AUSTRONESIAN IN ... SULAWESI

Editor Truman Simanjuntak

CENTER FOR PREHISTORIC AND AUSTRONESIAN STUDIES http: / / www.cpasindonesia.com Austronesian in Sulawesi Editor: Truman Simanjuntak Cover Design: Levi Simanjuntak Layout: Mirza Ansyor

First Published, 2008 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without written permission from the copyright owner

Published by: Center For Prehistoric And Austronesian Studies (CPAS) Jin. A. Dahlan IV/20, Kukusan, Depok 16425, Indonesia Telp. 021-708881968; Fax. 021-78881968

Perpustakaan Nasional (Indonesian National Library) Katalog Dalam Terbitan (KDT)

Austronesian in Sulawesi CPAS Depok; First Published, 2008; 175 x 230 mm; vi + 269 Halaman ISBN: 978-602-8174-07-7 I. Archaeology II. Title III. Simanjuntak, Truman 3

A CENTURY OF ARCHAEOLOGY IN SULAWESI David Bulbeck

During the history of archaeological research on Sulawesi, there have been five major publications on the topic. The first of these was the monograph by two cousins from Basel in Switzerland, Paul Sarasin and Fritz Sarasin, on their excavations undertaken in 1903 on rock shelters at Lamoncong, Bone Regency, South Sulawesi. Sarasin and Sarasin (1905) had been attracted to these sites by reports of a local "cave dwelling" population, the Toala' or "forest people" (not to be confused with the Toala' of Luwu Regency, who speak a language related to Toraja-Sa'dan), and gave us the name "Toalean" with their choice of a name for the assemblages of flaked lithics recovered from the Lamoncong rock shelters. The second and third major publication events for Sulawesi archaeology are due to Robert van Heekeren (1958, 1972). Although these books address the Bronze-Iron Age (or Paleometallic) and the Stone Age (including the Neolithic) for Indonesia as a whole, van Heekeren pursued research very actively in South Sulawesi, and these two books stand out as indispensable summaries of the archaeological work undertaken in Sulawesi by himself, and other European scholars, during Indonesia's colonial period. The fourth major publication event is the eighteenth and last volume of Quaternary Research in Indonesia, a monograph series initiated by Gert-Jen Bartstra who continued van Heekeren's interest in the archaeology of Indonesia, including South Sulawesi. Edited by Susan Keates and JuUette Pasveer (2004), this volume includes no less than eight articles on the archaeology of South Sulawesi, covering the period from the Late Pleistocene to the Paleometallic. The fifth major publication is the present volume, which brings us fuU circle in the sense that, like the Sarasins' 1905 monograph, it is dedicated entirely to a specific topic in Sulawesi archaeology. That topic is the study of Austronesian 4

archaeology (and related background) in Sulawesi, and it is noteworthy in its inclusion of an emphasis on the archaeology of North Sulawesi, which has been researched with nearly the same fervor as South Sulawesi's archaeology. One major theme of the present volume is the peculiar location, shape and natural history of the island of Sulawesi. Sulawesi lies between the two great continental plates of Eurasia and Australia-New Guinea, between the Sunda and Sahul shelves which, during Pleistocene intervals of low sea levels, had joined together many of the islands of Indonesia now isolated by shallow seas. Sulawesi is literally an amalgamation of blocks of continental crust from both Sunda and Sahul. Sulawesi's unique geological formation, and the question of whether there had ever been a landbridge which connected Sulawesi to the Philippines and other islands to the north, are explored in the contributions by Fadhlan S. Intan, Harry Widianto, and Truman Simanjuntak (in his closing paper). These issues are important background for understanding the arrival of Austronesian speakers to Sulawesi. Although debate still continues on the ultimate homeland of the Austronesians, as discussed in Simanjuntak's closing paper and in more depth by Daud Tanudirjo's first paper, all of the contributors to the present volume toe the line championed by Blust (e.g. 1984- 85), Howells (1973), and especially Bellwood (e.g., 1997), that Taiwan was the immediate homeland of the Austronesians, including the Malayo-Polynesians who set sail from Taiwan to make Austronesian the most widely spoken, indigenous language family in the world.

Considerable debate however still accompanies the processes by which the Malayo-Polynesians dispersed across Island Southeast Asia and the Pacific, and this is reflected in the different points of view expressed by contributors to this volume. Tanudirjo, in his contribution referred to above, presents a very interesting scenario which, in a sense, can be viewed as an adaptation of Bellwood's (1997, 2005) position in the face of the emerging archaeological evidence, along with a healthy dose of globalization theory. This scenario retains the sense that the expansion of agricultural populations was a prime mover for the major Malayo-Polynesian dispersal (Tanudirjo's third stage), whereas Simanjuntak's contributions, and my own article, relegate agriculture to second place, and highlight the original and fundamental importance of sailing and maritime trade to the Malayo-Polynesian dispersal. Indeed, Widianto and Simanjuntak both address the conundrum of a "Neolithic" enhancement of the Sulawesi forager economy (as in those sites which remained under occupation with little change except the addition of pottery) by suggesting that the Austronesian immigrants often "went native" and adopted the local MesoUthic (or Pre-NeoHthic) lifestyle. My contribution offers a different solution, which proposes mutually beneficial 5

interactions between the Mesolithic aborigines and Austronesian immigrants during the Neolittdc. In this regard, where Widianto urges a detailed comparative study of the human remains extracted from South Sulawesi sites, I would recommend to readers my recent paper (Bulbeck 2004) which summarizes previous work by Hooijer and Boedhisampurno as well as Teuku Jacob, re-describes the Upper Cakondo skeleton (the main skeletal assemblage recovered by the Sarasins), and describes new material from Leang Burung 1 and Batu Ejaya. Chapter Two presents accounts of the archaeological fieldwork performed in South Sulawesi in association with Professor Simanjuntak's project, along with a summary (by Simanjuntak and Siswanto) of current knowledge on the archaeology of North Sulawesi. Simanjuntak and colleagues describe the pottery, stone artifacts, bone tools, faunal and floral remains, and personal adornments recovered from five test pits at Minanga Sipakko, a site located at the farthest upstream navigable point along the Karama River. The assemblage from this site would be one of the most important Neolithic assemblages in aU of Indonesia, in terms of its quantity, variety, secure Neolithic dating, and clear stams as the habitation debris from a permanent settiement. It is particularly valuable as it is accompanied by a pollen record, detailed in the contribution by Vita, which would seem to indicate no change to the local Pinus forest ecosystem throughout the period of occupation (Layer 2). The contribution by Bagyo Prasetyo lists the decorative motifs recorded on the pottery from Minanga Sipakko, and from its "twin site" Kamassi, as well as from the Lattibung and Sikendeng sites, which lie near the mouth of the Karama River. Prasetyo also reviews the literature on the Sa-Huynh-Kalanay tradition to which the Neolithic and PaleometaUic decorated pottery associated with early Malayo-Polynesians can be assigned. Irfan Mahmud provides two contributions which recount the results of archaeological reconnaissance in the hilly Enrekang area, and the current project's test pit at the well-studied site complex of Mallawa, in the Maros uplands (Hasyim 2001), respectively. Irfan makes a valuable point where he argues that the archaeological record recovered from the Enrekang rock shelters demonstrates the long-term independence of the local Masenrempulu-speaking people, and that this finding should dismiss any ideas to the effect that the Enrekang people are simply a Bugis sub-culmre.

Chapter Three picks up the theme of relating South Sulawesi's Neolithic to the ethnic groups recorded ethnographicaUy in the province, albeit from a different set of perspectives. Irfan Mahmud teams up with Retno Handini in providing valuable ethnographic summaries of the Kajang and Sa'dan Toraja people, two of the more distinctive and interesting ethnic groups of South Sulawesi. Personally I am uneasy about depicting these two groups as somehow more "Austronesian" than Bugis, 6 AUSTRONESIAN IN SULAWESI

Makasars, or indeed Malays, Sundanese and Javanese or any other people whose native language belongs to the Austronesian family. Particularly in view of Truman Simanjuntak's account (in his concluding chapter) on the broad periods of change that postdate Indonesia's Neolithic, it would not seem likely that observations made today on any Austronesian-speaking group would somehow transport the observer back to the Neolithic. Instead, it would seem to be more productive to use ethnographic observations, particularly those that emerge from a comparative anthropological analysis, as the basis to develop hypotheses which can be tested against the archaeological record as a vehicle to explore the nuances of Sulawesi's NeoUthic archaeology. The contributions in Chapter Three by Daud Tanudirjo and the present writer go some way towards this goal, at least in the sense of proposing relationships between Neolithic sites and the linguistically defined groups recognized in South Sulawesi. However, given the richness of the Minanga Sipakko assemblage, which could be amplified with additional excavations, it should provide the ideal framework for testing the NeoUthic practice of "Austronesian" traits suggested from ethnography (e.g., ancestor worship, betel chewing, tooth filing, tattooing, rice agriculture, hunting with blowpipes and spears, barkcloth manufacture, pottery production, and perhaps even headhunting, as mentioned in the contribution by Irfan and Handini on the Sa'dan

Finally, Truman Simanjuntak's closing chapter summarizes the findings and wider implications of his SEASREP-funded project, and highlights the importance of Neolithic research in Sulawesi, not only for Sulawesi scholars but also for all archaeologists with an interest in Austronesian studies. His closing address is a richly nuanced conclusion to a very productive and worthwhile project.

