Three-thousand-year-old jar burials at the Teouma Cemetery (Vanuatu): A Southeast Asian - lapita...

81

Frédérique Valentin, Jeong-in Choi, Hsiuman Lin, Stuart Bedford, and Matthew Spriggs

The Teouma (Efate) cemetery, one of the earliest Lapita sites in Vanuatu (Fig. 1), has yielded some 68 mortuary contexts, including several Lapita vessels enclosing human remains dated to c.3000 cal BP (Bedford et al. 2009, Bedford et al. 2010, Bedford, Spriggs, and Regenvanu 2006, Bedford et al. 2007, Valentin et al. 2010). One of these ceramic vessels “along with another containing a skull … provides the earliest evidence for pot or jar burial in the Pacific, a practice that has close parallels to burial ritual in Neolithic Island Southeast Asia including Taiwan” (Bedford and Spriggs 2007: 13). These Teouma jar burials, as well as others from northern parts of Island South East Asia such as Borneo and Taiwan, are currently interpreted to be part of the Austronesian and Neolithic ‘package’ (Spriggs 2011: 516) that ultimately spread to Remote Oceania. Jar-burial is indeed a widespread practice found across Island Southeast Asia, although diverse in terms of organization of sites and of treatment of human remains, that appears to have emerged during the early Neolithic, but developed significantly

during the Late Neolithic/Early Metal Age transition in this region.

In this paper, we describe the Teouma Lapita jar-burials within the wider context of the funerary protocol reflected at the cemetery, and we investigate further the relationship between the Lapita and the contemporary or earlier Island Southeast Asia Jar Burial tradition (Bellwood 1997 (2007), see also Solheim II 1961, Solheim II 2002) or traditions (Lloyd-Smith 2009, Lloyd-Smith and Cole 2010). We define jar-burial minimally as the placement of human remains inside pottery containers as part of funerary practices. Where an entire corpse has been placed in a pottery container, resulting in a complete skeleton in articulation, the association is quite clear, but there are cases where only a few bones are found inside a pot. In these cases, when the remains are incomplete or broken in situ, it may be that their presence is incidental rather than deliberate. We include such cases here as possible jar-burials, but are aware of problems with their status as associated with funerary behavior.

Three-thousand-year-old jar-burials at the Teouma cemetery (Vanuatu):A Southeast Asian – Lapita connection?

05

82

Erromango

Efate

EpiShepherd Is

Aneityum

TannaFutuna

Aniwa

Santo

Malo

MalakulaLopevi

Ambrym

Pentecost

MaewoAmbae

Gaua

UreparaparaMota LavaMota

Banks Is

Merelava

Torres Is

Vanua Lava

kilometres

1690 E

150 S

170 S

190 S

1670 E

0 50 100

TEOUMA

Figure 1. Map of Vanuatu showing Teouma cemetery location.

Teouma Lapita jar burials and other funerary use of pottery

1. Description The 68 mortuary contexts identified at the Teouma Lapita cemetery reveal a complicated, lengthy and multi-stage funerary protocol (Valentin et al. 2010, Valentin et al. 2011). The deceased, adults and infants, were preferentially treated by inhumation except in one case where the body of a female was cremated (Scott et al. 2010). Bodies were

placed, sometimes with mortuary goods, in perishable containers and shallow pits as identified following the use of “anthropologie de terrain” techniques (Duday 1990, Duday 2009, Duday et al. 1990). Initial inhumation of adults was temporary following the method of “secondary burial” (cf. Hertz 1907); bones were removed post-decomposition from the burials, which were in turn transformed into incomplete inhumations (Fig. 2 A and B). Cranial bones were systematically absent. Sterna, clavicles, and scapulae were frequently

Three-thousand-year-old jar-burials at the Teouma cemetery (Vanuatu)

83

missing, while forearm bones were lacking in about 70 % of the adult burials. Bones, including skulls, mandibles and infracranial elements (of adults and children), although in smaller numbers than had been removed, were also re-deposited at the site, constituting secondary deposits or bone collections (Ubelaker 1989) of various compositions and forms (Valentin et al. 2010, Valentin et al. 2009). None of these contexts were associated with red pigment.

Three of the Teouma burial contexts can clearly be qualified as ‘jar-burials’ as defined here (Table. 1). Burial 17 (B17) consists of a secondary deposit of a re-articulated non-burnt skull and mandible of a female placed on top of a Conus sp. broad ring in a finely decorated carinated jar (TC2), covered by an inverted flat-bottomed dish (TD1) decorated with an alternating double face motif (Fig. 3A).

The container was not in-filled with soil prior to the placement of the lid as indicated by the pattern of breakage of the jar, while the assemblage, which is relatively intact, must have been immediately buried after vertical placement (Bedford et al. 2007). Burial 22 (B22) consists of the secondary deposit of several infracranial non-burnt remains of an adolescent or a young adult in an upright carinated jar (TC5), decoration includes a dentate-stamped face motif and four modeled birds on the rim facing into the pot (Bedford and Spriggs 2007) (Fig. 3B). The third context, Burial 45 (B45), consists of a secondary deposit of non-burnt infracranial elements representing at least one adult in the basal portion of an upright carinated vessel (TCC5), intricately decorated with a double face motif, and accidentally broken at its carination by later activities (Fig. 3C).

Figure 2. Examples of burial contexts recovered at Teouma Lapita cemetery (Vanuatu). A: Burials B33 and B39. B39 comprises a bundle of forearm bones and B33 is an incomplete inhumation. B: Burials B44 and B30. B30 is a bone collection including up to five individuals that has been placed on the knees of B44. C:

close up of the skull to the right showing the pot fragments covering the braincase.


84

Two other vessels (TC4 and TC12) may also have once been associated with jar-burials, but were not as complete as the others described. TC4, a large carinated vessel, was 75% intact but a later large posthole had removed a section of the vessel, and must have disturbed its internal contents (Bedford et al. 2007). This vessel had been placed upright into a small pit and buried up to, and probably some way above, its carination. Vessel TC12 was represented in-situ only by its base. It appeared to have been buried up to its carination. Both contained only a few adult bones, mainly from the extremities, and a concentration of

very small Cypraea sp. shells in the case of TC4 (Table 1). The Cypraea shells were very clearly in context in the bottom of the pot, but the human bones could possibly have been introduced during the disturbance of the context by later posthole digging; hence this is only a possible jar-burial. Similar introduction of human remains during later disturbance to TC12 is also a possibility.

Many other pots, now mostly represented by large and small pieces that did not contain bones or teeth at the time of the excavations, were also found in close association with human burials. Large sherds were also found

Figure 3. Jar burials B17 (A), B22 (B), and B45 (C) recovered at Teouma Lapita cemetery (Vanuatu).


85

on a skull included in a large secondary deposit (B30) composed of cranial and infracranial elements of at least five adult and non-adult individuals, which was placed on the lower limbs of another incomplete inhumation (B44) (Fig. 2C). This possibly represents related burial activity (see Bedford and Spriggs

2007: 14-15 for other Pacific examples of this practice); pots may have been deliberately broken during a stage of the ceremony and, in some cases, the resulting pieces were placed with burials. Some pots, like the large inverted carinated vessel (TC3) associated with B25 (Bedford et al. 2007), appear to have been

Burial MNI Age and sex Vessel main features Grave-goods Burial practice

Bone elements Location

B17 1 Female

Container (TC2): carinated jar form,

decorated, completeLid (TD1): inverted flat-bottomed dish largely complete,

anthropomorphic motifs

Large Conus sp. shell broad ring

Not burnt, no red pigment

Skull and mandible

In a large solution hole in the former

reef, associated with B18 and B25, placed

vertically

B22 At least 1

Adolescent or young

adult

Container (TC5): carinated jar form

with modeled birds on the rim, incomplete,

anthropomorphic motif

Not burnt, no red pigmentIn vessel: cervical

(including C2) and thoracic vertebrae,

scapula, ribs, femora, patella, tibia, several

tarsals, Around the vessel:

fragments of vertebrae ribs, humerus, radius, carpals, hand phalanx,

and fibula

In a solution hole in the former reef, close to B18, B25, B14, and

B12Placed vertically

B45 At least 1 Adult

Container (TCC5): carinated jar,

anthropomorphic motif broken at carination

Non burnt, no red pigmentIn vessel: infracranial

elements including scapula, cervical vertebra

-comprising C1- and thoracic, ribs, long

bones fragments of tibia, humerus, calcaneus,

metatarsals

Probably placed into a pit, buried up to the

carinationClose to B34 and B29

Placed vertically

- At least 1 Adult

Container (TC4): carinated jar, section of pot was removed during post-depositional activity

Concentration of very small unmodified

Cypraea sp. shells at the base of the

vessel

Non burnt, no red pigment

In vessel: 2 phalanges, some long bone fragments

From above: cranial fragment

Into a pit, buried at least up to the

carinationClose to B49, B40, B9,

B36, B32 and B35Placed vertically

- At least 1 Adult

Container (TC12): reduced to base, sherds associated with upper part of vessel scattered

nearby

Non burnt, no red pigment

In vessel: 1 tarsal at the base, 1 hand phalanx and

1 metatarsal

Probably into a pit, buried up to carinationClose to B39 and B42

Placed vertically

Table 1. Summary description of Teouma (Vanuatu) Lapita jar burials.


