Content uploaded by Mercedes Okumura
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mercedes Okumura on May 02, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
An Osteological Study of Trophy Heads:
Unveiling the Headhunting Practice
in Borneo
MERCEDES OKUMURA
a
AND YUN YSI SIEW
b
*
a
Museu de Arqueologia e Etnologia, Universidade de São Paulo, Av. Prof. Almeida Prado, 1466, Cidade
Universitária, 05508-070, São Paulo, Brazil
b
Leverhulme Centre for Human Evolutionary Studies, University of Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Street, Cambridge
CB2 1QH, UK
ABSTRACT Taking, modifying and displaying human body parts as trophies have been observed in several human
groups since prehistoric times. Although there are many skeletal collections that present evidence for this
practice, the existence of both skeletal material and written records referring to the same group is quite rare.
Nevertheless, this is a case of 112 human skeletal remains collected by Charles Hose in Borneo in the late
19th century, which represents a unique opportunity to understand the vanished headhunting tradition and
warfare practice in this area, as well as to compare the written records with the bioarchaeological evidence.
Although Hose claims that all individuals collected by him were beheaded, our study shows that only 50.5%
of the studied material show clear osteological signs of decapitation. Other practices which were part of the
ritual of headhunting described by Hose could be observed, like widening of foramen magnum, burning of
skulls, mandible tied to the cranium with a strip of rattan or cotton, as well as drilled perforations to suspend
skulls in longhouses. Adult females and non-adults comprised more than one third of the total number where
sex and age could be determined, showing that males were not the sole targets for trophy heads. Overall, this
study on the trophy skulls from Borneo is valuable as it combines and compares ethnographic accounts and
osteological data to provide us with a broader scenario of a vanished practice. It draws attention to some
aspects that should be taken into account when working exclusively with either written records or skeletal
materials, as both present limitations. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Key words: decapitation; beheading; violence; warfare; cutmark
Introduction
The use of human body parts as trophies has been a
worldwide phenomenon in both prehistoric and his-
toric times. Trophy taking can involve heads, teeth,
forearms, scalps, hands, fingers,earsandskinamong
many other body parts (Neumann, 1940; Axtell &
Sturtevant, 1980; Jandial et al., 2004; Andrushko
et al., 2005; Chacon & Dye, 2007a:7; Conlee, 2007;
Steadman, 2008; Verano, 2008; Jurmain et al., 2009;
Andrushko et al., 2010). Of these human body parts,
heads have been considered as the most valuable
trophies since they are popularly believed to be asso-
ciated with the spirit of an individual (Harner, 1972;
Lovisek, 2007; Mendoza, 2007). Headhunting prac-
tices in many cultures are associated with warfare,
religion, social prestige and/or even cannibalism
(White, 1992; Chacon & Dye, 2007c: 630–642).
Early references to trophy taking can be found
in the Bible, in both the Old (Judith 13:8–9; 1
Maccabees 7:47) and New Testament (Matthew
14:8–11). In Europe, the English provide a good ex-
ample of how the practice of displaying heads was
widespread through time, especially between the
mid 17th and the 18th centuries (Thornbury,
1881:9–17; Gigante, 2006), but continuing sporadi-
cally until the early 20th century (Axtell & Sturtevant,
1980). Although not extensively reported in litera-
ture, the practice of taking and displaying trophy
heads was also observed in some places in Africa
and East Asia (Japan) (Law, 1989; Nagaoka et al.,
2010). In the New World, human trophy taking was
practiced long before the arrival of Europeans, and
ithasbeenobservedinmanyarchaeologicaland
historical settings throughout the Americas (except
Patagonia) (Gregg, 2000; Williams et al., 2001;
Finucane, 2008; Tung, 2008; Verano, 2008, see
Chacon & Dye, 2007a for a review). Until the 20th
* Correspondence to: Leverhulme Centre for Human Evolutionary Studies,
University of Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Street, Cambridge, CB2 1QH, UK.
e-mail: yys24@cam.ac.uk
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Received 3 February 2011
Revised 15 September 2011
Accepted 24 September 2011
International Journal of Osteoarchaeology
Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. (2011)
Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/oa.1297
century, trophy head taking was still practiced by
various indigenous tribes in different parts of the
world, including Papua New Guinea and many places
in Southeast Asia (van der Kroef, 1952; Hoskins,
1996).
Decapitation and the osteological record
Various explanations for the physical act of decapita-
tion in different groups from distinct periods have been
put forward. Philpott (1991:84–87) proposes that the
reasons underlying these acts may have been symbolic,
for instance, preventing the deceased from walking,
destroying the soul, as a sacrifice or to dishonor the
dead person. In their study, Boylston and colleagues
(2000:248) discuss extensively the circumstances under
which decapitation may have occurred: ‘(1) as a form of
corporal punishment in which an individual is executed
by severing the head from the body through the use of
an edged weapon; (2) as a consequence of armed con-
frontation in which the neck becomes a target in order
to disable or kill a foe; (3) as a trophy of armed con-
frontation; (4) as a form of relic collection or vener-
ation; (5) as a result of bloodletting in which the
head is removed in order to collect the body’s blood
supply; (6) as a result of a mismanaged hanging;
(7) as a result of a figurative association between the
head and a quality or qualities considered to be asso-
ciated with it.’In any case, it is important to bear in
mind that the same procedure could have been used
in different contexts such as ceremonial, reburial or
warfare (Steadman, 2008).
Of violent traumas, signs of decapitation are one of
the most clearly identifiable injuries to be observed in
human skeletal remains. Damage to the upper cervical
vertebrae (and also C7 or T1 in some instances), mastoid
processes, occipital regions, the posterior parts of man-
dibles and first ribs have been considered as good markers
(Liston & Baker, 1996; Waldron, 1996; Aufderheide &
Rodríguez-Martín, 1998:29; Anderson, 2001; Ardagna
et al., 2005; Kjellström, 2005; Wiltschke-Schrotta &
Stadler, 2005; Buckberry & Hadley, 2007; Saponetti
et al., 2008; Steadman, 2008). Beheading-related traumas
were also observed on the odontoid peg (McKinley,
1993) and transverse processes of vertebrae when an
axe rather than a sword has been used (Ulrich-Bochsler,
1988 in Waldron, 1996).
Even if no evidence has been left on the bones, some
aspects of the burial context can be indicative of de-
capitation such as the absence of a head (although
bones can eventually be destroyed or lost through
post-depositional processes such as intrusive burials,
animal activities, and environmental conditions) (Von
Endt & Ortner, 1984; Lyman, 1994; Okumura &
Eggers, 2008), the presence of a head without other
postcranial elements (Nagaoka & Abe, 2007) or the
placement of a head in a non-anatomical position
(Boylston et al., 2000). It is important to remember that
in the former two cases, the absence of the head or its
presence without other bone elements can be caused
by its use for ancestor worship or veneration (Simmons
et al., 1990; Boylston et al., 2000; Hammond et al., 2002;
Bonogofsky, 2005; Pérez et al., 2008; Özbek, 2009).
