Detecting Traits of Modern Behavior through Microwear Analysis

182

13

1996). Debate continues over whether this Upper Paleo-lithic revolution resulted from genetic mutation, social or ecological factors, or an adaptive response to competi-tion with another human species, Homo neanderthalensis (e.g., Bar- Yossef 2002; Conard et al. 2004; D’Errico 2003; Haidle 2006; McBrearty and Brooks 2000; Mellars 2005; Zilhão 2001). Yet this hypothesis is used to explain the greater success of Homo sapiens immigrants over the Ne-anderthals (Bräuer and Smith 1992; Conard 2006, 2008; Mellars 2005). The appearance of some “modern traits” in Africa during the Middle Pleistocene, even earlier than the first evidence of anatomically modern hominids 200,000 years ago (Henshilwood et al. 2002; Johnson and McBrearty 2010; McBrearty and Brooks 2000; McBrearty and Stringer 2007) has led to the assumption that behav-ioral modernity originated in Africa and was carried by Homo sapiens immigrants into Eurasia as a package of modern behavioral traits (Klein 2003). On the other hand, several items of the “modern package” were not solely found in association with evidence of anatomically mod-ern human activity, but also with Neanderthal fossils and Middle Paleolithic cultural remains (e.g., the use of pig-ments, notational pieces, personal ornaments, geometric microliths, bone tools, grinding stones, composite- tool technology, and synthetically produced birch pitch used as adhesive). This suggests parallel developments in mul-tiple species of at least some modern traits in Europe and Africa (Conard 2008; D’Errico 2003; Haidle 2008, Haidle and Pawlik 2011; Henshilwood and Marean 2003; Pawlik and Schmitz 2011; Pawlik and Thissen 2008, 2011).

The emergence of behavioral modernity is also an im-

ABSTRACT

Behavioral modernity has been a neglected topic in the prehistory of Southeast Asia. Such evidence remains largely undocumented in the Paleolithic archaeological records of the region. Here, I report on the technological and microwear analysis of stone artifacts from the termi-nal Pleistocene contexts at the Ille Cave, Palawan Island. The results show that unretouched and morphologically less formalized lithic artifacts, often considered merely expedient tools, could have served as hafted armatures of multicomponent tools. Microtraces of wear suggested that these tools were used for various activities, some of which are considered modern behaviors. For the ongoing discussion on the development and expansion of mod-ern behavior, methods such as microwear analysis can exceed the limitations of traditional technological and morphological analysis of lithic assemblages.

Introduction

Discussion of cultural, cognitive or behavioral moder-nity has a long history in European prehistoric archae-ology (e.g.. Dibble 1989; Hahn 1986; Jelinek 1982; Klein 1995, 1999; Mellars 1989a,b). Specialized blade industries, bone and antler tools, and especially figurative art, musi-cal instruments, and personal ornaments are considered indicators of highly developed cultural and cognitive abilities (Clottes 2001; Conard 2003; Conard et al. 2004). The seemingly sudden appearance of evidence of such behaviors in Europe around 40,000 years ago is linked with the arrival of anatomically modern humans, Homo sapiens (e.g., Klein and Blake 2002; Mellars 1991; Mithen

A Case Study from the Philippine Terminal Pleistocene

AlfredF.Pawlik

Detecting Traits of Modern Behavior through Microwear Analysis

TAM Kaifu 13791.indd 182 9/3/14 3:43 PM

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

portant aspect of human evolutionary research in other regions, including Southeast Asia. Previous studies have not devoted much attention to this important issue, al-though this is not necessarily the case for the Sahul re-gion (Brumm and Moore 2005; Habgood and Franklin 2008). Habgood and Franklin (2008, 214) have stated that a “package” of cultural innovations did not exist as an entity in the Indo–Pacific during initial expansion into Sahul and that its “components were gradually assembled over a 30,000 year period.” Is the current list of traits de-veloped from the European and African archaeological records useful in detecting or refuting the existence of modern human behavior in Southeast Asia? Is an entire package of behaviors necessary, or is the appearance of individual traits sufficient to claim that behavioral mo-dernity is present in the landscape? In Southeast Asia, the fossil record suggests that modern humans first appear in the region about 50,000–40,000 years ago (Barker et al. 2007; Détroit et al. 2004; Fox 1978) or even earlier (Mi-jares et al. 2010; Mijares, chapter 12, this volume). How-ever, there seems to be a remarkable absence of modern behavioral traits in the Pleistocene archaeological record that needs to be investigated.

The Philippine Paleolithic

Paleolithic sites in the Philippines are situated mainly on Palawan Island and Luzon Island (Figure 13.1a). While it

is quite certain that Palawan Island was once connected with Borneo and was a part of the enlarged landmass of Sundaland during sea- level regressions in the Pleistocene, it has been argued that the main archipelago islands of Luzon, the Visayas and Mindanao, were probably never connected to the Asian mainland during this epoch, and a sea crossing was always needed to reach them (Esselstyn et al. 2010; Heaney 1993). As a result, these islands con-tain remarkable endemic vertebrate fauna that are found nowhere else in the world (Heaney 1986). However, fossil evidence for large land mammals like Elephas, Stegodon, and Rhinoceros during the Middle Pleistocene all over the archipelago may indicate intermittent formation of land bridges, either complete or incomplete, during sea- level regressions in the Early or Middle Pleistocene (Bautista and de Vos 2002; Bondoc 1979; Dizon and Pawlik 2010; Fox 1978; Pawlik and Ronquillo 2003; Piper et al. 2009; Shutler and Mathisen 1979; von Koenigswald 1958).

Archaeological sites in the Philippines considered early Paleolithic in age are redeposited and found on or close to the surface. At the so- called Cabalwanian or Liwanian sites of Northern Luzon are a number of open sites along the Cagayan River valley that have been discovered and investigated since the 1950s (Bondoc 1979; Fox 1978; von Koenigswald 1958). The lithic materials consist mostly of unretouched flakes, choppers, and other unifacially retouched pebble tools (Dizon and Pawlik 2010). The ar-chaic morphology of the lithic material and the presence

Figure 13.1 a,MapofthePhilippineswithPaleolithicsites.b,SundashelfandpotentialmigrationroutesintothePhilippinearchipelago.

A B

TAM Kaifu 13791.indd 183 9/3/14 3:43 PM

184 Alfred F. Pawlik

of a Middle Pleistocene fauna in the same region (Bautista and de Vos 2002; Beyer 1947; Coutts and Wesson 1980; Shutler and Mathisen 1979; von Koenigswald 1958) have led to the characterization of these assemblages as Lower Paleolithic (Fox 1978; Fox and Peralta 1974; Ronquillo et al. 1993). However, a chronological association of the lithic materials with the Pleistocene fauna remains doubt-ful (Dizon and Pawlik 2010; Pawlik and Ronquillo 2003). A morphologically diverse assemblage with bifacial and unifacial artifacts, including the first reported hand axe in the Philippines, was found at Arubo in General Tinio, Central Luzon (figure 13.2) (Pawlik 2002, 2004a; Teodo-sio 2006). Hand axes and other lithic artifacts showing an early Paleolithic morphology were found at Ille rock shel-ter in Palawan, El Nido, during a site survey (Archaeo-logical Studies Program 2007, 13; Dizon and Pawlik 2010) and at the Huluga open site in Cagayan de Oro Mindanao Island (Neri 2005). Likewise, these sites are redeposited and no absolute dates could be retrieved. Until now, the chronology of the Philippine Lower Paleolithic has been based on morphological and typological analogies with European and African assemblages and their technologi-cal distinction from the lithic assemblages of dated upper Paleolithic sites (Pawlik 2009a).

