JMBRAS, DECEMBER 2018 VOL 91 PART 2, NUMBER 315, pp. 1–18

The Prehistoric Presence in Gua : Ancient Lifeways in The

Hsiao Mei Goh and Mokhtar Saidin

Abstract The importance of Gua Kajang (Kajang Cave) as a prehistoric archaeological site in Peninsular has been recognized since the early 1900s and was designated as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2012. Over the past 10 years, archaeological excavations and research in this cave have produced evidence of prehistoric occupation that broadens the understanding of prehistoric cave archaeology in the Valley. This article presents the early lifeways of prehistoric people of Gua Kajang between 11,000 and 4,000 years ago based on two human burials and associated finds, including stone artefacts, remains and earthenware . The material indicates that the early of Peninsula Malaysia were cave- dwellers or hunter-gatherers who depended heavily on forest resources.

The Authors Hsiao Mei Goh (corresponding author) is a research fellow at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Australian and Heritage, University of New South Wales. She is also an adjunct faculty member of the Centre for Global Archaeological Research (CGAR), Universiti Sains Malaysia. Mokhtar Saidin is a faculty member of Centre for Global Archaeological Research (CGAR), Universiti Sains Malaysia. His expertise is in the field of palaeo- environment, Palaeolithic culture and stone tools. He has led Palaeolithic studies in Peninsular and , covering key sites in Southeast Asian archaeology.

Email: Hsiao Mei Goh: hmgoh@usm.; [email protected] Mokhtar Saidin: [email protected]

Keywords: Lenggong Valley, cave occupation, hunter-gatherers, human burials, late Pleistocene, Holocene 2 | hsiao mei goh and mokhtar saidin

Introduction Gua Kajang is a natural tunnel located in the Lenggong Valley, , in northern (Figs 1, 2). It served as the main thoroughfare connecting the village to Lenggong town prior to World War II and is one of the earliest archaeological sites discovered in the country. Initial explorations at this cave in 1917 led Evans to suggest that it was occupied by prehistoric man during the to age.1 The cave was subsequently investigated by Williams-Hunt, Chia and Zuraina, but some issues related to the cave chronology and prehistoric culture remained unresolved.2 In 2007, an excavation was carried out in the Gua Kajang to confirm existing archaeological data and resolve issues arising from earlier research. The 2007 excavation unearthed a 1.6-metre-thick layer of cultural deposits containing two human burials (labelled GK 1 and GK 2). This article discusses the lifeways of prehistoric people of Gua Kajang between 11,000 and 4,000 years ago based on these human burials and associated finds, which included stone artefacts, fauna remains and earthenware pottery.

Archaeological Background of the Lenggong Valley The Lenggong Valley is a sub-district of the state of Perak, located in northern Peninsular Malaysia. Years of archaeological research pointed to Lenggong Valley as an important prehistoric settlement area in Malaysia, with an occupation spanning from the Palaeolithic period to the Metal age.3 The archaeological significance of the valley has been known since the early twentieth century as a result of archaeological work by Evans, Callenfels and Collings.4 Several inland caves and shelters in the Lenggong Valley showed indications of prehistoric human occupation.5 Of the many caves and rock shelters spread over the Lenggong Valley, seventy-two have been mapped and eight of these have been archaeologically investigated. Most of the caves or shelters were used for habitation and burial during prehistoric times, between 13,000 and 1,500 years ago,6 and sixteen prehistoric burials attributed to the Late-Pleistocene and Holocene have been found in four cave sites. The human remains were found together with artefacts, suggesting that certain rituals and preparations took place prior to the burial ceremony. Detailed analysis of skeletal remains from Gua Gunung Runtuh, dated around 11,000 years old, suggests that the early inhabitants of Peninsular Malaysia were Australomelanesoid hunter-gatherers.7 Stone artefacts found at these sites are dominated by flake tools and pebble tools made from limestone, quartz and quartzite,8 and earthenware pottery found in the upper layers of the

1 Evans (1918). 2 Williams-Hunt (1951: 185; 1952: 190); Chia (1997); Zuraina (1998). 3 Zuraina (2003). 4 Evans (1918); Callenfels and Evans (1928); Collings (1938). 5 Chia (2006). 6 Ibid. 7 Zuraina (1994, 2005). 8 Mokhtar (1997). prehistoric gua kajang | 3

Fig. 1: The front view of Gua Kajang.