BIBLIOGRAPHY ,

Bellwood, P. 1997. Prehistory of Indo-Malaysian Archipelago. Revised edition. The University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. BeUwood, P. 2005. First Farmers: The Origins of Agricultural Socities. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. Blust, R.A. 1984-1985. The Austronesian homeland: a linguistic perspective. Asian Perspective 26 (1), pp. 45-68. Bulbeck, D. 2004. South Sulawesi in the corridor of island populations along East Asia's Pacific rim. In Keates, S.G, and J.M. Pasveer (eds.). Quaternary Research in Indonesia. A.A. Balkema, Leiden, pp. 221-258. Hasyim, M. 2001. Perbengkalan Alat Batu Neolitik di Situs Mallawa Kabupaten Maraos Sulawesi Selatan: Suatu Kajian Pemukiman. A4A thesis. Program of Archaeology Studies, University of Indonesia, Jakarta. Heekeren, H.R. van. 1958. The Bronze-Iron Age of Indonesia. VerhandeUngen van het Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land-, en Volkenkunde, Volume 22. Martinus Nijhoff, s'Gravenhage . Heekeren, H.R. van. 1972. The Stone Age of Indonesia. VerhandeUngen van het KoninkUjk Instituut voor Taal-, Land-, en Volkenkunde, Volume 61. Martinus Nijhoff, ^' • The Hague, s •. v .'''v. x r' j. \, KJ -f 1 k HoweUs, WW. 1973. The Pacific Islanders. Weidenfeld, London. Keates, S.G, and J.M. Pasveer (eds.). 2004. Quaternary Research in Indonesia. Modern Quaternary Research in Southeast Asia 18. A.A. Balkema, Leiden. Saraski, F. and P. Sarasin. 1905. R£isen in Celebes. CW Kreidel's Verslag, Weisbaden. 185

AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE DIVERSIFICATION OF THE LANGUAGES OF THE SOUTH SULAWESI STOCK David Bulbeck

T

Introduction In this article, the middle to late Holocene archaeology of South Sulawesi is related to the diversification of the languages of the South Sulawesi stock, which is a stem of Austronesian. As will be justified, the early South Sulawesi language speakers apparentiy arrived via the coast and established founder colonies along the navigable stretches of coastal rivers, before striking inland along the major hinterland waterways (especially the Saddang and the Walanae). Because the Austronesian penetration of the hinterland was delayed, much of the province's archaeological record assignable to the Neolithic, also called the ceramic period (to use a less loaded term), would appear to have been left by the original Toalean inhabitants. In fact, Toalean population densities evidentiy persisted at pre-ceramic levels throughout the Neolithic, owing to mutually beneficial interactions between the Toalean foragers and Austronesian immigrants. During the Neolithic, around 4,000 to 2,000 years ago, the physiography of South Sulawesi differed from its present-day situation. Specifically, the coastal plain was narrower, especially where the province's major rivers debouch. At around 4000- 4500 years ago, the sea covered the lower Je'ne'berang River as far inland as the Kale Gowa hill, a distance of eight kilometers (Bulbeck 1992:201-02). The present-day Cenrana River appears to have been covered by shallow sea and mangrove swamp until 2610 + 50 years BP (Gremmen 1990:129), i.e. 2502-2845 BP (two-sigma calibration, CALIB 5.1), almost as far west as Sengkang. Historical narratives of an inland 186 AUSTRONESIAN IN SULAWESI

sea stretching from the west to the east coast of the South Sulawesi peninsula, across the Tempe lowlands, appear to be gready exaggerated, but nonetheless hark back to a time when a series of channels had connected these two coasts, at least during seasonal inundations (Lillie and Caldwell 2004; Druce 2005). De Klerk's (1983) reconstruction of a quite steady drop in the sea around South Sulawesi, from seven meters above the present level at around 4500 BP to one meter above the present level at around 2000 BP, indicates a sea-level regression of approximately 2.5 vertical meters per millennium throughout the Neolithic, before conditions similar to today's were reached. The languages assigned to the South Sulawesi stock, and the languages spoken by the present-day inhabitants of the province of South Sulawesi, comprise two overlapping sets. In this article, the former will be referred to as the Sulsel languages, and the latter as South Sulawesi languages, to avoid confusion. Before correlating the province's Neolithic archaeology with the diversification of the Sulsel languages, this article will briefly summarize the Toalean archaeology, both immediately prior to and during the Neolithic transition. As hinted above. South Sulawesi's Toalean archaeology provides an essential context for understanding the dispersal of Sulsel languages across the province's landscape.

Sharing the Landscape - Toaleans and Early Austronesians In 1997, while I was working at the University of Western Australia, my Honors students and I began investigating exchange relationships between ceramic-period Toalean foragers and early Austronesians (Bulbeck 1996-97, 2004a; Di Lello 1997, 2002; Simons 1997; Simons and Bulbeck 2004; Bulbeck et al. 2000). Comparable interpretations of late Holocene forager archaeology in the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago can now be found in Bellwood (2005:31-33) and his students' theses (e.g., Arifin 2004; Mijares 2006). However, back in 1997, the conventional treatment of any prehistoric deposits in Indonesia with pottery was the blank inference that Austronesian speakers had arrived; minimal attention was paid to the cultural context of the sherds (e.g., Bellwood 1985, 1997). At the University of Western Australia, we became aware that the pottery-bearing layers at Leang Burung 1, and other Maros rock shelters with both pre-ceramic and ceramic Toalean sequences, had remained under occupation by Toaleans. These Toaleans had evidentiy acquired pottery and other newly available products, such as meat from domestic animals, through trade with Austronesian settlers, whose setdements had not been directly recorded archaeologically. By analogy with the Karama sites in Mamuju Regency, the founding Austronesian setdements would have 187

been located along the navigable stretches of rivers on or near the Maros coastal plain. Archaeological detection of these settlements would have been compromised by their susceptibility to coastal and riverine geomorphological processes, which had either damaged the sites or buried them deeply beneath alluvium. We also found that the Toalean should not be treated as a single, undivided entity but instead comprised at least two, geographically disjunct phenomena. The Toaleans of the "southwest", i.e. the southern and southwest coastal plains of the peninsula, and extending up to Lamoncong (where the Sarasin cousins initially discovered the Toalean), could be described as complex hunter-gatherers. The classical Toalean stone-tool types, such as backed microUths and Maros points, seem to be restricted to this zone, as are the peninsula's shelters with rock art, faunal assemblages dominated by the Celebes boar {Sus cekbensis), and landscape evidence of high forager population densities (Bulbeck 2004a). A "Toala" community directiy connected to the Toaleans had survived in Lamoncong until the mm of the twentieth century (Bulbeck 2006), which is a clear indication of the resilience of these complex hunter-gatherers. By contrast, the Toalean archaeology along the middle waters of the Walanae and the eastern coast of the peninsula (the "northeast") suggests a less complex forager occupation. Maros points and backed microliths have not been documented, although, in common with sites in the southwest region, there are projectile points lacking hollowed bases ("pirri points") and bone points. Rock art sites are unknown, the faunal assemblages reflect a less disturbed forest environment than in the southwest, and a landscape survey in Soppeng suggested light forager population densities (Bulbeck 2004a).

Whether there were biological dif^ •-ences between the southwest and northeast Toaleans is unclear. The only certified Iv.alean human remains are the fragments from Bola Batu, in Bone, which appear to be pre-ceramic, and the disturbed inhumation from Leang Burung 1 (Trench B) dated radiometrically to the mid-Holocene (Bulbeck ^00^ b). Both complements of material suggest a smaU-toothed population, but are too scrappy for more decisive interpretation. A Toalean status for any other human remains from lowland South Sulawesi rock shelters would appear questionable, given the suspected arrival of Austronesian immigrants during the Neolithic. The remains from Leang Codong (also spelled Leang Cadang), Batu Ejaya, Ulu Leang 2, and Trench A at Leang Burung 1 clearly date to the last two thousand years, and the fossUized- looking cranium from Leang Batu Tunpa in Selayar is radiometrically dated to historical times (Bulbeck 2004b; Bulbeck and Hakim 2005). However, evidence of sustained habitation of the rock shelters by Toaleans during the ceramic period comes from the recovery of potsherds in 20 of the 22 excavated shelters for which I have documentation (Table 15.1). Of course, in some cases 188