Fossil hominid remains found in the Philippines have been classified as Homo sapiens (Détroit 2002; Mijares et al. 2010). Best known is the so- called Tabon Man, found in the Upper Paleolithic layers of Tabon cave at Lipuun Point, Palawan Island. The remains of several individual Homo sapiens—a frontal bone, two mandibular frag-ments, and several teeth—were found during the exca-vations by Robert Fox from 1960 until 1967 (Fox 1970). Radiocarbon- dated charcoal from the corresponding layer pointed to an age of approximately 22,000−24,000 14C BP (Fox 1970, 40- 44). Thirty years later, the frontal bone was directly dated by uranium gamma ray counting at the In-stitut de Paléontologie Humaine of the Muséum national d’histoire naturelle in Paris, and its date was corrected to 16.5±2 thousand years ago (ka) (Dizon et al. 2002). A hu-man tibia from the lowest archaeological layer excavated during a reinvestigation of Tabon Cave by the National Museum of the Philippines and the Institut de Paléontolo-gie Humaine, Paris, delivered another uranium series date published as 47+11 / –10 ka (Détroit et al. 2004). Although this is consistent with Fox’s estimate of the lowest cultural

layer in Tabon Cave to 50,000 years ago, the very high standard error of the U- series dates demands a cautionary consideration of the absolute dates from Tabon.

In Peñablanca, Cagayan, in the northern part of the Philippines, Upper Pleistocene layers of Callao Cave contained flaked artifacts and charcoal that delivered a radiocarbon date of 25,968±373 14C yr BP (Wk- 14881) (Mijares 2007, 2008; Mijares, chapter 12, this volume) or 28,980−27,420 cal BP (calibrated with Oxcal 4.2 and Int-Cal13). Below, a human third metatarsal bone was found from a breccia layer and dated to 66.7±1 ka by laser ab-lation with the U- series technique (Mijares et al. 2010). This sets the earliest human presence in the Philippines even further back than Tabon Cave. The Callao metatar-sal has many morphometrical characteristics similar to anatomically modern humans as well as to some of ar-chaic hominins that barely fall within the expected range of human variation, but the specimen has been provi-sionally assigned as that of a Homo sapiens (Mijares et al. 2010). The presence of an anatomically modern human in northern Luzon 60−70 ka raises some important is-sues for the initial timing for the migration into and col-onization of Island Southeast Asia. Conventional theory places the timing for the migration of modern humans into Southeast Asia no more than 50 ka en route to Aus-tralasia (e.g., Mellars 2005). Although an initial arrival of modern humans in the Sahul region as early as 60 ka has been proposed in the 1990s (Chappell et al. 1996; Rob-erts et al. 1990), more recent reviews place the initial hu-man occupation of Sahul at around 45−50 ka (Allen and O’Connell 2003; Habgood and Franklin 2008; O’Connell and Allen 2004). If the Callao metatarsal specimen in-deed belonged to an anatomically modern human, then the initial migration of modern humans going to the East and into the Philippine archipelago would have happened ca. 20 ka earlier than the southern migration to Sahul and would have required an occupation of mainland South-east Asia and greater Sundaland by anatomically modern humans already at or before 70 ka.

Absence of Modern Behavioral Traits in Southeast Asia’s Paleolithic?

Despite a seemingly early appearance of modern humans in the Philippines as old as ca. 70 ka, archaeological ev-

TAM Kaifu 13791.indd 184 9/3/14 3:43 PM


idence for modern human behavior, as defined by the Afro- European trait list, is poorly documented in Pleis-tocene sites. In fact, its lithic assemblages do not contain a convincing modern character. The general absence of “modern” tool types and formal tools in Southeast Asia’s Paleolithic industries has been explained by the possible utilization of wooden or bamboo tools and / or the poor availability of high- quality lithic raw materials (e.g., Den-nell 2009; Mellars 2006; Mijares 2002; Narr 1966; Pope 1989; Schick and Zhuan 1993; Solheim 1970). However, such a “vegetal industry” remains hypothetical, since nei-ther bamboo nor wooden tools are present in the Pleisto-

cene and early Holocene archaeological record, possibly for taphonomic reasons. In addition, their manufacture would also require stone tools, which somewhat contra-dicts the suggested replacement of lithic tools with vege-tal tools. Furthermore, the argument that production of vegetal tools led to the simplification of lithic industries has not been convincingly explained. Also, lithic artifacts made of high- quality raw materials (i.e., obsidian and ho-mogeneous chert) are not uncommon in Southeast Asian sites (e.g., Beyer 1947; Charoenwongsa 1988; Mijares 2002, 2004; Moser 2001; Neri 2002, 2005; Pawlik 2002, 2004a; Pookajorn 1988).The wood / bamboo tool hypoth-

Figure 13.2 Lithic artifacts fromArubo,NuevaEcija.a,Handaxe,b, Unifacialtoolwithventralretouchofthedistalend.c, Retouched“boulderflake”withpointedtip.d,“Horse-hoof”core.e, Flakecoreonalargerflake.

TAM Kaifu 13791.indd 185 9/3/14 3:43 PM


esis neither considers factors of tool mechanics and use nor deals with the fact that large lithic assemblages are present in the archaeological record. It can certainly be assumed that tools and utilitarian objects were made of vegetal materials, but they were more likely an addition to the lithic toolkit rather than replacements (Xhauflair and Pawlik 2010). Likewise, bone tools were not a major component, as indicated by their scarcity in Pleistocene Southeast Asia despite the generally good preservation of faunal remains (Barton et al. 2009; Pawlik 2009a; Piper et al. 2008, 2011).

Two Upper Paleolithic / Epipaleolithic technocom-plexes have been morphologically and technologically analyzed and published so far in the Philippines: the “Tabonian Industry” (Fox 1970; Patole- Edoumba 2002; Patole- Edoumba et al. 2012) and the “Peñablanca expedi-ent technology” (Mijares 2002). Their distinction is based mainly on the dominant raw material, radiolarian chert for the Tabonian (Schmidt 2008), and andesite at Peñab-lanca. The Tabonian industry appears with the sudden replacement of the former “Lower Paleolithic” core tool assemblages by dominantly small- sized flake industries with no transitional stage (Pawlik 2009a). Secondary modification of these flakes is rarely observed, with edge retouch and alterations usually caused by use (Fox 1970; Mijares 2004; Ronquillo 1981). In a comparison between the Paleolithic assemblage from Tabon Cave and the lithic materials from several Holocene sites in Palawan (e.g., Duyong Cave, Guri Cave, or the Pilanduk rock shel-ter; Fox 1970, 45–65, 1978; Kress 1979; Patole- Edoumba 2002; Tulang 2000), the Tabonian technology was found to have been maintained from the Upper Pleistocene into the Holocene, until the early Neolithic.