Fig. 2: The location of Gua Kajang and Lenggong Valley in Peninsular Malaysia. caves are well-developed in terms of types and decorations. These earthenware collections are comparable to the Neolithic earthenware collections from the cave sites in southern .9

Background to the Study Gua Kajang (100⁰58.883’ E and 5⁰07.571’ N, 72 m above sea level) passes through the foothills of Bukit Kepala Gajah limestone massif at Kampung Gelok, a village in the Lenggong Valley. It is approximately 60 m long with entrances facing north and south. The north entrance is about 25 m wide and 12 m high. The cave has two chambers: the main chamber consists of a front and back cave separated

9 Chia (1997; 2005: 204). 4 | hsiao mei goh and mokhtar saidin by a limestone column; the second chamber, located adjacent to the right of the south entrance, is small and dark (Fig. 3). The original archaeological landscape of Gua Kajang as described by Evans is untraceable as the cave floor has been badly disturbed.10 A few disturbed pits measuring about 25–30 m2 in the main chamber are due at least in part to anthropogenic activities such as illegal diggings. The area at the front cave was excavated by Evans and Chia.11 In 2007, an area in the east part of the front cave, which appeared to be the only intact area, was chosen as the excavation area for this project. Ivor Hugh Norman Evans investigated Gua Kajang over two seasons of excavations in 1917. According to Evans, the cave was intermittently used by indigenous groups and he found no sign of site disturbance.12 The initial investigation uncovered an area of 82 m2 in the main chamber and yielded high densities of freshwater shells, stone tools, hematite, fauna remains, human bones, earthenware vessels and sherds. The second season covered an area 8 m2 and unearthed some earthenware pottery, comprising both and decorated pieces, and fragments of cranial bones (cranium, mandible and teeth), ribs and finger bones. The bones were found in situ and were fragile and much impregnated with the lime from the stratum in which they lay.13 Further observation on the teeth led Duckworth to suggest that these remains belonged to an elderly dolichocephalic person who resembled the Australian aborigines.14 Stone tools uncovered at the site have Mesolithic and Neolithic features similar to ‘Sumatralith’ pebble tools, flakes and polished stone axes. The pottery consisted of small footed dishes, black- and red-coloured ware; some fragments of pipkin were found in the upper layers of the cave (approximately 30 cm from the surface).15 Overall, Evans concluded that the deposits in Gua Kajang were not of any great thickness, further indicating that the cave was only occasionally used by prehistoric man during the Mesolithic and Neolithic period.16 Between 1945 and 1952, Williams-Hunt carried out reconnaissance surveys in Gua Kajang and produced a brief inventory of surface finds from the cave that included red-slipped pottery ware, several Mesolithic axes and a Neolithic chisel. According to his report, the cave had been disturbed by guano diggers during the 1940s.17 In 1995, Chia re-excavated Gua Kajang searching for prehistoric pottery samples and uncovered five pottery sherds in the front cave.18 The research reported in this article was designed to solve issues arising from previous research in the Gua Kajang and to rescue archaeological relics from destructive anthropogenic activities. Zuraina observed that the main objective of archaeological research in the Lenggong Valley since 1987 was to construct a local

10 Evans (1918). 11 Ibid.; Chia (1997). 12 Evans (1918). 13 Ibid. 14 Duckworth (1934: 154). 15 Evans (1918). 16 Ibid. 17 Williams-Hunt (1951: 185, 1952: 190). 18 Chia (1997). prehistoric gua kajang | 5

Fig. 3: The floor plan and excavation plan of Gua Kajang.

Fig. 4: The 2007 excavation at the eastern part of the front cave. 6 | hsiao mei goh and mokhtar saidin and national prehistoric chronological sequence.19 However, while Gua Kajang has a long archaeological research history, the exact timeframe of prehistoric occupation has not been determined.20 The prehistoric chronology in work by Evans and Williams-Hunt assigned Gua Kajang to the Mesolithic-Neolithic age without any absolute dating.21 More recently, Zuraina produced radiocarbon dates of 6,380 ± 60 (Beta 28157) and 8,970 ± 140 (Beta 28156) for Gua Kajang, but these dates did not fit the cultural context of Gua Kajang and only allowed her to infer that this cave was occupied by prehistoric man during the early to mid-Holocene period.22 Apart from difficulties establishing cave chronology, the data also create challenges for studying the archaeology of Gua Kajang. The methodology of Evans and Williams-Hunt is questionable,23 and the excavations were poorly documented.24 Chia conducted his excavation in Gua Kajang more systematically owing to the use of ‘total excavation’ techniques, but his was thematic research designed to search for prehistoric earthenware sherds without looking for correlations with cultural artefacts in the archaeological deposits.25

The Excavation of Gua Kajang, 2007 Season In 2007, the east part of the front cave, which appeared to be the only undisturbed area, was selected as the main excavation site (Figs 3, 4). Twenty-five 1 m x 1 m trenches were deployed on the cave floor and the excavation proceeded until it reached a sterile level at approximately 1.3–1.6 m from the surface. The soil removed from the trenches was then dry-screened through sieves. Overall, the deposit yielded 15,329 cultural artefacts attributed to Late Pleistocene–Early Holocene. The finds included human bones, faunal remains, stone artefacts and pottery sherds (see Table 1).