86

placed empty in the grave after the operation of post-decomposition bone removal, possibly at the time of the final sealing of the grave. Others may have lost their content via accidental disturbance and dispersion due to later funerary or other activities at the site. Certainly there are human bones distributed across the site that are outside grave features.

2. Teouma jar burial spatial distribution within the cemetery

The Teouma cemetery was excavated across a surface area of about 370 m2, with burials irregularly distributed in the funerary space (Fig. 4). Graves were dug into the upper beach sediment, which was mixed with a volcanic

tephra, toward the north-west, as well as into solution cavities in the former coral reef, filled with volcanic tephra, toward the south-east. The jar-burials appear to be located in the areas where the burials are densest (as are the other types of secondary burials). Jar-burials B17 and B22 were found in a large solution hole in the former reef on which the cemetery was installed, in association with three incomplete inhumations (B18, B25, and B14) displaying various body positions. Jar burial B45 was close to a secondary bone collection (B29), comprising mandibular and infracranial remains of at least 3 adults, placed just above an incomplete inhumation (B34, without the skull and mandible) of an extended adult,

Figure 4. Spatial distribution of burials recovered at Teouma Lapita cemetery (Vanuatu) and jar-burial locations (DAO: Florence Alliése and Frédérique Valentin).


87

perhaps during the sealing of the grave. The possible jar-burial (TC12) was located in the vicinity of an infant inhumation (B42) and an incomplete inhumation of an adult (B38, represented by infracranial elements and two teeth) that was laid on its back with the legs extended and manipulated at several stages of body decomposition. The second possible jar-burial (TC4) appears surrounded by a number of adult incomplete inhumations, including B49, B40, B9, B2, B36, B32, and infant burial B35.

3. Comparing jar-burial and other secondary burials at Teouma

All jar burials at Teouma contained secondary burial remains of single individuals, being adults (including one female) of different ages. The remains were not cremated and there was no sign of other human induced modification; they were not in articulation, suggesting the placement in the vessels of dry bones taken from skeletonized bodies. There was some level of variability in the practice: the bone assemblages were composed of cranial elements (B17) or of a variable quantity of infracranial elements (B22, B45). Associated grave-goods consisted only of an artifact found in one case and a concentration of Cypraea sp. shells in another possible jar-burial. In a number of respects, the burial jars of Teouma seem to be characterized more by differences than similarities (see Bedford and Spriggs 2007 and Bedford et al. 2007 for detail). Regardless, they were all buried, partly or totally, in a vertical, up-right, position.

Absence of burning, of other artificial modification (as cutmarks), and of pigmentation on the bones, and selection of cranial and infracranial dry bone are features also found in most of the other forms of secondary burials at Teouma. These other

forms of secondary burials, with no identified or with an immobile container (a coral boulder cache), are located where the burials are most dense (Fig. 4). Some of them display a highly structured arrangement, including a line of three skulls with an unrelated mandible placed under the middle one (B10 cache), a line of three mandibles covered by a bundle of infracranial elements (B29), and a bundle of forearm bones placed on scapulae (B39) (Bedford et al. 2009, Bedford et al. 2010, Valentin et al. 2010, Valentin et al. 2009). Other assemblages associated with some incomplete inhumations (B2B, B5B, B67) show a loose arrangement of infracranial elements, recalling the skeletal assemblages found in the B22 and B45 jar-burials.

Some of the features of the bone assemblage contained in the Teouma jar-burials are also visible in the single secondary deposit of cremated bones (B26) (Scott et al. 2010). These are the presence of a single individual, possibly a female, and an element representation similar to the Teouma incomplete inhumations. Marking a clear distinction relative to the bulk of the burials, this cremation secondary context, buried in a shallow scoop, was isolated at the margins of the cemetery, and adjacent to an area of domestic activities indicated by a midden deposit of Lapita age (Fig. 4).

Differences also exist between the secondary burials in the jars and the other forms of secondary burial. Non-adult remains (in B30) and multiple individuals, ranging from three (B29, B39) to five (B30), are represented in several of the non jar-burial secondary contexts. These non jar-burial secondary contexts are equally devoid of formal grave-goods, such as shell rings, but included in one case large potsherds covering one skull (B30).


88

Jar-burials in Island Southeast Asia (ISEA) Funerary sites comprising jar-burials are commonly found in the ISEA regional archaeological record, from the Lesser Sunda Islands in the south-west to Taiwan in the north-east (i.e. Barker 2013, Barker et al. 2011, Bintarti 2000, Chen 2005, Fox 1977, Fox 1970, Harrisson 1967, Lloyd-Smith 2009, Lloyd-Smith 2013, Lloyd-Smith and Cole 2010, van Heekeren 1956, van Heekeren 1958). However, Neolithic jar-burials, with an age similar to the Teouma jar-burials, seem to be fairly uncommon, except, according to our current knowledge, in Taiwan.

1. Jar-burials in Taiwan

At least sixteen Neolithic open sites containing jar burials can be listed for Taiwan, along with five Metal-Age sites. They have been discovered in the northern, southern, and eastern parts of the country (Chen 2005) (Table 2). However, in general, jar burials themselves are only briefly mentioned, rather than extensively described as at Teouma, in archaeological reports, the exception to this rule is the Shi-Chiao site where the jar-burials and their contents have recently been analyzed in detail (Yang 2011).

Jar-burials in western Taiwan are generally associated with other types of burials (with various positions) in open sites, such as at the You-Xian-Fang site (Tsang, Li, and Chu 2006). They are otherwise associated with slate-slab cists in the late Neolithic (3000-2300/2100 BP) sites of northeast and eastern Taiwan. For instance, fifty-seven slate-slab cists and fifteen jar burials were discovered in the Wan-Shan site (Liu, Qiu, and Dai 2000).

In terms of containers used for jar burials during the Middle Neolithic period (4500-

3000 BP), two different types of containers were found at the You-Xian-Fang site in South Taiwan. The type one vessel has a cylindrical body with narrow waist, a small vertical mouth, a wide shoulder, and a ring-foot. Type two has a heavily sand-tempered bulging body, with a very small flared mouth, an oval shoulder, and a ring foot. Dating from the same period, a single jar burial has been found at the site of Ling-Ding, Hwa-Lian County, in eastern Taiwan (Chen 2009). The container at this site is a yellowish-brown pot with a lid; it is decorated with coarse cord-marked decoration, and has a wide mouth, short neck, bulging body, and a round base.

A greater number of jar burials are found associated with the late Neolithic time period (3000-2300/2100 BP) in the northeast and east of Taiwan. Containers have not been studied in detail; however, containers such as a dull orange sandy-tempered vessel, with a flared mouth, narrow neck, and a bulging body, have been observed at the Wan-Shan site (northeast Taiwan). Two types of jar burials have been observed at the Hua-Gang-Shan site (eastern Taiwan). Type one is a single-jar burial associated with containers with a large shoulder and ring foot which are characteristic traits of the Qi-Lin Culture. Type two is a double-jar burial that uses two of the same containers as mentioned in Type one, but placed mouth-to-mouth enclosing the corpse. As observed in several instances, vessels were often deliberately broken at the shoulder in order to accommodate the body, and sometimes were associated with an additional element serving as a lid. In addition, it appears that the vessels used for burial were either purposely made for funerals, such as at the Wan-Shan site (Liu 1996), or were the same as those used for daily activities, such as at the Shi-Chiao site in the southwestern part of Taiwan (Yang 2011).


89

Site

Loca

tion

Chro

nolo

gyJa

r bur

ial

Grav

e-go

ods i

n ja

rH

uman

rem

ains

in ja

rRe

fere

nces

Tao-

Zi-Y

uan

Sout

hern

Taiw

an (K

aohs

iung

)M

iddl

e Neo

lithi

cAt

leas

t one

jar b

urial

N/A

N/A

(pre

serv

ation

proje

ct )

Zhi-S

han-

Yan

North

ern

Taiw

an (T

aipei)

Late

Neoli

thic

Seve

ral ja

r bur

ials

With

out g

rave

good

sBo

nes

Huan

g 198

4, Li

en 19

80

Wan

-Sha

nNo

rther

n Ta

iwan

(Yi-L

an)

Late

Neoli

thic

15 ja

r bur

ials

2 jad

e ear

rings

N/A

Liu 1

996

You-

Xian

-Fan

g So

uthe

rn Ta

iwan

(Tain

an)

Mid

dle N

eolit

hic

6 jar

buria

lsN/

AOn

e with

age o

f 1.5

ye

ar-o

ldTs

ang,

Li, a

nd C

hu 20

04,

Tsan

g, Li

, and

Chu

2006

, Ts

ang e

t al. 2

007

Niu-

Chou

-Zi

Sout

hern

Taiw

an (T

ainan

)M

iddl

e Neo

lithi

cPo

ssibly

1 jar

buria

l (o

r mor

e)W

ithou

t gra

ve go

ods

With

out h

uman

bone

sCh

en an

d Yan

g 200

8

Wu-

Shan

-Tou

Sout

hern

Taiw

an (T

ainan

)La

te Ne

olith

ic2 j

ar bu

rials

With

out g

rave

good

sIn

fants

Lee 1

999

Xi-L

iaoSo

uthe

rn Ta

iwan

(Tain

an)

