HUKAY aol. L0:25-37

A Possible Palaeolithic Site inNorthern MindanaoLeee M. Neril

The Palaeolithic is the oldest and pioneering period in man'scultural chronology. In the Philippines, different Palaeolithic sites havebeen studied and all of these sites vary in their time sequences dependingon their geographic locations.

The earliest evidence so far of human fossils in the Philippineswas recovered in Tabon Cave, Quezory Palawan (Fig. 1). A skull cap andmandible fragments were recovered in the excavation, which was datedbetween 22,000 and34,000 BP (Fox 1970). Unfortunately, these were notrecovered in primary context due to disturbance caused by the digging ofTabon birds. Recently, the National Museum of the Philippines conductedanalysis and re-dating of the fossils that were recovered by Fox in TabonCave. The skullcap and the mandible fragment were directly dated usinguranitrm-series technique to 16,000 +l-2,000 BP (P-XIII-T-288) and 31,000+8,000/-2000 BP (P-XIII-T-436-5g79) respectively (Dizon 2003). During theirlatest excavatiory they exhumed another hominid fossil: a tibia fragment,

!L.A.M. Neri is Senior Lecturer at the Archaeological Studies Program, Universityof the Philippines. He received his M.S. in Archaeology from the University of thePhilippines in 2003. He can be contacted through his email address atleee-anthony.neri@up. edu.ph

25

A Possible Palaeolithic Site

., ,t,

glr-:ryrr1xr !'dlrr

6 ri'\rrdrr,'\ur-ra {ir*tx

I"at&rfi t:xrr- __

llrlctrrr.lg'

$';:

Figure 1. Map of the Philippines showing Palaeolithic sites in Luzonand Palawan islands.

dating to 47,000 +1,1,,000/-10,000 BP (lV-2000-T-197) nsing the same technique(Dizon 2003). Tabon lithic technology is primarily flake tools made mostlyof cheri and radiolarite from the beginning until its final occLrpation (Mijares2004; Pawlik and Ronquillo 2003; Fox 1978). Functional analysis ofthe recentflake tools recovered in Tabon Cave suggests that they were utilized inmanufacturing implements made of wood (Mijares 2004).

According to Peralta (1981), Fox (1979), and Bondoc (1,979), thePalaeolithic period in the Cagayan Valley started around 250,000 - 300,000

years ago during the Pleistocene epoctL as indicated by flakes and cobbletools that may be associated with the fossils of extinct large mammalianfauna (Fig. 1). However this inference possesses a lot of problems. Thereis no direct evidence to show that these megafaunas are clearly associatedwith tlrese identified tools in the area (Mijares 2006; Paz 2004; Shutler andMathises 1.979; Wasson and Cochrane L979). These stone tools coined by

26

Neri

Kocnigswald (1958) as "Cabalwanian" were all recovered on the erodedstrrfaces and not in primary context. Vertebrate fossils were excavated i/r:;i/rr but not directly associated with the modified lithic materials. Still, the('irgayan Valley has huge potential in contributing to our understandingthc antiquity of the human species in the Philippines. A more detailedinvcstigation of the stratigraphy and excavation may reveal significantrrrformation on the archaeology of the area and the prehistory of thetruntry in general.

Another probable Palaeolithic site in the Philippines is Arubo,Nucva Ecija in central Luzon (Pawlik and Ronquillo 2003). This site wasrt'ported to the National Museum when stone tools were recovered duringllrc construction of a fishpond. In 2001, a fieldschool was conducted in this:,rto upon the auspices of Dr. Alfred Pawlik from the Archaeological StudiesI'rogram (ASP) of the University of the Philippines (Fig. 1). A number of,rltifacts were recovered from the site, including a proto-handaxe,rr.touched flake tools and cleaver with straight edge. According to Pawlik,rncl Ronquillo (2003), based on morphology and typology of theselccovered stone tools, they possess Lower Palaeolithic features. Likellrosc from the Cagayan Valley, these artifacts were not retrieved from a

prirnary context but strewn along the side of a pond. At present, furtherrt'scarch is being conducted to establish the absolute age of these artifacts(l',rwlik and Ronquillo 2003).

Palaeolithic sites in the Philippines are few and there are only a

lr'w studies of these that have been conducted. At the moment, only threeI'.rlaeolithic areas are known, and these are located on the islands ofLrrzon and Palawan. These identified areas possess a huge problem withrts artifact assemblages and its stratigraphic association. So far, only Tabont .rvc exhibits a direct existence of earliest modern humans in thel'lrrlippines with direct association of their lithic assemblages.

