Detecting Traits of Modern Behavior through 13 Microwear Analysis A Case Study from the Philippine Terminal Pleistocene

Alfred F. Pawlik

ABSTRACT

Behavioral modernity has been a neglected topic in the 1996). Debate continues over whether this Upper Paleo- prehistory of Southeast Asia. Such evidence remains lithic revolution resulted from genetic mutation, social largely undocumented in the Paleolithic archaeological or ecological factors, or an adaptive response to competi- records of the region. Here, I report on the technological tion with another human species, Homo neanderthalensis and microwear analysis of stone artifacts from the termi- (e.g., Bar-­Yossef 2002; Conard et al. 2004; D’Errico 2003; nal Pleistocene contexts at the Ille Cave, Palawan Island. Haidle 2006; McBrearty and Brooks 2000; Mellars 2005; The results show that unretouched and morphologically Zilhão 2001). Yet this hypothesis is used to explain the less formalized lithic artifacts, often considered merely greater success of Homo sapiens immigrants over the Ne- expedient tools, could have served as hafted armatures anderthals (Bräuer and Smith 1992; Conard 2006, 2008; of multicomponent tools. Microtraces of wear suggested Mellars 2005). The appearance of some “modern traits” that these tools were used for various activities, some of in Africa during the Middle Pleistocene, even earlier which are considered modern behaviors. For the ongoing than the first evidence of anatomically modern hominids discussion on the development and expansion of mod- 200,000 years ago (Henshilwood et al. 2002; Johnson and ern behavior, methods such as microwear analysis can McBrearty 2010; McBrearty and Brooks 2000; McBrearty exceed the limitations of traditional technological and and Stringer 2007) has led to the assumption that behav- morphological analysis of lithic assemblages. ioral modernity originated in Africa and was carried by Homo sapiens immigrants into Eurasia as a package of Introduction modern behavioral traits (Klein 2003). On the other hand, several items of the “modern package” were not solely Discussion of cultural, cognitive or behavioral moder- found in association with evidence of anatomically mod- nity has a long history in European prehistoric archae- ern human activity, but also with Neanderthal fossils and ology (e.g.. Dibble 1989; Hahn 1986; Jelinek 1982; Klein Middle Paleolithic cultural remains (e.g., the use of pig- 1995, 1999; Mellars 1989a,b). Specialized blade industries, ments, notational pieces, personal ornaments, geometric bone and antler tools, and especially figurative art, musi- microliths, bone tools, grinding stones, composite-­ tool­ cal instruments, and personal ornaments are considered technology, and synthetically produced birch pitch used indicators of highly developed cultural and cognitive as adhesive). This suggests parallel developments in mul- abilities (Clottes 2001; Conard 2003; Conard et al. 2004). tiple species of at least some modern traits in Europe and The seemingly sudden appearance of evidence of such Africa (Conard 2008; D’Errico 2003; Haidle 2008, Haidle behaviors in Europe around 40,000 years ago is linked and Pawlik 2011; Henshilwood and Marean 2003; Pawlik with the arrival of anatomically modern humans, Homo and Schmitz 2011; Pawlik and Thissen 2008, 2011). sapiens (e.g., Klein and Blake 2002; Mellars 1991; Mithen The emergence of behavioral modernity is also an im-

182

TAM Kaifu 13791.indd 182 9/3/14 3:43 PM portant aspect of human evolutionary research in other is quite certain that Palawan Island was once connected regions, including Southeast Asia. Previous studies have with Borneo and was a part of the enlarged landmass of not devoted much attention to this important issue, al- Sundaland during sea-­level regressions in the Pleistocene, though this is not necessarily the case for the Sahul re- it has been argued that the main archipelago islands of gion (Brumm and Moore 2005; Habgood and Franklin Luzon, the Visayas and Mindanao, were probably never 2008). Habgood and Franklin (2008, 214) have stated that connected to the Asian mainland during this epoch, and a “package” of cultural innovations did not exist as an a sea crossing was always needed to reach them (Esselstyn entity in the Indo–Pacific during initial expansion into et al. 2010; Heaney 1993). As a result, these islands con- Sahul and that its “components were gradually assembled tain remarkable endemic vertebrate fauna that are found over a 30,000 year period.” Is the current list of traits de- nowhere else in the world (Heaney 1986). However, fossil veloped from the European and African archaeological evidence for large land mammals like Elephas, Stegodon, records useful in detecting or refuting the existence of and Rhinoceros during the Middle Pleistocene all over the modern human behavior in Southeast Asia? Is an entire archipelago may indicate intermittent formation of land package of behaviors necessary, or is the appearance of bridges, either complete or incomplete, during sea-level­ individual traits sufficient to claim that behavioral mo- regressions in the Early or Middle Pleistocene (Bautista dernity is present in the landscape? In Southeast Asia, the and de Vos 2002; Bondoc 1979; Dizon and Pawlik 2010; fossil record suggests that modern humans first appear in Fox 1978; Pawlik and Ronquillo 2003; Piper et al. 2009; the region about 50,000–40,000 years ago (Barker et al. Shutler and Mathisen 1979; von Koenigswald 1958). 2007; Détroit et al. 2004; Fox 1978) or even earlier (Mi- Archaeological sites in the Philippines considered early jares et al. 2010; Mijares, chapter 12, this volume). How- Paleolithic in age are redeposited and found on or close ever, there seems to be a remarkable absence of modern to the surface. At the so-called­ Cabalwanian or Liwanian behavioral traits in the Pleistocene archaeological record sites of Northern Luzon are a number of open sites along that needs to be investigated. the Cagayan River valley that have been discovered and investigated since the 1950s (Bondoc 1979; Fox 1978; von The Philippine Paleolithic Koenigswald 1958). The lithic materials consist mostly of unretouched flakes, choppers, and other unifacially Paleolithic sites in the Philippines are situated mainly on retouched pebble tools (Dizon and Pawlik 2010). The ar- Palawan Island and Luzon Island (Figure 13.1a). While it chaic morphology of the lithic material and the presence

A B

Figure 13.1 a, Map of the Philippines with Paleolithic sites. b, Sunda shelf and potential migration routes into the Philippine archipelago.

Human Emergence and Adaptation to an Island Environment in the Philippine Paleolithic 183