A brief history of headhunting in Borneo
Borneo is the world's third largest island covering
746 000 square kilometers. It is one of the numerous
islands of the southern and eastern rim of the South
China Sea in Southeast Asia (King, 1993:1). Adminis-
tratively, this island is divided between Indonesia (this
Indonesian territory is popularly known as Kalimantan)
and Malaysia (comprising the states of Sarawak and
Sabah) and the Nation of Brunei (Figure 1). The non-
Muslim, non-Malay native inhabitants of Borneo are
collectively referred to as ‘Dayak’(King, 1993:29).
Although all ethnic groups in this area have been
classified as Dayaks, they are distinct from each other
in terms of physical and cultural characteristics (Hose,
1988:8). Hose (1988) proposes a classification of the
roughly 50 sub-ethnic groups of Borneo into six main
groups: Murut, Klemantan
1
(including South-western
Group, Central group and Sebop Group), Punan,
Kenyah, Kayan and Iban (also known as Sea Dayaks).
In Borneo, the motivation for headhunting does not
seem to have been clarified. While some researchers have
argued such practices were seen as a way of ‘accumulat-
ing energy’(Hutton, 1938 in King, 1993:237–238) and
guaranteeing the general well-being and prosperity
(Furness, 1902:59 in Needham, 1976:74; Needham,
1976), some have linked this practice symbolically to
the fertility of crops (Izikowitz, 1941 in Needham,
1976; Freeman, 1979 in King, 1993:238). For Rousseau
(1990:264), the motivation was to satisfy religious needs
or to gain prestige for political and economic purposes.
However, as King (1993:238) proposes, the reasons for
headhunting may vary in Borneo, and different groups
would emphasize different aspects or motivations. The
origins of headhunting practices in Borneo are uncertain;
however, it is believed that headhunting was possibly
introduced by the Kayan a few centuries ago, and after
that was adopted by other indigenous tribes throughout
the island (Hose & McDougall, 1993a). In the 1880s,
1
Klemantan (or Kalimantan) was coined by Hose to refer to the central
Borneo groups that could not otherwise be classified.
M. Okumura and Y.Y. Siew
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. (2011)
peace was negotiated between the hostile Iban and
Maloh communities in western Borneo, resulting in the
disappearance of headhunting and warfare in this region
(King, 1985:65 in King, 1993:149). Later between 1910
and 1925, colonial rule on central Borneo was respon-
sible for the end of headhunting practices in the rest of
Borneo (Rousseau, 1990:35). Although headhunting
has been eradicated for nearly a century during the occu-
pation of Borneo by the British government, nowadays,
trophy heads are still hung in the longhouses of the
contemporary native groups, most of which are inherited
from their headhunter ancestors (Linklater, 1990;
Phelan, 2001). The headhunting culture is still very im-
portant in Borneo, where each year, Kayan males partici-
pate in ceremonies that simulate the return from a
headhunting expedition (Rousseau, 1990:264).
Objectives
The cranial remains studied in this article were origin-
ally collected by Charles Hose during his administra-
tive cadetship in Sarawak in the late 19th century. He
dedicated himself towards the study of ecology, bot-
any, zoology and anthropology of Borneo (Durrans,
1993:xi). Unfortunately, there are no details on how
he acquired these remains, but it is known that he
donated the skulls obtained from the local tribes to
the Anatomy School at the University of Cambridge
upon his return to England (Hose, 1988; Hose &
McDougall, 1993a, b). Even though headhunting
practices and related rituals have been well documen-
ted in the ethnographic literature (Riley, 1925; Ivanoff,
1958; Zegwaard, 1959; Klokke, 2004), studies of skel-
etal material can offer an alternative approach and pro-
vide a rich source of information that may have been
ignored in ethnographic research. In turn, these studies
can confirm, complement or even challenge written
records. More importantly, studies of bones offer a
unique insight into under-documented or undocu-
mented populations. In this context, the skeletal collec-
tion studied in this article is particularly crucial for
understanding the vanished headhunting practice in
Borneo as it not only provides direct evidence of such
practice from an osteological perspective, but also
allows us to examine the skeletons alongside written in-
formation. Therefore the aims of this article are: (1) to
use data obtained from skeletal materials to infer head-
hunting practices in Borneo; (2) to understand how
osteological data and written sources can be compared
or opposed; and lastly, (3) to gain insights into the way
in which the nature of both sources can influence our
interpretation and knowledge of such practices.
Materials and methods
The skeletal remains analysed in this article are
currently housed at the Duckworth Collection at
the University of Cambridge. They consist of 112
Figure 1. Map showing the island of Borneo (detail) and the regions and localities listed on Table 3.
Trophy Heads from Borneo
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. (2011)
individuals, of which 40 are represented by the cranium
and mandible, 40 by the cranium only and 32 by the
mandible only. No postcranial remains are available,
except a single cervical vertebra present in one of these
individuals. Most skulls are tied with a tag (signed by
Hose) presenting information on sex, region and ethnic
group to which the individual belonged, as well as by
which tribe the individual was killed. According to
Hose’s inventory, these trophy heads were collected
from various tribes; therefore, some variation in the
methods of preparing the trophy heads could be
expected. In addition to referring to the sex informa-
tion provided by the tags, osteological sex identifica-
tion was mainly based on the scoring system for
cranial features proposed by Buikstra & Ubelaker
(1994). Mandible traits such as gonial angle and the
width of ascending ramus were also considered when
some cranial features were not available. Each individ-
ual was assigned to one of the five age categories sug-
gested by Buikstra & Ubelaker (1994) based on dental
eruption, dental wear and cranial suture closure: child
(younger than 12 years), adolescent (12–19 years),
young adult (20–34 years), middle-aged adult (35–49)
and old adult (over 50 years).
All skulls were observed macroscopically under a
combination of fluorescent overhead lighting and an
incandescent desk lamp. The ectocranial bone surfaces
were examined with a 5handheld magnifying lens to
detect cutmarks, chopmarks, drilled perforations and
other types of blade injury. Cutmarks were defined as
linear marks under 1 mm in width, while the width of
chopmarks was larger and measuring approximately
2 mm (Andrushko et al., 2005). Evidence of bone burn-
ing was observed based on gross, macroscopic charac-
teristics, especially color.
Since some individuals do not have a complete
skull and some crania are poorly preserved, the sam-
ple size varies by skeletal element. In this article, a
total number represents the number of each element
available for observation rather than the total
number of individuals in the study, unless otherwise
stated.
Fisher’sexacttestwasusedtodeterminewhether
there is any relationship between sex and the presence
of trauma, and sex and decapitation. Fisher’sexacttest
is used to examine the significance of the association
between two categorical variables when the sample
size is small. Statistical analyses were conducted with
free online software created by GraphPad Software
(GraphPad Software, accessed 22 June 2010), and
all p-values presented are two tailed. All reported
percentages were not statistically analysed unless
otherwise stated.