Table 1: Total artefacts uncovered from the 2007 excavation at Gua Kajang

Types of Artefacts Number (pc) Total Stone artefacts Core 2 Anvil 31 66 Flake tool 118 Bifacial and Unifacial tool 12 Slab 1 467 Miscellaneous 1 700

19 Zuraina (1998). 20 Goh (2008: 10). 21 Evans (1918); Williams-Hunt (1951: 185, 1952: 190). 22 Zuraina (1998). 23 Evans (1918); Williams-Hunt (1951: 185, 1952: 190). 24 Zuraina (1996). 25 Chia (1997). prehistoric gua kajang | 7

Fauna remains Mammalia 309 Reptilia 27 Malacostraca 1 Shells 14255 14592 Pottery Plain 22 Decorated 14 Red-slipped 1 37 Total 15329 15329

The Chronology of Gua Kajang The excavation in Gua Kajang revealed a 1.6-metre-thick anthropic layer comprising six stratigraphic units attributed to the Late Pleistocene and Holocene (Fig. 5). The stratigraphy shows that Layer 1 (uppermost layer) had been disturbed and contains surface debris such as glass or plastic mixed with the limited archaeological finds. Layer 2 (40–60 cm) is soft, sandy clay and interpreted as the Late Holocene layer, characterized by the pottery sherds associated with the fauna remains. However, this layer has not been chronometrically dated. Layer 3 (60–80 cm) contained stone tools such as bifacial and unifacial pebble tools, flake tools, and anvils. Fauna remains—animal bones and riverine shells—were present in the deposit, along with an incomplete human burial. The upper part of the skeleton had been disturbed by guano diggers and bits and pieces of human bones can still be found in the pit next to the trench. The remaining burial association, however, was still in situ as indicated by the intact bone articulation. This burial, later named GK 2, was radiocarbon dated to 7,890 ± 80 BP through associated shell samples. Layers 4 (80–95 cm) and 5 (95–120 cm) consisted of very dark grey humid clay with concentrations of shells, flake tools, bifacial and unifacial pebble tools. All artefacts from these layers are attributed to the Late Pleistocene. Layer 5 was later dated to 10,470 ± 60 BP by organic sediment sample through AMS dating. The cultural artefacts uncovered from this layer are similar to those from Layer 4. Layer 6 is used as the chronological marker of the initial occupation phase of Gua Kajang. Flake tools, hammerstones and anvils were present in this layer, along with a flexed human burial, named GK 1, at a depth of about 120–140 cm. The radiocarbon date derived from the associated shell samples provided a Late Pleistocene date at 10, 820 ± 60 BP. Four radiocarbon determinations were obtained from Layers 3, 5 and 6 (Table 2). The 14C dating for Layer 3 suggested an early Holocene date of 7,890 ± 80 BP. Layer 5 was dated to 10,470 ± 60 BP through organic sediments whereas Layer 6 was dated between 10,000 ± 60 BP and 10, 820 ± 60 BP by shells. All shells sampled for 14C dating were collected from the burial context and are believed to have been buried as mortuary offerings. Radiocarbon dating indicates that this cave was intermittently occupied by the hunter-gatherers during the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene periods, between approximately 11,000 and 7,000 years ago (Fig. 7). However, these dates do not represent the complete chronology of the cave occupation as the uppermost cultural layers have not been dated due to the absence of dating samples. Further observation on the attributes of the artefacts found from the upper layers suggests Neolithic characteristics, relatively dated to 8 | hsiao mei goh and mokhtar saidin not later than 3,000–4,000 years ago. In short, the initial occupation phase of Gua Kajang began in the Late Pleistocene–Early Holocene period and extended to the late Holocene period.

Table 2: Radiocarbon dates yielded from the 2007 excavation at Gua Kajang. All dates are calibrated in OxCal vers. 4.2 using IntCal 13 Calibration curve.

Lab No Conventional Calibrated Age Samples / Depth Stratigraphic Age (BP) (BP) Layer Beta 227445 7,890 ± 80 8,991–8,549 Shells/ 70–80 cm Layer 3 Beta 275049 10,470 ± 60 12,570–12,115 Organic sediment/ Layer 5 90–100 cm Beta 227446 10,820 ± 60 12,810–12,651 Shells/ 120–140 cm Layer 6 Beta 229005 10,000± 60 11,750–11,263 Shells/ 154 cm Layer 6

The Human Burials of Gua Kajang The 2007 excavation in Gua Kajang unearthed two human burials including material dated to 10,820 ± 60 BP (Beta 227446) and 7,890 ± 80 BP (Beta 227445). These burials, later named GK 1 and GK 2, were found embedded in the east part of the front cave. Both GK 1 and GK 2 were incomplete, and less than half of the skeletal remains were recovered from the excavation (Figs 6a, 6b).

