Early Holocene shell fish hooks from Lene Hara Cave, East Timor establish complex fishing technology was in use in Island South East Asia five thousand years before Austronesian settlement.

O'Connor, Sue ; Veth, Peter

Investigations at Lene Hara Cave

In a previous report for Antiquity (O'Connor et al. 2002a) the authors outlined the preliminary excavation and radiocarbon results from Lene Hara Cave, East Timor (Figure 1). These results were significant as they extended the then known occupation on this Wallacean island back by more than 20 000 years. A maximum age of 34 600 [+ or -] 630 b.p. (ANU-11418) was obtained on a marine shell sample. In 2002, further excavation was carried out at the site with the aim of sampling other areas of this extensive cave (Figure 2). In Test Pit A the Pleistocene horizon was directly overlain by an upper late Neolithic horizon spanning the last few thousand years. There was no physical evidence for erosion or removal of the deposit which would account for the 30 000 year gap in the sequence and it was suggested that changes in sea level may have made the cave less accessible during the terminal Pleistocene and early to mid Holocene (O'Connor et al. 2002a: 48). Subsequently a programme of direct dating of shell artefacts produced mid-Holocene dates of 4400 b.p. and 3600 b.p., respectively, on two small drilled beads recovered from the upper levels of the Pleistocene horizon in Test Pit A (O'Connor et al. 2002b: 19). This demonstrated that at least some use had been made of the cave during the mid-Holocene and that downward movement of some Holocene cultural materials into the Pleistocene horizon had taken place. In September 2002 the authors returned to Lene Hara and carried out further test-pitting with the aim of sampling other parts of this extensive cave and clarifying the chronology of its use. Test Pit B was located in the same area of the cave as our initial Test Pit A. Two other pits excavated in 2002, D and F, were located predominantly in the lower northern chamber outside the walled region of the deposit and north-east of the stone ceremonial platform surrounding a large carbonate column (Figure 3). Test Pit D was excavated to a depth of 0.8m below surface level when the discovery of a full cranium in the context of what appeared to be a burial raised serious concerns with the land owner of the cave, and the excavation was discontinued.

[FIGURES 1-3 OMITTED]

Pit F was sited 1m north-west of Pit D and taken to a depth of 2.05m (Figure 4). The upper stratigraphy contained pottery down to a depth of 0.7-0.75m. The transition to aceramic cultural horizons below 0.75m appears sharp, with shell, bone and stone artefacts preserved throughout the underlying deposits. The lowest pottery recovery is coincident with laterally discontinuous thin beds of ashy deposits interbedded with fine gravels (Figure 4). Some small-scale disconformities (see O'Connor et al. 1999) at this level cannot be excluded. The depth of bedrock at this point remains unestablished.

[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]

The sequence appears moderately to well stratified, and conformable. The radiocarbon dates support a model of net accumulation and continuous deposition (by combinations of inwash, sediment creep and roof-fall) through the Holocene in this northern area of the cave. Most units comprised matrix-supported coarse clastic roof-fall gravels set in variably silty sands and grits, with some vertical grading trends evident. Fine-bedding structures suggest the general pattern of net accumulation has been punctuated by brief episodes of erosional surface wash and winnowing across the cave floor. Three finer-grain and better-sorted horizons suggest some non-linearity (or rhythmicity) in sequence deposition rates, a feature also indicated by the age-depth distribution of radiocarbon ages (Figure 4). The lowest 0.5-0.6m of deposit is significantly coarser, denser and more cemented than overlying gravel units, and accumulated more slowly. Localised cementation by carbonate occurs throughout the sequence. Preservation of shell and bone seems broadly similar at all excavated levels. As in other parts of the site charcoal was not preserved below the upper 0.2m and marine shell has been used for dating in Pit F.

The early fish hook and its context

The early fish hook (Figure 5) is from spit 42 (Figure 4) and has been dated to 9741 [+ or -] 60 b.p. (AMS) (NZA 17000). The results of an XRD analysis run on this sample prior to dating indicates that it is primary aragonite so it would appear that no re-crystallisation has occurred which could account for this early date. The excavation unit immediately below the fish hook, Spit 43, gave a date on marine shell of 10 050 [+ or -] 80 b.p., whilst the unit immediately above the hook contains a shell bead with a radiocarbon date of 7830 [+ or -] 50 b.p. (AMS) (OZG895). These dates are in good chronostratigraphic accord with the fish hook, demonstrating that there is no possibility that the hook was manufactured on 'old shell'.