Results
Age, sex and ethnic group
Table 1 presents the information on age and sex of the
sample. Clearly, adults represent the greatest propor-
tion of the collection, and among them, young adults
are the most common category. No individuals aged
over 50 were found in this collection. Of the 112 indi-
viduals, sex could only be estimated for 55 individuals,
of which 70.9% (39/55) are males and 29.1% (16/55)
are females.
Tables 2 and 3 show the origins of these trophy
heads according to the ethnic group and geography,
respectively. Information on ethnic group of origin
and geographical origin were not necessarily presented
for the same individual (refer to region and locality in
Figure 1). From these tables, it is possible to observe
that among the ethnic groups, Murut was the most tar-
geted for trophy heads, and the East Sarawak region
was the most represented in the sample.
Table 4 presents a compilation of what was
described in the tags as the ethnic groups responsible
for the killing. Klemantans are by far the most well-
represented group according to Hose’s inventory.
Evidence of violence: cutmarks, chopmarks and other
sharp force traumas
Cutmarks, chopmarks (Figure 2a) and other sharp force
traumas (Figure 2b) were found in 67 of 112 indivi-
duals. The result of Fisher’s exact test indicates that the
relationship between sex and the presence of trauma is
statistically significant (p= 0.019). Eleven out of 16
females (68.8%) show evidence of violence and 36 out
of 38 males (92.3%), suggesting that males were more
susceptible to violent attack than their female counter-
parts. As far as cutmarks are concerned, most of them
are concentrated on the parietals (39/80= 48.8%) and
frontals (35/80= 43.8%). Cutmarks are rare on the
Table 1. Age and sex estimation of the cranial remains
Age group ♀♂Unknown sex Total (%)
Unknown age 0 1 24 25 (22.3)
<12 years 0 0 2 2 (1.8)
12–19 years 1 1 4 6 (5.3)
Total non-adult 1 1 6 8 (7.1)
20–34 years 9 21 12 42 (37.5)
35–49 years 1 5 2 8 (7.1)
>50 years 0 0 0 0 (0.0)
Adult (+20 years) 5 11 13 29 (26.0)
Total adult 15 37 27 79 (70.6)
Total individuals 16 39 58 112 (100)
M. Okumura and Y.Y. Siew
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. (2011)
maxilla, with only four cases (4/76 = 5.3%), and are to-
tally absent on the sphenoid. Rodent gnawing was
observed in two individuals on the superior aspect of
the right zygomatic process, and on the superior part
of the left parietal of another individual.
Slightly less than 15% (15/112) of the individuals
were observed with chopmarks. Although chopmarks
are relatively rare in this collection, the distribution of
chopmarks is similar to cutmarks, in which the parietals
(8/80 = 10.0%) and frontals (4/80 = 5.0%) suffered the
most. Twenty-four out of 112 (21.4%) individuals were
affected by sharp force traumas, most of which were
found on parietals (13/80 = 16.3%). Traumas were also
found on six out of 72 mandibles (8.3%) of which the
posterior ascending rami were completely excised.
Other sharp force traumas are identified as damage
which penetrates the bone and/or a piece of bone being
cut off the skull. The size varies but they are larger than
cutmarks and chopmarks. Among the 24 individuals
who suffered from these traumas, 15 are males, four
are females and five are indeterminate from both non-
adult and adult groups.
Evidence of decapitation
Evidence of decapitation could be clearly observed in
some cases,
2
including damage to the occipital
condyles, mastoid tips and mandible (Figure 3a and b).
Although all the skulls studied are claimed to have been
the victims of trophy head taking, only 56 out of 111
(50.5%) show clear evidence of decapitation. However,
it should be noted that since not all individuals consist
of a complete skull, therefore, the figure shown above
may be underestimated. Moreover, signs of beheading
might have been left on other post-crania such as cer-
vical vertebrae which are unavailable in this collection,
with the exception of SEA 054. This individual pre-
serves an atlas which is attached with the occipital con-
dyles; nonetheless, it shows no signs of decapitation. In
the 55 individuals where the identification of sex is pos-
sible, 50% (8/16) of females exhibit evidence of decapi-
tation and 71.8% of males (28/39). Statistical analysis
shows that decapitation is not significantly associated
with sex (p= 0.211). Evidence of decapitation was also
seen in four of six adolescents and one of the two chil-
dren. Of the 36 damaged occipital condyles, 29
(80.6%) show smooth cut surfaces with well-defined
edges on both, seven (19.4%) are damaged either on
the right or the left. Excision of the lower portion of
mastoid processes was found in 17 of 79 (21.5%), seven
(41.2%) of which display damages to both tips, whereas
ten (58.8%) are excised on either side. Among the 72
available mandibles, 17 of 72 (23.6%) show cut traumas
on either side of gonial region (only one is excised at
both sides), while three (4.2%) show slice-off traumas
on the inferior portion of the mandibular body.
Enlargement of foramen magnum
Of the 80 crania, foramen magnum was preserved in 79.
From these, 12 (15.2%) individuals present evidence of
Table 2. Number and percentage of trophy heads according to
ethnic group
Ethnic group # %
Kayan 3 4.69
Keniah 4 6.25
Klemantan 1 1.56
Klemantan Central 8 12.50
Klemantan SW 4 6.25
Malay 1 1.56
Murut 42 65.63
Punan 1 1.56
Total 64 100
Table 3. Number and percentage of trophy heads according to
geography
Region Locality # %
Brunei Balait River 2 3.33
Brunei Tutong River 1 1.67
Sabah Padas River 1 1.67
Central Sarawak Rajang River 1 1.67
East Sarawak Baram Watershed 3 5.00
East Sarawak Baram River 4 6.67
East Sarawak Baram District 5 8.33
East Sarawak Limbang River/District 5 8.33
East Sarawak Limbang River 7 11.67
East Sarawak Mulu 1 1.67
East Sarawak Trusan River/District 16 26.67
Sarawak No information 6 10.00
NE Borneo Kayan River 4 6.67
NC Borneo Kapuas River 1 1.67
Central Borneo No information 3 5.00
Total 60 100
2
Individual SEA 118 was excluded from the analysis in this section as it only
consists of a fragmented mandible, and evidence of decapitation could not
be observed adequately from the available skeletal elements.
Table 4. Number and percentage of headhunter groups
Headhunter group # %
Iban 3 5.45
Keniah 2 3.64
Klemantan Central 32 58.18
Klemantan (Sebop) 8 14.55
Murut 3 5.45
Puan & Klemantan Central 1 1.82
Iban? 6 10.91
Total 55 100
Trophy Heads from Borneo
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. (2011)
widening. The size of the damage varies, ranging from
the removal of a small piece of bone on the edge of the
foramen magnum to removal of the entire cranial base.
