The past few years Indonesia is full of rumours of hard prehistoric evidence of a kite. These rumours speak of a cave painting of a kite on the island of Muna (Southeast Asia). Such a find has no equal in kite history, and may be compared to the quest for the Holy Grail. It is therefore not surprising that several “grail knights” have pondered over these rumours; some –in true Indiana Jones style - even went on a quest.

According to Philippe Cottenceau, he – and Hans Silvester – visited the cave in 1999, where Silvester made pictures of the painting. Cottenceau, however, doubts the authenticity of the cave painting as the style of the painting strongly deviates from other paintings in the area. Yet, up to today pictures of the cave painting is unpublished. The reason given for this neglect is the long-term plan for Silvester’s kite book.

In June 2002, Wolfgang Bieck decides to undertake his own quest to visit the cave painting. The heat turns up when it is rumoured to have implied that Bieck found the cave painting, and made pictures of it. Based on this visit to Muna, the Jakarta Post mentions on 12 September 2002 that paintings depicting kites are discovered in Southeast Sulawesi. Unfortunately, the article does not publish a picture, as Bieck too is working on an article about the painting.

In the fall of 2002, the Drachen Foundation makes itself immortal in an attempt to join the grail knights. In Kite Journal No 10 (www.drachen.org/journal.html) an – anonymous – article is published that rehashes Cottenceau’s views. Without any supplementary references, the article comes to a surprising, and very dubious conclusion. Xenophobic the article finds that further visits are not forthcoming, as Islamite Indonesia is inaccessible to western people.

Fortunately, Bieck published his photo’s last month in Sport und Design Drachen 1 (2003), and on his website: wbieck.bei.t-online.de. It is hindsight, of course, but better proof of the nonsense the Drachen Foundation dared to publish I cannot imagine. In addition, all speculations about the cave painting are finally met with some hard evidence! Nevertheless, the cover story is not very critical, and conspicuous questions stay unanswered.

While Cottenceau speaks of a terrifying climb, Bieck describes a well-nigh strenuous stroll. Cottenceau describes an ochre coloured kite with tail; Bieck's photo shows a dark red tail-less kite. Even on the year the cave painting was discovered both versions disagree! Are both gentlemen speaking of the same painting? Was an easier route found to the cave? Was Cottenceau's interpretation wrong? Or are there two cave paintings on the island? These crucial questions need urgent answers. Nothing is certain…

Bieck's photographs also lead to questions. Remarkable is the colour difference between the dark red painting of the man with kite and the ochre paintings next to it. In addition, the style of the kite painting deviates from the other paintings, a point Cottenceau also noted. Both questions harbour suspicions that the kite painting is older, or younger(!) than the surrounding paintings. A crucial question with it is: how much older/younger is the cave painting of the man with kite? Nothing is certain…

In this aspect, one point in Bieck’s story is in accordance with Cottenceau’s remarks. Both versions place the discovery strikingly short after a clear request for a cave painting of a kite. It seems too coincidental, for a country where forgeries and brand-new antiques are sold at every antique market. Cottenceau's doubts on the age of the painting are therefore justified. The age of the painting must be determined as soon as possible!

Once the age of the cave painting is established, the grail knights can whet their swords for a debate on its origin. My preference goes to the forefathers of the Polynesians (see also ‘Who or where’, VLIEGER 2002/4). Current geologic, linguistic and anthropologic knowledge of 5,000 years ago indicates this race was highly educated. What’s more, the similarities between the kites from Muna and Polynesia aim in that direction.

The travels these seafarers made, make the theory even more interesting! According to Cribb (2000), they have visited Madagascar 4,500 year ago! Is there any connection with the myths of birds/kites in Egypt (over 2,500 years old)? Or with the wings of Icarus, some 3,500 years ago? Indonesia, Madagascar, Egypt, Greece seems like an acceptable “kite trip”. Too bad that even for this theory we must conclude: nothing is certain (yet)!
06/01/03 

Bibliography
Several kite books provide clues on the prehistory of kites. Hart (1982) is by many considered as the bible of kite history. Yolen (1976) offers some prehistoric data. Kroeze (1986) provides the Dutch readers with a fair overview of kite history, and VLIEGER regularly publishes articles on the topic.

• Cribb, R. 2000. Historical atlas of Indonesia: United Kingdom (ISBN 9810427719).
• Hart, C. 1982. Kites, an historical survey: Paul P Apple, New York, USA (ISBN 0911858407).
• Kroeze, H. 1986. Vliegeren, met ruim 20 originele vliegerontwerpen: Uitgeverij Tulp, Zwolle (ISBN 902297704X).
• Yolen, W. 1976. The complete book of kites and kite flying; how to build and fly over 35 dazzling kites: Simon & Schuster, New York, USA (ISBN 0671221914).

Wolfgang Bieck and Tal Streeter kindly provided comments on drafts of this article. To both a warm thanks! E-mails, requesting comment, were sent to Drachen Foundation and Philippe Cottenceau. No answers were received so far.