988: 94) :94; Datan 1993:137 Gua Bumo I and II Black rock drawings of a World War II-era swastika, airplane and Japanese writing

145 These results expand and refine the previous ranges of Bornean techno- chronological traditions (Table 4.13). Within the ensemble, Paleolithic hand stencils and several phases of multi-colored rock paintings (the majority of which superimposed over and modifying underlying hand stencils) depicting anthropomorphs, zoomorphs, geometric and dotted motifs are restricted to coastal and near-coastal mountain ranges in Indonesian East Kalimantan. The oldest horizons of rock art across the techno- chronological traditions feature hand-stencils, as well as geometric and linear motifs and larger proportions of a greater variety of zoomorphs. An untold amount of undescribed black rock drawings overlay the painting phases and represent the most recent rock art tradition (Fage and Chazine 2010: 142,148). Engravings of geometric, linear forms occur alongside the superimposed multichrome stencils, paintings and drawings.

An endemic, multiple-phase tradition of rock engravings and bas relief executed predominantly on open-air boulders began in the Bornean Highlands perhaps as early as the Holocene and persisted through modern times. A possibly related, likely also indigenous tradition of engraved spirals and geometric forms is present on Malaysian

Sarawak’s Santubong Peninsula and on a boulder in the Cihan River featuring engraved spirals and concentric circles.

Black rock drawings are a pan-island rock art practice displaying a great deal of similarity as well as regionalization with roots in the “Neolithic”. While presently considered one of the island’s most recent rock art traditions, I suggest at least some

Bornean black rock drawings date to the “Neolithic” such as the panel at Liang Kaung containing characteristic Austronesian imagery, yet stylistically dissimilar from other

146 Table 4.13. Revised techno-chronological sequence of Bornean rock art (dark gray indicates definite/likely dates; light gray indicates possible dates) Transitional Holocene/ "Neolithic" Historic/ Paleolithic Mesolithic (c. 6000/5000 Metal Age Modern (Before (11,500 - -4000-2000 (c. 2000-500 (500 BP - 11,500 BP) c.5000/4000 BP) BP) BP) present) Evidence (Source)

U-series and c-14 date of calcite covering Hand paint (Plagnes et al.'s 2003); occurrences of layered and paint-modified hand stencils stencils (Chazine 2005; Fage and Chazine 2010)

Layered and modified hand stencils (Chazine 2005; Fage and Chazine 2010); paintings depicting possible Pleistocene fauna(Chazine and Setiawan 2008); stylistic association between Niah Cave paintings and ship of the dead burial culture/practices persisting to c. 500 BP (B.Harrison 1967; Szabo et al. Paintings 2008:158,159)

Superimposition in East Kalimantan, depictions of metal swords (kris?) and modern, historic ships lead researchers to postulate the black rock drawing tradition is contemporaneous with, or younger than, the engraving tradition (Bellwood 1988:94;Chazine and Ferrie 2008;Datan Drawings 1993:137)

147 Bornean rock art and possibly the initial stages (x-ray depiction of humans and fauna and large, infilled fauna) of black rock drawing at Gua Bumo I. I further argue a greater variety of zoomorphs and geometric/linear motifs characterize the earliest instances of black rock drawing on Borneo, while panels of interacting anthropomorphs and depictions of material culture characterize the later stages. Historic-period engravings interspersed with a small number of indigenous engravings and bas reliefs are constricted to sites along the island’s northwest coast.

4.6 Summary These results characterize Bornean rock art as a diverse ensemble of traditions, including endemic and intrusive practices, spanning the Paleolithic through modern periods. Form-based quantitative and stylistic analysis identified a wide range of

Bornean rock art technologies and styles. Rock art technologies present on the island from most to least prolific are: hand-stencils, engravings/bas relief, black rock drawings and rock paintings (including mud paintings). Hand-stencils, human-like figures, human- animal hybrids, animals, boats and ships are the most frequently occurring forms and motifs in Bornean rock art. Bornean rock art styles range from naturalistic hand-stencils and representations of animals to x-ray figures, stick figures, geometric designs, text and symbols as well as forms resembling an array of indigenous iconography. The stylistic range of Bornean rock art developed over millennia and evinces the island’s deep history of human habitation, role in regional human interaction and developmental trajectory of endemic and exported design systems.

Stylistic patterning in the Bornean rock art corpus exposes localized, discontinuous and island-wide rock art iconographies. Various possibly endemic and

148 intrusive rock art traditions and elements were identified that require more research

(documentation, dating, comparative analysis) to verify. Stylistic seriation identified four distinct phases of endemic Bornean bas relief and engraving traditions dating from the

“Neolithic” through modern periods.

Distinctive spatial patterning characterizes different Bornean rock art technologies, styles and dated traditions. Bornean rock art is almost evenly distributed between cave and open-air sites. Inland site locations dominate the assemblage while associations with modern bodies of water are rare. Further, engravings and bas relief almost entirely restricted to open-air sites in the highlands and coasts. Hand stencils, paintings, rock drawings are found only at caves. Given Borneo’s size and sparsely investigated archaeological record, this spatial patterning likely reflects research bias and is but a representative sample of a vast and largely unexplored corpus of rock art.

This basic analysis indicates endemic Bornean rock art practices extend from the highlands to the coasts, while intrusive practices are restricted to coastal and near- coastal locations. Engravings and bas relief are one pan-Bornean rock art tradition and some phases of "Neolithic" black rock-drawings constitute another. Roughly contemporaneous cave paintings displaying regional stylistic traits are a coastal and near-coastal phenomena.

4.7 Conclusions This research establishes the breadth and depth of the Bornean rock art repertoire. It uses chronologically and culturally-affiliated rock art practices to refine and expand understandings of the Bornean archaeological record and rock art typologies. These results mobilize Bornean rock art with stylistic/chronological

149 “Neolithic” affiliations – black and red rock paintings, bas relief and engravings and some black drawing traditions - to inform on the chronology, geography and nature of migration and interaction during the Southeast Asian “Neolithic” - ideas further explored in the upcoming pages.

Chapter 5 details analysis focused on identifying the Bornean subsets of the APT and AES. It demonstrates the Bornean APT is a diffuse conglomeration of rock art mediums and styles and that the island contains minimal evidence for the AES. The incomplete nature of the available data, and specifically information and rock art imagery from East Kalimantan, mean these preliminary results require further corroboration to support.

150 CHAPTER 5. ROCK ART PERSPECTIVES ON THE BORNEAN “NEOLITHIC“

5.1 Introduction Researchers debate the origins and nature of the Bornean “Neolithic” horizon, extending from c. 6000/5000 to 4000-2000 BP (Bellwood 2007: 237, 241; Chazine 1999,

2005; Datan 1993: 163; Lloyd-Smith 2013). Borneo’s geographic situation and extensive, under-studied archaeological record uniquely position the island to evaluate competing perspectives on the regional dawn of the “Neolithic”. Borneo’s rock art, specifically, is an untapped line of archaeological evidence in this debate. The Austronesian Painting

Tradition (APT) and Austronesian Engraving Style (AES) are recognized elsewhere in

Island Southeast Asia and the West Pacific as signatory “Neolithic” rock art practices.

They are considered components of a “Neolithic” cultural package that included various combinations of voyaging technology, reliance on maritime resources, agriculture

(especially rice), stamped and incised red-slipped pottery, domestic pigs and dogs, stone adzes, jar burials and a suite of novel shell and bark cloth technologies. Identifying

Bornean subsets of the APT and AES and tracking them through space and time could clarify the chronology and cultural landscapes of this pivotal time period and perhaps evaluate models for its trajectory.

This research operationalizes Bornean rock art, a new line of archaeological evidence in Southeast Asia, to understand the chronology and cultural landscapes of the island’s “Neolithic” period. Chapter 4 characterized and archaeologically contextualized the multivarious endemic, intrusive and localized cultural and stylistic practices that constitute the Bornean rock art ensemble from the Paleolithic through the present.

Expanding that synthetic basis, this chapter reports and integrates into the

151 archaeological narrative results from analysis assessing evidence for Bornean versions of the APT and AES.

A blend of formal and quantitative data analysis isolate localized characteristics of the Bornean APT, technically a painting and drawing tradition, as well as two possible

Bornean examples of the AES. The widely-distributed attributes of the Bornean APT include black drawings and multi-chrome paintings of infilled, non-figurative geometric and linear motifs (rayed, concentric circles as well as curvilinear, geometric and scrolling motifs) and infilled figurative images (humans, domesticated animals, boats and portable material culture), periodically, but not always, found in archaeological funerary contexts. Two engravings from the coastal site of Kampung Santubong – one of a mask- like face and the other of deeply-engraved circles – are the only Bornean rock art that fit the AES criteria. Evidence for the APT is geographically constrained to cave sites, while one coastal, open-air site contains rock art that could be related to the AES. All sites span the central third of Borneo, in or near territory hosting past or present

Austronesian-speaking populations (Adelaar 2008). I argue the limited, highly variegated evidence for the APT and minimal evidence for the AES could represent the genesis of rock art styles/practices that eventually diffused and became localized throughout portions of Island Southeast Asia and the West Pacific.

5.2 The Austronesian Painting Tradition (APT) on Borneo This study identified possible, uniquely Bornean Austronesian rock art motifs. I originally postulated the Bornean subset of the APT would include: infilled red rock paintings and black rock drawings of non-figurative curvilinear and geometric motifs and figurative anthropomorphs, zoomorphs (possibly including depictions of domestic

152 animals like boars and buffalo), portable material culture and boats as well as stencils. I also suggested cave rock art sites associated with archaeological/ anthropological funerary locations/materials in areas once or presently inhabited by Austronesian speakers as places the Bornean APT was most likely to manifest.

A presence/absence account of proposed signatory Austronesian features at

Bornean Rock Art Sites (Table 5.1) shows rock art fitting the tradition’s rubric is present at 22 of the 63 known rock art sites in Borneo. Evidence from two of the sites can be dismissed on stylistic grounds as definitely non-Austronesian: Japanese writing, a swastika and depiction of an airplane date the majority of the Gua Bumo II’s newly- discovered black rock drawings to the Japanese occupation of Borneo. It is important to note additional, indiscernible black drawings covered by a thick layer of guano and cave mineral accretion exist at the site. The few images and descriptions available of the

Sarang Caves rock art sites Batu Puteh and Lubang Ringen (Chia and Datan 2003: 125,

138) show black rock drawings of anthropomorphic figures with trapezoidal heads, large ovular eyes, elongated infilled tear-drop shaped noses and, thick necks and geometric body components. The Sarang Caves drawings appear (Chia and Datan 2003: 138) stylistically unlike any other known Bornean rock art as well as Austronesian rock art from further afield and are therefore subtracted from this section of the study.

153 Table 5.1. Presence and absence of signatory Austronesian characteristics at Bornean rock art sites

SITE ROCK ART TPES COLORS MOTIFS IMAGES LOCATION REFERENCE(S)

context

air air

ing

Draw Painting Engraving Stencil Handstencil relief Bas Cupules Red Black Rayed/ concentric circles Curvilinear Geometric Zoomorphs Boats Cave Open Geometric Geometric scrolling Anthropomorphs Mortuary Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo Batuh Harrison and Puteh, Reavis 1966: Sarang 260; Kusch Caves 1986 Lubang Harrison and Ringen, Reavis 1966: Sarang 260, 261; Chia Caves and Datan 2003: 125 Gua Bumo ? I Gua Bumo ? II Gua Kain Barker 2005; Hitam, Harrison Niah 1958b: 588- Caves, 590; Harrison previously 1958a: 200; reported Pyatt et al. rock art 2005: 897

154 panel and three singular images Gua Kain ? Hitam, Niah Caves, newly- discovered rock art Gua Sireh ? Datan 1993: 138, 160 Lobang ? ? ? Reavis 1964 Tulang, Niah Caves East Kalimantan, Indonesian Borneo Gua Ham Fage and Chazine 2010: 126-134; Plagnes et al. 2003:173 Gua Harto Fage and Chazine 2010:150 Gua Ilas Chazine and Kenceng Setiawan 2008: 6; Fage

155 and Chazine 2010: 92, 93; Plagnes et al. 2003:176 Gua Jufri Fage and Chazine 2010: 136,137 Gua ? ? ? ? ? ? Fage and Kambing* Chazine 2010: 73 Gua ? Fage and Kurang Chazine 2010: Tahu 123 Gua Fage and Mardua Chazine 2010:56,58 Gua Payou ? ? ? ? ? Fage and Chazine 2010:72,73 Gua Pindi ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Fage and Chazine 2010: 114, 115 Gua ? ? ? ? Fage and Tamrin Chazine 2010: 122,123 Gua ? ? ? ? Fage and Tengkorak Chazine 2010: 124 Gua Tewet Fage and

156 Chazine 2010: 106-115; Plagnes et al. 2003:173 Liang Chazine 2005: Karim 222; Fage and Chazine 2010: 144, 145 Liang ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Grabowsky Lumba 1888 in Kusch Cave, 1986; Mount Bellwood 1988 Mandella* :94; Datan 1993:137 Liang Sara ? ? Fage and II* Chazine 2010: 74,75 West Kalimantan, Indonesian Borneo Liang ? Fage 1989:33 Kaung

157 The 20 remaining sites are cave locations, though less than a third have established archaeological funerary associations, possibly due to lack of research.

Anthropomorphs and zoomorphs, as well as geometric motifs, drawn in black and painted in red, dominate the assemblage. Rayed/concentric circles, curvilinear and scrolling geometric motifs constituting the tradition elsewhere occur infrequently on

Borneo. While prolific at Kain Hitam, Niah Cave complex, and represented by two images from Gua Bumo I, boat depictions are notably absent from other Bornean

Austronesian rock art sites.

Several possible explanations exist for the wide range of variation in rock art medium, motif and image contained within this subset of Bornean rock art. None invalidate the integrity of the model as a means of isolating strains of “Neolithic” rock art on Borneo. Variability signifying localization through time characterizes Austronesian rock art practices in the Pacific (Wilson 2002, 2004) and East Timor (2003; O’Connor and

Oliveira 2007) on regional and local levels. On Borneo, as with elsewhere in the Pacific and Southeast Asia, variability would be an expected feature of a rock art tradition introduced within a migrant culture that localized over time. Austronesian migrants likely arrived on Borneo before East Timor and Pacific islands, so the Bornean

Austronesian rock art tradition is an earlier version of introduced practices that both migrated onwards and became localized on the island over time.

Austronesian rock art on Borneo is restricted to a specific geographic range

(Figure 5.1). Rock art satisfying all postulated elements (possessing at least one

158

Figure 5.1. Bornean sites containing a preponderance of signatory Austronesian features (map by Chris Filimoehala).

159 characteristic from each of the bolded columns) of the Bornean Austronesian rock art tradition is currently restricted to 20 sites banding the central third of Borneo: Gua

Bumo I, Gua Kain Hitam, Lobang Tulang, and Gua Sireh (Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo);

Gua Ham, Gua Harto, Gua Illas Kenceng, Gua Jufri, Gua Kambing (location unknown),

Gua Kurang Tahu, Gua Mardua, Gua Payaou, Gua Pindi, Gua Tamrin, Gua Tengkorak,

Gua Tewet, Liang Karim, Liang Lumba Cave, Liang Sara II (East Kalimantan, Indonesian

Borneo) and Liang Kaung (West Kalimantan, Indonesian Borneo). Possible explanations for the geographic patterning include the relative dearth of Bornean archaeological research and lack of information regarding the record of West Kalimantan. The site distribution could also delineate a geographic band of Austronesian rock art practices.

Additional, pan-Bornean archaeological survey and translation of West and East

Kalimantan archaeological literature are needed to fully investigate the phenomena.

Within this site array, I argue stylistic variation in rock art medium, motif and image delineates phased “Neolithic” Bornean rock art practices, supporting Chazine’s

(2005) observations, augmenting Taçon’s rock art typology and echoing Wilson’s

(2002,2004) findings on Vanuatu and O’Connor’s (2003; O’Connor and Oliveira 2007) on

East Timor. Stencils of portable material culture and animals are notably absent (though hand stencils likely dating to the late Pleistocene and Early Holocene abound) from the

Bornean “Neolithic” rock art tradition, possibly because Borneo’s rock art represents an early (nascent?) stage in the genesis of the repertoire.