TAM Kaifu 13791.indd 183 9/3/14 3:43 PM of a Middle Pleistocene fauna in the same region (Bautista layer in Tabon Cave to 50,000 years ago, the very high and de Vos 2002; Beyer 1947; Coutts and Wesson 1980; standard error of the U-series­ dates demands a cautionary Shutler and Mathisen 1979; von Koenigswald 1958) have consideration of the absolute dates from Tabon. led to the characterization of these assemblages as Lower In Peñablanca, Cagayan, in the northern part of the Paleolithic (Fox 1978; Fox and Peralta 1974; Ronquillo Philippines, Upper Pleistocene layers of Callao Cave et al. 1993). However, a chronological association of the contained flaked artifacts and charcoal that delivered a lithic materials with the Pleistocene fauna remains doubt- radiocarbon date of 25,968±373 14C yr BP (Wk-­14881) ful (Dizon and Pawlik 2010; Pawlik and Ronquillo 2003). (Mijares 2007, 2008; Mijares, chapter 12, this volume) or A morphologically diverse assemblage with bifacial and 28,980−27,420 cal BP (calibrated with Oxcal 4.2 and Int- unifacial artifacts, including the first reported hand axe Cal13). Below, a human third metatarsal bone was found in the Philippines, was found at Arubo in General Tinio, from a breccia layer and dated to 66.7±1 ka by laser ab- Central Luzon (figure 13.2) (Pawlik 2002, 2004a; Teodo- lation with the U-series­ technique (Mijares et al. 2010). sio 2006). Hand axes and other lithic artifacts showing an This sets the earliest human presence in the Philippines early Paleolithic morphology were found at Ille rock shel- even further back than Tabon Cave. The Callao metatar- ter in Palawan, El Nido, during a site survey (Archaeo- sal has many morphometrical characteristics similar to logical Studies Program 2007, 13; Dizon and Pawlik 2010) anatomically modern humans as well as to some of ar- and at the Huluga open site in Cagayan de Oro Mindanao chaic hominins that barely fall within the expected range Island (Neri 2005). Likewise, these sites are redeposited of human variation, but the specimen has been provi- and no absolute dates could be retrieved. Until now, the sionally assigned as that of a Homo sapiens (Mijares et al. chronology of the Philippine Lower Paleolithic has been 2010). The presence of an anatomically modern human based on morphological and typological analogies with in northern Luzon 60−70 ka raises some important is- European and African assemblages and their technologi- sues for the initial timing for the migration into and col- cal distinction from the lithic assemblages of dated upper onization of Island Southeast Asia. Conventional theory Paleolithic sites (Pawlik 2009a). places the timing for the migration of modern humans Fossil hominid remains found in the Philippines have into Southeast Asia no more than 50 ka en route to Aus- been classified as Homo sapiens (Détroit 2002; Mijares tralasia (e.g., Mellars 2005). Although an initial arrival of et al. 2010). Best known is the so-cal­ led Tabon Man, found modern humans in the Sahul region as early as 60 ka has in the Upper Paleolithic layers of Tabon cave at Lipuun been proposed in the 1990s (Chappell et al. 1996; Rob- Point, Palawan Island. The remains of several individual erts et al. 1990), more recent reviews place the initial hu- Homo sapiens—a frontal bone, two mandibular frag- man occupation of Sahul at around 45−50 ka (Allen and ments, and several teeth—were found during the exca- O’Connell 2003; Habgood and Franklin 2008; O’Connell vations by Robert Fox from 1960 until 1967 (Fox 1970). and Allen 2004). If the Callao metatarsal specimen in- ­Radiocarbon-dat­ ed charcoal from the corresponding layer deed belonged to an anatomically modern human, then pointed to an age of approximately 22,000−24,000 14C BP the initial migration of modern humans going to the East (Fox 1970, 40-­44). Thirty years later, the frontal bone was and into the Philippine archipelago would have happened directly dated by uranium gamma ray counting at the In- ca. 20 ka earlier than the southern migration to Sahul and stitut de Paléontologie Humaine of the Muséum national would have required an occupation of mainland South- d’histoire naturelle in Paris, and its date was corrected to east Asia and greater Sundaland by anatomically modern 16.5±2 thousand years ago (ka) (Dizon et al. 2002). A hu- humans already at or before 70 ka. man tibia from the lowest archaeological layer excavated during a reinvestigation of Tabon Cave by the National Absence of Modern Behavioral Traits Museum of the Philippines and the Institut de Paléontolo- in Southeast Asia’s Paleolithic? gie Humaine, Paris, delivered another uranium series date published as 47+11 / –10 ka (Détroit et al. 2004). Although Despite a seemingly early appearance of modern humans this is consistent with Fox’s estimate of the lowest cultural in the Philippines as old as ca. 70 ka, archaeological ev-

184 Alfred F. Pawlik

TAM Kaifu 13791.indd 184 9/3/14 3:43 PM Figure 13.2 Lithic artifacts from Arubo, Nueva Ecija. a, Hand axe, b, Unifacial tool with ventral retouch of the distal end. c, Retouched “boulder flake” with pointed tip. d, “Horse-­hoof” core. e, Flake core on a larger flake.

idence for modern human behavior, as defined by the cene and early Holocene archaeological record, possibly Afro-­European trait list, is poorly documented in Pleis- for taphonomic reasons. In addition, their manufacture tocene sites. In fact, its lithic assemblages do not contain would also require stone tools, which somewhat contra- a convincing modern character. The general absence of dicts the suggested replacement of lithic tools with vege- “modern” tool types and formal tools in Southeast Asia’s tal tools. Furthermore, the argument that production of Paleolithic industries has been explained by the possible vegetal tools led to the simplification of lithic industries utilization of wooden or bamboo tools and / or the poor has not been convincingly explained. Also, lithic artifacts availability of high-q­ uality lithic raw materials (e.g., Den- made of high-­quality raw materials (i.e., obsidian and ho- nell 2009; Mellars 2006; Mijares 2002; Narr 1966; Pope mogeneous chert) are not uncommon in Southeast Asian 1989; Schick and Zhuan 1993; Solheim 1970). However, sites (e.g., Beyer 1947; Charoenwongsa 1988; Mijares such a “vegetal industry” remains hypothetical, since nei- 2002, 2004; Moser 2001; Neri 2002, 2005; Pawlik 2002, ther bamboo nor wooden tools are present in the Pleisto- 2004a; Pookajorn 1988).The wood / bamboo tool hypoth-

Human Emergence and Adaptation to an Island Environment in the Philippine Paleolithic 185

TAM Kaifu 13791.indd 185 9/3/14 3:43 PM esis neither considers factors of tool mechanics and use wear analysis, these assemblages have been character- nor deals with the fact that large lithic assemblages are ized as products of an “expedient technology,” in which present in the archaeological record. It can certainly be flakes were produced from locally available raw material assumed that tools and utilitarian objects were made of by direct percussion without further modification, and vegetal materials, but they were more likely an addition used for single tasks before being discarded (Mijares to the lithic toolkit rather than replacements (Xhauflair 2002). This interpretation corresponds with microwear and Pawlik 2010). Likewise, bone tools were not a major studies on selected artifacts from Tabon Cave, in which component, as indicated by their scarcity in Pleistocene the minor appearance of microwear suggest a similar Southeast Asia despite the generally good preservation of strategy for the Tabonian industries on Palawan (Mijares faunal remains (Barton et al. 2009; Pawlik 2009a; Piper 2004; Xhauflair 2009). Also, the lithic assemblage from et al. 2008, 2011). the Upper Pleistocene layer of Callao Cave fits into an Two Upper Paleolithic / Epipaleolithic technocom- expedient tradition in terms of technology and use wear plexes have been morphologically and technologically (Mijares 2008). analyzed and published so far in the Philippines: the Since 1998, the Archaeological Studies Program of the “Tabonian Industry” (Fox 1970; P­ atole-E­ doumba 2002; University of the Philippines has been conducting field ­Patole-E­ doumba et al. 2012) and the “Peñablanca expedi- research in the Dewil Valley in El Nido, northern Pal- ent technology” (Mijares 2002). Their distinction is based awan Island. Within the Palawan Paleohistory Project, mainly on the dominant raw material, radiolarian chert the Ille Cave site has been excavated by a multinational for the Tabonian (Schmidt 2008), and andesite at Peñab- team of archaeologists, archaeobiologists, and sedimen- lanca. The Tabonian industry appears with the sudden tologists (Archaeological Studies Program 2007; Hara replacement of the former “Lower Paleolithic” core tool and Cayron 2001; Lewis et al. 2008; Pawlik 2006; Paz assemblages by dominantly ­small-­sized flake industries et al. 2006; Szabó et al. 2004). Until now, the excava- with no transitional stage (Pawlik 2009a). Secondary tions have delivered a cultural sequence that spans the modification of these flakes is rarely observed, with edge Upper Paleolithic and Pleistocene. From the Neolithic retouch and alterations usually caused by use (Fox 1970; to Protohistoric times, the site had been used as a burial Mijares 2004; Ronquillo 1981). In a comparison between ground. The earliest recorded human occupation of the the Paleolithic assemblage from Tabon Cave and the site is from approximately 14,000 cal BP and includes a lithic materials from several Holocene sites in Palawan lithic assemblage of about 130 artifacts (figure 13.3) and (e.g., Duyong Cave, Guri Cave, or the Pilanduk rock shel- a substantial number of animal bones (Ochoa 2008; ter; Fox 1970, 45–65, 1978; Kress 1979; P­ atole-­Edoumba Pawlik 2010; Piper et al. 2008, 2011) that have been as- 2002; Tulang 2000), the Tabonian technology was found sociated with charcoal ­radiocarbon-­dated to an age of to have been maintained from the Upper Pleistocene into 13,820−14,116 cal BP (OxA-­16666) (Lewis et al. 2008). the Holocene, until the early Neolithic. The morphology of the artifacts appears similar to those Also in Northern Luzon, more than 1000 km away from Tabon and Peñablanca, with simple and irregular from Tabon, the Upper Paleolithic industry seems to flakes manufactured by direct percussion (Pawlik 2009b). continue without significant morphological changes Evidence for curation, core preparation, indirect percus- into the early Holocene. This is apparent at Callao Cave sion, and specialized methods such as blade production and several other epipaleolithic sites associated with the are lacking. A microlithic component existed, at best, same limestone formation found at Peñablanca (e.g., only with regard to size, but no geometric microliths Laurente Cave, Minori Cave, Rabel Cave, and others; were found. Formal tools are extremely rare. The sim- Mijares 2002; Pawlik and Ronquillo 2003; Ronquillo ple and indifferent technology that produced an overall 1981). In general, the Peñablanca technology is repre- amorphous small flake industry is dominant until the sented by simple flake assemblages, without formal ele- developed Neolithic (Bellwood 1997). Nonlithic modern ments, and dominated by Andesite and chert. Based on behavioral traits such as tools made of bone, antler, and a technological study combined with a microscopic use-­ shell, as well as projectile points, figurative art, musical