Also in Northern Luzon, more than 1000 km away from Tabon, the Upper Paleolithic industry seems to continue without significant morphological changes into the early Holocene. This is apparent at Callao Cave and several other epipaleolithic sites associated with the same limestone formation found at Peñablanca (e.g., Laurente Cave, Minori Cave, Rabel Cave, and others; Mijares 2002; Pawlik and Ronquillo 2003; Ronquillo 1981). In general, the Peñablanca technology is repre-sented by simple flake assemblages, without formal ele-ments, and dominated by Andesite and chert. Based on a technological study combined with a microscopic use-

wear analysis, these assemblages have been character-ized as products of an “expedient technology,” in which flakes were produced from locally available raw material by direct percussion without further modification, and used for single tasks before being discarded (Mijares 2002). This interpretation corresponds with microwear studies on selected artifacts from Tabon Cave, in which the minor appearance of microwear suggest a similar strategy for the Tabonian industries on Palawan (Mijares 2004; Xhauflair 2009). Also, the lithic assemblage from the Upper Pleistocene layer of Callao Cave fits into an expedient tradition in terms of technology and use wear (Mijares 2008).

Since 1998, the Archaeological Studies Program of the University of the Philippines has been conducting field research in the Dewil Valley in El Nido, northern Pal-awan Island. Within the Palawan Paleohistory Project, the Ille Cave site has been excavated by a multinational team of archaeologists, archaeobiologists, and sedimen-tologists (Archaeological Studies Program 2007; Hara and Cayron 2001; Lewis et al. 2008; Pawlik 2006; Paz et al. 2006; Szabó et al. 2004). Until now, the excava-tions have delivered a cultural sequence that spans the Upper Paleolithic and Pleistocene. From the Neolithic to Protohistoric times, the site had been used as a burial ground. The earliest recorded human occupation of the site is from approximately 14,000 cal BP and includes a lithic assemblage of about 130 artifacts (figure 13.3) and a substantial number of animal bones (Ochoa 2008; Pawlik 2010; Piper et al. 2008, 2011) that have been as-sociated with charcoal radiocarbon- dated to an age of 13,820−14,116 cal BP (OxA- 16666) (Lewis et al. 2008). The morphology of the artifacts appears similar to those from Tabon and Peñablanca, with simple and irregular flakes manufactured by direct percussion (Pawlik 2009b). Evidence for curation, core preparation, indirect percus-sion, and specialized methods such as blade production are lacking. A microlithic component existed, at best, only with regard to size, but no geometric microliths were found. Formal tools are extremely rare. The sim-ple and indifferent technology that produced an overall amorphous small flake industry is dominant until the developed Neolithic (Bellwood 1997). Nonlithic modern behavioral traits such as tools made of bone, antler, and shell, as well as projectile points, figurative art, musical

TAM Kaifu 13791.indd 186 9/3/14 3:43 PM


instruments, and personal ornaments are absent as well. The earliest securely dated shell artifact in the Philip-pines is a ground shell adze from Bubog 1, Ilin Island, directly dated to 7550−7250 cal BP (S- ANU 35151) and to the early Mid- Holocene (Pawlik et al. 2014, under re-view). Although the Philippine Upper Paleolithic assem-blages have most certainly been associated with Homo sapiens since at least ~50 ka, they obviously failed to as-semble a distinctive package of modern behavioral traits. This leaves us with two possibilities: (1) their cognitive, cultural, and technological capacity was completely dif-ferent from modern humans in Europe and Africa and perhaps not “modern” at all, or (2) the hypothesis that modern behavior is represented by a particular “modern package” has to be reconsidered.

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 that allow for identification of specific contact materials (Keeley 1980; Vaughan 1985). In addition to the detection of wear patterns, residues adhering to stone tool surfaces are sometimes found, thus allowing direct evidence of the origin and nature of the worked material and ac-tivities conducted (e.g., Anderson 1980; Christensen et al. 1992; Dinnis et al. 2009; Fullagar 1998; Hardy and Garufi 1998; Kealhofer et al. 1999; Pawlik 1995, 2004b,c; Rots 2003; Rots and Williamson 2004; Torrence and Barton 2006).

Results and Discussion

Within the Palawan Island Paleolithic Research Project (Lewis et al. 2008; Paz et al. 2006), I have been conduct-ing microwear analyses of selected Neolithic materials (Pawlik 2006) and the Upper Paleolithic flaked artifacts from Ille Cave. Although these stone artifacts mostly

Figure 13.3 Lithic artifacts from the terminal Pleistocene layer of Ille Cave

TAM Kaifu 13791.indd 187 9/3/14 3:43 PM


appear as irregularly shaped flakes made of rather low- quality raw material like andesite and heavily fissured radiolarite, they do posses usewear features. Prelimi-nary results show that stone tools used for working hard organic materials such as bone, antler, wood, and bam-boo are present in the Ille assemblage (artifact no. 37101: figure 13.4; no. 40408: figure 13.5; no. 41809: figure 13.6). Processing hide, an activity considered by some research-ers to be a modern behavioral trait at least for Sahul and the western Pacific region (Gilligan 2010; Mellars 2005, 22), was observed on artifact no. 41763 (figure 13.7). Even more direct evidence of modern behavior are traces and residues that could be favorably compared to results from the experimental working of shell (Pawlik 1992, 75f.; no. 35569: figure 13.8) and the application of pigment, as in-dicated by residues of red ocher on some artifacts. One end scraper has evidence of similar traces of red pigment that appears in combination with wear evident of hide working (no. 41713: figure 13.9). Although it cannot be stated with absolute certainty whether pigment stains are directly associated with hide processing or a differ-ent activity, the use of red ocher as a coloring or tanning agent for skins and leather in the Paleolithic has been frequently observed in microwear analyses (e.g., Büller 1988; Juel Jensen 1988; Pawlik 1995; Vaughan 1985; van Gijn 1989; Wadley et al. 2004).

The surfaces of several artifacts from Ille Cave carry so- called bright spots (figures 13.5c and 13.6a). Although polishes caused by the interaction of a stone implement

with its haft have been described as bright spot–like features (Rots 2002), the bright spots detected on the artifacts from Ille are consistent with those described first by Levi- Sala (1996; see Unrath et al. 1986). They are commonly considered to be the result of unintentional, repetitive rubbing between siliceous materials—for ex-ample, when artifacts are carried together in a pouch for some time. The appearance of such traces can, therefore, be interpreted as signs of curation, the process reflecting a tool’s actual use relative to its maximum potential use (Andrefsky 2008). This can also be seen as an advanced behavioral concept, in contrast to the “use- once- and- discard” expedient technology model (Mijares 2002).

Impact scars with hinge- and step- terminations on a triangular flake suggest its use as projectile implement (e.g., Fischer et al. 1984; Lombard 2005; Lombard and Pargeter 2008) as well as the presence of polish spots of the tip with longitudinal striations on elevated parts of the microtopography of both faces (no. 40406: fig-ure 13.10). Its base displays surface polish that is not use- related but does conform to what is expected from minor movements of a tool against its haft (Cahen et al. 1979:681). Together with such polishes appear blackish residues that are probably the remains of organic resin used as hafting mastic (figure 13.10e,f). Also, a drop- shaped end scraper (no. 40408) exhibits characteristic hafting polish at the proximal end (figure 13.5d) while a blackish- reddish residue film appears along the lat-eral edge of no. 41809, another indication of hafting

Figure 13.4 Artifactno.37101:Flakeusedassidescraper for working harder organicmaterial.Indicatedare the working area and locations of microphotos taken.a,Abradedworkingedgeb, Use polish and striations from working harder organic material.