the pottety (as with the polished axe/adzes occasionally found in these sites) could date to the Paleometallic, as is particulady clear at Bam Ejaya 1 (Bulbeck 2004a). Use of a shelter during the Neolithic, from approximately 4000 to 2000 years BP, can be reasonable inferred at 13 of the 22 sites. This is slighdy less than the 17 shelters with evidence of pre-Neolithic Holocene habitation based on their radiocarbon dates, the recovery of Maros points, or a Toalean assemblage which appears to lack late Holocene artifacts (Table 15.1). This faint decrease in evidence of rock-shelter habitation need not however reflect a decline in Toalean population densities, as it could have been accompanied by a relocation of some Toalean populations to the margins of early Austronesian settlements. The latter development is suggested by the large lithic assemblage (including two geometric microliths) associated with numerous earthenware sherds at the open-air, coastal site of Pakka Mukang in Galesong, Takalar (Bulbeck et al. 2000). The distinction between southwest and northeast Toalean populations is important for understanding the colonization of the South Sulawesi peninsula by Austronesian speakers. As argued below, the original proto-Sulsel speakers appear to have been the coastaUy oriented instigators of exchange networks with hinterland communities. The first Sulsel speakers to establish themselves more permanentiy on the peninsula apparently colonized the southwest lowlands, where complexity of the Toalean occupation appears to have been highest. This point suggests that the initial Austronesian colonization relied on the local existence of complex hunter-gatherers with whom beneficial exchange relations could be established, even though these Toaleans could not be rapidly supplanted owing to their strong demographic presence and complex adaptations. A later branch of Sulsel speakers followed the lower Saddang and its southeastern overflow as far as the Tempe Depression. By this time, Austronesian colonists appear to have been sufficientiy familiar with the local landscape to strike north up the Saddang and south along the Walanae into hinterland regions with low forager population densities. Only during this late stage ot diversification of the Sulsel languages would it be appropriate to invoke Bellwood's (1997) model of demic diffiasion of farming people who rapidly replaced or absorbed sparse populations of pre-existent foragers.

South Sulawesi Language Diversification Two family trees, based on phonological reconstruction and on lexicostatistics respectively, have been proposed for the Sulsel languages (those assigned to the South Sulawesi stock). Both trees agree in the identification of the Makasar languages (which include Konjo and Selayar) as the language stem which first first branched off the main line of linguistic evolution. Where they disagree is whether the Bugis and "Toraja" (highland) branches, or the 189

Site name Habitation Pot• Polished Metal Habitation > 4000 BP? sherds stone Phase 4000-2000 artifacts artifacts BP? Leang Ululeba Yes No Polished but No No backed Upper Cakondo Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Lower Cakondo Yes Yes No Yes No? Leang Balisao Yes? Yes Polished Yes Yes? Maros point Leang Tomatoa Yes Yes PoUshed axe Yes Yes? Kacicang Leang Ara Yes Near No Yes No? surface Panganreang Yes Near No Yes No? Tudea surface Batu Ejaya 1* Yes Yes Polished Yes No adzes Batu Ejaya 2* No Yes No Yes Yes Panisi Ta'batu Yes No No No No Bola Batu Yes Near No Yes No surface Leang Codong No? Yes No Yes Yes? Leang Saripa Yes Near Polished No No? surface stone balls Leang Karassa'* Yes Yes No Yes Yes Leang Lampoa No? Yes No No Yes Leang Pette Yes Yes Polished axe Yes No? Kere Leang Paja Yes Yes Polished axe Yes Yes Leang Burung Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 1* Ulu Leang 1* Yes Yes No Yes Yes Gua Bulusumi Yes Surface No No Yes? Gua Macinai No? Yes "Adze" No Yes? Leang No Yes No No Yes Garunggung

Table 15.1: Summary of Holocene habitation evidence at South Sulawesi rock shelters (from Bulbeck 1996-97, 2004a, 2006; Bulbeck et al. 2000) based on radiocarbon dates ('=) or artifactual/ stratigraphic evidence. Leang Burung 2 and Leang Sakapao 1, with evidence only of Pleistocene habitation (Bulbeck et al. 2004), are excluded. 190 AUSTRONESIAN IN SULAWESI

Mandar and Toraja branches, are sister lineages. The former of these alternatives is more feasible because it is based on a more rigorous methodology — phonological reconstruction (Adelaar 1994) — and it agrees with the early dates for the Karama Neolithic sites (see Simanjuntak et al. this volume). Nonetheless, the lexiocostatistical tree is also very relevant as only a few of the Sulsel languages are expUcidy included in the phonologically based tree. The most recent refinement to the phonological tree is provided by Adelaar (1994). Adelaar reviews the languages of the Tamanic people, of Hulu Kapuas Regency in KaUmantan's interior highlands, who are culturally similar to, but linguistically distinct from, their neighbors in central Kalimantan. As Adelaar demonstrates, Tamanic not only belongs to the Sulsel family but also probably groups with the Bugis and Toraja branches. Toraja itself is related to the other Sulsel languages of the highlands of northern South Sulawesi (Grimes and Grimes 1987). Therefore, the Sulsel branches to be excluded from the Tamanic/Bugis/Toraja sub-grouping are the Makasar and Mandar branches. That is, the sequence of splits would have been (1) the Makasar branch, (2) the Mandar branch, (3) the Tamanic branch, and (4) the Toraja and Bugis branches (Figure 15.1) The Makasar and Mandar languages have a predominandy coastal distribution, while Tamanic is the overseas member of the Sulsel language family. This point strongly suggests that the early Sulsel speakers had a primarily coastal-cum-maritime distribution, right up to the split between the Toraja and Bugis branches. Only these last two are mainly or entirely hinterland in their distribution. Moreover, a potential "homeland" for the non-Makasar languages of the Sulsel family could be the vicinity of the mouth of the Saddang River, which Mills (1975) had proposed as the homeland for proto- Sulsel itself (see discussion below). The lower Saddang could have been the springboard to colonize the Mandar/Mamuju lowlands (although the archaeological evidence recommends the Karama River for this role) and Kalimantan. It certainly would have been an appropriate conduit for accessing the Tempe depression, even by watercraft at times of inundation, which would have set early Austronesians at the foot of the Walanae River (as well as the Saddang). A fuUer perspective is provided by the lexical similarities calculated by Grimes and Grimes (1987:19) across 38 South Sulawesi language communities (with standard Indonesian also included as the reference group). These similarities aUow the language communities to be clustered into branches, which themselves can be seriated along a single dimension, from Indonesian at one extreme, to the languages belonging to the "Central Sulawesi stock" at the other extreme (Bulbeck 1992: Figure A-3). The resulting seriated hierarchical dendrogram, summarized here in Figure 15.2, yields a 191

seriated order (goodness of fit, 86.3%) and a structure of language branches essentially identical to that presented by Grimes and Grimes (1987:19, 24).

Proto-Sulsel (Proto-South Sulawesi)

Makasar Mandar Tamanic Toraja + affines ^ j" i |

Figure 15.1: \ Phonologically based tree of the South Sulawesi (Sulsel) languages. j

In addition, the language communities can be related to each other on two Euclidean dimensions by submitting their lexical similarities to Kruskal's (1964a, 1964b) multi-dimensional scaling. This algorithm finds the scatter of the compared units (here, language communities) which best corresponds to the input similarities. Figure 15.3 additionally fits a schematic map of South Sulawesi onto the resulting scattergram. This highlights the point (emphasized by Grimes and Grimes) that lexical items are transmitted between speech communities in geographical proximity to each other, whether they had diverged from each other in the recent past (dialect chains) or the distant past (so-caUed language convergence). For instance, the dialect of Bugis spoken in Luwu, where Bugis speakers arrived at around 700 BP (Bulbeck and Caldwell 2000), shares substantially more cognates with non-Bugis Luwu languages, and with Toraja-Sa'dan (whose speakers have a long history of trade with the Luwu Bugis in Palopo - Caldwell 1988:196), than does the dialect of Bugis spoken to the south in Bone. Accordingly, in Figure 15.3, Luwu Bugis Ues intermediate between Bone Bugis and the non-Bugis languages mentioned in the last sentence. Indeed, we can fit a boundary for Luwu onto Figure 15.3 so as to encompass aU the studied languages spoken in that regency. 192

Lexical Similarity

- 30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100% BI MAK BUG MND MMJ PUS TRJ MSR PAT SEK LEM WOT LYL CS Sulsel Language Stock

^ Figure 15.2: Seriated average-linkage dendrogram of South Sulawesi languages, based on lexical similarities (adapted from Bulbeck 1992:Figure A-3). BI = Bahasa Indonesia; MAK = Makasar subfamily (Makasar, Konjo, Selayar); BUG = Bugis family (Bone Bugis, Luwu Bugis, Campalagian); MND = Mandar language (Pamboang, Balanipa, Majene, Sendana, Malunda); MMJ = Mamuju language (Mamuju, Sumare, Tappalang, Sinyonyoi, Padang, Botteng); PUS = Pitu Ulana Salu language (Aralle-Tabulahan, Mambi, Mehalakan, Bambang, Raniebuhalan); TRJ = Toraja-Sa'dan subfamily (Mamasa, Toraja-Sa'dan, Rongkong Bawah, Rongkong Atas, Toala', Kalumpang); MSR = Masenrempulu; PAT = Pattae'; LEM = Lemolang; WOT = Wotu; LYL = Laiyolo; CS = Central Sulawesi stock (Pamona, Saruda, Topoiyo, Padoe, Rampi). 193