GK 1 GK 1 was uncovered at a depth of 120–140 cm (Fig. 5). The skeletal remains of GK 1 consisted of three cranium fragments, a mandible fragment, three lumbar vertebrae, an incomplete right pelvis and long bones from the right side of the skeleton (Fig. 6a). These skeletal parts were well-preserved and some of the long bones (tibia, femur, humerus, radius and ulna) were encrusted with lime. Reconstructions of the burial position of GK 1 were done based on the burial association and the bone articulations which are still intact. GK 1 was interpreted as a flexed burial where the knees were bent up to the chest and buried with a north–south orientation.26 The right femur and right humerus that overlay the right tibia further suggested that the corpse was probably buried lying on its side or in the prone-flexed position. The spatial distribution of the mortuary goods indicated that GK 1 was buried together with , reptiles, riverine shells and stone tools. As the lower stratigraphic unit (120–140 cm) was relatively sterile, the burial context was clearly defined by the distributions of cultural materials surrounding the human remains. Thirty-five stone tools, 47 animal bones and 1,411 riverine shells were uncovered from the burial area of GK 1. All the tools are attributed to Late Palaeolithic and resemble tools found in Gua Gunung Runtuh and Gua Teluk Kelawar in Lenggong Valley.27 Observations on the edges of the stone tools revealed that the majority of

26 Goh (2008). 27 Zuraina (1994); Zuraina et al. (2005). prehistoric gua kajang | 9

Fig. 5: The stratigraphy of Gua Kajang.

Fig. 6: (a) Burial context of GK 1 (b) Burial context of GK 2 these tools showed wear from use, suggesting that these tools had been utilized before they were buried with GK 1. The animal bones were fragmentary and can only be classified down to class or order without the identification of theexact species. From the taxonomical analysis, two classes of animals—mammals and reptiles—were identified. All the animal bones derived from the deposits are attributed to small- to middle-sized mammals (e.g., wild boar, monkey, bat, deer) and reptiles. Gastropod shells (Brotia costula and Brotia spinosa) were present in large quantities within the burial area (1,411 pcs/1 m2). Similar shells are abundant in rivers near the site today. The skeletal parts of GK 1 are well-preserved. Three cranial fragments and a small fragment of mandible were found but little information can be retrieved from such limited specimens. The lumbar vertebrae (Lumbar 1, 2 and 3) are in good condition. The scapulas and clavicles were missing but a few rib fragments were found. The epiphysis of right tibia, right femur, and right humerus were broken 10 | hsiao mei goh and mokhtar saidin and small post-mortem fractures can be observed on the diaphysis of these bones. The right ulna and radius were nearly intact, and the radial notch of the ulna was still integrally articulated with the radius (Fig. 7). Observations on the morphology of the cranium fragments and the long bones suggested GK 1 was an adult around 155–163 cm tall, based on the calculation matrix developed by Trotter and Glesser.28 Sex assessment based on the pelvic bone and the matrix calculation of the long bone according to the methods developed by Giles and Elliot and Marieb and her colleagues suggested that GK 1 was female (Table 3).29 Initial radiocarbon dating of shell samples collected from the burial association placed GK 1 as a Late Pleistocene burial, dated to 10,820 ± 60 BP. However, the reliability of this date remains uncertain because dates derived from shell samples are widely questioned by archaeologists.30 In order to date GK 1 as precisely as possible, another organic sample collected from Layer 5 (trench C5, 90–100 cm) was sent for AMS dating and the result of 10,470 confirmed GK 1 as a Late Pleistocene burial. However, such elements could have been re-deposited in the pit when it was filled, and a new chronometric analysis such as direct dating of the bone collagen should be undertaken in the future.

GK 2 The human burial of GK 2 was unearthed at a depth of 60–80 cm (Figs 6b, 8). This burial was first revealed by a villager who exposed some human bone fragments (tibia, fibula and femur) and a shallow round-bottom earthenware bowl while collecting cave soil from the east corner of the front cave. As the excavation commenced, we found out that the burial area of GK 2 had been badly disturbed, leaving only small pieces of leg and foot bones and a few mortuary goods such as stone tools and animal remains. The stratigraphic data suggest that GK 2 was buried at a depth of 60–80 cm, but the horizontal positioning of the burial could not be determined clearly. Therefore, the interpretation of the burial of GK 2 can only be made based on the limited archaeological data recovered from the burial association. The leg bones (tibia and fibula) and foot bones of GK 2 were found incomplete; only the distal parts of the bones were present (Fig. 10). Foot bones were fragmentary and powdery, and provided limited osteological information. Given that the cranial and the upper limbs of GK 2 were missing, the reconstruction of the burial association or position is challenging. The remaining skeletal parts are northeast–southwest orientated, making it probable that the body was similarly aligned if it was buried in the extended or supine position.

28 Trotter and Glesser (1958); Trotter (1970). 29 Giles and Elliot (1962); Marieb et al. (2005). 30 Chia (2005); Spriggs (1989). prehistoric gua kajang | 11

Table 3: The sex assessment of GK 1 based on the metric calculation model developed by Giles and Gilliot (1962). A positive reading indicates a male whereas a negative reading indicates a female.

Specimen Metric Factor Formula Results Sex Parts of the bone Factor Measurement (cm) Radius Midshaft sagittal 1.96059 11 Each -2.82164 Female diameter measurement Midshaft transverse 0.66338 13 needs to diameter multiply with Constant -33.0122 – the factor and later add with Ulna Dorso-volar diameter 0.75367 12 -0.51756 Female the constant Transverse diameter 1.26974 15 to get the final Constant -28.6077 – reading

Fig. 7: GK 1 was found incomplete. 12 | hsiao mei goh and mokhtar saidin

Fig. 8: The skeletal parts of GK 2 uncovered from the excavation.

