A new Palaeolithic site- Bukit Bunuh- discovered tn 2002 has thrown light on Malaysia's Palaeolithic, and findings from this site will have to be considered in the

interpretation of other Palaeolithic sites in Southeast Asia

Saidin, Mohd Mokhtar

English

Repository@USM

)t>"d1BUKIT BUNUH, LENGC'ONG, MALAYSIA:A NEWEVIDENCE OFLATE PI,EISTOCENE CULTURE INMAL.AYSIA AND SOUTMAST ASIAAssociate Prof. Dr. Mohd Mokhtar SaidinThe Centre for Archaeological Research MalaysiaUniversity Sains Malaysia11800 Penang, Malaysiammokh@usm.mvPeper presented at the 10ft European Association of Southeast Asian ArchaeologicalConference, London, 14-17 September 2004BUKIT BUI{UH, I,ENGGONG MALAYSIA:A NEW EVIDENCE OF LATE PI,EISTOCENE CI]LTURE INMALAYSIA AND SOUTIIEAST ASIAMohd Mokhtar SaidinIntorductionA new Palaeolithic site- Bukit Bunuh- discovered tn 2002 has thrown light onMalaysia's Palaeolithic, and findings from this site will have to be considered in theinterpretation of other Palaeolithic sites in Southeast Asia. This is because Bukit Bunuh isan undisturbed lithic workshop- rvith reliable and confirmed date of 40,000 years old.Excavations revealed stone artifacts- anvils, cores, hammerstones, pebble tools (chopper,handaxe, etc) flake tools, debitages, The discovery of the Bukit Bunuh handaxes suggest'similar technical and cognitive capabilities' on both sites of the Movius Line?. ThePalaeolithic people in Bukit Bunuh use the materials of quartzite, qtrartz, chert, flint andimpact breccia. Being an undisturbed site means that Bukit Bunuh can contribute to anunderstanding of Palaeolithic technology while also throwing light on the loose findsfrom Palaeolithic sites in Southeast Asia. Thus, this paper will focus on the new sitediscovered- Bukit Bunuh- and its contribution to lithic classification.Palaeolithic Evidence in Lenggong ValleySoutheast Asia is already known in world Palaeolithic culture- such as open siteof Irrawaddy in Myanrnar, Kanchanaburi in Thailand, Cagayan in Philippine, KotaTampan in Malaysia and Pacitan, Sangiran, Ngandung in Indonesia, whichestablished as a Paleolithic sites since early 1900's. Since that, some of these sitesbeen challenged- in terms of the artifacts, dating, in situ etc.Since 1987, Malaysian archaeology has been active research in prehistory,conducted mainly by the Centre for Archaeological Research Malaysia (CARM) atUniversiti Sains Malaysia, in cooperation with the Department of Museums andAntiquities. Our first site is Kota Tampan. The 1987 discovery and excavation of KotaTanrpan which was found in situ, provided suffrcient data to interpret it as a toolmakingworkshop which revealed its lithic technology and classification, palaeoenviroment anddating- 74,000 years ago (Zuraina 2003).The focus of research by CARM has been the Lenggong Valley in Perak, whichbegan in 1987 with the discovery of Kota Tampan (Zvraina and Tjia 1988), and expandedto many other sites in the valley- Bukit Jawa (Znraina 1997), Kampung Temelong (MohdMokhtar 1997a), Lawin (Mohd Mokhtar 1997b) and our new site Bukit Bunuh. These areall 5 open Palaeolithic sites that had been excavated. Beside these 5 sites, we also foundanother 11 open sites throughout the valley- Nenering, Bukit Sapi 1, Bukit Sapi 2,Kampung Luat 1, Kampung Luat 2, Kampung Luat 3, Bukit Suring, Batu Berdinding,Kampung Tawai, Kampung Air Bah, and Kampung Sumpitan (Mohd Mokhtar 2001).washadThis suggest that Lenggong Valley is one of the centre of Palaeolithic culture evolution inthis region beside central Java (Table 1).Table 1: Palaeolithic site in Va : TheSITES DATINGI Bukit.Iawa Relatif datine - 200.000 years old2. Kamouns Temelons Relatif datins - 200.000 years old3. Lawin Relatif dating - 200,000 years old4. Kota Tampan Fission Track 74,000 years old5. Bukit Bunuh OSL 40.000 vears oldOur excavation of Bukit iawa, Kampung Temelong, Lawin, Kota Tampan andBukit Bunuh revealed that they share some basic characteristic- stratigraphy, sitefunction, lithic technology, lithic classification and palaeoenviroment (Table 2).However, Bukit Bunuh showed 2 main different- the raw materials and the existing ofhandaxes.CharacteristicTable 2: Palaeolithic site in fhe SimilarvCharacteristic1. Stratigraphy Cultural layer is between the top layer (new alluviumdeposits) and the sranite soil2. Site Function Toolmaking Workshop3. Lithic Technology a. Direct Percussion- big hammerstone to cote, coreto anvilb, Indirect percussion- hammerstone tocore/pebble/flake on anvillthigh4. Lithic Classification Anvils, Core, Hammerstones, Pebble Tools, Flake Toolsand debitaees5. Paleoenviroment LakeThe Lithic WorlshopThe presence of anvils, cores, hammerstones, pebble tools, flake tools anddebitage, and their association rvith one another suggest a function related site. Bouldershad very distinct battered marks on the top surface, suggesting that they were used asanvils. Around these anvils were found flakes and chips, further confirming the functionof the boulders as anvils. The chunks were cores whose detached flakes were foundwithin an approximate 0.25 m radius. Some of these flakes could be matched to theirrespective cores.The cores and anvils, for instance, showed attributes that were repeatedly found inlnan'y pieces, suggesting that they were not natural occurrences but that they revealed theexistence of a definite system of production.Flakes were present in the thousands in the excavation and could not all have beenbroken and concentrated in the sand and gravel by natural processes. All of the flakeedges are sharp, and would acquire a rounded edge if transported. Because the flakeedges are sharp, the materials here have not been transported. Thus, the workshop site isin situ.Other evidence, such as the spatial location and relationships between thedifferent categories of artifacts, further attests to this being an undisturbed Palaeolithicworkshop. The occurrence of rounded pebbles and boulders, together r.vith angular andsharp edged fragments of the same rock material precludes the possibility of these pieceshaving been accumulated purely through natural (as opposed to man-made) processes.The spatial arrangement of artifacts obsen'ed during the excavation (for instance,between anvils and flakes, flakes and cores), together with the positions of the anvils withbattered marks on their top surfaces and the cores and flakes that could be conjoined,suggest that the artifacts are in situ, and the site is therefore undisturbed.Lithic ClassificationIn the preliminary stage, artifacts were sorted out from non -artifacts. Artifactsbear marks of human manipulation through flaking, bashing, trimming or utilization.Non-artifacts were the unmodified or non-humanly modified, pebbles and cobbles thatwere part of the natural river sedimentation environrnent.From a recurrence of certain forms and the association of these artifacts, certainmajor categories are visible. There are those artifacts that are the tools of production,namely anvil, core and hammerstone, those that ue the products of