186 Alfred F. Pawlik

TAM Kaifu 13791.indd 186 9/3/14 3:43 PM Detecting Modern Traits with Microwear Analysis

In this context, microwear analysis of lithic artifacts may provide us with new clues. This method allows the use and function of stone tools to be determined, which is necessary to reconstruct prehistoric technol- ogy and behavior (Keeley 1974; Keeley and Newcomer 1977; Semenov 1964; Tringham et al. 1974). It applies basic physical principles of interacting surfaces in rela- tive motion and studies the wear and tear created during such interaction between a working tool and the worked object (Yamada 1993). The effects are the same for both modern and prehistoric lithic tools, usually of chert and flint. Experiments demonstrate that almost any kind of contact, even with very soft materials, will result in wear traces on stone tools (Anderson et al. 1993; Beyries 1988; Kamminga 1979; Keeley 1980; Odell 1981; Pawlik 1992; Se- menov 1964; Unrath et al. 1986; Vaughan 1985). Two main categories of use wear are relevant for analysis: edge-­ damage patterns (e.g., scarring and rounding of edges, usually observed under relatively low magnifications using stereomicroscopes) and so-called­ micropolishes (e.g., high-­reflection altered areas on the microtopogra- phy of a stone tool visible under high magnifications us- ing modified metallurgical ­reflected-­light microscopes). Especially micropolishes can develop diagnostic features Figure 13.3 Lithic artifacts from the terminal Pleistocene that allow for identification of specific contact materials layer of Ille Cave (Keeley 1980; Vaughan 1985). In addition to the detection of wear patterns, residues adhering to stone tool surfaces instruments, and personal ornaments are absent as well. are sometimes found, thus allowing direct evidence of The earliest securely dated shell artifact in the Philip- the origin and nature of the worked material and ac- pines is a ground shell adze from Bubog 1, Ilin Island, tivities conducted (e.g., Anderson 1980; Christensen directly dated to 7550−7250 cal BP (S-ANU­ 35151) and et al. 1992; Dinnis et al. 2009; Fullagar 1998; Hardy and to the early Mid-­Holocene (Pawlik et al. 2014, under re- Garufi 1998; Kealhofer et al. 1999; Pawlik 1995, 2004b,c; view). Although the Philippine Upper Paleolithic assem- Rots 2003; Rots and Williamson 2004; Torrence and blages have most certainly been associated with Homo Barton 2006). sapiens since at least ~50 ka, they obviously failed to as- semble a distinctive package of modern behavioral traits. Results and Discussion This leaves us with two possibilities: (1) their cognitive, cultural, and technological capacity was completely dif- Within the Palawan Island Paleolithic Research Project ferent from modern humans in Europe and Africa and (Lewis et al. 2008; Paz et al. 2006), I have been conduct- perhaps not “modern” at all, or (2) the hypothesis that ing microwear analyses of selected Neolithic materials modern behavior is represented by a particular “modern (Pawlik 2006) and the Upper Paleolithic flaked artifacts package” has to be reconsidered. from Ille Cave. Although these stone artifacts mostly

Human Emergence and Adaptation to an Island Environment in the Philippine Paleolithic 187

TAM Kaifu 13791.indd 187 9/3/14 3:43 PM appear as irregularly shaped flakes made of rather low-­ with its haft have been described as bright spot–like quality raw material like andesite and heavily fissured features (Rots 2002), the bright spots detected on the radiolarite, they do posses use-­wear features. Prelimi- artifacts from Ille are consistent with those described nary results show that stone tools used for working hard first by Levi-­Sala (1996; see Unrath et al. 1986). They are organic materials such as bone, antler, wood, and bam- commonly considered to be the result of unintentional, boo are present in the Ille assemblage (artifact no. 37101: repetitive rubbing between siliceous materials—for ex- figure 13.4; no. 40408: figure 13.5; no. 41809: figure 13.6). ample, when artifacts are carried together in a pouch for Processing hide, an activity considered by some research- some time. The appearance of such traces can, therefore, ers to be a modern behavioral trait at least for Sahul and be interpreted as signs of curation, the process reflecting the western Pacific region (Gilligan 2010; Mellars 2005, a tool’s actual use relative to its maximum potential use 22), was observed on artifact no. 41763 (figure 13.7). Even (Andrefsky 2008). This can also be seen as an advanced more direct evidence of modern behavior are traces and behavioral concept, in contrast to the “use-­once-­and-­ residues that could be favorably compared to results from discard” expedient technology model (Mijares 2002). the experimental working of shell (Pawlik 1992, 75f.; no. Impact scars with hin­ ge-­ and step-t­erminations on a 35569: figure 13.8) and the application of pigment, as in- triangular flake suggest its use as projectile implement dicated by residues of red ocher on some artifacts. One (e.g., Fischer et al. 1984; Lombard 2005; Lombard and end scraper has evidence of similar traces of red pigment Pargeter 2008) as well as the presence of polish spots that appears in combination with wear evident of hide of the tip with longitudinal striations on elevated parts working (no. 41713: figure 13.9). Although it cannot be of the microtopography of both faces (no. 40406: fig- stated with absolute certainty whether pigment stains ure 13.10). Its base displays surface polish that is not are directly associated with hide processing or a differ- use-r­elated but does conform to what is expected from ent activity, the use of red ocher as a coloring or tanning minor movements of a tool against its haft (Cahen et al. agent for skins and leather in the Paleolithic has been 1979:681). Together with such polishes appear blackish frequently observed in microwear analyses (e.g., Büller residues that are probably the remains of organic resin 1988; Juel Jensen 1988; Pawlik 1995; Vaughan 1985; van used as hafting mastic (figure 13.10e,f). Also, a drop-­ Gijn 1989; Wadley et al. 2004). shaped end scraper (no. 40408) exhibits characteristic The surfaces of several artifacts from Ille Cave carry hafting polish at the proximal end (figure 13.5d) while so-c­ alled bright spots (figures 13.5c and 13.6a). Although a ­blackish-r­eddish residue film appears along the lat- polishes caused by the interaction of a stone implement eral edge of no. 41809, another indication of hafting

Figure 13.4 Artifact no. 37101: Flake used as side scraper for working harder organic material. Indicated are the working area and locations of microphotos taken. a, Abraded working edge b, Use polish and striations from working harder organic material.