In the southern part of the Philippines, no extensive study has yetI'rtn conducted in identifying Palaeolithic sites. This paper will present anovcrview of a potential lithic industry on the island of Mindanao.

The ASP has conducted an archaeological survey and excavation,lrrlirrg the last quarter of.2004 in Cagayan de Oro City (Neri et aI.2004).l,rvc possible Palaeolithic stone tools were recovered from the Hulugat tpcrr Site. Most of these tools were recovered from the ground surfacewlrile others were partially buried.

A Sr.rrvey of Palaeolithic Sites in Mindanao

The Palaeolithic industry in the Philippines was first mentionedlry IL Otley Beyer in the early-1900's. As mentioned above, the

27

A Possible Palaeolithic Site

,]

I y'-x& "r*4p,&l Scxu

I l{**,qr r, !** $tt*! t4txr$,.&l Ir+r n

+ 1*s4n l$l t*i. llrr:r ' :!:.

t.J

ir,-)

I:(

,.1

tii.r '#at

i;,a/,

,t t1..'f

't,:l':

t'$

,(,

Figure 2. Map of the Philippines showing possible Palaeolithic Sites inMindanao.

archaeologicdl materials for this period are scanty and meager (Beyer1.947; Hutterer '1.977). In Mindanao, only two areas were systematicallyexplored and excavated for potential Palaeolithic sites: namely, the twoprovinces of Agusan del Sur and Agusan del Norte (Figure 2). Otherareas were neither properly documented nor reporied.

Early Palaeolithic stone tools were found and reported along thesand and gravel pits in Davao by one of Beyer's associates, the late Capt.F.G. Roth in March 1936 (Beyer 1947). According to Beyer, these recoveredstone tools are practically similar with the stone tools recovered from theprovinces 6f Rizal and Bulacary and also with the findings of G.H.R. vonKoenigswald at Sangiran village in central fava, Indonesia. Unfortunately,

28

Neri

thc collected materials were not recovered from a systematic,rrchaeological excavation and no analyses were conducted.

In Ma-ug, Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur, a team from the NationalNltrseum conducted an archaeological exploration (Aguilera 1980). Theyr ('c()vered four Palaeolithic-type stone tools (cobble tools) from the surface,r[ an eroding terrace and at the mouth of a big sinkhole, suggesting thatthe Ma-ug Site was occupied as early as the Palaeolithic to Neolithicl'r'riods. Identification of these tools were based on the morphology andrro flrrther studies were conducted.

Another archaeological study conducted in Mindanao is in Butuant'ity, Agusan del Norte done in part to understand the geomorphology,rrrcl geo-archaeology of the Masao-Butuan Plain (Ronquillo 2002). Six majorvillages were archaeologically surveyed by the National Museum: San

Vicente, BonborL Pinamanculan, Manapa, Bit-os, and Masao. All of thesevillages are located in the western side of the Agusan River. In the villageol. []it-os, a weathered "stone tool" made of andesite was recovered onthc surface of a ricefield. Ronquillo (2002) hypothesized that the area was

l,,u't of "Episode One," the time dating between 45,000 and 20,000 BP whentlrc arc'a was still part of the Agusan River channel. However, the recovery,,1 this tool is problematic. A single tool is not sufficient to conclude abouttlrc antiquity of the area, especially if this was recovered as surface finds.It nray also be possible that this was a geofact and not intentionallyrrrotlified by man. Other identified lithic sites in Butuan are in Bequibel andItrtor in the village of Bonbon. The team recovered a cobble tool in Bequibel,rvhich has a depth of 190 centimeters from the surface just below the shellrrritlrlcn (Bolunia 2006). Astone mortar was also found in Bitor. Based ontlrt' cultural materials recovered, Bonbon was dated between 20,000 and,',()00 BP. Although the recovery of the stone tool in Bequibel Site is in( ()ntcxt, no technological and morphological analyses have been made tor oniirm if it was natural or culturally modified.

