Indonesian Megaliths as the Result of the Interaction between Indigenous Peoples and Hindu-Buddhist Kingdoms

Abstract

On the margins of the better known Hindu-Buddhist kingdoms of Srivijaya, Majapahit, and Malayu, adjacent indigenous societies, probably Austronesian, were settled in the forests, mountains, and plateaus of Indonesia, where they practiced “primitive” religions based on ancestor cults and the spirits of nature, a shared cultural heritage from East Java to North Sumatra. In Java, Sumatra and Sulawesi are the areas where field studies and surveys have well documented the tradition of building megaliths that is part of this heritage. By looking at four specific examples this paper will argue that the megalithic phenomenon appeared in a context where exchanges of resources and services between native societies and Hindu-Buddhist kingdoms has allowed the acquisition by indigenous peoples of goods of prestige upsetting the local socio-political balance and leading to increased competition between leaders. More specifically megalithism is the result of this interaction where the erection of monuments of considerable proportions to honor the living, bury the dead, commemorate and/or communicate with the ancestors is serving as a physical materialization of a renewed social status. In addition to this use meant for internal consumption these stones, or carvings, marked the landscape and efficiently transmitted a social memory from one generation to another in cultures who did not use writing. We suggest that this explanation could be a valid research hypothesis in the scientific work on other megalithic traditions like those in the Middle East.

Full text

AUSTRONESIAN DIASPORA
A NEW PERSPECTIVE
Proceedings the International Symposium
on Austronesian Diaspora

AUSTRONESIAN DIASPORA
A NEW PERSPECTIVE
Proceedings the International Symposium
on Austronesian Diaspora

978-602-386-202-3
Gadjah Mada University Press
Jl. Grafika No. 1 Bulaksumur
Yogyakarta 55281
Telp./Fax.: (0274) 561037
gmuppress@ugm.ac.id | ugmpress.ugm.ac.id
PersPective

Austronesian Diaspora
v
PREFACE OF PUBLISHER
This book is a proceeding from a number of papers presented in The International
Symposium on Austronesian Diaspora on 18th to 23rd July 2016 at Nusa Dua, Bali, which was
held by The National Research Centre of Archaeology in cooperation with The Directorate of
Cultural Heritage and Museums. The symposium is the second event with regard to the
Austronesian studies since the first symposium held eleven years ago by the Indonesian
Institute of Sciences in cooperation with the International Centre for Prehistoric and
Austronesia Study (ICPAS) in Solo on 28th June to 1st July 2005 with a theme of “the Dispersal
of the Austronesian and the Ethno-geneses of People in the Indonesia Archipelago’’ that was
attended by experts from eleven countries.
The studies on Austronesia are very interesting to discuss because Austronesia is a
language family, which covers about 1200 languages spoken by populations that inhabit
more than half the globe, from Madagascar in the west to Easter Island (Pacific Area) in the
east and from Taiwan-Micronesia in the north to New Zealand in the south. Austronesia is a
language family, which dispersed before the Western colonization in many places in the
world. The Austronesian dispersal in very vast islands area is a huge phenomenon in the
history of humankind. Groups of Austronesian-speaking people had emerged in ca. 7000-
6000 BP in Taiwan before they migrated in 5000 BP to many places in the world, bringing
with them the Neolithic Culture, characterized by sedentary, agricultural societies with
animal domestication.
The Austronesian-speaking people are distinguished by Southern Mongoloid Race,
which had the ability to adapt to various types of natural environment that enabled them to
develop through space and time. The varied geographic environment where they lived, as
well as intensive interactions with the outside world, had created cultural diversities. The
population of the Austronesian speakers is more than 380 million people and the Indonesian
Archipelago is where most of them develop. Indonesia also holds a key position in
understanding the Austronesians. For this reason, the Austronesian studies are crucial in the
attempt to understand the Indonesian societies in relation to their current cultural roots,
history, and ethno-genesis.
This book discusses six sessions in the symposium. The first session is the prologue; the
second is the keynote paper, which is Austronesia: an overview; the third is Diaspora and

Austronesian Diaspora
vi
Inter-regional Connection; the fourth is Regional highlight; the fifth is Harimau Cave:
Research Progress; while the sixth session is the epilogue, which is a synthesis of 37 papers.
We hope that this book will inspire more researchers to study Austronesia, a field of
never ending research in Indonesia.
Jakarta, December 2016
Publisher

Austronesian Diaspora
vii
TABLE OF CONTENT
Preface of Publisher ........................................................................................................... v
Table of Content .............................................................................................................. vii
Prologue ............................................................................................................................ 1
Austronesia: an Overview
Austronesian Studies in 2016: Where Are We Now?
Peter Bellwood ................................................................................................................... 7
Diaspora and Inter-Regional Connection
Occupation and Diaspora of Austronesia: Learning from Geo-oceanoclimatology
Perspective in Indonesian Maritime Island
Wahyoe S. Hantoro ............................................................................................................ 25
Reframing the Island Southeast Asian Neolithic: Local vs Regional Adaptations
Peter V. Lape, Fadhila Arifin Aziz, Dian Ekowati, Jenn Huff, Wuri Handoko, Andre Huwae,
Michael Lahallo, Simon Latupapua, Adhi Agus Oktaviana, Emily Peterson, Marlon Ririmasse,
Karyamantha Surbakti, Joss Whittaker, and Lauryl Zenobi ............................................... 65
Splitting Up Proto-Malayopolynesian; New Models of Dispersals from Taiwan
Roger Blench ...................................................................................................................... 77
“Ex Oriente Lux”: Recent Data from Lapita Culture Sites Bearing on the Austronesian
Diaspora within Island Southeast Asia
Matthew Spriggs ............................................................................................................... 105
The Formation and Dispersal of Early Austronesian-speaking Populations: New Evidence
from Taiwan, the Philippines, and the Marianas of Western Micronesia
Hsiao-chun Hung ............................................................................................................... 125
Austronesian and Australian Analogs in Vietnam through Paleoanthropological Evidence
Nguyen Lan Cuong ............................................................................................................. 145
Rock art as an indication of (Austronesian) migration in Island Southeast Asia
Noel Hidalgo Tan ............................................................................................................... 165
The Connection and Tradition - The Bark Cloth Making in Hawai’i and Taiwan
Chi-shan Chang................................................................................................................... 181
Bali in the Global Contacts and the Rise of Complex Society
I Wayan Ardika ................................................................................................................... 193

