Prehistoric fishing at Bukit Tengkorak, East Coast of Borneo Island

Transcription

NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
This document is made available by The New Zealand Archaeological Association under the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial‐ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by‐nc‐sa/3.0/. Prehistoric Fishing at Bukit Tengkorak,
East Coast of Borneo Island
Rintaro Ono 1
ABSTRACT
Fish bones excavated from a Neolithic site, Bukit Tengkorak. on the east coast of
Borneo Island were analysed. Twenty-eight taxa of marine fish were identified,
including Elasmobranchii and the families Scaridae, Labridae, Lethrinidae, Serraoidae,
Lutjanidae, Balistidae, Sigaoidae, Haemulidae and Diodontidae, with only a few
occurrences of pelagic fish such as Scombridae, Caraogidae and Sphyraenidae.
Observations of local Bajau fishing activities near the site revealed that most were
carried out inside the coral reef, and that the major fishing methods were netting and
line fishing. Ethnographic information on traditional Bajau fishing patterns indicates
the same tendency. These results suggest the importance of netting and line fishing
and the lesser importance of pelagic trolling in the subsistence of the prehistoric Bukit
Tengkorak people io Neolithic limes.
Keywords: BORNEO ISLAND, BUKIT TENGKORAK, FISH BONE ANALYSIS,
PREHISTORIC FISHING STRATEGIES.
INTRODUCTION
Fishing was an important aspect of subsistence in many communities in the Pacific and
Island Southeast Asia. However, archaeological analysis of fish remains in Island Southeast
Asia bas been very limited compared with the Pacific region. This paper presents the results
of the analysis of a substantial collection of fish bones from Bukit Tengkorak, a Neolithic
site in Sempoma district, east coast of Borneo Island, and compares them with modem fish
specimens collected near the site. The traditional use of marine resources by Bajau people
who live in the Semporna region was also studied as a basis for interpreting the prehistoric
fishing done by the Neolithic people who lived in the same area. The study focuses on the
major fish caught, the variety of fish used in subsistence, and the catching technology.
Cultural continuity and changes in fishing in east Borneo since Neolithic times are discussed
from these points of view. As part of my study, about 200 specimens of modem fish were
collected to permit identification of the archaeological bones. This was especially important
as adequate reference material is lacking from Island Southeast Asia.
BUKIT TENGKORAK ROCK SHELTER
The Bukit Tengkorak site is a complex of rock shelters at the south-eastern end of
Sempoma Peninsula on the east coast of Sabah, Borneo Island (Fig. l) . The site is located
at the summit of a low coastal bill at around 150 m above sea level. Archaeological
1
National Museum of Ethnology, Senro Expo Park, Suit.a, Osaka 565-85 l l , Japan. Email:
[email protected]
New aaland Journal of Archaeology, 2004, Vol. 24 (2002), pp. 77-106.
78
investigations were carried out by Sabah Museum under the direction of Peter Bellwood in
1987 (Bellwood 1989, 1997) and by a joint team from University Sains Malaysia and Sabab
Museum in 1994 and 1995 (Chia 1997, 2001), and 2001 (Ono 200la). The total area
excavated was 10.5 m2• Seven trenches of 1 x 1 m and one of 0.5 x 0.5 m were excavated
in the southern side of the rock shelter complex in 1987, 1994 and 1995, and three trenches
of 1 x 1 m in the northern side in 2001 (Fig. 2).
Both areas were excavated through 30 spits to a depth of almost 150 cm (1 spit= 5 cm).
In both parts of the rock shelter complex, seven to eight stratigraphic layers were
recognised. In the southern part, Layers 1 and 2 are the disturbed top layers. Layers 3 to 6
are composed of blackish to brownish organic soil. Layers 7 and 8. composed of ashy or
brownish soil, possibly belong to the Neolithic age on the basis of their radiocarbon dates
and excavated artefacts (Chia 1997). In the northern part, Layer 1 is the disturbed topsoil
(sandy: lOYR 4 .0/2.0). Layers 2 to 6, composed of blackish to brownish organic soil (lOYR
2.0/1.0 to 7.5YR 3.0/ 2.0), are late to early Neolithic layers. Layers 7 and 8, the lowest light
to dark reddish clay layers (2.5YR 3.0/3.0 to 5.0YR 4.0/5.0), produced no artefacts except
some chert tools and chips, and certainly do not belong to the Neolithic age (Ono 200la).
These excavations unearthed a quantity of potsherds and stone tools, including obsidian
tools, and abundant fauna! remains, especially fish bones and marine shells. Most of the
radiocarbon dates obtained during the research clustered around 1400 to 500 BC (Table 1)2 .
~··
Semporna P e ninsula
South China Se:i
:· :: ·.·.·..
.... \ :
.,
Figure 1: Location of the study area and the Bukit Tengkorak site.
2
As Table 1 shows, most of the radiocarbon dates from the middle to lower layers in both
southern and northern shelters at Bukit Tengkorak ranged from about 800 to 1400 BC,
except for one date of about 4000 BC from Layer 8 in Trench G 17 in the southern rock
shelter complex.
79
Ono: Prehistoric fishing at Bukit Tengkorak
o.
Weatcrn OoWdt1r
"
1 ..
._._
Figure 2: Location of excavation trenches on the summit of Bukit Tengkorak.
The analysis of excavated obsidian tools and chips by Bellwood (Bellwood and Koon 1989)
and also by Chia (1997, 2001) revealed that some of them originated in Talasea in New
Britain, which is about 5,000 km away from Bukit Tengkorak. This suggests that the site
may have bad an important relationship with the Lapila cultural complex in Melanesia3.
3
In Chia's study, 30 of the 552 excavated obsidian pieces were analysed by Cameca MBX
electron microprobe. The analysis was conducted by Robert Tykot and revealed four
different and distinct compositional groups of obsidian in Bukit Tengkorak. The largest
compositional group, which came mainly from middle LO upper layers, matches very well
with the Kutau/Bao obsidian source in Talasea, while another group, which mainly came
from the lower layer, matches obsidian from Talaud Island, Indonesia. for which no
geological source bas yet been determined. The other two groups (only one piece in each)
did not match up with any of 66 known obsidian sources in the Pacific and South East
Asian regions (Chia 1997). During 1994 to 1995, a search for a local source of obsidian
80
TABLE 1
RADIOCARBON DATES FROM BUKIT TENGKORAK
Lab Number
ANU 5773
ANU 5772
BETA 74447
ANU 5771
ANU 6544
ANU 5770
ANU 5768
ANU 5769
BETA 156152
BETA 74448
BETA 156147
BETA 156152
BETA 83783
BETA 83784
BETA 156148
BETA 83705
Date (BP)
145.2±2.5
138.4±4.8
101.0±0.6
1050±500
2870±80
2330±170
2320±250
2700±110
2890±70
3190±60
2780±40
2860±40
2940±50
2650±90
3040±40
5330±80
Trench/depth
Material
Cal age
032/0-5 cm
charcoal
charcoal
032/45-50 cm
charcoal
017/15-20 cm
charcoal AD 530-1400 032140-45 cm
shell
550-400 BC
0321surface
charcoal
764-199 BC 032/30-35 cm
charcoal
800-100 BC 033n0-75 cm
charcoal 1000-800 BC
03210-5 cm
shell 1380-990 BC
Cl/20-25 cm
shell 1190-860 BC Gl 7/50-55 cm
charcoal
940-810 BC
F3n0-75 cm
charcoal 1060-880 BC
03/65-70 cm
charcoal 1285- 990 BC Gl7n0-75 cm
charcoal
980-745 BC Gl7/95-100 cm
charcoal 1360-1360 BC F3/100-105 cm
charcoal 4340-3975 BC Gl 7/125-130cm
Reference
Bellwood 1988
Bellwood 1988
Chia 1997
Bell wood 1988
Bellwood 1988
Bellwood 1988
Bellwood 1988
Bellwood 1988
Ono 200la
Chia 1997
Ono 200la
Ono 200la
Chia 1997
Chia 1997
Ono 200la
Chia 1997
The material excavated from the southern rock shelter complex in 1987, 1994 and 1995 was
sieved through 5 nun mesh. Smaller meshes were tried on the material excavated in 2001
but were not effective, because of the wetness and stickiness of the excavated soil.
Consequently, only 5 mm mesh was used, the same as in the earlier research, because no
water source was available for wet sieving at the sununit of the hill.4
Not all the faunal materials from the 1987 excavation have yet been identified5. Shells,
mammal and reptile bones recovered from the southern rock shelter complex in 1994 and
1995 were counted and identified by Chia and Davison (Chia 1997). However, most of the
fish remains were not identified in detail because of the complete lack of comparative
modern fish bone specimens in Malaysia at the time of the analysis. Of the faunal material,