The remaining burial area yielded 8 stone tools, 67 shells and 7 pieces of animal bone. A limestone slab with haematite stains was found overlaying the foot of GK 2 and four flake tools, two hammerstones and an anvil were found next tothe remains. Riverine shells of Brotia costula and Brotia spinosa were abundant within the burial layer, and a few shells found between the foot bones of GK 2 were collected for 14C determination. Fauna remains included at least four types of small to middle-sized mammals and reptiles (e.g., wild boar, tortoise and rat). There were few pieces of earthenware pottery sherds in the burial area, and these were possibly not associated with the burial. No correlation between the earthenware and the burial context could be traced, suggesting that the sherds probably came from the upper layer and were intermingled with the burial following illegal digging in the burial area. The skeletal remains of GK 2 were incomplete and extremely fragile. The bone morphology indicated that GK 2 was an adult, but the age at death, stature and sex of GK 2 could not be determined. Shell samples gave a date of 7,890 ± 80 BP (Beta 227445), but this date is largely in doubt owing to the disturbed burial context and the absence of reliable radiocarbon samples.

Discussion and Summary Overall, the 2007 excavation at Gua Kajang yielded more than 15,329 cultural artefacts from a stratified layer 1.6 metres thick. The cultural assemblage included human remains, stone artefacts, fauna remains and earthenware pottery.31 Two incomplete human burials were uncovered, with mortuary offerings that included

31 Goh (2008). prehistoric gua kajang | 13 stone tools and fauna remains. A radiocarbon date derived from associated shells provided a Late Pleistocene date for GK 1 of 10,820 ± 60 BP (Beta 227446) whereas GK 2 was identified as an Early-Holocene burial with an associated radiocarbon date of 7,890 ± 80 BP (Beta 227445). The re-investigation of Gua Kajang broadened current understanding of the chronology, burial practices and lifeways of the early humans of Malaysia during the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene. The reconstruction of the burial position of GK 1 indicated a flexed position, which supported the assumption that flexed burial was widely practised in the Malay Peninsula during the Late Pleistocene.32 In a broader Mainland Southeast Asian context, flexed burial practices are characteristic of Late-Pleistocene or Early-Holocene culture and are commonly attributed to the pre-Neolithic phase across the region.33 Similar flexed burials found in Broholo Cave of Java have been dated to approximately 9,000 years ago,34 and pre-Neolithic flexed burials have also been reported in northern Thailand at Moh Kiew Ban Rai and Ban Thai Si,35 and in Vietnam at Hang Cho Cave.36 The mortuary offerings of GK 1 and GK 2 indicate similarities between the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene burials. Both GK 1 and GK 2 were buried with stone tools such as anvils, hammerstones, flake tools associated with animals and shells, but GK 2 was buried with slab and hematite, which were absent from the burial association of GK 1. The presence of ochre (hematite) or pigmentation is associated with Holocene culture in Malaysia, as demonstrated by other Holocene burials in Lenggong Valley,37 and at the Niah caves in .38 The stone artefacts showed no obvious variability in terms of tool types within the stratification. The deposits contained core, anvils, hammerstones, oval pebble tools, and flake tools (Fig. 9), all made of locally available raw materials such as quartz, quartzite and limestone. The presence of the core, anvils, hammerstones and debitage indicates that these tools were made in the caves for casual utilization. The stone artefacts found in Gua Kajang from the Late Pleistocene-early Holocene cultural layers (Layers 4–6) were predominately flake tools or oval unifacial and bifacial pebble tools (the so-called ‘Sumatralith’ tools). Those uncovered in the upper layers of the cave deposits share similarities in terms of tool types and morphology with those from lower layers, although unifacial and bifacial tools gradually decreased towards the upper layers.

32 Adi (1981); Chia (2009); Lloyd-Smith (2012); Zuraina (1994). 33 See Simanjuntak (2004); Treerayapiwat (2005); Zeitoun et al. (2013). 34 Simanjuntak (2004). 35 Pureepatpong (2006); Treerayapiwat (2005); Zeitoun et al. (2013). 36 Matsumura et al. (2008). 37 Zuraina et al. (2005). 38 Lloyd-Smith (2012). 14 | hsiao mei goh and mokhtar saidin

Fig. 9: Bifacial (left), unifacial (middle) and flake tools (right) uncovered from the 2007 excavation at Gua Kajang.