Austronesian Diaspora
viii
Regional Highlights
Updated Views on the Austronesian Studies in Indonesia
Truman Simanjuntak, Adhi Agus Oktaviana, and Retno Handini ...................................... 207
Reassessing the Neolithic-Metal Age Transition in Batangas, Philippines: A Distinct
Southern Luzon Pottery Tradition
Grace Baretto-Tesoro ......................................................................................................... 223
Indication of Early Plant Domestication in Java Based on the Palinology Research
Andjarwati Sri Sajekti ......................................................................................................... 253
Austronesian Dispersal to Malaysian Borneo
Stephen Chia ...................................................................................................................... 267
Sea, Stones and Stories: The Maritime Tradition in Southeast Moluccas Islands
Marlon Ririmasse................................................................................................................ 275
Swinging-like Movement: Pattern of Ancient Migration in Eastern Part of Indonesia
Toetik Koesbardiati, Rusyad Adi Suriyanto, Delta Bayu Murti, and Achmad Yudianto ..... 289
Indonesian Megaliths as the Result of the Interaction between Indigenous Peoples and
Hindu-Buddhist Kingdoms
Tara Steimer-Herbet and Marie Besse ............................................................................... 301
Austro-Protohistory: the Dispersal of Megaliths in Indonesia Islands
Bagyo Prasetyo .................................................................................................................. 319
Inter-islands Relations: The Javanese Factor in Barus and Padang Lawas, North Sumatra
(9th – 16th c. CE)
Daniel Perret and Heddy Surachman ................................................................................. 337
The Neolithic Cultures of Lingnan (Southern China)
XIE Guangmao ................................................................................................................... 351
The Origins of Orang Melayu
Amri Marzali ...................................................................................................................... 367
Techno-Cultural Development of Toraja Textiles in Relation to Austronesian Origin:
Materials, Dyes, Looms, and Weaves
Keiko Kusakabe .................................................................................................................. 375
Maritime People and Wetland Settlement
Bambang Budi Utomo ....................................................................................................... 395
A Shifting Phenomenon in Tomini-Tolitoli Language Group: Tajio as a Case Study
Luh Anik Mayani ................................................................................................................ 407

Austronesian Diaspora
ix
Small Island as a Bridge to Austronesian Diaspora: Case in Here Sorot Entapa Caves, Kisar
Island, Maluku
Alifah, Mahirta, and Sue O’Connor .................................................................................... 417
Tradition and Function of Cili on Agricultural Ritual of Subak in Bali
I Nyoman Wardi ................................................................................................................. 427
Archaeolinguistics for a Study of Ethnic Group Formation: a Case Study of Speakers of
Austronesian in Northern Sumatra
Ery Soedewo, Deni Sutrisna ............................................................................................... 445
The Contribution of Sanskrit to the Balinese Language
Ni Luh Sutjiati Beratha ....................................................................................................... 465
The Continuity of Austronesian Tradition on Islamic and Early Colonial Period in Maluku
Wuri Handoko .................................................................................................................... 481
Gua Harimau: Research Progress
Verifying Austronesian Hypothesis from the Skeletal Human Remains from Gua Harimau
Site in Sumatra
Hirofumi Matsumura, Truman Simanjuntak, Adhi Agus Oktaviana, Sofwan Noerwidi, Dyah
Prastiningtyas, Nguyen Lan Cuong, Marc Oxenham, Anna Willis, Rahayuningsih Restu,
Martha Hana, and Hsiao Chun Hung ................................................................................. 495
Determination of Genetic Characteristics of Ancient Skeletal Remains Excavated from the
Gua Harimau Site in Sumatra
Ken-Ichi Shinoda, Tsuneo Kakuda, Hideaki Kanzawa-Kiriyama, Noboru Adachi, Dyah
Prastiningtyas, Sofwan Noerwidi, and Hirofumi Matsumura ............................................ 511
Prehistoric Burial of Gua Harimau: Socio-Cultural Complexity of Austronesian Society
D. Prastiningtyas, S. Noerwidi, M.L. Herbiamami, Fauzi, M.R., Ansyori, M., Matsumura, and
Truman Simanjuntak ......................................................................................................... 523
Continuity on Rainforest Foraging During the Course of Neolithic Period in Sumatera:
Evidences, Artifacts and Its Chronology
M. Ruly Fauzi and Truman Simanjuntak ............................................................................ 543
Comparative Analysis of Non-figurative Rock Art at Gua Harimau Site within the Scope of
Indonesian Archipelago
Adhi Agus Oktaviana, Pindi Setiawan ................................................................................ 559
Metal Artifacts Analysis from Gua Harimau, South Sumatera, Indonesia
Harry Octavianus Sofian, Thomas Oliver Pryce, Truman Simanjuntak, and François
Sémah................................................................................................................................. 571
Epilogue ............................................................................................................................. 587

Austronesian Diaspora

Austronesian Diaspora
1
PROLOGUE
Truman Simanjuntak, Bagyo Prasetyo, Titi Surti Nastiti, and M. Ruly Fauzi
One of the most spectacular phenomena in the history of human migration
comprising vast and diverse geographic area must be addressed to the diaspora of
Austronesian speakers. Prior to AD 1500 the Austronesian languages belonged to the most
widespread language family in the world, with a distribution extending more than half way
around the globe from Madagascar in the west to the Easter Island in the east (Bellwood, Fox,
and Tryon 2006; Bellwood 1985). For Peter Bellwood, as one of researchers who has
dedicated many years on studying Austronesian, the development on methods and theories
in this study have growth incredibly fast. New methods involving powerful scientific
techniques which is supported by sophisticated equipment recently have brought an
incredibly important result on this study, especially during the last few years. Hence, several
important solution for the questions regarding the form, spatial distribution, and
chronological aspects related with Austronesian Speaking Peoples have been produced, not
only by senior researchers but also many young researchers. Nowadays, the study of
Austronesian peoples and their diaspora is almost impossible for not involving biological
aspects which is even reach its molecular aspect such as represented by and DNA study.
In just several hundreds of years since the development of the earliest agriculture in
Formosa Island in ca. 6000 BP, Austronesian have successfully reached the northernmost
island (the Philippines) and most of major islands in Southeast Asia. Their arrivals have made
a major impact in the development of subsistence and technology in Southeast Asia as well
as habitation in the remote area of the Pacific and Indian Ocean. We have to be grateful to
the linguistic studies because the connection between the homeland of Austronesian and its
descendant population was not yet clear until 70’s and 80’s. It is Robert Blust who have
produced an important linguistic-based of work related with the origins, variation, and
distribution of Austronesian language family, even the hypothetical timing of their language
split (Blust 1976; Blust 1984). Subsequently, archaeology have become the major study of
this vast language family which comprise of many tribes and ethnic groups. It was just a few
decades ago since the term ‘neolithic package’ related with Austronesian diaspora became
widely known and used to describe the appearance of Neolithic in several sites. This cultural
package consists of Austronesian language, knowledge on domestication of edible plants and
animals, and also technology on producing polished stone-adze and body ornaments (bangle
and pendant). Amongst several contemporaneous sites, their artifacts are considerably