manufacture, namelypebble and flake tools, and those that are the waste products of manufacturing, is thedebitage.The spatial arrangement of artifacts observed during the excavation (for instance,between anvils, cores, hammerstones and flakes) together with the position of anvilsshowing battered marks on their top surfaces, cores and flakes that could be conjoined,and sharp flakes and flaking surfaces of cores, not only suggest that the artifacts are insitu,but they also provide confinnation of our construction ofthe artifacttypes.As would be logical of a lithic workshop, the largest proportion of artifacts werewaste matenal or debitage. It was also evident that some artifacts were of dual purpose,for instance, a broken anvil could be utilized as a core. In such a case, characteristics ofboth artifacts would be visible on the boulder i.e. bashing marks as well as flake removalsurfaces. Also, as can be expected of a workshop, there were unfinished pebble and flaketools, and the number of completed pieces were low, as upon completion a lugeproportion of them would have been taken away and used.In constructing the classification of this assemblage, certain categories are distinctand straightforward. These are anvils, cores and hammerstones, the equipment forproduction. The debitage is identified as the unutillised waste. There are in various sizesand shapes- chunks, flakes and chips.Classifying the end product of manufacture, ie the tools produced for direct use orfor the production of other tools, required more time and effort to test out at a satisfactory-set of attributes for the types. A set of attributes is considered satisfactory when it reflectsthe cohesiveness of a group of artifacts as a type, and separates it distinctly from othertypes.Since the reason for this classification is to detect the internal order in the lithicassemblage (in order to interpret function and behaviour) and based on this, to construct atypology that can cleariy communicate to others the internal pattern of the assemblage, itwas decided that weight-mass tvas not as rneaningful a criteria as form, i.e. pebble andflake. Thus, this classification distinguishes between pebble tools and flake tools. A tooltype within each of the broad categories (i.e. pebble and flake) would be distinguishedaccording to several morphological and technological attributes. This is therefore aclassification that combines both technological and morphological criteria in itsdefination of types.The lithic assemblage of Bukit Bunuh has been classified into cores, anvils,hammerstone, pebble tools, flake tools and debitage. With more than 20,000 of debitages,each of other categories have been further sub-divided into fy"pes (Table 3). The spatialrelationship between and among these categories provide more confidence to theidentification and classification of artifacts as suggested in this study.Table 3: Classification of the Bukit BunuhCategory Tvpe Quantitv1. Anvils 7r (9.s%)2. Cores 87 (rt.6%\3. Hammerstones rs9 (2r.3%)4. Pebble Tools a.b.c.d.e.f.gChoppersHandaxesPalaeoadzesNotched Flat PebblePerimeter Flaked PebbleOval UnifacialsMiscellaneous21 (25.3%o)Ie (22.e%)r2 (14.5%.)ro (12.0%o)9 (r0.8%o)7 (8.4%o)5 6.1%) 83 (11.1%)5. Flake Tools 347(46.5o/o)TOTAL: 747 (100o/o)HandaxeHandaxes had a very wide temporal and geographic distribution. The earliestexamples were made in East Africa and date to about 1.4 million years ago (Schick andToth, 1993). Wyrur (1995) mentioned that to be a 'true' handaxe the artifact must derivefrom Lower or Middle Palaeolithic contexts in Europe, Africa and Asia. After Africa,handaxes appeared in the Near East, Europe and Indian subcontinent. Stone knappers inEurope continued to manufacture them well into the Middle Palaeolithic, after 128,000years ago.Until recently, the handaxes distribution had been found almost exclusively inwestern Eurasia and Africa. This prompted the creation of a geographic boundary linebetween the east and west, known as the Movius Line. This line, named fbr a Harvardarchaeologist who first described the east-west distinction, divided the two areas, labelingeast Asia, which lack this handaxes technology, as cultural stagnant and western Eurasiaand Africa as progressive.The Bukit Bunuh handaxes are bifacially and unifacially trimmed pebble tools. Ithas sides converge toward a tip, which is usually rounded and some comes to a sharppoint. Both lateral edges was modified. They are made from all type of material in BukitBunuh- quartz, quartzite, chert, flin and impact breccia. The largest is 2.7k9 while thesmallest is 1.lkg.ConclusionDid Bukit Bunuh handaxes destroy the Movius Line? Potts in Science Magazine2000 reported that he founds handaxes in Bose basin, southern of China which was dated- 800,000 years ago. But an archaeologist Bar-Yosef said that the Bose tindings are anexception, they don't destroy the Movius Line. With this new evidence from BukitBunuh suggest that Paleolithic people in Southeast Asia also produce handaxes.Why make ahandaxe''lBased on Bukit Bunuh pebble tools classification (Figure3) suggest that handaxe is an intentional product of prehistoric minds, in the sense thatpalaeolithic stone knappers set out to produce them as final products. Most Palaeolithicarchaeologist see the handaxe as a general-purpose tool, who design was capable ofperforming many functions. This position is supported by experimental studies by Tothand microwear analyses (Keeley 1980). But Calvin (1993) suggest that they wereprojectiles.Why in Bukit Bunuh at 40,000 years ago? If the dating is really associate with thehandaxes, why homo sapiens in Bukit Bunuh using it, not at Bukit Jawa, KampungTemelong, Lawin (*200,000 years ago)?REFERENCESCalvin, W1993 'The unitary hypothesis: a common neural circuitry for novel rnanipulations,language, plan-ahead, and throwing?',IN Gibson, K and T Ingold (eds) Tools,languuge untl cognition in humun evolution, Cambriclge University Press.230-2s0.Keeley, L H1980 Experirnental deternination of stone tool uses: a nticrowear anlysis, UniversityChicago Press.Mohd Mokhtar Saidin1997a 'Comparative study between palaeolithic site of Kampung Temelong and KotaTampan, and its contribution to the Southeast Asia Late Pleistocene culture',Iv,Ialays ia Mus eums Journal, 34.1997b Palaeolithic culture in lt4alaysia- the contiblilion of sites Lawin, Perak andTingkayu, Sabah, PhD thesis (Unpublished).2001 Palaeolithic evidences in Upper Perak-2001, Universiti Sains Malaysia.Schick,KDandNToth,1993 Making silent stone speak, Simon and Schuster.Wynn, T1994'Handaxe enigmas', World Archaeologt, 27(I):10-24.Zuraina Majid and H D Tjia1988 'Kota Tampan, Perak: The geological and archaeological evidence of a LatePleistocene site', Journal of the Malay,an Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society,6r(2):123-13a.Zuraina Majid1997 'The discovery of Bukit Jawa, Gelok, A Middle-Late Palaeolithic site in Perak,Malaysia', Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society.2003 Archueolog,t in |ufulaysia, USM, Penang.