The fauna remains uncovered from Gua Kajang indicated a diet of mammals such as wild boar and deer, reptiles such as monitor lizards and tortoises, and freshwater shells. The types of animals indicate hunter-gathering subsistence, and the predominant species were consistent throughout the deposits, corresponding with the findings of Bujeng, who suggested that fauna exploitation in the Lenggong Valley was similar for the Late Pleistocene and Holocene periods.39 The same animals are still found in the of Peninsular Malaysia.40 Apart from mammals and reptiles, high densities of freshwater Thiaridae riverine shells of Brotia costula and Brotia spinosa were also excavated from these caves, and bivalve shells such as Unionidae (freshwater mussels) were occasionally found. Brotia and Unionidae can still easily be harvested from the rivers or streams in the Lenggong Valley. The nearest source for these types of shells is the Sungai Temelong (Temelong River), about 3–4 km from the limestone hill of Kepala Gajah. The emergence of new technology in Gua Kajang during the later Holocene period is evident from the presence of earthenware pottery in the upper layers of the cave deposits. In the absence of dating samples, these earthenware sherds are provisionally dated to 3,000–4,000 years ago. The earthenware pottery from Gua Kajang consisted of plain pottery, cord-marked and incised decorated pottery as well as red-slipped ware. These earthenware sherds varied in colour, ranging from reddish-brown to dark brown. Chia wrote that the earthenware of Gua Kajang are well-developed types and share a similarity in terms of composition and morphology with earthenware pottery found in other cave sites in the Lenggong Valley and in .41 Research at Gua Kajang suggests that this site was not permanently occupied for long periods but was repeatedly used for short-term habitation or for campsites during the Late Pleistocene and Holocene.42 This conclusion was based on the densities of cultural remains found lower than the primary long-term habitation site, such as the shell midden site of Guar Kepah in northern Peninsular Malaysia.43 Guar Kepah is a Middle Holocene coastal shell midden more than 3 metres thick.44 Like many cave sites in Lenggong Valley, Gua Kajang was used as a burial site

39 Bujeng (2009: 71). 40 Davison (1994). 41 Chia (1997). 42 Goh (2008). 43 Mijsberg (1940); Adi (1983). 44 Adi (1983: 53–4). prehistoric gua kajang | 15 during the Late Pleistocene–Early Holocene period. According to the archaeological records, caves were used for burials throughout Southeast during the Late Pleistocene–Early Holocene, a conclusion supported by research at Lang Rongrien in southern Thailand45 and Broholo Cave in Java.46 In conclusion, the 2007 excavation at Gua Kajang indicates that early humans in the Malay Peninsula were hunter-gatherers who depended on the forest resources, and carried out mortuary practices. The stone tool types and the exploited fauna species are similar for the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene (11,000–7,000 years ago) periods, but domestic earthenware appeared during the transition between Mid Holocene and Late Holocene (5,000–3,000 years ago). Thus far, all radiocarbon dates from this research are from Late Pleistocene– Early Holocene periods. The upper layer of the cave has not been radiocarbon dated but the earthenware pottery uncovered from this layer has been dated to 3,000–4,000 years ago.47 It is evident that Gua Kajang was occupied by prehistoric man approximately 11,000 years ago during the Late Pleistocene period and the occupation extended at least to the Holocene period at around 3,000–4,000 years ago. There is no strong evidence to suggest continuous or sequential occupation in Gua Kajang throughout the Holocene.

References Adi Haji Taha (1981), The Re-excavation of the Rockshelter of Gua Cha, Ulu , West Malaysia, MA dissertation, Australian National University. ______(1983), ‘Recent archaeological discoveries in Peninsular Malaysia (1976– 1982)’, Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 56/1: 47–63. ______(1985), ‘The re-excavation of the rockshelter of Gua Cha, Ulu Kelantan, West Malaysia’, Federation Museums Journal, 30. Anderson, D. D. (1997), ‘Cave archaeology in ’, Geoarchaeology, 12/6: 607–38. Bellwood, P. (1997), Prehistory of the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago, Sydney: Academic Press. Brody, N. (1974), Meet Bob & Darla, the Average Humans, Des Moines: Hot Buttered Books. Bujeng, V. (2009), ‘Zooarchaeological evidence from the Late Pleistocene-Late Holocene in the Lenggong Valley, Perak’, Archaeological Heritage of Malaysia, 2: 63–76. Callenfels, P. S. and I. H. N. Evans (1928), ‘Report on cave excavations in Perak’, Journal of the Museums, 12: 145–59. Chia, S. (1997), Prehistoric Pottery Sources and Technology in Peninsular Malaysia Based on Compositional and Morphological Studies, Monograph of Malaysia Museums Journal, 33. ______(2005), ‘Prehistoric earthenware of Malaysia’, Journal of Sophia Asian Studies, 23: 201–35.