including shells, recovered from the northern rock shelter in 2001, only the fish remains are
presented in this paper.
Unfortunately, only a few artefacts identified as possible fishing tools were recovered in
1987. Three pieces of worked shell were tentatively identified as parts of fishhooks and one
as part of a trolling lure shank by Bellwood (Bellwood 1989). However, these artefacts were
around Bukit Tengkorak was conducted, but no source was found.
4
For further analysis, 100 g of U1e excavated soil was collected from each spit of three
trenches for water sieving through l.O mm mesh at the laboratory. All samples have been
sieved but identification of sieved fish remains bas not yet been completed. Here, I mention
only U1e average number of identifiable fish bones in each spit of Trench D3, which was
about 50.
s On the basis of the radiocarbon dates obtained (Bellwood 1989) and Cbia's survey, it was
suggested that the area excavated in 1987 was possibly disturbed and might not have yielded
an accurate sequence (Chia 1997). For these reasons, I did not include the fish remains
excavated in 1987 in my analysis.
81
not complete and could not be confirmed as fishing tools. No artefacts related to fishing
were excavated in 1994, 1995 and 2001. This situation might be due to the location of the
site, which is on the summit of the bill. The manufacturing site might be somewhere on the
coast or at the foot of the hill, although no archaeological sites have been found or
excavated in the low land area around Bukit Tengkorak so far.
METHOD OF ANALYSIS OF FISH REMAINS
At the beginning of this study, about 200 specimens (38 families/90 species) of modern fish
were collected for use in identification (Table 2). Most were collected in Semporna where
the site is located, although some were collected in other towns in Sabah. They were
identified by the author and staff of Sabal1 Museum during the survey using reference books
(Masuda and Allen 1991; Okamura and Amaoka 1997; Allen 1998). Nomenclature and
taxonomy follow Allen (1998).
Cranial elements, special elements, vertebrae and teeth were used for identification in the
first stage of the analysis. The cranial elements were maxilla, premaxilla, dentary, articular,
quadrate, pharyngeal clusters, opercular, preopercular, byomandibular, palatine, cleithrum,
post-temporal, scapula, and supracleithrum; special elements included the first spine of
trigger fishes (Balistidae) and spines of porcupine fishes (Diodontidae). The use of gill
elements such as cleithrum, post-temporal, scapula and supracleithrum was more limited
than the use of mouthparts such as maxilla, premaxilla, dentary and articular6 . In this first
stage of the analysis, vertebrae were used only to distinguish bony fish (Teleostomi) and
cartilaginous fish (Elasmobranchii). Teeth were used to identify trigger fishes and distinguish
cartilaginous fish from bony fish.
In the second stage of the analysis, identification by vertebrae was carried out on some
fish remains. Thoracic, precaudal, caudal and ultimate vertebrae were used. The aims of this
second stage of analysis were (l) to determine bow many taxa could be added by using
vertebrae for identification; (2) to ascertain how much the total NISP and MNI were
increased as the result of analysis of vertebrae; and (3) to judge the effectiveness of using
vertebrae for identification.
For the purpose of analysis, an assemblage was defined as the contents of any single
excavation trench. Thus all bones from one excavation trench and one excavation level
(layer/spit) were designated as an assemblage. Following the method of Leach (1986), each
assemblage was sorted into identifiable and not identifiable piles, and all materials were rebagged, then identifiable fragments were sorted anatomically and re-bagged again. Taking
each part of the anatomy in tum, bones were sorted into species, genera, and families. and
identified with reference to the comparative collections. The Minimum Number of
Individuals (MNI) and also Number of Identified Specimens (NISP) are calculated with
reference to this assemblage unit. The calculation of MN1 basically follows the general
technique of Chaplin (1971), although size mismatches were also take n into account when
counting major cranial elements such as premaxilla, dentary, maxilla, articular, quadrate and
pharyngeal clusters.
6
For example, the cleitbrum could be used only for the identification of Siganidae spp., and
the scapula was used only for double head parrotfish (Bolbometopon spp.), because of their
diagnostic characteristics in these families and the fragility of these elements.
82
TABLE 2
THE MODERN COMPARATIVE FISH COLLECTION
?
=name not yet collected
Family
Belonidae
Haemulidae
Hemiramphidae
Serranidae
Carangidae
Lutjanidae
Lethrinidae
Mullidae
Scaridae
Labridae
Ephippidae
Siganidae
Acantburidae
Sphyraenidae
Scombridae
Balistidae
Ostraciidae
Tetraodontidae
Diodontidae
Nemipteridae
Muraenidae
Menidae
Caesionidae
Elopidae
Sparidae
Holocentridae
Mugilidae
Platycephalidae
Plotosidae
Kyphosidae
Ariidae
Pomacanthidae
Psettodidae
Malacanthidae
Dasyatididae
Myliobatidae
Carcharhinidae
TOTAL
Local name
selo
kaci
togen
kerapu
ikan putih
ikan merah
ketambak
tin bu nan
ogos/batu
bukan
bunaq
bawis
kumay
Iengo
ikan kayu
tombat
buntal
buntal
buntal duri
kerisi
tago
salap selap
sulig
?
?
ketong
brenang
?
batik
ilap
barukang
?
?
?
pahi
pahi manok
kalitan
No. of species
2
Total Specimens
2
4
1
7
3
15
9
5
14
4
3
5
7
2
3
4
2
4
3
1
l
l
2
1
1
1
2
1
l
9
21
10
4
11
10
3
5
4
2
10
4
1
l
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
2
l
1
2
2
90
l
2
2
1
2
l
1
1
158
83
In searching for any changes through time and space, it is us ually found desirable to
combine the basic results into totals by family, rather than at the taxonomic levels identified
and recorded (Leach 1986). In this report, tables present infonnation only at family level.
RESULTS OF THE FIRST STAGE OF ANALYSIS
In both the southern and northern parts of the rock shelter complex, 25 of the 30 excavated
spits contained fish bones. Fish remains from three of the nine trenches have been identified
and are presented here. The nwnber of faunal remains from other trenches is smaller7 .
These three trenches were Trench J 19 and G 17 in Ule sou them rock shelter complex and
Trench 03 in the northern rock shelter. Identification was carried o ut by spit level at first
and combined into layers for the purpose of identifying significant changes though time. No
fish bones were recovered from Layers 7 and 8 in either the southern or northern rock
shelters, and the analysis is therefore confined to Layers l to 6 for all three trenches.
A total of 22,071 pieces of fish bone were counted from these three trenches. Identified
bones numbered 4,086 and recognisable elements numbered 11 ,180. This means that about
19% of the total bones were identified and 50% of them were recognisable as elements. The
other 50% were mostly very small fragments, which cannot so far be identified or
recognised. Table 3 shows the numbers of each anatomical part identified in each trench.
The major anatomical elements apart from vertebrae were (1) premaxilla, (2) dentary, (3)
quadrate, (4) maxilla, (5) articular and (6) pharyngeal clustef!.
Twenty taxa were identified during the first stage of the analysis (Fig. 3). Parrotfish are
the most abundant, followed by wrasses, groupers and emperors (by MNI). The numbers
of identified bones of pelagic fish such as barracudas and jacks were very small, and no
tunas were identified.
Tables 4 to 6 show the MNI and NISP of each family in each of the six occupatio n layers
in each trench. There are significant differences in temporal variation and distributio n
between Trench 03 in the northern rock shelter and Trenches J19 and Gl7 in the southern
rock shelter complex. The major difference is in the amount of fish remains in the upper
layer and the middle to lower layers at each rock shelter. In Trench 03, a very small
number was recovered from the upper layer and tl1e nwnber was larger in the middle to
lower layers (Fig. 4 top). However, the tendency in Trenches J 19 and G 17 was the exact
opposite. The largest numbers of fish remains were produced from the upper layers and