Burned skulls
Of the 112 individuals, 76 (67.9%) show evidence of
partial or complete burning. The affected areas of some
skulls are limited to occipital condyles, whereas the rest
of the bones display unburned colors. On the other
hand, some skulls were completely carbonized and
blackened yet none of them shows sign of calcination.
The color of these skulls after burning varies, ranging
from shades of brown to black. All skulls present more
than one of these colors. The discoloration due to
burning on the superior region of frontal and parietals
is relatively lighter than that on other bones of a skull.
Of the 75 burned crania, 73 basicrania (97.3%) display
evidence of burning, indicating that the fire was placed
underneath the skulls.
Drilled perforation
Among the 80 crania, 52 (65%) have been drilled on
the cranial vaults, 49 of which exhibit one perforation,
whereas three have two holes. The purpose of drilling
two holes is uncertain. However, of the 49 crania with
one hole, a relatively smaller and drilled depression was
seen on three crania, all of which are located adjacent
to the main holes.
Of the 55 holes, 40 (80%) are located on the sagittal
line, 25 of which have been drilled posteriorly to
bregma and 15 are at bregma or anterior to bregma,
allowing a skull to be suspended with the face looking
forward. Fourteen holes were drilled on parietals. It is
not surprising that only one hole was drilled on the
frontal, as it is difficult to keep a skull facing forward
this way. The holes vary in size, the diameters of both
medio-lateral and anteroposterior range from 6.5 mm
to 18.0 mm and 5.5 mm to 19.0 mm, respectively.
The average medio-lateral diameter equals 10.12 mm
and of anteroposterior equals 10.11 mm. The sharp
margins of the holes, in conjunction with the
Figure 2. Horizontal chopmarks on the right posterior parietal (a) and other sharp force trauma and a drilling hole (b). This figure is available in colour
online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/oa.
Figure 3. Evidence of decapitation on occipital condyles and the tips of
mastoid process (a) and on gonial region (b). This figure is available in
colour online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/oa.
M. Okumura and Y.Y. Siew
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. (2011)
consistent circular shape at the outer table of the skulls,
may indicate that these perforations were drilled with
specific tools and the individuals who performed this
task might be experienced and skilful.
Cotton and rattan string
Rattan was not the only material used to re-articulate
crania and mandibles throughout the collection. Some
skulls were found to be tied with cotton string. Of
the 112 individuals, 33 (29.5%) were observed to be
associated with either rattan or cotton string (Figure 4).
Twenty percent (n= 8) of the 40 individuals who were
represented by both cranium and mandible were tied
together with a strip of rattan or a cotton string (three
females, three males and two indeterminate). In eigh-
teen individuals (45%), although the skull and
mandible were not rearticulated, rattan or cotton string
was found to be attached either to the cranium, or
mandible, or found separately in the box.
Discussion
How to produce a trophy head
A detailed report on the process of producing a trophy
head can be found in Hose and McDougall’s
manuscript (1993a: 177–178), where they describe
not only the preparation of the head, but also the
attitudes of the tribe towards these new acquisitions:
‘In the course of the feasting the women usually take
temporary possession of the heads, and perform with
them a wild, uncouth dance, waving the heads to and
fro, and chanting in imitation of the men's war-song.
The procession may be resumed at intervals until the
heads are finally suspended beside the old ones over
the principal hearth of the gallery. The heads have
usually been prepared by removal of the brain through
the great foramen, by drying over a fire, and by lashing
on the lower jaw with strips of rattan. The suspension
of the head is effected by piercing a round hole in
the crown, and passing through it from below, by
way of the great foramen, a rattan knotted at the end.
The free end of the rattan is passed through and tied
in a hole in the lower edge of a long beam suspended
parallel to the length of the gallery from the beams of
the roof. The Kenyahs suspend the heads in the same
way as the Kayans, but most of the Klemantans and
Ibans use in place of the long beam a strong basket-
work in the shape of a cone, the apex being attached
to the roof beams, and the heads tied in two or three
tiers in the wall of the cone. In either case the heads
hang some five or six feet above the floor, where they
are out of reach of the dogs.’Interestingly, the role
of women in the celebrations associated with the
acquisition of trophy heads, observed not only in
Borneo but also in Ameridian settings, ranges from
dancing, to showing anger towards the enemy by
abusing their remains, to mockery. In any case, women
played an important and active role. Mendoza (2007:
586–587) describes how women from the South
American Gran Chaco would react when they received
a scalp from their husbands. For instance, they danced
to express their joy, rubbed the scalps on their thighs
or even slept with the scalp. In some Pueblo groups,
women would shout at, kick, spit or even urinate on
the scalps as a way of demeaning the enemy (Chacon
& Dye, 2007b:621).
The evidence on the skull for the method of decapi-
tation is variable, indicating that blows should have
come from different directions, for instance, from an-
terior, posterior, right and/or left, as evidenced by the
inconsistent damage to mastoid tips, gonial regions
and occipital condyles, namely, the heads of victims
could be beheaded from any direction. The lack of
standardization in terms of how the head was decapi-
tated is also supported by the description of Ivanoff
(1958:60): ‘he takes his victim (man or woman) by
surprise (...) quickly slicing off the head with a kriss’.
Hose & McDougall (1993a:173) also state that ‘The
head is hacked off at once from the body of any
Figure 4. Cranium and mandible tied with a strip of rattan. This figure
is available in colour online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/oa.
Trophy Heads from Borneo
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. (2011)
one of the foe who falls in the fight; the trunk is left
lying where it fell’. Despite the absence of postcranial
material, in particular cervical vertebrae which are
believed to carry most evidence of decapitation, it
seems reasonable to assume that the great amount
of traumas located on the inferior region of heads im-
plies that decapitation was likely to be a perimortem
and/or postmortem event, since it has been suggested
to be very difficult to behead a individual at the
C1–C2 level if not motionless (Bush & Stirland, 1991).
The preferential location of cutmarks on parietals
and frontals seems to be consistent with defleshing of
the skull (Pérez et al., 2008; Stodder et al., 2010),
although there is no mention of this procedure in the
written documents. The presence of perimortem sharp
trauma on these crania can also be explained by
the practice of having children striking blows at
those heads, as described by Hose & McDougall
(1993a:174–175) ‘Before they ascend to the house,
the heads have to be safely lodged in a small hut
specially built for their reception; and the young boys
are brought down to go through their first initiation
in the arts of war. Each child is made to hold a sword
and, with the assistance of some aged warrior, to strike
a blow at one of the newly captured heads. The older
boys, some nine or ten years of age, who are ripe for
their second participation in mock warfare, also strike
at a head in a similar way’. This is consistent with the
presence of smooth polished lesion surfaces that do
not appear of being cut into dry, ‘older’bone, pointing
that such marks were made either during life or shortly
after death (Wenham, 1989). Although only 24
(21.4%) individuals presented sharp force traumas on
the skulls, it is not impossible that these individuals
would present traumas in other parts of the body as
described by Hose & McDougall (1993a: 172–173):
‘It is not unusual in case of an able-bodied man who
has surrendered, but shown signs of attempting to
escape or of renewing resistance, to deal him a heavy
blow on the knee-cap, and so render him lame for some
time’. Unfortunately, no postcranial material was
available to confirm this statement.