Late

Neoli

thic

1 jar

buria

lN/

A (n

ot av

ailab

le)In

fant

Kuo 2

008

Shi-C

hiao

Sout

hern

Taiw

an (T

ainan

)La

te Ne

olith

ic72

jar b

urial

sPl

ant s

eeds

, cer

amic

bead

s, 1 c

eram

ic rin

g

Mos

t of a

re un

der a

ge 1

and

half

year

s old

; in pa

rticu

lar,

for t

hose

ages

betw

een

6-

9 mon

ths

Yang

2011

San-

Pau-

Chu

Sout

hern

Taiw

an (T

ainan

)La

te Ne

olith

ic69

jar b

urial

sN/

AN/

ATs

ang,

Li, a

nd C

hu 20

06

San-

She

Sout

hern

Taiw

an (T

ainan

)La

te Ne

olith

icAt

leas

t one

jar b

urial

With

out g

rave

good

sN/

ALi

2004

Hua-

Kang

-Sha

n Ea

stern

Taiw

an (H

ai-Li

an)

Late

Neoli

thic

7 jar

buria

lsJad

e adz

Teeth

and b

ones

Yeh 2

001

Da-K

eng

Easte

rn Ta

iwan

(Hai-

Lian

) La

te Ne

olith

ic(U

nkno

wn)

N/A

N/A

Chen

1991

, Yeh

2001

Yan-

Liao

Ea

stern

Taiw

an (H

ai-Li

an)

Late

Neoli

thic

(No h

uman

rem

ains)

Jade a

dzW

ithou

t hum

an bo

nes

Chen

1991

, Yeh

2001

Ping

-Lin

Easte

rn Ta

iwan

(Hai-

Lian

)La

te Ne

olith

icPo

ssibly

2 jar

buria

lsN/

AN/

ALi

u 200

3

Ling

-Din

gEa

stern

Taiw

an (H

ai-Li

an)

Mid

dle N

eolit

hic

1 jar

buria

lN/

ATe

eth an

d bon

esCh

en 20

09

Zhan

g-Gu

ang

Easte

rn Ta

iwan

(Tait

ung)

La

te Ne

olith

ic17

jar b

urial

s1 e

arrin

gFr

agm

entar

yLe

e and

Yeh 2

001,

Yeh

2001

, Yeh

2004

a, Ye

h 200

4b

Jimou

rud

Easte

rn Ta

iwan

(Orc

hid I

sland

)Iro

n ag

eAt

leas

t 5 ja

r bur

ials

Earri

ng an

d oth

er

orna

men

tsBo

nes

de B

eauc

lair 1

972,

Ta

dao 1

941

Lobu

sbus

san

Easte

rn Ta

iwan

(Orc

hid I

sland

)Iro

n ag

e7 j

ar bu

rials

Sher

ds an

d bro

ken

shell

Ri

ngTe

eth an

d bon

es (m

ore t

han

291 p

ieces

)St

amps

1980

Rusa

ruso

lEa

stern

Taiw

an (O

rchi

d Isla

nd)

Iron

age

At le

ast 6

jar b

urial

sGl

ass b

eads

(mor

e tha

n 20

0) an

d jad

e arti

fact

Bone

sde

Bea

uclai

r 197

2

Ruka

vgira

nEa

stern

Taiw

an (O

rchi

d Isla

nd)

Iron

age

At le

ast 2

jar b

urial

sN/

AN/

Ade

Bea

uclai

r 197

2Zh

ong-

Liao

Easte

rn Ta

iwan

(Gre

en Is

land)

Iron

age

Possi

bly 1

jar bu

rial (

or m

ore)

N/A

Bone

sAb

e 193

3a, A

be 19

33b

Tabl

e 2.

Sum

mar

y de

scrip

tion

of ja

r bur

ial s

ites a

nd ja

r bur

ial c

onte

nts i

n Ta

iwan

.


90

Grave goods appear to be inconsistently associated to jar burials in Taiwan regardless of the time period. They were absent at You-Xian-Fang site (Middle Neolithic Period, 4500-3000 BP) in South Taiwan, but form a rich and varied assemblage at Wan-Shan, where stone tools (such as stone knives, axes, a stone ring, and a grinding stone), a nephrite adze, a rock crystal, and earthenware spindle whorls have been recorded (Liu and Qiu 2000).

Other types of association between pots, or fragments of pots, and human remains have been mentioned previously. For instance, an infant was found beneath half a jar at the Ling-Ding site in eastern Taiwan (Chen 2009), and a body was covered by many potsherds at Yan-Lio (Chen 1991, Yeh 2001). In the same manner, skulls were placed in vessels at Zhang-Guang in eastern Taiwan (Yeh 2012), and large half pots were placed over the face or the head of the dead at Peinan in southeastern Taiwan (Lien 1991).

2. Jar-burials in other ISEA archipelagoes

In other ISEA archipelagoes, the use of jar burial was extensively practiced during the Metal Age period after 2300/2100 BP (Bintarti 2000) and has been identified in a number of areas such as at: the Melolo site (Sumba) in Indonesia (van Heekeren 1956, van Heekeren 1958), the Recudo site (Luzon) (Solheim II 1951) and Magsuhot site (Negros Oriental) in the Philippines (Tenazas 1974) and in South Sumatra (Soeroso 1997). The practice certainly existed earlier during the Neolithic period from about 4000 to 2300/2100 BP, but dating is often uncertain and based largely upon the lack of metal or glass artefacts in association with the burials. Potential cases are listed in Table 3, others are known while incompletely reported, such as those at the cave sites on the Marang River in East Kalimantan, Borneo,

which are said to contain both Neolithic and Metal Age jar burials (Chazine 2005). Further work has taken place at Pain Haka, Flores, since that reported here (Galipaud, Noury, and Illouz 2010) but details were unavailable at time of going to press. However, Pain Haka and nearby Lewoleba on Lembata in the Lesser Sundas, given their similarities in pottery style and the presence of a flask in a Pain Haka jar burial as at Melolo, may date to the transition between the Neolithic and the Metal Age in Indonesia.

Contrasting with the Taiwanese cases, the Neolithic or potentially Neolithic jar burials from other ISEA archipelagoes at least in terms of the overwhelming numbers of burials have been mainly identified in cave sites, except at Savidug (Batanes) in the northernmost Philippines (Hung et al 2013, Bellwood and Dizon (eds) 2014), Pain Haka and Lewoleba on Lembata.

In these ISEA sites, except at the sites of Savidug, Sorsogon and Albay in the Philippines (Fox and Evangelista 1957a, Fox and Evangelista 1957b), jar burials were associated with burials of other types: evidence was found of primary inhumations and various forms of secondary burials of burnt or unburnt bones, including “skull burials” (Fox 1970) in the sites of the Tabon cave complex (Palawan) and at Niah West Mouth cave (Sarawak) (Harrisson 1967, Lloyd-Smith 2009, Lloyd-Smith 2013). Generally, several jar burials were identified within a single site; even at Arku where “there is one jar burial. There also may have been others that were too disturbed to [be] recognized.” (Thiel 1990: 259).

In these sites, with the exception of Savidug which displays a more uniform pattern (Bellwood and Dizon 2014), ceramic vessels of varying size, shape and fabrication were


91

used to contain human remains and as lids. In the case of Niah West Mouth cave, there was a wide range of vessel heights from 17 cm to 68 cm (Lloyd-Smith and Cole 2010). At Arku the extant jar burial consisted of parts from two pots (Thiel 1990:241). In other cases, vessels were deliberately broken or modified, such as at Savidug and Niah West Mouth cave (Bellwood and Dizon 2014, Lloyd-Smith and Cole 2010). Jar burials were generally placed in an upright position (Table 3); either on the surface (in a small scoop) as at Savidug (Bellwood and Dizon 2014), or partially or totally buried in a pit as at Niah West Mouth and at Lobang Jeragan, in the Niah complex, where they were sometimes supported by rocks, or overlaying other types of burials, or stacked on top of another jar burial (Harrisson 1967, Lloyd-Smith 2009).

Associated artifacts within, or around, the ceramic vessel were mainly elements of body ornamentation (Table 3); such artifacts were frequent and abundant in certain sites such as Lobang Jeragan (Lloyd-Smith 2009 appendices) and the sites of Sorsogon and Albay (Fox and Evangelista 1957a, Fox and Evangelista 1957b), and rare and sparse in others such as Niah West Mouth cave (Lloyd-Smith and Cole 2010).

The jar burial sites of the Bato Cave complex in Sorsogon Province and on Cagraray Island in Albay Province (southern Luzon) were particularly rich in associated finds of shell and stone artefacts (with no traces of metal or glass, Fox and Evangelista 1957a, Fox and Evangelista 1957b). For instance, a single adult jar burial at Bato Cave 1 was associated with a total of 163 blue-green indurated shale beads, 42 round and tubular shell beads, a polished stone tool flake, and 2 whole sea shells were associated with a single adult jar burial. In addition, Fox and Evangelista

(1957b: 136) noting 11 different sites on Cagraray and in Sorsorgon with Neolithic jar burials, summarize the associated artefacts as including shale and other stone beads, beads of Tridacna shell, nautilus shell spoons, Conus shell scoops and bracelets, Melo shell dippers, flaked stone “knives”, polished stone axe and gouges, and plain undecorated pottery with high flaring necks, and “approximately the same percentage of angle and slipped ware. The decorated ware, representing only a small percentage of the pottery, appears to be related to the Kalanay pottery”.