188 Alfred F. Pawlik

TAM Kaifu 13791.indd 188 9/3/14 3:43 PM Figure 13.5 Artifact no. 40408: Flake used as end scraper for working harder organic material. a, Intensive scarring of the working edge. b, Micropolish and transverse striations along the contact surface of the working edge. c, Bright spots. d, Polish caused by hafting.

Figure 13.6 Artifact no. 41809: Flake used for scraping and sawing harder organic material. a, Bright spot. b, Resinlike residues. c, Scarring of the working edge caused by scraping harder organic material. d, Micropolish with characteristic reticular pattern indicating the working of harder organic material.

TAM Kaifu 13791.indd 189 9/3/14 3:43 PM Figure 13.7 Artifact no. 41763: Flake used for hide processing. a, Rounded working edge and transversely oriented micropolish. b, Extensive micropolish and surface abrasion caused by scraping hide.

Figure 13.8 Artifact no. 35569: Relatively large flake used for shell working. a, Heavily worn and scarred working edge. b, Shell residues on use-­scars. c, High-­power microphoto of scattered particles of shell on the dorsal face of the working edge. d, High-­ power microphoto of scattered particles of shell on the ventral face of the working edge.

TAM Kaifu 13791.indd 190 9/3/14 3:43 PM Figure 13.9 Artifact no. 41713: End scraper–like flake used for hide processing. a, Residues of red-­ocher on the working edge. b, Extensive micropolish caused by working hide.

Figure 13.10 Artifact no. 40406: Triangular flake used as projectile point. a, Impact scar near the tip. b, Lateral impact scar. c, Longitudinally oriented polish spots and striations on the dorsal tip. d, Longitudinally oriented polish spots and striations on the ventral tip. e, Blackish residues of organic hafting mastic on the ventral base. f, Blackish residues of organic hafting mastic on the dorsal base.

TAM Kaifu 13791.indd 191 9/3/14 3:43 PM (figure 13.6b). Both artifacts are awaiting further micro- western Pacific region (Barton et al. 2009). However, probe analysis (e.g., scanning electron microscopy and hafting traces are easily overlooked or neglected in mi- ­energy-di­ spersive x-­ray spectroscopy) to acquire more crowear analysis (Cahen et al. 1979; Keeley 1982). This information on their nature and manufacturing process analysis of relatively simple flakes from the Philippine (for the methodology see Pawlik and Thissen 2011). The upper Paleolithic showed that some were actually hafted combination of wear, hafting traces, and residues is quite armatures and parts of more complex composite tools. remarkable and confirms that the artifacts are hafted The predominantly small size of flakes in Philippine armatures that were attached to shafts and fixed with lithic assemblages could even indicate that toolmak- resinous glue. The visual appearance of the adhesives is ers intended to use them as hafted implements (Pawlik very similar to resin residues found on projectile points 2009a). This result presents an alternative hypothesis to made of bone and stingray spine from the West Mouth the ­above-­mentioned idea that wood and bamboo in- of Niah Cave in Borneo, dated to 11,700−10,690 cal BP dustries were used in the absence of formal tools and (OxA-­11865 and OxA-1­2391) (Barton et al. 2009). The lithic typologies in Southeast Asia. Bamboo and wood resins have been identified as deriving from either Sho- may be considered prime material for co­ mposite-t­ool rea spp., Agathis spp., or Canarium spp. These trees and shafts rather than replacements for stone tools and shed their resins are common in the Philippines and Palawan new light on discussions of technological adaptation in and have also been found from the Neolithic layers at Southeast Asia’s Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic (Haidle Ille Cave, where the material was used as appliqués on and Pawlik 2009). shell disk beads (Basilia 2011). Shorea resin appears to be especially suitable for hafting purposes, since it be- Conclusion comes soft again when heated above 75°C (Tschirch and Glimmann 1896), which would make it an ideal binding The microwear study of the lithic artifacts from Ille Cave material with regard to retooling processes and the re- indicated that components of the package of modern placement of worn-­out implements. While the special- behavioral traits were present in the Upper Paleolithic ized bone points from Niah provide evidence of Late of the Philippine archipelago. It also demonstrated that Pleistocene hafting technology in Island Southeast Asia, the traditional methods of typological and technologi- the use of unretouched lithic flakes as hafted implements cal studies are sometimes insufficient for the recognition for multicomponent tools and projectiles at Ille Cave is of modern traits and that additional analytical tools are unique and points to a technological concept that is be- needed. Microwear analysis offers actual technical and yond traditional morphological and typological models. functional characterizations of lithic artifacts, the iden- It is a reflection of the constructive memory of its makers tification of working and hunting tools, and a determi- and their ability to perform complex sequences of action nation of activities and site functions. It has no regional (Ambrose 2010). and chronological limitations and shows a potential for The microwear analysis of artifacts from Ille Cave the detection of differentiated, “modern” behavior and strongly suggests the presence of hafted tools and pro- complex technologies, such as hafting and composite jectile points, ­composite-t­ool making, and complex tool tool making, projectile points, curation, fabrication of design in the Philippine Paleolithic. Hafted composite ornaments, shellfishing, use of pigments, and more. As of tools and the making of hafting mastic for fixing lithic now, this method has been widely excluded from debates armatures in wooden shafts have been observed in Eu- concerning modernity and behavioral traits, despite its ropean Micoquien and Aurignacian assemblages (Din- primary application to the recognition of prehistoric ac- nis et al. 2009; Pawlik and Thissen 2008, 2011). They are tivities and human behavior. This research has demon- considered to be components of the European and Afri- strated that while modern traits may be seemingly absent can package (Ambrose 2010; Deacon 2000; Keeley 1982; in the typology of the lithic record, microwear analysis Wurz 1999) and have also been regarded as a significant has the potential to identify such evidence at the micro- trait of behavioral modernity in Southeast Asia and the scopic level.

