With associated pottery complexes in the Philippines and Borneo in the far northeast of Indonesia and in Malaya in the far northwest, it makes sense.

INDONESIA

With associated pottery complexes in the Philippines and Borneo in the far northeast of Indonesia and in Malaya in the far northwest, it makes sense.

to find related pottery in Indonesia. Archaeologically, this occurred in Sulawesi and

there are ethnological indications of contact, if not more, in Sumatra and more

another island in Indonesia.

Sulawesi. Excavations by van Stein Callenfels (1951) and H. R. van Heekeren

(1957: 118-119) in Galumpang, West Central Sulawesi, has produced a number of

the shards associated with the pottery complex discussed earlier.

Galumpang (Kalumpang) is a small village in West Toraja, Central Sulawesi,

93 kms. upstream on the Karama River. This site, not far from southwest TPE

village, called Kamassi. Excavations were first carried out there by Stein Callenfels,

in 1933, and again by van Heekeren in 1949.

The site was in an agricultural area prior to excavation and was heavily disturbed.

Both Callenfels and van Heekeren suggest that there are three or more cultures

represented on this site are mixed as a result of agriculture

activity. Therefore, these cultures are distinguished purely on typological grounds.

The large amount of pottery found at this site was divided into two

this culture and Callenfels· thought that some of the pottery came from the third protoneolithic culture (Callenfels 195 I:89-90). As prehistoric pottery from

Celebes are not well known elsewhere, it is not recommended to depend on them

the presented division of this disturbed site. They may prove right or

they may not. Therefore, reference is made here to only the clearest pottery

similar to what interests us, bearing in mind that the less similar pieces than

the mayor of the site may not have been made by the same potter. Unfortunately vans

Heekeren's report on the excavation has not been seen so it is not included (1951).