fewer from the lower layers (Fig. 4 middle).
7
Three trenches in the southern rock shelter complex produced no fish remains (Chia 1997),
and trench C 1 in the northern rock shelter produced fewer than 20 pieces of fish bone. One
trench in the southern rock shelter complex produced about 600 pieces of fish bone and one
in the northern rock shelter 250. However, these numbers are still much smaller than those
from the three trenches selected for analysis and reported in this paper.
8
However, if the vertebra is included as an identifiable anatomical element, it is the most
abundant.
84
As mentioned before, lhe upper layers, especially layers 1 and 2, were disturbed. This
means lhat about 30% of fish remains from Trench 119 and Gl7 came from the disturbed
layer, although the olher 70% were from Layers 2 and 3, which were estimated to date
around 1000 BC. The exact date of the disturbed layers bas not yet been ascertained,
although according to the sequence in Trench 03, they might have been deposited around
500-1000 BC, in Neolithic times. In contrast to lhe sequences in Trenches 119 and Gl7, the
numbers of fish remains in Trench 03 increased abruptly from Layer 3 to Layer 5, all of
which are estimated to belong Neolithic times around 800-1400 BC9 .
TABLE 3
NUMBER OF IDENTIFIED MAJOR ELEMENTS IN BUKIT TENGKORAK
(L)=lower, (U)=upper, (b)=bony fish, (e)=elasmobrancb.ii
Element
Premaxillary
Dentary
Maxillary
Pharyngeal (L)
Articular
Quadrate
Cleilhrum
Preopercular
Hyomandibular
Pharyngeal (U)
Supracleithrum
Palatine
Opercular
Post-temporal
Scapula
Sub-total
Vertebra (b)
Vertebra (e)
Caudal vertebra
Vertebra total
9
Trench J19
199 (1)
179 (2)
98 (3)
98 (3)
64 (6)
55 (7)
54 (8)
39 (10)
53 (9)
84 (5)
18 (11)
17 (12)
II (I4)
I3 (13)
8 (15)
Trench G17
272 (1)
180 (2)
89 (4)
114 (3)
66 (6)
so (8)
30 (9)
60 (7)
28 (10)
73 (5)
9 (13)
22 (II)
9 (13)
20 (12)
5 (15)
Trench 03
304 (2)
341 (1)
196 (3)
157 (9)
192 (4)
18 l (6)
186 (5)
173 (7)
160 (8)
72 (13)
97 (ll)
83 (12)
99 (10)
58 (14)
40 (15)
total
775
700
383
369
322
286
270
242
241
229
I24
I22
119
9I
53
846
1027
2339
4212
624
45
65
I028
80
66
I6l l
100
214
3263
225
345
734
1174
1925
3833
The radiocarbon date obtained from Layer4 was 880-1060 BC and that from Layer 5 was
1360 BC; no radiocarbon date has yet been obtained from Layer 3 (see Table l).
85
450
360
270
180
90
0
en
"tl
z :::
;;l "tl
::::
::::
~ [tTl rc oc;· o::i :i::
0
... 0
c
c
c "O
::::."@ ;;.
~ <> [ -g
...
3
"
3
...
:J.
... t:l ~ ~· 0.: '<t:l 8.~ '<..,a
2 . "'
a. 3c 0
0.
...<> ...0. 0.2. ::l.20.. 30 2.0. ...0.
...
0.
£ "2 . ...0. <> ... <> 0 "O<>
t:: ::!.
:J.
" ... ... t:l ... " "... ... 0:
"
"
...
c: a0.: ...::::.~ ~ " ... " "
<>
...
" "..,::::.<>
<>
...
...<> ...0.
t::
en
r
::l.
0.
:J.
£
(I)
(I)
~
(I)
'-•
<J
0
0
00
Q.
~
>
2:
0.
~
Q.
0
Q.
t::
Q.
0
Figure 3: Relative abundance of fish taxa at Bukit Tengkorak (MNI
0
= 1800).
Lastly, Figure 4 (bottom) shows the temporal distribution of the major fish families in the
whole of the Bukit Tengkorak site. The numbers of each taxon tend to be larger in Layers
2 to 5, especially Layers 2 and 3, while the numbers in Layers l and 6 are generally small.
This suggests that all the major fish could be caught from early to late Neolithic by the
people in Bukit Tengkorak, but the intensity of fishing activity was greater during the
middle Neolithic time, dated around 1000-800 BC.
00
OI
TABLE 4
MNI (NISP) OF FISH FAMIUES IN TRENCH Jl9
Family
Scaridae
Labridae
Serranidae
Lethrinidae
Lutjanidae
Balistidae
Haemulidae
Diodontidae
Sparidae
Pomacanthidae
Siganidae
Muraenidae
Nemipteridae
sub-total
Mullidae
Platycephalidae
sub-total
Ariidae
Mugilidae
Carangidae
Elasmobranchii
sub-total
Total
Habitat
reef, rock
reef botlOm
reef, sand bottom
reef, reef edge
reef, reef edge
shallow to 40 m
reef, reef edge
shallow to 50 m
shallow to 30 m
reef, reef edge
reef, rock
shallow to 50 m
reef bottom
Layer 1
15(29)
6(9)
3(4)
2(3)
1(3)
4(9)
0(0)
1(1)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
Layer 2
34(133)
29(70)
18(107)
19(65)
12(35)
8(22)
5(15)
2(6)
3(4)
2(3)
2(6)
1(2)
1( 1)
Layer 3
27(76)
24(38)
13(18)
11(13)
12( 14)
5(10)
7(4)
4(7)
6(11)
2(2)
0(0)
1(2)
0(0)
Layer 4
24(53)
21(32)
15(31)
10(19)
3(3)
3(7)
5(12)
3(13)
1(1 )
1(1)
I (I)
0(0)
0(0)
Layer 5
7(11)
1(1)
6(18)
6(6)
1(1)
2(2)
0(0)
3(4)
0(0)
2(2)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
Layer 6
4(6)
2(2)
3(8)
2(2)
2(2)
1(1)
1(1)
2(2)
1(1)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
-
32(58)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
4(4)
135(468)
1(1)
1(1)
2(2)
2(2)
0(0)
2(2)
15(15)
19(19)
112(189)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
1(I)
0(0)
7(12)
8(13)
87(173)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
9(9)
9(9)
28(45)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
1(1 )
1(1)
18(25)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
1(1)
1(1)
36(62)
156(485)
120(197)
96(182)
29(46)
19(26)
sand bottom
sand bouom
reef-estuarine
inner bay
coastal sea
coastal sea
-
.
4(4)
Total
111 (308)
83( 152)
58(186)
50(108)
31(52)
23(5 1)
18(32)
15(33)
11(17)
7(8)
3(7)
2(4)
1(1 )
41 3(959)
1(1)
1(1)
2(2)
2(2)
1(1)
2(2)
37(42)
42(47)
457(1006)
%
24.2(30.7)
18.1(15.1)
12.6(18.5)
10.9(10.7)
6.7(5.1)
5.0(5.0)
3.9(3.2)
3.2(3.2)
2.4(1.7)
1.5(0.8)
0.6(0.7)
0.4(0.4)
0.2(0.l )
90.3(95.6)
0.2(0.l)
0.2(0.l)
0.4(0.2)
0.4(0.2)
0.2(0.l)
0.4(0.2)
8.0(3.7)
9.1(4.2)
100
z
l!1
~
~
>
z
0
~
0
c::
~
>
t""
0
""
>
:ii::!
(')
~
l!1
0
t""
0
~
o<
TABLES
MNI (NISP) OF ASH FAMILIES IN TRENCH G 17
Layer 2
Layer 3
Layer 4
27(63)
12(33)
5(14)
9(15)
5(10)
4(6)
4(8)
1(3)
1(3)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
50(128)
31(83)
20(53)
18(56)
16(31)
13(20)
4(21 )
5(9)
5(5)
0(0)
1(1 )
8(1 1)
12(14)
9(18)
2(2)
4(4)
2(2)
1(1)
1(1)
1(1)
2(2)
0(0)
0(0)
3(4)
1(1)
2(2)
2(2)
0(0)
0(0)
1(1 )
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
135(311)
79( 155)
181(410)
42(56)
0(0)
2(2)
1(1)
34(37)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
10( 12)
2(2)
0(0)
0(0)
30(33)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
7(7)
Family
Habitat
Scariclae
Labriclae
Serraniclae
Lethriniclae
Lutjaniclae
Balisticlae
Diodonticlae
Haemuliclae
Pomacanthiclae
Sparidae
Tetraodonticlae
Nemiptericlae
sub-total
46(123)
reef, rock
24(42)
reef bottom
reef, sand bottom 14(39)
15(29)
reef, reef edge
6(12)
reef, reef edge
10(26)
shallow to 40 m
6(18)
shallow to 50 m
6(11)
reef, reef edge
reef, reef edge
3(4)
3(5)
shallow to 30 m
2(2)
reef, rock
reef bottom
0(0)
-
Ariidae
reef-estuarine
Mugiliclae
inner bay
Carangiclae
coastal sea
Elasmobranchii coastal sea
sub-total
Total
-
Layer I
3(3)
Layer 5
0;:s
Layer 6
3(5)
Total
%
5(7)
1(1 )
0(0)
0(0)
1(1)
0(0)
3(3)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
137(334)
81(174)
55(133)
47(105)
31(57)
29(54)
17(50)
13(24)
13(16)
8(10)
2(2)
1(1)
25.0(31.9)
14.8(16.4)
10.0(12.5)
8.5(9.9)
5.6(5.4)
5.3(5.3)
3.1(4.7)
2.3(2.2)
2.3(1.5)
1.4(0.9)
0.3(0.2)
0.2(0.l)
9(10)
14(17)
460(960)
84.0(91.0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
I (1)
0(0)
0(0)
2(2)
3(3)
1(1)
81(89)
0.3(0.2)
0.5(0.3)
0.2(0.1)
14.8(8.5)
l(l)
37(40)
10(12)
32(35)
7(7)
0(0)
1(1)
87(95)
15.8(9.0)
144(351)
89(167)
213(445)
49(63)
9(10)
15(18)
547(1045)
100
5::
...,
""='
"";::,-.
t;·
<S
...,
;::;·
~
""
i:.
;:s
OQ
--·
s:::.
b:l
::::
"""
~
;:::i
OQ
~
~
"""
00
-..J
00
00
TABLE 6
MNl (NISP) OF FISH FAMILIES IN TRENCH 03
Family
Scaridae
Serranidae
Letbrinidae
Lutjanidae
Labridae
Siganidae
Balistidae
Haemulidae
Diodontidae
Sparidae
Pomacanthidae
Nemipteridae
Muraenidae
Tetraodontidae
Habitat
reef, rock
reef, sand bottom
reef, reef edge
reef, reef edge
reef bollOm
reef, rock
shallow to 40 m
reef, reef edge
shallow to 50 m
shallow to 30 m
reef, reef edge
reef botlOm
shallow lo 50 m
reef, rock
sub-total
-
Mullidae
sand bottom
Platycepbalidae sand bottom
sub-total
-
reef-estuarine
Ariidae
Mugilidae
inner bay
Elasmobrancbii coastal sea
sub-total
-
Spbyraenidae
outer reef
sub-total
Total
-
.
Layer I
3(4)
2(3)
1(2)
0(0)
0(0)
1(1)
1(1)
1(1)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
9( 11)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
3(4)
3(4)
0(0)
0(0)
12(15)
Layer 2
12(17)
7(10)
4(3)
4(4)
5(8)
2(2)
5(7)
0(0)
1(1 )
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
40(51)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
4(4)
4(4)
0(0)
0(0)
45(55)
Layer 3
39(162)