TAM Kaifu 13791.indd 188 9/3/14 3:43 PM

Figure 13.5 Artifactno.40408:Flakeusedasendscraperforworkingharderorganicmaterial.a,Intensivescarringoftheworkingedge.b,Micropolishandtransversestriationsalongthecontactsurfaceoftheworkingedge.c,Brightspots.d,Polishcausedbyhafting.

Figure 13.6 Artifactno.41809:Flakeusedforscrapingandsawingharderorganicmaterial.a,Brightspot.b,Resinlikeresidues.c,Scarringoftheworkingedgecausedbyscrapingharderorganicmaterial.d,Micropolishwithcharacteristicreticularpatternindicatingtheworkingofharderorganicmaterial.

TAM Kaifu 13791.indd 189 9/3/14 3:43 PM

Figure 13.7 Artifactno.41763:Flakeusedforhideprocessing.a,Roundedworking edge and transversely orientedmicropolish.b,Extensive micropolish and surface abrasion caused by scrapinghide.

Figure 13.8 Artifactno.35569:Relativelylargeflakeusedforshellworking.a,Heavilywornandscarredworkingedge.b,Shellresiduesonuse-scars.c,High-powermicrophotoofscatteredparticlesofshellonthedorsalfaceoftheworkingedge.d,High-powermicrophotoofscatteredparticlesofshellontheventralfaceoftheworkingedge.

TAM Kaifu 13791.indd 190 9/3/14 3:43 PM

Figure 13.10 Artifactno.40406:Triangularflakeusedasprojectilepoint.a,Impactscarnearthetip.b,Lateralimpactscar.c,Longitudinallyoriented polish spots and striationsonthedorsaltip.d, Longitudinally oriented polish spots and striations ontheventraltip.e,Blackishresidues of organic hafting masticontheventralbase.f,Blackish residues of organic hafting mastic on the dorsal base.

Figure 13.9 Artifactno.41713:Endscraper–likeflakeusedforhideprocessing.a,Residuesofred-ocherontheworkingedge.b,Extensivemicropolishcausedbyworkinghide.

TAM Kaifu 13791.indd 191 9/3/14 3:43 PM


(figure 13.6b). Both artifacts are awaiting further micro-probe analysis (e.g., scanning electron microscopy and energy- dispersive x- ray spectroscopy) to acquire more information on their nature and manufacturing process (for the methodology see Pawlik and Thissen 2011). The combination of wear, hafting traces, and residues is quite remarkable and confirms that the artifacts are hafted armatures that were attached to shafts and fixed with resinous glue. The visual appearance of the adhesives is very similar to resin residues found on projectile points made of bone and stingray spine from the West Mouth of Niah Cave in Borneo, dated to 11,700−10,690 cal BP (OxA- 11865 and OxA- 12391) (Barton et al. 2009). The resins have been identified as deriving from either Sho-rea spp., Agathis spp., or Canarium spp. These trees and their resins are common in the Philippines and Palawan and have also been found from the Neolithic layers at Ille Cave, where the material was used as appliqués on shell disk beads (Basilia 2011). Shorea resin appears to be especially suitable for hafting purposes, since it be-comes soft again when heated above 75°C (Tschirch and Glimmann 1896), which would make it an ideal binding material with regard to retooling processes and the re-placement of worn- out implements. While the special-ized bone points from Niah provide evidence of Late Pleistocene hafting technology in Island Southeast Asia, the use of unretouched lithic flakes as hafted implements for multicomponent tools and projectiles at Ille Cave is unique and points to a technological concept that is be-yond traditional morphological and typological models. It is a reflection of the constructive memory of its makers and their ability to perform complex sequences of action (Ambrose 2010).

The microwear analysis of artifacts from Ille Cave strongly suggests the presence of hafted tools and pro-jectile points, composite- tool making, and complex tool design in the Philippine Paleolithic. Hafted composite tools and the making of hafting mastic for fixing lithic armatures in wooden shafts have been observed in Eu-ropean Micoquien and Aurignacian assemblages (Din-nis et al. 2009; Pawlik and Thissen 2008, 2011). They are considered to be components of the European and Afri-can package (Ambrose 2010; Deacon 2000; Keeley 1982; Wurz 1999) and have also been regarded as a significant trait of behavioral modernity in Southeast Asia and the

western Pacific region (Barton et al. 2009). However, hafting traces are easily overlooked or neglected in mi-crowear analysis (Cahen et al. 1979; Keeley 1982). This analysis of relatively simple flakes from the Philippine upper Paleolithic showed that some were actually hafted armatures and parts of more complex composite tools. The predominantly small size of flakes in Philippine lithic assemblages could even indicate that toolmak-ers intended to use them as hafted implements (Pawlik 2009a). This result presents an alternative hypothesis to the above- mentioned idea that wood and bamboo in-dustries were used in the absence of formal tools and lithic typologies in Southeast Asia. Bamboo and wood may be considered prime material for composite- tool shafts rather than replacements for stone tools and shed new light on discussions of technological adaptation in Southeast Asia’s Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic (Haidle and Pawlik 2009).

Conclusion

The microwear study of the lithic artifacts from Ille Cave indicated that components of the package of modern behavioral traits were present in the Upper Paleolithic of the Philippine archipelago. It also demonstrated that the traditional methods of typological and technologi-cal studies are sometimes insufficient for the recognition of modern traits and that additional analytical tools are needed. Microwear analysis offers actual technical and functional characterizations of lithic artifacts, the iden-tification of working and hunting tools, and a determi-nation of activities and site functions. It has no regional and chronological limitations and shows a potential for the detection of differentiated, “modern” behavior and complex technologies, such as hafting and composite tool making, projectile points, curation, fabrication of ornaments, shellfishing, use of pigments, and more. As of now, this method has been widely excluded from debates concerning modernity and behavioral traits, despite its primary application to the recognition of prehistoric ac-tivities and human behavior. This research has demon-strated that while modern traits may be seemingly absent in the typology of the lithic record, microwear analysis has the potential to identify such evidence at the micro-scopic level.

TAM Kaifu 13791.indd 192 9/3/14 3:43 PM


Acknowledgments

I am thankful to the University of the Philippines and its Office of the Vice- President of Academic Affairs, who supported this work with an Emerging Interdisciplinary Research Grant, code no. 2- 002- 1111212. Many thanks go to the Archaeological Studies Program and Dr. Victor Paz for providing me with the latest information and data of the fieldwork at Ille Cave. Thanks to Miriam N. Haidle (Heidelberg Academy of Science), Yosuke Kaifu (Na-tional Museum of Nature and Science, Japan), and Philip Piper (Australian National University) for commenting on early drafts of this paper and to two anonymous re-viewers for their useful comments and suggestions.

References

Allen, J., and J. F. O’Connell. 2003. “The Long and the Short of It: Archaeological Approaches to Determining When Humans First Colonised Australia and New Guinea.” Australian Archaeology 57:5–19.

Ambrose, S. H. 2010. “Coevolution of Composite- Tool Technology, Constructive Memory, and Language: Impli-cations for the Evolution of Modern Human Behavior.” Current Anthropology 51(Suppl. 1):135–47.