A Palaeolithic flake tool was recovered by Fr. Jaime Neri in:iurrlangary Zamboanga del Norte (Fox 1970). It is a highly developed typeol lool that exhibits retouching not usually found in Tabon, Palawan.t lrrfrrrtunately, no report was made on this flake tool, and proper informationrllrcrc this flake tool was acquired is lacking. Fox (1970) mentions that this

l'.rrticular tool type is not present in the Tabon Cave Complex.

t hc Site

The Huluga Open Site is located in Sitio Taguanao, Indahag,( ,rgilyan de Oro City in the northern coast of Mindanao (Figure 2). Its1it'rrgraphic coordinates are 1?4e 37' 57" East longitude and 8q 25' 19" North

29

A Possible Palaeolithic Site

latitude and has an approximate elevation of 30 to 45 meters above presentsea level. Majority of the Huluga Open Site is privately owned by EdnaDahino and Antonio Gales. Stones that may have been fashioned intotools were recovered in a Iot owned by Edna Dahino at the southeast partof the site. The property is partially sloping upward, connecting to theBukidnon Plateau in the southeast direction. Some weathered limestoneoutcrop and clastic materials were also exposed at the site. Crops arefrequently cultivated in the area.

The site is geologically part of the Indahag limestone formationin the eastern bank of the Cagayan de Oro River. The formation of thesaid limestone was attributed to the deposition of marine and terrestrialsediments belonging to Pliocene-Pliestocene materials (Sajona et al. 2000,DENR 1999). According to the DENR report (1999), these sediments arecomposed of reef-derived limestone, intercalated pyroclastics, and clasticrocks (conglomerate, shale, sandstone, tuffaceous sandstone, andagglomerate). The Indahag limestone exhibits a karstic topography.Cavities, sinkholeg and caves are copious in the vicinity. This formation iswell exposed and vividly clear along the valley walls bisected by theCagayan de Oro River.

The Implication of Finding Palaeolithic Stone Tools

Among the artifacts recovered at the Huluga Open Site (Dahino'sproperty), only one is a chopping tool or bifacially modified (Plate 5) whilethe rest are chopper tools or unifacially modified (Plates 1-4). These stonetools were made from andesite, a volcanic material. All of these toolswere highly weathered and the ages of these artifacts are difficult todetermine since these were recovered from ground surface. The recoverywas in a disturbed context similar to the cases of other Palaeolithic sites inthe Philippines and some parts of Southeast Asia.

Based on the morphology of these lithic materials, they may beconsidered to date from the Palaeolithic. Further exploration of the areaand proper recovery of materials from proper contexts could reveal theantiquity of these artifacts, and it could be possible that these tools weremade during the Palaeolithic period. This idea is not difficult to acceptespecially if one considers the Plio-Pleistocene geological formation ofthe area, its geographic location in the northern coast of Mindanao, andthe presence of extinct Pleistocene mammals, especially Stegodonrecovered in Mindanao (De Vos and Bautista 2003; Jocano 1975;Koenigswald 1956)

This study is a preliminary analysis of the archaeological materialsrecovered from the Huluga area. Thorough archaeological investigations

30

(r)tf

Table 1. Below are the general characteristics of the stone tools that were found from the site. Five possible Palaeolithic stone tools

were recovered from the first systematic and scientific archaeological exploration in Northem Mindanao.

Ston. T60lConbolrmher

T}?( Sla wll$riGr.fisl

L.rlSt}t X1f-idtft x?hiclsr$

{srlIl.ktng l;fst*idt Acsr*lon !lq. Dcsclptlon

No. 1

{gat€ iCtagprr

I $OrCc!&ts :,38il xs.sx1:xs liniireial .q,ndad ! .KX9r1-S-28{

.* €rk5 ol g*$ lfs sF#s?d s*s lrlard ed. qi tl€ sCuk. Therr'arlin6 cdg+* rue 6akid ed &Br.st sf &u rcduk li modiicC.A&cr d.illr€ ir. 8diffi n &€th s*{sl st re} ob*ncd a: ;}r lt*hkr! ad€eoI ilE tsl.