The results of this presence/absence inventory enable a re-evaluation of the original model I postulated for the Bornean APT (Table 5.2). I previously theorized the

160 Table 5.2. Revised model for the Bornean Austronesian Painting Tradition (APT) Country/ Rock Art Rock Art Rock Art Rock Art Rock Art Site Cultural or Austronesian Reference(s) geographic Types(s) Color(s) Motifs Images Landscape archaeological speakers region Location funerary inhabit(ed) association? the region? West Engravings N/A Curvilinear Open-air Cultural and Yes Specht Pacific motifs locations near archaeological 1979; water Ballard 1988, 1992; Paintings A range of Infilled Wilson (predomina predomina Infilled non- figurative Prominent 2002, 2004 nt medium) ntly red figurative images: situation in hues; motifs: anthropom hard-to-access yellow, rayed, orphs, areas, coastal Stencils black concentric zoomorphs location/ocean (infrequent) circles; and boats orientation curvilinear, geometric Territories and scrolling occupied by motifs present-day Austronesian speakers East Timor Paintings A range of Infilled Infilled Caves Yes O’Connor predomina scrolling and anthropom 2003; ntly red geometric orphs and O’Connor hues, some designs depictions and Oliveira superimpo of material 2007 sed by culture white

161 pigment Indonesian Drawings Black “wide range Anthropom Caves N/A N/A Aubert et al. Sulawesi of geometric orphs, 2014:223 signs” zoomorphs (including domesticate d species) Borneo Drawings Black Caves Sometimes Yes Donohue and Paintings A range of Infilled non- Infilled Denham predomina figurative figurative 2010: 228 ntly red motifs: images: hues; rayed, anthropom perhaps concentric orphs, other circles; zoomorphs colors? curvilinear, (domesticat geometric ed animals), and scrolling boats, motifs material culture

162 APT would consist of infilled red rock paintings, black rock drawings and stencils depicting non-figurative curvilinear and geometric motifs and figurative anthropomorphs, zoomorphs (with some possibly domestic animals like boars and buffalo) and boats/portable objects. I also hypothesized the Bornean APT would occur at caves frequently (but not always) in association with archaeological/ anthropological funerary locations/materials in areas once or presently inhabited by Austronesian speakers. These results necessitate that stencils be excluded from Austronesian rock art practice on Borneo, and also that the model be renamed the Austronesian Painting and

Drawing Tradition (APDT) when applied to Borneo.

A mixture of rock painting and black rock drawing sites from across Borneo display features characteristic of the APT (Figure 5.2). The largest number of signatory

APT elements manifest at Liang Kaung, a black rock drawing cave site from central

Borneo (Figure 5.3), which possess geometric circle and curvilinear motifs, depictions of material culture and anthropomorphs in the APT style. Similarities exist between the red rock paintings of concentric circles of Gua Mardua, East Kalimantan and the black rock paintings of concentric circles at Lobang Tulang, Miri, Sarawak that could indicate a shared rock art tradition that bridges the island (Figure 5.4). A wide range of variability characterizes the Bornean APT. Stylistic similarities underscored by a wide degree of locational and tehno-chronological dissimilarity is present throughout Bornean

Austronesian site types. This patterning could signify the regional development of what

163

Figure 5.2. Black rock drawings of rayed circles (left) and red rock paintings of spirals and boats (right) – elements of the Bornean APT.

Figure 5.3. Characteristic APT-style black rock drawings from Liang Kaung (drawing by Rachel Hoerman after Fage 1989:35)

164

Figure 5.4. Red rock paintings from Gua Mardua (left; drawing by Rachel Hoerman after Chazine 1999:216) and black rock paintings from Lobang Tulang (right; image courtesy of the Sarawak Museum Department). eventually came to be the Bornean Austronesian tradition, the disintegration of the tradition over time, or a combination of the two. By contrast, Bornean engravings and bas relief, predominantly from the Northern Highlands, display a high degree of stylistic variability spanning ancient through modern times.

5.3 The Bornean Austronesian Engraving Style (AES) Presence/absence analysis of locational and formal characteristics in the

Bornean engraving/bas relief techno-chronological tradition identified possible evidence for the AES. A single bas relief face (Figure 5.5) from Kampung Santubong fits Specht’s

(1979:4) criteria for the AES as a mask-like image engraved on a boulder, in an open-air location facing the sea.

165

Figure 5.5. Mask-like engraving from Kampung Santubong and potential example of the Bornean AES (photograph by Rachel Hoerman).

5.4 Discussion The APT observed in other Southeast Asian and Pacific locales is present on

Borneo, as is minimal evidence for the AES. The Bornean version of the APT is characterized by: black rock drawings and multi-chrome paintings portraying infilled non-figurative motifs: rayed, concentric circles; curvilinear, geometric and scrolling motifs as well as infilled figurative images: anthropomorphs, zoomorphs (domesticated animals), boats, material culture found at cave sites associated with archaeological

166 funerary contexts. A coastal rock art from Sarawak contains possible evidence for the

AES – a single engraved and bas relief, mask-like face.

Unlike in Island Southeast Asia and the West Pacific, no single rock art phase or specific site on Borneo are representative of the Bornean APT. Instead, Bornean rock art phases and sites contain a broad meld of formal and contextual features characteristic of the APT. The Bornean APT displays a higher degree of variation in rock art medium, motif combinations and iconography than any other Island Southeast Asian or Pacific location. By contrast, the very limited evidence for the Bornean AES parallels the tradition in the West Pacific, but requires the discovery of additional coastal engravings displaying the formal characteristics of the Bornean AES to substantiate.

Several possible explanations exist for the distribution and demographics of

“Neolithic” APT and AES rock art iconography. The pattern could represent the initial stirrings of “Neolithic” rock art styles that codified along the coasts and were exported to other locations throughout Island Southeast Asia and the West Pacific. The APT and

AES have been shown to localize over time in the West Pacific. The localization of intrusive trends (i.e. a rock art practice introduced and adopted over time by groups on

Borneo) is another possibility for Borneo’s diffusion of APT and AES rock art iconography. Radiocarbon and U-series dating of the rock art traditions here stylistically and on the basis of superimposition associated with the “Neolithic” could yield the direct age estimations required for the rock art to generate detailed chronological information regarding “Neolithic” human societies on Borneo and in the region.

167 5.5 Summary Using formal analysis and a presence/absence account, this research identifies the Bornean version of the APT and possible traces of the AES. Evidence for the Bornean

APT is found in a restricted geographic distribution of cave locations that contain a diffuse meld of rock art styles, mediums and archaeological/cultural materials. A single engraving from the coastal site of Kampung Santubong is the only indicator of the

Bornean AES.

The Bornean APT is uniquely different from manifestations of the APT in

Indonesia, East Timor and the West Pacific. It is far more variegated in rock art styles, mediums and archaeological/cultural associations, with no definitive “site-types”. I recognize two possible explanations for this data patterning. In one scenario, the distributional, formal and characteristic variety of the Bornean APT could represent the initial stirrings of what later became a more codified, highly mobile and then localized rock art practice. In another, the patterning could represent the disintegration and localization of introduced “Neolithic” rock art practices through time. These results do not make detailed refinements to Borneo and Southeast Asia’s “Neolithic” chronologies possible. However, they do expose and characterize an additional vein of archaeological evidence for “Neolithic” material culture and definitive evidence for “Neolithic” rock art on Borneo. These data ultimately underscore Borneo’s import in the human migrations and interaction that characterized the Southeast Asian “Neolithic”.

5.6 Conclusions By identifying the characteristics of the Bornean APT and a possible candidate for the Bornean AES, this research revises Bornean rock art typologies and develops a

168 deeper understanding of the Bornean record. This project enables Bornean rock art, a new line of archaeological evidence, to broadly inform on the chronology and cultural landscapes of the Southeast Asian record and “Neolithic” time period. Chapter 6 summarizes and discusses in detail the implications of this research.

169 CHAPTER 6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

6.1 Project summary Worldwide and in Southeast Asia, researchers debate the timing, nature and tempo of Neolithic-era transitions human societies made from hunting, gathering and foraging to settled, agricultural lifeways. Rock art research has made integral, understated contributions to synchronic and diachronic understandings of human movement and interaction in other world areas, but remains a largely untapped source of archaeological information on “Neolithic” Southeast Asia. This research identifies a characteristically “Neolithic” APT on Borneo whose high degree of stylistic diversity suggests that Borneo is the homeland of the tradition. This research also identified a single instance of the AES.

Operationalizing Bornean rock art to study Southeast Asian “Neolithic” human migration and interaction between 6 and 2 ka was the overarching goal of this project. It was accomplished by evaluating Bornean rock art for diagnostically “Neolithic”

Austronesian Painting Tradition (APT) and Austronesian Engraving Style (AES) design systems. Constellations of informed, formal and quantitative methods were employed to: a) delineate Bornean rock art traditions, b) develop a chronology for Bornean rock art traditions, c) establish cultural affiliations for Bornean rock art traditions, and, d) evaluate the resultant dataset for evidence of migration, demographic shifts and spatial patterning through time.

6.2 The depth and breadth of Bornean rock art Research results characterized Bornean rock art as a diverse ensemble of traditions, including indigenous and intrusive practices, spanning the Paleolithic through

170 modern periods. Initial analysis foundational to the focused study of “Neolithic”

Bornean rock art practices characterized Bornean rock art technologies, style and distribution as highly variable. An inventory, synthesis and typology showed Bornean rock art technologies ranging from most to least prolific include: engravings/bas relief, hand-stencils, black rock drawings, and rock paintings (including mud paintings). The majority of Bornean rock art consists of: engravings/bas relief of inter-locking, patterned motifs resembling indigenous iconographies; naturalistic painted hand stencils and animals; stylized black rock drawings and multi-chrome paintings of human-like figures, human-animal hybrids, animals, boats and ships.

Definitively indigenous rock art traditions include bas relief and engravings and some black rock drawings. The former are found exclusively on boulders at open-air rock art sites. They concentrate in the Bornean Highlands, and infrequently occur at other places throughout the island including near waterways and coasts. Archival and ethnographic information (Barker et al. 2008; Forest Department Sarawak 2009; Lloyd-

Smith et al. 2013: 39; 43-45; T. Harrison 1958a: 396-397) indicate bas relief and engraved boulders served as boundary markers, warnings and commemorations in indigenous Bornean societies during the modern period – possible purposes for the tradition beginning as early as the “Neolithic”.

As with bas relief and engravings, black rock drawings are an additional pan-

Bornean rock art practice. They display a high degree of stylistic variability, even in sites proximal to each other (e.g. Gua Sireh, Gua Bumo I and Gua Bumo II) that could relate to different time periods, cultural traditions or localization/creolization of introduced

171 practices. A lack of complete records for Bornean black rock drawing sites currently prevents concrete formulations about the island-wide significance of the phenomena.

Superimposition of rock art motifs/images occurs infrequently throughout

Borneo. Where it does occur, it is limited to two distinctly different, overlapping styles.

An exception is East Kalimantan. There, superimposed hand stencils, linear and geometric motifs build on underlying hand stencils to form new patterns and motifs/images and are overlain with successive layers of multichrome paintings and charcoal drawings. Rock paintings and drawings displaying minimal superimposition are almost entirely a near-coastal and coastal phenomena.

Many Bornean sites contain multiple, distinct rock art styles that are not superimposed. These patterns may correlate to site-use through time, with overlapping rock art traditions representing closer successions of site use (e.g. Niah Cave), while non-superimposed traditions co-occurring at sites could indicate extended site-use for different purposes through time by various groups.

The synthesis, classification and seriation of Bornean rock art revealed a multitude of highly variable chronologically and culturally diagnostic rock art traditions.

Seriation and formal analysis proved to be an effective means of defining instances of rock art phases within Bornean rock art practices related to distinct time periods as well as endemic and intrusive cultural traditions that likely include groups active on Borneo during the “Neolithic”. As discussed above, phased engraving/bas relief rock art traditions and some phases of black rock drawings are endemic, and restricted, to

Borneo. The Niah Caves Complex hosts a diverse array of red rock paintings as well as

172 black rock paintings of concentric circles that stylistically parallel those found across the island in East Kalimantan, all of which likely date to the “Neolithic”. The proximal sites of

Gua Sireh and Gua Bumo I host multiple “Neolithic” through modern phases of similar and dissimilar black rock drawings, including panels of “bird-men” found as far afield as

Thailand (Taçon 2013). The marked lack of stylistic overlap in rock art phases between

Kampung Santubong and Sungai Jaong suggest the two sites possess dissimilar chronologies/cultural affiliations possibly beginning during the “Neolithic” and extending through the historic period. Phased production of bas relief/engravings are endemic to the island and multiple stylized rock painting and drawing traditions can be loosely associated with the “Neolithic” through modern periods. Borneo’s coasts host engraved rock art traditions with Indic, Muslim Malay and Chinese affiliations while interior black rock drawing sites contain evidence of regional prehistoric design systems and a World-War II era Japanese presence.

These initial analysis show chronologically and culturally diagnostic rock art traditions are detectable on a general level on Borneo. Recognizably indigenous and intrusive rock art traditions are present, systematically quantifiable and can be stylistically associated with general time periods on Borneo from the terminal

Pleistocene to modern historic era. This research delineated phased instances of

Bornean rock art that refine Bornean rock art typologies, chronologies and archaeological narratives. The chronological depth and stylistic diversity of Bornean rock art unsurprisingly evince millennia of indigenous and intrusive rock art practices on an island with a deep history of human habitation and interaction.

173 6.3 Bornean rock art and “Neolithic” human migration and interaction This research mobilized rock art to inform on “Neolithic” Southeast Asian human movement and interaction by evaluating models for the APT and AES identified in the

West Pacific (Ballard 1992; Specht 1979; Wilson 2002,2004) and Island Southeast Asia

(O’Connor and Oliveira 2007; Aubert et al. 2014; Taçon et al. 2014:1062) on Borneo.

Expectations for the Bornean APT, constructed from Island Southeast Asian and Pacific manifestations (Ballard 1988, 1992; O’Connor 2003; O’Connor and Oliveira 2007; Specht

1979; Wilson 1998, 2002, 2004) of the model, were: red rock paintings, black drawings and stencils of infilled, non-figurative geometric and linear motifs (rayed, concentric circles as well as curvilinear, geometric and scrolling motifs) and infilled figurative images (humans, domesticated animals, boats and portable material culture), periodically, but not always, found in archaeological or cultural funerary contexts.

This research identifies uniquely Bornean versions of Austronesian rock art styles. The Bornean subset of the APT consists of multi-chrome drawings and paintings of infilled, non-figurative geometric and linear motifs (rayed, concentric circles as well as curvilinear, geometric and scrolling motifs) and infilled figurative images (humans, domesticated animals, boats and portable material culture), periodically, but not always, found in archaeological or cultural funerary contexts. A single mask-like engraving from a coastal rock art site fits AES criteria.

This research identified Bornean elements of the Austronesian Painting Tradition

(APT) whose variety and spatial distribution indicate the design system originated on the island. No single site contains rock art representative of the Bornean APT; rather, signatory elements of the Bornean APT are widely distributed throughout inland rock art

174 sites spanning the central third of Borneo Island. High stylistic diversity and a greater range of motifs/images are characteristic of origin areas and could possibly explain the diffuse diversity and distribution of the Bornean APT characteristics. The consistent diversity and wide geographic spread of possible APT elements in this data contrast with the APT design system in Island Southeast Asia and the West Pacific, where strong signifiers of the APT break down and localize through time (Wilson 2002; O’Connor and

Oliveira 2007). Design elements developed independently and diachronically on Borneo could have codified to form the Austronesian design system. This pattern identifies

Borneo as a homeland for the emergence and codification of the APT and its subsequent migration throughout Island Southeast Asia and the West Pacific.

Possible evidence for a Bornean AES – predominately geometric, curvilinear, concentric and mask-like images engraved on boulders in open-air locations situated near water (Specht 1979: 74) further divided into a three-stage chronology (Wilson

2003) – is restricted to one rock engravings at Kampung Santubong, Sarawak, Malaysia.

The absence of a definitive, robust Austronesian Bornean AES indicates the tradition developed later and in a different location than the APT or alternatively did not reach the island. However, archaeological research is limited on Borneo. Further work is required before the significance of the present evidence can be archaeologically contextualized and scientifically evaluated.

Borneo as the epicenter of the APT holds obvious implications for prevalent models of Southeast Asian “Neolithic” human movement. First, the island’s multitude of stylistically diverse endemic and intrusive “Neolithic” rock art design systems evince the

175 participation of Borneo and Borneans in regional “Neolithic” interactional spheres. The distribution and characteristics of the Bornean APT identify Borneo as a homeland for the emergence and codification of the tradition and its subsequent migration throughout Island Southeast Asia and the Pacific – evidence in concordance with arguments for a Wallacean Austronesian homeland (Oppenheimer 2004; Oppenheimer and Richards 2001a, 2001b). The general nature of the rock art chronologies and cultural affiliations identified here prevent this research from contributing a detailed refinement of “Neolithic” settlement chronologies for the region.

Motifs and images from possibly “Neolithic” Bornean rock art traditions stylistically parallel with regional archaeological material cultures. Niah Cave’s rock art resembles pottery designs hallmarking the Sa Huynh-Kalanay Interaction Sphere and perhaps earlier traditions (Hsiao-chun Hung et al. 2013). This expands the body of previously established Sa Huynh-Kalanay material culture (of distinctively patterned, stamped pottery, sourced nephrite, ceramic and carved stone beads, ear ornaments) and behaviors (jar burial practices) on Borneo. Concurrently, Niah Cave’s plenitude of red painted zoomorphs and boats also mirror motifs/images from Dong Son bronzes

(Calo 2009; Higham 1996:112; Solheim 1999: 27). The amalgamated nature of intrusive

Sa Huynh-Kalanay culture and behaviors on Borneo, and the entrenched connection between the “Neolithic” red rock paintings and boat burial practices at Niah Cave, evince the presence of intrusive “Neolithic” cultural traditions on the island.

Borneo’s multiple “Neolithic” rock art traditions with regional stylistic affiliations highlight the significance of Borneo and Borneans in “Neolithic” Southeast Asia (Table

176 6.1). Bornean rock art stylistically similar to Sa Hunyh-Kalanay and Dong Son design systems increases evidence for regional “Neolithic” cultural interaction on Borneo.