Compared to a real map of South Sulawesi, the southwest peninsula (in Figure 15.3) appears reduced in size. This size reduction corresponds to the simple linguistic simation of only two main language branches (Makasar and Bugis), and their exchange of lexical items over the centuries during which the Makasar and Bugis kingdoms experienced close poUtical relations (cf. Bulbeck 1992, 1996). Because Makasar is the most divergent of the Sulsel language branches (as correctly shown on Figure 15.2), and the Bugis dialects have "borrowed" Makasar lexical items over recent cenmries, the lexicostatistic data also make the Bugis branch appear quite divergent (Figure 15.2). The Mandar and Mamuju languages, on the other hand, have been exchanging linguistic items with the other communities immediately north of the peninsula. This is reflected by the tight cluster of language communities between Masenrempulu and Aralle-Tabulahan on Figure 15.3. That is, Mandar/Mamuju has converged with the Toraja languages. These points explain why Mandar/Mamuju, rather than Bugis (Figure 15.1), would be identified as the sister Lineage to the Toraja languages based on lexical similarity data (Figure 15.2). Three regencies, Mamuju, Luwu and Selayar (Selayar Island), are enlarged on Figure 15.3 compared to a real-world map. In the case of Mamuju and Selayar, this reflects the presence of two language stocks within the regency borders - respectively, the Sulsel and Central Sulawesi stocks, and the Sulsel and Muna-Buton stocks (Grimes and Grimes 1987). In the case of Luwu, three language stocks are represented (see below); moreover, two of the languages assigned to the Sulsel stock — Seko and Lemolang - are isolates within the Sulsel stock. The three South Sulawesi regencies discussed here would appear to have been colonized by Austronesian speakers from two or more source homelands. Linguistic convergence between the speech communities after they had come into contact explains why the regencies can still be represented as discrete entities on Figure 15.3, yet their grossed up size (as represented) reflects the colonization of the regency by independent immigrations of Austronesian speakers. This discussion is important for understanding Lemolang, a linguistic isolate (Figure 15.2) with a weU-recorded history. The oral history of the Lemolang lists a succession of setdements, all within the current area of Lemolang distribution, which is corroborated by the archaeological record back to 2000 BP. The earliest corroborated settlement, Sabbang Loang, overlooks the mighty Rongkong River where it meets the Luwu coastal plain (Bulbeck and Caldwell 2000). Figure 15.3 locates Lemolang relatively close to the non-Sulsel languages of Wotu (Muna-Buton stock), Rampi and Pamona (Central Sulawesi stock). However, this can be attributed to the exchange of lexical items over time between these Luwu languages. By analogy with Bugis (and its 194

Figure 15.3: Two-dimensional scaling of lexical similarities of South Sulawesi Languages (Stress 18.2%) with a map of South Sulawesi Province fitted to the scattergram (adapted from Bulbeck 1992: Fig.A-2)

Luwu actually provides an excellent example of how the linguistic and archaeological evidence can be combined in reconstructing the settlement history of the present-day Austronesian communities (Bulbeck 2000; Bulbeck and Caldwell 2000). As discussed above, Lemolang is a relict from an expansion of Sulsel speakers into Luwu by 2,000 years ago; Seko, located in the mountainous hinterland, may be 195

another relict from the same expansion (archaeological fieldwork in Seko countr)'- would be required to investigate this point). Lake Matano also has evidence of settled communities by c. 2,000 years ago, but this setdement can be associated with Padoe speakers, the representadves of the Central Sulawesi stock who occupy this part of Luwu. The arrival of the coastaUy located Worn and Bugis speakers in Luwu can in both cases be dated to around 700 BP from their associated early historical sites. Bajau sea-g5rpsies (not studied by Grimes and Grimes 1987) had also arrived on the coast of Luwu by early historical times (Bulbeck and Caldwell 2000). The penetration of Rongkong and Toala' speakers into the Luwu highlands has not been investigated archaeologically, but the classification of these languages into the Toraja-Sa'dan subfamily (Figure 15.2) suggests that they represent expansion from the Tana Toraja heardand within the last thousand years.

Correlation with the Archaeological Record from the Ceramic Period As presaged by Bellwood (1997:229), the oldest documented pottery in South Sulawesi dates to around 3500-4000 BP (calibrated). This observation, demonstrated by Bulbeck et al. (2000; Bulbeck 2004a) for the Maros rock shelters, is now confirmed at Mallawa and Minanga Sipakko - two widely spaced open-air sites in South Sulawesi (Table 15.2).

Site Date Laboratory Calibrated age Context No. (Reference) Ulu Leang 1, 3550 ±130 BP PRL-230 3470 _ 4220 BP Ceramic spit 2 (A) (2 sigma) Toalean Ulu Leang 1, Thermoremnant (Glover 3000 - 4000 BP Ceramic spits 1-3 magnetism on sherds 1978:94) Toalean Leang Burung 3420 ± 400 BP ANU-390 2750 - 4830 BP Ceramic LTrench A (A) (2 sigma) Toalean Mallawa, Bulu' 3580 ±130 BP P3G-06 3490 - 4281 BP Basal? Bakung (B) (2 sigma) Mallawa, Bulu' 2710 ±170 BP P3G-06 2359 - 3243 BP Undisclosed Bakung (B) (2 sigma) 196

Mallawa, Bulu' 2490 ± 220 BP ANU- 1991 -3056 BP Deepest Bakung, III/Kl, (AMS, charcoal) 11276 (2 sigma) decorated spit 9 (C) pottery MaUawa, Bulu' 1860 ±70 BP (AMS, ANU- 1946-1574 BP Highest red- Bakung, m/Kl, charcoal) 11274 (2 sigma) sUpped spit 7 (C) pottery Minanga 3690 ± 160 BP P3G-05 3619-4514 BP 170 -180 cm Sipakko, M5 (B) (2 sigma) depth Minanga 3446 ± 51 BP (AMS, Wk-14651 3580 - 3839 BP 155-170 cm Sipakko, M3 (B) charcoal) (2 sigma) depth Minanga 3343 ± 46 BP (AMS, Wk-17981 3470 - 3690 BP 170-180 Sipakko, Ml (B) charcoal) (2 sigma) cm depth Minanga 3082 ± 50 BP (AMS, Wk-14652 3161 -3437 BP 220 - 240 Sipakko, M3 (B) charcoal) (2 sigma) cm depth Minanga 2996 ± 41 BP Wk-14654 3066 - 3338 BP 250 - 260 Sipakko, M4 (B) cm depth Minanga 2881 ± 46 BP Wk-14653 2874-3198 BP 200-210 cm Sipakko, M4 (B) (2 sigma) depth Minanga 2810 ±50 BP (bone, OZE-132B 2800-3140 BP Poorly Sipakko, TPI AMS) (2 sigma) provenanced (D) Minanga Si• 2570 ± 110 BP P3G-97 2354 - 2861 BP 155-160 cm pakko, TPII (B) (2 sigma) depth Leang Karassa', 2690 ± 60 BP Wk-3823 2740 - 2880 BP Ceramic spit 6 (E) (2 Sigma) Toalean

Table 15.2: Dates from South Sulawesi Neolithic sites; conventional radiocarbon dates on charcoal unless otherwise specified. Two radiocarbon dates of over 4000 BP from spit 3 of Ulu Leang 2 are excluded, because the 13 sherds from this level (Glover 1976:126) would appear to have filtered down from higher up. (A) From Bulbeck et al. (2000:78). (B) From Simanjuntak et al. and Simanjuntak (this volume); calibrated age ranges, calculated using CALIB 5.1, may differ slightly from those reported by Simanjuntak. (C) From Hasyim (2001:156). (D) From Bulbeck and Nasruddin (2002:85). (E) From Pasqua (1995:64-69). 197