45 Anderson (1997). 46 Simanjuntak (2002). 47 Goh (2008). 16 | hsiao mei goh and mokhtar saidin

______(2006), ‘Archaeological evidence of early human occupation in Malaysia’, in Truman Simanjuntak, I. H. E. Pojoh, Muhammad Hisyam (eds), Austronesian Diaspora and the Ethnogeneses of People in Indonesian Archipelago, Jakarta: Indonesian Institute of Sciences, pp. 239–60. ______(2009), ‘The concept of culture in Malaysian prehistory’, in N. Rofli and E. Khoo (eds), Malaysian Culture: An Introduction, : Ministry of Culture and Arts Malaysia, pp. 90–103. Collings, H. D. (1938), ‘Pleistocene sites in the Malay Peninsula’, Nature, 142: 575–6. Davison, G. W. H. (1994), ‘Some remarks on vertebrate remains from the excavation at Gua Gunung Runtuh, Perak’, in Zuraina Majid (ed.), The Excavation of Gua Gunung Runtuh and the Discovery of the Perak Man in Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Department of Museums and Antiquities, pp. 9–19. Duckworth, W. L. H. (1934), ‘Human remains from rock-shelters and caves in Perak, and and from Selinsing’, Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 12/2: 149–67. Evans, I. H. N. (1918), ‘Preliminary report on cave exploration, near Lenggong, Upper Perak’, Journal of the Federated Malay States Museums, 7: 227–34. Giles, E. and O. Elliot (1962), ‘Sex determination by discriminant function analysis of crania’, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 21: 53–68. Goh Hsiao Mei (2008), Late Pleistocene-Early Holocene Cultural Evidence in Gua Kajang, Perak, Lenggong, Unpublished MA thesis, Universiti Sains Malaysia, . Goh Hsiao Mei and Mokhtar Saidin (2009), ‘Palaeolithic-Neolithic Transition in Kajang Cave, Lenggong Valley, Perak’, in Mokhtar Saidin and Kamarudin Abdul Razak (eds), International Seminar on Sharing Our Archaeological Heritage, Bahru: Yayasan Warisan Johor, pp. 98–111. Hamid Mohd Isa (2007), Middle Pleistocene (70,000 years ago) Stone Tools Workshop in Kota Tampan, Lenggong, Perak, Unpublished MA thesis, Universiti Sains Malaysia. Penang. Harrisson, T. (1975), ‘Tampan: Malaysia’s Palaeolithic reconsidered’, Modern Quaternary Research in Southeast Asia, 1: 53–70. Hutterer, K. (1985), ‘The Pleistocene archaeology of Southeast Asia in regional context’, Modern Quaternary Research in Southeast Asia, 9: 1–23. Klein, R. G. and K. Cruz-Uribe (1984), The Analysis of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lloyd-Smith, L. (2012), ‘Early Holocene burial practice at Niah Cave, ’, Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association, 32: 54–69. Marieb, E. N., J. Mallatt and P. B. Wilhelm (2005), Human Anatomy, Pearson Education, Benjamin Cummings Press. Matsumura, Hirofumi, Minoru Yoneda, Yukio Dodo, Marc F. Oxenham, Kim Thuy Nguyen, Lan Cuong Nguyen, Lam My Dung, Vu The Long, Mariko Yamagata, Junmei Sawada, Kenichi Shinoda and Wataru Takigawa (2008), ‘Terminal Pleistocene human skeleton from Hang Cho cave, northern Vietnam: Implications for the biological affinities of people’, Anthropological Science, 116: 135–48. Mijsberg, W. A. (1940), ‘On a Neolithic Paleo-Melanesian lower jaw found in kitchen midden at Guar Kepah, Province Wellesley, ’. In Proceedings of 3rd Congress of Prehistorians of the Far East, , 1940, pp. 100–18. prehistoric gua kajang | 17

Mokhtar Saidin (1997), Palaeolithic Culture in Malaysia: The Contribution of Sites Lawin, Perak and Tingkayu, , Unpublished PhD thesis, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang. ______(1998), ‘Comparative study between Palaeolithic sites of Kampung Temelong and Kota Tampan, and its contribution to the Southeast Asia late Pleistocene culture’, Malaysia Museums Journal, 34. ______(2005), ‘Cave formation of sites with skeletal remains in Lenggong, Perak’, in Zuraina Majid (ed.), The Perak Man and Other Prehistoric Skeletons of Malaysia, Penang: Universiti Sains Malaysia Press, pp. 119–30. ______(2006), ‘Bukit Bunuh, Lenggong, Malaysia: new evidence of late Pleistocene culture in Malaysia and Southeast Asia’, in E. Bacus, I. Glover and V. Pigott (eds), Uncovering Southeast Asia’s Past: Selected Papers from the 10th International Conference of the European Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists, Singapore: NUS Press, pp. 60–4. Mokhtar Saidin and Jeffrey Abdullah (2007), ‘Sungai Perak Kuno: Sumbangannya kepada Zaman Paleolitik Malaysia’, Jurnal Arkeologi Malaysia, 20: 14–20. Pureepatpong, N. (2006), ‘Recent investigations of early people (late Pleistocene to early Holocene) from Ban Rai and Tham Lod rock shelter sites, Pang Mapha district, Mae Hongson province, Northwestern Thailand’, in E. Bacus, I. Glover and V. Pigott (eds), Uncovering Southeast Asia’s Past: Selected Papers from the 10th International Conference of the European Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists, Singapore: NUS Press, pp. 38–45. Shoochongdej, R. (2006), ‘Late Pleistocene activities at the Tham Lod Rockshelter in Highland Pang Mapha, Mae Hong Son Province, Northwestern Thailand’, in E. Bacus, I. Glover, & V. Pigott (eds),Uncovering Southeast Asia’s Past: Selected Papers from the 10th International Conference of the European Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists, Singapore: NUS Press, pp. 22–37. Shutler, R. (1984), ‘Kota Tampan, once again’, Heritage, 6. Simanjuntak, T. (2002), Gunung Sewu in Prehistoric Times, : Gadjah Mada University Press. ______(2004), ‘New insight on the prehistoric chronology of Gunung Sewu, Java, ’, Modern Quaternary Research in Southeast Asia, 18: 9–30. Spriggs, M. (1989), ‘The dating of Island Southeast Asian Neolithic: an attempt at chronometric hygiene and linguistic correlation’, Antiquity, 63: 587–613. Srisuchat, A. (2003), ‘Earthenware from archaeological sites in Southern Thailand: the first century BC to the twelfth century AD’, in J. Miksic (ed.),Earthenware in Southeast Asia, Singapore: NUS Press, pp. 249–60. Stauffer, P. (1973), ‘Late Pleistocene age indicated for volcanic ash in West Malaysia’, Geological Socety of Malaysia Newsletter, 40: 1–4. Treerayapiwat, C. (2005), ‘Patterns of habitation and burial activity in the Ban Rai Rock Shelter, Northwestern Thailand’, Asian Perspectives, 44: 231–45. Trotter, M. (1970), ‘Estimation of stature from intact long bones’, in T. D. Stewart (ed.), Personal Identification in Mass Disasters, Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 71–83. Trotter, M. and G. Glesser (1958), ‘A re-evaluation of estimation of stature based on measurements of stature taken during life and of long bones after death’, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 16: 79–123. 18 | hsiao mei goh and mokhtar saidin