24(107)
30(158)
20(58)
22(84)
15(24)
12(40)
10(25)
8(92)
3(3)
1(2)
2(3)
2(4)
1(1)
197(759)
2(4)
0(0)
2(4)
1(5)
2(3)
22(29)
25(37)
0(0)
0(0)
224(800)
Layer 4
35(115)
24(104)
24(83)
16(49)
21(49)
12(21)
7(15)
6(9)
4(34)
2(2)
3(4)
0(0)
1(1 )
0(0)
164(488)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
25(33)
25(33)
2(2)
2(2)
192(524)
Layer 5
30(149)
27(136)
22(104)
22(79)
18(40)
9(15)
7(16)
8(15)
9(32)
4(4)
3(3)
2(2)
1(2)
0(0)
165(598)
1(1)
1(2)
2(3)
0(0)
2(4)
22(36)
24(40)
0(0)
0(0)
192(641 )
Layer 6
5(8)
5(11)
5(9)
3(4)
1(1)
0(0)
1(3)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
20(50)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
1(1)
0(0)
1(1)
0(0)
0(0)
21(51)
Total
124(455)
89(371)
86(359)
65(193)
67(182)
39(63)
33(82)
25(49)
19(159)
9(9)
7(9)
4(5)
4(7)
1(1)
625(1957)
3(5)
1(2)
4(7)
1(5)
5(8)
77(107)
83(115)
2(2)
2(2)
714(2087)
%
17.3(21.4)
12.4(18.1)
12.0(17.4)
9.0(8.9)
9.2(8.8)
8.7(3.0)
4.6(3.9)
2.3(2.3)
2.6(7.7)
1.2(0.4)
1.0(0.3)
0.5(0.3)
0.5(0.4)
0.1(0.1)
87.2(94.9)
0.4(0.3)
0.1(0.2)
0.5(0.4)
0.1(0.3)
0.6(0.8)
10.7(5.2)
11.5(6.7)
0.2(0.l)
0.2(0.1)
99.8
z
~
e.;i
trj
~
>
z
0
~
0
e
~
>
t""
0
'Tl
>
~
("')
~
trj
0
t""
0
C')
~
89
600
Northern Rock Shelter
MNI=716
450
-
~300
150
0
1
2
3
I I
4
5
6
600
Southern Rock Shelter
MNI=1003
450
Z300
~
150
;!ll~l:l[~il:l·li,l~l1\~:;,l1i;! '_,~: :~,_ :·,'. _~
1
',_.·'_
,:.'_
__;..':_
._:.,'_:
.:·
y:
__
·'!_,,:
__.·'':i'_
..
'.::_
...
' .:
..
__
...
·'._.:''_,:,_,
: '.':1
' _. .
0
:·_.·'t
__
.
:'_
. .:!'_,_.·'::
,
__'
...
·_ '
,._:1'
.:_ .·'!'..:
. :-./
'--~~'--~~~L-~
1
2
3
4
5
6
Bukit Tengkorak Site
MNI=1690
450
Z 300
~
150
0
I
1.--~=L.__-
1
2
3
4
I
5
6
Layer
Figure 4: Distribution of identified fish by layer in the northern and southern rock shelters
and the combined assemblage from the site.
90
RESULTS OF THE SECOND STAGE OF ANALYSIS
In the second stage of analysis, only the fish remains from Trench 119 in the southern rock
shelter complex and Trench D3 in the northern rock shelter were selected for analysis. Of
1,611 vertebrae in Trench D3, 1,099 (68.2%) could be identified at least to family level; of
624 vertebrae in Trench 119, 467 (74.8%) could be identified. The slightly higher proportion
in Trench J 19 might be because the total number of vertebrae was smaller than in Trench
D3.
In Trench D3, total NISP increased dramatically, from 2,087 to 3,224, an increase of about
60%, and six new taxa were identified (Table 7). These were surgeon fishes (Acanthuridae),
fusiliers (Caesionidae), jacks or trevallies (Carangidae), longtoms (Belonidae), archer fishes
(Epbippidae) and tunas (Scombridae). Among these newly identified taxa, surgeonfishes
were most numerous and ranked as the twelfth largest of the 28 taxa in Trench D3. In
Trench Jl9, the total NISP increased from 1,006 to 1,497, an increase of about 50%,
although only one taxon, surgeon fishes (Acanthuridae), was newly identified (Table 8).
The total MNI in Trench D3 increased from 716 to 880, an increase of about 25%, and
that in Trench Jl9 increased from 457 to 571, an increase of about 23%.
These results strongly suggest the importance of vertebrae for identification of fish
remains, if the total number and proportion of vertebrae are relatively high among all
identifiable elements. At Bukit Tengkorat, the use of vertebrae increased NISP by about 50
to 60% and MNI by about 25%. The use of vertebrae can also increase the total number of
taxa, adding at least one to six taxa in Bukit Tengkorak. Even when vertebrae were used
for analysis, however, few pelagic fish, especially tunas, were found in the fish remains
from Bukit Tengkorak.
Most of the bones of parrotfish, wrasses, and other big fish such as groupers, emperors
and snappers from the southern rock shelter tend to be bigger than those in the northern
rock shelter10 . On the other hand, of the smaller fish, the proportion of rabbit fishes
(Siganidae) was much higher in Trench D3, and the proportions of other identified small
fish such as goat fishes (Mullidae) and breams (Nemipteridae) were also higher in Trench
D3 compared with those in Trench 119 and Gl7. Moreover, the bones of the six newly
identified taxa in Trench D3 were also small, even including tunas (Scombridae).
The number of identified fish remains in Trench D3 was 2,037 without vertebrae and
3,224 with vertebrae; t11e number of identifiable elements was 6,661 witl1out vertebrae and
7,751 with vertebrae, out of a grand total of 14,758 pieces from this trench. This means that
without vertebrae, about 14% of tl1e total fish remains were identified at least to family
level, and about 30% of all recognised elements were used for identification. When
vertebrae were used, the proportions increased to 22% and 52% respectively.
10
The soil of tl1e upper layers in the southern rock shelter complex generally ranges from
pH 7.0 to 6.5, and in the lower layer ranges from pH 6.5 to 6.0. Similarly, the soil of the
upper layer in the northern rock shelter ranges from pH 6.8 to 6.5, and that of lower layers
from pH 6.5 to 6.0 . This suggests that the differences in size of excavated fish remains
between the southern and northern rock shelters may not be caused by the environmental
context of the archaeological deposits, and could be due to other causes such as site
function, site formation process and so on. Re-calculation of mean sizes of the assemblage
in both rock shelters is not completed yet.
TABLE 7
MNl (NISP) OF FISH FAMILlES IN TRENCH 03 (VERTEBRAE INCLUDED)
Family
Habitat
Sca.ridae
Serranidae
Lethrinidae
Lutjanidae
Labridae
Siganidae
Balistidae
Haemulidae
Diodonlidae
Acanlhuridae
Muraenidae
Sparidae
Pomacantbidae
Nemipteridae
Ephippidae
Caesionidae
Kyphosidae
Tetraodontidae
reef, rock
reef, sand bollom
reef, reef edge
reef, reef edge
reef bottom
reef, rock
shallow to 40 m
reef, reef edge
shallow lo SO m
reef, reef edge
shallow to SO m
shallow to 30 m
reef, reef edge
reef bottom
reef, reef edge
reef, reef edge
shallow to 50 m
reef, rock
sub-total
-
sand bottom
Mullidae
Platycephalidae sand bottom
sub-total
-
Layer 6
Total
33(241)
3S(212)
2S(l 17)
25(101)
18(57)
11(36)
9(21)
11(29)
4(32)
4(S)
4(4)
S(S)
4(4)
3(4)
0(0)
0(0)
1(1)
0(0)
7(17)
7(19)
S(9)
3(6)
2(4)
0(0)
1(3)
0(0)
0(0}
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0}
0(0)
0(0)
159(887)
139(6 19)
98(466)
80(267)
75(269)
49(119)
39(103)
36(93)
19(160)
19(23)
17(24)
12(12)
9(10)
7(13)
2(2)
1(1)
l(l)
1(1 )
%
17.2(27.4)
14.1(19.1)
10.8(14.4)
8.6(8.3)
8.1(8.3)
5.3(3 .6)
4.2(3 .1)
3.9(2.8)
2.0(S .0)
2.0(0.7)
1.8(0.7)
1.3(0.3)
0.9(0.3)
0.9(0.3)
0.2(0.06)
0.1(0.03)
0.1(0.03)
0.1(0.03)
207(765)
192(869)
25(58)
757(3071)
85.9(95.2)
1(2)
1(1)
3(4)
1(I)
0(0)
0(0)
14(22)
2(2)
1.5(0.7)
0.2(0.06)
2(3)
4(5)
0(0)
16(24)
1.6(0.7)
Layer 2
Layer 3
Layer 4
1(1)
0(0)
18(40)
13(22)
7(9)
6(8)
S(8)
2(2)
7(12)
1(1)
1(1)
l(l)
l (l)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
47(353)
36(204)
31(209)
25(96)
27(129)
19(43)
13(48)
16(44)
8(90)
10( 12)
7(13)
S(S)
1(2)
4(9)
2(2)
0(0)
0(0)
1(1 )
49(230)
37(160)
29(121)
21(56)
23(71)
16(37)
8(18)
7(18)
6(37)
3(4)
6(7)
2(2)
4(4)
0(0)
0(0)
1(1)
0(0)
0(0)
12(13)
61( 104)
232(1246)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
10(16)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
JO( 16)
Layer 1
5(6)
2(2)
l (l)
0(0)
0(0)
1(1)
l(l)
Layer 5
0
:::s
.,,...,
~
:::"'
i::;·
c...,
-·,..,
";::,
;::--
"'s·
00
:;
t:tl
~
~
:::s
00
~
c:;>;--
\0
'°
N
TABLE 7 Continued
Family
Ariidae
Carangidae
Mugilidae
Elasmobranchii
Habitat
reef-estuarine
coastal sea
inner bay
inner bay
sub-total
Belonidae
Sphyraenidae
Scombridae
sub-total
-
Total
Layer 1
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
3(3)
Layer 2
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
4(4)
Layer 3
2(2)
1(1)
3(3)
26(27)
Layer 4
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
27(33)
Layer 5
0(0)
1(2)
3(4)
25(38)
29(44)
1(1)
0(0)
Total
2(2)
2(3)
7(8)
85(105)
%
0.2(0.06)
0.3(0.1)
0.7(0.2)
9.6(3.2)
1(1)
94(118)
10.6(3.6)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
5(5)
4(4)
1(1)
0.5(0.15)
0.4(0. l)
0.1(0.03)
Layer 6
0(0)
0(0)
1(1)
3(3)
4(4)
32(33)
27(33)
reef, outer reef
outer reef
outer reef
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
2(2)
2(2)
0(0)
2(2)
2(2)
0(0)
-
0(0)
0(0)
4(4)
4(4)
3(3)
0(0)
10(10)
1.1(0.3)
278(1315)
240(804)
228(922)
26(59)
880(3224)