The Red-sHpped/ Plainware Pottery Phase Two rock shelters in Leang-Leang, on the edge of the coastal plain in Maros, have yielded potsherds that would appear to date to c. 3500-4000 BP. This is the central, consensus age range for the oldest sherds from the upper spits of Ulu Leang 1, and from Trench A of Leang Burung 1 (Tablel5. 2). Further, Paz (2005:112) tentatively dates some charred rice remains from the interior trench of Ulu Leang 1 to 4000 BP. The several hundred potsherds recovered from Ulu Leang 1 are sometimes red-slipped but otherwise plain; the few decorated shards at the site appear to be secondarily derived from the Paleometallic burial cave of Ulu Leang 2 (Glover 1976:125; see also Paz 2002:279). As for the 963 shards from Leang Burung 1, Trench A, Chapman (1981:103-06) mentioned that they often bore a red sUp, but the only decorations are the stamped designs found on two joining sherds from very different depths in the site. As similar levels of vertical disturbance are shown by conjoining fragments of human remains, radiocarbon dated to 2000 — 1000 BP, from Trench A, the decorated shards from Leang Burung 1 are probably of the same antiquity as the human remains (Bulbeck 2004b:235-36). In short, the oldest pottery at Leang-Leang appears to have been plain, apart from red slipping, and to have consisted mainly of low-fired globular pots (Glover 1976:125; Chapman 1981:105). The cultural context of this early pottery from Leang-Leang can be described as "ceramic Toalean" (Table 15.2). At both Ulu Leang 1 and Leang Burung 1, following the introduction of pottery, the manufacmre of flaked lithics including backed microliths (Bulbeck et al. 2000), and bone artifacts including projectile points (Olsen and Glover 2004), evidently persisted unabated. This impHes continuity of occupation by the same population that had inhabited Leang-Leang prior to the Neolithic. Technological change is evident in the loss of Maros points shortiy after 4000 BP, suggestive of a decline in archery (Bulbeck 2004a), but there was continuity in the use of blowpipes for the chase in closed forests (cf. Olsen and Glover 2004:295) and spears for hunting in more open habitats (as suggested by the retention of backed microUths). Faunal analysis reveals the addition of occasional domesticated animal remains in the ceramic layers of Leang Burung 1 (Simons and Bulbeck 2004), while the plant macrofossUs in the ceramic layers of Ulu Leang 1 include taro and possibly yam (Paz 2002). In sum, until around 2000 BP, Leang-Leang remained under occupation by Toalean foragers who, through their interactions with local Austronesians, not only modified their hunting technology but also exchanged forest produce for pottery and domesticated produce (animals and crops). After 2000 BP, Leang Burung 1 (Trench A) and Ulu 198

Leang 2 both became used as burial chambers by populations osteologically distinct from the Toaleans (Bulbeck 2004b). Accordingly, the Toalean occupation of Leang- Leang would appear to have ceased at around this date. The transition from red-shpped plainware potter}'^ to decorated potter\ is also evident at Leang Karassa'. This rock shelter is located in the Patanuang Asue valle}', which is one of the main access routes from the Maros coastal plain though the mountain range that abuts the peninsula's southwest coast. In addition to the date of approximately 2800 BP from spit 6 (Table 15.2), which is the basal spit with pottery (and directiy overlies a pre-ceramic shell midden deposit), there is a radiocarbon date of historical age associated with modern artifacts in the top spits (Pasqua 1995). Based on the diagnostic sherds from Campbell Macknight's excavation (Table 15.3), we may infer that plain red-slipped wares were replaced by decorated wares without red slipping after 2800 BP. Analysis of the lithics and faunal remains suggests a scenario in which the original inhabitants, who were Toalean foragers, became acculturated to a farming w^ay of life after 2500/3000 BP (Simons 1997:109; Simons and Bulbeck 2004). The modern road up the Patanuang Asue valley emerges at the town of Camba, which lies close to the Neolithic site complex of Mallawa (stiU in Maros Regency). This site complex was identified by the Neolithic axes/adzes and blanks scattered liberally across its surface (Hasyim 2001). Mallawa has two radiocarbon-dated test pits, but they appear to represent different habitation phases (Table 15.2). Indeed, the MLW/KIII/I test pit has a third AMS date (from spit 3) of 576 + 80 BP, which calibrates to 472 - 670 BP (Hasyim 2001:156). In addition to these two dated test pits from Bulu' Bakung, a thrid exavated test pit (located at Bulu' Pattiroang) is important for the interpretati-on of Mallawa's Neolithic sequence.

Spit(s) Number of diagnostic sherds Decorated sherds Red-slipped sherds 1-4 85 27 (31.8%) 0 5 21 6 (28.6%) 1 (4.8%) 6 12 0 5 (41.7%)

Table 15.3: Summary of observations by Flavel (1997: 204-07) on diagnostic sherds from Leang Karassa'.

The top three spits from MLW/KIII/I, which date to the last 600 years or so, yielded an assemblage with no hints of prehistoric artifacts (Tablel5.4), and which probably reflects light habitation during the historical period. Spits 4 to 6, dated to between c. 600 and 1800 BP (the Paleometallic), may correspond to the densest period of habitation, based on the high potsherd count. However, although some flaking of chert (represented by cores and nondescript debitage) continued into this period, there is no evidence that axe manufacture was still practiced during this time (Table 15.4). Spits 7 to 9, which essentially date to the first millennium BC, yielded a complete axe and some flaked chert, but relatively few potsherds, although these are decorated or red-slipped at high rates. The bottom two spits, which presumably date to around 3000 BP, are also Neolithic, as revealed by pottery (none of it red-slipped), and nine basalt fragments attributed to axe manufacture (Table 15.4).

Spits Dating (BP) Pot• Decorated Red- Axe Axe Grind• Flaked sherds slipped fragments stones chert 1-3 <600 72 5 (6.9%) 0 0 0 0 0 4-6 -600-1800 710 9 (1.3%) 1 0 0 1 6 (0.1%) 7-9 -2000-3000 58 5 (8.6%) 5 1 0 0 6 (8.6%) 10-11 -3000 48 1 (2.1%) 0 0 9 1 0

Table 15.4: Summary of the chronology and excavated finds from MLW/KJII/I (Bulu' Bakung), summarized from Hasyim (2001:98-106).

Square 2 (MLW/1I/K2) from Bulu' Pattiroang, which unformnately is undated, yielded a totally different assemblage from MLW/KIII/I (Table 5). The ten flaked chert artifacts, and 15 points and scrapers flaked from basalt, together outnumber the 22 potsherds from this square. Apart from the axe blank in spit 1, which overlies the excavated potsherds, the provenanced lithics provide no hint of axe manufacture but instead appear Toalean (including denticulations on one of the chert points identified by Hasyim as an "arrowhead"). The potsherds from every layer are described as plain, sometimes red-slipped, and apparentiy from cooking pots. In essence this assemblage resembles the ceramic Toalean assemblages dated as early as 3500 - 4000 BP from the Leang-Leang rock shelters. Given the stark differences from any of the MLW/ KIII/I sub-assemblages, it would be reasonable to interpret the assemblage (spits 2 to 6) as a campsite of Toaleans who had obtained small amounts of plain, red-slipped potter}^ through exchange, prior to the establishment of a Neolithic workshop at Mallawa around 3000 years ago. (Hasyim [2001:145-46] found that the Mallawa pottery he had tested chemically would appear to have been imported rather than manufactured from 200 AUSTRONESIAN IN SULAWESI

local clay; unfortunatel}^ however, the chronological associations of the tested sherds are not detailed.)

Spit Potsherds Chert Chert Basalt point Basalt Axe (* plain, point flake/scraper scraper blank red-slipped) 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 4* 2 0 2 6 0 3 5* 2 1 2 2 0 4 6* 2 1 2 1 0 5 5* 1 0 0 0 0 6 2* 0 0 0 0 0

Table 15.5: Excavated finds from MLW/II/K2 (Bulu' Pattiroang), summarized from Hasyim (2001:115- 124). Hasyim (2001:114) also mentions 44 basalt fragments, which he attributes to axe manu• facture, but even if these were not actually debitage from the manufacture of basalt points and scrapers, their stratigaphic location within the square is not disclosed.

The most recent excavation at Bulu' Bakung briefly described by Irfan Mahmud (in this volume) allows testing of the Mallawa Neolithic sequence proposed here. The two available dates (Table 15.2) suggest habitation between c. 3500 — 4000 BP and around 3000 BP. If it proves possible to relate these dates to particular sub-assemblages in the excavation, then the earlier date should be associated with an assemblage similar to that recovered from J\'ILW/II/K2 at Bulu' Pattiroang, reflecting "ceramic Toalean" habitation. The 3000 BP date on the other hand should be associated with artifacts similar to those from the bottom spits of ML.W/KIII/I, reflecting a Neolithic workshop. (Should this prediction fail, then Mallawa would probably represent early ramification of the Bugis branch of the Sulsel languages — as indeed suggested by the lexical similarity data in Figure 15.2 — rather than the later split of the Bugis branch depicted in Figure 15.1 based on the phonological evidence. An early spUt of the Bugis branch would be compatible with the general south to north expansion of Sulsel speakers earlier proposed by Bulbeck [1992:512-13] rather than the model outlined here.) .Our survey of Neolithic radiocarbon dates in South Sulawesi, which calibrate to the general period of 3500-4000 BP, now mrns to Minanga Sipakko, on the Karama River in Mamuju Regency. Here we are clearly dealing with a fuU-blown Neolithic settlement, with a local lithic industry focused on manufacturing axes and other tools from schist, slate and andesite, as described by Simanjuntak et al. (this volume). There 201