Verstappen, H. (1975), ‘On Palaeo climates and landform development in Malesia’, Modern Quaternary Research in South East Asia, 1: 3–36. Walker, D. and A. G. de Sieveking (1962), ‘The Palaeolithic industry of Kota Tampan, Perak, Malaysia’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 6: 103–39. Williams-Hunt, P. D. R. (1951), ‘Recent archaeological discoveries (1945–50)’, Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 24/1: 181–90. ______(1952), ‘Recent archaeological discoveries in Malaya (1951)’, Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 25/1: 181–90. Yule, C. M. and Yong Hoi Sen (2004), Freshwater Invertebrates of the Malaysian Region, Kuala Lumpur: Academy of Science Malaysia, Monash University Press. Zeitoun, V., P. Auetrakulvit, H. Forestier, A. Zazzo, G. Davtian, S. Nakbunlung and C. Tiamtinkrit (2013), ‘Discovery of a Mesolithic burial near the painted rock- shelter of Ban Tha Si (Lampang province, Northern Thailand): implications for regional mortuary practices’, Comptes Rendus Palevol, 12(2): 127–36. Zolkurnian Hassan (1998), Urutan Kebudayaan Prasejarah Lembah Lenggong, Hulu Perak, Perak pada Zaman Holosen, unpublished MA thesis, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang. Zuraina Majid (1989), ‘Kota Tampan, tapak Pleistosen akhir dalam Paleolitik di Asia Tenggara: pentarikhan dan klasifikasi baru’, in Kumpulan Makalah dan Abstrak Simposium dan Seminar,. Yogyakarta: Paleoanthropologi Indonesia. ______(1994), The Excavation of Gua Gunung Runtuh and the Discovery of the Perak Man in Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur: Department of Museums and Antiquity. ______(1996), Prasejarah Malaysia: Sudahkah Zaman Gelap Menjadi Cerah?, Penang: Universiti Sains Malaysia Press. ______(1997), ‘The discovery of Bukit Jawa, Gelok, a middle-late Palaeolithic site in Perak, Malaysia’, Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 70/2: 49–52. ______(1998), ‘Radiocarbon dates and culture sequences in Lenggong Valley and beyond’, Malaysia Museums Journal, 34: 241–9. ______(2003), Archaeology of Malaysia, Penang: Universiti Sains Press. ______(2005), ‘The excavation and analyses of the Perak Man buried in Gua Gunung Runtuh, Lenggong, Perak’, in Zuraina Majid (ed.), The Perak Man and Other Prehistoric Skeletons of Malaysia, Penang: Universiti Sains Malaysia Press, pp. 1–32. Zuraina Majid, A. Johan, A. R. Samsuddin, A. Nizam, A. Lim, S. Mokhtar, A. Jeffrey, and S. Chia, (2005), ‘GTK 1: A Skeleton from Gua Teluk Kelawar, Lenggong Dated 8,400 ± 40 BP’, in Zuraina Majid (ed.)The Perak Man and Other Prehistoric Skeletons of Malaysia, Penang: Universiti Sains Malaysia Press, pp. 345-61. Zuraina Majid and H. D. Tjia (1988), ‘Kota Tampan, Perak: the geological and archaeological evidence for a late Pleistocene site’, Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 61/2: 123–34.