99.3(99.8)
12(16)
65(108)
0(0)
1(1)
z
~
~
N
~
>
>
z
I""
0
'0
c::
~
>
t"'
0
~
>
:=
("")
~
~
0
t"'
0
~
<
TABLE 8
MNI (NISP) OF FISH FAMILIES IN TRENCH Jl9 (VERTEBRAE INCLUDED)
110(239)
1(2)
0(0)
3(5)
2(4)
0(0)
2(2)
15( 15)
%
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
Total
145(507)
94(191)
82(290)
57(140)
41(96)
35(80)
21(48)
15(33)
11(17)
8(19)
7(8)
5(8)
2(6)
1(1)
25.3(34.0)
16.4(12.7)
14.3(19.3)
9.9(9.3)
7. 1(6.4)
6.1(5.3)
3.6(3.2)
2.6(2.2)
1.8( 1.1)
1.3(1 .2)
1.2(0.5)
0.8(0.5)
0.2(0.4)
0.1(0.l)
38(72)
25(39)
521( 1437)
91.2(96.4)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
3(6)
l(l)
0.3(0.4)
0.1(0.l)
1(2)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
4(7)
0.4(0.5)
0(0)
l (I)
1(I)
8(8)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
9(9)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
1(1)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
1(1)
2(4)
0.2(0.2)
0.1(0.l)
0.3(0.2)
6.6(2.5)
Layer 4
30(76)
23(35)
20(45)
13(29)
7(12)
5(11)
7(14)
3(13)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
37(66)
171(705)
142(322)
sand bottom
sand bottom
0(0)
0(0)
2(4)
-
0(0)
reef-estuarine
inner bay
coastal sea
inner bay
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
4(4)
-
4(4)
19(21)
JO( 10)
9(9)
1(1)
1( 1)
44(46)
7.3(3.1)
41(70)
193(720)
153(332)
119(248)
39(73)
26(40)
571(1497)
98.9(100)
Layer 1
15(32)
8(12)
4(4)
3(5)
1(3)
4(9)
0(0)
sub-total
-
Mullidae
Platycepbalidae
sub-total
Ariidae
Mugilidae
Carangidae
Elasmobranchii
Total
Layer 6
7(12)
2(2)
6(13)
2(3)
2(2)
1(2)
2(2)
2(2)
Layer 3
39(136)
27(54)
18(49)
13(18)
15(18)
9(18)
5(6)
4(7)
6(11)
1(1)
2(2)
0(0)
1(2)
0(0)
Habitat
reef, rock
reef bottom
reef, sand bottom
reef, reef edge
reef, reef edge
shallow to 40 m
reef, reef edge
shallow to 50 m
shallow to 30 m
reef, rock
reef, reef edge
reef, reef edge
shallow to 50 m
reef bottom
sub-total
Layer 5
11(19)
2(2)
10(29)
5(10)
2(3)
2(2)
0(0)
3(4)
0(0)
1(1)
2(2)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
Layer 2
43(232)
32(86)
23(150)
21(75)
14(58)
14(38)
7(26)
2(6)
3(4)
4(15)
2(3)
5(8)
1(4)
1(1)
Family
Scaridae
Labridae
Serranidae
Lethrinidae
Lutjanidae
Balistidae
Haemulidae
Diodontidae
Sparidae
Siganidae
Pomacanthidae
Acanthuridae
Muraenidae
Nemipteridae
-
l(l)
I (1)
l(l)
2(2)
1(1)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
l(l)
l(l)
3(3)
38(38)
~
~
~
~
;:::.
t:;·
~
..,
;:;·
~
c.,
;:::.
s·
OQ
~
b:l
i:::
(Jr;--
:::::
~
::.
OQ
~
~
(Jr;--
\0
~
94
The numbers of identified fish remains in Trench J19 and G 17 were 1,003 and 1,056
pieces, and the numbers of identifiable elements were 2,123 and 2,588 pieces. This means
that about 50% of all identifiable elements were used for identification, and that the
proportion of identifiable fish remains was about 25 % in these trenches compared with
Trench D3, where the proportion was just 14%.
Taking into consideration all the results of different stages of analysis, il can be concluded
that the fish caught by the people in prehistoric Bukit Tengkorak were mostly inshore coral
fishes, especially fishes that inhabit relatively shallow water. The number of pelagic fish
such as tunas was very small. As commonly admitted, the main purpose of analysing fish
remains is to reconstruct the range of the prehistoric fishing area and estimate the fishing
methods and techniques used by the prehistoric people of a certain site. It can be concluded
that the main fishing area used by prehistoric people in Bukit Tengkorak was limited to the
coral reefs near the site. However, the results of analysis of fish remains alone are not
sufficient to reconstruct prehistoric fishing methods and techniques. It is therefore worth
applying ethnological data on the Bajau people who have lived near the site in recent times.
GENERAL CHARACTER OF MODERN BAJAU FISHING IN SEMPORNA
Bajau people11 are a major ethnic group who comprise more than 90% of the total
population in Sempoma district today. Traditionally, Bajau people were famous for their
maritime-based subsistence and life style as boat dwellers and full time fishermen 12, hence
they have often been referred to as "sea gypsies" or " sea nomads" in the literature.
However, since the mid-twentieth century, most Bajau people have tended to live in pile
houses on the coral terrace near the coast of Sempoma peninsula and its surrounding islands
and no-one now lives on boats except a few families drifting around the Sulu Islands to
Sempoma sea Their life style and subsistence have also changed fairly rapidly since last
century, although more than half the population of Bajau people are still engaged in fishing
as full time fishermen.
Notl1ing is known directly of Bajau people before the early sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries (Sather 1997). However, according to a linguistic reconstruction by Pallesen
11
Bajau people in the Sempoma area conunonly identified themselves as "Sama Dilaut" or
"Sama Mandelaut", names that mean literally, "sea" or "maritime Bajau". The cognate terms
"Bajau" and "Bajo" appear with regularity in botl1 English and Dutch ethnographic
literatures from the early eighteenth century onward (Sopher 1977). The name "Bajau" is
not. however, a Sama autonym. The term in the form of "Bajau" has been estimated as
Malay or Brunei in origin (Evans 1952; Pallesen 1985; Sather 1997).
12
Until recently, Sama-Bajau language was thought to belong to the Philippine phylum of
Austronesian languages (Sather 1978). However, it is now recognised by linguists as
comprising a separate Sama-Bajau subgroup within the Western Malayo-Polynesian
language family (Sather 1997). Lexical reconstruction suggests that these people were
predominantly sea-oriented, but not exclusively so. Also, the reconstructed lexicon points
to a long familiarity witl1 farming, iron-forging, pottery-making and weaving, as well as with
fishing and seafaring. Although their knowledge of the sea may have been intimate, these
early proto-Sama-Bajau speakers were by no means wholly sea people.
Ono: Prehistoric fishing at Buk.it Tengkorak
95
(1985), a Sama-Bajau language group can be traced only lo the firsl millennium AD.
Around AD 800, speakers of proto Sama-Bajau can be placed with some confidence in the
northern islands of the Sulu Archipelago, on Basilan, and along the adjacent Mindanao
coastlines bordering the Basilan StrailS (Pallesen 1985). This linguistic reconstruction
suggeslS a similarity between proto-Sama-Bajau speakers and prebisLoric people in Bukit
Tengkorak.
Observations were carried out in some Bajau fishing villages in Bumbum Island, the
biggest island in Semporna area, located just in front of Sempora town and Bukil Tengkorak
(Fig. 5). The ultimate objective of collecting delailed data about U1e fishing practices of
Bajau people is lo reconstruct the prehistoric fishing practice of Bukil Tengkorak and to
acquire infonna tion about the geo-ecological features of the fishing area around the sile.
However, the observations have been carried out only since 2000, and data are still limited.
Therefore, only the basic varieties of Bajau fishing are described here, and some case
studies of their fishing activities in recent times are introduced and discussed.
Table 9 shows the varieties of traditional Bajau fishing in and around Sempoma. These
data were compiled from previous ethnological works conducled by Sather in Sempoma
(Sather 1984, 1985, 1995, 1997) and by NagaLSu in Ule Sitankai Islands, about 100 km away
from Semporna (Nagatsu 1995, 1997)13 . As Table 9 shows, netting is one of their major
- - ...
\)"
Q
Scmr-nrna Town
•
Scmporoa Prni usula
Uumbum ls l:iod
~ ...~_.,;.,
( '-if:.,,
,,
{
l. M:m i:rnvc
Unch TtrT:JCc
.10.zom
P. l\lunampilik
...
-.•
Zone B .- ,
I
•·
"·' - ' -. ,
Cnr:d Red
~
l-:-.;./'
•
•
P. Koundangan
,' · 10-20m
\
I
\
... ,
I
, 7'one A .
\'
I
','
.
'
".
//
-
, "': ... i
:
'
.
It -
.'
1
-~
I
. .::--
\
I
i."\
-·-t ...,-/
..
~
Conl Rttr
'
.. - - · ...
't
.
'
\
\
I
'.'
I
· ...:~_.. ,,,
If
I
..
• ,
I•
1,
_,, · /
\
~
I'.
,,,,.
, 1i
\.
;
I
,,,
'l1 ,
,
,
/
t
0 ·5m
,',
'°'
\': \
\
Figure 5: Environmental seltings around Bumbum Island and Bukit Tengkorak.
13
Satller's researches were mainly carried out from the middle 1960s Lo 1970s and Nagatsu's
in the 1990s. As a lot of Bajau people still kept their traditional fishing practices in Ule early