192 Alfred F. Pawlik

TAM Kaifu 13791.indd 192 9/3/14 3:43 PM Acknowledgments Bar-­Yossef, O. 2002. “The Upper Palaeolithic Revolution.” Annual Review of Anthropology 31:363–93. I am thankful to the University of the Philippines and its Barton, H., P. J. Piper, R. Rabett, and I. Reeds. 2009. “Com- Office of the Vice-President­ of Academic Affairs, who posite Hunting Technologies from the Terminal Pleisto- supported this work with an Emerging Interdisciplinary cene and Early Holocene, Niah Cave, Borneo.” Journal of Research Grant, code no. 2-­002-­1111212. Many thanks go Archaeological Science 36:1708–14. to the Archaeological Studies Program and Dr. Victor Basilia, P. A. 2011. “Morphological and Technological Paz for providing me with the latest information and data Analysis of the Cut Shell Beads from Ille Cave, El Nido, of the fieldwork at Ille Cave. Thanks to Miriam N. Haidle Palawan.” Unpublished master’s thesis, Archaeological (Heidelberg Academy of Science), Yosuke Kaifu (Na- Studies Program, University of the Philippines, Quezon tional Museum of Nature and Science, Japan), and Philip City. Piper (Australian National University) for commenting Bautista, A., and J. de Vos. 2002. “Archaeological Exploration on early drafts of this paper and to two anonymous re- and Excavation at Solana, Cagayan.” Unpublished manu- viewers for their useful comments and suggestions. script. Manila: National Museum of the Philippines. Bellwood, P. 1997. Prehistory of the Indo-­Malaysian Archipel- References ago. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Beyer, H. O. 1947. Outline Review of Philippine Archaeol- Allen, J., and J. F. O’Connell. 2003. “The Long and the Short ogy by Islands and Province. Philippine Journal of Science of It: Archaeological Approaches to Determining When 77:205-­390. Humans First Colonised Australia and New Guinea.” Beyries, S., ed. 1988. Industries lithiques: tracéologie et tech- Australian Archaeology 57:5–19. nologie. BAR International Series 411. Oxford, England: Ambrose, S. H. 2010. “Coevolution of ­Composite-­Tool Archaeopress. Technology, Constructive Memory, and Language: Impli- Bondoc, N. H. 1979. A Re-­investigation of the Espinosa cations for the Evolution of Modern Human Behavior.” Archaeological Sites: Cagayan and Kalinga-­ ­Apayao. An- Current Anthropology 51(Suppl. 1):135–47. thropological Papers, 6. Manila: National Museum of the Anderson, P. 1980. “A Testimony of Prehistoric Tasks: Di- Philippines. agnostic Residues on Stone Tool Working Edges.” World Bräuer, G., and F. H. Smith, eds. 1992. Continuity or Replace- Archaeology 12:81–194. ment: Controversies in Homo sapiens Evolution. Rotterdam: Anderson, P., S. Beyries, M. Otte, and H. Plisson, eds. Balkema. 1993. Traces et fonction: les gestes retrouvés. Liège, Bel- Brumm, A., and M. W. Moore. 2005. “Symbolic Revolutions gium” Actes du colloque international de Liège, Etudes and the Australian Archaeological Record.” Cambridge et Recherches Archéologiques de l’Université de Liège Archaeological Journal 15:157–75. (ERAUL) 50. Büller, J. 1988. “Handling, Hafting and Ochre Stains.” In Andrefsky, W. 2008. Lithic Technology: Measures of Produc- Industries lithiques: traceologie et technologie, edited by tion, Use, and Curation. New York: Cambridge University S. Beyries, 5-­46. BAR International Series 411. Oxford, Press. England: Archaeopress. Archaeological Studies Program. 2007. “The 2007 Season of Cahen, D., L. H. Keeley, and F. van Noten. 1979. “Stone Tools, the Palawan Island Palaeolithic Research Project: A Partial Toolkits and Human Behavior in Prehistory.” Current Report.” Unpublished manuscript, Archaeological Studies Anthropology 20:661–82. Program, University of the Philippines, Quezon City. Chappell, J., J. Head, and J. Magee. 1996. “Beyond the Radio- Barker, G., H. Barton, M. Bird, P. Daly, I. Datan, A. Dykes, carbon Limit in Australian Archaeology and Quaternary et al. 2007. “The Human Revolution in Lowland Tropical Research.” Antiquity 70:543–52. Southeast Asia: The Antiquity and Behavior of Anatomi- Charoenwongsa, P. 1988. “The Current Status of Prehistoric cally Modern Humans at Niah Cave (Sarawak, Borneo).” Research in Thailand.” In Prehistoric Studies: The Stone Journal of Human Evolution 52:243–61. and Metal Ages in Thailand (Thai Antiquity 1), edited by

Human Emergence and Adaptation to an Island Environment in the Philippine Paleolithic 193

TAM Kaifu 13791.indd 193 9/3/14 3:43 PM P. Charoenwongsa and B. Bronson, 17–41. Bangkok: Thai Biological Perspectives on the Origins of Modern Humans, Antiquity Working Group. edited by. P. Mellars and C. Stringer, 416–432. Princeton, Christensen, M., P. Walter, and M. Menu. 1992. “Usewear NJ: Princeton University Press. Characterisation of Prehistoric Flints with IBA.” Nuclear Dinnis, R., A. Pawlik, and C. Gaillard. 2009. “Bladelet Cores Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 64:488–93. as Weapon Tips? Hafting Residue Identification and Clottes, J., ed. 2001. La Grotte Chauvet: l’art des origines. Paris: Micro-­wear Analysis of Three Carinated Burins from Les Seuil. Vachons.” Journal of Archaeological Science 36:1922–34. Conard, N. J. 2003. “Palaeolithic Ivory Sculptures from Dizon, E. Z., F. Détroit, F. Sémah, C. Falguères, S. Hameau, Southwestern Germany and the Origin of Figurative Art.” et al. 2002. “Notes on the Morphology and Age of the Nature 426:830–2. Tabon Cave Fossil Homo sapiens.” Current Anthropology Conard, N. J., ed. 2006. When Neanderthals and Modern 43:660–6. Humans Met. Tübingen, Germany: Kerns. Dizon, E. Z., and A. Pawlik. 2010. “The Lower Palaeolithic Conard, N. J. 2008. “A Critical View of the Evidence for a Record in the Philippines.” Quaternary International Southern African Origin of Behavioural Modernity.” South 223–224:444–50. African Archaeological Society Goodwin Series 10:175–9. Esselstyn, J. A., C. H. Oliveros, R. G. Moyle, A. T. Peterson, Conard, N. J., M. Malina, S. Münzel, and F. Seeberger. 2004. J. A. McGuire, et al. 2010. “Integrating Phylogenetic and “Eine Mammutelfenbeinflöte aus dem Aurignacien des Taxonomic Evidence Illuminates Complex Biogeographic Geissenklösterle: Neue Belege für eine Musiktradition Patterns along Huxley’s Modification of Wallace’s Line.” im frühen Jungpaläolithikum auf der Schwäbischen Alb.” Journal of Biogeography 37:2054–66. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 34:447–62. Fischer, A., P. Vemming Hansen, and P. Rasmussen. 1984. Coutts, P. J. F., and J. P. Wesson. 1980. “Models of Philippine “Macro and Micro Wear Traces on Lithic Projectile Points: Prehistory, a Review of the Flaked Stone Industries.” Phil- Experimental Results and Prehistoric Examples.” Journal ippine Quarterly Research in Culture and Society 8:203–59. of Danish Archaeology 3:19–46. Deacon, H. J. 2000. “Modern Human Emergence: An African Fox, R. B. 1970. The Tabon Caves. Monograph of the National Archaeological Perspective.” In Humanity from African Museum of the Philippines, 1. Manila: National Museum Naissance to Coming Millennia: Colloquia in Human of the Philippines. Biology and Palaeoanthropology, edited by P. V. Tobias, Fox, R. B. 1978. “The Philippine Palaeolithic.” In Early Palae- M. A. Raath, J. Maggi-­Cecchi, and G. A. Doyle, 217–226. olithic in South and East Asia, edited by F. Ikawa-­Smith, Florence, Italy: Florence University Press. 59–85. Paris: Moutton. Dennell, R. W. 2009. The Palaeolithic Settlement of Asia. New Fox, R. B., and J. Peralta. 1974. “Preliminary Report on the Pa- York: Cambridge University Press. laeolithic Archaeology of Cagayan Valley, Philippines, and D’Errico, F. 2003. “The Invisible Frontier: A Multiple Species the Cabalwanian industry.” In: Proceedings of the First Re- Model for the Origin of Behavioral Modernity.” Evolution- gional Seminar on Southeast Asian Prehistory and Archae- ary Anthropology 12:188–202. ology, June 26–July 4, 1972, Manila, edited by E. S. Casino, Détroit, F. 2002. “Origine et évolution des Homo sapiens 100–47. Manila: National Museum of the Philippines. en Asie du Sud-E­ st: Descriptions et analyses mor- Fullagar, R., ed. 1998. A Closer Look: Recent Australian Studies phométriques de nouveaux fossiles. Ph.D. dissertation, of Stone Tools. Sydney University Archaeological Methods Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris. Series 6. Sydney: University of Sydney. Détroit, F., E. Z. Dizon, C. Falguères, S. Hameau, and Gilligan, I. 2010. “The Prehistoric Development of Clothing: F. Sémah, et al. 2004. “Upper Pleistocene Homo sapiens Archaeological Implications of a Thermal Model.” Journal from Tabon Cave (Palawan, the Philippines).” Human of Archaeological Method and Theory 17:15–80. Paleontology and Prehistory 3:705–12. Habgood, P. J., and N. R. Franklin. 2008. “The Revolution Dibble, H. 1989. “The Implications of Stone Tool Types for That Didn’t Arrive: A Review of Pleistocene Sahul.” Jour- the Presence of Language during the Lower and Middle nal of Human Evolution 55:187–222. Palaeolithic.” In The Human Revolution: Behavioral and Hahn, J. 1986. Kraft und Aggression: die Botschaft der Eiszeit-