Anderson, P. 1980. “A Testimony of Prehistoric Tasks: Di-agnostic Residues on Stone Tool Working Edges.” World Archaeology 12:81–194.

Anderson, P., S. Beyries, M. Otte, and H. Plisson, eds. 1993. Traces et fonction: les gestes retrouvés. Liège, Bel-gium” Actes du colloque international de Liège, Etudes et Recherches Archéologiques de l’Université de Liège (ERAUL) 50.

Andrefsky, W. 2008. Lithic Technology: Measures of Produc-tion, Use, and Curation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Archaeological Studies Program. 2007. “The 2007 Season of the Palawan Island Palaeolithic Research Project: A Partial Report.” Unpublished manuscript, Archaeological Studies Program, University of the Philippines, Quezon City.

Barker, G., H. Barton, M. Bird, P. Daly, I. Datan, A. Dykes, et al. 2007. “The Human Revolution in Lowland Tropical Southeast Asia: The Antiquity and Behavior of Anatomi-cally Modern Humans at Niah Cave (Sarawak, Borneo).” Journal of Human Evolution 52:243–61.

Bar- Yossef, O. 2002. “The Upper Palaeolithic Revolution.” Annual Review of Anthropology 31:363–93.

Barton, H., P. J. Piper, R. Rabett, and I. Reeds. 2009. “Com-posite Hunting Technologies from the Terminal Pleisto-cene and Early Holocene, Niah Cave, Borneo.” Journal of Archaeological Science 36:1708–14.

Basilia, P. A. 2011. “Morphological and Technological Analysis of the Cut Shell Beads from Ille Cave, El Nido, Palawan.” Unpublished master’s thesis, Archaeological Studies Program, University of the Philippines, Quezon City.

Bautista, A., and J. de Vos. 2002. “Archaeological Exploration and Excavation at Solana, Cagayan.” Unpublished manu-script. Manila: National Museum of the Philippines.

Bellwood, P. 1997. Prehistory of the Indo- Malaysian Archipel-ago. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Beyer, H. O. 1947. Outline Review of Philippine Archaeol-ogy by Islands and Province. Philippine Journal of Science 77:205- 390.

Beyries, S., ed. 1988. Industries lithiques: tracéologie et tech-nologie. BAR International Series 411. Oxford, England: Archaeopress.

Bondoc, N. H. 1979. A Re- investigation of the Espinosa Archaeological Sites: Cagayan and Kalinga- Apayao. An-thropological Papers, 6. Manila: National Museum of the Philippines.

Bräuer, G., and F. H. Smith, eds. 1992. Continuity or Replace-ment: Controversies in Homo sapiens Evolution. Rotterdam: Balkema.

Brumm, A., and M. W. Moore. 2005. “Symbolic Revolutions and the Australian Archaeological Record.” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 15:157–75.

Büller, J. 1988. “Handling, Hafting and Ochre Stains.” In Industries lithiques: traceologie et technologie, edited by S. Beyries, 5- 46. BAR International Series 411. Oxford, England: Archaeopress.

Cahen, D., L. H. Keeley, and F. van Noten. 1979. “Stone Tools, Toolkits and Human Behavior in Prehistory.” Current Anthropology 20:661–82.

Chappell, J., J. Head, and J. Magee. 1996. “Beyond the Radio-carbon Limit in Australian Archaeology and Quaternary Research.” Antiquity 70:543–52.

Charoenwongsa, P. 1988. “The Current Status of Prehistoric Research in Thailand.” In Prehistoric Studies: The Stone and Metal Ages in Thailand (Thai Antiquity 1), edited by

TAM Kaifu 13791.indd 193 9/3/14 3:43 PM


P. Charoenwongsa and B. Bronson, 17–41. Bangkok: Thai Antiquity Working Group.

Christensen, M., P. Walter, and M. Menu. 1992. “Usewear Characterisation of Prehistoric Flints with IBA.” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 64:488–93.

Clottes, J., ed. 2001. La Grotte Chauvet: l’art des origines. Paris: Seuil.

Conard, N. J. 2003. “Palaeolithic Ivory Sculptures from Southwestern Germany and the Origin of Figurative Art.” Nature 426:830–2.

Conard, N. J., ed. 2006. When Neanderthals and Modern Humans Met. Tübingen, Germany: Kerns.

Conard, N. J. 2008. “A Critical View of the Evidence for a Southern African Origin of Behavioural Modernity.” South African Archaeological Society Goodwin Series 10:175–9.

Conard, N. J., M. Malina, S. Münzel, and F. Seeberger. 2004. “Eine Mammutelfenbeinflöte aus dem Aurignacien des Geissenklösterle: Neue Belege für eine Musiktradition im frühen Jungpaläolithikum auf der Schwäbischen Alb.” Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 34:447–62.

Coutts, P. J. F., and J. P. Wesson. 1980. “Models of Philippine Prehistory, a Review of the Flaked Stone Industries.” Phil-ippine Quarterly Research in Culture and Society 8:203–59.

Deacon, H. J. 2000. “Modern Human Emergence: An African Archaeological Perspective.” In Humanity from African Naissance to Coming Millennia: Colloquia in Human Biology and Palaeoanthropology, edited by P. V. Tobias, M. A. Raath, J. Maggi- Cecchi, and G. A. Doyle, 217–226. Florence, Italy: Florence University Press.

Dennell, R. W. 2009. The Palaeolithic Settlement of Asia. New York: Cambridge University Press.

D’Errico, F. 2003. “The Invisible Frontier: A Multiple Species Model for the Origin of Behavioral Modernity.” Evolution-ary Anthropology 12:188–202.

Détroit, F. 2002. “Origine et évolution des Homo sapiens en Asie du Sud- Est: Descriptions et analyses mor-phométriques de nouveaux fossiles. Ph.D. dissertation, Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris.

Détroit, F., E. Z. Dizon, C. Falguères, S. Hameau, and F. Sémah, et al. 2004. “Upper Pleistocene Homo sapiens from Tabon Cave (Palawan, the Philippines).” Human Paleontology and Prehistory 3:705–12.

Dibble, H. 1989. “The Implications of Stone Tool Types for the Presence of Language during the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic.” In The Human Revolution: Behavioral and

Biological Perspectives on the Origins of Modern Humans, edited by. P. Mellars and C. Stringer, 416–432. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Dinnis, R., A. Pawlik, and C. Gaillard. 2009. “Bladelet Cores as Weapon Tips? Hafting Residue Identification and Micro- wear Analysis of Three Carinated Burins from Les Vachons.” Journal of Archaeological Science 36:1922–34.

Dizon, E. Z., F. Détroit, F. Sémah, C. Falguères, S. Hameau, et al. 2002. “Notes on the Morphology and Age of the Tabon Cave Fossil Homo sapiens.” Current Anthropology 43:660–6.

Dizon, E. Z., and A. Pawlik. 2010. “The Lower Palaeolithic Record in the Philippines.” Quaternary International 223–224:444–50.

Esselstyn, J. A., C. H. Oliveros, R. G. Moyle, A. T. Peterson, J. A. McGuire, et al. 2010. “Integrating Phylogenetic and Taxonomic Evidence Illuminates Complex Biogeographic Patterns along Huxley’s Modification of Wallace’s Line.” Journal of Biogeography 37:2054–66.