1990s, their data are useful for reference purposes.
96
fishing lechniques, with a greal variety of methods. On the other hand, there are fewer
varieties of line fishing . For example, there was no pelagic trolling by Bajau people and in
most of the cases, only simple band line fishing in depths of 10-20 m was practised. The
minor importance of pelagic trolling targeting tunas is possibly related to the traditional
avoidance or dislike of tunas by the Bajau people. In Nagatsu's (1995) study on cognitional
meaning of fish names in Bajau (or Sama language), he found less variely in names for tuna
compared with other fish 14•
Other lypes of fishing such as spearing, poisoning, trapping, and general foraging are also
practised. Spearing is usually done at night, and major fish caught are rays, rabbit fishes,
squids and sea turtles . Poisoning is employed in a shallow coral reef environment to catch
fish living behind large coral heads, such as long-tailed catfish and groupers. Traditionally,
roots of the tuba plant (Derris elliptica) are used as the poison. For trapping, usually about
10-m-long weirs called kelong are erected in the shallow water near the villages. Kelong are
made from mangrove trees, and each village usually owns one or two kelong near by. Many
kinds of fish are caught using kelong 15 .
The methods of traditional Bajau fishing have many varieties, and most of them are
practised even now. The major lechniques are various kinds of net fishing such as amokot,
agalinggiq (the same fishing style as the so-called 'anakap' and 'binakat' in the 1960s) and
amahang. However, magambit, which is the highly co-ordinated fonn of net fishing in
connection with large-scale fish drives16 is disappearing, and large scale ne t fishing has
also vanished. Bombing was introduced from the Philippines to Semporna in the 1970s and
has been practised by some fishermen since then. It was prohibited by the government in
the late 1970s because of the danger it poses to the coral reefs. However, some fishennen
still prefer to use this illegal fishing method even now (Ono 200lb).
Table 10 shows examples of fishing activities by the villagers of Kampong Tongkaloh in
Bumbum Island in 200017 (Fig. 5). Net fishing produces much more fish in a much shorter
time compared with other fishing styles, and an the fishing takes place on a shallow reef
flat, around 0-2 m deep depending on the tide. During the observations, the major fish
14
He also reported that tunas are one of Ute most avoided fish among Bajau people, mainly
because of their bloody flesh (Nagatsu 1997).
15
According to Sather, no owners had licenses for kelong at the time of his first research
during 1964-1965, although in 1979 there were 67 licensed kelong in Semporna district
(Sather 1997) . The number increased from 1980 to the 1990s according to the annual report
of the Fisheries Department of Sabal1 (Jabatan perikanan Sabah 1980-1995).
16
According to Sather's study of Semporna Bajau people in the 1960s, magambit fishing
was one of the major sources of the best quality dried fish produced by Bajau people in
1964-1 965, though this fishing was observed only imermittently in 1974 and had totally
ceased in 1979 (Sather 1997: 127).
17
Kampong (village in Malay) Tongkaloh is located on the southeastern edge of Bumbum
Island, just opposite the side of Semporna peninsula where Bukit Tengkorak is situated.
There is a huge and beautiful coral reef terrace in front of the village, called Creagh reef,
which extends to Menampilik island at its southern edge, about 3 km from Tongkalob (Fig.
5).
TABLE 9
BAJAU ASHING METIIODS
Method
lift net
lift net
lift net
gill net
fixed net
trawl net
fixed net
fixed net
band line
band line
band line
trawl line
spearing
spearing
spearing
poisoning
trapping
slake
bombing
Local name
amahang
angalakod
agambil
angalingiq
amungsud
magselo
anaplok
amokol
am'ssi
magsangkaiyaq
angullan
angalaway
anuq
abiyak pahi
magkohaq
anuaq
anabat
kelong
animbak
Fishing area
reef channel
reef channel
reef flat
reef flat
reef edge
reef flat
mangrove
shallow waler
reef flal
reef edge out
reef flat
reef edge out
reef flat
reef edge out
sea ridge
shallow water
reef flat
coral reef
reef tlalledge
Time
nigbl
day
day
night
2-3 days
night
night
day
evening
any Lime
day
evening
night
night
night
day
day
morning
day
People
2-6
2-6
30-100
2-4
10-15
2
5-8
3-6
1-2
2-3
1-2
2-4
1-2
2-3
2-3
2-3
1-2
some
2-3
Season
spring tide
low tide
neap tide
any time
April-October
10 days/month
low tide
anytime
any Lime
March-April
anytime
anytime
anytime
full moon
no moon
high tide
low tide
anytime
anytime
major fish
coral fishes
coral fishes
long toms
coral fishes
c
rabbilfishes
~
long toms
..,"ti
small fishes
::::i::;·
herrings, anchovies iS
..,
wrasse, snapper, etc. ;:;·
sharks
':::i
....
squids
§:
OQ
sharks, big jacks
s::i
rays, squids
O:l
I::
giant rays
~
sea turtles
;;;;
small cat fishes
::s
OQ
mantis shrimp
~
coral fishes
~
.,.,..
coral fishes
"'
-
sources: Salher 1997; Nagatsu 1995; Ono 200lb
\0
-..J
TABLE 10
CASE STUDIES OF MODERN FISHING IN TONKALLOH VILLAGE
IN SEPTEMBER 2000
Column abreviations - Method: Fishing method/locaJ name for !his melhod, Men: Number of men engaged in the activity, Siart: Time and state
of tide when the activity began, End: Time and state of tide when the activity ended, Hours: Number of hours of active participation and casting
time, Depth: depth range in metres of catch, Catch: Number and species in catch.
Date Method
12
spearing/anuq
Men
2
Start
20.00/ebbing
End
3.00/falling
Hours
61-
Depth Catch
1- 2 m30, rabbitfish, ray, squid, crab
16
foraging/anahat
2
10.00/faUing
15.00/low
3.5/-
0.5- 7 m7, mantis prawn, wrasse
17
netting/m agalingiq
3
10.30/falling
15. 15/low
3.5/6
1- 1.5 ml25, rabbit fish, loogtom
21
netting/magalingiq
2
8.30/falling
10.15/falling
213
1- 1.5 m50, damselfish
22
netting/magalingiq
2
8.00/faUing
10.30/faUing
2.Sn
1- l.5 m200, jack, damselfish, longtom
'°
00
z
~
~
~
0
~
0
c::
~
>
t""
0
~
>
::e
("')
~
t!1
0
t""
0
~
-<
99
caught by villagers were rabbit fishes, emperors, wrasses, and rays. Rabbit fishes were
mainly caught by netting or spearing. Emperors and wrasses were caught by band line
fishing and most of the rays were caught by spearing (Ono 200lb).
Rabbit fishes were mainly caught in Zone A, located at the northern side of Kalindingan
Island, and damsel fishes were the major fish of the landings in Zone B, on the coral terrace
near the village (Fig. 5). According to the villagers, rather big fishes such as jacks and
longtoms are usually caught in 10-20 m depth around the coral reef flats. These facts
indicate that the fishermen know the habitat of each fish in the shallow reef around their
village, and that they can catch the fish in their habitat zones in the coral reef.
THE GENERAL CHARACTER OF FISHING IN BUKIT TENGKORAK
As shown above, the dominant fish taken by the prehistoric fishennen of Bukit Tengkorak
were parrotfish, members of the Scaridae family. These fish are nonnally the major fish diet
fo r Pacific people (Davidson et al. 2002; Leach et al. 1996; Masse 1986; Kataoka 1991).
They generally live on a shallow coral reef, and are usually caught by netting or spearing
at night. The next most abundant fish families were Labridae, Serranidae and Lethrinidae.
These groups of fish include many kinds of wrasse, rock cod, grouper, coral trout and
emperors. They tend to be bottom feeders and live in a shallow coral reef to a deeper coral
sea depending on species. Most of them are usually caught by baited book in deeper water,
and sometimes by poisoning and spearing in shallow water.
Snappers (Lutjanidae) and trigger fishes (Balistidae) were the next major fish caught in
Bukit Tengkorat. Snappers prefer to live around 20--60 min depth and are generally caught
by netting or baited book. Trigger fishes are carnivorous and feed on a wide range of
bottom-feeding animals, using their powerful jaws to crush prey. These fish tend to live in
shallow coral reefs around 5-30 min dep1.h and are commonly caught by netting or baited
books. Porcupine fishes (Diodontidae) and Sweetlips (Haemulidae) were also commonly
caught in Bukit Tengkorak. Porcupine fishes tend to inhabit shallow coral reefs and are
caught by general foraging in shallow water during the daytime. Sweetlips prefer to live on