Overall, these results support visualizations of the Southeast Asian “Neolithic” as a time when diverse human groups engaged in fluctuating pulses of interaction, migration, voyaging and trade throughout Southeast Asia and the West Pacific (Barker and

Richards 2013; Barton and Denham 2011; O’Connor 2015; Peterson 2009).

6.4 Bornean rock art’s implications for other island-wide and regional archaeological narratives Research results enabled Bornean rock art to inform on other aspects of Bornean and Southeast Asian archaeological narratives (Table 6.1). This work refined the techno- chronological timeline of Bornean rock art practices extending from the Paleolithic through the modern periods. It demonstrated painting traditions on Borneo could parallel the Pleistocene antiquity of hand stencils and that engravings and black rock drawings possibly date to the “Neolithic”. Black rock drawings are presumed “recent”

(less than ~1,000 years old) on Borneo and throughout Southeast Asia (Taçon et al.

2013:77) and were minimally documented, described and discussed in a decades-long study of East Kalimantan’s rock art (Fage and Chazine 2010). While likely true in some cases, pan-Bornean superimposition and seriations of rock art styles expand the timeline to include the possibility of “Neolithic” black rock drawing traditions.

177 Table 6.1. Revised (additions in bold) Bornean archaeological chronology Time period Archaeological materials Associated human behaviors Associated rock art Initial Human Cranial and skeletal remains; stone Land management; terrestrial Possible naturalistic hand Occupation and bone tools; resin; pigment; mammal, mollusk and aquatic reptile stencils and rock paintings of (c.50,000 - mollusks, freshwater shells; starch exploitation; resin use?; craftwork plants, animals and 35,000 BP) grains and macro-plant remains; and personal adornment?; rock art? anthropomorphs biomass burning; rock art? Late Stone and bone technology; macro Continued terrestrial mammal, Possible naturalistic hand Pleistocene and micro-botanical remains; mollusk and aquatic reptile stencils and rock paintings of (35,000- mollusks; rock art (?) exploitation; short-term human use of plants, animals and human 11,500 BP) caves; composite and projectile figures hunting technology; rock art (?) Transitional Cranial and skeletal remains; Root, tuber, fruit and nut exploitation; Hand stencils overlain with Holocene/ inhumations; polished tone tools; ritual use of stone and shell; burial additional hand stencils and Mesolithic anvils mortars and pestles; diversification (seated, fetal position geometric and linear designs; (11,500 - ochre/pigment; plant fiber; worked and mutilated); red coloration on possible engravings and rock c.5000/4000 bone, tooth and shell; estuarine tools; regional trade contact; rock art paintings of BP) shellfish exploitation; composite naturalistic/stylized plants, hunting and fishing (?) technologies; animals and human figures domestic rice (?); rock art “Neolithic” Earthenware pottery, worked bone Supine, multiple, cremation and jar Possible later hand stencil (c. 6000/5000 and shell; pigment; stone tool burials; red coloration on tools, faunal phases (hand stencils overlain -4000-2000 technology; rock art (?) and human remains; rock art (?); rice with additional hand stencils BP) as pottery temper; regional trade and geometric and linear contacts; domestic dogs and pigs designs); engravings and rock (?);rock art (?) paintings of naturalistic/stylized plants, animals and human figures “Metal Age” New pottery styles including glazed Jar and log coffin burials; regional Stylized paintings of

178 (c. 2000-500 trade wares; burials; iron, copper, trade contact; regional horizon of anthropomorphs, zoomorphs BP) bronze, semi-precious stone and highly eclectic, diverse and localized and material culture; glass objects; gold; domestic dogs; material cultures; rock art engravings of stylized appearance of Buddhist, Hindu, anthropomorphs, zoomorphs Islamic material cultures; Malay and and interlocking stylized Chinese trade; rock art designs; black rock drawings of naturalistic/stylized plants, animals and human figures Historic to Chinese trade wares; gold mining; Ceramic, metal, glass and wooden Engravings of symbols, text Modern continued influx Islamic material material culture; rock art and anthropomorphs; stylized Periods culture and people; rock art black rock drawings and (c. 500 BP – possible paintings present)

179 Borneo possesses the major formal differences between Pleistocene and

Holocene rock art observed throughout Island Southeast Asia (Taçon et al. 2014: 1061,

1062) that synchronically inform on rock art chronology and technologies. Throughout mainland and Island Southeast Asia beginning roughly 40,000 years ago painted naturalistic images and geometric motifs are associated with hunter-gatherers – a rock art design system that persisted through the terminal Pleistocene (Aubert et al. 2014;

Plagnes et al. 2003; Taçon et al. 2014). Borneo’s diagnostically hunter-gatherer rock art of painted, naturalistic hand stencils and animal depictions is stylistically similar to those found in Sulawesi, East Timor and New Guinea. A robust documentation and dating program is required to chronologically affiliate and understand possible relationships between the phenomena as well as evaluate whether the practices originate, were introduced or exported from Borneo.

6.5 Theoretical and methodological contributions of Bornean rock art The methodological and theoretical implications of this research argue against rock art’s continued marginalization as an archaeological data stream and champion the utility of fully incorporating rock art into research as another data source with unique promise and pitfalls. This research demonstrates how rock art can be systematically quantified, chronologically/culturally affiliated and synchronically/diachronically charted to inform on human movement and interaction. It upholds style in rock art research, as well as across material and behavioral archaeological categories, as a worthy variable and subjective unit of study. This study also underscores the continued validity and relevance of relative rock art dating and formal analysis.

180 6.6 Recommendations for future research This research highlights rock art as a key line of archaeological evidence in

Borneo and Southeast Asia. It detects and defines Bornean versions of the APT and AES.

Robust rock art dating and documentation on Borneo and throughout Southeast Asia, coupled with a comparative regional study of the APT and AES design systems that includes mapping their manifestations through space and time, could clarify and streamline the models and their developmental trajectories.

181

APPENDICES

182 APPENDIX A: Bornean rock art sites alphabetically by region Site Rock Art Rock Art Rock Art Rock Art Cultural Archaeology Reference Color(s)/Type(s)*/ Description Date/Method Association/Eviden Quantity ce Sabah, Malaysian Borneo Baturong Black rock Black drawings - - Intensive human Bellwood (Madai) drawings, singular superimposed with habitation from 11 1984: 48,49 Caves white rock a white bird to 7 ka: lithics, painting or anvils or mortars; drawing (?) shell midden and faunal remains; human habitation from 4 to 2.5 ka with red-slipped pottery and stone tools; relatively recent jar burials Gua Hagop Rock drawings Geometric motifs; - - Lithics, including Bellwood Bilo anthropomorphs, ochre-glossed 1984: 43; zoomorphs and boat items; riverine Crawford images shells; faunal 1986:1; remains Datan 1998a: 41 Pa Sia Rock engravings Spiral motifs - Similarities to rock - Datan 1998: art at Lemuyun, Ulu 41 Tomani suggests possible cultural affiliations to the Kelabit and Lun

183 Bawang people Ulu Tomani Rock engravings “masks similar to - No ethnographic - Harrisson (also Kenyah-Kayan information. 1973a: 141- referenced harvest masks”; Possible 143; Datan as Curvilinear motif connections to 1998a: 41 Lemuyun, a with indigenous Murut river, and anthropomorphic people; stylistic Bekuku, a (two faces, four similarity to woven village) limbs with three basket and hat digits each) features designs Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo Bulongan Rock engravings - - - - Kusch 1986: 103 Batu Rock engravings Stylized - - - Sarawak Balang anthropomorphs Museum Archives: “Batu Balang” Batuh Rock engraving - - - - Kusch 1986: Pilipus 103 Bukit Sarang Caves - Batuh Black rock 28” long series of - No ethnographic Human remains, Harrisson Puteh drawings charcoal drawings links lithics, earthenware and Reavis showing “humans in pottery, shell; 1966: 260; stick and geometric faunal remains, Chia 2003 style” (260) hearths - Lubang Black rock 19” band of - No ethnographic Earthenware Harrisson Ringen drawings “humans in stick links pottery, faunal and Reavis and geometric” remains 1966: 260,

184 (261); “charcoal 261; Chia wall drawings of and Datan human figures in the 2003: 125 forms of sticks and geometric designs” Gua Sireh Black rock Anthropomorphic, - - Faunal remains; Datan 1993: drawings zoomorphic and freshwater and 138, 163- geometric images estuarine shellfish 164 remains; lithics; earthenware pottery with rice temper; polished- stone adzes; human burials; shell beads, carnelian, gold and brass beads; metal objects, Chinese ceramics Kampung Rock engravings “11 naturally- Spirals and Two boulders Site located on Solheim Santubong shaped boulders,” bas relief linked to archaeology-rich 1983: Taçon, containing “22 rock human face: indigenous Iban; 9 peninsula Sauffi and engravings and one last 1 ka Deep boulders with Datan 2010: bas relief engravings: potential 105, 106 figure”(105) 13th centuries associations to AD based on Hindu devotional stylistic practices 10th-13th similarity to CE in Sarawak (105, Pali and 106) Hindu

185 symbols Niah Caves - Gua Kain Red rock paintings Anthropomorphs, Stylistic and All associated with At least 50 ka year- Barker 2005; Hitam zoomorphs, linear archaeologica funerary feasts of old evidence human T. Harrisson and geometric l association traditional, usage and 1958b: 588- motifs and boats to 1 ka boat indigenous habitation. Human 590; T. burial culture; inhabitants of the burials, boat coffins, Harrisson regional Kelabit Highlands “unworked and 1958a: 200; linkages to worked shell, Pyatt et al. Wilson’s human bone, bone 2005: 897; (2003) red artifacts, bronze, Szabó et al. painting earthenware and 2008: 150 tradition trade ware ceramics, and glass artifacts” (Szabó et al. 2008: 150)

- Lobang Black rock Curvilinear dot - - “Metal Age Jar Barker 2005: Tulang paintings patterns and Burial Site” (Szabó 90; B. drawings of et al. 2008: 1) Harrisson concentric circles containing jar 1958, 1959- with three lines of burials, freshwater 1960; Reavis nested “v” and shell, pottery, 1964; Szabó “u”shapes extending worked bone, iron et al. 2008: from one side; slag, stone tools, 162; Szabó possible other faded gold foil and ring, et al. 2008: figural and glass, wood, textile 150 geometric rock art

186 Northern Highlands -Batuh Bas relief Bas relief human - Referred to as - Forest Kelabet figure in spread “Batuh Kelabet” Department eagle position (“gibbon stone”) by Sarawak: 15; local Kelabit Barker et al. people; claimed by 2009: 156 Kelabit Balang Pelaba as a carving executed by his ancestor; other Kelabit claim it was carved at an irau feast by a past leader -Batuh Rock cuttings Rock-cut shelves - Ethnographic - Barker et al. Liban (near and small standing information from 2009: 155 Pa’ Dilah) stones local Kelabit people suggest funerary purpose/use -Batuh Rock engravings Carved lines and - Ethnographic - Forest Narit Batuh deep engraved line information Department Beret associates boulder Sarawak: 30 with warrior Agan Tadun and his wife Dayang -Batuh Bas relief Bas relief male and - - Forest Narit Long female figures Department Beruang Sarawak:15 -Batuh Bas relief Three bas relief: a - Stone - Forest

187 Narit Long man carrying a flag commemorates Department Kesi and leading a Penghulu Tigang Sarawak:24 buffalo, standing with hands on hips, and head -Batuh Rock engravings Curvilinear engraved - Interpreted as “a - Forest Narit Pa’ lines, three heart- man in mask with Department Ukat shaped heads and both arms Sarawak:33 300 notches stretched upwards” -Batuh Bas relief Bas relief carving of - - - Forest Narit a head hunter Department Punang holding three heads Sarawak: 32 Pa’Umor in his hands -Batuh Rock engravings Three engraved - Said to be folk hero - Forest Tuked Rini footprints Tuked Rini’s Department footprints Sarawak: 27 -Lobang Rock engravings “area of carved or Carving marks - - Barker et al. Balang incised rock…a indicate 2009: 141, roughly hewn Metal Age or 142; Lloyd- animal face, later Smith et al. probably a large cat 2013: 39 or tiger, with a protruding tongue” (141) -Long Bas relief “four remarkable - Grouped as part of ? T. Harrisson Lelang human figures” (20) island-wide 1959: 20 mentioned in a set megalithic tradition of “relief carvings on river-bed boulders,”

188 found in “the headwaters of both the Akar and Libbun branches of the Baram and in the Ulu Kerayan” (20) -Long Po, Rock engraving Larger than 5’7” N/A Potential - T. Harrisson upper part stone sculpture of affiliations to pre- 1959: 14-16 of the standing male figure Kenyah and pre- Kayan River with erect penis Kayan inhabitants of the area; notably different style and attributes than local inhabitants grouped as part of island-wide megalithic tradition -Long Rock engravings Interlinked - - - Chin 1984: Semadoh curvilinear and 27 spiral motifs -Long Rock engraving Engraving of a - “The local Punan - Datan Umok “pecked, wavy regard the rock as 1998:40 motif” (40) lining a sacred...” (40) river bank -Pa Bangar Bas relief Human figure with ? ? ? Chin 1984: splayed legs and 24; Sarawak arms Museum Archives: “Pa Bangar”

189 - Batu Narit Bas relief and Human figure with - Considered self- - Forest Arur Bilit, engraving splayed legs,arms portrait of mythical Department Pa Umor and twenty six warrior Upai Sarawak: 30 Village notched lines Semaring (Tuked Rini) - Pa Upan Rock engraving - - - - Kusch 1986: 103 Santubong Engravings Waisted stone with Indigenous? Site located on Doherty et Peninsula curvilinear archaeology-rich al. 2007:87 (exact engravings and peninsula location small spirals unknown) Sungai 2 bas relief Bas relief and - Unknown Ceramics, iron slag Chin 1984: Jaong engraved and ore, stone 21; anthropomorphs, tools, gold, glass Harrisson Approximately 40 linear and geometric beads and engravings on motifs O’Connor stones throughout 1968: 24,25, the site 45-46; Solheim 1983: 37 East Kalimantan, Indonesian Borneo Batu Rock engraving Spirals - - - Fage and Kalung (on Chazine the Cihan 2010: 43,44 River)* Gua Berak 54 hand stencils ? - - ? Fage and Chazine 2010: 137

190 Gua Ham 375 black, brown, Hand stencils of - - ? Fage and orange and yellow children, Chazine hand stencils adolescents and 2010: 126- adults 134; Plagnes Red rock paintings et al. 2003:173 Anthropomorphs, zoomorphs, lines and linear motifs decorating the hands Gua Harto Red and orange Some with linear - - ? Fage and hand stencils and geometric Chazine decoration 2010:150 Red, brown and yellow rock Zoomorphs, paintings geometric forms, anthropomorphs Black rock drawings Anthropomorphs

Rock engravings “Serpentine engraving” Gua Ilas 159 black, brown, Some hand stencils Zooarchaeolo - Chazine and Kenceng red and yellow bear linear designs gical Setiawan hand stencils association of 2008: 6; bovid image Fage and 23 black, brown, Bovids(?), with species Chazine

191 red and orange anthropomorphs that went 2010: 92, 93; rock paintings extinct during Plagnes et the al. 2003:176 Red and black rock Pleistocene drawings

Gua Ilas Seriously damaged “honey tree” and Zooarchaeolo - Meter-high etched Fage and Kerim rock tapir-like images gical vase stylistically Chazine paintings/drawing association of similar to Lapita 2010: 114- s bovid image ceramics 115; Chazine with species and that went Setiawan extinct during 2008: 6 the Pleistocene Gua Jufri hand stencils - - - Fage and Chazine Brown, red, Zoomorphs and 2010: 136- orange and yellow anthropomorphs 137 rock paintings Boar and Black rock unidentifiable drawings zoomorphs Gua Hand stencil Pottery at site - Cord-wrapped, Fage and Kambing* displays paddled ceramics Chazine Rock drawings “acephalic stylistic 2010: 73 mammal”, association geometric and with Rock engravings punctiform designs characteristic

192 “Neolithic” pottery Gua Kayu 436 hand stencils Hand stencils of - - - Fage and Sapung children, Chazine adolescents and 2010:122 adults Gua 4 hand stencils One red hand - ? - Fage and Kecabe* stencil, traces of Chazine additional rock art 2010: 147 Gua Black rock “honey tree” motif - - Ceramic sherds, Fage and Kenyato* drawings charcoal, burnt Chazine bone 2010:64, 142 Gua Kurang Three brown and Hand stencils, one - - - Fage and Tahu red hand stencils decorated with a Chazine zig-zag line 2010: 123 Gua 60+ red, brown Hand stencils - - - Fage and Mardua and black hand decorated with Chazine stencils horizontal lines 2010:56-58

Red, brown and Zoomorphs, black rock concentric circles paintings and linear motifs

Black rock Solar wheels, drawings geometric designs and anthropomorphs

193 and numerous prehistoric-modern boats Gua Masri I 181 hand stencils Hand stencils, some - - Worked stone and Plagnes et decorated with dots hematite; 2 burials al. 2003: 173; Fage and Chazine 2010: 85 Gua Masri 96 orange, brown Hand stencils, some - - - Fage and II and red hand arranged in Chazine stencils configurations, 2010: 86,87 some bearing dots and lines Gua Payou Red hand stencils Adult and baby hand - - - Fage and stencils decorated Chazine Red rock paintings with linear motifs 2010:72, 73 Anthropomorphs - wild boar, linear Rock engravings “floral” motifs, dots “shaped like comets”, “vulva” Gua Pindi Seriously damaged ? - - ? Fage and rock paintings Chazine 2010: 114, 115 Gua Sahak 68 hand stencils, ? - - ? Fage and some orange Chazine 2010:101 Gua Saleh Hand stencils “200 figures Cross dating Paleolithic peoples ? Plagnes et