Fischer, A., P. Vemming Hansen, and P. Rasmussen. 1984. “Macro and Micro Wear Traces on Lithic Projectile Points: Experimental Results and Prehistoric Examples.” Journal of Danish Archaeology 3:19–46.

Fox, R. B. 1970. The Tabon Caves. Monograph of the National Museum of the Philippines, 1. Manila: National Museum of the Philippines.

Fox, R. B. 1978. “The Philippine Palaeolithic.” In Early Palae-olithic in South and East Asia, edited by F. Ikawa- Smith, 59–85. Paris: Moutton.

Fox, R. B., and J. Peralta. 1974. “Preliminary Report on the Pa-laeolithic Archaeology of Cagayan Valley, Philippines, and the Cabalwanian industry.” In: Proceedings of the First Re-gional Seminar on Southeast Asian Prehistory and Archae-ology, June 26–July 4, 1972, Manila, edited by E. S. Casino, 100–47. Manila: National Museum of the Philippines.

Fullagar, R., ed. 1998. A Closer Look: Recent Australian Studies of Stone Tools. Sydney University Archaeological Methods Series 6. Sydney: University of Sydney.

Gilligan, I. 2010. “The Prehistoric Development of Clothing: Archaeological Implications of a Thermal Model.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 17:15–80.

Habgood, P. J., and N. R. Franklin. 2008. “The Revolution That Didn’t Arrive: A Review of Pleistocene Sahul.” Jour-nal of Human Evolution 55:187–222.

Hahn, J. 1986. Kraft und Aggression: die Botschaft der Eiszeit-

TAM Kaifu 13791.indd 194 9/3/14 3:43 PM


kunst imAurignacien Süddeutschlands? Tübingen, Ger-many: Archaeologica Venatoria.

Haidle, M. N. 2006. “Menschen–Denken–Objekte. Zur Problem- Lösung- Distanz als Kognitionsaspekt im Werkzeugverhalten von Tieren und im Laufe der men-schlichen Evolution.” Habilitation thesis, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.

Haidle, M. N. 2008. “Kognitive und Kulturelle Evolution.” Erwägen Wissen Ethik 19:149–59.

Haidle, M., and A. F. Pawlik. 2009. “Missing Types: Over-coming the Typology Dilemma of Lithic Archaeology in Southeast Asia.” Bulletin of the Indo- Pacific Prehistoric Association 29:2–5.

Haidle, M. N., and A. F. Pawlik. 2011. “Pleistocene Modernity: An Exclusively Afro- European Issue?” Bulletin of the Indo- Pacific Prehistoric Association 30:3–9

Hara, Y., and J. G. Cayron. 2001. “A Preliminary Report on the Excavation of Ille Cave, El Nido, Palawan.” Hukay 3(1):81–92.

Hardy, B. L., and Garufi, G. T. 1998. “Identification of Wood-working on Stone Tools through Residue and Use- Wear Analyses: Experimental Results.” Journal of Archaeological Science 25:177–85.

Heaney, L. 1986. “Biogeography of Mammals in SE Asia: Estimates of Rates of Colonization, Extinction and Specia-tion.” Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 28:127–65.

Heaney, L. 1993. “Biodiversity Patterns and the Conserva-tion of Mammals of the Philippines.” Asia Life Sciences 2:261–74.

Henshilwood, C. S., F. d’Errico, R. Yates, Z. Jacobs, C. Tri-bolo, et al. 2002. “The Emergence of Modern Human Behaviour: Middle Stone Age Engravings from South Africa.” Science 295:1278–80.

Henshilwood, C. S., and C. W. Marean. 2003. “The Origin of Modern Behaviour: Critique of the Models and Their Test Implications.” Current Anthropology 44 / 45:627–51.

Jelinek, A. J. 1982. “The Middle Pleistocene in the Southern Levant, with Comments on the Appearance of Modern Homo sapiens.” British Archaeological Reports 151:57–101.

Johnson, C. R., and S. McBrearty. 2010. “500,000 Year Old Blades from the Kapthurin Formation, Kenya.” Journal of Human Evolution 58:193–200.

Juel Jensen, H. 1988. “Functional Analysis of Prehistoric Flint Tools by High Power Microscopy: A Review of West Euro-pean Literature.” Journal of World Prehistory 2:53–88.

Kamminga, J. 1979. “The Nature of Use- Polish and Abrasive Smoothing on Stone Tools.” In Lithic Use Wear Analy-sis,” edited by B. Hayden, 143–57. New York: Academic Press.

Kealhofer, L., R. Torrence, and R. Fullagar. 1999. “Integrating Phytoliths within Use- Wear / Residue Studies of Stone Tools.” Journal of Archaeological Science 26:527–46.

Keeley L. H. 1974. “Technique and Methodology in Mi-crowear Studies: A Critical Review.” World Archaeology 5:323–36.

Keeley L. H. 1980. Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Keeley L. H. 1982. “Hafting and Retooling: Effects in the Ar-chaeological Record.” American Antiquity 47:798–809.

Keeley, L. H., and M. H. Newcomer. 1977. “Microwear Anal-ysis of Experimental Flint Tools: A Test Case.” Journal of Archaeological Science 4:29–62.

Klein, R. G. 1995. “Anatomy, Behavior, and Modern Human Origins.” Journal of World Prehistorica 9:167–98.

Klein, R. G. 1999. The Human Career: Human Biological and Cultural Origins. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Klein, R. G. 2003. “Whither the Neanderthals?” Science 299:1525–7.

Klein, R. G., and E. Blake. 2002. The Dawn of Human Culture. New York: Wiley.

von Koenigswald, G. H. R. 1958. “Preliminary Report on a Newly Discovered Stone Age Culture from Northern Lu-zon, Philippine Islands.” Asian Perspectives 2:69–71.

Kress, J. 1979. “Tom Harrisson, North Borneo, and Palawan: A Preliminary Assessment.” Asian Perspectives 20:75–86.

Levi- Sala, I. 1996. A Study of Microscopic Polish on Flint Implements. British Archaeological Reports Series 629. Oxford, England: Archaeopress.

Lewis, H., V. Paz, M. Lara, H. Barton, P. Piper, et al. 2008. “Terminal Pleistocene to Mid- Holocene Occupation and an Early Cremation Burial at Ille Cave, Philippines.” Antiq-uity 82:318–35.

Lombard, M. 2005. “A Method for Identifying Stone Age Hunting Tools.” South African Archaeological Bulletin 60:115–120.

Lombard, M., and J. Pargeter. 2008. “Hunting with How-iesons Poort Segments: Pilot Experimental Study and the Functional Interpretation of Archaeological Tools.” Journal of Archaeological Science 35:2523–31.

McBrearty S., and A. Brooks. 2000. “The Revolution That

TAM Kaifu 13791.indd 195 9/3/14 3:43 PM


Wasn’t: A New Interpretation of the Origin of Modern Hu-man Behavior.” Journal of Human Evolution 39:453–563.

McBrearty, S., and C. Stringer. 2007. “The Coast in Colour.” Nature 449:793–4.

Mellars, P. 1989a. “Archaeology and the Population- Dispersal Hypothesis of Modern Human Origins in Europe.” In The Origin of Modern Humans and the Impact of Chronometric Dating, edited by M. J. Aitken, C. Stringer, and P. Mellars, 196–216. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Mellars, P. 1989b. “Major Issues in the Emergence of Modern Humans.” Current Anthropology 30:349–85.