The removal of the brain through the foramen
magnum as part of the preparation of the heads was
inferred through the widening of this foramen in a
few individuals (van der Kroef, 1952; Murphy &
Murphy, 1985:106; Verano, 1995; Tung, 2007).
Another procedure described to prepare the trophy
heads was the burning of skulls. Although a high
percentage of burnt skulls was observed, based on the
written documents, it was expected that all skulls, to
some extent, should have been burned as burning was
one of the processes of preparation. Some researchers
have noticed the differences between bones being
burned in the flesh and those burned without flesh in
terms of coloration and modification of the structure
of bones (Symes et al., 2008). Therefore, the disparity
between our findings and written records can be for
two reasons: (1) these skulls were burned with flesh,
the protection of soft tissue impeding further color
alteration on skulls; (2) the unburnt skulls were not
used as trophy heads. Although all unburnt skulls were
not perforated, more than 30% (23/75) of burnt skulls
do not show a hole either, indicating that not all
trophy heads obtained were hung in the long houses
after burning. As a result, it is reasonable to assume that
the former reason is more likely to fit the case here as
some skulls demonstrate clear coloration differences
on the same bone indicating burned and unaltered
bone, suggesting that these skulls were burned with
flesh and the unchanged color can be the result of the
protection of soft tissue. The non-standardised color
alteration and the remaining of soft tissue and hair on
some skulls indicate that the duration and temperature
of the fire were not controlled, implying burning can
either be more of a practical purpose to get rid of flesh
rather than as a ritual process or that specificfire
conditions were not an important part of the ritual.
An experiment conducted by David (1990) found that
in a controlled brushfire, with temperatures of up to
400–500 C, bone fragments appeared brown and
black, and none of them were calcined. In another
campfire experiment by the same author using eucalyp-
tus wood, grey and black coloration were present on
bones, and they were heavily calcined after 1 hour and
5 minutes in temperatures of 840 C. The fire used by
the Dayak may have been similar to the bushfire experi-
ment described above (temperatures up to 400–500 C)
as evidenced by brown and black coloration and the
absence of calcination. No postmortem trauma was
found to be superimposed on the original cutmarks,
chopmarks and other types of blade injury, suggesting
no intentional modifications were made after burning.
The crania were subsequently drilled with an iron tool
as evidenced by the consistency of the location, the size
and the shape of the perforations. As results show, some
crania and mandibles were re-articulated using a strip of
rattan or cotton string.
Trophy head or ancestor veneration?
Despite the strong written and physical evidence for
the past practice of headhunting in Borneo, without
documentary evidence, it would be quite difficult to
differentiate whether the heads collected by Hose were
removed for the purpose of trophy display or ancestor
M. Okumura and Y.Y. Siew
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. (2011)
veneration. The importance of ethnographic evidence
is stressed by Williamson (2007:199), who states that
crania found in refuse contexts on Iroquoian sites may
be interpreted as trophy heads in the absence of any
ethnographic data. The fact that a body is found
without the head or the head without the body only
indicates that the head was handled for some
purpose (Jacobi, 2007: 307). According to Berryman
(2007:378), the presence of cutmarks, together with
contextual information, should be used to differentiate
an event of decapitation to produce a trophy head from
an event to obtain an element for ancestral veneration
or worship. However, the presence of cutmarks is not
the definitive proof that trophy-head taking had
occurred. The practice of secondary burials with the
dismemberment and cleaning of bones can be related
to a mortuary custom associated with ancestor worship,
resulting in disarticulated body parts which do not bear
any relation to trophy taking (Chacon & Dye,
2007b:622–623). In the current study, the presence
of violence inferred from chopmarks, cutmarks and
other sharp force traumas is irrefutable. Osteological
evidence coupled with documentary data strongly
support the hypothesis that these skulls were the prod-
uct of trophy taking rather than ancestor veneration.
Age and sex of individuals for trophy heads
Data on age and sex indicates that the beheaded cranial
remains studied were represented by both sexes and all
age classes (except old adults), although most of the
remains represent young adults. Our findings support
Rousseau’s (1990:264) statement that in Borneo ‘any
victim would do, a child or an old woman was as ac-
ceptable as an adult man’. Rousseau’s further discussion
on headhunting and warfare in Central Borneo is also
consistent with our results. He stated ‘when the Kayan
fought each other, they did not spare women or chil-
dren’(Rousseau, 1990:271). This, nevertheless, is not
completely in agreement with Hose and McDougall’s
observation (1993a:172): ‘Kayans conducting a suc-
cessful attack of this kind will make as many prisoners
as possible, and will as a rule kill only those men who
make desperate resistance, though occasionally others,
even women and children, may be wantonly killed in
the excitement of the moment’(emphasis added). Even
Rousseau (1990:271) contradicts himself by saying that
‘the Kenyah only attacked fighting men, and before the
battle they warned their enemies to prepare themselves
so that women and children would be out of the way
(...)’. Although the motivation behind taking trophy
heads from women instead of capturing them to be
incorporated in the group is not very clear, in light of
the human skeletal remains, the ambiguity of the
written records can be partially clarified. Our findings
clearly show that during warfare and fights, any
member of a group could be a victim with a preference
for young adults, regardless of their sex.
Throughout the history of warfare, it seems to be
much more common that women were captured to
be slaves or wives, or for ransom. Accounts pertain-
ing to the warfare of Yanomamo (Chagnon, 1988)
and Medieval Scots (Magnusson, 2000) demonstrate
that taking women from enemies was a routine aspect
of warfare in these societies. Killing women in
headhunting raids, particularly young women, seems
to violate the assumption that women would be
sought after as viable mating partners. Nonetheless,
ethnographic as well as archaeological studies have
documented that, in some cases, the choice of a
female as a victim was not accidental. A minister of
the Dutch East Indian Company noted that young
warriors of the headhunting parties in Indonesia ‘were
as ready to kill women as men, young as well as old’
(Andaya, 2004: 23–24). Other sources also indicate
that the head of a woman, older person or a child
was not only considered a special prize, but also that
taking heads from this group indicated that the heart
of a community has collapsed since these individuals
should have been protected by men (Andaya, 2004:
24). Archaeological skeletal remains from Kodiak
Island, Alaska, include the bones of women and
children with cutmarks, drilling and other modifica-
tions related to trophy taking (Simon & Steffian,
1994). Studies of two Peruvian archaeological sites
also reveal that some of the trophy heads belonged
to women and children (Finucane, 2008; Tung,
2008). Cranial remains belonging to young adult
males are commonly regarded as battlefield trophies
since young males were more likely to be engaged
in warfare (Seeman, 1988), whereas the heads of
women or other less defensive groups are suggested
to be trophies captured during headhunting (Harner,
1972: 183). In any case, it seems that there is cross-
cultural variation in whether or not only males will
be pursued for trophy heads.