194 Alfred F. Pawlik

TAM Kaifu 13791.indd 194 9/3/14 3:43 PM kunst imAurignacien Süddeutschlands? Tübingen, Ger- Kamminga, J. 1979. “The Nature of Use-Polish­ and Abrasive many: Archaeologica Venatoria. Smoothing on Stone Tools.” In Lithic Use Wear Analy- Haidle, M. N. 2006. “Menschen–Denken–Objekte. Zur sis,” edited by B. Hayden, 143–57. New York: Academic ­Problem-­Lösung-­Distanz als Kognitionsaspekt im Press. Werkzeugverhalten von Tieren und im Laufe der men- Kealhofer, L., R. Torrence, and R. Fullagar. 1999. “Integrating schlichen Evolution.” Habilitation thesis, University of Phytoliths within Use-­Wear / Residue Studies of Stone Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany. Tools.” Journal of Archaeological Science 26:527–46. Haidle, M. N. 2008. “Kognitive und Kulturelle Evolution.” Keeley L. H. 1974. “Technique and Methodology in Mi- Erwägen Wissen Ethik 19:149–59. crowear Studies: A Critical Review.” World Archaeology Haidle, M., and A. F. Pawlik. 2009. “Missing Types: Over- 5:323–36. coming the Typology Dilemma of Lithic Archaeology Keeley L. H. 1980. Experimental Determination of Stone Tool in Southeast Asia.” Bulletin of the Indo-­Pacific Prehistoric Uses. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Association 29:2–5. Keeley L. H. 1982. “Hafting and Retooling: Effects in the -Ar Haidle, M. N., and A. F. Pawlik. 2011. “Pleistocene Modernity: chaeological Record.” American Antiquity 47:798–809. An Exclusively Afro-­European Issue?” Bulletin of the Indo-­ Keeley, L. H., and M. H. Newcomer. 1977. “Microwear Anal- Pacific Prehistoric Association 30:3–9 ysis of Experimental Flint Tools: A Test Case.” Journal of Hara, Y., and J. G. Cayron. 2001. “A Preliminary Report on Archaeological Science 4:29–62. the Excavation of Ille Cave, El Nido, Palawan.” Hukay Klein, R. G. 1995. “Anatomy, Behavior, and Modern Human 3(1):81–92. Origins.” Journal of World Prehistorica 9:167–98. Hardy, B. L., and Garufi, G. T. 1998. “Identification of Wood- Klein, R. G. 1999. The Human Career: Human Biological and working on Stone Tools through Residue and Use-­Wear Cultural Origins. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Analyses: Experimental Results.” Journal of Archaeological Klein, R. G. 2003. “Whither the Neanderthals?” Science Science 25:177–85. 299:1525–7. Heaney, L. 1986. “Biogeography of Mammals in SE Asia: Klein, R. G., and E. Blake. 2002. The Dawn of Human Culture. Estimates of Rates of Colonization, Extinction and Specia- New York: Wiley. tion.” Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 28:127–65. von Koenigswald, G. H. R. 1958. “Preliminary Report on a Heaney, L. 1993. “Biodiversity Patterns and the Conserva- Newly Discovered Stone Age Culture from Northern Lu- tion of Mammals of the Philippines.” Asia Life Sciences zon, Philippine Islands.” Asian Perspectives 2:69–71. 2:261–74. Kress, J. 1979. “Tom Harrisson, North Borneo, and Palawan: Henshilwood, C. S., F. d’Errico, R. Yates, Z. Jacobs, C. Tri- A Preliminary Assessment.” Asian Perspectives 20:75–86. bolo, et al. 2002. “The Emergence of Modern Human Levi-­Sala, I. 1996. A Study of Microscopic Polish on Flint Behaviour: Middle Stone Age Engravings from South Implements. British Archaeological Reports Series 629. Africa.” Science 295:1278–80. Oxford, England: Archaeopress. Henshilwood, C. S., and C. W. Marean. 2003. “The Origin of Lewis, H., V. Paz, M. Lara, H. Barton, P. Piper, et al. 2008. Modern Behaviour: Critique of the Models and Their Test “Terminal Pleistocene to Mid-­Holocene Occupation and Implications.” Current Anthropology 44 / 45:627–51. an Early Cremation Burial at Ille Cave, Philippines.” Antiq- Jelinek, A. J. 1982. “The Middle Pleistocene in the Southern uity 82:318–35. Levant, with Comments on the Appearance of Modern Lombard, M. 2005. “A Method for Identifying Stone Age Homo sapiens.” British Archaeological Reports 151:57–101. Hunting Tools.” South African Archaeological Bulletin Johnson, C. R., and S. McBrearty. 2010. “500,000 Year Old 60:115–120. Blades from the Kapthurin Formation, Kenya.” Journal of Lombard, M., and J. Pargeter. 2008. “Hunting with How- Human Evolution 58:193–200. iesons Poort Segments: Pilot Experimental Study and Juel Jensen, H. 1988. “Functional Analysis of Prehistoric Flint the Functional Interpretation of Archaeological Tools.” Tools by High Power Microscopy: A Review of West Euro- Journal of Archaeological Science 35:2523–31. pean Literature.” Journal of World Prehistory 2:53–88. McBrearty S., and A. Brooks. 2000. “The Revolution That

Human Emergence and Adaptation to an Island Environment in the Philippine Paleolithic 195