3. Treatment of human remains in ISEA contexts

As noted by Lloyd-Smith (2009: 312), detailed studies of human skeletal remains are generally the less-developed aspect of the published works on jar burials sites in Island South-East Asia. This is particularly the case in Taiwan where the bioarchaeological study of the bone content of jar burials is an on-going process. Jar burials from Taiwan can be classified into a few types in terms of human bone contents: some now empty jars but which are believed to have once held human remains, some with bone fragments, and some with relatively well preserved remains (Table 2). The latter category includes an important number of infant primary burials. For example, within the 72 jar burials recovered at the Shi-Chiao site on the Southwest coast of Taiwan, most of the individuals were under one and half years of age, and more specifically between the ages of 6-9 months. This practice of burying infant corpses in jars, also reported at the Wu-Shan-Tou (Lee 1999) and Xi-Liao (Kuo 2008) sites, seems to have been common practice in the southern part of Taiwan during the late Neolithic period. It is also known that almost all of these infant burials are single burials. On another aspect, only the practice


92

Site

(Cou

ntry

, Is

land

)

Fune

rary

cont

ext

Chr

ono-

cultu

ral a

ttri

butio

nlo

catio

nA

ssoc

iatio

n w

ith o

ther

bur

ials

Jar b

uria

lN

umbe

rVe

ssel

type

, siz

e, p

artic

ular

ities

Vess

el d

ispo

sitio

n at

the

site

Gra

ve-g

oods

in ja

rTy

pe, a

bund

ance

Hum

an re

mai

ns in

jar

Dep

ositi

on ty

peN

umbe

r of i

ndiv

idua

lsA

ge a

nd se

xBo

ne ty

peBo

ne co

nditi

onR

ed p

igm

ent

Ref

eren

ces

Savi

dug

Bata

nes

Phili

ppin

es

- 500

BC

on

Late

Neo

lithi

c or M

etal

A

ge- O

pen-

air

- No

asso

ciat

ion

with

oth

er b

uria

l ty

pes

- Sev

eral

(14)

larg

e ja

rs w

ith li

d, re

d-sli

pped

surf

ace

- Del

iber

ate

rem

oval

of t

he u

pper

par

t of t

he ja

r and

re

posit

ioni

ng w

ith li

d on

top

- Pla

ced

uprig

ht, v

ertic

ally,

on

the

grou

nd su

rfac

e pe

rhap

s in

a sm

all s

tabi

lizin

g ho

llow

- No

artif

act i

nsid

e ja

rLi

nglin

g-o

next

to th

e ba

se

of th

e ja

r in

one

case

- Sm

ooth

scra

per-

like

tool

or p

olish

er o

f she

ll fr

om b

uria

l jar

3 in

F1

- Prim

ary

in fl

exed

pos

ition

(inf

erre

d fr

om

jar s

ize

and

cond

ition

)- C

hild

bon

es o

bser

ved

in o

ne c

ase

- Too

poo

rly p

rese

rved

for b

io-

arch

aeol

ogic

al o

bser

vatio

ns

Bellw

ood

and

Diz

on

2014

, Hun

g et

al.

2013

, O

xenh

am

(per

s, co

mm

.)

Ark

u Lu

zon

Phili

ppin

es

- Ass

ocia

ted

with

art

ifact

s of l

ate

Neo

lithi

c typ

e- I

n ca

ve- A

ssoc

iate

d w

ith se

vera

l “se

cond

ary”

bu

rials

of o

ther

type

s (bo

nes

gene

rally

“sca

ttere

d”)

- Cre

mat

ion

seem

s a co

mm

on

trea

tmen

t at t

he si

te

- 1 a

ccor

ding

to Th

iel (

or 2

acc

ordi

ng to

us,

the

seco

nd

case

bei

ng a

skul

l in

a po

t whi

le in

fra

cran

ial b

ones

w

ere

near

the

pot)

- Par

ts o

f tw

o re

d-sli

pped

pot

s with

30-

35cm

dia

met

er,

the

thin

ner i

nsid

e th

e th

icke

r: rim

s are

miss

ing

(the

se

cond

cas

e co

mpr

ises a

roun

d bo

ttom

ed re

d sli

pped

po

t with

a c

arin

ated

shou

lder

and

a n

arro

w n

eck)

- Bro

ken

(in b

oth

case

s)

- Rar

e?- S

hell

earr

ing,

bea

ds (a

nd

vario

us o

ther

art

efac

ts n

ot

dire

ctly

ass

ocia

ted

with

jar

buria

l)

- Sec

onda

ry- 2

or 4

(and

1 in

the

seco

nd c

ase)

- Adu

lts (a

nd a

you

ng m

ale)

- Bur

nt a

nd u

nbur

nt (i

n bo

th c

ases

)- N

o re

d pi

gmen

tatio

n (in

bot

h ca

ses)

Thie

l 199

0

Tabo

n ca

ve

com

plex

(in

clud

ing

Man

ungg

ul

(cha

mbe

r A),

Ngi

pe’t

Dul

gug

cave

)Pa

law

anPh

ilipp

ines

- Ass

ocia

ted

with

art

ifact

s of N

eolit

hic

type

(con

test

ed a

nd a

ssoc

iate

d to

M

etal

Age

by

seve

ral a

utho

rs, i

.e

Bellw

ood

1997

)- I

n ca

ve- S

ever

al ja

r bur

ials

in o

ne c

ave;

ge

nera

lly a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith p

rimar

y an

d se

cond

ary

buria

ls of

var

ious

type

s in

clud

ing

“sku

ll bu

rial”;

prim

ary

inhu

mat

ions

in n

ear-

by c

aves

Man

ungg

ul (c

ham

ber A

): 78

jars

use

d fo

r bur

ial a

nd

ritua

l pur

pose

s, sm

all s

ize,

cont

aine

rs a

nd li

ds, s

ome

lids a

re a

dorn

ed w

ith m

odel

ed el

emen

ts re

pres

entin

g hu

man

s or a

nim

als (

incl

udin

g bi

rds)

Ngi

pe’t

Dul

gug

cave

: 8 ja

rs o

f var

ious

shap

e, siz

e an

d fa

bric

atio

n m

ode,

incl

udin

g 4

smal

l jar

s

Robb

ing

susp

ecte

dM

anun

ggul

(cha

mbe

r A):

ston

e (in

clud

ing

jade

) and

sh

ell b

eads

and

bra

cele

tsN

gipe

’t D

ulgu

g ca

ve: s

tone

to

ols,

shel

l bra

cele

t, st

one

(incl

udin

g ja

de) a

nd sh

ell

bead

s

All

cave

s con

sider

ed to

geth

er- S

econ

dary

for a

dults

at le

ast,

- Unk

now

n, si

ngle

susp

ecte

d, -A

dult

of

both

sexe

s, ch

ild, r

arel

y in

fant

- Som

etim

es o

nly

skul

l, in

oth

er c

ases

pr

esen

ce o

f sm

all s

kele

tal e

lem

ents

su

gges

ting

plac

emen

t in

pot o

f a m

ore

com

plet

e in

divi

dual

- U

nbur

nt? (

no si

gn o

f bur

ning

repo

rted

)- R

ed p

igm

enta

tion

Fox

1970

, Fo

x 19

77

Nia

h ca

ve

(Wes

t Mou

th)

Born

eoSa

raw

ak

- 2 p

erio

ds o

f jar

bur

ial u

se: c

. 120

0-10

00BC

and

c.80

0-50

0BC

- In

cave

- Ass

ocia

ted

with

prim

ary

and

seco

ndar

y bu

rial o

f unb

urnt

or

crem

ated

rem

ains

- 12

- Ves

sels

of v

ario

us sh

ape

and

size,

cont

aine

rs a

nd li

ds,

som

etim

es d

elib

erat

ely

mod

ified

(cut

dow

n)- P

artia

lly o

r tot

ally

bur

ied

in p

it, in

upr

ight

pos

ition

, so

met

imes

supp

orte

d by

rock

s, so

met

imes

ove

rlayi

ng

othe

r bur

ials

or st

acke

d on

top

of a

noth

er ja

r bur

ial

- Rar

e- S

hell

earr

ings

, she

ll fis

h ho

ok, f

unni

ly sh

aped

ston

e

Seco

ndar

y- F

rom

1 u

p to

5 in

divi

dual

s- A

dults

of b

oth

sexe

s, an

d ch

ildre

n in

clud

ing

perin

atal

- Cra

nial

and

infr

acra

nial

elem

ents

, som

e in

divi

dual

s rep

rese

nted

by

infr

acra

nial

el

emen

ts o

nly

- Unb

urnt

, bur

nt, m

ixed

of b

urnt

and

un

burn

t- R

ed p

igm

enta

tion

in so

me

case

s

Bark

er 2

013,

Ll

oyd-

Smith

20

09, L

loyd

-Sm

ith 2

013,

Ll

oyd-

Smith

an

d C

ole

2010


93

Loba

ng

Jera

gan

Born

eoSa

raw

ak

- Mor

tuar

y us

e in

the

rang

e 95

0 BC

an

d 45

0 BC

- In

cave

- Ass

ocia

ted

with

prim

ary

and

seco

ndar

y bu

rial o

f unb

urnt

or

crem

ated

rem

ains

- 5 (b

ut o

ther

s mig

ht h

ave

been

ups

ide

dow

n pr

otec

ting

bone

s)- V

esse

ls of

var

ious

size

and

shap

e, us

ed a

s con

tain

er a

nd

lid - In

a pi

t in

the

cave

floo

r, in

ver

tical

pos

ition

with

op

enin

g up

war

ds, s

omet

imes

supp

orte

d by

rock

s

- In

mos

t jar

s - S

hell

ring,

ear

rings

an

d be

ads,

unm

odifi

ed

terr

estr

ial s

nails

, un

mod

ified

fres

hwat

er

shel

ls, a

nd c

ultu

rally

-m

odifi

ed fr

eshw

ater

shel

lsLi

mes

tone

tool

s

- Sec

onda

ry- F

rom

sing

le u

p to

4 in

divi

dual

s- A

dults

of b

oth

sexe

s and

child

ren

incl

udin

g pe

rinat

al- C

rani

al a

nd in

frac

rani

al el

emen

ts, o

nly

cran

ial e

lem

ents

in o

ne c

ase

- Bur

nt a

nd m

ix o

f bur

nt a

nd u

nbur

nt in

on

e ca

se- R

ed p

igm

enta

tion

in 4

cas

es

Lloy

d-Sm

ith

2009

*Bat

o an

d C

agra

ray

Cav

es,

Sors

ogon

an

d A

lbay

Pr

ovin

ces,

Luzo

n,

Phili

ppin

es

- Afte

r abo

ut 2

750B

P at

Bat

o C

ave

2, d

atin

g to

235

0BP

at B

ato

Cav

e 1;