Information retrieved from tags attached to the
skeletal material reveals an interesting scenario, where
Murut people are the most represented group of head
trophies, whereas Klemantan groups are responsible for
producing most of the trophy heads. Hildebrand (1982
in Rousseau, 1990:273) claims that of all tribal groups,
Klemantan have been more active in headhunting
practice than others. Our findings once again fitwell
with the ethnographic accounts, although the criterion
used by Hose to collect the trophy heads is not known.
Trophy Heads from Borneo
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. (2011)
Two records, one event
When studying skeletal remains from historical peri-
ods, ethnographic data should be taken into account
whenever it is available to better understand the
context. Nevertheless, researchers should be aware that
ethnographic or historical accounts are ‘second-hand’
information, ‘first-hand’information would be the
descriptions produced by the people themselves
(Geertz, 1973: 15). As a result, ethnographic accounts
should be used cautiously in conjunction with human
skeletal remains by archaeologists when reconstructing
the lifestyles of past populations, concerning material
cultures, migratory routes, subsistence activities, settle-
ment patterns and so on. Without the help of the
other, neither osteological data nor ethnographic
records alone can provide a broader picture regarding
the mutual relationship between human behaviour
and material culture.
It is also important to bear in mind that skeletal
remains suffer from limitations too, from the survival
of bones upon the action of post-depositional processes
to the selection of specimens by researchers (Waldron,
1994: 12). In the present case, little is known about the
criteria of selection and acquisition of these heads by
Hose, and it is difficult to assess the extent to which
these heads are a representative sample. Therefore,
any broad generalizations based on this sample should
be avoided. As far as we know, there is no other
published osteological research on trophy heads from
Borneo, precluding any comparisons with our findings.
Although decapitation traumas are one of the most
discernible injuries found on bones, our results show
that almost half of the individuals that might have been
decapitated actually do not show tangible signs of this.
As some of the most important bone elements used to
infer decapitation –the cervical vertebrae –are missing
in this collection, inferences about decapitation in
these individuals cannot be made.
It can be said that, in our case, osteological data and
the ethnographic record put forward the same ideas,
especially in terms of how a trophy head was produced
(brain extraction, use of fire, drilling hole), but also in
some aspects related to the actual beheading (lack of
pattern regarding the direction of the blows), and even
in terms of the main group (Klemantans) who would
have performed such practice. Obviously, many
headhunting-related rituals which do not leave marks
on bones could never have been inferred without
ethnographic accounts, for instance, the dance
performed by women holding trophy heads and the
importance of the participation of children through
striking blows on the trophy heads. On the other hand,
the osteological materials helped to clarify the ambigu-
ities in ethnographic accounts such as the biological
profile of the victim of a trophy head, which according
to the osteological evidence could belong to any sex
and age group. Other important information provided
by the osteological data concerns the process of
decapitation. The traumatic injuries on the crania
suggest that the excision points are very close to
mastoid processes and mandibles, indicating beheaded
individuals were probably motionless, having been
severely injured or dead, under which circumstances,
the killers managed to precisely cut off the exact body
parts that they wanted.
Conclusion
As documented by Chacon & Mendoza (2007a, b),
revisionist historians argue that reporting the warfare
and ritual violence of indigenous groups is a malicious
colonist legacy which denigrates and dehumanizes
indigenous cultures, societies and histories. However,
it is evident that the contemporary Dayak preserve this
legacy by displaying trophy heads in long houses, indi-
cating that they are not ashamed of their headhunting
heritage. The present study indicates the importance of
interdisciplinary studies to understand a diminished
cultural practice of a recent indigenous group, which
can only usually be inferred either from ethnographic
literature or from archaeological data. Very rarely, the
opportunity to use both sources is presented. The
headhunting practice of the Dayak has been widely
reported in literature from a cultural viewpoint; yet,
little physical evidence is available to provide direct
verification of how these trophy heads were processed
and finally displayed. The osteological evidence
obtained in this study not only provides new insights
into the headhunting practice which was prevalent in
the early 20th century among the Dayak in Borneo,
but it also offers a rare opportunity to compare written
records and osteological data, as well as instigate a
discussion on how our understanding of a vanished
practice may be improved by integrating different
types of data. In our study, the osteological evidence
and the ethnographic accounts are, most of the time,
pointing in the same direction; however, both records
provide crucial and new information which would not
be so easily obtained (or not obtained at all) from the
other source. More importantly, it highlights the fact
that although the practice of headhunting has generally
been portrayed in a negative light in the literature, it is
still regarded as an important heritage among the
contemporary Dayak as it was a century ago.
M. Okumura and Y.Y. Siew
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. (2011)
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the Duckworth Laboratory for
access to the material, Emma Pomeroy for the English
corrections and suggestions, as well as Astolfo Araujo
for helping with the map. Suggestions and commentar-
ies from four anonymous reviewers and Debra Martin
greatly improved the previous version of this paper,
which are deeply appreciated.
References
3
Andaya BW. 2004. History, headhunting and gender in
monsoon Asia: comparative and longitudinal views. Journal
of South East Asia Research 12:13–52.
Anderson T. 2001. Two decapitations from Roman Towcester.
International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 11:400–405. DOI:
10.1002/oa.581
Andrushko VA, Latham KAS, Grady DL, Pastron AG,
Walker PL. 2005. Bioarchaeological evidence for trophy-
taking in prehistoric central California. American Journal of
Physical Anthropology 127: 375–384. DOI: 10.1002/
ajpa.20044
Andrushko VA, Schwitalla AW, Walker PL. 2010. Trophy-
taking and dismemberment as warfare strategies in
prehistoric Central California. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology 141:83–96. DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.21117
Ardagna Y, Richier A, Vernet G, Dutour O. 2005. A case of
beheading dating from the Celtic Period (La Tène B.
Sarliève-Grande Halle, France). International Journal of
Osteoarchaeology 15:73–76. DOI: 10.1002/oa.776
Aufderheide AC, Rodríguez-Martín C. 1998. The Cambridge
encyclopedia of human paleopathology. Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge.
AxtellJ,SturtevantW.1980.Theunkindestcut,orwhoinvented
scalping? William and Mary Quarterly (3rd series) 37:451–472.
Berryman CA. 2007. Captive sacrifice and trophy taking
among the ancient Maya: an evaluation of the bioarchaeo-
logical evidence and its sociopolitical implications. In The
taking and displaying of human body parts as trophies by Amerin-
dians, Chacon RJ, Dye DH (eds). Springer: New York;
377–399.
Bonogofsky M. 2005. A bioarchaeological study of plastered
skulls from Anatolia: New discoveries and interpretations.
International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 15: 124–135. DOI:
10.1002/oa.749
Boylston A, Knüsel CJ, Roberts CA, Dawson M. 2000.