Austronesian Diaspora
2
diverse rather than merely similar. This is simply marking a successful adaptation and local
innovation that emerged amongst each population which now represented by incredibly high
cultural diversity within Austronesian language family.
The most favorable habitation for Austronesian peoples situated within the tropical
zone with its archipelagic characteristics. There is no doubt that the mastering on maritime
technology have supported their vast and rapid movements from one island to another since
the configuration of Southeast Asian Archipelago and global sea-level after the last glacial
period were similar with today. Technology on maritime resources exploitation have
flourished in relation to the occupation of coastal area by the earliest group of Austronesian.
This logic even became very clear as what we can see on the rock-art images depicting aquatic
animals such as fish and tortoises as well as their boat images (Pyatt, Wilson, and Barker
2005). However, their habitation is not only limited to the coastal area but also deep into the
heart of the tropical rainforest in several major Island in Indonesia and Malaysia(Sather 2006;
Simanjuntak et al. 2015; Simanjuntak et al. 2008; Datan and Bellwood 1991). Interaction
among different communities were well established although the distance between each
population could reach hundreds even thousands of kilometers (e.g. Bellwood and Koon
1989).
The main issue being well-established and frequently discussed recently are the
migration route, adaptation, the development of cultural diversity with multiple
ethnogenesis, and a potentially shared of DNA among earlier inhabitants and Austronesian
speakers (Simanjuntak 2015). The first was rely on significant results yielded on several new
and rediscovered sites such as Xuntangpu (Taiwan), Harimau Cave and Minanga Sipakko
(Indonesia), Sireh Cave and Niah Cave (Malaysia), and Batangas (the Philippines). Many of
these sites produced a complete history of habitation supported with highly accurate
radiocarbon dating results which is important on the establishment of Austronesian
migration and cultural developments during Neolithic. At the other hand, a long history of
site occupation in several areas provide clues on cultural adaptation to the environment. The
last subject was just flourished in the past few years. Our capability on establishing not only
genomic study on present day communities but also extracting ancient DNA from human and
animals took us on a leap into much better understanding about the origins of the
Austronesian and their interaction with earlier inhabitants (e.g. Lansing et al. 2011; Kusuma
et al. 2015; Karafet et al. 2010). It seems that the ancestor of today’s Austronesian speakers
were not only sharing their idea and knowledge, but also shared biological affinities with the
earlier inhabitants. This facts have brought us into more complex problematic issue of
interaction amongst different population rather than just understanding the cultural-entity
of Austronesian speakers a few decades ago which is still rely on narrow perspectives.

Austronesian Diaspora
3
This book compiles 37 papers written by experts from various fields such as linguistics,
genetics, art, material culture, technology, palynology, palaeclimatology, palaeo-
antthropology, which were all related Austronesia.
References
Bellwood, Peter. 1985. Prehistory of the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago. 1sted. Sidney:
Academic Press.
Bellwood, Peter, James J. Fox, and Darell Tryon. 2006. “The Austronesians in History:
Common Origins and Diverse Transformations.” In The Austronesian: Historical and
Comparative Perspectives, edited by Peter Bellwood, James J. Fox, and Darell Tryon,
1–16. Canberra: ANU E Press.
Bellwood, Peter, and P. Koon. 1989. “Lapita Colonists Leave the Boats Unburned! The
Question of Lapita Links with Island South East Asia.” Antiquity 63: 613–22.
Blust, R.A. 1976. “Austronesian Culture History: Some Linguistic Inferences and Their
Relations to the Archaeological Record.” World Archaeology 8: 19–43.
---------. 1984. “The Austronesian Homeland: A Linguistic Perspective.” Asian Perspectives 26
(1): 45–68.
Datan, Ipoi, and Peter Bellwood. 1991. “Recent Research at Gua Sireh (Serian) and Lubang
Angin (Gunung Mulu National Park), Sarawak.” Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory
Association 10: 386–405.
Karafet, T.M., B. Hallmark, M.P. Cox, H. Sudoyo, S. Downey, J.S. Lansing, and M.F. Hammer.
2010. “Major Eastewest Division Underlies Y Chromosome Stratification across
Indonesia.” Molecular Biology and Evolution 27: 1833–44.
Kusuma, P., M.P. Cox, D. Pierron, H. Razafindrazaka, N. Brucato, L. Tonasso, H.L. Suryadi, T.
Letellier, H. Sudoyo, and F.-X. Ricaut. 2015. “Mitochondrial DNA and the Y
chromosome suggest the Settlement of Madagascar by Indonesian Sea Nomad
Populations. BMC Genomics 17 (16), 191.” BMC Genomics 17 (16): 191.
Lansing, J.S., M.P. Cox, Therese A. de Vet, S. Downey, B. Hallmark, and Herawati Sudoyo. 2011.
“An Ongoing Austronesian Expansion in Island Southeast Asia.” Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 30 (3): 262–72.
Pyatt, F.B., B. Wilson, and G. W. Barker. 2005. “The Chemistry of Tree Resins and Ancient
Rock Paintings in the Niah Caves, Sarawak (Borneo): Some Evidence of Rain Forest
Management by Early Human Populations.” Journal of Archaeological Science, 897–
901.
Sather, Clifford. 2006. “Sea Nomads and Rainforest Hunter-Gatherers: Foraging Adaptations
in the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago.” In The Austronesians: Historical and Comparative
Perspectives, edited by Peter Bellwood, James J. Fox, and Darell Tryon, 245–85.
Canberra: ANU E Press.

Austronesian Diaspora
4
Simanjuntak, Truman. 2015. “Progress Penelitian Austronesia Di Nusantara.” Amerta 33 (1):
25–44.
Simanjuntak, Truman, Mohammad Ruly Fauzi, Adhi Oktaviana, M. Ansyori, D. Prastiningtyas,
Budiman, Rokhus Due Awe, et al. 2015. Gua Harimau Dan Perjalanan Panjang
Peradaban OKU. Edited by Truman Simanjuntak. 1sted. Inpress. Yogyakarta: UGM
Press.
Simanjuntak, Truman, M. J. Morwood, M. Fadhlan S. Intan, Irfan Machmud, K. Grant, N.
Somba, Bernadetta Akw, and D. Wahyu Utomo. 2008. “Minanga Sipakko and the
Neolithic of the Karama River.” In Austronesian in Sulawesi, 1st. 57–75. Jakarta: Center
for Prehistoric and Austronesian Studies.

Austronesian Diaspora
301
INDONESIAN MEGALITHS AS THE RESULT OF THE
INTERACTION BETWEEN INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND
HINDU-BUDDHIST KINGDOMS
Tara Steimer-Herbet and Marie Besse
Introduction
On the margins of the better known Hindu-Buddhist kingdoms of Srivijaya, Majapahit,
and Malayu, adjacent indigenous societies were settled in the forests, mountains, and
plateaus of Indonesia, where they practiced “primitive” religions based on ancestor cults and
the spirits of nature, a shared cultural heritage from Bondowoso in East Java to Toba in North
Sumatra. Bondowoso, Sukabumi on Java, Pasemah on Sumatra and Lore Lindu in Bada/Besoa
valleys of Sulawesi are areas inhabited by societies with a megalithic tradition. Our selection
is primarily based on the quality of the archaeological remains but we will also use examples
taken from other areas such Jambi in central Sumatra, Lampung in South Sumatra or Sarawak
(Malaysia).
Figure 1. Map of the areas concerned. 1. Bondowoso valley (East Java); 2. Sukabumi region (West
Java); 3. Pasemah Plateau (South Sumatra); 4. Lore Lindu (Central Sulawesi)