[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]

The fish hook, made on the shell of the marine gastropod Trochus niloticus, is 40mm in length and is missing the tip of the hook. The shank appears to be finished but has no notching for a line attachment, so the line was presumably tied to the upper part of the shank (Figure 5). It is best characterised as a baited jabbing hook for reef fishing for medium-sized reef fish. A second hook was recovered from Spit 35, approximately 0.35m above the more complete hook. It is missing all but the tip of the hook but does not conjoin with the artefact from Spit 42 and definitely represents a second hook. The appearance and size of what remains of the hook from Spit 35 and its nacreous surface are similar to the hook from Spit 42 and they would appear to be made of the same material and to the same formal design. The incomplete hook is directly dated to 6890 [+ or -] 50 b.p. (OZG894). Spit 35 from which it was recovered is independently dated on marine shell to 6140 [+ or -] 100b.p. (ANU-2043). The Lene Hara hook from Spit 42 is very similar in morphology and material to the one-piece hooks from Lapita sites in Island Melanesia such as those from the Mussau Island sites (Kirch 1987). No hooks for benthic fishing or trolling have been found in the Timor sites; however, the remains of large pelagic species, such as tuna, have been recovered from between Spit 35 and 43.

Discussion

Fish hooks are rare in Island South East Asian assemblages and none has previously been found which are definitely pre-Neolithic in age (Bellwood 1997: 235). Glover (1986:119) reported a single-piece crescentric jabbing hook made on Troehus sp. shell from Horizon VI at the Baucau Plateau cave site Bui Ceri Uato and a broken hook made of the same material from Horizon V (1986:117). He thought the broken hook probably derived either from a larger single-piece hook or instead was part of a composite hook. No reliable radiocarbon determinations were obtained for Bui Ceri Uato and Glover's estimated chronological sequence was based on the correlation of changes in fauna and introductions such as pottery, which were paralleled in the other dated sites (1986: 96). On the basis of this estimated chronology the fish hooks at Bui Ceri Uato were argued by Glover to date to between c. 3500 b.p. and 4500 b.p. Glover recovered a number of other shell artefacts, such as a polished edge-ground adze and drilled shell beads, but all were found in the pottery bearing horizon or in spits immediately underlying the lowest pottery (Glover 1986: 97, 118) and have therefore been interpreted as part of the new technological repertoire introduced by incoming Austronesians.

Further east in the Pacific definite examples offish hooks are confined to Lapita contexts. Single piece jabbing hooks made on Turbo marmoratus and Trochus niloticus, respectively, are found in Lapita sites in Island Melanesia such as those from the Anir and Mussau Island groups (Kirch 1987; Szabo & Summerhayes 2002: 95). These commonly have a double notch on the inside surface of the shank for line attachment (Szabo & Summerhayes 2002: 95); however, this is not a universal feature and some finished hooks have no notching and were presumably attached by wrapping the line around the shank (Szabo pers. comm.). Kirch (1987: 174) reports similarly shaped hooks, but these are usually larger and would, he believes, have been mostly used for benthic (sea-bottom) fishing and trolling (trailing a lure), although occasional smaller examples suitable for reef fishing are also reported.

A few researchers have reported patterned broken shell in early Holocene and terminal Pleistocene levels which they have argued represent early stages in the manufacturing process for fish hook production. Spriggs (1997: 52), for example, reports on pieces of 'cut' Trochus sp. in the 8000 b.p. to 5500 b.p. levels from Pamwak Cave on Manus Island which he interprets as hook 'blanks'; however these have not been described or illustrated. Smith and Allen (1999: 292-4) have also argued that fragments of Trochus sp. shell from Units 3 and 4 of Matenbek, with Unit 4 dated to between 18 000 b.p. and 20 000 b.p., represent early stage 'blanks' for one piece fish hook production, as they resemble fish hook blanks recovered from Lapita levels in the Arawe Islands. Some of the Matenbek examples have 'pecking' scars which are interpreted by the authors as evidence of intentional shaping prior to grinding (Smith & Allen 1999: 294). Fish remains in the lower units of Matenbek are reef and lagoon species which could have been caught on hooks, but do not require the use of line-fishing technology for their capture (Smith & Allen 1999: 294). In the absence of any ground preforms or finished hooks, such claims must remain putative as it is possible that the patterned breakage results from processing for meat extraction.