Investigation of a Romano-British Rural Ritual in Bedford,
England. Journal of Archaeological Science 27: 241–254. DOI:
10.1006/jasc.1999.0451
Buckberry JL, Hadley DM. 2007. An Anglo-Saxon
Execution Cemetery at Walkington Wold, Yorkshire.
Oxford Journal of Archaeology 26: 309–329.
Buikstra JE, Ubelaker D. 1994. Standards for data collection from
human skeletal remains: Proceedings of a seminar at the Field Museum
of Natural History. Arkansas Archaeological Survey Press:
Fayetteville.
Bush H, Stirland A. 1991. Romano-British decapitation
burials: a comparison of osteological evidence and burial
ritual from two cemeteries. Anthropologie XXIV: 205–210.
Chacon RJ, Dye DH. 2007a. Introduction to human trophy
taking: an ancient and widespread practice. In The taking and
displaying of human body parts as trophies by Amerindians,Chacon
RJ, Dye DH (eds). Springer: New York; 5–31.
Chacon RJ, Dye DH. 2007b. Supplemental data on
Amerindian trophy taking. In The taking and displaying of
human body parts as trophies by Amerindians, Chacon RJ, Dye
DH (eds). Springer: New York; 618–629.
Chacon RJ, Dye DH. 2007c. Conclusions. In The taking and
displaying of human body parts as trophies by Amerindians,Chacon
RJ, Dye DH (eds). Springer: New York; 630–653.
Chacon RJ, Mendoza RG. 2007a. Ethinical considerations
and conclusions regarding indigenous warfare and ritual
violence in North America. In North American indigenous war-
fare and ritual violence, Chacon RJ, Mendoza RG (eds). The
University of Arizona Press: Tucson; 222–232.
Chacon RJ, Mendoza RG. 2007b. Ethinical considerations
and conclusions regarding indigenous warfare and ritual
violence in Latin America. In Latin American indigeous warfare
and ritual violence, Chacon RJ, Mendoza RG (eds). The
University of Arizona Press: Tuscon; 234–248.
Chagnon NA. 1988. Life histories, blood revenge, and warfare
in a tribal population life histories. Science 239:985–992.
Conlee CA. 2007. Decapitation and rebirth: a headless
burial from Nasca, Peru. Current Anthropology 48: 438–445.
David B. 1990. How was this bone burnt? In Problem solving in taph-
onomy: archaeological and palaeontological studies from Europe, Africa
and Oceania, Solomon S, Davidson I, Watson D (eds): Anthro-
pology Museum, University of Queensland: St. Lucia; 65–79.
Durrans B. 1993. Introduction. In The Pagan tribes of Borneo
(2nd ed., Vol. 1), Hose C, McDougall W (eds). Oxford
University Press: Singapore; vii–xli.
Finucane BC. 2008. Trophy heads from Nawinpukio, Perú:
Physical and chemical analysis of Huarpa-era modified
human remains. American Journal of Physical Anthropology
135:75–84. DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.20710
Geertz C. 1973. The interpretation of cultures. Basic Books: New York.
Gigante D. 2006. Headlessness. Essays in Criticism 56:
280–285. DOI: 10.1093/escrit/cgh013
GraphPad Software. http://www.graphpad.com/quickcalcs/
index.cfm.Date. Accessed 22 June 2010.
Gregg JB. 2000. Thirty-five years of upper Missouri river
basin paleopathology. Chungará 32:71–77. DOI:
10.4067/S0717-73562000000100012
Hammond N, Saul JM, Saul FP. 2002. Ancestral faces: A preclassic
Maya skull-mask from Cuello, Belize. Antiquity 76:951–952.
Harner MJ. 1972. The Jivaro, people of the sacred waterfalls.
Doubleday/Natural History Press: Garden City, N.Y.
Hose C. 1988. Natural man: a record from Borneo (2nd ed.).
Oxford University Press: Singapore.
3
Secondary references not listed.
Trophy Heads from Borneo
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. (2011)
Hose C, McDougall W. 1993a. The Pagan tribes of Borneo (2nd
ed., Vol. 1). Oxford University Press: Singapore.
Hose C, McDougall W. 1993b. The Pagan tribes of Borneo (2nd
ed., Vol. 2). Oxford University Press: Singapore.
Hoskins J. 1996. Headhunting and the social imagination in
Southeast Asia. Stanford University Press: Stanford, Calif.
Ivanoff P. 1958. Headhunters of Borneo (translated from the French
by Edward Fitzgerald). Jarrolds Publishers Ltd.: London.
Jacobi KP. 2007. Disabling the dead: human trophy taking
in the prehistoric southeast. In The taking and displaying of
human body parts as trophies by Amerindians, Chacon RJ, Dye
DH (eds). Springer: New York; 299–338.
Jandial R, Hughes SA, Aryan HE, Marshall LF, Levy ML.
2004. The science of shrinking human heads: Tribal
warfare and revenge among the South American Jivaro-
Shuar. Neurosurgery 55: 1215–1221.
Jurmain R, Bartelink EJ, Leventhal A, Bellifemine V,
Nechayev I, Atwood M, DiGiuseppe D. 2009. Paleoepi-
demiological patterns of interpersonal aggression in a pre-
historic central California population from CA-ALA-329.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology 139: 462–473.
DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.21002
King VT. 1993. The peoples of Borneo. Blackwell Publishers: Oxford.
Kjellström A. 2005. The urban farmer. Osteoarchaeological analysis
of skeletons from Medieval Sigtuna interpreted in a socioeconomical
perspective. Stockholm University: Stockholm.
Klokke AH (ed). 2004. Fishing, hunting and headhunting in the
former culture of the Ngaju Dayak in Central Kalimantan. Borneo
Research Council: Philips, ME.
van der Kroef JM. 1952. Some head-hunting traditions of
Southern New Guinea. American Anthropologist 54:221–235.
Law R. 1989. My head belongs to the king: on the political
and ritual significance of decapitation in pre-Colonial
Dahomey. The Journal of African History 30: 399–415.
Linklater A. 1990. Wild people: Travels with Borneo's head-hunters.
Atlantic Monthly Press: New York.
Liston MA, Baker BJ. 1996. Reconstructing the massacre at
Fort William Henry, New York. International Journal of
Osteoarchaeology 6:28–41.
Lovisek JA. 2007. Human Trophy Taking on the Northwest
Coast. In Introduction to human trophy taking: an ancient and
widespread practice, Chacon RJ, Dye DH (eds). Springer:
New York; 45–64.
Lyman RL. 1994. Vertebrate taphonomy. Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge.
Magnusson M. 2000. Scotland: the story of a nation.
HarperCollins: New York.
McKinley JI. 1993. Bone fragment size and weights of bone
from modern British cremations and the implications
for the interpretation of archaeological cremations.
International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 3: 283–287. DOI:
10.1002/oa.1390030406
Mendoza M 2007. Human trophy taking in the South
American Gran Chaco. In Introduction to human trophy taking:
an ancient and widespread practice. Chacon RJ, Dye DH (eds).