sim

ilar a

ssem

blag

es at

Cag

rara

y sit

es- I

n ca

ves

- No

asso

ciat

ion

with

oth

er b

uria

l ty

pes

- 18

at B

ato

Cav

e 1,

6 at

Bat

o C

ave

2; M

isibi

s 1 o

n C

agra

ray

“doz

ens”

- Lar

ge g

ener

ally

pla

in ja

rs w

ith h

igh

flarin

g ne

cks

asso

ciat

ed w

ith sm

alle

r ves

sels;

at M

isibi

s 1 2

had

ear

-lik

e ap

pend

ages

and

2 o

ther

s had

ver

tical

han

dles

with

in

cise

d de

signs

; bot

h “a

ngle”

(car

inat

ed?)

and

slip

ped

war

e

- Com

mon

- Sto

ne a

nd sh

ell b

eads

, she

ll br

acel

ets,

ston

e ax

es a

nd

goug

es a

nd a

xe fr

agm

ents

, di

sk-li

ke st

one

obje

cts,

flake

d “k

nive

s”, a

ston

e ea

rrin

g, sh

ell s

poon

s, di

pper

s and

scoo

ps, a

pe

rfor

ated

shel

l and

un

mod

ified

shel

ls

- Sec

onda

ry a

nd p

ossib

ly p

rimar

y- I

n on

e ca

se a

sing

le a

dult,

unk

now

n fo

r re

st, b

ut m

ust b

e do

zens

in to

tal

- Unr

epor

ted

- Unr

epor

ted

- Pro

babl

y un

burn

t (?)

- No

red

pigm

enta

tion

Fox

and

Evan

gelis

ta

1957

a, F

ox an

d Ev

ange

lista

19

57b

Cra

ne a

nd

Griffi

n 19

59:

196,

with

dat

es

adju

sted

as p

er

Stui

ver a

nd

Pola

ch 1

977

Pain

Hak

a,

East

ern

Flor

es,

Indo

nesia

- Neo

lithi

c as n

o m

etal

foun

d- O

pen-

air

- Ass

ocia

ted

with

prim

ary

buria

ls

- 6 ja

r bur

ials

reco

vere

d- U

ndec

orat

ed o

void

and

sphe

rical

jars

; also

pre

sent

is

a la

rge

carin

ated

ves

sel w

ith in

cise

d de

cora

tion

(80c

m

diam

eter

) and

a re

d-sli

pped

cyl

indr

ical

pot

with

6

hum

an fa

ces i

n in

cisio

n an

d ap

plie

d re

lief (

cf. M

elol

o an

d Le

wol

eba)

. 1 p

ot w

ith a

cera

mic

cove

r, ot

hers

with

co

ral r

ocks

on

top.

- Rar

e- s

hell

bead

s - a

smal

l pot

tery

flas

k in

one

bu

rial

- dist

urba

nce

mad

e it

diffi

cult

to e

stab

lish

asso

ciat

ions

of o

ther

ar

tefa

cts

- Sec

onda

ry a

nd p

rimar

y- A

t lea

st 6

. - S

ingl

e an

d po

ssib

le m

ultip

le )

- Adu

lts a

nd in

fant

s (at

leas

t 2)

- Cra

nial

and

infr

acra

nial

, 2 p

ots w

ith

adul

t sku

lls o

nly

- Pre

sum

ed u

nbur

nt- N

o re

d pi

gmen

tatio

n

Gal

ipau

d,

Nou

ry, a

nd

Illou

z 201

0

Lew

oleb

a,

Lem

bata

(fo

rmer

ly

Lom

blen

) Is

land

, Sol

or

Arc

hipe

lago

, In

done

sia

- Neo

lithi

c as n

o m

etal

foun

d- O

pen-

air

- Ass

ocia

ted

with

prim

ary

buria

ls,

assu

min

g LL

1 an

d LL

II a

re p

art o

f the

sa

me

site

- I ja

r bur

ial o

f an

infa

nt fo

und,

with

an

adul

t sku

ll ne

arby

- Pot

tery

like

ned

to M

elol

o, a

pot

with

hum

an fa

ces o

n (c

f. M

elol

o an

d Pa

in H

aka)

.

- Non

e- N

one

- Unk

now

n- I

nfan

t- U

nkno

wn

- Pre

sum

ed u

nbur

nt- N

o re

d pi

gmen

tatio

n

Lio

ng 1

965

* The

Bato

1 C

ave

was

use

d ex

clus

ivel

y fo

r bur

ials

; a to

tal o

f 18

jar b

uria

ls w

ere

iden

tified

. A d

ate

on m

arin

e sh

ell i

n bu

rial

jars

pro

duce

d a

dete

rmin

atio

n of

269

2±25

0 (M

-727

a, c

alib

rate

s to

2713

-21

14BP

at 6

8.3%

usi

ng C

ALI

B 7.

0), w

hile

the

habi

tatio

n la

yer o

f Bat

o C

ave

2 w

hich

und

erla

y th

e bu

rial

jars

pla

ced

on th

e su

rfac

e of

the

mid

den

depo

sit p

rodu

ced

a da

te o

f 296

2±20

0 (M

-728

, ca

libra

tes t

o 29

63-2

451

at 6

8.3%

) whi

ch fo

rms a

term

inus

pos

t que

m fo

r jar

bur

ial u

se th

ere.

The

Cag

rara

y an

d Ba

to C

ave

sites

con

tain

ed v

ery

sim

ilar a

ssem

blag

es in

ass

ocia

tion

with

larg

e bu

rial

ja

rs a

nd a

rang

e of

smal

ler v

esse

ls. Ta

ble

3. S

umm

ary

desc

riptio

n of

jar b

uria

l site

s and

jar b

uria

l con

tent

s in

Isla

nd S

outh

east

Asia

(ISE

A).


94

of inhumation was identified in Taiwan despite the variety in the type of containers; no cremation has been reported so far in the consulted field documentation.

Jar burials from sites in other ISEA archipelagoes listed in Table 3, with the exception of Savidug (Batanes) and perhaps Bato Cave 1 where the largest burial jar had a maximum diameter of 87 cm (Fox and Evangelista 1957a: 50) and Pain Haka, where two infant jar burials are said primary (Galipaud, Noury, and Illouz 2010), all contained burial remains interpreted as “secondary” (Table 3). These remains were from both single and multiple individuals. At Ngipe’t Duldug, a site of the Tabon cave complex, the remains placed inside the vessels were suspected to be of single individuals, based on comparison of the number of vessels and the number of individuals in each cave (Fox 1970: 105). The remains were those of several individuals at Arku (Thiel 1990) and of both single and multiple individuals at Niah and Lobang Jeragan (Lloyd-Smith 2009, Lloyd-Smith and Cole 2010) and Pain Haka (Galipaud, Noury, and Illouz 2010). Available bioarchaeological observations indicate that the vessels contained remains of adults of both sexes while remains of children and even perinatals (new-born infants) were also found at Tabon caves (Fox 1970), Niah and Lobang Jeragan (Lloyd-Smith 2009, Lloyd-Smith and Cole 2010) and Pain Haka (Galipaud, Noury, and Illouz 2010). At Niah, adults and infants were interred both singly and in multiple jar burials; however, all multiple jar burials enclosed at least one adult. A similar pattern was observed at Lobang Jeragan: juveniles and infants were usually interred with at least one adult, but here they were also interred without an adult; for example, remains of three infants were placed in jar burial B27 (Lloyd-Smith 2009: appendices).