194 including (Th/U-14C) of al. 2003: Rock more than 140 calcite 172, 173, paintings/drawing stenciled covering 178 s (?) handprints, indicates anthropomorphic paintings figures, and must be older zoomorphic than 9,870 representations years; such as a bovine and pottery at site two big mammals displays without heads” characteristic “Neolithic” patterns Gua Tam Hand stencils and Large tapir - ? ? Chazine other rock art 2005:220, similar to Ilas 222 Kenceng Gua Tamrin Hand stencils Decorated with and - - - Fage and connected by red Chazine linear designs; one 2010: hand stencil with 122,123 pointy fingers Red rock paintings Gua Tebok Hand stencils - Motif Unknown – Lithics, ceramics, Chazine and suggests Paleolithic peoples? artifacts related to Ferrié 2008: Paleolithic ochre usage and 21,22 affiliation and processing, bone pottery at site points displays

195 characteristic “Neolithic” patterns Gua 7 hand stencils - - - Fage and Tembus Chazine 2010: 137 Gua 40 red hand Adult and child hand - Cave has 12,000 Fage and Tengkorak stencils stencils year habitation Chazine sequence(radio 2010: 124 carbon dating) including lithic and bone tools, food remains, jar cremations Gua Tewet 240 brown, orange Hand stencils - Unknown - Fage and red and yellow Chazine hand stencils 2010: 106- 115; Plagnes 28 brown and red Zoomorphic, et al. rock paintings anthropomorphic 2003:173 and linear designs spiral Liang Karim 30 hand stencils - - - Fage and Chazine Red rock paintings “honey tree” motif, 2010: 144, anthropomorphs, 145 zoomorphs Liang Black rock Charcoal drawings Estimated 100 Dated by stylistic - Grabowsky Lumba drawings of figures, animals years ago association to 1888 in

196 Cave, (Datan 1993:137; based on roughly 100 years Kusch 1986; Mount Bellwood 1988:94) images ago Bellwood Mandella* bearing 1988 stylistic :94; Datan similarity to 1993:137 Western, Islamic and local indigenous traditions (Bellwood 1988: 94) Liang Sara 19 hand stencils hand stencils - - - Fage and II* decorated with Chazine linear motifs 2010: 74,75 20 black and red rock paintings anthropomorphs, zoomorphs Rock engravings (monkeys?, deer?) linear designs

West Kalimantan, Indonesian Borneo Liang Black rock Zoomorphs, - Chert tools, crushed Chazine Kaung drawings anthropomorphs, bones, paddle- 1999:217; linear and geometric impressed Fage motifs potsherds radio- 1989:33; carbon dated to 3,000 BP *Location unknown; not featured on map

197 APPENDIX B: Library, archival and field research stages I-III Stage Goal(s) Dates Location/site and Methods Data Procured Province I Dissertation June 11-18, Sarawak Museum Archival research Site reports, field notes and research and 22-27, Department, Kuching rock art photographs reconnaissance 2010 June 19, Gua Sireh, Serian Archaeological inventory Rock art photographs 2010 survey June 20 and Kampung Santubon Sungai Jaong, Kuching Rock art photographs 21, 2010 and Sungai Jaong, Kampung Santubong, Kuching Kuching II Pilot archival August 5-8, Sarawak Museum Archival research and Rock art digital images and and field 11, 12 and Department, Kuching research presentation photographs research 22, 2014 August 13- Gua Sireh, Serian Archaeological inventory Paper and digital 15, 2014 survey documentation of previously- reported and newly- discovered rock art August 18- Kampung Santubong Archaeological inventory Paper and digital 21, 2014 and Sungai Jaong, survey documentation of previously- Kuching reported and newly- discovered rock art III Sustained January 13- Sarawak Museum Archival research Site reports, field notes and archival and March 1, Department, Kuching rock art photographs field research 2015 March 2-5, Santubong Peninsula , Archaeological inventory None 2015 including Monkey survey Island, Pasir Pandak and the coastline

198 March 2, 3 Kampung Santubong New discovery Paper and digital and 5, 2015 documentation documentation of newly- discovered rock art March 11, Fairy Cave Archaeological inventory Paper and digital 2015 survey documentation of previously- reported and newly- discovered rock art March 13- Kelabit Highlands Cultural resources Paper and digital 22, 2015 assessment documentation of previously- reported and newly-reported archaeology already known to locals, including rock art March 27, Niah Cave Archaeological inventory Paper and digital April 25 and survey documentation of previously- 26, 2015 reported and newly- discovered rock art March 31, Bau and Serian Archaeological inventory None April 1, 2, 7 survey and 30, 2015 April 8- 10, Bako National Park, Archaeological inventory Paper and digital 2015 Kuching survey documentation of previously- reported rock art site of Salumon’s Pool April 13, 14, Gua Bumo I and Gua Archaeological inventory Paper and digital 22, 23,25 Bumo II survey documentation of newly- and 29, discovered rock art 2015

199 APPENDIX C. Summary of Bornean rock art site data and sources alphabetically by region Site Rock Art Rock Art Description Archival, Field Complete, Partial or Reference Color(s)/Type(s or Library Unknown Rock Art )*/ Data? Site Inventory; Data Quantity Description Sabah, Malaysian Borneo Baturong Black rock Black drawings Library and Partial; description of Datan 1993:137; (Madai) Caves drawings, superimposed with a white archival site contents, Sarawak Museum singular white bird drawings of rock art Archives, year rock painting or unknown, “Boat drawing (?) Drawing…”; Sarawak Museum Archives, year unknown, “Human Figure…” Bekuku Rock engraving Curvilinear motif with Library Partial; description of Crawford 1986:11 anthropomorphic (two site contents faces, four limbs with three digits each) features Gua Hagop Bilo Unknown Geometric motifs; Archival Partial; drawings of Bellwood 1988; number of anthropomorphs, rock art, site Datan 1998a: 41 motifs and rock zoomorphs and boat descriptions art medium images Lemuyun - Ulu Rock “Masks similar to Kenyah- Library Partial; description of Harrison 1973a: Tomani engravings Kayan harvest site contents 141-143; Datan masks”;curvilinear 1998a: 41 engravings Pa Sia Rock Spiral motifs Library Partial; description of Datan 1998a: 41 engravings site contents Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo

200 Bulongan Rock N/A Library Partial Kusch: 103 engravings Batu Balang Rock Stylized anthropomorphs Archival Partial; digitized Sarawak Museum engravings image of archived Archives photograph Batuh Pilipus Rock N/A Library Partial Kusch: 103 engravings Bukit Sarang Caves Complex - Batuh Puteh Black rock 28” long series of charcoal Library and Partial; description of Harrison and Reavis drawings drawings showing “humans archival site contents and 1966: 260 in stick and geometric style” photographs (260) - Lubang Black rock 19” band of “humans in Library and Partial; description of Harrison and Reavis Ringen drawings stick and geometric” (261); archival site contents and 1966: 260, 261; Chia “charcoal wall drawings of photographs and Datan 2003: human figures in the forms 125 of sticks and geometric designs” Fairy Cave Red rock One simian and six Field Complete - paintings amorphous, infilled shapes Gua Bumo I Black rock Over 350 complete and Field Complete - drawings partial anthropomorphs, zoomorphs, boats, human- animal hybrid, geometric, curvilinear and linear motifs Gua Bumo II Black rock 12 images: swastika, Field Partial; equipment - drawings possible Japanese failure prevented characters, linear and swastika black rock geometric images drawing

201 documentation Gua Sireh Black rock Anthropomorphic, Field Complete Datan 1993: 138, drawings zoomorphic and geometric 160 images Kampung Rock Field Complete Taçon, Sauffi and Santubong engravings Datan 2010: 105, 106 Niah Cave Complex - Gua Kain Red rock Anthropomorphs, Field Complete Barker 2005; Hitam Cave paintings zoomorphs, linear and Harrison 1958b: geometric motifs and boats 588-590; Harrison 1958a: 200; Pyatt et al. 2005: 897 - Gua Kain Red rock Fragmentary linear and Field Complete - Hitam Entrance paintings dotted motifs; large boat (?) painting - Lobang Tulang Black rock Curvilinear dot patterns and Archival Unknown; digitized Reavis 1964 drawings drawings of concentric images of archival circles with three lines of photographs nested “v” and “u”shapes extending from one side; possible other faded figural and geometric rock art Northern Highlands -Batuh Kelabet Bas relief Bas relief human figure in Library Unknown Forest Department spread eagle position Sarawak: 15 -Batuh Liban Rock cuttings Rock-cut shelves and small Library Unknown Barker et al. 2008: (near Pa’ Dilah) standing stones 155 -Batuh Narit Rock Carved lines and deep Library Unknown Forest Department

202 Batuh Beret engravings engraved line Sarawak: 30 -Batuh Narit Bas relief Bas relief male and female Library Unknown Forest Department Long Beruang figures Sarawak:15 -Batuh Narit Bas relief Three bas relief: a man Library Unknown Forest Department Long Kesi carrying a flag and leading a Sarawak:24 buffalo, standing with hands on hips, and head -Batuh Narit Pa’ Rock Curivlinear engraved lines, Library Unknown Forest Department Ukat engravings three heart-shaped heads Sarawak:33 and 300 notches -Batuh Narit Bas relief Bas relief carving of a head Library Unknown Forest Department Punang hunter holding three heads Sarawak: 32 Pa’Umor in his hands -Batuh Tuked Rock Three engraved footprints Library Unknown Forest Department Rini engravings Sarawak: 27 - Kading Rock Notches and unidentifiable Field Unknown - Sultan’s Stone engravings bas relief -Lobang Balang Rock “Area of carved or incised Library Unknown Barker et al. 2008: engravings rock…a roughly hewn 141, 142 animal face, probably a large cat or tiger, with a protruding tongue” (141) -Long Lelang Bas relief “Four remarkable human Library Unknown Harrison 1959: 20 figures” (20) mentioned in a set of “relief carvings on river-bed boulders,” found in “the headwaters of both the Akar and Libbun branches of the Baram and

203 in the Ulu Kerayan” (20) -Long Po, upper Rock engraving Larger than 5’7” stone Library Unknown Harrison 1959: 14- part of the sculpture of standing male 16; Kusch 1986: 101 Kayan River figure with erect penis -Long Semadoh Rock Interlinked curvilinear and Library Unknown Chin 1984: 27 engravings spiral motifs -Long Umok Rock engraving Engraving of a “pecked, Library Unknown Datan 1998:40 wavy motif” (40) lining a river bank - Pa Bangar Bas relief Human figure with splayed Library Unknown Sarawak Museum legs and arms Archives - Pa Umor Human figure with splayed Library Unknown Forest Department Village legs,arms and twenty six Sarawak: 30 notched lines - Pa Upan Rock Unknown Library Unknown Kusch: 103 engravings -Unspecified Bas relief Large boulder with four- Library Unknown Barker et al. 2008: forest location limbed, spread-eagle, wide- 156 between faced figure Pa’Dalih and Remudu Salumon’s Pool Rock Rock engraving of Arabic Field Complete engravings script and possible boat Sungai Jaong 2 bas relief Bas relief and engraved Library and Unknown; digitized Chin 1984: 21; anthropomorphs, linear and archival images of archival Harrison and geometric motifs photographs O’Connor: 1968: 45- Approximately 46; 40 engravings Solheim 1983: 37 on stones

204 throughout the site East Kalimantan, Indonesian Borneo Batu Kalung (on Rock engravings Concentric circles, Library Partial; image Fage and Chazine the Cihan spirals, lines description of site 2010: 43,44 River)* contents Gua Berak 54 hand stencils N/A Library Unknown Fage and Chazine 2010: 137 Gua Ham 375 black, brown, Hand stencils of children, Library Unknown Fage and Chazine orange and adolescents and adults 2010: 126-134; yellow hand Plagnes et al. stencils 2003:173 Anthropomorphs, Red rock zoomorphs, lines and paintings linear motifs decorating the hands; one “animal tracing” (Fage and Chazine 2010: 130) Gua Harto Red and orange Some with linear and Library Partial; published Fage and Chazine hand stencils geometric decoration images and 2010:150 descriptions of site Red, brown and Zoomorphs, geometric contents yellow rock forms, anthropomorphs paintings Anthropomorphs Black rock drawings Serpentine engraving

Rock engravings

205 Gua Ilas 159 black, brown, Some hand stencils bear Library Partial; published Chazine and Kenceng red and yellow linear designs images and Setiawan 2008: 6; hand stencils descriptions of site Fage and Chazine Bovids(?), contents 2010: 92, 93; 23 black, brown, anthropomorphs Plagnes et al. red and orange 2003:176 rock paintings

Red and black rock drawings

Gua Ilas Kerim Seriously “Honey tree” and tapir- Library Partial; published Fage and Chazine damaged rock like images images and 2010: 114-115; paintings/drawing descriptions of site Chazine and s contents Setiawan 2008: 6 Gua Jufri hand stencils Library Partial; published Fage and Chazine images and 2010: 136-137 Brown, red, Zoomorphs and descriptions of site orange and anthropomorphs contents yellow rock paintings

Black rock Boar and unidentifiable drawings zoomorphs Gua Kambing* Hand stencil Library Partial; published Fage and Chazine images and 2010: 73 Rock drawings “Acephalic mammal”, descriptions of site geometric and contents punctiform designs

206 Rock engravings Gua Kayu 436 hand stencils Hand stencils of children, Library Partial; description of Fage and Chazine Sapung adolescents and adults site contents 2010:122 Gua Kecabe 4 hand stencils Traces of additional rock Library Partial; description of Fage and Chazine art site contents 2010: 147 Gua Kenyato Black rock “Honey tree” motif and Library Partial; image and Fage and Chazine drawings others description of site 2010:64, 142 contents Gua Kurang Three brown and Hand stencils, one Library Partial; image and Fage and Chazine Tahu red hand stencils decorated with a zig-zag description of site 2010: 123 line contents Gua Mardua 60+ red, brown Hand stencils decorated Library Partial; published Fage and Chazine and black hand with horizontal lines images and 2010:56-58 stencils descriptions of site Zoomorphs, concentric contents Red, brown and circles and linear motifs black rock paintings Solar wheels, geometric designs and Black rock anthropomorphs and drawings numerous prehistoric- modern boats Gua Masri I 181 hand stencils Hand stencils, some Library Partial; published Plagnes et al. 2003: decorated with dots images and 173; Fage and descriptions of site Chazine 2010: 85 contents Gua Masri II 96 orange, brown Hand stencils, some Library Partial; published Fage and Chazine and red hand arranged in images and 2010: 86,87

207 stencils configurations, some descriptions of site bearing dots and li contents Gua Payou Red hand stencils Adult and baby hand Library Partial; published Fage and Chazine stencils decorated with images and 2010:72, 73, 137 Red rock linear motifs descriptions of site paintings Anthropomporphs - wild contents boar, linear “floral” motifs, dots Rock engravings “Shaped like comets”, “vulva” Gua Pindi Seriously No further information Library Partial; brief Fage and Chazine damaged rock available description of site 2010: 114, 115 paintings contents Gua Sahak 68 hand stencils, Library Partial; description of Fage and Chazine some orange site contents 2010:101 Gua Saleh Hand stencils “200 figures including Library Partial; published Plagnes et al. 2003: more than 140 stenciled images and 172, 173, 178 Rock handprints, descriptions of site paintings/drawing anthropomorphic figures, contents s (?) and zoomorphic representations such as a bovine and two big mammals without heads” Gua Tam Hand stencils and Library Partial; description of Chazine other rock art site contents 2005:220,222 similar to Ilas Kenceng

208 Large tapir? Rock drawing Gua Tamrin Black hand Decorated with and Library Partial; description of Fage and Chazine stencils connected by red linear site contents 2010: 119-123 designs

Red rock “Six coiffed paintings anthropomorphs…two cervids, and a large…spiral or concentric circle” Gua Tebok Hand stencils Library Partial; description of Chazine and Ferrié site contents 2008: 21 Gua Tembus 7 hand stencils Library Partial; description of Fage and Chazine site contents 2010: 137 Gua Tengkorak 40 red hand Adult and child hand Library Partial; image and Fage and Chazine stencils stencils description of site 2010: 124 contents Gua Tewet 240 brown, Hand stencils Library Partial; images Fage and Chazine orange red and description of site 2010: 106-115; yellow hand contents Plagnes et al. stencils 2003:173 Zoomorphic, 28 brown and red anthropomorphic and rock paintings linear designs, possible spiral Liang Karim 30 hand stencils Library Partial; published Fage and Chazine images and 2010: 144, 145 Brown, orange “Honey tree” motif descriptions of site