Austronesian Diaspora
302
Most of the archaeological data on megaliths was collected during Dutch colonial
rule. Two archaeologists of that period: Th. Hoop (1932) and R. Heine-Geldern (1945)
suggested that the megalithic cultures had foreign origins perhaps coming from India, Laos,
Japan or the Mediterranean. Indonesian archaeologists have kept on cataloguing these
monuments without really questioning their origin and dates. At that time the discovery of
polished axes in the graves of Cipari near Kuningan (East Java) constituted sufficient evidence
for dating the megalithic tombs to the Neolithic period (3000-500 BC). Images of bronze
drums resembling those of the Dong Son period were found on the reliefs of the Pasemah
plateau, which helped lower the chronological range to the Paleo-metallic Period between
2000 and 500 BC. But excavations in Pasemah by Th. Hoop (1932), in Pakauman by W. J. A.
Willems (1938), and more recently those of E. E. McKinnon in Lampung (1993), B. Prasetyo
in Bondowoso (2006), J. Miksic in Minangkabau (2004), D. Bonatz in Jambi (2006), M.
Janowski (2016) in Sarawak (Malaysia) revealed iron objects, glass beads, Chinese porcelain,
and gold objects, all of these artifacts where acquired between the 7th and 15th century
depending on the region. In the light of these discoveries, and despite the national desire to
see these megaliths as evidence of an ancient civilization, the first Indonesian megalithic
phenomenon is contemporary to the classical Hindu-Buddhist period. The second period of
the Indonesian megalithic phenomenon will begin around the 16th century with the new
arrivals of the Europeans traders in Sumba, Nias, and Flores.
Table 1. Dating of two megalithic sites in Indonesia issued from a table published by Prasetyo (2006,
166).
N°
Sites
Location
Context
Dating
Reference
3.
Doplang
Jember, East Java
Dolmen
580±100 BP
RDL GRDC
7
Bandung
1977
5.
Dawulan
Bondowoso, East
Java
Dolmen
(pandhusa)
1230±100 BP
RDL GRDC Bandung
1977
We know little about the lifestyle of the indigenous people of that period. But most
of the megaliths are established in settlement contexts. In East Java or central Sumatra
archaeologists (Steimer-Herbet 2013; Bonatz 2006: 318) have discovered stone pillars or
posts holes (for wooden posts) that are house foundations near the megalithic sites, a sign
of sedentary populations (Tjoa-Bonatz 2009: 198). Analysis of macro-remains mainly
indicates a livelihood based on exploitation of roots and harvesting resources from the forest.
Chinese ceramics, Indo-Pacific beads and iron tools, all of which were found at various
7Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory Geology Research and Development Centre.

Austronesian Diaspora
303
megalithic sites, attested trade relations8. They are often to be found in the main axis of
circulation or trading routes9. However, in contact with Hindu-Buddhist kingdoms, the
demand for specific inland raw material10 would appear to have significantly raised the
prosperity of the settlements. These connections to Hindu-Buddhist kingdoms most likely
explain the Indian influence11. As observed by D. Bonatz (2006: 322) in the highland of central
Sumatra the initiative of the trade came from the Hindu-Buddhist kingdoms who tried to
establish a system of tributary trade where small village communities rapidly developed; they
were quick to adopt rice cultivation and used megaliths to honor their ancestors or even
living individuals. The differences observed between the monuments and common burial
methods shows the emergence of an elite in a hierarchic society. M. L. Tjoa-Bonatz (2009:
208) argues that the erection of the stones monuments can be understood as an elite-
sponsored phenomenon within a polity, which may also have mushroomed into the
establishment of federations. H. Forestier et D. Guillaud (2005: 31) do observe the link
between a social organization and its spatial expression in the hamlet of Ngada in Flores. We
have also seen this in Sumba, Nias, up to Pasemah, Minangkabau in Sumatra and Bondowoso
in Java where clans signal their presence and rank in a symbolic stone monument placed in
the collective space, nearby the ancestor grave, where everybody can immediately read
one’s lineage within the village context. It’s difficult with the actual data to determine if in
the pre-modern Indonesian megalithic societies the leadership system belongs to the big
man type, or to a genealogically-based selection (Tjao-Bonatz 2009: 208). But the density of
megalithic tradition in certain areas deserves to be described in order to better understand
the patterns of the phenomena’s appearanceamong local populations, a subject pretty much
at the heart of current research in western megalithism.
"Pandhusa", cylindrical sarcophagi and dolmens from the Bondowoso valley (East Java)
In East Java, from Jember to Sitibondo, megalithic funerary monuments are located
in rice fields and small traditional villages of the Bondowoso valley. In 1898, H. E. Steinmetz,
a Dutchman, was one of the first to identify hundreds of megalithic monuments, which he
called the "Pandhusa" and cylindrical sarcophagi (Kretek, Kemuningan, Tanggulangin, Pakisan,
Tlogosari, and Sukosari Pakauman). He was followed by H. van Heekeren in 1931. In 1938, W.
8The article of M. L. Tjoa-Bonatz 2009: 204 mentioned the contact between highland and lowland, a
phenomenon knows also in Pasemah’s plateau, all axis of circulation or connecting places.
9In the area of Jambi in Sumatra the megaliths are distributed along the tributaries of the Batanghari, M. L.
Tjoa-Bonatz argues that the waterways can explain the concentration of megaliths (Tjoa-Bonatz 2009: 204).
10 They provided minerals mainly gold, animals products, such as ivory and birds’ feathers (Miksic 1980) and
forest products such as camphor and benzoin, goods upon which the wealth and power of Srivijaya’s maritime
trade was based (Bonatz 2006).
11 The influence of the Hindu-Buddhist kingdom is more or less visible depending on the areas.

Austronesian Diaspora
304
J. A. Willems published the results of his excavation of the Pakauman monuments. In 1983 a
team of Indonesian archaeologists from Yogyakarta became interested in these sites.
Since then 47 sites have been identified, including those of Wringin and Grujugan,
which were excavated. The results of their excavations confirmed previous results
established by W. J. A. Willems and H. van Heekeren that these rooms were tombs (Willems
1938; van Heekeren 1931). Chinese porcelain fragments, glass beads and clay as well as
buffalo horns accompanied the deceased. Two samples of charcoal found in the Dawulan and
Doplang dolmens and carbon dated by B. Prasetio (2006b: 166, cf. Figure 2) place Bondowoso
Valley dolmens in a time range from the 7th century to the 14th century AD.
The stone cylindrical sarcophagi are of an impressive size. Situated in the middle of
rice fields only their huge stone cylinder lids can be seen covering an underground burial
chamber. The pictures published by W. J. A. Willems of the 1938 excavations showed upright
slabs forming a rectangular funerary space covered by a stone lid. Grave robbers who were
looking for treasure cut the cylindrical lid (Figure 3). It is therefore not uncommon to find
holes in the rock or broken cylinders.
Figure 3. Picture of Bondowoso’s tomb damaged by tomb raiders in Glinseran (©T. Steimer)
In the village of Grujugan (Figs. 4-5), two megalithic graves are still intact. These are
dolmens; the first one called Pandhusa by the locals has a rectangular chamber identical to
those of the cylindrical coffins but with a differently shaped lid. The stone has been cut so
that its flat surface rests on the walls; the upper part is rounded into a sort of half-cylinder.
The second tomb is built with crude blocks. Its cover rests on scattered blocks leaving an
open space below.