a 'Comparative study between palaeolithic site of Kampung Temelong and Kota Tampan, and its contribution to the Southeast Asia Late Pleistocene culture', Iv,Ialays ia Mus eums

b Palaeolithic culture in lt4alaysia- the contiblilion of sites Lawin, Perak and Tingkayu, Sabah,

Experirnental deternination of stone tool uses: a nticrowear anlysis,

Handaxe enigmas', World Archaeologt,

Palaeolithic evidences in Upper Perak-2001, Universiti Sains Malaysia.

Perak: The geological and archaeological evidence of a Late Pleistocene site',

The discovery of Bukit Jawa, Gelok, A Middle-Late Palaeolithic site in Perak,

The unitary hypothesis: a common neural circuitry for novel rnanipulations, language, plan-ahead, and throwing?',IN Gibson, K and T Ingold (eds) Tools,languuge untl cognition in humun evolution,

Bukit Bunuh Lenggong Malaysia A new Evidence of Late Pleistocene Culture in Malaysia and Southeast Asia.

http://eprints.usm.my/6417/1/Bukit_Bunuh_Lenggong_Malaysia_A_new_Evidence_of_Late_Pleistocene_Culture_in_Malaysia_and_Southeast_Asia_(PPAerkologi_Malaysia).pdf

Bukit Bunuh Lenggong Malaysia A new Evidence of Late Pleistocene Culture in Malaysia and Southeast Asia.

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Repository@USM