are six dates on well-provenanced samples which reflect habitation between 3000 and 4000 BP, even if the depth and the age of these samples correlate poorly, as discussed by Simanjuntak et al. Contacts with the coast are indicated by a stingray spine. The pottery during this period is described as present in multiple vessel forms, yet predominandy plain and red-slipped, and moreover imported (presumably from downstream communities) rather than manufactured from the local clay. In addition to this similarit)^ with the early ceramic assemblages described above, Simanjuntak mentions thin bone points with an average length of 25 mm and diameter of 2.5 mm. These are similar to the bipoints from the pre-ceramic and ceramic layers of Leang Burung 1 and Ulu Leang 1, with a length varying between 25 and 67 mm and a breadth falling in the range of 2 to 7 mm (Olsen and Glover 2004:293). They would appear to be blowpipe darts, and probably reflect Toalean technology introduced to Minanga Sipakko. Minango Sipakko differs from the Leang-Leang rock shelters in numerous ways. It lies at the north of the distribution of Sulsel languages, while Leang-Leang Ues near the south; it is a NeoUthic setdement whose inhabitants produced poUshed stone tools, whUe Leang-Leang remained under occupation by hunter-gatherer Toaleans who produced flaked Uthics only; its range of vessel forms is diverse, while cooking pots apparentiy dominated at Leang-Leang; and Minango Sipakko was located at the uppermost navigable point of the Karama River, while Leang-Leang is mcked away in the karsts abutting the Maros coastal plain. Yet at both locations, and (as argued here) also at Bulu' Pattiroang in MaUawa, we have the same archaeological signature of predominandy plain, frequentiy red-sUpped pottery — dated to the second miUennium BC - which would appear to have been obtained through exchange. The explanation for this common signature would appear to be occupation along the western coast of South Sulawesi, from Mamuju to Maros, of proto-Sulsel speakers (Figure 15.4). These coastaUy oriented proto-Sulsel speakers (who presumably had also penetrated as far inland as Minango Sipakko) would appear to have produced red-sUpped pottery for exchange with land-based communities, as we learn from sites in the hinterland. The wider exchange network in which the proto-Sulsel speakers participated is not currently clear from the archaeological record. However, given the enormous variety and importance of blowpipes in KaUmantan (Jett 1970), and that the Tamanic branch of Sulsel speakers is found in KaUmantan, this exchange network would appear to have extended to KaUmantan. ParantheticaUy, it may be observed that the western coastal plain of South Sulawesi was considerably narrower in the second miUennium BC that it currentiy is (see my Introduction). Accordingly, the hypothesized proto-Sulsel homeland would 202

have been significantly closer to the hinterland sites with early pottery than Figure 15.4 might suggest.

The Sa-Huynh- Kalanay Phase

According to the wisdom of historical linguistics, the period between a single, proto-Sulsel "homeland" and the ethnographicaUy recorded simation would have witnessed the successive spUtting of the different branches of the Sulsel languages. Figure 15.4 iUustrates the routes that the early speakers of these distinct branches could have taken during this period. This scenario is based on parsimony, as it displays the minimum distance necessary for the speakers belonging to the various branches to have migrated from the homeland, and dispersed across their ethnographic ranges, in a manner consistent with the structure of Unguistic relationships indicated in Figure 15.1. InitiaUy, the Makasar branch spUt off to colonize the southern peninsula and Selayar Island. This was foUowed by the expansion of the Mandar branch along the coastUne of the Mamuju and Mandar regencies, then the spUt of the Tamanic branch to its overseas destination (KaUmantan), prior to the migration of the common ancestral stem of Bugis and the Toraja languages (and Lemolang) to Lake Tempe. From Lake Tempe the Bugis branch expanded south and the Toraja branch expanded and diversified to the north. For reasons to be explained here, this period of diversification of the Sulsel language branches can be related to the widespread appearance of decorated pottery assemblages, assigned to the Sa-Huynh-Kalanay tradition, in South Sulawesi.

As described by Simanjuntak et al. (in this volume), the fine, red-sUpped pottery at Minanga Sipakko appears to have given way to coarser pottery, made from local clay, with a wider variety of decorations and a different range of forms (including pedestals and figurines). The approximate chronology for this development of a local pottery industry is 2500 - 3000 BP. As detailed by Bulbeck and Nasruddin (2002) and Prasetyo (this volume), the Minanga Sipakko pottery decorations can be ascribed to the Sa-Huynh-Kalanay tradition. A comparable development may be apparent at MaUawa, based on the MLW/KIII/I test pit, which suggests a highest rate of decorated pottery in the general period 2000 - 3000 BP (Table 15.3). The pottery decorations iUustrated by Hasyim (2001) include many of the same motifs Usted by Prasetyo (this volume) and certainly suggest that the MaUawa decorated pottery may also be assigned to the Sa-Huynh-Kalanay tradition. By 2-3000 BP, the inhabitants of MaUawa were probably proto-Bugis speakers. 203

Some other Sa-Huynh-Kalanay assemblages, albeit poorly dated, also appear to correspond to the period of diversification of the South Sulawesi language branches. Kamassi, which is the twin site of Minanga Sipakko, has been tentatively dated to around 3000 BP by Bulbeck and Nasruddin (2002:86). (A confirmed or revised dating of the ancient Kamassi hamlet, whose material culture resembles that of Minanga Sipakko in numerous ways, should be regarded as a high priority.) Leang Paja, located in Leang-Leang, Maros, has yielded a richly decorated, Sa-Huynh-Kalanay pottery assemblage, with two thermoluminescence dates of 2400 BP and 3005 BP (Flavel 1997:89-108). This Neolithic dating is confirmed by the recovery of a polished axe unaccompanied by any metal artifacts (Bulbeck 2004a: 141). Polished stone axes have also been recovered from three locations along the lower Je'ne'berang River at Kale Gowa and its environs - Katangka Toa, Maccini' Sombala, and Bonto Jailing (Bulbeck 1992:Photos G-1 to G-6). Although these "signature" Neolithic artifacts do not have any pottery associations, they would probably postdate 3000 BP, when sea levels were some three meters higher than at present (de Klrek 1983). Finally, Irfan Mahmud (this volume) describes NeoUthic rock-shelter assemblages, in Enrekang, which he compares favorably with the later Minanga Sipakko pottery. Irfan Mahmud relates these sites to the expansion of proto-Toraja speakers northwards along the Saddang River, in fuU agreement with the model developed here (Figure 15.4). A prediction of the current model is that radiometric dating of the Enrekang pottery would not produce determinations earUer than 3000 years BP.

Later, during the PaleometaUic, there appears to have been a concentrated appUcation of Sa-Huynh-Kalanay dec^^-ations to mortuary and other ceremonial pottery. Indeed, the Sa-Huynh culture sites from central Vietnam, and the Kalanay cave from the central PhiUppines, which are the "type sites" that inspired Solheim's recognition of the tradition, are PaleometaUic mortuary assemblages. Highly ornate, PaleometaUic Sa-Huynh-Kalanay assemblages in South Sulawesi include the mortuary pottery from Ulu Leang 2 in Leang-Leang, and the ceremonial pottery from Batu Ejaya on the south coast (Flavel 1997). However, the same Sa-Huynh-Kalanay decorations also continued in use for domestic pottery, but appUed at a low frequency, as suggested by the MLW/KIII/I sequence at MaUawa (Table 15.4). PaleometaUic pottery assemblages from the Luwu coastal plain include the Sabbang Loang sherds dated to the early centuries AD, and the Kame sherds dated to around 1000 AD (Table 15.6). Although the proportion of sherds which are decorated is very low, around 0.2%, compared to the calculated rates of 4.3% at Kamassi and 4.8% at Minanga Sipakko, most of the Sabbang Loang and Kame motifs have also been recorded at both Kalumpang sites (see also Prasetyo this volume). 204

Figure 15.4: Hypothesized movement of the various branches of the Sulsel language family from their western coastal homeland (represented in gray). 205

Motif Sabbang Loang Katue Kalumpang prehistoric Cross-hatching 1 1 Yes Vertical lines 0 4 Yes Horizontal lines 0 5 Yes Impressed circles 2 0 Yes Comma shapes 0 2 No Vertical gouges 0 1 Yes Slanting incisions 1 0 Yes Dashes 0 1 Yes Applique nubbins 0 1 No Punctate-fiUed triangles 0 1 Yes Decorated sherds rate 0.2% 0.2% 4.3%, 4.8%

Table 15.6: Decorated potsherd counts from Luwu Paleometallic assemblages (Bulbeck unpublished data), and comparison of the motifs with the Kamassi and Minanga Sipakko pottery (from Bulbeck and Nasruddin 2002).