Austronesian Diaspora
305
Figure 4-5. Pictures of “Pandhusa” (left) and dolmen (right) from the village of Grujugan (©T. Steimer)
On the outskirts of Grujugan (Figure 6), between the road and rice fields, the remains
of an indigenous traditional dwelling of the Bondowoso region can be seen. Kenong, cut
stones with one or more protrusions on the top, served as a foundation for a wooden
dwelling. In these settlement sites archaeologists have discovered similar materials to those
found in the megalithic tombs: glass beads and earthenware, bracelets, and metal tools
(Prasetyo 2006).
Figure 6. Kenong, foundation stone for a wooden dwelling in Grujugan (©T. Steimer)
Next to the foundation stones, lie two anthropomorphic statues, one of which has
been straightened and is still in place. This sculpture is rough but its feminine curves are well
rendered. The Bondowoso valley is rich in stone monuments. The humans groups who
erected the megalithic monuments at that period lived in houses which were close to

Austronesian Diaspora
306
traditional Javanese houses in appearance. The livelihood model is not known but the
possibility of exchanges of raw material like the sulfur of Kawa Ijen mines have enriched local
populations, and most probably an elite among them, as attested by the rich imported
artefacts found in monumental tombs. The carbon dates (Figure 2) show that the megalithic
phenomenon started in the valley of Bondowoso before the arrival of the Majapahit Empire
in the 13th century in the neighboring valley (Brantas). The increase of the megalithic
monuments seems to parallel the intensification of the exchanges. Most of the artifacts
discovered in the tombs or in settlements area come from the Hindu-Buddhist Kingdom.
Despite its expansion the Majapahit Empire seemed to have respected inhabitants’ traditions.
The megalithic phenomenon in East Java does not survive to the fall of the Majapahit Empire.
Monumental Structures from the Sukabumi Region (West Java)
The Sukabumi region, close to the Hindu-Buddhist Kingdom of Bogor, is famous for
the monumental structures like temples, pyramidal platforms, standing stones and stelae.
Gunung Padang, one of the pyramidal platforms, is mentioned in the tales and legends of the
people of Sukabumi area. Prabu Siliwangi, a Hindu king of the Bogor region, would have
travelled there in the late 15th century. Discovered in 1914 by the Dutch N. J. Krom, the site
located on top of a mountain disappeared again under the vegetation and was rediscovered
in 1979 by the villagers of Karyamukti. It was the subject of an archaeological report in 1985
by the National Research Centre of Archaeology in Jakarta before falling again into oblivion.
Since 2011, Gunung Padang is back on the front page of Indonesian media. According to
electromagnetic surveys, a huge cavity was located under the megalithic remains,
corresponding to the burial chamber of a pyramid which would pre-date Egyptian pyramids.
Fortunately the site of Gunung Padang is classified as cultural heritage and therefore a
protected area. The known remains are a series of terraces and stairs that rise 150m from
the village square in Karyamukti to the top.
The staircase leading to the site is steep, but its four hundred steps are in good
condition. The stone blocks used are from the Cikuta River about 300m away. Similar blocks
can also be found in the rice fields a little further down the valley. The blocks are igneous
prismatic rocks whose dark brown color contrasts with the green of the surrounding
vegetation. The hill is arranged in 13 terraces but only the last 5 are sufficiently well
preserved and developed. Shortly before reaching the summit a strong retaining wall
supports the first of the last five terraces. At this location are the remains of a rectangular
structure with an opening to the north, facing Gunung Gede. The floor of this structure is
paved in stones. To access the fourth terrace one has to climb a narrow staircase in a partially
collapsed retaining wall. Terraces 3, 2, and 1 are separated by low field gradients marked by

Austronesian Diaspora
307
standing stones. Lines of stones also delineate the East and West borders terraces. In the
center, rectangular and circular buildings are distributed without apparent order (Figure 7).
Figure 7. Picture of terrace 1 in the site of Gunung Padang (©T. Steimer)
While researchers see similarities in this series of terraces with the Penanggungan
temple in East Java built by the Majapahit in the 15th century, it is likely that the megalithic
site of Gunung Padang is older. It is part of a set of homogeneous sites located on the slopes
of Gunung Salak, Gunung Halimun, and in the Sukabumi area, all built around the 12th and
13th centuries AD. Surveys from Indonesian archaeologist (National Research Center of
Archaeology) have documented dozens of standing stones sites (Tugu Gede, Salak Datar,
Tenjolaya, Kampung Kuta Batu Jolan, Ciawitali, Pasir Gada), pyramidal platforms
(Pangguyangan, Ciawitali, Lemah Ḑuhūr, Ciranjang) and statues (Ciarca). All of these
monuments are flanked by stone seats, basins, and stones with pits in the surface (Tugu Gede
Ciarca, Bukit Tongtu). The architectural style is specific to this region but we also observe a
strong influence of the Indian iconography.
In this area it was really difficult to find remains of settlements. Megalithic
monuments are all covert by a permanent cover. It is still impossible to determine their
functions. Annual festivals in some of these sites could be reminder of persistent animist
practice like in Tugu Gede, 20km north of Pelabuhan Ratu, where an up-right stone of 4m
high is still honored. Each year after the harvest, the people of the region tie a white cloth to
it and make offerings in honor of the spirits of nature (Figure 8). Other sites are abandoned
and overgrown, yet some of them have been restored like the one at Pangguyangan, where

Austronesian Diaspora
308
an Islamic grave covers the top of a pyramidal platform. With its seven terraces and a small
narrow staircase, the monument covered with Islamic inscriptions doesn’t overshadow its
megalithic foundations belonging to another belief system.
Figure 8. Picture of the menhir in Tugu Gede (©T. Steimer)
Though there is no significant information on the use of Gunung Padang by the
indigenous people of Sukabumi, the considerable effort needed to achieve the construction
of the 13 terraces certainly involved more than one clan. This site, one of the most
spectacular in Indonesia, was functioning as a gathering center for the people who erected
the numerous meghalithic sites in surrounding area. If the role of the Hindu Kingdom from
Bogor is not clearly identified in the Sukabumi region (nature of the exchanges), the visit of
Prabu Siliwangi in Gunung Padang is a testimony of the good relations that inhabitants
practicing megalithic tradition had with Hindu community.
Dolmens and Anthropomorphic Statues on the Pasemah Plateau (South Sumatra)
In his thesis "Megaliths remains in South Sumatra" (1932), Th. van der Hoop
identified a similarity between this style of representation and conventions used in Javanese
and Balinese wayang where features like those found on the statues would identify the
character as a "kasar" or villain. According to him even though these figures resembled those
of wayang, they were nevertheless part of the circle of the Ancestors that the Rejang, the
indigenous tribes of the Pasemah plateau, believed in. The presence of helmets, arm band
and leggings is reminiscent of warrior; however, large bags or objects on their backs would
be too bulky for fighting.

Austronesian Diaspora
309
Strangely enough and despite the many surveys carried out on the Pasemah's
complexes since 1850, both during the Dutch Colonial rule (L. Uhlmann, E. P. Tombrink, H. O.
Forbes, Th. van der Hoops, C. W. P. Bie, H. W. Vonk, C. W. Schüller) and after Independence
(E. E. McKinnon, Soeroso, I. Caldwell), these monuments have never been convincengly dated.
Bronze drums of the Dong Son period (2500 BP to 1700 BP) appear on a bas relief at Batu
Tatahan and in a scene carved on a wall in Tegurwangi. These drum images place the
megaliths of the Pasemah complexes as the oldest megaliths in Indonesia but these dates
should be view with caution. Drawings made from a photograph taken in 2012 by one of us
(TS) (Figure 9) shows that the figure is holding an object in his hands described as a
kettledrum by I. Caldwell (1997: 176). If the object really turns out to be a kettledrum, in our
point of view it is most probably a bag, I. Caldwell cautions however that this figure could be
a reference to the mythical figures known in the Early Metal phase. Metal objects
represented on Pasemah’s stone monuments are not a strong enough reference to date
these monuments, bronze items could have been brought to the region long after they were
manufactured. In addition to that, the megalithic tombs excavated by Hoop (1932) at
Tegurwangi contained large numbers of glass beads and a few metal objects both of which
are recent, even this material has not been studied properly. With the recent work of J. Miksic
(1986), E. E. McKinnon (1993), D. Bonatz (2006) and M. L. Tjoa-Bonatz (2012) on similar
monuments in central and southern Sumatra, the date range is thought to be between the
7th and 14th centuries. These conclusions are based on carbon-14 dating, and from the types
of pottery, and Chinese porcelain that date from the 5th Dynasty and Northern Song period
found during excavations at the Kerinci/Sinamar sites in Jambi, in the Mahat Valley
(Minangkabau) and in Sumberjaya in northwest Lampung.
Figure 9. Drawing of the scene carved on a rock in Tegurwangi (©T. Steimer)