Nothing can be said about the form or surface treatment of the Celebes pottery. Most of the sherds illustrated by Callenfels (1951, pis. XIV-XIX) do not show specific resemblance to the pottery of the complexes in which we are interested other than the common use of triangles as elements of incised decoration. The illustrations presented by van Heekeren (1957: pIs. 37-38) from Galumpang and Minango Sipakko (West Central Celebes) and the sherds illustrated here (PI. I a-j) show definite similarities. The decoration appears to be incised or simple tool impressed, the latter being punctations or small circles. Incised dashes, circles, punctations and other apparently simple tool impressions, are used to emphasize the patterns incised. Some sherds show that patterns were, in some cases at least, arranged in horizontal bands (PI. I a, g-h). Triangular elements are commonly used (PI. I a, c, e, h, and Heekeren 1957: pIs. 37-38). Patternsinclude rectangularmeanders (PI. I a, c, and Heekeren 1957: pI. 38), curvilinear scrolls (PI. I f), zigzags (PI. I i, and Heekeren 1957: pI. 37), a series of vertical rectangular elements (PI. I b and g), and interlocking arcs (PI. I i and Hee~eren 1957: pI. 38). One sherd is in the form of a human head (Callenfels 1951: pI. XIX left). Due to the disturbed condition of the Kamassi site with the resultant mixture of cultures, it would be fruitless to mention the associated artifacts other than that no metal was recovered. There is no agreement on possible dating of the site or its components. Two earthenware vessels in the ethnographic collections of the Djakarta Museum show strong indications of relationship to the Niah-Kalanay pottery complexes (PI. I k-l). These vessels are catalogued as Bugis from in or near Makassar, Celebes. Though crudely made, the elements of form and decoration distinctly recall the pottery from Borneo and the Philippines. Two foreign elements in the bowl with cover(PI. I k) are in the form of the cover and the quartered compound-tool impressions. Both of these are distinctive elements of the Bau pottery complex and present day 'Malay' pottery (see Solheim 1960: 2-3). A third similar vessel from Kadjang, near Makassar, is illustrated by Van der Hoop (1949: pI. II c). This vessel has several elements of Kalanay pottery complex form in typical combination, and has typical Kalanay incised and impressed decoration. The lid is like that on the vessel in Plate I k. Sumatra. On visiting the museum in Djakarta there were three vessels in the Sumatra pottery case which I found extremely interesting. Unfortunately, the museum catalogue has very little information on them. They were collected at an early date in the history of the museum from Tulang Bawang, District of Lampong, at the southern end of Sumatra. The catalogue number of these three vessels is 586. Catalogue numbers of the museum are assigped consecutively. The early numbers have no date associated with them. The first dated and numbered specimen of which I took a picture is numbered 8,882 and that vessel was collected in 1899. Catalogued pottery numbered in the 8,300 series had no date. Thus all that can be said at present is that it was an early collection. In form and to a considerable degree in decoration, they are unique pieces in the museum's collection. Nothing of this nature has been published to my knowledge from other collections. If any reader knows of any similar pottery from Sumatra, or Indonesia, I would appreciate information on it. The vessels were probably heirloom pieces. w. G. SOLHEIM II The first and most spectacular vessel (PI. II) has in one single piece a person seated between a pair of 'horns', on a platform which is the top of an angled bowl. The vessel has a ring foot. The total height of this vessel is 40 em. and the breadth across the top of the horns is 30 em. Its horns are polished and, by themselves, remind me very much of the horns of the· horned vessels from Niah Cave in Sarawak. The elements of decoration are apparent in the pictures. The only unusual decoration is the design in relief on the upper half of that portion of the vessel on which the person is seated. Neither the design nor the method of applique has been found on the pottery of the complexes covered in this issue. All the other decoration fits in well. As time was not available to study any of the vessels in detail, no further description will be presented. , The second vessel (PI. III a) has the lower portion of the body of the same shape as that of the first, while the top has two horns joined by a handle forming a stirrup jar. The workmanship on these two vessels is so similar that they seem to have been made by the same potter. The height of this vessel is 23 em. and the maximum breadth 17·5 em. The third vessel (PI. III b) is a pitcher, roughly gourd shaped except for its flat bottom, with the spout shaped in the form of some animal head. One applique eye of the animal's head is just above the air hole with one ear just below and to the rear next to the handle. Its decoration is so similar to that on the other two that the vessel could also be by the same artist. The height of this vessel is 24·5 em. and the diameter at its base, 17·5 em. My enthusiasm for these three beautiful pieces makes me want to write pages on them, but what more can be said? That there is some connection with the pottery complexes we have been examining is obvious, but what is it? Not knowing the circumstances of their origin or sourc~, conjecture at the present time is vain. However, at least one of these vessels is not unique. The vessel pictured in Plate III c was collected at a considerably later date than the first three. Its catalogue number is 8,325, making it likely that it was found sometime in the 189os, or possibly a little earlier. Its similarity to the horned vessel of Plate III a is obvious; had the two vessels been collected from distant locations this similarity would still be noticed. The catalogue information on this vessel says that its origin is 'Lampong region, South Sumatra'. The form of vessel c would seem to be a crude imitation of vessel a with a similarity in decoration of the tip of the left 'horn' and the incised pattern at and between the bases of the two horns. Besides the inferior potting of vessel c compared to the more sophisticated vessel a, their major differences are the flat bottom and the incised decoration on c. The flat bottom found on vessel b, shows this is not a new element. The incised decoration is not like anything found on the other three vessels, but it is one of the distinctive designs of the Kalanay pottery complex in the Philippines. It would be most interesting to see whether there are any other similar vessels in this area of Sumatra, and through an archreological survey to search for other sites with a similar pottery. The stirrup form of spouted vessel became very pop~lar in Sumatra and from there went into Malaya. The stirrups increased from two to multiple joined 'horns' or spouts. These vessels will be included in a later paper on the Bau pottery complex and related ethnographic pottery. 