Owing to the tremendous variety of Sa-Huynh-Kalanay decorations, even a repertoire as diverse as that at Tvlinanga Sipakko captures only a fraction of the motifs assignable to the tradition (see Prasetyo this volume). There are good grounds for suspecting that many of these motifs had been applied to perishable media such as textiles, timber, and the human body ^ tcooing) before being transferred to potter}'. This "common iconography" hypothesis could help explain why the various Sa-Huynh- Kalanay motifs reappear in different combinations in pottery assemblages widely separated in space or time, united by little more than a general associaticjn with prehistoric Austronesian communities (Flavel 1997). Accordingly, even though the diversification of the Sulsel language branches must have been a process of "evolution through isolation", as Sulsel speakers dispersed far and wide across the landscape, their pottery decorations betray their common cultural origins. The question naturally arises as to why potter}^ tended to become more ornate in the late Neolithic. The answer may be that pottery changed its role in social signaling and community integration during the transition from a single proto-Sulsel community; restricted to the coastal margin of a foreign land, to the establishment of distinct Sulsel speech communities whose members perceived themselves as indigenous to their specific set of environments. For the above reasons, the migration of the linguistic ancestors of 206

the present-day Sulsel language branches can be associated with the appearance of pottery assemblages bearing loosely related decorative repertoires. Linguistic expansion did not somehow cease at the end of the Neolithic, and this point is one of the "take home" messages of my contribution. Both the Kamassi and Minanga Sipakko sites currentiy lie in Kalumpang, whose speakers constimte a branch of the Toraja-Sa'dan subfamily (Grimes and Grimes 1987:44-45; Bulbeck 1992:495). Clearly, the Toraja-Sa'dan subfamily has experienced considerable expansion over the last two millennia or so from its heardand in the southern central highlands, with a spillover to the upper Karama River as well as the Luwu interior (noted previously). In the case of the upper Karama, given the abandonment of Minanga Sipakko during the Paleometallic and of Kamassi somewhat earlier (Bulbeck and Nasruddin 2002), further archaeological research at the nearby site of Palemba, and of the town of Kalumpang itself, offers prospects for dating the expansion of the Kalumpang language into this early Austronesian locale.

Prehistoric Austronesian Studies in South Sulawesi - Aspects, Retrospect and Prospects In terms of their distribution, the South Sulawesi language branches correspond to different climates (cf. Bulbeck 1992: Chapter 1). Makasar languages occur across the south peninsula (including Selayar) where the climate is strongly seasonal and often dry. Bugis is spread across the main body of the peninsula, which is generally well watered and moderately seasonal. The Toraja branch is dispersed across Sulawesi's southern central highlands, which are well-watered, weakly seasonal to non-seasonal, and moderate in temperature; the Mandar and Lemolang branches are found in the equatorial lowlands which flank the Toraja highlands; and the Tamanic branch is restricted to interior Kalimantan. The parsimony and the anthropological value of the linguistic radiation model proposed here (Figure 15.4) are enhanced by its implication that the Sulsel language branches had diversified as part and parcel of the adaptation of these Austronesian speakers to distinct environments. The specific adaptation of the Makasar branch included settlement of the peninsula's southwest corner, southern coast, and Selayar Island, As discussed elsewhere (Bulbeck et al. 2000; Bulbeck 2004a), the Makasar speakers effectively mapped onto the landscape previously inhabited by complex Toalean foragers, and so the Makasar adaptation would have also involved establishing reciprocal relations 207

with these indigenous Toaleans. The Mandar/Mamuju specialization was to colonize the coastal belt immediately west of Sulawesi's southern central highlands. Important to note in this context is that the Mandar are the most maritime-oriented of South Sulawesi's ethnic groups (Druce 2005:25). The Tamanic adaptation resulted in the colonization of a pocket of interior KaUmantan, although presumably this final Tamanic stakeout is a mere reUct of an originaUy wider presence in KaUmantan. The Bugis and Toraja adaptations involved colonization by agriculturally focused populations of the peninsula lowlands and the southern central highlands respectively. FinaUy, a movement by Sulsel speakers into the formidable, equatorial forests of the Luwu lowlands by 2000 years ago, as represented by the Lemolang, marks a sixth distinctive adaptation by a branch of Sulsel speakers (Figure 15.4). The proto-Sulsel adaptation, for its part, seems to have involved a coastaUy based exchange network. MiUs (1975), who produced the first detailed model of the diversification of the Sulsel languages, had proposed that the proto-Sulsel speakers had been maritime traders from an island farther west, Simanjuntak et al. (this volume) advenmrously suggest that the Minanga Sipakko red-sUpped pottery had been traded in from overseas. The present author reconstructs a coastal chain of proto-Sulsel traders from Mamuju to Maros, with Unks as far as KaUmantan. These proposals have a maritime trading focus which might seem at odds with the Austronesian expansion model of an agriculturaUy driven, demic diffusion championed by BeUwood (1985, 1997). However, they faU weU within the range of economic speciaHzations that BeUwod now accepts for early Austronesians, These include "a maritime economy, mobile, trade focused, with only a passing interest in field agriculture" (Bellwood 2005:137), as impUed here for proto-Sulsel speakers. Where Gibson (2005:59) writes of the "basic features of Austronesian Ufe - including the shifting cultivation of grain, root, and tree crops, the coUection and export of forest produce, and maritime trade", his words appear to be directiy appUcable to the proto-Sulsel economy.

While Mills (1975; foUowed by Pelras 1996) appears to be justified in his assessment of the original Sulsel-speaking colonists, the other details of his theory have been discredited. MiUs had imagined that the northern part of South Sulawesi had already been inhabited by Austronesians speaking Central Sulawesi related languages. However, there is no evidence for Austronesian occupation anywhere in Sulawesi earUer than 3500 - 4000 BP (e.g., BeUwood 1997:224-229). MUls had also posited a geographically restricted proto-Sulsel homeland, Umited to the mouth of the Saddang River. Now, not only would such a curtailed homeland appear to be anomalous for maritime-oriented traders, but also the lower Saddang is one AUSTRONESIAN IN SULAWESI

archaeologically surveyed area (Druce 2005) which currendy lacks evidence of Neolithic sites (as noted by Irfan Mahmud in this volume). ;' • Strangest of all, MiUs had proposed an epic migration of proto-Makasar speakers, which had brought them across the peninsula to Luwu and southward through present- day Bugis-speaking lands, before they finally settled the southern South Sulawesi peninsula. His "evidence" for this mass movement consists of toponyms - Sungei Maeja ("Red River"), near Palopo, cognate with the word ee/a in Makasar; and the settlement name of Pangkajene in Sidrap and Pangkajene Kepulauan, both Bugis- speaking areas. However, mae/a is exactly the word for red amongst the Toala', who currently inhabit the upper reaches of the Sungei Maeja (Grimes and Grimes 1987:126- 27). Further, Makasar settlement toponyms can be readily explained by historical Makasar influences, especially under the aegis of the Makasar-speaking Gowa-Tallo empire (as Mills would appear to accept for the toponym of Majene in Mandar). (To be sure, a more interesting toponymic problem would be to explain the Bugis name of Sanrabone in the Makasar-speaking heartland, especially as Sanrabone is a well- credentialed Makasar kingdom whose histor}^ can be traced back to around 1450 AD [Bulbeck 1992:138-41].)

The model presented here is explicitly linked to the relevant, currently available archaeological evidence, and is therefore open to refinement depending on future archaeological discoveries. Indeed, this paper has been prepared to make two specific predictions on the outcome of future archaeological research on currently known South Sulawesi assemblages. (The fact that the model proposed here is potentially falsifiable from specific archaeological findings is surely testimony to the scientific maturity of the current state of early Austronesian archaeological studies in South Sulawesi.) Nonetheless, the depiction of a coastal strip from Mamuju to Maros marking the extent of proto-Sulsel speakers (Figure 15.4) is not intended to indicate a continuous presence from north to south, or indeed the simultaneous establishment of proto- Sulsel at all points along this range. The difference may be more semantic than substantive between a scenario of an initial proto-Sulsel settlement at a particular point along this coastal strip, succeeded by rapid migration to the rest of this strip, and the scenario of a proto-Sulsel "homeland" from the north to the south of this strip. Future discoveries may well demonstrate the oldest Neolithic sites in South Sulawesi at a particular location along the west coast and thus pinpoint a distinct proto-Sulsel origin. What is clear however is that an early Neolithic presence is demonstrated archaeologically at the northern and southern dispersal points in Figurel5.4, whereas the third dispersal point, located at the mouth of the Saddang River, relies entirely on geographical considerations and fails to enjoy current