TAM Kaifu 13791.indd 195 9/3/14 3:43 PM Wasn’t: A New Interpretation of the Origin of Modern Hu- An Evidence of Exchange?” Unpublished master’s thesis, man Behavior.” Journal of Human Evolution 39:453–563. University of the Philippines, Manila. McBrearty, S., and C. Stringer. 2007. “The Coast in Colour.” Neri, L. A. 2005. “Obsidian from the Huluga Site and Its Im- Nature 449:793–4. plications.” Hukay, Journal of the Philippines Archaeological Mellars, P. 1989a. “Archaeology and the ­Population-­Dispersal Studies Program 7:55–67. Hypothesis of Modern Human Origins in Europe.” In The Ochoa, J. 2008. “Terrestrial Vertebrates from Ille Cave, Origin of Modern Humans and the Impact of Chronometric Northern Palawan, Philippines: Subsistence and Palae- Dating, edited by M. J. Aitken, C. Stringer, and P. Mellars, oecology in the Terminal Pleistocene to the Holocene.” 196–216. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Archaeological Studies Mellars, P. 1989b. “Major Issues in the Emergence of Modern Program, University of the Philippines, Manila. Humans.” Current Anthropology 30:349–85. O’Connell, J. F., and J. Allen. 2004. “Dating the Colonization Mellars, P. 1991. “Cognitive Changes and the Emergence of of Sahul (Pleistocene Australia–New Guinea): A Review Modern Humans in Europe.” Cambridge Archaeological of Recent Research.” Journal of Archaeological Science Journal 1:63–76. 31:835–53. Mellars, P. 2005. “The Impossible Coincidence: A ­Single-­ Odell, G. H. 1981. “The Mechanics of Use-­Breakage of Stone Species Model for the Origins of Modern Human Be- Tools: Some Testable Hypotheses.” Journal of Field Archae- haviour in Europe.” Evolutionary Anthropology 14:12–27. ology 8:197–209. Mellars, P. 2006. “Going East: New Genetic and Archaeolog- Patole-­Edoumba, E. 2002. “L’industrie lithique préhistorique ical Perspectives on the Modern Human Colonization of de débitage des Philippines de la fin du Pleistocène à Eurasia.” Science 313:796–800. l’Holocène moyen.” Doctoral thesis, University of Aix-­ Mijares, A. 2002. The Minori Cave Expedient Lithic Tech- Marseille I, Marseille, France. nology. Contributions to Archaeology Series. Diliman: Patole-­Edoumba, E., A. Pawlik, and A. Mijares. 2012. “Evo- University of the Philippines. lution of Prehistoric Lithic Industries of the Philippines Mijares, A. 2004. “Lithic Analysis of Recently Excavated during the Pleistocene.” Comptes Rendus Palevol 11:213–30. Tabon Cave Flakes.” Proceedings of the Society of Philippine Pawlik, A. 1992. Mikrogebrauchsspurenanalyse, Methoden— Archaeologists 2:15–9. Forschungsstand—Neue Ergebnisse. Urgeschichtliche Mate- Mijares, A. 2007. “The Late Pleistocene to Early Holocene rialhefte 9. Archaeologica Venatoria, Tübingen. Foragers of Northern Luzon.” Bulletin of the Indo-­Pacific Pawlik, A. 1995. Die mikroskopische Analyse von Steingeräten. Prehistoric Association 28:99–107. Experimente -­ Auswertungsmethoden -­ Artefaktanalysen. Mijares, A. 2008. “The Peñablanca Flake Tools: An Un- Urgeschichtliche Materialhefte 10. Tübingen, Germany: changing Technology” Hukay, Journal for Archaeological Archaeologica Venatoria. Research in Asia and the Pacific 12:13–34. Pawlik, A. 2002. “Is There an Early Palaeolithic in the Phil- Mijares, A., F. Détroit, P. Piper, R. Grün, P. Bellwood, et al. ippines? New Approaches for Lithic Analysis in the Phil- 2010. “New Evidence for a 67,000-­Year-O­ ld Human ippines.” In Australasian Connections and New Directions: Presence at Callao Cave, Luzon, Philippines.” Journal of Proceedings of the 7th Australasian Archaeometry Confer- Human Evolution 59:123–32. ence (Research in Anthropology and Linguistics, 5), edited Mithen, S. 1996. The Prehistory of the Mind. A Search for the by M. Horrocks and P. Sheppard, 255–70. Auckland, New Origins of Art, Religion and Science. London: Thames and Zealand: University of Auckland. Hudson. Pawlik, A. 2004a. “The Palaeolithic Site of Arubo 1 in Central Moser, J. 2001. Hoabinhian. Geographie und Chronologie eines Luzon, Philippines.” Bulletin of the Indo-­Pacific Prehistoric steinzeitlichen Technokomplexes in Südostasien. Bonn, Association 24:3–12. Germany: AVA-­Forschungen 6. Pawlik, A. 2004b. “Identification of Hafting Traces and Narr, K. 1966. Die frühe und mittlere Altsteinzeit Süd-­ und Residues by Scanning Electron Microscopes and Ostasiens. Handbuch für Bern, Switzerland: Urgeschichte. ­Energy-Di­ spersive Analysis of X-R­ ays.” In Lithics in Ac- Neri, L. A. 2002. “Obsidian Sourcing at Huluga Open Site: tion: Papers from the Conference Lithic Studies in the Year