No. ),Fl{t{ ?i

ChaltErTsoI

letrbl. E*] 13.;?XltX3.5 Lkdfrci}l -d,!ded* r-19*r-Q:-29S

'l!ur !a!'tr salx &s &$ l ri:bSakrd st&e, rr.ll& tleofler *d<hs.ffi*.t rrc&S<dcoritxThr ,rA ht rrt idt oi tlk to.o hn3r$dr$iihg patt s *hattast*mokvisuJtrr mo,ll&<d.

ito .i Cholrycr *<tr!!r 6t$ 11.5X9_:^K: Unrird* And.3ita x-19t1-Q2-3S"

A lrbbla der ritE* 5$to ot axmdutr tw bem intmilorr*.11'mqdlicd. Tlra tdel t6r s.s$ &riP tltlG 1re!Ci6.d !8.{$n sd M}lndffiugktobrh,{dtnthelmdfsc?*Er l€xr. lrsr*tia5

.\o t1Fl*r ii

ChriS*!?$ol

Scbbk CE 1:.3.t( t0 x.r..5 iin:hdrI .4rdc$ts x-xg*x-Q!r.it

Iffirlxffito! #noe&5D.g8nl<rd.. T)drdop,per bolhs lhed-8.tti!E d!*t-lk strqx Sr a&6'hmdltn5. Tlro d!3unc hEg. *!&.*hnr bxn&mogld &ce fh< &$dedcr oI tlu bd.

Nr.5rgaie 3

ChoFSteEToo]

PEbbL 9X11X{ &ir<rql ,4rrd€ettn x-1tfi-Q3-:fs

Thlr B.!x di 6tff taI ns Htrflak€d atrieett-',eb' enboth :tder Eithc nodfllE t$th na ira*!* ofEtoudr Tha hutt {i i}E ioll r6ilnstl€ F rs* a! t!€ <gtts. :t ha! nomrx proxlmal *dgc ioe h*rdlngec a salthr dliird, rlnk d cd8r 5:

z

A Possible Palaeolithic Site

should be conducted to garner more information. An extensivereconnaissance at the Dahino's property is needed to produce insights onthe prehistory of the area. The presence of Pleistocene fauna must alsobe considered to better understand the palaeontology and palaeoecologyof the area. Artifact morphology and palaeoenvironmental studies coulddeepen our understanding of this area's antiquity. The island of Mindanaohas the potential to yield archaeological evidence of early hominids thatmay have lived in the Philippines, and future archaeological work isimperative for this potential to be realized.

References

Aguilera, M. L. 1980. The Ma-ug Archaeological Site Preliminary Report.NationalMuseum. Manila. Philippines.

Beyer, H. O. 1,947. Outline Review of Philippine Archaeology by Islandsand Provinces. The Philippine I ournal of Science. Yol. 77 . Nos.3-4.

Bolunia, M.J. L. 2006. Personal Communication. National Museum of thePhilippines. P. Burgos St., Manila. Philippines.

Bondoc, N. H. 1979. A Re-Inaestigation of the Espinosa Archaeological SitesCagayan and Kalinga-Apayao. Anthropological Paper no.6. NationalMuseum. Maniia. Philippines.

DENR. 1,999. Cagayan Riaer Watershed Profile. Department of Environmentand Natural Resources (DENR). Region X, Cagayan de Oro City.

De Vos, J. and A. Bautista. 2003. Preliminary Notes on the VertebrateFossils from the Philippines. by Amalia A. de la Torre and Victor J.Paz (eds.). Proceedings of the Society of Philippine Archaeologists.Yol.1. A.V. Diaz Printing. pp.42-62.

Dizon, E.2.2003. New Direct Dating of the Human Fossils from TabonCave, Palawan, Philippines. Amalia A. de la Torre and Victor ).Paz (eds.). Proceedings of the Society of Philippine Archaeologists.Katipunan Arkeologist ng Pilipinas, Inc. (KAPI). pp. 63-67.

Fox, R. B. 7979. The Philippines In Prehistoric Times. Mauro Garcia (ed). IrRendings in Philippine Prehistory . Filipiniana Book Guild, Inc. XXV. 2'dSeries Vol. 1. pp.35-61.

32

Neri

-. 1,970. The Tabon Caues. Monograph of the National Museum Number 1.

Manila, Philippines.

llutterer, K.L.7977. Reinterpreting the Southeast Asian Paleolithic. J. Allen,J. Golson, and R. Jones (eds.). In Sunda anil Sahul: Prehistoric Stuiliesin Southeast Asia, Melanesia anil Australia. Academic Press. London.pp.37-71.

Jocano, L. F. 1975. Philippine Prehistory. Philippine Center for AdvancedStudies. University of the Philippines System. Diliman, QuezonCity. Manila.

Koenigswald, G. H. R. v. 1956. Fossil mammals from the Philippines. NntionalResearch Council of the Philippines. University of the Philippines.Diliman, Quezon City. Manila.

-. 1958. Preliminary Report on a Newly Discovered Stone Age Culturefrom Northern Luzon, Philippine Islands. Asian Perspectioe.Yol 2.pp.69-70.