a- 209

archaeological support. (On the topic of potential falsification, well-founded pottery dates in Sulsel-speaking areas located far from the west coast, earlier than 4000 BP or even clearly dated to 3500 — 4000 BP, would falsify the model outlined here.) Finally, at a deeper theoretical level, it is possible that the succession of branch splits indicated by Figure 15.1 is spadally rather than chronologically mediated. Proto- Sulsel would have constituted a dialect chain, as documented by Grimes and Grimes (1987) for South Sulawesi languages across the province's entire landscape, and described by Tanudirjo (in two papers in this volume) for Proto-Western-Malayo- Polynesian in general. Thus, immediately prior to the breakup of the distinct Sulsel branches, the communities at the south of the Proto-Sulsel range would have had more lexical distinctions than those towards the north of the range, where the Mandar, Tamanic, Bugis and Toraja branches originated. Within the latter group, Mandar would have been more lexically differentiated than the other three branches. Thus, a hierarchy of splits similar to that shown in Figure 15.1, based as it is on the contrast between unique and shared innovations, would be expected even if all the branches had radiated out at the same time. In addition, the strong mutual interactions posited here between early Makasar speakers and complex "southwest" Toaleans would be expected to have contributed a Toalean substrate to the Makasar languages. These considerations are important in warning historical linguists, and archaeologists who base their thinking on historical linguistics, to be wary of simplisticaUy interpreting a phonologically based hierarchy, such as that shown in Figure 15.1, as a secure relative chronology, especially before the archaeological context of the linguistic splits is well understood.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adelaar, K.A. 1994. The classification of the Tamanic languages. In T. Dutton and D.T. Tryon (eds.), language Contact and Change in the Austronesian World. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 1-41. Arifin, K. 2004. Early Human Occupation of the East Kalimantan Rainforest (the Upper Birang Riper Region, Berau). PhD thesis. The Australian National University, Canberra. Bellwood, P. 1985. Prehistory of the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago. Academic Press, Sydney. Bellwood, P. 1997. Prehistory of the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago. Revised edition. University of Hawai'i Press, Honolulu. Bellwood, P. 2005. Early Farmers: The Origins of Agricultural Societies. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. Bulbeck, F.D. 1992. A Tale of Two Kingdoms: The Historical Archaeology of Gowa and Tallok, South Sulawesi, Indonesia. PhD thesis. The Australian National University, Canberra. Bulbeck, D. 1996. The poUtics of marriage and the marriage of polities in Gowa, South Sulawesi, during the 16* and 17* centuries. In J.J. Fox and C. Satther (eds.), Origins, Ancestry and Alliance: Explorations in Austronesian Ethnography. The Australian National University, Canberra, pp. 280-315. Bulbeck, D. 1996-97. The Bronze-Iron Age of South Sulawesi, Indonesia: mortuary traditions, metallurgy and trade. In F.D. Bulbeck and N. Barnard (eds.). Ancient Chinese and Southeast Asian Bronf^e Age Cultures. SMC Publishing Inc., Taipei, pp. 1007-1076. Bulbeck, D. 2004a. Divided in space, united in time: the Holocene prehistory of South Sulawesi. In S.G. Keates and J.M. Pasveer (eds.), Quaternary Research in <•- Indonesia. A.A. Balkema, Leiden, pp. 129-166. Bulbeck, D. 2004b. South Sulawesi in the corridor of island populations along East Asia's Pacific rim. In S.G. Keates and J.M. Pasveer (eds.). Quaternary Research in Indonesia. A.A. Balkema, Leiden, pp. 221-258. Bulbeck, D. 2006. Economic and technological change during the middle and late Holocene in the Lamoncong highlands. South Sulawesi, Indonesia. In E.A. Bacus, I.C. Glover and V.C. Piggot (eds.). Uncovering Southeast Asia's Past: Selected Papers from the International Conference of the European Association of Southeast Asia Archaeologists. National University of Singapore Press Singapore, pp. 393-410. Bulbeck, D. and I. Caldwell. 2000. Hand of Iron: The Historical Archaeology of Euwu and the Cenrana Valley. The University of Hull Centre for South-East Asian Studies, Hull. Bulbeck, D. and B. Hakim. 2005. The human fossil cranium from Leang Bam Tunpa, Selayar, South Sulawesi. In Danang Wahju Utomo, Hasanuddin, B. Hakim and A. Fatmawati Umar (eds), Menguak Tahir Kehidupan Masa Ealu dan Kini, pp. 71- 84. Makassar: Balai Arkeologi Makassar. Bulbeck, D. and Nasruddin. 2002. Recent insights on the chronology and ceramics of the Kalumpang site complex. South Sulawesi, Indonesia. Bulletin of the Indo- Pacific Prehistory Association 22, pp. 83-99. Bulbeck, D., M. Pasqua and A. Di Lello. 2000. Culture history of the Toalean of South Sulawesi, Indonesia. Asian Perspectives 39, pp. 71-108. 211

Bulbeck, D., I. Sumantri and P. Hiscock. 2004. Leang Sakapao 1, a second dated Pleistocene site from South Sulawesi, Indonesia. In S.G. Keates and J.M. Pasveer i^A^^), Quaternary R^j-^rc;^JWo^^j/^. A.A. Balkema, Leiden, pp. 111-128. ^ ' /

CaldweU, I. 1988. South Sulawesi A.D. 1300-1600: Ten Bugis Texts. PhD thesis. The Australian National University, Canberra.

Caldwell, I. And M. LiUie. 2004. Manuel Pinto's inland sea: using palaeoenvironmental techniques to assess historical evidence from southwest Sulawesi. In S.G. Keates and J.M. Pasveer {eds), Quaternary Research in Indonesia. A.A. Balkema, Leiden, pp. 259-71.

Chapman, V.C. 1981. An Analysis of the Artefact Collection Excavated by the Australian- Indonesian Archaeological Expedition to Sulawesi, 1969. Unpubhshed MA thesis. Canberra: The Australian National University. De Klerk, E.G. 1983. Zeespiegels, Rffen en Kustvlakten in Zuidwest Sulawesi, Indonesie; een Morfogenetische-Bodemkundige Studie. Ph.D thesis. Rijksunivesiteit Utrecht, Utrecht. Di Lello, A. 1997. A Use Wear Analysis of Stone Artefacts from South Sulawesi. Bachelor of Arts (Honors) thesis. Centre for Archaeology, University of Western AustraUa, Verth. Di Eello, A. 2002. A use-wear analysis of Toalian glossed stone artefacts from South Sulawesi, Indonesia. Bulletin of the Indo-Paafic Prehistory Association 22, pp. 45-50. Druce, S. 2005. The Eand West of the Takes: The History of Ajattappareng, South Sulawesi, AD 1200 to 1600. PhD thesis. Hull, The University of HuU. Flavel, A. 1997. Sa-Huynh-Kalanay? Analysis of the Prehistoric Decorated Earthenware of South Sulawesi in an Island Southeast Asian Context Bachelor of Science (Honors) thesis. Centre for Archaeology, University of Western AustraUa, Perth. Gibson, T. 2005. And the Sun Pursued the Moon: Symbolic Knowledge and Traditional Authority among the Makassar. University of Hawai'i Press, Honolulu. Glover, I.C. 1976. Ulu Leang cave, Maros: a preUminary sequence of post-Pleistocene culmral developments in South Sulawesi. Archipel 11, pp. 113-54. Glover, I.C. 1978. Survey and excavation of the Maros district. South Sulawesi, Indonesia: the 1975 field season. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 1, pp. 60-103. Gremmen, WH.E. 1990. Palynological investigations in the Danau Tempe depression, southwest Sulawesi (Celebes). Modern Quaternary Research in Southeast Asia 11, pp. 123-134. AUSTRONESIAN IN SULAWESI

Grimes, CE. and B.D. Grimes. 1987. iMnguages of South Sulawesi. Pacific Linguisdc Series D — No . 78. The Australian National Universit\^, Canberra. Hasyim, M. 2001. Perbengkalan Alat Batu Neolitik di Situs Mallawa Kabupaten Maros Sulawesi Selatan: Suatu Kajian Pemukiman. NLA thesis. Program of Archaeology studies, Universit}^ of Indonesia, Jakarta.

Jett, S.C. 1970. The development and distribution of the blowgun. Annals oj the Association of American Geographers 60, pp. 662-688. Kruskal, J.B. 1964a. Multidimensional scaling by optimising goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika 29, pp. 1-27. Kruskal, J.B. 1964b. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: a numerical method. Psychometrika 29, pp. 115-129. Mijares, A. 2006. Unravelling Prehistory: The Archaeology of North-eastern Tu^n. PhD thesis. The Australian National University, Canberra. Mills, R.E 1975. The reconstruction of proto South Sulawesi. Archipel 10, pp. 205- 224. Olsen, S.L. and I.C. Glover. 2004. The bone industry of Ulu Leang 1 and Leang Burung 1 rockshelters, Sulawesi, Indonesia, in its regional context. In S.G. Keates and J.M. Pasveer (eds.). Quaternary Research in Indonesia. A.A. Balkema, Leiden, pp. 273-299. Pasqua, M. 1995. Mid-Uate Holocene Toalean Sites in South Sulawesi: A Technological Analysis. B.Sc. Honors thesis. Centre for Archaeology, The University of Western AustraUa, Perth. Paz, V. 2002. Island Southeast Asia: spread or friction zone? In P. BeUwood and C. Renfrew (eds.), Examining the Farming/Eanguage Dispersal Hypothesis. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 275-285. Paz, V. 2005. Rock shelters, caves, and archaeobotany in Island Southeast Asia. Asian Perspectives 44, pp. 107-118. Pelras, C. 1996. The Bugis. BlackweU PubUshing, Oxford. Simons, A. G. 1997. The whole hog. The indigenous response to the introduction of farming to South Sulawesi: a faunal analysis. BA Honors thesis. Centre for Archaeolog}', The University of Western AustraUa, Perth. Simons, A. and D. Bulbeck. 2004. Late Quaternary faunal successions in South Sulawesi, Indonesia. In S.G. Keates and J.M. Pasveer {eds). Quaternary Research in Indonesia. A.A. Balkema, Leiden, pp. 167-190.