Mellars, P. 1991. “Cognitive Changes and the Emergence of Modern Humans in Europe.” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 1:63–76.

Mellars, P. 2005. “The Impossible Coincidence: A Single- Species Model for the Origins of Modern Human Be-haviour in Europe.” Evolutionary Anthropology 14:12–27.

Mellars, P. 2006. “Going East: New Genetic and Archaeolog-ical Perspectives on the Modern Human Colonization of Eurasia.” Science 313:796–800.

Mijares, A. 2002. The Minori Cave Expedient Lithic Tech-nology. Contributions to Archaeology Series. Diliman: University of the Philippines.

Mijares, A. 2004. “Lithic Analysis of Recently Excavated Tabon Cave Flakes.” Proceedings of the Society of Philippine Archaeologists 2:15–9.

Mijares, A. 2007. “The Late Pleistocene to Early Holocene Foragers of Northern Luzon.” Bulletin of the Indo- Pacific Prehistoric Association 28:99–107.

Mijares, A. 2008. “The Peñablanca Flake Tools: An Un-changing Technology” Hukay, Journal for Archaeological Research in Asia and the Pacific 12:13–34.

Mijares, A., F. Détroit, P. Piper, R. Grün, P. Bellwood, et al. 2010. “New Evidence for a 67,000- Year- Old Human Presence at Callao Cave, Luzon, Philippines.” Journal of Human Evolution 59:123–32.

Mithen, S. 1996. The Prehistory of the Mind. A Search for the Origins of Art, Religion and Science. London: Thames and Hudson.

Moser, J. 2001. Hoabinhian. Geographie und Chronologie eines steinzeitlichen Technokomplexes in Südostasien. Bonn, Germany: AVA- Forschungen 6.

Narr, K. 1966. Die frühe und mittlere Altsteinzeit Süd- und Ostasiens. Handbuch für Bern, Switzerland: Urgeschichte.

Neri, L. A. 2002. “Obsidian Sourcing at Huluga Open Site:

An Evidence of Exchange?” Unpublished master’s thesis, University of the Philippines, Manila.

Neri, L. A. 2005. “Obsidian from the Huluga Site and Its Im-plications.” Hukay, Journal of the Philippines Archaeological Studies Program 7:55–67.

Ochoa, J. 2008. “Terrestrial Vertebrates from Ille Cave, Northern Palawan, Philippines: Subsistence and Palae-oecology in the Terminal Pleistocene to the Holocene.” Unpublished Master’s thesis, Archaeological Studies Program, University of the Philippines, Manila.

O’Connell, J. F., and J. Allen. 2004. “Dating the Colonization of Sahul (Pleistocene Australia–New Guinea): A Review of Recent Research.” Journal of Archaeological Science 31:835–53.

Odell, G. H. 1981. “The Mechanics of Use- Breakage of Stone Tools: Some Testable Hypotheses.” Journal of Field Archae-ology 8:197–209.

Patole- Edoumba, E. 2002. “L’industrie lithique préhistorique de débitage des Philippines de la fin du Pleistocène à l’Holocène moyen.” Doctoral thesis, University of Aix- Marseille I, Marseille, France.

Patole- Edoumba, E., A. Pawlik, and A. Mijares. 2012. “Evo-lution of Prehistoric Lithic Industries of the Philippines during the Pleistocene.” Comptes Rendus Palevol 11:213–30.

Pawlik, A. 1992. Mikrogebrauchsspurenanalyse, Methoden—Forschungsstand—Neue Ergebnisse. Urgeschichtliche Mate-rialhefte 9. Archaeologica Venatoria, Tübingen.

Pawlik, A. 1995. Die mikroskopische Analyse von Steingeräten. Experimente - Auswertungsmethoden - Artefaktanalysen. Urgeschichtliche Materialhefte 10. Tübingen, Germany: Archaeologica Venatoria.

Pawlik, A. 2002. “Is There an Early Palaeolithic in the Phil-ippines? New Approaches for Lithic Analysis in the Phil-ippines.” In Australasian Connections and New Directions: Proceedings of the 7th Australasian Archaeometry Confer-ence (Research in Anthropology and Linguistics, 5), edited by M. Horrocks and P. Sheppard, 255–70. Auckland, New Zealand: University of Auckland.

Pawlik, A. 2004a. “The Palaeolithic Site of Arubo 1 in Central Luzon, Philippines.” Bulletin of the Indo- Pacific Prehistoric Association 24:3–12.

Pawlik, A. 2004b. “Identification of Hafting Traces and Residues by Scanning Electron Microscopes and Energy- Dispersive Analysis of X- Rays.” In Lithics in Ac-tion: Papers from the Conference Lithic Studies in the Year

TAM Kaifu 13791.indd 196 9/3/14 3:43 PM


2000 (Lithic Studies Society Occasional Paper 8), edited by E. A. Walker, F. Wenban- Smith, and F. Healy, 172- 183. Oxford, England: Oxbow Books.

Pawlik, A. 2004c. “An Early Bronze Age Pocket Lighter.” In Lithics in Action: Papers from the Conference Lithic Studies in the Year 2000 (Lithic Studies Society Occasional Paper 8), edited by E. A. Walker, F. Wenban- Smith, and F. Healy, 149–51. Oxford, England: Oxbow Books.

Pawlik, A. 2006. “Analysis of Polished Stone Adzes from Ille Cave at El Nido, Palawan Island, Philippines.” Hukay, Journal of the University of the Philippines Archaeological Studies Program 10:38–59.

Pawlik, A. 2009a. “Is the Functional Approach Helpful to Overcome the Typology Dilemma of Lithic Archaeology in Southeast Asia?” Bulletin of the Indo- Pacific Prehistoric Association 29:6–14.

Pawlik, A. 2009b. “Morphological and Functional Analysis of Lithic Assemblages from the Pleistocene Layers of Ille Cave, Dewil Valley, El Nido, Palawan: A Progress Report.” Unpublished manuscript, University of the Philippines, Archaeological Studies Program, Manila.

Pawlik, A. 2010. “Have we overlooked something? Hafting traces and Indications of Modern Traits in the Philippine Palaeolithic”. Bulletin of the Indo- Pacific Prehistory Associ-ation 30:35–53.

Pawlik, A., and W. Ronquillo. 2003. “The Palaeolithic in the Philippines.” Lithic Technology 28:79–93.

Pawlik, A., and R. Schmitz. 2011. “Was der Neandertaler mit dem Faustkeil machte.” Berichte aus dem Landesmuseum Bonn 1:16–7.

Pawlik, A., and J. Thissen. 2008. “Birkenpechgewinnung und Rentierjagd im Indetal.” Archäologie im Rheinland 2007:41–4.

Pawlik, A., and J. Thissen. 2011. “Hafted Armatures and Multi- component Tool Design at the Micoquien site of Inden- Altdorf, Germany.” Journal of Archaeological Science 38:1699–708.

Pawlik, A., P. J. Piper, M. G. P. Faylona, S. Padilla Jr., J. Carlos et al. 2014. “Island Adaptation and Foraging Strategies in Changing Environments from the Terminal Pleistocene to the Early Holocene in the Philippines: Excavations at Bubog I & II on Ilin Island, Mindoro” Journal of Field Archaeology 39:230–47.