coral reefs around 10-30 m in depth, and are generally caught by netting and baited hook.
Only the vertebrae and teeth of cartilaginous fish such as sharks and rays were counted,
but they have not yet been identified to lower taxa because of limited comparative material.
However, it is worth mentioning that these cartilaginous fish (Elasmobranchii) were also
commonly caught in Bukit Tengkorak. Rays, especially, are easily caught by spearing during
night fishing and are commonly caught, even in recent times, around Bukit Tengkorak.
Sharks are mainly caught by baited hooks.
Anotber feature of the fish remains in Bukit Tengkorak is tl1e general lack of pelagic fish
such as tunas (Scombridae) and jacks (Carangidae) in t11e assemblages . No cranial bones of
tunas were identified in the first stage of tl1e analysis. When other elements such as caudal
peduncle and other vertebra portions were analysed, only one vertebra was identified as
Scombridae. These results strongly suggest that pelagic fishing was far less important for
the people in Bukit Tengkorak, or that t11ey disliked and avoided pelagic fish during
Neolithic times.
100
BUKIT TENGKORAK CATCH COMPARED TO OTHER PACIFIC ISLANDS
Excavations in Bukit Tengkorak have suggested a cultural connection with some prehistoric
sites in the Pacific islands, especially those related to the Lapita cultural complex in
Melanesia. The main basis for this suggestion is the excavated obsidian tools and fragments,
some of which have been shown to originate from Talasea in northern New Britain
(Bellwood and Koon 1989; Chia 1997). The Talasea obsidian sources were used by Lapita
people, and the Bukit Tengkorak discovery of this material increased its distribution at about
1000 BC to 6500 km, from Borneo to Fiji (Bellwood 1989, 1997).
Besides the obsidian, other artefacts such as red slipped pottery in both areas suggest a
possible relationship between Bukit Tengkorak and other prehistoric sites in western
Melanesia and the Pacific islands during the second to first millennia BC. However, the
most specific similarity is possibly the subsistence patterns, which might be characterised
as highly maritime-oriented.
At Bukit Tengkorak, the proportion of fish bones in the total amount of excavated faunal
remains was very high. Moreover, marine turtles were most numerous in the animal
remains, according to the results of the 1994-1995 research (Chia 1997). These facts
characterise the nature of subsistence in prehistoric Bukit Tengkorak, which is located on
the edge of the eastern coast of Borneo Island with a huge land and forest area behind the
coast line.
When we compare the result of the analysis of fish remains from Bukit Tengkorak with
those in the Pacific islands, there are some common features and some differences. When
the MNI of fish from eight archaeological sites18 in the Pacific region were combined
(Leach et al. 1996: Table 16), the proportion of excavated coral fish tended to surpass that
of pelagic fish (Table 11). Interestingly, all top seven fish in these eight archaeological sites
live in and around coral reefs, although pelagic fish such as tunas and jacks are also among
the major fish caught in some Pacific islands.
Table 12 presents the relative importance of the different methods of fishing of the Bukit
Tengkorak people, based on the ethnological data on Bajau fishing and the general habitat
of each fish . As Leach er al. (1988) have pointed out, interpreting bow people caught fish
from archaeological remains is fraught with difficulties. and their conunents should not be
read too literally. The approach taken here is just to make an assessment about the most
likely catch method employed based on the information mentioned above.
Table 12 suggests that the prehistoric Bukit Tengkorak people caught most of their fish
(51.5%) by baited hook and line fishing. This percentage of line fishing is rather high, even
compared with other assemblages from the Pacific. Serranidae, Lethrinidae, Labridae and
Lutjanidae are the main fish usually caught by line and baited hook. However, these fish
are also sometimes caught by netting, according to ethnological observations. Netting comes
next in importance at Bukit Tengkorak (32.5%). A high proportion of netting is a feature
of many Pacific islands and also of traditional Bajau fishing. Scaridae, Balistidae and
Siganidae form the bulk of the fish mainly caught by this technique.
18
These sites were Huabine, Mochong in Rota, Pohnpei, Nan Madol, Kapingamarangi,
Nukuoro, Palau and Rota airport sites (Leach et al. 1996).
101
TABLE 11
COMBINED MNI OF FISH FROM EIGHT PACIFIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
Source: Leach et al. 1996: 338, Table 16
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Total
Family
Scaridae
Serranidae
Lethrinidae
Nemipteridae
Balistidae
Labridae/Coridae
Lutjanidae
Carangidae
Elasmobrancbii
Scombridae
Anguillifonnes
Diodontidae
Holocentridae
Acanthuridae
Mullidae
Coryphaenidae
S ph yraenidae
Ostraciidae
Belonidae
Tetraodontidae
Istiophoridae/X yphiidae
Acanthocybiidae [Scombridae]
Siganidae
Kyphosidae
Scorpaenidae
Aluteridae [Monocanthidae]
Plectorhyncbidae
Bothidae
Gerreidae
Mugilidae
Caesionidae
Platacidae [Ephippidae]
Exocoetidae
Megalopidae
Channidae
Hemirarnpbidae
Apbareidae [Lutjanidae]
Pempheridae
MNI
1686
603
482
459
457
392
337
314
273
259
227
223
204
89
70
67
44
42
38
29
27
18
16
14
14
13
7
6
6
5
4
3
2
2
I
l
l
l
6436
102
TABLE 12
MINIMUM NUMBERS BY CATCHING METHODS AT BUKIT TENGKORAK
%
Likely Catch Method
MNI
Netting
Scaridae
Balistidae
Siganidae
Mugilidae
Mullidae
Pomacanthidae
Baited hook
Labridae/Coridae
Lethrinidae
Lutjanidae
Haemulidae
Nemipteridae
Sparidae
Platycephalidae
Pelagic lures
Carangidae
Sphyraenidae
Spearing
Elasmobranchii
Trapping/poisoning
Muraenidae
Ariidae
General foraging
Diodontidae
Tetraodontidae
550
32.5
871
51.5
4
0.2
154
8.1
11
1.5
54
3.1
Perhaps the most significant feature of prehistoric Bukit Tengkorak fishing is U1e very
minor role of pelagic lure fishing . TI1e proportion in Table 12 (0.2%) is extremely low
compared with other Pacific archaeological assemblages of fish remains.
Spearing accounts for 8. 1% and general foraging activities for 3. 1%. The relatively high
percentage of spearing is due to the idea that Elasmobranchii are caught by spearing.
However, according to the ethnological information, rays are commonly caught by spearing,
but most sharks are caught by baited book. Spearing is also important for catching sea
turtles and sea mammals such as dolphin in Bajau fishing. General foraging is an important
method for collecting shells, sea urchins and sea cucumbers, and Ulis method might have
been commonly employed in prehistoric Bukit Tengkorak, since a huge quantity of shells
was also recovered from the site (Chia 1997).
Comparison of the results of the analysis of Bukit Tengkorak fish remains with those in
the Pacific islands revealed the same tendency in major and minor fish caught. However,
the proportions of Carangidae (jacks and trevallies) and Scombridae (tunas) are extremely
small in Bukit Tengkorak, while the proportion of Siganidae (rabbit fishes) is rather high
compared with other sites in the Pacific. According to the ethnological observations in
103
Sempoma area, these fishes are commonly caught and are also preferred by local Bajau
people. These facts tentatively suggest that the prehistoric people in Bu.kit Tengkorak really
preferred to conduct their fishing only around tJ1e inner reefs near tlle site.
This line of evidence leads to the idea that tlle prehistoric Bu.kit Tengkorak people
benefited from the abundance of marine resources inside coral reefs and also from the land
resources in Sempoma peninsula. The people might not have needed to go out to the pelagic
seas to catch tlle bigger pelagic fish, or there might have been other reasons such as
avoidance of pelagic fish or dislike of them, just like the traditional Bajau community in
Sempoma region.
CONCLUSIONS
Twenty-eight taxa were identified during the analysis of fish remains from Bukit Tengkorak.
Altllough tlle deposits cover a long period. no chronological change in fish remains is
apparent in any individual excavation. There are, however, some differences between the
soutllem and the nortllem rock shelters, such as temporal variety and tJ1e size of fish bones.