196 Alfred F. Pawlik

TAM Kaifu 13791.indd 196 9/3/14 3:43 PM 2000 (Lithic Studies Society Occasional Paper 8), edited Early Middle Holocene Shell Adze from Ilin Island Min- by E. A. Walker, F. ­Wenban-­Smith, and F. Healy, 172-­183. doro, Philippines, and Its Implications for Understanding Oxford, England: Oxbow Books. the Appearance of these Implements in Island Southeast Pawlik, A. 2004c. “An Early Bronze Age Pocket Lighter.” In Asia.” Lithics in Action: Papers from the Conference Lithic Studies Paz, V., H. Lewis, and W. Ronquillo. 2006. “Report on the in the Year 2000 (Lithic Studies Society Occasional Paper Palawan Island Palaeolithic Research Project for 2006.” 8), edited by E. A. Walker, F. ­Wenban-­Smith, and F. Healy, Unpublished manuscript, University of the Philippines, 149–51. Oxford, England: Oxbow Books. Archaeological Studies Program, Manila. Pawlik, A. 2006. “Analysis of Polished Stone Adzes from Ille Piper, P. J., J. Ochoa, V. Paz, H. Lewis, and W. P. Ronquillo. Cave at El Nido, Palawan Island, Philippines.” Hukay, 2008. “The First Evidence for the Past Presence of the Journal of the University of the Philippines Archaeological Tiger Panthera tigris (L.) on the Island of Palawan, Philip- Studies Program 10:38–59. pines: Extinction in an Island Population.” Palaeoclimatol- Pawlik, A. 2009a. “Is the Functional Approach Helpful to ogy, Palaeogeography, Palaeoecology 264:123–7. Overcome the Typology Dilemma of Lithic Archaeology Piper, P. J., F. Z. Campos, and H. Hung. 2009. “A Study of the in Southeast Asia?” Bulletin of the Indo-­Pacific Prehistoric Animal Bones Recovered from Pits 9 and 10 at the Site Association 29:6–14. of Nagsabaran in Northern Luzon, Philippines.” Hukay, Pawlik, A. 2009b. “Morphological and Functional Analysis Journal for Archaeological Research in Asia and the Pacific of Lithic Assemblages from the Pleistocene Layers of Ille 14:47–90. Cave, Dewil Valley, El Nido, Palawan: A Progress Report.” Piper, P. J., J. Ochoa, E. Robles, H. Lewis, and V. Paz. 2011. Unpublished manuscript, University of the Philippines, “Palaeozoology of Palawan Island, Philippines.” Quater- Archaeological Studies Program, Manila. nary International 233:142–58. Pawlik, A. 2010. “Have we overlooked something? Hafting Pookajorn, S. 1988. Archaeological Research of the Hoabinhian traces and Indications of Modern Traits in the Philippine Culture or Technocomplex and Its Comparison with Eth- Palaeolithic”. Bulletin of the Indo-­Pacific Prehistory Associ- noarchaeology of the Phi Tong Luang, a Hunter-­ ­Gatherer ation 30:35–53. Group of Thailand. Tübingen, Germany: Archaeological Pawlik, A., and W. Ronquillo. 2003. “The Palaeolithic in the Venatoria 9. Philippines.” Lithic Technology 28:79–93. Pope, G. C. 1989. “Bamboo and Human Evolution.” Natural Pawlik, A., and R. Schmitz. 2011. “Was der Neandertaler mit History (October):1–15. dem Faustkeil machte.” Berichte aus dem Landesmuseum Roberts, R., G. R. Jones, and M. A. Smith. 1990. “Thermolu- Bonn 1:16–7. minescence Dating of a 50,000-­Year-­Old Human Occupa- Pawlik, A., and J. Thissen. 2008. “Birkenpechgewinnung tion Site in Northern Australia.” Nature 345:153–6. und Rentierjagd im Indetal.” Archäologie im Rheinland Ronquillo, W. P. 1981. The Technological and Functional 2007:41–4. Analyses of Lithic Flake Tools from Rabel Cave, Northern Pawlik, A., and J. Thissen. 2011. “Hafted Armatures and Luzon, Philippines. Anthropological Papers No. 13, Manila: Multi-­component Tool Design at the Micoquien site of National Museum of the Philippines. Inden-­Altdorf, Germany.” Journal of Archaeological Science Ronquillo, W. P., R. Santiago, S. Asato, and K. Tanaka. 1993. 38:1699–708. “The 1992 Re-­excavation of the Balobok Rockshelter, Pawlik, A., P. J. Piper, M. G. P. Faylona, S. Padilla Jr., J. Carlos Sanga Sanga, Tawi Tawi Province, Philippines.” Journal of et al. 2014. “Island Adaptation and Foraging Strategies in the Historiographical Institute Okinawa 18:1–40. Changing Environments from the Terminal Pleistocene Rots, V. 2003. “Towards an Understanding of Hafting: The to the Early Holocene in the Philippines: Excavations at Macro-­ and Microscopic Evidence.” Antiquity 77:805–15. Bubog I & II on Ilin Island, Mindoro” Journal of Field Rots, V. 2002. “Bright Spots and the Question of Hafting.” Archaeology 39:230–47. Anthropologica et Praehistorica 113:61–71. Pawlik, A., P. J. Piper, R. Wood, K. A. Lim, M. G. P. Faylona, Rots, V., and B. S. Williamson. 2004. “Microwear and Residue et al. Under review. “The Direct Dating and Analysis of an Analyses in Perspective: The Contribution of Ethnoar-

Human Emergence and Adaptation to an Island Environment in the Philippine Paleolithic 197

TAM Kaifu 13791.indd 197 9/3/14 3:43 PM chaeological Evidence.” Journal of Archaeological Science ‘Small Flake and Blade’ Industry from Duyong Cave, Pala- 31:1287–99. wan, Philippines.” Unpublished manuscript. Archaeologi- Schick, K. D., and D. Zhuan. 1993. “Early Paleolithic of China cal Studies Program, University of the Philippines, Manila. and Eastern Asia.” Evolutionary Anthropology 2:22–35. Unrath, G., L. R. Owen, A. van Gijn, E. H. Moss, H. Plisson, and Schmidt, P. 2008. “Characterization and Geological Prov- P. Vaughan. 1986. “An Evaluation of Use-W­ ear Studies: A enance of Jasper That Was Used for Debitages in the Multi-­Analyst Approach.” Early Man News 9 / 10 / 11:117–175. Archaeological Site of Tabon Cave, Philippines.” Hukay, Van Gijn, A. 1989. The Wear and Tear of Flint. Leiden, the Journal for Archaeological Research in Asia and the Pacific Netherlands: Analecta Prehistorica Leidensia 22. 14:3–12. Vaughan, P. 1985. Use-W­ ear Analysis of Flaked Stone Tools. Semenov, S. A. 1964. Prehistoric Technology. Bath, England: Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Adams and Dart. Wadley, L., B. Williamson, and M. Lombard. 2004. “Ochre in Shutler, R., and M. Mathisen. 1979. “Pleistocene Studies in the Hafting in Middle Stone Age Southern Africa: A Practical Cagayan Valley of Northern Luzon, Philippines.” Journal Role.” Antiquity 78:661–75. of the Hong Kong Archaeological Society 8:105–14. Wurz, S. 1999. “The Howiesons Poort at Klasies River: An Solheim, W. G. II. 1970. “Prehistoric Archaeology in East- Argument for Symbolic Behaviour.” South African Archae- ern Mainland Southeast Asia and the Philippines.” Asian ological Bulletin 54:38–50. Perspectives 13:47–58. Xhauflair, H. 2009. “Analyse tracéologique et recherche de Szabó, K., M. Swete Kelly, and A. Peñalosa. 2004. “Prelimi- résidus: contribution à l’étude de l’industrie lithique de Ta- nary Results from Excavations in the Eastern Mouth of Ille bon Cave, Palawan, Philippines.” Master’s thesis, Muséum Cave, Northern Palawan,” In Southeast Asian Archaeology. national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris. Festschrift for Wilhelm G. Solheim II, edited by V. Paz, Xhauflair, H., and A. Pawlik. 2010. “Usewear and Residue 209–24. Diliman: University of the Philippines Press. Analysis: Contribution to the Study of the Lithic Industry Teodosio, S. F. R. 2006. “A Functional Analysis of the Arubo from Tabon Cave, Palawan, Philippines.” Annali dell’Uni- Stone Tools.” Master’s thesis. University of the Philippines, versità di Ferrara Museologia Scientifica e Naturalistica Archaeological Studies Program, Manila. 6:147–54. Torrence, R., and H. Barton, eds. 2006. Ancient Starch Re- Yamada, S. 1993. “The Formation Process of ‘Use-­Wear Pol- search. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. ishes.’” In Traces et fonction: les gestes retrouves, edited by Tringham, R., G. Cooper, G. H. Odell, B. Voytek, and A. P. Anderson, S. Beyries, M. Otte and H. Plisson, 433–46. Whitman. 1974. “Experimentation in the Formation of Actes du colloque international de Liège. Liège, Belgium: Edge Damage: A New Approach to Lithic Analysis.” Jour- Etudes et Recherches Archéologiques de l’Université de nal of Field Archaeology 1:171–96. Liège (ERAUL) 50. Tschirch, A., and G. Glimmann. 1896. “Untersuchungen über Zilhão, J. 2001. Anatomically Archaic, Behaviorally Modern: die Sekrete: Ueber das Dammarharz.” Archiv der Pharma- the Last Neanderthals and their Destiny. Amsterdam: zie 234:585–589 Stichting Nederlands Museum voor Anthropologie en Tulang, C. S. 2000. “A Functional Analysis of the Reported Praehistoriae. Joh. Enschede.

198 Alfred F. Pawlik

TAM Kaifu 13791.indd 198 9/3/14 3:43 PM