Pawlik, A., P. J. Piper, R. Wood, K. A. Lim, M. G. P. Faylona, et al. Under review. “The Direct Dating and Analysis of an

Early Middle Holocene Shell Adze from Ilin Island Min-doro, Philippines, and Its Implications for Understanding the Appearance of these Implements in Island Southeast Asia.”

Paz, V., H. Lewis, and W. Ronquillo. 2006. “Report on the Palawan Island Palaeolithic Research Project for 2006.” Unpublished manuscript, University of the Philippines, Archaeological Studies Program, Manila.

Piper, P. J., J. Ochoa, V. Paz, H. Lewis, and W. P. Ronquillo. 2008. “The First Evidence for the Past Presence of the Tiger Panthera tigris (L.) on the Island of Palawan, Philip-pines: Extinction in an Island Population.” Palaeoclimatol-ogy, Palaeogeography, Palaeoecology 264:123–7.

Piper, P. J., F. Z. Campos, and H. Hung. 2009. “A Study of the Animal Bones Recovered from Pits 9 and 10 at the Site of Nagsabaran in Northern Luzon, Philippines.” Hukay, Journal for Archaeological Research in Asia and the Pacific 14:47–90.

Piper, P. J., J. Ochoa, E. Robles, H. Lewis, and V. Paz. 2011. “Palaeozoology of Palawan Island, Philippines.” Quater-nary International 233:142–58.

Pookajorn, S. 1988. Archaeological Research of the Hoabinhian Culture or Technocomplex and Its Comparison with Eth-noarchaeology of the Phi Tong Luang, a Hunter- Gatherer Group of Thailand. Tübingen, Germany: Archaeological Venatoria 9.

Pope, G. C. 1989. “Bamboo and Human Evolution.” Natural History (October):1–15.

Roberts, R., G. R. Jones, and M. A. Smith. 1990. “Thermolu-minescence Dating of a 50,000- Year- Old Human Occupa-tion Site in Northern Australia.” Nature 345:153–6.

Ronquillo, W. P. 1981. The Technological and Functional Analyses of Lithic Flake Tools from Rabel Cave, Northern Luzon, Philippines. Anthropological Papers No. 13, Manila: National Museum of the Philippines.

Ronquillo, W. P., R. Santiago, S. Asato, and K. Tanaka. 1993. “The 1992 Re- excavation of the Balobok Rockshelter, Sanga Sanga, Tawi Tawi Province, Philippines.” Journal of the Historiographical Institute Okinawa 18:1–40.

Rots, V. 2003. “Towards an Understanding of Hafting: The Macro- and Microscopic Evidence.” Antiquity 77:805–15.

Rots, V. 2002. “Bright Spots and the Question of Hafting.” Anthropologica et Praehistorica 113:61–71.

Rots, V., and B. S. Williamson. 2004. “Microwear and Residue Analyses in Perspective: The Contribution of Ethnoar-

TAM Kaifu 13791.indd 197 9/3/14 3:43 PM


chaeological Evidence.” Journal of Archaeological Science 31:1287–99.

Schick, K. D., and D. Zhuan. 1993. “Early Paleolithic of China and Eastern Asia.” Evolutionary Anthropology 2:22–35.

Schmidt, P. 2008. “Characterization and Geological Prov-enance of Jasper That Was Used for Debitages in the Archaeological Site of Tabon Cave, Philippines.” Hukay, Journal for Archaeological Research in Asia and the Pacific 14:3–12.

Semenov, S. A. 1964. Prehistoric Technology. Bath, England: Adams and Dart.

Shutler, R., and M. Mathisen. 1979. “Pleistocene Studies in the Cagayan Valley of Northern Luzon, Philippines.” Journal of the Hong Kong Archaeological Society 8:105–14.

Solheim, W. G. II. 1970. “Prehistoric Archaeology in East-ern Mainland Southeast Asia and the Philippines.” Asian Perspectives 13:47–58.

Szabó, K., M. Swete Kelly, and A. Peñalosa. 2004. “Prelimi-nary Results from Excavations in the Eastern Mouth of Ille Cave, Northern Palawan,” In Southeast Asian Archaeology. Festschrift for Wilhelm G. Solheim II, edited by V. Paz, 209–24. Diliman: University of the Philippines Press.

Teodosio, S. F. R. 2006. “A Functional Analysis of the Arubo Stone Tools.” Master’s thesis. University of the Philippines, Archaeological Studies Program, Manila.

Torrence, R., and H. Barton, eds. 2006. Ancient Starch Re-search. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Tringham, R., G. Cooper, G. H. Odell, B. Voytek, and A. Whitman. 1974. “Experimentation in the Formation of Edge Damage: A New Approach to Lithic Analysis.” Jour-nal of Field Archaeology 1:171–96.

Tschirch, A., and G. Glimmann. 1896. “Untersuchungen über die Sekrete: Ueber das Dammarharz.” Archiv der Pharma-zie 234:585–589

Tulang, C. S. 2000. “A Functional Analysis of the Reported

‘Small Flake and Blade’ Industry from Duyong Cave, Pala-wan, Philippines.” Unpublished manuscript. Archaeologi-cal Studies Program, University of the Philippines, Manila.

Unrath, G., L. R. Owen, A. van Gijn, E. H. Moss, H. Plisson, and P. Vaughan. 1986. “An Evaluation of Use- Wear Studies: A Multi- Analyst Approach.” Early Man News 9 / 10 / 11:117–175.

Van Gijn, A. 1989. The Wear and Tear of Flint. Leiden, the Netherlands: Analecta Prehistorica Leidensia 22.

Vaughan, P. 1985. Use- Wear Analysis of Flaked Stone Tools. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Wadley, L., B. Williamson, and M. Lombard. 2004. “Ochre in Hafting in Middle Stone Age Southern Africa: A Practical Role.” Antiquity 78:661–75.

Wurz, S. 1999. “The Howiesons Poort at Klasies River: An Argument for Symbolic Behaviour.” South African Archae-ological Bulletin 54:38–50.

Xhauflair, H. 2009. “Analyse tracéologique et recherche de résidus: contribution à l’étude de l’industrie lithique de Ta-bon Cave, Palawan, Philippines.” Master’s thesis, Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris.

Xhauflair, H., and A. Pawlik. 2010. “Usewear and Residue Analysis: Contribution to the Study of the Lithic Industry from Tabon Cave, Palawan, Philippines.” Annali dell’Uni-versità di Ferrara Museologia Scientifica e Naturalistica 6:147–54.

Yamada, S. 1993. “The Formation Process of ‘Use- Wear Pol-ishes.’” In Traces et fonction: les gestes retrouves, edited by P. Anderson, S. Beyries, M. Otte and H. Plisson, 433–46. Actes du colloque international de Liège. Liège, Belgium: Etudes et Recherches Archéologiques de l’Université de Liège (ERAUL) 50.

Zilhão, J. 2001. Anatomically Archaic, Behaviorally Modern: the Last Neanderthals and their Destiny. Amsterdam: Stichting Nederlands Museum voor Anthropologie en Praehistoriae. Joh. Enschede.

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

Documents

Detecting Traits of Modern Behavior through Microwear Analysis