Mijares, A. S. B. 2005. Unraoelling Prehistory:The Archaeology of North-eastLuzon. A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophyof the Australian National University. Unpublished.

Mijares, A. S. B. 2004. Lithic Analysis of Recent Excavated Tabon CaveFlakes. In Amalia A. de la Torre and Victor J. Paz (eds.). Proceeilingsof the Society of Philippine Archaeologists. Katipunan Arkeologist ngPilipinas, Inc. (KAPI). Vol2. pp. 15-19.

Nc'ri, L. M., V. l. Paz, J. Cayron, J. Belmonte, E. Robles, A. Ragragio, M.Eusebio, V. Hernandez and A. Carlos. 2004. Report of the Cagayande Oro Archaeological Project. Mnnuscript. Cagayan de OroHistorical and Cultural Commission. Cagayan de Oro City.

Paz, Y. I. 2004. Addressing the Redefinition of the Palaeolithic and theNeolithic in the Philippines. In Amalia A. de la Torre and Victor f .

Paz (eds.). Proceeilings of the Society of Philippine Archaeologists.Katipunan Arkeologist ng Pilipinas, Inc. (KAPI). Vol2. pp. 1-14.

['awlik, A. F. and W. P. Ronquillo. 2003. The Palaeolithic in the Philippines.Lithic Technology. Vol. 28. Number 2. pp.79-93.

33

A Possible Palaeolithic Site

Peralta, J. S. 1981. The Philippine Lithic Tradition. Anthropological Papers No.8. National Museum, Manila, Philippines.

Ronquillo, W.2002. Archaeological Survey and Test Excavation of SelectedSites. in The Geomorphology and Geo-Archaeological Reconstructionof Masao-Butuan Plain as Part of the Agusan Rioer Delta, NortheasternMindanao, Philippines. Manuscript. National Museum. Manila.Philippines.

Sajona, F. G., R. C. Maury, M. Pubellier, J. Leterrier, H. Belloru and |. Cotton.2000. Magmatic Source Enrichment by Slab-Derived Melts in aYoung Post-Collision Setting, Central Mindanao (Philippines).Lithos 54:173-206.

Shutler, R. and M. Mathisen.7979. Pleistocene Studies in the CagayanValley of Northern Luzon, Philippines. lournal of the HongkongArchaeological Society 8: L05-114.

Wasson, R. J. and R. M. Cochrane. 1979. Geological and GeomorphologicalPerspectives on Archaeological Sites in the Cagayan Valley,Northern Luzon, the Philippines. Modern Quaternary Research inSoutheast Asia 5:'l-26.

Abstract

Five possible Palaeolithic stone tools were recovered from theHuluga Open Site when the Archaeological Studies Program (ASP)conducted an archaeological survey and excavation in the last quarter of2004 in Cagayan de Oro City. A preliminary analysis was conducted basedon reference and morphology of the archaeological materials. Furtherscientific study and a thorou[h archaeological exploration at the site mayreveal the antiquity of the Huluga Open Site in particular and Mindanao ingeneral.

34

Neri

l'lates 1-5. Possible Palaeolithic tools found at the Huluga OpenSite.(Drawn by Ms. Andrea Malaya M. Ragragio).

I,-.LTIo 'lom

SCALE

Plate 1

35

A Possible Palaeolithic Site

-,\J-I.,Y')

li

,'.i'i.t,n 7'+r. {,

a_:tt!.:-: : . ,\ .'il:,.-., ,r: )i:{.

,tr*P. ,\rl,t,', l;- A,t, I

.. ":.J' ,'.;.'./ ii..;

I:I ,,Ig 10cm

SCALE

Plate 2

.. ,"1;,.,:... f ..

i fl-.-* --111., ?ri:;.

". ; :, ,/':i;' I: .:.".i i '

t,,6ffi'''i'tu',

t\,4 1

!t, :a

",ta, ii\ri

llI---r-Ig 10cm

SCALE

Plate 3

35

S.i iii-iil. / ,tifr:i / 1i,; ., I\-: i

N)-r.; .i, i.. ../

Neri

ItI[I[-Ig 10cm

SCALE

Plate 4

WWft, ', Y-'i;,C r*,.*t_Z.,;.";oi I*r' ,1 I\ iL"i: 'i'i\**-/ \"---HI:*: :_--I0 locm

SCALE

Plate 5