209 and red rock superimposed over contents paintings anthropomorphs, zoomorphs (tapirs or boars) Liang Lumba Black rock Charcoal drawings of Library Partial; description of Grabowsky 1888 in Cave, Mount drawings figures, animals (Datan site contents Kusch 1986; Mandella* 1993:137; Bellwood Bellwood 1988 1988:94) :94; Datan 1993:137 Liang Sara II* 19 hand stencils Hand stencils decorated Library Partial; published Fage and Chazine with linear motifs images and 2010: 74,75 descriptions of site Black and red rock Anthropomorphs, contents paintings zoomorphs (monkeys?) and linear designs Rock engravings (paintings outnumber hands) “vulva” and “comet” engravings West Kalimantan, Indonesian Borneo Liang Kaung Black rock Zoomorphs, Library Partial; images and Fage 1989:33; drawings anthropomorphs, linear and description of site Chazine 1999 geometric motifs contents

210 APPENDIX D: Bornean rock art database key

Vocabulary Rock art = non-utilitarian human modification of fixed-in-place, naturally-occurring stone Images = a singular, discrete, contiguous piece of rock art Figures/motifs = components of contiguous rock art images (e.g. recognizable boat and zoomorph forms combined in one rock art image) Form = recognizable human or animal forms Geometric motif/linear motif/pattern(s) = non-representational decorative designs or pattern

1) Individual Rock Art Image ID# (Site Name Abbreviation followed by Image ID#)

2) Rock Art Unit of Analysis 1) Unknown 2) Unidentifiable 3) Isolated, solitary form 4) Isolated, solitary geometric motif/linear motif/pattern 5) Newly-discovered images part of previously-recorded panels 6) Stand-alone form(s) 7) Stand-alone form(s), component of larger panel 8) Stand-alone geometric motif/linear motif/pattern(s), component of a larger panel 9) Stand-alone forms superimposed over each other 10) Panel

3) Site Name 1) BB- Batuh Balang (Sarawak) 2) BKCRK – Batuh Kalung, Cihan River (East Kalimantan, Indonesia) 3) BKE – Batuh Kelabet (Sarawak) 4) BL – Batuh Liban (Sarawak) 5) BNAB - Batuh Narit Arur Bilit (near Pa'Umor Village) 6) BNBB – Batuh Narit Batuh Beret (Sarawak) 7) BTLB - Batuh Narit Long Beruang (Sarawak) 8) BNLK – Batuh Narit Long Kesi (Sarawak) 9) BNPU – Batuh Narit Pa’ Ukat (Sarawak) 10) BNPPU – Batuh Narit Punang Pa ‘Umor (Sarawak) 11) BTR – Batuh Tuked Rini (Sarawak) 12) BP - Batuh Pilipus (Sarawak) 13) BUL – Bulongan (Sarawak) 14) *FC – Fairy Cave/Gua Pari (Bau, Sarawak) 15) GBE – Gua Berak (East Kalimantan, Indonesia) 16) *GBI – Gua Bumo I (Serian, Sarawak)

211 17) *GBII – Gua Bumo II (Serian, Sarawak) 18) GHB - Gua Hagop Bilo, Gunung Baturong (Sabah) 19) GHA – Gua Ham (East Kalimantan, Indonesia) 20) GHAR – Gua Harto (East Kalimantan, Indonesia) 21) GIK – Gua Ilas Kenceng (East Kalimantan, Indonesia) 22) GIKE - Gua Ilas Kerim (East Kalimantan, Indonesia) 23) GJU - Gua Jufri (East Kalimantan, Indonesia) 24) GKA – Gua Kambing (East Kalimantan, Indonesia) 25) GKS – Gua Kayu Sampung (East Kalimantan, Indonesia) 26) GKE – Gua Kecabe (East Kalimantan, Indonesia) 27) GKEN – Kua Kenyato (East Kalimantan, Indonesia) 28) GKT - Gua Kurang Tahu (East Kalimantan, Indonesia) 29) GM – Gua Mardua (East Kalimantan, Indonesia) 30) GMSI – Gua Masri I (East Kalimantan, Indonesia) 31) GMSII – Gua Masri II (East Kalimantan, Indonesia) 32) GP - Gua Payou (East Kalimantan, Indonesia) 33) GPI – Gua Pindi (East Kalimantan, Indonesia) 34) GSA - Gua Sahak (East Kalimantan, Indonesia) 35) GSAL – Gua Saleh (East Kalimantan, Indonesia) 36) GS – Gua Sireh (Serian, Sarawak) 37) GTA – Gua Tam (East Kalimantan, Indonesia) 38) GTAM - Gua Tamrin (East Kalimantan, Indonesia) 39) GTE – Gua Tebok (East Kalimantan, Indonesia) 40) GTM – Gua Tembus (East Kalimantan, Indonesia) 41) GTEN – Gua Tengkorak (East Kalimantan, Indonesia) 42) GTEW – Gua Tewet (East Kalimantan, Indonesia) 43) GTNC – Lobang Tulang (Miri, Sarawak) 44) KSS - Kading Sultan’s Stone (Sarawak) 45) KHNC – Kain Hitam, Niah Cave (Miri, Sarawak) 46) KS - Kampung Santubong, Kuching (Sarawak) 47) LW – Lawas (Sarawak) 48) LK – Liang Karim (East Kalimantan, Indonesia) 49) LKA – Liang Kaung (East Kalimantan, Indonesia) 50) LLU – Liang Lumba (East Kalimantan, Indonesia) 51) LSA – Liang Sara II (East Kalimantan, Indonesia) 52) LB - Lobang Balang (Sarawak) 53) LL - Long Lelang (Sarawak) 54) LP - Long Po (Sarawak) 55) LS - Long Semadoh (Sarawak) 56) LU - Long Umok (Sarawak) 57) PB – Pa Bangar (Sarawak) 58) SP – Santubong Peninsula 59) PS - Pa Sia (Sabah) 60) PUP – Pa Upan (Sarawak)

212 61) SC –Sarang Caves, Bintulu (Sarawak) 62) SJ – Sungai Jaong (Sungai Santubong), Kuching (Sarawak) 63) SPBNP – Salumon’s Pool, Bako National Park, Kuching (Sarawak) 64) UT – Ulu Tomani (a.k.a. Lemuyun (a river), Lemuyu, or Bekuku (a village)) (Sabah)

4) District/State

5) Rock Art Image/Figure Location 1) Unknown 2) Open air i) Boulder, stream or river ii) Boulder, beach 3) Cave i) Boulder ii) Ceiling iii) Rock wall curtain iv) Shelf/ledge v) Underside of rock wall curtain vi) Wall

6) Rock Art Image/Figure Dimensions (Height) 1) Unknown 2) Variable

7) Rock Art Dimensions (Width) 1) Unknown 2) Variable

8) Rock Art Image/Figure Design Field Orientation (direction the design field is facing) 1) Unknown 2) N 3) NW 4) NNW 5) NE 6) NNE 7) E 8) SE 9) SSE 10) S 11) SSW 12) SW 13) W 14) Cave floor 15) Cave ceiling

213 16) Skywards

9) Rock Art Panel Composition (layout of motifs/images in relationship to each other) 1) Unknown 2) N/A 3) Clustered (images in composition are grouped together/interacting) 4) Free-falling (images are upside down/sideways/overlapping/unordered) 5) Linear (images in composition are arranged proximal to each other in a linear fashion/are roughly horizontal)

10) Rock Art Techniques 1) Bas relief 2) Bas relief, engraving 3) Drawing 4) Engraving 5) Mud painting 6) Painting 7) Stencil

11) Rock Art Image/Figure Style 1) Unknown 2) Indeterminate 3) Abstract form(s) 4) Abstract lines() 5) Geometric 6) Naturalistic 7) Text 8) X-ray

12) Rock Art Appearance 1) Unknown 2) Complete image 3) Complete and partial image 4) Faded/blurred/unclear image 5) Partial image

13) Rock Art Colors 1) Unknown 2) Black 3) Brown 4) White 5) Orange 6) Yellow 7) Red

214 8) Dark red

14) Rock Art Drawing Style 1) Unknown 2) Not applicable 3) Sketchy, patchy line 4) Thick, irregular line 5) Thick and thin solid line 6) Thick, solid line 7) Thin, irregular line 8) Thin, solid line

15) Rock Painting Style 1) Unknown 2) Not applicable 3) Sketchy, broken lines, dry brush? 4) Thick lines and forms, wet brush? 5) Thin, exact, solid line 6) Thin, irregular line

16) Rock Engraving Style 1) Unknown 2) Not applicable 3) Bas relief 4) Bas relief, engraving 5) Deep engraving 6) Deep, pecked engraving 7) Shallow 8) Shallow, pecked engraving

17) Rock Art Image/Figure General Form 1) Unknown/indeterminate 2) None 3) Anthropomorph 4) Anthropomorph(s) and non-portable material culture 5) Anthropomorph(s) and portable material culture 6) Anthropomorph(s) and geometric and linear motifs 7) Flora 8) Geometric (close-bodied) shape(s) or symbol(s) 9) Hand stencil 10) Linear (open-bodied) shape(s) or symbol(s) 11) Lozenge 12) Mixture geometric and linear motifs 13) Non-portable material culture

215 14) Portable material culture 15) Square 16) Text 17) Therianthrop (animal-human hybrid) 18) Tree or plant 19) Zoomorph or therianthrop 20) Zoomorph(s) or therianthrop(s) and object 21) Zoomorph 22) Zoomorph(s) and object 23) Zoomorph and non-portable material culture

18) Rock Art Image/Figure Specific Form 1) Unknown/indeterminate 2) None 3) N/A 4) Airplane 5) Animal i) Bird ii) Boar iii) Buffalo iv) Crocodile v) Feline vi) Fish vii) Simian viii) Tapir ix) Turtle x) Quadruped xi) Unknown 6) Boat (no sails) 7) Boat and human figure(s) 8) Boat (no sails) and unknown zoomorph(s) or therianthrop(s) 9) Face 10) Flora i) Unknown Tree ii) Unknown Plant iii) Palms iv) Flowers 11) Foot 12) Hand 13) Human 14) Indeterminate figure 15) Ship (vessel with sails) 16) Shoulder basket 17) Sword

216 18) “V”-shaped, handheld item 19) Weapon

19) Rock Art Image Geometric (close-bodied) Motifs General 1) Unknown/indeterminate 2) N/A – not applicable 3) None 4) Backwards “S” 5) Chain of globular forms 6) Closed “M” shape 7) Circles, infilled 8) Circular 9) Circular, embedded motif(s) 10) Circular, rayed 11) Cupules 12) Curvilinear form 13) Irregular form(s) 14) Face(s) 15) Flora i) flower 16) Globular shape(s) 17) Heart 18) Inverted gumdrop(s) 19) Kidney-shape(s) 20) Leaf 21) Linear 22) Line of quarrying holes 23) Lollipop (horizontal line topped with hollow circle) 24) Mixture geometric and linear motifs 25) Ovular 26) Rake 27) Rectangular 28) Shovel 29) Sideways “bell” shape 30) Square 31) Star 32) Trapezoid 33) Triangle 34) Two interlocking loops 35) Zigzag

20) Rock Art Image Linear (lines that do not form closed shapes) Motifs General 1) Unknown/indeterminate 2) N/A – not applicable

217 3) None 4) Arrow 5) Backwards "c" and "s"-shaped line 6) Boat 7) Chinese writing 8) Circular 9) Curvilinear 10) Curvilinear, scrolling 11) Dots 12) Elaborate curvilinear 13) Inverted, square “u” shape with extension of main line on right (appears as a backwards lower-case “n” 14) Irregular 15) Lines i) Intersected by branching lines ii) Intersected by hatching lines iii) “M” shaped line iv) notches v) organic vi) straight vii) slanted viii) “u”-shaped ix) “v”-shaped x) zigzag 16) Ovular 17) Pitchfork 18) Platform-like 19) Rake-like 20) Rectangular 21) Ship-like 22) Square 23) Spiral 24) Unclosed, circular form 25) Wing outline

21) Superimposition 1) Unknown 2) None 3) Yes

22) Associated Natural Features 1) Unknown 2) Not applicable 3) None

218 4) In concave rock wall feature 5) Near rock fissure 6) Rock shelf 7) River

23) Associated Natural Components 1) Unknown 2) None 3) Algae 4) Barnacles 5) Cave patination (mineral accretion) 6) Fungus 7) Guano 8) Swallows’ nest 9) Spiders’ webs 10) Unknown element 11) Wasps’ nest

24) Associated Rock Art Image(s)/Figure(s) 1) Unknown 2) Yes 3) No

25) Associated Rock Art Panel(s) 1) Unknown 2) Yes 3) No

26) Associated Image(s)/Figure(s) Notes

27) Indications of Possible (stains, fades, shapes), Additional Rock Art Not Included in the Analysis 1) Unknown 2) Yes 3) No

28) General Notes

219 APPENDIX E: Bornean Rock Art Database

220 APPENDIX F: Newly-discovered Bornean Rock Art Images and Sites

Figure F1. Newly-discovered mud paintings at Fairy Cave – original (above) and digitally enhanced (below).

221

Figure F2. A black drawn anthropomorph from newly-discovered Gua Bumo I.

222

Figure F3. Enhanced view of “new” black rock drawings zoomorphs from Gua Bumo I.

Figure F4. A “new” panel of black rock drawings from newly-discovered Gua Bumo I.

223

Figure F5. “New” black rock drawings of possible Japanese characters at newly discovered Gua Bumo II.

Figure F6. A “new” panel of black rock drawings at Gua Sireh.

224

Figure F7. A “new” panel of black rock drawings at Gua Sireh (left: untouched; right: enhanced).

225

Figure F8. An engraved and bas-relief face at Kampung Santubong.

226

Figure F9. An eroded, newly discovered linear engraving at Kampung Santubong

227

Figure F10. A “new” panel of red rock drawings at Gua Kain Hitam, Niah Caves Complex (left: untouched; right: enhanced).

228 APPENDIX G: Bornean Rock Art Typology Categor Types Image/motif range y Figurati Anthropo ve morphs Images Recogni zably human, animal or human- animal hybrid forms

229

Zoomorph Anteater/tapir s Bird Boar Buffalo Crocodile Deer Feline Fish

Simian Tapir Turtle Quadruped, unknown Indeterminable

Therianthr ops Human- animal hybrid forms

230

Non- Airplane figurati Boat ve Images Object- Fishhook like Flag images Foot that are Hand not stencil recogniz Indetermin ably ate objects human, Ship animal Shoulder or basket human- animal hybrids

Geomet Diamonds ric Circle Motifs Circle with Close- embedded bodied motif(s) geometr Circular, ic rayed figures Cupule Curvilinear Curvilinear, scrolling Floral Globular Irregular Kidney- shaped

231 Leaf Linear Lollipop Lozenge Ovoids Rake Rectangle

Shovel Sideways bell Square Star Trapezoid Triangle Zigzag Linear Arrow and Backwards Dotted “C” Motifs Backwards Open- “S” bodied Characters Arabic linear Chinese figures English Japanese Malay Cross Dots Irregular Line Ovoid Pitchfork Platform Rake Rectangula r Scroll Spiral Star Triangles U-shapes Unclosed circle

232 V-shapes Wing outline Zigzag

233 APPENDIX H: Presence/absence of Bornean Rock Art Types by Technology

Hand stencils (presence of types indicated in gray) Category Types Image/motif range Figurative Images Anthropomorphs Recognizably human, Zoomorphs Anteater/tapir animal or human-animal Bird hybrid forms Boar Buffalo Crocodile Deer Feline Fish Simian Tapir Turtle Quadruped, unknown Indeterminable Therianthrops Human-animal hybrid forms Non-figurative Images Airplane Object-like images that are Boat not recognizably human, Fishhook animal or human-animal Flag hybrids Foot Hand stencil Indeterminate objects Ship Shoulder basket Sword Geometric Motifs Diamonds Close-bodied geometric Circle figures Circle with embedded motif(s) Circular, rayed Cupule Curvilinear Curvilinear, scrolling Floral Globular Irregular

234 Kidney-shaped Leaf Linear Lollipop Lozenge Ovoids Rake Rectangle Shovel Sideways bell Square Star Trapezoid Triangle Zigzag Linear and Dotted Motifs Arrow Open-bodied linear figures Backwards “C” Backwards “S” Characters Arabic Chinese English Japanese Malay Cross Dots Irregular Line Ovoid Pitchfork Platform Rake Rectangular Scroll Spiral Star Triangles U-shapes Unclosed circle V-shapes Wing outline Zigzag

235 Paintings (types indicated in gray) Category Types Image/motif range Figurative Images Anthropomorphs Recognizably human, Zoomorphs Anteater/tapir animal or human-animal Bird hybrid forms Boar Buffalo Crocodile Deer Feline Fish Simian Tapir Turtle Quadruped, unknown Indeterminable Therianthrops Human-animal hybrid forms Non-figurative Images Airplane Object-like images that are Boat not recognizably human, Fishhook animal or human-animal Flag hybrids Foot Hand stencil Indeterminate objects Ship Shoulder basket Sword Geometric Motifs Diamonds Close-bodied geometric Circle figures Circle with embedded motif(s) Circular, rayed Cupule Curvilinear Curvilinear, scrolling Floral Globular Irregular Kidney-shaped Leaf

236 Linear Lollipop Lozenge Ovoids Rake Rectangle Shovel Sideways bell Square Star Trapezoid Triangle Zigzag Linear and Dotted Motifs Arrow Open-bodied linear figures Backwards “C” Backwards “S” Characters Arabic Chinese English Japanese Malay Cross Dots Irregular Line Ovoid Pitchfork Platform Rake Rectangular Scroll Spiral Star Triangles U-shapes Unclosed circle V-shapes Wing outline Zigzag