There is no regularity in the skeletal representation of the individuals. For example, ten fragments of human bone representing a single adult were found in a Bato Cave 1 jar burial (Fox and Evangelista 1957a whereas at Niah and Lobang Jeragan, the quantity of bones of each individual is variable from one vessel to another, and equally inside a single vessel in the case of multiple burials (Lloyd-Smith 2009: appendices). The vessels generally contained cranial and infracranial elements. However, some individuals are represented by infracranial bones only, as at Niah where older children in jar burials B100 and B159 lacked cranial remains (Lloyd-Smith 2009: appendices), suggesting a differential treatment of their skull; no isolated skulls were found in pots at Niah but evidence of skull removal was identified in burials of other types (Lloyd-Smith 2009, Lloyd-Smith 2013). Further evidence for skull manipulation appears in the Tabon cave complex, according to Fox: “The data also suggest that only skulls were sometimes placed in smaller vessels” (Fox 1970: 70). Another indication of a particular relationship between ceramic vessels and skulls exists at Arku; where the cranial bones of a very young adult male were found in a pot, while the remaining skeleton was found near the pot (Thiel 1990: 242). This particular treatment of the skull is clearly illustrated at Pain Haka, Eastern Flores, where two occurrences of a vessel containing a human skull were recorded (Galipaud, Noury, and Illouz 2010).

Jar burials in ISEA contained burnt, unburnt, or a mix of burnt and unburnt remains (Table 3). Traces of burning are interpreted as evidence of cremation at Arku, where, despite having been observed on only a fraction of the recovered bones, it is considered to have been a common practice (Thiel 1990). At Lobang Jeragan and Niah, in addition to


95

charring and calcination, the burnt human remains display signs of bone retraction, deformation and cracking, clearly indicating cremation of fleshed cadavers (Lloyd-Smith 2009). At both sites, there is variation in the degree to which the individuals were burnt. The variation is visible between jars, and inside single jars when several individuals are represented. For example, Lobang Jeragan jar burial B27 enclosed the remains of three infants that seemed to have been burnt to different degrees, suggesting multiple crematory events over time (Lloyd-Smith 2009) or in space on different pyres.

The association between the use of a vessel to contain remains and cremation is strong at Lobang Jeragan, where all five jar burials enclosed cremated human remains (associated with unburnt remains in one case, B22, Lloyd-Smith 2009: 262) while a total of seven cremations were identified at the site (Lloyd-Smith 2009). At Niah, this association is not as tight: four of the 12 jar burials comprise only cremated remains, while a total of twenty two cremations were recorded in Neolithic levels at the site (Lloyd-Smith and Cole 2010, Lloyd-Smith 2013). At the same site, jar burials also contained a mix of burnt and unburnt remains or exclusively unburnt bone, revealing a variety of practices that could be time-related, with the placement of non-burnt bone in vessels being a practice preceding cremation (Lloyd-Smith and Cole 2010). In ISEA sites in general, unburnt bones appear otherwise to have been taken from interred or exposed bodies after the flesh had decomposed (Fox 1970, Lloyd-Smith 2009).

Finally, like bones found in other types of burials at each site, bones found in jar burials tend to be stained with red pigment at Tabon, Niah and Lobang Jeragan (Table 3). Bones even appear to have been dipped into colorant

solution in several instances at Tabon caves (Fox 1970: 172, Fox 1977) and Niah (Harrisson 1967, Lloyd-Smith 2009). The definition of the chemical nature of this red pigment, once claimed to be red ‘haematite’ (Fox 1970, Harrisson 1967), needs further investigation, but red pigment staining the inner surface of a human cranial fragment from Niah has recently been shown to derive from an organic source (Pyatt et al. 2010).

4. Chronological sequence in ISEA contexts

Only at Niah Cave is there a clear sequence of jar burial practice during the Neolithic period Barker 2013, Lloyd-Smith 2009, Lloyd-Smith 2013, Lloyd-Smith and Cole 2010. Initial Neolithic burials at Niah are flexed (Phase 1, 3400-3200BP) but then quickly followed by primary extended burial dating to 3200-2800BP, where in some cases the skull was removed. The earliest phase of jar burial (Phase 3) dates to approximately 2900-2700BP. Burials in this phase consisted of unburnt remains of single or multiple individuals, from young children to adults, placed in vessels that have been cut down at the rim, and which contain very few or no grave goods (B159 and probably B63 and B69). B69 and B159 overlay primary extended burials of the previous phase. The Phase 3 jar burials can be directly compared to those at Teouma in age and treatment. They are followed (Phase 4) by an “intensified” secondary burial treatment of cremations in jar burials. In this phase bones are stained with red pigment and set into vessels, usually without grave goods, which are in-turn placed into pits. Unlike in the previous phase vessels are not cut down at the rim (B18, 85, 96, 100, 154, 198 and 233). The human remains consist of single or multiple individuals and range from infants to adults. The medial radiocarbon age of these


96

cremations varied by only 79 years, suggesting a very short period; however, the shape of the calibration curve at this point produces calibrations spanning 2800-2500BP. There is then a return to primary extended burial (Phase 5) at 2500BP, and a second phase of jar burial of unburnt remains, perhaps beginning at the same time or slightly later at 2400BP (Phase 6). Phase 6 jar burials contained single or multiple individuals, from neonates to adults in cut-down pots (B190 and B221). Burial B190 contained a piece of a shell fishhook, providing the only putative evidence of deliberate grave goods in this phase.

The change from intensified secondary burial in the form of cremated remains in pots to “less ritually and economically expensive” forms of burial, is suggested to imply that the settlement at Niah Cave went into a form of “economic decline” (Lloyd-Smith 2013: 129). Similarly, the initial development of secondary burial is seen to derive from an elaboration of beliefs and practices relating to the removal of skulls during Phase 2, with all forms of secondary burial seen as likely involving status-enhancing ceremonies and feasting (cf. Tillotson 1989).

Discussion and conclusionJar-burial at the Teouma site is only one aspect of a wider funerary scheme that also comprises primary inhumation, cremation, manipulation of the body and bones at several stages of body decomposition, and other forms of secondary burial. Each of these aspects displays some level of variation, perhaps expressing social conventions or circumstances of life (see Parker Pearson 1999 for a review of possibilities). At the same time, they can also be ordered in a funerary sequence outlining the structure of the funerary protocol of the Teouma community

(Valentin et al. 2010). In this perspective, jar-burials, as with the other secondary burial contexts, can be seen to be associated with two particular sets of actions. The first is related to the treatment of the bones, such as the skull and the forearm bones, extracted from the adult primary contexts after body decomposition, and the second corresponds to an additional treatment reserved for the bones generally left in the graves (found as incomplete inhumations), such as the ribs, the vertebrae, the pelvis and leg bones, and the small elements of the extremities. Jar-burial at Teouma can, therefore, be regarded as one of the secondary deposits “manières de faire” (Lemonnier 2004), or as a “practice” (as repetition is involved) in the context of an ongoing, multi-layered funerary process. Inclusion of pot fragments in secondary deposits without identified containers again adds to the importance of the human bone/Lapita ceramic vessel association for this Lapita community.

Outlining the similarity or the dissimilarity of the defining attributes of jar burial practice between Teouma and Island South East Asia is challenging, as the data is often influenced by parameters related to the completeness of archaeological research. One of the main limitations concerns the dating of this form of burial in ISEA. Jar burials have mainly been attributed to the ISEA Late Neolithic (c.3000-2300/2100 BP) and Metal Age periods via association of artifact assemblages; however, these associations have been made with the support of only a few absolute dates. Most of the jar burials appear to be associated with Metal Age archaeological assemblages; Neolithic jar-burials with an age similar to those at Teouma are rare in the archaeological record, except in Taiwan. Seventy-two jar burials from the Shi Chiao site (Southwest coast of Taiwan) are attributed to the Wushantou phase of the


97

Tahu culture (2800-2000 BP) (Yang 2011), and jar-burials from Niah Cave (Borneo, Sarawak) appeared c. 2900-2700 BP (Lloyd-Smith 2009, Lloyd-Smith 2013, Lloyd-Smith and Cole 2010).

A second limitation is the general lack of detailed studies of the human skeletal remains concomitant to a general lack of burial studies based on the actual skeletal material found within graves, and of precision in burial terminology definition and application. This is particularly the case when the remains contained by the vessel are interpreted as “secondary”. For instance, it is the size of the vessel at Tabon caves (Palawan, Philippines) that led Fox to infer that: “not a single jar has been found of a size which would have allowed for the primary burial of an adult” (Fox 1970: 70). At Arku (Luzon, Philippines), where the bones were generally scattered, it is the absence of articulation that oriented Thiel to the same conclusion (Thiel 1990: 237). However, dispersion of the funerary remains alone is not a definitive indicator of secondary burial as other types of disturbances might have modified the natural anatomical arrangement of the skeletons (Duday et al. 1990, Sprague 2005). Based on an anthropological definition, secondary burials at Niah (Lloyd-Smith 2009: 112-148) and Lobang Jeragan (Lloyd-Smith 2009: 259) ”suppose that first an initial primary burial, or physical transformation of the corpse (for example through the act of cremation), had taken place, after which the bones were collected before being given final (or secondary) burial” (Lloyd-Smith 2009: 248); but the anatomical composition in skeletal elements of burial assemblages at Niah, as for the other ISEA sites, has yet to be discussed in detail.