Austronesian Diaspora
310
The stylistic qualities of Pasemah’s sculptures surprise visitors. They do not have the
delicacy of Hindu-Buddhist statuary, yet they exude a dynamic form in which the form-matter
relationship expresses raw power. The rocks grainy rough andesite did not make the task of
the sculptor easy, but he skillfully played with it. He used metal tools and did not express a
need to polish his work in the majority of sculptures, leaving a bumpy and imperfect surface.
Figure 10. Picture of a man of Pasemah’s Plateau in Belumai (©T. Steimer)
The Pasemah artists were gifted and driven by a specific purpose: to integrate their
work intothe environment, nature and carving were at the heart of their concerns. Men were
facing the powers and spirits of nature which they respected and, at the same time, feared.
Thus at Tegurwangu, four kneeling men can be seen who, in their original positions, were
staring the four cardinal points of the compass. Did they represent the dead who were buried
in the dolmens found behind them? Are they simply protectors of important people? Inside
the dolmens, although no bones were found, rich funeral offerings were discovered: gold,
bronze, glass beads and a set of amazing paintings in natural pigments that covered the
interior walls. Paintings were also found at Tanjung Arau (called Tanjungara in van Heekeren
1958, Figure 21). At Tegurwangu these paintings represented a man and a buffalo, at Tanjung
Arau (Kota Raya) a rooster and a bird (Soejono 1991). Unfortunately, since the opening of the
graves, the paintings disappeared after exposure to the air, and today only spots of red and
black pigment can be distinguished, ochre and white have disappeared (Figures 11-12).

Austronesian Diaspora
311
Figure 11-12. Pictures of dolmens and paintings in Tanjung Arau (©T. Steimer)
In the Lampung region (South of the Pasemah Plateau), dolmens, standing stones,
and large cylindrical tanks (known as Kalamba in Sulawesi) were discovered in Sumberjaya
near Wai Besai, a tributary of the Tulangbawang River that flows into the Sunda Strait. As on
the Pasemah plateau, the dolmen walls are covered with paintings.
The objects discovered around the statues or within dolmens are thought to come
from trade with the kingdom of Srivijaya but there was also an important and previously
unrecorded indigenous pottery tradition (7th – 14th century). Known for its maritime power
and its long distance trading, the kingdom imported and exported goods through the ports
of Indrapura, Muko-Muko, and Menjuto on the west coast, Pauh, Tembesi, Batang Asai on
the east coast and Tulangbawang on the south coast (McKinnon 1993). The bags depicted on
the statues of the Pasemah plateau may have been full of goods from the plateau (forestry
products as honey or birds’ nests, peper, camphor, benzoin, ivory, rhinoceros horns, feathers
and gold12 ). Some of the earthenware sherds have heavy deposits of carbon which may
indicate the burning of resins or some other source of material (McKinnon 1993). The natives
of south and central Sumatra traded these goods for imported tools and materials, probably
carrying it on their backs from one coast to the other. Perhaps the eyes bulging with effort
and the grins on the lips of Pasemah statues are a testimony of their suffering during the
journey; the sculptors have also highlighted their joints by using circles, perhaps signaling the
Achilles heel of these heavy load carriers. This region would appear to have been part of a
network of small Srivijayan riverine harbours which provided access to valuable products
from an extensive mountainous hinterland (McKinnon 1993).
The amazing statues and cylindrical stone vats of Lore Lindu (Central Sulawesi)
The impressive leaning megalith known locally as Palindo (Watu Molindo) is 4.5m tall.
This massive statue has a face that takes up a third of the block of granite. Only the front is
polished, its back, roughly trimmed at the top, is undressed. A ring defines the shape of the
12 The Bukit Barisan Mountains in western Lampung are known to have been a source of alluvial gold (McKInnon
1993).

Austronesian Diaspora
312
face. On the top of the head, a protuberance perhaps represents knotted fabric or a crown.
The ears, two protuberances are simply outlined in contrast to the nose, the eyes, and the
mouth which are the result of meticulous work. The eyebrows and the bridge of the nose
form a single line. The rain has left stains, but the color of the rock is clear. The face has no
chin. Under the oval face a groove has been hollowed out, indicating the neck and shoulders.
The line of the arm is barely marked and two small protuberances mark the nipples. The
sculptor's chisel has been more incisive on the fingers of the hand, drawing attention to an
erect phallus.
This statue is located south of the village of Sepe, in the Bada Valley in the Lore Lindu
region. The first references to the Lore Lindu megaliths date back to 19th century with the
descriptions of Dutch priests Dr. A. C. Kruyt and Dr. Adriani. Between 1917 and 1922, W.
Kaudern (1938) made an archaeological inventory of the three connected valleys, Bada,
Besoa and Napu. Classified by UNESCO in 1977 as a world biosphere reserve, Lore Lindu
became a National Park in 1993. The region is rich in minerals: gold, sulfur, coal, and iron. Its
fauna and flora are very diverse, cohabiting with the megalithic vestiges of the original
inhabitants. The Bada and Besoa valleys, located 750m above sea level, are protected islets.
The Bada Valley is cut in two by a wide river (Lariang); it is surrounded by hills 1200 to 1300m
high and is covered with primary forest. A pass at 2000m takes you to the Besoa valley.
Hidden in the hills or in the rice fields of the national park, anthropomorphic statues and
cylindrical pitchers are not easy to spot.
Figure 13. Picture of the anthropomorphic statue of Loga in Besoa Valley (©T. Steimer)