237 Drawings (types indicated in gray) Category Types Image/motif range Figurative Images Anthropomorphs Recognizably human, Zoomorphs Anteater/tapir animal or human-animal Bird hybrid forms Boar Buffalo Crocodile Deer Feline Fish Simian Tapir Turtle Quadruped, unknown Indeterminable Therianthrops Human-animal hybrid forms Non-figurative Images Airplane Object-like images that are Boat not recognizably human, Fishhook animal or human-animal Flag hybrids Foot Hand stencil Indeterminate objects Ship Shoulder basket Sword Geometric Motifs Diamonds Close-bodied geometric Circle figures Circle with embedded motif(s) Circular, rayed Cupule Curvilinear Curvilinear, scrolling Floral Globular Irregular Kidney-shaped Leaf

238 Linear Lollipop Lozenge Ovoids Rake Rectangle Shovel Sideways bell Square Star Trapezoid Triangle Zigzag Linear and Dotted Motifs Arrow Open-bodied linear figures Backwards “C” Backwards “S” Characters Arabic Chinese English Japanese Malay Cross Dots Irregular Line Ovoid Pitchfork Platform Rake Rectangular Scroll Spiral Star Triangles U-shapes Unclosed circle V-shapes Wing outline Zigzag

Engravings (types indicated in gray) Category Types Image/motif range

239 Figurative Images Anthropomorphs Recognizably human, Zoomorphs Anteater/tapir animal or human-animal Bird hybrid forms Boar Buffalo Crocodile Deer Feline Fish Simian Tapir Turtle Quadruped, unknown Indeterminable Therianthrops Human-animal hybrid forms Non-figurative Images Airplane Object-like images that are Boat not recognizably human, Fishhook animal or human-animal Foot hybrids Hand stencil Indeterminate objects Ship Shoulder basket Sword Geometric Motifs Diamonds Close-bodied geometric Circle figures Circle with embedded motif(s) Circular, rayed Cupule Curvilinear Curvilinear, scrolling Floral Globular Irregular Kidney-shaped Leaf Linear Lollipop Lozenge

240 Ovoids Rake Rectangle Shovel Sideways bell Square Star Trapezoid Triangle Zigzag Linear and Dotted Motifs Arrow Open-bodied linear figures Backwards “C” Backwards “S” Characters Arabic Chinese English Japanese Malay Cross Dots Irregular Line Ovoid Pitchfork Platform Rake Rectangular Scroll Spiral Star Triangles U-shapes Unclosed circle V-shapes Wing outline Zigzag

241 REFERENCES CITED Adams, William, Dennis P. Van Germen and Richard Levy 1978 The Retreat from Migrationism. Annual Review of Anthropology 7:483-452.

Adelaar, Alexander 2008 Borneo as a Cross-Roads for Comparative Austronesian Linguistics. In The Austronesians: Historical and Comparative Perspectives, edited by Peter Bellwood, James J. Fox and Darrell Tryon, pp.81-98. Australia National University E-Press,Canberra.

Alcolea, J. and R. de Balbin 14 2007 C et style: La chronologie de l’art parie ́tal a` l’heure actuelle. L’Anthropologie 111(4):435–66.

Ammerman, Albert and Paolo Biagi (editors) 2003 The Widening Harvest. The Neolithic Transition in Europe: Looking Back, Looking Forward. Archaeological Institute of America,Boston.

Anderson, Atholl and Sue O’Connor 2008 Indo-Pacific migration and colonization – introduction. Asian Perspectives 47:2-11.

Anthony, David 1990 Migration in Archaeology: the Baby with the Bathwater. American Anthropologist 92:554-564. 1997 Prehistoric Migration as a Social Process. In Migrations and Invasions in Archaeological Explanations edited by James Hamerow and Helena Hamerow, pp. 21-33. BAR International Series 664:Oxford. 2007 The Horse, the Wheel, and Language. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Arifin, Karina 2006 The Austronesians in Borneo. In Austronesian diaspora and the ethnogenesis of people in Indonesian Archipelago: proceedings of the International symposium [Sic], edited by Truman Simanjuntak, Ingrid H.E. Pojoh,and Mohammad Hisya, pp. 205-232. Indonesian Institute of Science: Jakarta. 2004 Early human occupation of the East Kalimantan rainforest (the upper Birang River region, Berau). Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Australian National University, Canberra.

242 Ashley, Ceri 2013 Archaeology and Migration in Africa. In The Oxford Handbook of African Archaeology, edited by Peter Mitchell and Paul J. Lane, pp. 1-8. Oxford Handbooks online.

Aubert, Maxime 2012 A Review of Rock Art Dating in the Kimberley, Western Australia. Journal of Archaeological Science 39 (3):573-577.

Aubert, Maxime, Adam Brumm, M. Ramli, T. Sutikna, E.W. Saptomo, B. Hakim, Mike Morwood, G.D. van den Bergh, L. Kinsley and A. Dosseto 2014 Pleistocene Cave Art from Sulawesi, Indonesia. Nature 514:223-237.

Aubert, Maxime, Sue O'Connor, Malcolm McCulloch, Graham Mortimer, Alan Watchman and Marc Richer-LaFléche 2007 Uranium-series Dating Rock Art in East Timor. Journal of Archaeological Science 34 (6):991-996.

Bacus, Elizabeth 2004 The Archaeology of the Philippine Archipelago. In Southeast Asia: From Prehistory to History, edited by Ian Glover, pp.257-281. Routledge Curzon, New York.

Ballard, Chris 1992 Painted rock art sites in western Melanesia: Locational evidence for an ‘Austronesian’ tradition. In State of the Art, Regional Rock Art Studies in Australia and Melanesia Occasional AURA Publication 6, edited by Jo McDonald and Ivan Haskovec, pp.94-106. Australian Rock Art Research Association, Melbourne. 1988 Dudumahan: A Rock Art Site on Kai Kecil, S. E. Moluccas. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 8:139-161.

Balme, Jane and Sue O'Connor 2014 Rock Art and Continuity in South Central Kimberley Region of Western Australia In Rock Art Studies: Interpretation through Multidisciplinary Approaches edited by Bansi Lal Malla, pp. 19-43. Aryan Books International, New Delhi, India.

Bard, James 1979 The Development of a Patination Dating Technique for Great Basin Petroglyphs Using Neutron Activation 3 Analysis and X-Ray Flourescence. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of California at Berkeley.

243 Bard, James, F. Asaro and R. Heizer 1976 Perspectives on Dating Great Basin Petroglyphs by Neutron Activation Analysis of Painted Surfaces. Report Submitted to U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration.

Barker, Graeme 2005 The Archaeology of Foraging and Farming at Niah Cave, Sarawak. Asian Perspectives 44: 90-106.

Barker, Graeme (editor) 2013 Rainforest Foraging and Farming in Island Southeast Asia: The Archaeology of Niah Caves, Volume 1.

Barker, Graham, Huw Barton, Daniel Britton, D., Ipoi Datan, Monica Janowski,, Samantha Jones, Jayl Langub, Lindsay Lloyd-Smith, Borbála Nyíri and Beth Upex 2008 The Cultured Rainforest Project: the First (2007) Field Season. The Sarawak Museum Journal 65 (86):121-190.

Barker, Graeme, Huw Barton, Michael Bird, Patrick Daly, Ipoi Datan, Alan Dykes, Lucy Farr, David Gilbertson, Barbara Harrisson, Chris Hunt, Tom Higham, Lisa Kealhofer, John Krigbaum, Helen Lewis, Sue McLaren, Victor Paz, Alistair Pike, Phil Piper, Brian Pyatt, Ryan Rabett, Tim Reynolds, Jim Rose, Garry Rushworth, Mark Stephens, Chris Stringer, Jill Thompson and Chris Turney 2007 The ‘Human Revolution’ in Lowland Tropical Southeast Asia: Antiquity and Behavior of Anatomically Modern Humans at Niah Cave (Sarawak, Borneo). Journal of Human Evolution 52:243-261.

Barker, Graeme, Huw Barton, Daniel Britton, D., Ipoi Datan, Monica Janowski,, Samantha Jones, Jayl Langub, Lindsay Lloyd-Smith, Borbála Nyíri and Beth Upex 2009 The Cultured Rainforest Project: the First (2007) Field Season. The Sarawak Museum Journal 65 (86):121-190.

Barker, Graeme and Martin Richards 2013 Foraging-farming Transitions in Island Southeast Asia. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 20:256-280.

Barker, Graeme, Tim Reynolds and David Gilbertson 2006 The Human Use of Caves in Peninsular and Island Southeast Asia: Research Themes. Asian Perspectives 44 (1): 1-15.

Barton, Huw, Graeme Barker, David Gilbertson, Chris Hunt, Lisa Kealhofer, Helen Lewis, Victor Paz, Philip J. Piper, Ryan J. Rabett, Tim Reynolds and Katherine Szabó 2013 Landscape Transformations and Human Responses c. 11,500-4,500 Years Ago. In Rainforest Foraging and Farming in Island Southeast Asia: The

244 Archaeology of Niah Caves, Volume 1 edited by Graeme Barker, pp. 217-253. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge.

Barton, Huw and Tim Denham 2011 Prehistoric Vegeculture and Social Life in Island Southeast Asia and Melanesia. In Why Cultivate?: Anthropological and Archaeological Approaches to Foraging-Farming Transitions in Southeast Asia, edited by Graeme Barker and Monica Janowski, pp. 17-25. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.

Beavitt, Paul, Edmund Kurui and Gil Thompson. 1996 Confirmation of an Early Date for the Presence of Rice in Borneo: Preliminary Evidence for Possible Bidayuh/Asian Link. Borneo Research Bulletin 27:29-37.

Bednarik, Robert 1992 A New Method to Date Petroglyphs. Archaeometry 34: 279-291. 2002 The Dating of Rock Art, a Critique. Journal of Archaeological Science 29: 11, 1213-1233.

Bellwood, Peter 2013 First Migrants: Ancient Migration in Global Perspective. John Wiley and Sons, West Sussex. 2007 (1985) Prehistory of the Indo-Malaysian archipelago (3rd ed.). Academic Press, Sydney. 1997 Prehistory of the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago (revised edition). University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, HI. 1989 Archaeological Investigations at Bukit Tengkorak and Segarong, Southeastern Sabah. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 9: 122- 162. 1988 Archaeological Research in Southeastern Sabah. Sabah Museum Monograph 2. Sabah Museum, Kota Kinabalu. 1984 Archaeological Research in the Madai-Baturong Region, Sabah. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 5:38-54.

Bellwood, Peter, R. Gillespie, G.B. Thompson, J.S. Vogel, I.W. Ardika, and Ipoi Datan 1992 New Dates for Prehistoric Rice. Asian Perspectives 31 (2):161-170.

Bellwood, Peter and Peter Koon 1989 ‘Lapita Colonists Leave Boats Unburned!’ The Question of Lapita Links with Island Southeast Asia. Antiquity 63:613-22.

Bellwood, Peter, Marx Oxenham, Bui Chi Hoang, Nguyen Kim Dzung, Anna Willis, Carmen Sarjeant, Philip Piper, Hirofumi Matsumura, Katsunori Tanaka, Nancy Beavan- Athfield, N.,Thomas Higham, Quoc Nguyen, Dang Ngoc Dang

245 2011 An Son and the Neolithic of Southern Vietnam. Asian Perspectives 50 (1-2): 144-175.

Benson, Larry, E.M. Hattori, J. Southon and B. Aleck 2013 Dating North America’s oldest petroglyphs, Winnemucca Lake subbasin, Nevada. Journal of Archaeological Science 40: 4466-4476.

Blench, Roger 2013 Language, Linguistics, and Archaeology: Their Integration in the Study of African Prehistory. In The Oxford Handbook of African Archaeology edited by Paul Mitchell and Peter Lane. pp. 49-64. Oxford University Press:Oxford. 2010 Was there an Austroasiatic Presence in Island Southeast Asia Prior to the Austronesian Expansion? Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 30: 133-144.

Blust, Robert 1999 Subgrouping, Circularity and Extinction: Some Issues in Comparative Austronesian Linguistics. Symposium Series of the Institute of Linguistics Academica Sinica 1:31–94. 1995 Beyond the Austronesian Homeland: The Austric Hypothesis and its Implications for Archaeology. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 86 (5): 117-137. 1988 The Austronesian Homeland: a Linguistic Perspective. Asian Perspectives 26:45-67.

Bulbeck, David 2008 An Integrated Perspective on the Austronesian Diaspora: the Switch from Cereal Agriculture to Maritime Foraging in the Colonisation of Island Southeast Asia. Australian Archaeology 67:31-51.

Byrne, Sarah 2013 Rock art as material culture: a case study on Uneapa Island, West Papua New Guinea. Archaeology in Oceania 48: 63-77.

Card, Jeb (editor) 2013 Archaeology of Hybrid Material Culture. Southern Illinois University Press,Carbondale.

Carson, Mike, Hsiao-chun Hung and Glen Summerhayes 2013 The Pottery Trail from Southeast Asia to Remote Oceania. The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 8 (1):17-36.

246 Chapman, James and Helena Hamerow (editors) 1997 Migrations and Invasions in Archaeological Perspective. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Chazine, Jean-Michel 2005a Rock Art Burials, and Habitations: Caves in East Kalimantan. Asian Perspectives 44 (1):219-230. 2005b Recent Rock Art and Archaeological Discoveries in Kalimantan-Indonesia. Paper presented at Center for Research and Documentation on Oceania, Center for Documentation conference.Yogyakarta, Indonesia. 1999 Unraveling and Reading the Past in Borneo: an Archaeological Outline of Kalimantan. In La Pacifique de 5000 à 2000 le present: Supplements a l'histoire d'une colonisation (The Pacific from 5000 to 2000 BP: Colonizations and Transformations) edited by Jean-Christophe Galipaud and Ian Lilley, pp. 213- 225. IDP, Paris.

Chazine, Jean-Michel and Jean-George Ferrié, 2008 Recent Archaeological Discoveries in East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 28: 16-22.

Chazine, Jean-Michel and Pindi Setiawan 2008 Discovery of New Rock Art in East Borneo: New Data for Reflexion. Collogue UNESCO Décembre 2008.

Chia, Stephen 2008 Prehistoric Sites and Research in Semporna, Sabah, Malaysia. Paper presented at the 4th Society for East Asian Archaeology Meeting, Beijing, China. 2003 Archaeological Research at Bukit Sarang Caves, Ulu Kakus, Sarawak: Final Report. Electronic document. http://eprints.usm.my/7732/1/Archaeological_Research_at_Bukit_Sarang_Cave s_Ulu_Kakus_Sarawak_(PPArkeologi_Malaysia)2003.pdf ,accessed 9-9-15.

Chia, Stephen and Ipoi Datan 2003 Preliminary Report on Archaeological Survey and Excavations at Bukit Sarang Caves, Ulu Kakus, Sarawak. Sarawak Museum Journal 58: 121-140.

Chin, Lucus 1984 Cultural Heritage of Sarawak. Lee Ming Press,Kuching.

Chippindale, Christopher and Paul Taçon 2002 The Many Ways of Dating Arnhem Land Rock-art, North Australia. In The Archaeology of Rock Art, edited by Christopher Chippindale and Paul S.C. Taçon, pp. 90-104. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

247 Christie, J.W. 1985 On Po-ni: the Santubong Sites of Sarawak. The Sarawak Museum Journal 34 (55): 77-90. 1990 Trade and the Santubong Iron Industry. In Southeast Asian Archaeology 1986: Proceedings of the First Conference of the Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists in Western Europe, Institute of Archaeology, University College London, 8-10th September 1986, edited by Ian Glover and Emily Glover, pp. 231-239. BAR International Series 561, Oxford.

Clottes, Jean 2012 Datations U-Th, evolution de I'art et Neanderthal. International Newsletter on Rock Art 64, 1-6. 2008 Cave art. Phaidon Press: London. 2003 Chauvet Cave: the Art of Earliest Times. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake.

Cole, Franca 2011 Communities of the Dead: Practice as an Indicator of Group Identity in the Neolithic Metal Age Burial Caves of Niah, North Borneo. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Archaeology, Clare Colledge, University of Cambridge, England.

Conkey, Margaret 2012 Foreward: Redefining the Mainstream with Rock Art. In A Companion to Rock Art edited by Jo McDonald and Peter Veth. pp. xxix - xxxiv. Wiley- Blackwell,Oxford. 1978 Style and Information in Cultural Evolution: Towards a Predictive Model for the Paleolithic. In Social Archaeology: Beyond Subsistence and Dating edited by Charles Redman, Mary Jane Berman, Edward Curtin, William Langhorne Jr., Nina Versaggi and Jeffrey Wanser, pp. 61-85. Academic Press, London.

Collet, David 1987 A Contribution to the Study of Migrations in the Archaeological Record: the Ngoni and Kololo Migrations as a Case Study. In Archaeology as Long-Term History edited by Ian Hodder, pp. 105-106. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Crawford, I. 1986 A rock engraving near Bekuku, Sabah. Sabah Museum and Archives Journal 1 (1):11-15.

Cruz Berrocal, Maria and Sidsel Millerstrom 2013 The archaeology of rock art in Fiji- evidence, methods and hypotheses. Archaeology in Oceania 48 (3):154-165.