Nevertheless, our review of the attributes defining jar burials emphasizes that the

“manière” of producing jar-burials at Teouma and of placing them at the cemetery, has parallels with but does not directly correspond with any one of the ISEA examples to hand, either in Taiwan or in other archipelagos. The Taiwan examples are nevertheless all quite distinct from the practices at Teouma. In Taiwan, jar-burials of various types, placed vertically or horizontally in association with other burial features, appear to have mainly been used as containers for single primary inhumation, often of infant bodies, and were inconsistently associated with mortuary goods (Chen 2005). In other words, in Taiwan - contrary to Teouma, - jar burial use is, at least under certain circumstances, associated with initial phases of body treatment. However, singular cases of association between ceramic vessel fragments and the head at Peinan in southeastern Taiwan (Lien 1991) or with the skull at Zhang-Guang in eastern Taiwan (Yeh 2012) recall behavior at Teouma. In ISEA archipelagoes other than Taiwan, jar-burial practice does seem related, as at Teouma, to bone manipulation and the later phases of body treatment. In the Philippines and in Borneo, ceramic vessels, sometimes intentionally modified, were generally buried in an upright position, in association with other burial contexts. These vessels contained secondary deposits of human remains of single or multiple individuals, generally adult (although non-adults were also identified), frequently cremated, sometimes coated red pigment, and associated with few other items. The skeletal element representation of some Niah assemblages, comprising only infracranial remains (Lloyd-Smith 2009: appendices), resembles some of the Teouma assemblages (jar-burial B22 and B45). And again, as at Teouma, particular relationships between the skull and ceramic containers


98

existed in the Philippines (Fox 1970, Thiel 1990).

Noting “the absence of conformity in vessel use, artefacts placed, and the range of body-treatments employed” Lloyd-Smith and Cole (2010: 126) see jar-burial practice in Niah West Mouth cave as a “fluid practice” adapted to individual needs. This diversity, observed at the site scale in the case of Niah, is also in evidence at the regional scale, and involves local expressions of a more general practice. According to Lloyd-Smith (2009: 310-314), there are several jar burial traditions rather than just one expressing a single shared belief system as implied by Solheim’s (2002) and Bellwood’s models (1997). However, jar-burial is not an isolated funerary behavior. What we would emphasize here that jar-burial is but a funerary component, inscribed in a wider mortuary scheme at Teouma and in ISEA sites, and that this scheme, as demonstrated by our review, presents local variations. Finally, it could be the idea of a complex funerary scheme, including jar-burial practice, that was part of the “Austronesian and Neolithic package” (Spriggs 2011: 516) and transmitted to the people associated with the Lapita culture such as those at Teouma, rather than simply jar-burial practice on its own. Lloyd-Smith

concludes that “the one aspect of prehistoric mortuary practice across the region that best spatially correlates with the distribution of ethnographically documented Austronesian-speaking communities is the prevalence and persistence of secondary burial – in all its forms” (2013: 131). That said, however, the idea might have emerged specifically in ISEA, outside of Taiwan, where occurrences of complicated mortuary practices, including cremation and secondary deposits, have been reported for pre-Neolithic funerary contexts in such areas as Palawan, Sarawak and Java (Détroit 2006, Lara et al. 2013, Lewis et al. 2008, Lloyd-Smith 2009).

Acknowledgements We express our thanks to Peter Bellwood, Hsiao-chun Hung, Marc Oxenham and Lindsay Lloyd-Smith for the information they supplied, and Maurice Hardy and Florence Allièse for their help in producing the illustrations. We are very grateful to Scarlett Chiu and Christophe Sand for inviting us to participate in the International Conference on Cross-regional Comparison of Ancient Migration and Exchange Patterns, and to contribute a paper to this ensuing volume.


99

References citedAbe, A. 1933a. Archaeological Remains of Eastern Taiwan

(I). Taiwan Education 366:49-57. (in Japanese)—. 1933b. Archaeological Remains of Eastern Taiwan

(II). Taiwan Education 367:65-71. (in Japanese)Barker, G. Editor. 2013. Rainforest Foraging and

Farming in Island Southeast Asia: The Archaeology of the Niah Caves, Sarawak. Vol. 1. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.

Barker, G., L. Lloyd-Smith, H. Barton, F. Cole, C. Hunt, P. J. Piper, R. Rabett, V. Paz, and K. Szabó. 2011. Foraging-Farming Transitions at the Niah Caves, Sarawak, Borneo. Antiquity 85:492-509.

Bedford, S., and M. Spriggs. 2007. Birds on the Rim: A Unique Lapita Carinated Vessel in Its Wider Context. Archaeology in Oceania 42:12-21.

Bedford, S., M. Spriggs, H. Buckley, F. Valentin, and R. Regenvanu. 2009. “The Teouma Lapita Site, South Efate, Vanuatu: A Summary of Three Field Seasons (2004-2006),” in Lapita: Ancestors and Descendants, New Zealand Archaeological Association Monograph 28. Edited by P. J. Sheppard, T. Thomas, and G. R. Summerhayes, pp. 215-234. Auckland: New Zealand Archaeological Association.

Bedford, S., M. Spriggs, H. Buckley, F. Valentin, R. Regenvanu, and M. Abong. 2010. “Un cimetière de premier peuplement: le site de Teouma, au sud d’Éfaté, au Vanuatu (A Cemetery of First Settlement: the Site of Teouma, South Efate, Vanuatu),” in Lapita: Ancêtres Océaniens. Edited by C. Sand and S. Bedford, pp. 141-161. Paris: Somogy Edition D’Art and Musée du quai Branly.

Bedford, S., M. Spriggs, and R. Regenvanu. 2006. The Teouma Lapita Site and the Early Human Settlement of the Pacific Islands. Antiquity 80:812-828.

Bedford, S., M. Spriggs, R. Regenvanu, C. Macgregor, T. Kuautonga, and M. Sietz. 2007. “The Excavation, Conservation and Reconstruction of Lapita Burial Pots from the Teouma Site, Efate, Central Vanuatu,” in Oceanic Explorations: Lapita and Western Pacific Settlement, Terra Australis 26. Edited by S. Bedford, C. Sand, and S. P. Connaughton, pp. 223-240. Canberra: Australian National University.

Bellwood, P., and E. Dizon. 2014. 4000 Years of Migration and Cultural Exchange: The Archaeology of the Batanes Islands, Northern Philippines. Terra Australis 40. Canberra: ANU ePress.

Bellwood, P. S. 1997 (2007). Prehistory of the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago, Revised edition. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.

Bintarti, D. D. 2000. More on Urn Burials in Indonesia. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 19:73-76.

Chazine, J.-M. 2005. Rock Art, Burials, and Habitations: Caves in East Kalimantan. Asian Perspectives 44:219-230.

Chen, K.-T. 2011. “Jar Burial Practice in Taiwan and the South China Sea region: A comparative study.” (from unpublished symposium: Coffins, Jars and Tomb: Prehistoric Burials in East and Southeast Asia, April 2005).

Chen, Y.-P. 1991. Comparative Study of Coastal Sites between the Hua-Lien River and Shiu-Gu-Luan River, Hua-Lien County. Unpublished MA thesis, National Taiwan University. (in Chinese).

—. 2009. Final Report of Investigation and Research of Lingding and Dakeng Site, Hualien County. Department of Anthropology, National Taiwan University.

Chen, Y.-P., and H.-C. Yang. 2008. Report of the Test Excavation of the Niu-Chou-Zi Site. Department of Anthropology, National Taiwan University. (in Chinese).

Crane, H. R., and J. B. Griffin. 1959. University of Michigan Radiocarbon Dates IV. Radiocarbon 1:173-198.

Détroit, F. 2006. “Homo Sapiens in Southeast Asian Archipelagos: The Holocene Fossil Evidence with Special Reference to Funerary Practices in East Java,” in Austronesian Diaspora and the Ethnogeneses of People in Indonesian Archipelago: Proceedings of the International Symposium. Edited by T. Simanjuntak, I. H. E. Pojoh, and M. Hisyam, pp. 186-204. Jakarta: LIPI Press.

de Beauclair, I. 1972. Jar Burial on Botel Tobago Island. Asian Perspectives 15:167-176.

Duday, H. 1990. Observations ostéologiques et décomposition du cadavre : sépulture colmatée ou en espace vide. Revue archéologique du Centre de la France 29:193-196.

—. 2009. The Archaeology of the Dead: Lectures in Archaeothanatology. Studies in Funerary Archaeology 3. Oakville: David Brown Book Co.

Duday, H., P. Courtaud, E. Crubezy, P. Sellier, and A.-M. Tillier. 1990. L’Anthropologie “de terrain”: Reconnaissance et interprétation des gestes funéraires. Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d’anthropologie de Paris 2:29-49.


100

Fox, R. B. 1970. The Tabon Caves: Archaeological Explorations and Excavations on Palawan Island, Philippines. National Museum Monograph 1. Manila: National Museum.

—. 1977. “Manunggul Cave,” in Filipino Heritage: The Making of a Nation, vol. 1: The Stone Age in the Philippines. The Search for Early Man. Edited by A. R. Roces, pp. 169-173. Manila: Lahing Pilipino Pub.

Fox, R. B., and A. Evangelista. 1957a. The Bato Caves, Sorsogon Province, Philippines. Journal of East Asiatic Studies 6:49-55.

—. 1957b. The Cave Archaeology of Cagraray Island, Albay Province, Philippines. Journal of East Asiatic Studies 6:56-68.

Galipaud, J.-C., A. Noury, and L. Illouz. 2010. Le site archéologique de Pain Haka, District de Florès Timur, province de Nusa Tangara Timur, Indonésie. Rapport d’évaluation du potentiel archéologique. Paris: IRD.

Harrisson, B. 1967. A Classification of Stone Age Burials from Niah Great Cave, Sarawak. Sarawak Museum Journal 15 (30-31 New series):126-200.

Hertz, R. 1907. Contribution à une étude sur la représentation collective de la mort. L’Année sociologique (1905-1906) 10:48-137.