Austronesian Diaspora
313
In Bada, 14 anthropomorphic statues have been identified. Maturu, or "the sleeper",
is 3.5m long, it can be seen by following a path covered with vegetation. Lying on its back the
statue was designed to stand like the one in Palindo. The face is a bit different, elongated,
and slightly convex; its forehead is marked with a headband. The arms are out of proportion
and end in thick hands with detailed fingers. The hands are joined above an erect phallus.
The statue at Langke Bulawa is not as tall (about 2.5m). Also male, the statue wears a crown
or a slightly tall headdress held by a headband. The face is a mix of styles between the Palindo
and Maturu statues. At Loga, the statues are closer to human size (Figure 13). The nose is
clearly marked and the oval eyes traced back slightly, giving to it a different expression to the
statues described above. Smaller in size, it is located on a hill overlooking the valley. On the
facing hill are the remains of a former dwelling. The statue at Tinoe Badang-Kaya is of the
same style as Loga, but has two very preeminent buttons for breasts. Deeper in the ground
than the other statues, the phallus cannot be distinguished; it is nevertheless the
representation of a man.
Hidden in a paddy field, a meter high statue looks more like a monkey than a man;
so the inhabitants of the Bada call it, “Watu Oba”. Its small size distinguishes it from other
statues. The sculptor has depicted a compact figure, head caught in the shoulders and
without chin. The skull, thick and stretched backwards resembles that of a primate. The figure
is standing; his arms have a hieratic position and meet on a protuberance, the outline of a
phallus. Not far away lies the head of "Watu Balao". This statue was not meant to stand
upright, the sculpted head is at the end of a natural block of stone. When the rice reaches
maturity the stone face can hardly be seen. At the back of the head, on the surface of the
rock, small cups and deep lines were carved out. The sculptor may have been trying to
represent the skin of an animal.
What we observe it is that near the statues cylindrical stone vats known locally as
kalamba can be found. In the Bada Valley they are not in good condition, and are often in
fragments or missing a lid (site of Suso -Lore Barat) (Figure 14). Similar artifacts are known in
Lampung south of Sumatra, Borneo (Arifin and Sellato 2003) and from Laos (Colani 1935).
The most beautiful kalambas are in the Besoa valley northwest of the Bada valley. It
opens into the Napu valley towards the city of Palu. Fifteen sites have been identified here;
the richest are Pokekea, Tadulako, Padalalu, Bangkelua, Halodo, Potabakoa, Padang Taipa,
Padang Hadoa, and Entovera. Pokekea is the most important site in Lore Lindu Park where
there is 27 kalambas. The one at the entrance to the site is exceptional. Its outer wall is
decorated with a strip of faces whose features are similar to those on the statues at Bada
and particularly that at Palindo. Also, at Pokekea, a group of 11 kalambas is interesting for its
sculptures (0.92 to 1.80 m high and 0.77 to 2.16 m diameter.). In this group only the lids are
decorated; from simple protrusions to small figures: monkeys and lizards.

Austronesian Diaspora
314
Figure 14. Picture of Kalamba in Pokekea in Bada Valley (©T. Steimer)
Excavations done in 2000 by Dwi Yuniawati in Tadulako and Pokekea (2000; 2008)
have established that kalambas, with or without compartments, served as multiple burial
chambers. Enclosing a minimum of ten people, these tombs were made for families.
Anthropologists have found traces of mutilation on teeth exhumed and evidence of
cremation of the bones. Dwi Yuniawati mentioned funerary jars around kalambas. It is
probable that the kalambas did not accommodate all the members of the tribe, but were
reserved for important people and their families. Offerings accompanied the deceased: pots
and earthenware jars, chalcedony beads (round or diamond shape), bark clothes, a
grindstone, an iron axe, a spear, and an incense burner. The report of the researches does
not specify if there were houses nearby.
Analysis carried out by a German team in 2006 (Kirleis et al. 2011, p. 174) on two of
kalambas from Pokekea indicate a date range between 766-898 AD and 1146-1272 AD. The
region of Lore Lindu abounds in resources, the inhabitants of valleys Bada and Besoa were
probably at the heart of numerous exchanges with the Hindu-Buddhist kingdom of central
Sulawesi.
Conclusion: Back to the Middle-East and the birth of megalithism
Despite recent excavations the data about societies with megaliths are still rare on
the scale of such a large country as Indonesia. From them and from the available scientific
documentation as well as observations in the field it appears however plausible that through
exchanges of resources and services with Hindu-Buddhist kingdoms the descendant of the
Austronesian in Java, Sumatra and Sulawesi acquired goods of prestige progressively
affecting the local socio-political balance leading to an increased competition between

Austronesian Diaspora
315
leaders. This process led to the erection of megalithic monuments to bury the dead, honor,
commemorate and/or communicate with the ancestors serving as a physical materialization
of social status for individuals and groups. For cultures who did not use writing these stones,
or these carvings, marked the landscape and efficiently transmitted a social memory from
one generation to another. In Java, central and south Sumatra, and at Lore Lindu in central
Sulawesi, megalithic monuments ceased to be erected when the Hindu-Buddhist kingdoms
declined. Relatively recent in time compared to their middle eastern cousins the Indonesian
megaliths are similarly the trace of a common cultural background that appear during period
of coexistence and growing inter-dependence between indigenous people and state societies
mastering writing. Their studies contribute significantly to the archaeological research of this
native civilization.
In the case of Indonesian megalithism the social, cultural and political impact of
contacts with larger, more sophisticated and expansionist societies can be documented. The
patterns on which this influence plays out such as the asymmetry of the relationship between
scriptural and non-scriptural cultures, between commercial empires and local economy,
between believes in gods and on ancestor cults and the spirits of nature could prove useful
models in our understanding of the Middle-East megalithism for which we can unfortunately
draw on very little archeological evidence to when it comes to the inter-action between two
social systems but whose patterns of ostentation are very similar to the Indonesian case. Our
idea here is to draw from the resources of history and ethnology much more readily
accessible to help solve the open questions pertaining to the role and usefulness of
megalithism for societies that have found it an effective response to a given situation. In
Indonesia Austronesian populations have twice adopted it (first age from the 7th to the 12th
centuries and second age starting from the 16th until today) when confronted with foreign
influence. Was it a way to better delimitate their own boundaries? Was it a way of managing
and controlling increased resources as suggested by R. Adams for Sumba (Adams 2011: 25)?
The answer to these questions could be important analytical clues for the study of sites
where the resources of history and ethnology are not available. In the same line of thoughts
the question of the disappearance of the phenomenon is an interesting one to ask in a
comparative manner. Whereas it seems to have been linked to the declining fate of Hindu-
Buddhist kingdoms in Indonesia would the end of state-society in the Middle-East be the
reason for the disappearance of the great megalithic tradition there? The question remains
open.

Austronesian Diaspora
316
References
Arifin K, Sellato B. 2003. Archaeological survey and research in four subdistricts of interior
East Kalimantan. In: Eghenter C, Sellato B, Devung GS (eds) Social Science research and
conservation management in the interior of Borneo: 199-239. CIFOR, Indonesia.
Bellwood, P. 1943. Prehistory of the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago. University Printing Services,
ANU.
Bie, C. W. P. 1932. Verslag van de ontgraving der steenen kamers in de doesoen Tandjoeng
Ara, Pasemah-Hoogvlakte. TBG, 72: 626-635.
Bonatz D. 2006. “Kerinci; Archaeological research in the highlands of Jambi on Sumatra”. In:
E.A. Bacus, I.C. Glover, and V.C. Pigott (eds.), Uncovering Southeast Asia’s past;
selected papers from the 10th International Conference of the European Association
of Southeast Asian archaeologists: 310-324. Singapore: NUS Press.
Bonatz D, Neidel J. D. and M. L. Tjoa-Bonatz. 2006. “The megalithic complex of highland Jambi.
An archaeological perspective”. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 162/4:
490-522.
Caldwell I. 1997. A rock carving and a newly discovered stone burial chamber at Pasemah,
Sumatra, Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land en Volkenkunde 153/2: 169-182.
Colani M. 1935. Megalithes du Haut-Laos, Hua Pan. Tran Ninh, Paris.
Forbes, H. O. 1885. A Naturalist’s Wanderings in the Eastern Archipelago.
Forestier, H. et D. Guillaud. 2005. “Des Austronésiens en Asie-Pacifique. Continuités et
ruptures sur le chemin des migrations anciennes”, Aséanie 16: 11-40.
Gallay, A. 2016. “Quelles interrogations pour les études mégalithiques?”, In Ch. Jeunesse, P.
Le Roux et B. Boulestin (eds.), Mégalithismes vivants et passés: approches croisées,
Archaeopress Archaeology: 19-55.
Heekeren, H.R. van. 1958. The bronze-iron age of Indonesia’s. Gravenhage: Nijhoff.
Heekeren van H. 1931. Megalithische overblijfselen in Besoeki, Java, Java 11: 1-18.
Heine-Geldern R. 1945. “Prehistoric research in the Netherlands Indies”, Science and
scientists in the Netherland Indies: 129-167.
Hoop van der A. N. J. Th. 1932. “Megalithic remains in South-Sumatra”. In Bulletin de l’Ecole
française d’Extrême-Orient 32: 573-576.
Hoop van der A. N. J. Th. 1935. Steenkistgraven in Goenoeng Kidoel, TBG 75: 83-100.
Janowski M. 2016. “The dynamics of the cosmic conservation”, In Kaj Arhem and Guido
Sprenger (eds.), Animism in Southeast Asia, Routledge: 181-204.
Jeunesse C. 2016. “De l’Île de Pâques aux mégalithes du Morbihan. Un demi-siècle de
confrontation entre ethnologie et archéologie autour du mégalithisme”, In Ch.
Jeunesse, P. Le Roux et B. Boulestin (eds.), Mégalithismes vivants et passés : approches
croisées, Archaeopress Archaeology: 3-18.
Kaudern W. 1938. Megalithic finds in Central Celebes. Ethnographical studies in Celebes.
Elanders Boktryckeri Aktiebolag Goteborg.
Kirleis W., Pillar, V. D., Behling H. 2011. Human-environment interactions in mountain
rainforests: archaeobotanical evidence from central Sulawesi, Indonesia, Veget Hist
Archeobot 20: 165-179.