248 Datan, Ipoi 1993 Archaeological excavations at Gua Sireh (Serian) and Lubang Angin (Gunung Mulu National Park), Sarawak, Malaysia. The Sarawak Museum Journal Special Monograph No.6. 1998 Rock engravings. In The Encyclopedia of Malaysia Volume 4: Early History edited by N.H. Shuhaimi and N.A. Rahman. pp.40-41. Archipelago Press, Singapore. 40-41.

Datan, Ipoi and Peter Bellwood 1993 Recent research at Gua Sireh (Serian) and Lubang Angin (Gunung Mulu National Park, Sarawak). The Sarawak Museum Journal 44 (65): 93-111

Davidson, Ian 2010 The colonization of Australia and its adjacent islands in the evolution of modern cognition. Current Anthropology 51 (Supplement 1):177-190.

Dequilloux, Marie-France, Leahy, Rachel, Marie-Hélène Pemonge and Stéphane Rottier 2012 European Neolithization and Ancient DNA: An Assessment. Evolutionary Anthropology 2:24–37.

Denham, Timothy 2012 Dating the appearance of Lapita pottery in the Bismarck Archipelago and its dispersal to Remote Oceania. Archaeology in Oceania 47(1): 39–46. 2004 The roots of agriculture and arboriculture in New Guinea: looking beyond Austronesian expansion, Neolithic packages and indigenous origins. World Archaeology 36:610-20.

Denham, Timothy, Simon Haberle and Carol Lentfer 2004 New evidence and revised interpretations of early agriculture in Highland New Guinea. Antiquity 78: 839-57.

Denham, Timothy, Simon Haberle, Carol Lentfer, R. Fullager, Julie Field, M. Therin, N. Porch and B. Winsborough 2003 Origins of agriculture at Kuk Swamp in the highlands of New Guinea. Science 301:189-193.

Diamond, Jared 1988 Express train to Polynesia Nature 336:307–308.

Diamond, Jared and Peter Bellwood 2003 Farmers and Their languages: the First Expansions. Science 300:597-603.

249 Diffloth, Gerard 2005 The contribution of linguistic palaeontology to the homeland of Austro- Asiatic. In The Peopling of East Asia: Putting Together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics, edited by Laurent Sagart, Roger Blench and Alicia Sanchez-Mazas, pp. 77-81. Routledge Curzon: London.

Di Lernia, Savino and Marina Gallinaro 2010 The date and context of Neolithic rock art in the Sahara. Antiquity 84:954- 975.

Dobney, Keith, Cucchi, Thomas and Greger Larson 2008 The pigs of Island Southeast Asia and the Pacific: new evidence for taxonomic status and human-mediated dispersal. Asian Perspectives 47:59-74.

Doherty, Chris, R. Buckley, A. Gnanaratnam, Paul Beavitt and W. Beavitt 2007 Archaeological investigations at Sungai Santubong, Kuching, Sarawak. The Sarawak Museum Journal 63 (84): 65-94.

Doherty, Chris, Paul Beavitt and Edmund Kurui 2000 Recent observations of rice temper in pottery from Niah and other sites in Sarawak. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 20, 147-152.

Donohue, Mark and Tim Denham 2010 Farming and language in Island Southeast Asia: Reframing Austronesian history. Current Anthropology 52 (2):223-256.

Dorn, Ronald 1983 Cation-Ratio Dating: A New Rock Varnish Age-Determination Technique. Quaternary Research 20:49-73. 1994 Dating Petroglyphs with a 3-tier Rock Varnish Approach. In, New Light on Old Art: Advances in Hunter-Gatherer Rock Art Research, edited by David Whitley and Larry Loendorf, pp. 2-36. UCLA Institute for Archaeology Monograph Series No. 36. University of California: Los Angeles.

Dunnell, Robert 1970 Seriation Method and its Evaluation. American Antiquity 35 (3):305-319. 1978 Style and Function: A Fundamental Dichotomy. American Antiquity 43 (2): 199-202.

Egan, Shane and David Burley 2009 Triangular Men on One Very Long Voyage: The Context and Implications of a Hawaiian-style Petroglyph Site in the Polynesian Kingdom of Tonga. Journal of the Polynesian Society 118 (3):209-232.

250 Eggert, Manfred 2005 The Bantu Problem and African Archaeology. In African Archaeology: A Critical Introduction edited by Ann Brower Stahl, pp. 301-326. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, Massachusetts.

Ehret, Christopher 2001 Bantu expansions: Re-envisioning a central problem of early African history. The International Journal of African Historical Studies 34:5–27.

Ermini, Luca, Clio Der Sarkissian, Eske Willerslev, Ludovic Orlando 2015 Major transitions in human evolution revisited: A tribute to ancient DNA. Journal of Human Evolution 79:4-20.

Fage, Luc-Henri 1989 Les Dessins Parietal De Gua Kao Vallée de la Bungan, monts Müller, Kalimantan ouest, (The Parietal Drawings From Gua Kao Valley Bungan, Müller Mountains, West Kalimantan). Spelunca 34:31-35.

Fage, Luc-Henri, Jean-Michel Chazine and Lysa Hochtroth (translator) 2010 Borneo – Memory of the Caves. Le Kalimanthrope: Jakarta.

Fillios, Melanie and Paul Taçon 2016 Who Let the Dogs In? A Review of the Recent Genetic Evidence for the Introduction of the Dingo to Australia and Implications for the Movement of People. Journal of Archaeological Science Reports (7):782-192.

Forest Department Sarawak 2009 Stone Culture of the Northern Highlands of Sarawak, Malaysia: A Visitor’s Guide. Press name and location unavailable.

Fort, Joaquim 2015 Demic and Cultural Diffusion Propogated the Neolithic Transition Across Different Regions of Europe. Journal of the Royal Society Interface 12 (106), 20150166. doi: 10.1098/rsif.2015.0166. 2012 Synthesis Between Demic and Cultural Diffusion in the Neolithic Transition in Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 109. 18669- 18673.

Franklin, Natalie 2007 Discontinuous Dreaming Networks: Analyses of Variability in Australian Pre-historic Petroglyphs. Rock Art Research 24 (1):79-103.

Gamble, Clive 1982 Interaction and Alliance in Paleolithic Society. Man 17:92-107.

251 Gimbutas, Marija 1956 The Prehistory of Eastern Europe. Part I. Mesolithic, Neolithic and Copper Age Cultures in Russia and the Baltic Area. American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin No. 20. Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge. 1980 “Introduction” to The Transformation of European and Anatolian Culture 4500-2500 B.C. and Its Legacy. Journal of Indo-European Studies 8 (1-2):1-2.

Glover, Ian 2000 The Southern Silk Road: Archaeological Evidence of Early Trade between India and Southeast Asia. In The Silk Roads: Highways of Culture and Commerce edited by Vadeem Elisseeff, pp. 57-94. National Culture Commission:Bangkok.

Hampson, Jaime 2015 Rock Art and Regional Identity: A Comparative Perspective. Left Coast Press,Walnut Creek, California.

Hanebuth, T.J.J., K. Stattegger, A. Bojanowski 2009 Termination of the Last Glacial Maximum Sea-level Low-stand: the Sunda- Shelf Data Revisited. Global and Planetary Change 66 (1-2):76-84.

Harrisson, Barbara 1958 Niah’s Lobang Tulang: (“Cave of Bones”). Sarawak Museum Journal 8:596- 619. 1959 Cave of Bones – New Finds. Sarawak Museum Journal 9:164–178. 1967 A classification of Stone Age burials from Niah Great Cave. Sarawak Museum Journal 15 (n.s. 30-31):126-199. 1977 Tom Harrisson's Unpublished Legacy on Niah. Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 50 (1):41-51.

Harrisson, Tom 1973a Newly Discovered Prehistoric Rock Carvings, Ulu Tomani, Sabah. Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 46 (1):141-143. 1973b Megalithic evidences in east Malaysia: An introductory summary. Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 47:123-139. 1958a Megaliths of Central and West Borneo. The Sarawak Museum Journal 8 (11):392-401. 1958b The caves of Niah: a history of prehistory. The Sarawak Museum Journal 12 (8):549-590. 1958c The Great Cave, Sarawak: a Ship-of-the-dead Cult and Related Rock Paintings. The Archaeological News Letter 6(9):199-204.

Harrisson, Tom and Barbara Harrisson 1970 The Prehistory of Sabah. Sabah Society Journal 4.

252 Harrisson, Tom and Stanley J O’Connor 1970 Gold and Megalithic Activity in Prehistoric and Recent West Borneo. New York: Cornell University Southeast Asia Program. 1968 The Prehistoric Iron Industry in the Sarawak River Delta: Evidence by Association. The Sarawak Museum Journal 16 (32-33):1-43.

Harrisson, Tom and J.L. Reavis 1966 The Sarang Caves in Sarawak. The Sarawak Museum Journal 14 (28-29): 249-268.

Hayward, Michele and Micheal Cinquino 2012 Rock Art and Transformed Landscapes in Puerto Rico. In A Companion to Rock Art edited by Jo McDonald and Peter Veth, pp. 103-124. Wiley- Blackwell,Oxford.

Heyer, E. and Rocha, J. 2013 Sub-Saharan Africa: Human Genetics. In Encyclopedia of Global Migration edited by Immanuel Ness, pp.9-17. Blackwell,Malden, MA and Oxford.

Higham, Charles 1996 The Bronze Age of Southeast Asia (Cambridge World Archaeology). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Higham, Charles, Thomas Higham and Amphan Kijngam 2011 Cutting a Gordian Knot: the Bronze Age of Southeast Asia: Origins, Timing and Impact. Antiquity 85:583-598.

Higham, Thomas, Huw Barton, Chris Turney, Graeme Barker, Christopher Bronk Ramsey and Fiona Brock 2008 Radiocarbon dating of charcoal from tropical sequences: results from the Niah Great Cave, Sarawak, and their broader implications. Journal of Quaternary Science 24 (2):189-197.

Hung, Hsiao-chun, Kim Dung Nguyen, Peter Bellwood and Mike Carson. 2013 Coastal connectivity: Long-term trading networks across the South China Sea. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 8:384-404.

Hunt, Chris and Garry Rushworth 2005 Cultivation and Human Impact at 6,000 cal. yr B.P. in Tropical Lowland Forest at Niah, Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo. Quaternary Research 64 (3):460- 468.

253 Hunt, Chris and R. Premathilake 2012 Early Holocene Vegetation, Human Activity and Climate from Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo. Quaternary International 249:105-119.

Huyge, Dirk, Dimitri Vandenberghe, Morgan De Dapper, Florias Mees, Wouter Claes, John C. Darnell 2011 First Evidence of Pleistocene Rock art in North Africa: Securing the Age of the Qurta petroglyphs (Egypt) Through OSL Dating. Antiquity 85:1184–93.

The International HapMap Consortium 2003 The International HapMap Project. Nature 426:789-796.

International Federation of Rock Art Organizations 2015 Rock Art Glossary. Accessed 11-3-15 at http://www.ifrao.com/rock-art- glossary/.

International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium 2004 Finishing the euchromatic sequence of the human genome. Nature 431: 931-945.

Jungel, Unggang ak. 1968 Report on my duty on Gua Sireh as from the 1st July to December, 1967. Report on file with the Sarawak Museum Department.

Jürgensen Thomsen, Christian 1836 (1848 Eng. Trans.). Ledetraad til Nordisk Oldkyndighed (Guideline to Scandinavian Antiquity).

Kennedy, Jean 2008 Pacific Bananas: Complex Origins, Multiple Dispersals? Asian Perspectives 41:75-94.

Kirch, Patrick Vinton 2000 On the Road of the Winds: An Archaeological History of the Pacific Islands Before European Contact. University of California Press:Berkeley.

Kong, Chen Boon 1952 Report on Sungai Ja’ong Excavation in 1952. Harrisson Archive/Sarawak Museum Department. Kuching.

Krigbaum, John and Ipoi Datan 1999 The Deep Skull of Niah. Borneo 5 (1):13-17.

254 Kusch, Heinrich 1986 Rock Art Discoveries in Southeast Asia: a Historical Summary. Bulletino del Centro Camuno di Studi Preistorici 23:99-108.

Lander, Eric, Lauren Linton, Bruce Birren, Chad Nussbaum, et al. 2001 Initial Sequencing and Analysis of the Human Genome. Nature 409 (6822): 860-921.

Lape, Peter 2003 A Highway and a Crossroads: Island Southeast Asia and Culture Contact Archaeology. Archaeology in Oceania 38:102-109.

Larson, Gregor, Thomas Cucchi, Masakatsu Fujita, Elizabeth Matisoo-Smith, Judith Robins, Atholl Anderson, Barry Rolett, Matthew Spriggs, Gaynor Dolman, Tae-Hun Kim, Nguyen Thi Dieu Thuy, Moira Doherty, Rokus Awe Due, Robert Bollt, Tony Djubiantono, Bion Griffin, Michiko Intoh, Emile Keane, Patrick Kirch, Kuang-Ti Li, Michael Morwood, Lolita Pedrina, Philip Piper, Ryan Rabett, Peter Shooter, Gert Van den Berg, Eric West, Stephen Wickler, Jing Yuan, Alan Cooper and Keith Dobney 2007 Phylogeny and ancient DNA of Sus provides insights into Neolithic expansion in Island Southeast Asia and Oceania. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104 (12):4824-4829.

Lee, Georgia and Edward Stasack 1999 Spirit of Place: Petroglyphs of Hawai’i. Easter Island Foundation: Los Osos, CA.

Lewis-Williams, David 2012 Rock Art and Shamanism. In A Companion to Rock Art edited by Jo McDonald and Peter Veth, pp. 17-33. Wiley-Blackwell,Oxford.

Lloyd-Smith, Lindsay 2012 Early Holocene Burial Practice at Niah Cave, Sarawak. Journal of Indo- Pacific Archaeology 32:54-69.

Lloyd-Smith, Lindsday, Graeme Barker, Huw Barton, Efrosyni Boutsikas, Daniel Britton, Ipoi Datan, Ben Davenport, Lucy Farr, Rose Ferraby, Borbála Nyíri and Beth Upex 2013 The Cultured Rainforest Project: Preliminary Archaeological Results from the First Two Field Seasons in the Kelabit Highlands, Sarawak, Borneo (2007, 2008). In Unearthing Southeast Asia’s Past Selected Papers from the 12th International Conference of European Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists, Leiden September 1st – 5th 2008, Volume 1, edited by M. Klokke and V. Degroot,pp. 34-51. National University of Singapore Press, Singapore.

255 Li, Sen, Carina Schlebusch and Mattias Jakobsson 2014 Genetic variation reveals large-scale population expansion and migration during the expansion of Bantu-speaking peoples. Proceedings of the Royal Society Britain 281, 20141448.

Ling, Johan 2013 Elevated Rock Art – Towards a Maritime Understanding of Bronze Age Rock Art Northern Bohuslän, Sweden. Gotarc:Gothenburg.

Ling, Johan and Claus Uhnér 2014 Rock Art and Metal Trade. Adoranten: Scandinavian Society for Prehistoric Art:23-43.

Lorblanchet, Michel and Paul Bahn 1993. Rock art studies: The Post-stylistic era or, where do we go from here? Oxbow monographs 35. Oxbow Books: Oxford.

Lubbock, John 1865 Prehistoric Times. Williams and Norgate:London.

Lytle, F., M. Lytle, A. Rogers, A. Garfinkel, C. Maddock, W.Wight and C. Cole 2008 An Experimental Technique for Measuring Age of Petroglyph Production: Results on Coso Petroglyphs, paper presented at the 31st Great Basin Anthropological Conference,Portland, Oregon. de Maret, Pierre 2013 Archaeologies of the Bantu Expansion. InThe Oxford Handbook of African Archaeology edited by Peter Mitchell and Paul Lane, pp.627-643. Oxford University Press,Oxford.

Matisoo-Smith, Lisa 2015 Ancient DNA and the human settlement of the Pacific. Journal of Human Evolution 79: 93-104.

May, Sally, Paul Taçon, Alistair Paterson and Meg Travers 2013 The world from Malarrak: Depictions of South-east Asian and European subjects in rock art from the Wellington Range, Australia. Australian Aboriginal Studies 1:45-56.

McDonald, Jo and Peter Veth 2012 Research Issues and New Directions: One Decade Into the New Millenium. pp. 1-14. In A Companion to Rock Art, edited by Jo McDonald and Peter Veth. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.

256 Neves, Walter, Astolfo G.M. Araujo, Danilo V. Bernardo, Renato Kipnis, James K. Feathers 2012 Rock art at the Pleistocene/Holocene Boundary in Eastern South America (Oldest Rock Art in the South America). PLoS ONE 7(2), P.e32228. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0032228.

O'Connor, Sue 2015 Rethinking the Neolithic in Island Southeast Asia, with Particular Reference to the Archaeology of Timor-Leste and Sulawesi. Archipel 90: 15-47. 2006 Unpacking the Island Southeast Asian Neolithic Cultural Package, and Finding Local Complexity. In Uncovering Southeast Asia's Past:Selected Papers from the 10th International Conference of the European Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists, The British Museum, London 14th‐ 17th September 2004, edited by Elizabeth Bacus, Ian Glover and Vincent Pigott, pp. 74-87. National University of Singapore, Singapore. 2003 Nine New Painted Rock Art Sites from East Timor in the Context of the Western Pacific Region. Asian Perspectives 42 (1):96-128.