The number of fish types taken is more limited tl1an expected for such a large assemblage
of fish bones. The major fish caught in Bukit Tengkorak are coral fish such as Scaridae,
Labridae, Serranidae, Lethrinidae, Lutjanidae, Balistidae, Siganidae and Diodontidae. The
number of identified pelagic fish such as Carangidae, Scombridae, and Sphyraenidae is
extremely low, even when vertebrae were used for identification. In terms of temporal
change, t1le numbers of each taxon tend to be larger in Layers 2 to 5, especially Layers 2
and 3, while the numbers in Layers l and 6 are generally small. This suggests iliat all ilie
major fish could be caught from early to late Neolitllic by the people in Bukit Tengkorak,
but tJie intensity of fishing activity was greater during t1le middle Neolithic time, dated
around l 000-800 BC.
Ethnological observations of local Bajau fishing near tlle site revealed that most of tlie
fishing activities took place inside the coral reef. The et1lnological infomJation regarding
traditional and modem Bajau fishing patterns showed the same tendency: ilie major
importance of netting and line fishing. These results indicate ilie reason for the much lesser
importance of pelagic lure fishing in tlle subsistence of ilie prehistoric people in Bukit
Tengkorak compared with oilier archaeological sites in ilie Pacific.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge Sabah Museum for supporting my research over t1le last few
years. Especially, I express my deep thanks to Datu.le Joseph Guntavid, Director of Sabab
Museum and also to Mr Peter Koon, Mr Joseph Tadam and other staff in the archaeology
section for t1leir understanding and for supporting my study for several years in Sabah. Also.
I am greatly appreciative to Dato' Prof. Zuraina Majid, Dr Mokhter Saidin, Dr Stephen Char
and Mr Jeffery lngatas of University Sains Malaysia for ilieir precise advice and kind
support during my analysis at the Laboratory in I.he Center for Archaeological Research in
Malaysia.
I owe a lot to my many friends in Sempoma, for ilieir friendship and tJieir precious
knowledge. especially of the sea, fish and fishing techniques. It is impossible to write all
the individual names here, but I would like to t1lank all of my friends in Sempoma.
104
Part of this paper was presented at the l llh Congress of the Fish Remains Working Group
of ICAZ held in Paibia. New Zealand in 2001. Much valuable conunent and advice was
given by the participants at the Conference. I would like to thank all of them, and especially
Dr Foss Leach and Dr Janet Davidson, who gave me the opportunity to present this paper
and reviewed a previous version, yet all the responsibility belongs to me.
Finally, I would like to thank to the Japan Society for Promotion of Science for its
financial support of part of the study during the year 2000-2001.
REFERENCES
Allen, G. 1998. Marine fishes of South-East Asia . Western Australian Museum.
Bellwood, P.S. 1988. Archaeological research in so11thern Sabah. Sabah Museum
Monograph 2, Kota Kinabaru: Sabah Museum.
Bellwood, P.S. 1989. Archaeological investigations at Bukit Tengkorak and Segarong,
southeastern Sabah. Bulletin of the Indo-Paci.fic Prehistory Association 9: 122-162.
Bellwood, P.S . 1997. Prehistory of the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago. Revised edition.
University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.
Bellwood, P.S. and Koon, P. 1989. Lapita colonists leave boats unburned. Antiquity 63:
613--022.
Chia S. 1997. The prehistory of Bukit Tengkorak as a major pottery making site in
Southeast Aisa. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. University Sains Malaysia.
Chia.S . 2001. TI1e prehistory of Bukit Tengkorak, Sabab, Malaysia. Journal of Southeast
Asian Archaeology 21: 146-159.
Davidson, J.M., Leach. B.F. and Sand, C. 2002. Three thousand years of fishing in New
Caledonia and the Loyalty Islands. In S. Bedford, C. Sand and D. Burley (eds), Fifty years
in the field: Essays in honour and celebration of Richard Shutler Jr's archaeological career,
pp. 153-164. New Zealand Archaeological Association Monograph 25. Auckland.
Evans, l.H.N. 1952. Notes on the Bajaus and other coastal tribes of North Borneo. Journal
of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 25 (1): 48-55.
Jabatan Perikanan Sabal1 1980-1989. Laporan tahunan 1980-1989.
Jabatan Perikanan Sabah. 1990-1998. Laporan tabunan 1990-1998.
Kataoka, 0 . 1991. Fauna! analysis of Nan Madol, Pohnpei, Micronesia. Man and Culture
in Oceania 7: 71-105.
Leach, B.F . 1986. A method for the analysis of Pacific Island fishbone assemblages and an
associated database management system. Journal of Archaeological Science 13: 147-159.
105
Leach, B.F., Davidson, J.M, Ward, G.K. and Craib, J. 1988. Prehistoric fishing at Mochong,
Rota, Mariana Islands. Man and culture in Oceania 4 : 31-62.
Leach, B.F., Davidson, J.M, and Athens, J .S . 1996. Mass harvesting of fish in the
waterways of Nan Madol, Pohnpei, Micronesia. In J.M. Davidson, G. Irwin, B.F. Leach, A.
Pawley, and D . Brown (eds), Oceanic Culture History: Essays in Honour of Roger Green,
pp.319-341. New Zealand Journal of Archaeology Special Publication.
Masse, W.B. 1986. A millennium of fishing in the Palau Islands, Micronesia. In A.J.
Anderson (eds.), Traditional fishing in the Pacific: Ethnographic and Archaeological papers
from the 15'h Pacific Science Congress, pp. 85-117. Pacific Anthropological Records 37.
Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu.
Masuda, H. and Allen, G ..R. 1991. Marine fishes of the World: Indo-Pacific Oceans. Yama
to Keikoku sya, Tokyo.
Nagatsu, K. 1995. Fishing activities of Sama and their understanding of the environment:
An attempt of etbno-environment.al study. Master's thesis, Kyoto University.
Nagatsu, K. 1997. Coral reef fisherfolks and their space cognition: Notions of "Land" ,
"Sea," and Coral reef space among Sama in Sitangkai, Sulu Archpelago. Journal of Study
in South East Asia 35 (2): 261-300.
Okamura, 0 . and Amaoka, K. 1997. Marine .ft.Shes in Japan. Yamato Keikoku sya, Tokyo.
Ono, R. 200la. Final Report for Ethno-Archaeological Research in Sempoma area:
1999-2001. Unpublished report submitted to Museum Sabah.
Ono, R. 200lb. Comparative studies of marine resources use in prehistorical and traditional
fishing around Bukit Tengkorak: The first tentative ethnoarchaeological research in Sabab,
Borneo. Journal of Archaeozoology 17: 1-24. (In Japanese)
Pallesen, A.K. 1985. Culture contact and language convergence. Linguistic Society of the
Philippines Monograph Series 24. Linguistic Society of the Philippines, Manila.
Sather, C. 1978. The Bajau Laut. In V.T. King (ed.}, Essays on Borneo Societies, pp.
172-102. Hull Monographs on Southeast Asia 7. Oxford University Press, London.
Sather, C. 1984. Sea and Shore People: Ethnicity and Ethnic Interaction in Southern Sabab.
Contributions to Southeast Asian Ethnography 3: 3- 27 .
Sather, C. 1985. Boat Crew and Fishing Fleets: The social organization of maritime labor
among the Bajau Laut of Southern eastern Sabal1. Contributions to Southeast Asian
Ethnography 4 : 165-214.
Sather, C. 1995. Sea nomads and rain forest hunter-gathers: Foraging adaptations in the
Inda-Malaysian Archipelago. In P. Bellwood, J. Fox and D. Tryon (eds), The Austronesians:
106
Historical and comparative perspectives, pp. 229-268. The Australian National University,
Canberra.
Sather, C. 1997. The Bajau Laut: Adaptation, history, and fate in a maritime fishing society
of South-Eastern Sabah. Oxford University Press.
Sopher, D.E. 1977 (1965). The sea nomads: A study of the maritime boat people of
Southeast Asia. Singapore National Museum, Singapore.
Received 11 March 2002
Accepted 20 December 2002

Prehistoric fishing at Bukit Tengkorak, East Coast of Borneo Island

Transcription

Similar documents

Alpine Meadows Resort, Hallamore Lake

Mancelona Bass Festival, Inc.

Fishing Report Date: Tuesday 5/31/2016 Angler: Zach Andres

Oyster Restoration and Fishing Assessment

“GOUYAVE FISH FRY – BEST FISH IN GRENADA, MAYBE THE

Pybus_king salmon_2014

Supplemental Public Correspondence

45.8% 42.1% 31.1% - The Creek Company

Slot Car Racing Games Michigan 50 Lions Slot Machine Free

UN Day Invitation here