Austronesian Diaspora
317
Krom, N. J. 1914. Voorloopige lijst van Oudheden in de Buitenbezittingen. OV, Bijlage T.
Westenenk.
McKinnon E.E. 1993. A note on finds of early Chinese ceramics associated with megalithic
remains in Northwest Lampung. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 24-2: 227-238.
Miksic J. 2004. From megaliths to tombstones: the transition from Prehistory to the Early
Islamic period in Highland West Sumatra, Indonesia and the Malay World 32/93: 191-
210.
Miksic J. 1986. A valley of megaliths in West Sumatra; Mahat (Schnitger’s Aoer Doeri)
revisited. Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 59: 27-32.
Mulia, R. 1981. Nias: the only older megalithic tradition in Indonesia. Bulletin of the research
centre of Archaeology of Indonesia 16: 1-29.
Prasetio B. 1996. Survei keruangan Situs Megalitik Bondowoso (Tahap II) Kabupaten
Bondowoso, Provinsi Jawa Timur Tahun 1995. Unpublished archaeological research
report Jakarta: National Research Center for Archaeology.
Prasetio B. 2006a. A role of megalithic culture in Indonesian culture history. In Truman
Simanjuntak, M. Hisyam, Bagyo Prasetio, Titi Surti Nastiti (eds.) Archaeology:
Indonesian perspective, R.P. Soejono’s Festschrift: 282-295.
Prasetio B. 2006b. Autronesian Prehistory from the Perspective of the Comparative
Megalithic. In Ingrid H E Pojoh; Muhamad Hisyam (ed.) Austronesian Diaspora and the
Ethnogeneses of People in Indonesian Archipelago Proceeding of the International
Symposium Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia.: 163-173.Jakarta: LIPI press,
Indonesia : Indonesian Institute of Science.
Sellato B. 2016. The Ngorek of the Central Highlands and “megalithic” activity in Borneo, In
Ch. Jeunesse, P. Le Roux et B. Boulestin (eds.), Mégalithismes vivants et passés:
approches croisées, Archaeopress Archaeology: 117-150.
Schüller C. W. 1936. Megalithische oudheden in de Palembangsche Bovenlanden en
overheidszorg. TBG 76: 391-97.
Soejono R. P. 1982. On the megaliths in Indonesia. In Byung-mo Kim (ed.), Megalithic culture
in Asia: 73-98, Seoul: Hanyang University Press.
Soejono R. P. 1989. Beberapa masalah tentang tradisi megalitik. Pertemuan Ilmiah Arkeologi
V, I: 221-230. Jakarta: Pusat Penelitian Arkeologi Nasional.
Soeroso R. P. 1997. Indonésie. Recent discoveries of jar burial sites in South Sumatra”.
Bulletin de l'École française d'Extrême-Orient 84: 418-422.
Steinmetz H. E. 1898, Oudheidkundige beschrivjing van de Afdeeling Bandawasa (Residentie
Besoeki), Tijdschrift van het Bataviaasch Genootshcap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen
40.
Steimer-Herbet 2013. Mégalithes et cultures indigènes, les tribus oubliées de l’Archipel
indonésien, Edition Hexart, Jakarta.
Sukendar H. 2003. Megalitik Bumi Pasemah: Peranan serta Fungsinya, Monograph.
Testart A. 2014. Anthropology of the Megalith-Erecting Societies. In M. Besse (ed.), Around
the Petit-Chasseur Site in Sion (Valais, Switzerland) and New Approches to the Bell
Beaker Culture: 331-336,Oxford: Archeopress.

Austronesian Diaspora
318
Tjoa-Bonatz M. L. 2012. More than 3400 years of earthenware traditions in Highland Jambi
on Sumatra, In Mai Lin Tjo-Bonatz, Andreas Reinecke & Dominik Bonatz (eds)
Connecting Empires and States, Selected papers from the 13th International
Conference of the European Association of Souteast Asian Archaeologists, Vol 2: 16-
31.
Tjoa-Bonatz M. L. 2009. The megaliths and the pottery: studying the Early Material Culture
of Highland Jambi. In D. Bonatz, J. Miksic, J.D. Neide and Tjoa-Bonatz (ed.) from distant
tales. Ethnohistory and archaeology in Highland Sumatra: 196-228. Newcastel-upon-
Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press
Tombrink E. P. 1870. Hindoe-Monumenten in de Bovenlanden van Palembang, als bron van
geschiedkundig onderzoek . TBG 19: 1-45.
Ullmann L. 1850: Hindoe-beelden in de Binnenlanden van Palembang. Tijdschrift voor de
Indiën: 493-94.
Vonk H. W. 1934. De 'batoe tatahan' bij Air Poear (Pasemah-Ianden). TBG 74: 296-300.
Willems W. J. A. 1938. Het onderzoek der Megalithen te Pakaoeman bij Bondowoso, Rapport
van den Oudheidkundige Dienst 3: 5-41.
Yondri L. 2006. A short review on the megalithic functions in Indonesia, Archaeology:
Indonesian perspective. In Truman Simanjuntak, M. Hisyam, Bagyo Prasetio, Titi Surti
Nastiti (eds.), R.P. Soejono’s Festschrift: 295-302.
Yondri L. 2011. Potensi arkeologi untuk pengembangan wisata di kawasan Cisolok,
Kabupaten Sukabumi, Jawa Barat, unpublished.
Yuniawati D. 2000. Laporan penelitian di situs megalitik Lembah, Besoa, Kecamatan Lore
Utara, Kapubaten Poso, Provinsi Sulawesi Tengah, Berita penelitan arkeologi.
Yuniawati D. 2008. Stones burials, one of the megalithic remains in Sulawesi, Capita Selecta,
Aspek-aspek arkeologi Indonesia: 107-129.