A number of authors have been persistent in arguing that the pre-Lapita populations of Island Melanesia had a major influence on Austronesian cultural traditions before their spread to the Pacific (e.g. Allen 2000). More recently the Wallacean islands have been argued to have figured prominently in diversifying and reshaping Austronesian traditions (e.g. Green 2003; Oppenheimer 2003). The East Timor fish hook dated to 9741 [+ or -] 60 b.p. represents the first firm evidence for the manufacture of fish hooks at this early period in Island South East Asia, Melanesia or the Pacific and demonstrates a continuity in fishing practices between pre-Neolithic and Neolithic levels in East Timor. Its similarity to small baited jabbing hooks from Lapita contexts in the Pacific suggests that this technology may have its origins in early Holocene or even Pleistocene contexts in the rich marine environs of Wallacea, rather than result from Austronesian dispersal as part of a Neolithic or Lapita cultural package.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Atholl Anderson for sharing his extensive knowledge of fish and fishing and Katherine Szabo for providing advice on shell reduction. Anthony Barham is thanked for producing the Square F sediment log. Figures 1, 2 and 4 were produced by Anthony Bright, ANU Cartography. Funding for research in East Timor came from a grant from the Australian Research Council (2000-2002). Radiocarbon determinations have also been funded by the Centre for Archaeological Research, The Australian National University. Paolo da Costa of Tutuala, the elder Tuan Tana and traditional owner of Lene Hara at the time of our fieldwork, died in 2003. He was a great supporter of our East Timor research and we would like to pay tribute to his assistance.

References

ALLEN, J. 2000. From beach to beach: the development of maritime economies in prehistoric Melanesia, in S. O'Connor & P. Veth (ed.). East of Wallace's line: studies of past and present maritime societies in the Indo-Pacific region. Modern Quaternary Research in Southeast Asia 16: 137-76. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema.

BELLWOOD, P. 1997. Prehistory of the Indo-Malaysian archipelago (2nd edition). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

GLOVER, I.C. 1986. Archaeology in Eastern Timor, 1966-67. Canberra: Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, ANU. Terra Australis 11.

GREEN, R.C. 2003. The Lapita horizon and traditions--signature for one set of oceanic migrations, in C. Sand (ed.). Pacific archaeology: assessments and prospects. Proceedings of the international conference for the 50th anniversary of the first Lapita excavation (July 1952), Kone-Noumea 2002: 95-120, Noumea: Le Cahiers de l'Archeologie en Nouvelle-Caledonie 15.

KIRCH, P.V. 1987. Lapita and oceanic cultural origins: excavations in the Mussau islands, Bismarck archipelago, 1985. Journal of Field Archaeology 14: 163-80.

O'CONNOR, S., M. SPRIGGS & P. VETH. 2002a. Excavation at Lene Hara Cave establishes occupation in East Timor at least 30000-35000 years ago. Antiquity 76: 45-50.

--2002b. Direct dating of shell beads from Lene Hara Cave, East Timor. Australian Archaeology 55: 18-21.

O'CONNOR, S., P. VETH & A.J. BARHAM. 1999. Lacunae in occupation deposits in northern Australia. Quaternary International 59:61-70.

OPPENHEIMER, S. 2003. Austronesian spread into Southeast Asia and Oceania: where from and when?, in C. Sand (ed.) Pacific archaeology: assessments and prospects. Proceedings of the international conference for the 50th anniversary of the first Lapita excavation (July 1952), Kone-Noumea 2002: 54-70, Noumea: Le Cahiers de l'Archeologie en Nouvelle-Caledonie 15.

SPRIGGS, M. 1997. The Island Melanesians. Oxford: Blackwell.

SMITH, A. & J. ALLEN. 1999. Pleistocene shell technologies: evidence from Island Melanesia, in J. Hall & I. McNiven (ed.) Australian Coastal Archaeology: 291-7. Research papers in Archaeology and Natural History 31. Canberra: Department of Archaeology and Natural History, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University.

SZABO, K. & G. SUMMERHAYES. 2002. Worked shell artefacts--new data from early Lapita, in S. Bedford, C. Sand & D. Burley (ed.) Fifty Years in the field essays in honour and celebration of Richard Shutler Jr's archaeological career. Auckland: New Zealand Archaeological Association Monograph 25.

Received: 27 October 2003; Accepted: 31 March 2004; Revised: 11 May 2004

Sue O'Connor (1) & Peter Veth (2)

(1) The Division of Archaeology and Natural History, Research School of Asian and Pacific Studies, The Australian National University Canberra, ACT0200, Australia. (Emaik soconnor@coombs.anu.edu.au)

(2) Research Program, The Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, Acton Peninsula, Lawson Crescent, Acton, ACT2601, Australia. (Email: peter.veth@aiatsis.gov.au)