186 ASIAN PERSPECTIVES ], 1959 Miscellaneous Indonesian Relationships. Van der Hoop, in his Indonesian Ornamental Design, has presented a number of design elements found scattered over all of Indonesia and in New Guinea which are common to the pottery complexes with which we have been dealing. He attributes these elements to the Dongson bronze drums, various types of which have been found ov~r most of Indonesia. He includes in his comparisons a number of the sherds from Galumpang (1949: pIs. II, XIX, and XXI). It is hard to doubt of a close connection between the geometric,al ornament of the Toradjas of Middle Celebes (Van der Hoop 1949: pI. XXVII) and that of the Galumpang pottery of the same area. It is useless to argue whether these designs originated on the bronzes or on the pottery for they are found on both. The important question here, as in Indochina, is 'What is the relationship between the pottery and the bronze drums'? and this cannot be answered without further excavations in many areas in Southeast Asia. Another interesting archreological relationship is between the Sa-huynh-Kalanay pottery complexes and several urn-burial sites in Indonesia. In Sumatra, associated with burial urns, vessels with rounded body, high neck, and narrow mouth, have incised rectangular meander designs around their necks (Heekeren 1958: pI. 32 and Van der Hoop 1949: pI. XIX c). The pottery associated with urn burials in Melolo, East Sumba, also bears some resemblances to the Sa-huynhKalanay pottery. Both these complexes are found, at least sometimes, with burial urns, and this recalls the possible connection between Sa-huynh and the TranNinh stone-urn site. The bronze anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figures of Sumatra (Heekeren 1958: pI. 9) and Java (Heekeren 1958: pI. IS and fig. IS) make one wonder about the iron zoomorphic figures mentioned by Madeleine Colani to which reference is made in the first article of this issue. CONCLUSIONS As stated in my 'Introduction to Sa-huynh', this is not yet the time for detailed comparisons of these pottery complexes with carefully reasoned conclusions. It might have been best to have labelled this section 'Observations', yet in some ways, the few observations I make are conclusions. I feel that these pottery complexes are all part of a single pottery tradition which arrived in their Widespread locations not by trade but by the movement of people; thereby I do not necessarily mean migrations. From ethnological sources we know that it is and was the women in this area who make the pottery. In other words the movement of the pottery is the movement of women. This could come from a slave traffic in women, exogamy with virilocal residence, or migration. If these scattered pottery complexes were the results of trade there should be much closer similarity in the pottery. Using negative reasoning, the considerable quantities of pottery found over such a wide area as the result of trade would mean an extensive, well developed sea-trade of a fragile, heavy commodity-this I cannot accept. On the other hand, from ethnographic information, local trade over reasonably wide areas seems logical. W. G. SOLHEIM II I feel that these pottery complexes had a common origin, even if the potters that made the pottery did not. But, I feel that the potters had a more or less common origin as well. There is a feeling or a spirit about this pottery which must have been held in common by its manufacturers. Many of the potters were artists with considerable freedom of artistic expression. There seem to have been some traditional designs but there were very few if any traditional forms. This was not a dogmatic conservative craft. Within limits it must have expressed at least the philosophy of the potters, and-since they did not live in a vacuum-of their societies and culture(s) as well. I doubt that an artistic feeling and a philosophy would spread easily through stimulus diffusion. With the differences between complexes there must have been considerable local evolution from the common background. I feel an urge to present my ideas about this common background, but it is probably a bit premature. To advance our knowledge, much more careful excavation is required. Only the pottery has been covered here with little hints here and there of the associated artifacts. In both pottery and metal, zoomorphic and anthropomorphic representation was widespread. This brings us back again to one of our major problems. What is the relationship between 'Dongson' and our pottery tradition? Many of the elements of pottery decoration and the zoomorphic and anthropomorphic representation of the pottery are also found on the 'Dongson' drums. Yet to my knowledge no drum has been found associated with this pottery. The idea has been advanced that form and elements of decoration for both Dongson and the pottery go back to Halstatt. Could these have been neighbouring groups of similar background, who, when foreign ideas were presented, went their separate ways, one expressing these ideas in bronze and the other in pottery? Through a few C-14 dates and other indications we have some ideas on the dating of these pottery complexes. The C-14 dates vary from about 750 B.C. to A.D. 200. The pottery has been found in Late Neolithic sites and in other sites associated with bronze and iron. In Indochina and in Malaya it precedes Chinese and Hindu influences. In general, this could well have been a recognizable and distinct pottery tradition as early as 1,000 B.C., though if present at that time, probably it was without the distinct Halstatt elements. It seems to have come to an end as a recognizable pottery tradition on the mainland with the advent of the Chinese and Hindu (philosophy?). It lasted much longer in outlying areas. This dating and the widespread locations of the pottery brings up another question. To be found over such a wide area, these people must have been seafarers, and good ones at that. What relationship has it to the 'Indonesian' people who made contacts and movements to Africa and Madagascar? Could they not have brought information to India about Southeast Asia which would have led to the beginnings of Indian penetration into the area? Finally, an observation even more wonderous if anything. There is an amazing similarity between this Southeast Asian pottery tradition, plus the carved paddle patterns of the Bau pottery complex, and the pottery of the southeastern United States.