Huang, S.-G. 1984. Excavation Report of the Zhi-Shan-Yan Site, Taiwan. Taipei: Taipei City Council of Cultural Affairs (in Chinese).

Hung, H.-C., K. D. Nguyen, P. Bellwood, and M. T. Carson. 2013. Coastal Connectivity: Long-Term Trading Networks Across the South China Sea. The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 8:384-404.

Kano, T. 1941. Burial-Jar Found in the Island of Botel Tobago, with Notes on the Jar-burying Custom of Southeastern Asia. Journal of the Anthropological Society of Nippon 56:117-135. (in Japanese).

Kuo, S.-C. 2008. “The Cultural Content of the M1 Jar Burial (P21-II-1 L3s) from the Xi-Liao Site,” in 2nd year Report on the Salvage Archaeology of the Xi-Liao Site. Edited by Y.-C. Liu, K.-T. Chen, and Y.-S. Liu. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica. (in Chinese)

Lara, M., V. Paz, H. Lewis, and W. Solheim. 2013. Bone Modifications in an Early Holocene Cremation Burial from Palawan, Philippines. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology: doi: 10.1002/oa.2326.

Lee, K.-S. 1999. Excavation of Wu-Shan-Tou Site within the Administration Territory of the 2nd National Highway. Taipei: National Museum of Prehistory Planning Bureau. (in Chinese).

Lee, K.-S., and M.-C. Yeh. 2001. Prehistory of Tai-Tung County. Taitung : Taitung Government. (in Chinese).

Lemonnier, P. 2004. Mythiques chaînes opératoires. Techniques & Culture 43-44:25-43.

Lewis, H., V. Paz, M. Lara, H. Barton, P. Piper, J. Ochoa, T. Vitales, A. J. Carlos, T. Higham, L. Neri, V. Hernandez, J. Stevenson, E. C. Robles, A. Ragragio, R. Padilla, W. Solheim II, and W. Ronquillo. 2008. Terminal Pleistocene to Mid-Holocene Occupation and an Early Cremation Burial at Ille Cave, Palawan, Philippines. Antiquity 82:318-335.

Li, K.-T. 2004. Report of Salvage Archaeology on the Construction Impact Area of San-She and She-Nei Sites. Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica. (in Chinese).

Lien, C.-M. 1991. The Neolithic Archaeology of Taiwan and the Peinan Excavations. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association (BIPPA) 11:339-352.

Lien, C.-M. 1980. The 1st Excavation of the Zhi-Shan-Yan Site. Human and Culture 14:72-74. (in Chinese).

Liong, L. G. 1965. Palaeoanthropological Results of the Excavation at the Coast of Lewoleba (Isle of Lomblen). Anthropos 60:609-624.

Liu, Y.-C. 1996. “Report on Field Survey and Excavation,” in The 2nd Training Program for Archaeological Participants in Taiwan Area. Taipei: Council for Cultural Affairs. (in Chinese).

—. 2003. “Chronology of Taiwan Jade Artifacts and Its Associated Questions,” in Prehistory and Classical Civilization. Edited by C.-H. Tsang, pp. 1-44. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academics Sinica. (in Chinese).

Liu, Y.-C., and S.-J. Qiu. 2000. Preliminary Report on the Project of Salvaged Data Processing from Wanshan Site. Yilanxian Minzhenju. (in Chinese).

Lloyd-Smith, L. 2009. Chronologies of the Dead: Later Prehistoric Burial Practice in Niah Cave, Sarawak. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Cambridge.

—. 2013. The West Mouth Neolithic Cemetery, Niah Cave, Sarawak. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 79:105-136.

Lloyd-Smith, L., and F. L. Cole. 2010. “The Jar-Burial Tradition in the West Mouth of Niah Cave, Sarawak: Burial Histories, Social Identities, and the Changing Perceptions of Pottery and Death,” in 50 Years of Archaeology in Southeast Asia: Essays in Honour of Ian Glover. Edited by B. Bellina, E. A. Bacus, T. O. Pryce, and J. W. Christie, pp. 114-127. Bangkok: River Books.


101

Anonymous. after 2000. Archaeological Preservation Project of the STSP.

Parker Pearson, M. 1999. The Archaeology of Death and Burial. Stroud: Sutton.

Pyatt, F. B., G. W. Barker, R. J. Rabett, K. Szabó, and B. Wilson. 2010. Analytical Examination of Animal Remains from Borneo: The Painting of Bone and Shell. Journal of Archaeological Science 37:2102-2105.

Scott, R. M., H. R. Buckley, M. Spriggs, F. Valentin, and S. Bedford. 2010. Identification of the First Reported Lapita Cremation in the Pacific Islands Using Archaeological, Forensic and Contemporary Burning Evidence. Journal of Archaeological Science 37:901-909.

Soeroso, M. 1997. Recent Discoveries of Jar Burial Sites in South Sumatra. Bulletin de l’Ecole française d’Extrême-Orient 84:418-422.

Solheim II, W. G. 1951. Preliminary Report on Archaeological Fieldwork in San Narciso, Tayabas, P. I. University of Manila Journal of East Asiatic Studies 1:70-76.

—. 1961. Jar Burial in the Babuyan and Batanes Islands and in Central Philippines, and Its Relationship to Jar Burial Elsewhere in the Far East. Philippine Journal of Science 89:115-148.

—. 2002. The Archaeology of Central Philippines: A Study Chiefly of the Iron Age and Its Relationships, 2nd revised edition. Manila: University of the Philippines-Diliman, Archaeological Studies Program.

Sprague, R. 2005. Burial Terminology: A Guide for Researchers. Lanham: AltaMira Press.

Spriggs, M. 2011. Archaeology and the Austronesian Expansion: Where Are We Now? Antiquity 85:510-528.

Stamps, R. B. 1979. Jar Burial from the Lobusbussan Site in Orchid (Botel Tobago) Island. In Oakland University Working Papers in Archaeology.

Stuiver, M., and H. A. Polach. 1977. Discussion: Reporting of 14C Data. Radiocarbon 19:355-363.

Tenazas, R. C. P. 1974. A Progress Report on the Magsuhot Excavations in Bacong, Negros Oriental, Summer 1974. Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society 2:133-155.

Thiel, B. 1990. Excavations at Arku Cave, Northern Luzon, Philippines. Asian Perspectives 27:229-262.

Tillotson, D. 1989. Mortuary Patterning and the Evolution of the Rice Ancestors. Bulletin of Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 9:1-14.

Tsang, C.-H., K.-T. Li, and C.-Y. Chu. 2004. Report on the Salvage Project on the Non-revered Area of Dao-Ye Site, STSP. Institute of History & Philology, Academia Sinica. (in Chinese)

—. 2006. Footprints of Ancestors: Monograph on the Archaeological Discovery in the STSP. Tainan County Government. (in Chinese)

Tsang, C.-H., K.-T. Li, D.-J. Lee, and C.-Y. Chu. 2007. Report of the Follow-Up Project after the Salvage and Monitor Works on Archaeological Site in the STSP. National Museum of Prehistory. (in Chinese).

Ubelaker, D. H. 1989. Human Skeletal Remains: Excavation, Analysis, Interpretation, 2nd edition. Manuals on Archaeology 2. Washington, D.C.: Taraxacum.

Valentin, F., S. Bedford, H. R. Buckley, and M. Spriggs. 2010. Lapita Burial Practices: Evidence for Complex Body and Bone Treatment at the Teouma Cemetery, Vanuatu, Southwest Pacific. The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 5:212-235.

Valentin, F., M. Spriggs, S. Bedford, and H. Buckley. 2009. Une analyse diachronique des pratiques funéraires préhistoriques du centre du Vanuatu. Journal de la Société des Océanistes 128:39-52.

Valentin, F., M. Spriggs, S. Bedford, and H. Buckley. 2011. Vanuatu Mortuary Practices over Three Millennia: Lapita to the Early European Contact Period. Journal of Pacific Archaeology 2:49-65.

Van Heekeren, H. R. 1992. Urn Cemetery at Melolo, East Sumba (Indonesia). Berita Dinas Purbakala (Bulletin of the Archaeological Service of the Republic of Indonesia) 3. Djakarta: Dina Parbakala, 2-24.

—. 1958. The Bronze-Iron Age of Indonesia. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

Yang, H.-C. 2011. Jar-Burial of Neolithic Taiwan: A Case Study at ShiChiao in Tainan City. Unpublished MA thesis, National Taiwan University. (in Chinese).

Yeh, M.-C. 2001. The Study of the Hua-Kan-Shan Culture. National Museum of Prehistory. (in Chinese)

—. 2004a. Excavation Report of Cheng-Zi-Pu Site, Taitung County. Taitung Documents (resume publication) 9: 62-85. (in Chinese).

—. 2004b. Excavation Report of Cheng-Zi-Pu Site, Taitung County (Continue). Taitung Documents (resume publication) 10:57-90. (in Chinese).

—. 2012. Ancient Worship on the Dune－Presentation and Discussion on the Cemetery Structure Excavated at the Chang-Guang Site and Cheng-Zi-Pu Site. Journal of Austronesian Studies 3:1-43.


Three-thousand-year-old jar burials at the Teouma Cemetery (Vanuatu): A Southeast Asian - lapita...

Documents

Transcript of Three-thousand-year-old jar burials at the Teouma Cemetery (Vanuatu): A Southeast Asian - lapita...