O’Connor, Sue, Ken Aplin, Emma St Pierre and Yue-xing Feng 2010 Faces of the Ancestors Revealed: Discovery and Dating of a Pleistocene-age Petroglyph in Lene Hara Cave, East Timor. Antiquity 84:649–665.

O'Connor, Sue, Julien Louys, Shimona Kealy and Mahirta 2015 First Record of Painted Rock Art Near Kupang, West Timor, Indonesia, and the Origins and Distribution of the Austronesian Painting Tradition. Rock Art Research 32 (2):193-201.

O’Connor, Sue and Nuno Vasco Oliveira 2007 Inter-and Intraregional Variation in the Austronesian Painting Tradition: A View from East Timor. Asian Perspectives 46 (2):389-403.

Oppenheimer, Stephen 2004 The ‘Express Train from Taiwan to Polynesia’: on the Congruence of Proxy Lines of Evidence. World Archaeology 36:591-600.

Oppenheimer, Stephen and Martin Richards 2001a Polynesian origins: Slow boat to Melanesia? Nature 410:166-167. 2001b Fast trains, Slow Boats, and the Ancestry of the Polynesian Islanders. Science Progress 84 (3):157-181.

Pawley, Andrew 2004 The Austronesian Dispersal: Languages, Technologies and People. In Examining the Farming/language Dispersal Hypothesis edited by Peter Bellwood

257 and Colin Renfrew, pp.251-273. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge.

Peterson, John 2009 The Austronesian Moment. Taiwan Journal of Indigenous Studies 2:39-62.

Pike, Alistair, Dirk Hoffmann, Marcos García-Diez, Paul Pettitt, José Alcolea, Rodrigo De Balbin-Behrmann, C. Gonzalez- Sainz, Carmen de las Heras, J.A. Lasheras, R. Montes, Joao Zilhao 2012 Uranium- series Dating of Upper Palaeolithic Art in Spanish caves. Science 336, 1409-1413.

Pike, Alistair, Dirk Hoffmann, Paul Pettitt, Marcos García-Diez, and Joao Zilhao In-press. 2016. Dating Paleolithic cave art: Why U-Th is the Way to Go. Quaternary International.

Piper, Philip, Ryan Rabett and Edmund Bin Kurui 2008 Using Community, Composition and Structural Variation in Terminal Pleistocene Vertebrate Assemblages to Identify Human Hunting Behavior at the Niah Caves, Borneo. Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association Bulletin 28:88-98.

Plagnes, Valerie, Christiane Causse, Michel Fontugne, Hélène Valladas, Jean-Michel Chazine,and Luc-Henri Fage 2003 Cross-dating (Th/U-14C) of calcite covering prehistoric paintings in Borneo. Quaternary Research 60:172-179.

Plutniak, Sebastién, Astolfo Araujo, Simon Puaud, Jean-George Ferrié, Adhi Agus Oktaviana, Bambang Sugiyanto, Jean-Michel Chazine, Francois-Zavier Ricaut 2015. Borneo as a Half Empty Pot: Pottery Assemblage from Liang Abu, East Kalimantan, Quaternary International.

Pons-Branchu, Edwige, Raphaelle Bourillon, Margaret Conkey, Michel Fontugne, Carole Fritz, Diego Garate, A. Quiles, Olivia Rivero, Georges Sauvet, Gilles Tosello, Hélène Valladas, and Randall White 2014 Uranium-series Dating of Carbonate Formations Overlying Palaeolithic art: Interest and Limitations. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 111 (2):211-224.

Pyatt, F. Brian, Bob Wilson, and Graeme Barker 2005 The Chemistry of Tree Resins and Ancient Rock Paintings in the Niah Caves, Sarawak (Borneo): Some Evidence of Rain Forest Management by Early Human Populations. Journal of Archaeological Science 32:897-901.

258 Rabbet, Ryan, Graeme Barker, Huw Barton, Chris Hunt, Lindsay Lloyd-Smith, Victor Paz, Philip J. Piper, Rasmathiri Premathilake, Garry Rushworth, Marth Stephens, and Katherine Szabó 2013 Landscape Transformations and Human Responses c. 11,500-4,500 Years Ago. In Rainforest Foraging and Farming in Island Southeast Asia: the Archaeology of Niah Caves, Volume 1 edited by Graeme Barker, pp. 217-253. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge.

Ray, Himanshu Prabha 1994 The Winds of Change: Buddhism and the Maritime Links of Early South Asia. Oxford University Press, Delhi.

Reavis, J.L. 1964 “L. Tulang Wall Painting” photographs. Harrisson Archive/Sarawak Museum Department, Kuching, Malaysian Borneo.

Renfrew, Colin 2010 Archaeogenetics – Towards a ‘New Synthesis’. Current Biology 20 (4):R162- R165. 1999 Time Depth, Convergence Theory, and Innovation in Proto-Indo-European: ‘Old Europe’ as a PIE Linguistic Area. Journal of Indo-European Studies 27:257– 293. 1987 Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins. Jonathan Cape: London.

Ricaut, Francois-Xavier, Bambang Sugiyanto, Jean-Georges Ferrie, Pindi Setiawan, Josette Sarel, Adhi Agus Oktaviana, Antonio Guerreiro, Budi Amuranto, Michel Grenet, Sebastien Plutniak, Benedicte Voeltzel, Jean-Michel Chazine, and Tony Djubiantono 2011 Prehistoric Occupation at the Rock Shelter of Liang Abu, Eastern Borneo. Antiquity 85:329. Project gallery.

Roberts, Richard, Grahame Walsh, Andrew Murray, Jon Olley, Rhys Jones, Michael Morwood, Claudio Tuniz, Ewan Lawson, Michael Macphail, Doreen Bowdery, and Ian Naumann 1997 Luminescence Dating of Rock Art and Past Environments Using Mud-wasp Nests in Northern Australia. Nature 387:696 - 699.

Rogers, A. 2010 A Chronology of Six Rock Art Motifs in the Coso Range, Eastern California. American Indian Rock Art 36:23-36.

Ross, Malcolm 2008 The Integrity of the Austronesian Language Family: from Taiwan to Oceania, In Past Human Migrations in East Asia: Matching Archaeology,

259 Linguistics and Genetics edited by Alicia Sanchez-Mazas, Robert Blench, Malcolm Ross, Illia Peiros, and Marie Lin, pp. 161-181. Routledge, London and New York.

Rozwadowski, Andrzej and Kenneth Lymer 2012 Rock Art in Central Asia: History, Recent Developments and New Directions. In Rock Art Studies News of the World IV edited by Paul Bahn, Natalie Franklin, and Mattias Strecker, pp. 149-163. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Rouse, Irving 1986 Migrations in prehistory: inferring population movement from cultural remains. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Rowe, Marvin 2012 Bibliography of rock art dating. Rock Art Research 29(1):118–31.

Ruhlen, Merritt 1994 The Origin of Language. Wiley, New York.

Ruiz, Juan and Marvin Rowe 2014 Dating Methods (Absolute and Relative) in Archaeology of Art. Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, edited by Claire Smith, pp.2036-2041. Springer eReference.

Russ, Jon, Marian Hyman, Harry Shafer, and Martin Rowe 1990 Radiocarbon Dating of Prehistoric Rock Paintings by Selective Oxidation of Organic Carbon. Nature 348, 710–711.

Russell,Thembi, Fabio Silva and James Steele 2014 Modeling the Spread of Farming in Bantu-Speaking Regions of Africa: An Archaeology-Based Phylogeography. PLoS One. 2014; 9(1). Accessed 10-1-15 from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3909244/.

Sanchez-Mazas, Alicia, Robert Blench, Malcolm Ross, Illia Peiros, and Marie Lin 2008 Past Human Migrations in East Asia: Matching Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics. Routledge, London.

Sanz, Inés Domingo 2012 Style in Levantine Rock Art. In A Companion to Rock Art, edited by Jo McDonald and Peter Veth. pp. 306-321. Wiley-Blackwell,Oxford.

Sarawak Museum Archives 1967. Author unknown. “Report during a short visit to Gua Sireh on the 12th-13th January, 1967”. Report on file with the Sarawak Museum Department.

260 Year unkown. Untitled photo series of Sungai Jaong rock art. Digitized black and white photographs. Year unknown. Author unknown. “Batu Balang”. Digitized color photo. Year unknown. Author unknown. “Pa Bangar”. Digitized color photo. Year unknown. Author unknown.“Boat Drawing on the Roof of BAT 1”. Drawing Year unknown. Author unknown. “Human figure drawn on the roof of BAT 1”. Drawing.

Sauvet, Georges, Raphaelle Bourrillon, Margaret Conkey, Carole Fritz, Diego Garate, Oliva Rivero, Gilles Tosello, Randall White 2015 Uranium-Thorium Dating Method and Rock Art. Quaternary International. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.03.053.

Sidwell, Paul and Blench, Robert 2011 The Austroasiatic Urheimat:the Southeastern Riverine Hypothesis. In Dynamics of Human Diversity in Mainland SE Asia edited by Nicholas Enfield and Joyce White, pp. 317-345. Pacific Linguistics, Canberra.

Smith, Benjamin 2013 Rock Art Research in Africa. In The Oxford Handbook of African Archaeology, edited by Peter Mitchell and Paul Lane, pp.145-162. Oxford University Press: Oxford. 2006 Reading Rock Art and Writing Genetic History: Regionalism, Ethnicity and the Rock Art of Southern Africa. In The Prehistory of Africa, edited by H. Soodyal. pp. 76-96. Jonathan Ball, Cape Town.

Smith, Claire 1992 Colonizing with Style:Reviewing the Nexus Between Rock Art, Territoriality and the Colonisation and Occupation of Sahul. Australian Archaeology 34:34- 42.

Solheim, Wilhelm 1996 The Nusantao and North-south Dispersals. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association (Chiang Mai Papers: Volume 2) 15:101-109. 1983 Archaeological Research in Sarawak, Past and Future. Sarawak Museum Journal 50 (n.s. 29):35-56.

Solomon, Anne 2011 Towards Visual Histories: Style, Interdisciplinary and Southern African Rock Art Research. The South African Archaeological Bulletin 66 (193):51-59.

261 Specht, Jim 1979 Rock Art in the Western Pacific. In Exploring the Visual Art of Oceania: Australia, Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia, edited by Sidney M. Mead, pp. 58–82. University Press of Hawaii: Honolulu.

Spriggs, Matthew 2011 Archaeology and the Austronesian expansion: Where are We Now? Antiquity 85:510-528. 2007 The Neolithic and Austronesian Expansion Within Island Southeast Asia and into the Pacific. In From Southeast Asia to the Pacific: Archaeological Perspectives on the Austronesian Expansion and the Lapita Cultural Complex edited by Scarlett Chiu and Christophe Sand. pp.104-125. Centre for Archaeological Studies Research and for Humanities and Social Sciences, Academica Sinica, Taipei. 1989 The Dating of the Southeast Asian Neolithic – an Attempt at Dhronological Hygiene and Linguistic Correlation. Antiquity 63:587-613.

Steelman, Karen and Marvin Rowe 2012 Radiocarbon Dating of Rock Paintings: Incorporating Pictographs into the Archaeological Record. In A Companion to Rock Art, edited by Jo McDonald and Peter Veth. pp. 565-582. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.

Szabó, Katherine, Philip Piper, and Graham Barker 2008 Sailing between Worlds: The Symbolism of Death in Northwest Borneo. Terra Australis 29:149-170.

Szabó, Katherine, Franca Cole, Lindsay Lloyd-Smith, Graeme Barker, Chris Hunt, Philip J. Piper, and Chris Doherty 2013 The ‘Metal Age’ at the Niah Caves, c. 200-500 Years Ago. In Rainforest Foraging and Farming in Island Southeast Asia: The Archaeology of Niah Caves, Volume 1, edited by Graeme Barker, pp. 299-339. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge.

Taçon, Paul 2013 Interpreting the in-between: rock art junctions and other small style areas between provinces. Time and Mind: The Journal of Archaeology, Consciousness and Culture 6(1):73-80.

Taçon, Paul, Alistair Paterson, June Ross and Sally May 2012 Picturing Change and Changing Pictures: Contact Period Rock Art of Australia. In A Companion to Rock Art, edited by Jo McDonald and Peter Veth. pp. 420-436. Wiley-Blackwell,Oxford.

262 Taçon, Paul S.C. and Christopher Chippindale. 2002 An Archaeology of Rock-art Through Informed Methods and Formal Methods. In The Archaeology of Rock-Art, edited by Christopher Chippindale and Paul S.C. Taçon, pp. 1-9. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Taçon, P., Noel Tan, Sue O’Connor, Ji Xueping, Li Gang, Darren Curnoe, David Bulbeck, Budianto Hakim, Iwam Sumantri, Heng Than, Im Sokrithy, Stephen Chia, Kuon Khun- Neay and Soeung Kong 2014 The Global Implications of the Early Surviving Rock Art of Greater Southeast Asia. Antiquity 88:1050-1064.

Taçon, Paul, Alistair Paterson, June Ross and Sally May 2013 Picturing change and changing pictures: contact period rock art of Australia. In A Companion to Rock Art, edited by Jo McDonald and Peter Veth. pp. 420-436. Wiley-Blackwell:Oxford.

Taçon, Paul, Mohammed Sherman Sauffi and Ipoi Datan 2011 New Engravings Discovered at Santubong Sarawak, Malaysia. The Sarawak Museum Journal 67:105-121.

Tan, Noel Hidalgo 2014 Rock Art Research in Southeast Asia: A Synthesis. Arts 3:73-104. 2010 Scientific Reinvestigation of the Rock Art of Gua Tambun, Perak. MA thesis, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang.

Tan, Noel Hidalgo and Stephen Chia 2010 “‘New’ Rock Art from Gua Tambun, Perak, Malaysia.” Rock Art Research 27(1):9–18.

Tishkoff, Sarah A, Flloyd A. Reed, Françoise R. Friedlaender, et al. 2009 The genetic structure and history of Africans and African Americans. Science 324, 1035-44.

Thomas, Julian 1999 Understanding the Neolithic (2nd ed.). Routledge:New York.

Valladas, Hélène, Hélène Cachier, Maurice Arnold and Michel Lorblanchet 1990 AMS C-14 dates for the Prehistoric Cougnac Cave Paintings and Related Bone Remains. Rock Art Research 7:18-19.

Valladas, Hélène, Hélène Cachier, Pierre Maurice, Bernardo de Quiros, F. Jean Clottes, V. Cabrera Valde ́s, Paloma Uzquiamo and Maurice Arnold 1992 Direct Radiocarbon Dates for Prehistoric Paintings at the Altamira, El Castillo and Niaux Caves. Nature 357:68–70.

263

Valentin, Frédérique, Bedford, Stuart and Spriggs, Matthew 2015 Three-thousand-year-old jar burials at Teouma Cemetery (Vanuatu): A Southeast Asian – lapita connection? In The Lapita Cultural Complex in Time and Space: Expansion Routes, Chronologies and Typologies edited by Christophe Sand, Scarlett Chiu and Nicholas Hogg, pp. 81-102. Institute of Archaeology of New Caledonia and the Pacific. Noumea: New Caledonia.

Voris, Harold K. 2000 Maps of Pleistocene sea levels in Southeast Asia: shorelines, river systems and time durations. Journal of Biogeography 27:1153-1167.

White, Joyce, and Elizabeth Hamilton 2009 The transmission of early Bronze Age technology to Thailand: new perspectives. Journal of World Prehistory 22:357–97.

Whitley, David 2012 In suspect terrain: dating rock engravings. In A Companion to Rock Art, edited by Jo McDonald and Peter Veth. pp. 605-624. Wiley-Blackwell:Oxford.

Wibisono, Sonny 2006 Stylochronology of early pottery in islands of Southeast Asia: a reassessment of archaeological evidence of Austronesian [Sic], In Austronesian diaspora and the ethnogenesis of people in Indonesian Archipelago: proceedings of the International symposium [Sic], edited by Truman Simanjuntak, Ingrid H.E. Pojoh,and Mohammad Hisya. pp. 147-162. Indonesian Institute of Science: Jakarta.

Wilford, G.E. 1964 The Geology of Sarawak and Sabah Caves. Geological Survey Borneo Region Malaysia, Bulletin 6.

Wilson, Meredith 2004 Rethinking regional analyses of Western Pacific rock-art. Records of the Australian Museum, Supplement 29:173-186. 2003 Rock-art transformations in the western Pacific. In Pacific Archaeology:Assessments and Prospects, edited by Christophe Sand. 265–284. Service des Musées et du Patrimoine: Noumea. 2002 Picturing Pacific Prehistory: The Rock-art of Vanuatu in a Western Pacific Context. Unpublished Ph.D. diss. Department of Archaeology and Natural History, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University, Canberra. 1998 Pacific Rock-art and Cultural Genesis: a Multivariate Exploration. In The Archaeology of Rock-Art, edited by Christopher Chippindale and Paul S.C.

264 Taçon, pp. 163-181. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Wotzka, Hans-Peter (editor) 2006 Records of Activity: Radiocarbon and the Structure of Iron Age Settlement in Central Africa. In Grundlegungen. Beiträge zur europäischen und afrikanischen Archäologie für Manfred K. H. Eggert (Contributions to European and African Archaeology from Manfred K.H. Eggert). pp. 271–28. Francke: Tübingen.

265