New York: Springer; 575–590.
Murphy Y, Murphy RF. 1985. Women of the Forest (2nd
edition). Columbia University Press: New York.
Nagaoka T, Abe M. 2007. Human skeletal remains from the
Osaka castle site in Japan: metrics and weapon injuries.
Anthropological Science 115: 163–168.
Nagaoka T, Uzawa K, Hirata K. 2010. Evidence for
weapon-related traumas in medieval Japan: observations
of the human crania from Seiyokan. Anthropological Science
118: 129–140. DOI: 10.1537/ase.091007
Needham R. 1976. Skulls and Causality. Man 11:71–88.
Neumann GK. 1940. Evidence for the antiquity of scalping
from Central Illinois. American Antiquity 5: 287–289.
Okumura MMM, Eggers S. 2008. Natural and cultural
formation processes on the archaeological record: a
case study regarding skeletal remains from a Brazilian
shellmound. In Archeology Research Trends,SuárezAR,
Vásquez MN (eds). Novascience: New York;
1–39.
Özbek M. 2009. Remodeled human skulls in Köşk Höyük
(Neolithic age, Anatolia): A new appraisal in view of
recent discoveries. Journal of Archaeological Science 36:
379–386. DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2008.09.032
Pérez VR, Nelson BA, Martin DL. 2008. Veneration of Vio-
lence? A study of variations in patterns of human bone
modification at La Quemada. In Social Violence in the Prehis-
panic American Southwest, Nichols DL, Crown PL (eds).
University of Arizona Press: Tucson; 123–142.
Phelan PR. 2001. Head-hunting and the Magang ceremony in Sabah.
Natural History Publications (Borneo): Kota Kinabalu.
Philpott RA. 1991. Burial practices in Roman Britain: a survey of
grave treatment and furnishing A.D. 43–410. Tempus Repara-
tum: Oxford.
Riley EB. 1925. Among Papuan headhunters: an account of the man-
ners & customs of the old Fly River headhunters. Seeley, Service &
Co.: London.
Rousseau J. 1990. Central Borneo: Ethnic identity and social life in a
stratified society. Clarendon Press: Oxford.
Saponetti SS, Scattarella V, Nunno CD, Emanuel P, Nunno
ND. 2008. A case of decapitation in Canosa, South Italy
(5th–6th century A.D.). Forensic Science International 176:
e11–e16. DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2007.07.015
Seeman MF. 1988. Ohio Hopewell trophy-skull artifacts
as evidence for competition in Middle Woodland
Societies circa 50 B.C. - A.D. 350. American Antiquity
53: 565–577.
Simmons AH, Boulton A, Butler CR, KafafiZ, Rollefson
GO. 1990. Field Report: A plastered human skull from
neolithic 'Ain Ghazal, Jordan. Journal of Field Archaeology
17: 107–110.
Simon JJK, Steffian AF. 1994. Cannibalism or complex
mortuary behavior? In Reckoning with the dead: the Larsen
Bay repatriation and the Smithsonian Institution, Bray TL, Killion
TW (eds). Smithsonian Institution Press: ; 75–100.
Steadman DL. 2008. Warfare related trauma at Orendorf, a Mid-
dle Mississippian site in west-central Illinois. American Journal of
Physical Anthropology 136:51–64. DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.20778
M. Okumura and Y.Y. Siew
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. (2011)
Stodder ALW, Osterholtz A, Mowrer K, Chuipka JP. 2010.
Processed human remains from site 5LP245: context,
taphonomy, interpretation. In Animas-La Plata Project:
Bioarchaeology. SWCA Anthropological Research Papers No. 10,
Vol, XV, Perry EM, Stodder ALW, Bollong C (eds). SWCA
Environmental Consultants: Phoenix; 279–415.
Symes SA, Rainwater CW, Chapman EN, Gipson DR, Piper AL.
2008. Patterned thermal destruction of human remains in a
forensic setting. In The analysis of burned human remains,Schmidt
CW, Symes SA (eds). Academic Press: London; 15–54.
Thornbury W. 1881. Old and New London: a narrative of its
history, its people, and its places Vol. 2. Cassell, Petter, Calpin
& Co.: London; Paris; New York.
Tung TA. 2007. From Corporeality to Sanctity: Transform-
ing Bodies into Trophy Heads in the Pre-Hispanic Andes.
In The taking and displaying of human body parts as trophies by
Amerindians, Chacon RJ, Dye DH (eds). Springer: New
York; 481–504.
Tung TA. 2008. Dismembering bodies for display: a
bioarchaeological study of trophy heads from the Wari
site of Conchopata, Peru. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology 136: 294–308. DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.20812
Verano JW. 1995. Where do they rest? The treatment of
human offerings and trophies in ancient Peru. In Tombs
for the living: Andean mortuary practices, Dillehay TD (ed).
Dumbarton Oaks: Washington, DC; 189–227.
Verano JW. 2008. Trophy head-taking and human sacrifice
in Andean South America. In Handbook of South American
Archaeology, Silverman H, Isbell WH (eds). Springer:
New York; 1047–1060.
Von Endt DW, Ortner DJ. 1984. Experimental effects of
bone size and temperature on bone diagenesis. Journal of
Archaeological Science 11: 247–253. DOI: 10.1016/0305-
4403(84)90005-0
Waldron T. 1994. Counting the dead: the epidemiology of skeletal
populations. John Wiley & Sons: Chichester; New York.
Waldron T. 1996. Legalized trauma. International Journal of
Osteoarchaeology 6: 114–118.
Wenham SJ. 1989. Anatomical interpretations of Anglo-
Saxon weapon injuries. In Weapons and Warfare in Anglo-
Saxon England, Hawkes SC (ed). Oxford University Com-
mittee for Archaeology: Oxford; 123–139.
White TD. 1992. Cannibalism past and present. In Prehistoric
cannibalism: at Mancos 5MTUMR-2346, White TD (ed).
Princeton University Press: Princeton; 7–30.
Williams SR, Forgey K, Klarich E. 2001. An osteological study
of Nasca trophy heads collected by A.L. Kroeber during the Marshall
Field Expeditions to Peru. Field Museum of Natural History:
Chicago.
Williamson RF. 2007. "Otinontsiskiaj ondaon" (“The house
of cut-off heads”): The history and archaeology of North-
ern Iroquoian trophy-taking. In The taking and displaying of
human body parts as trophies by Amerindians, Chacon RJ, Dye
DH (eds). Springer: New York; 190–221.
Wiltschke-Schrotta K, Stadler P. 2005. Beheading in
Avar times (630–800 A.D.). Acta Medica Lituanica 12:
58–64.
Zegwaard GA. 1959. Headhunting practices of the Asmat of
Netherlands New Guinea. American Anthropologist 61:
1020–1041.
Trophy Heads from Borneo
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. (2011)
