Hunting in a tropical rainforest: evidence from the Terminal Pleistocene at Lobang Hangus, Niah...

International Journal of OsteoarchaeologyInt. J. Osteoarchaeol. 19: 551–565 (2009)Published online 6 July 2009 in Wiley InterScience

046
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/oa.1
* Correspondence to: ArchaPalma Hall, University of thCity, Philippines.e-mail: phil_piper2003@yaho

Copyright # 2009 Joh

Hunting in a Tropical Rainforest:Evidence from the TerminalPleistocene at Lobang Hangus,Niah Caves, Sarawak

P. J. PIPERa* AND R. J. RABETTb

a Archaeological Studies Program, Basement Palma Hall, University of the Philippines,

1101 Diliman, Quezon City, Philippinesb McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge, Downing Street,

Cambridge CB2 3ER, UK

ABSTRACT The Terminal Pleistocene zooarchaeological evidence from Lobang Hangus, an east-facingentrance to the Niah Cave complex, provides unique insights into the hunting habits of thehuman inhabitants of this cave. The composition and structure of the vertebrate accumulationindicates that a variety of locally available terrestrial, arboreal and aquatic taxa were beingexploited. The age structure of the principal predated species, the presence of bone pointsand evidence from modern rainforest hunting combine to suggest that some form of projectileweaponry as well as trapping technologies were probably being employed by the hunters atNiah before the end of the Pleistocene. Copyright � 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Key words: Terminal Pleistocene; hunting; primates; projectile technologies; tropical

rainforest

Introduction

Lobang Hangus (meaning ‘burnt/scorched hole’)is the largest of three east-facing entrances to the9.7 hectare (24 acre) Niah Cave complex. It islocated close to the banks of the Sungai (‘river’)Tangap, a tributary of Sungai Niah, on the west ofthe Gunung Subis limestone massif.

The mouth of Lobang Hangus has an averagefloor to roof height of 24 m and width of c. 30 m,opening onto a steep cliff face c. 43 m above theforest floor (Harrisson, 1966). The walls of thecave are covered in flowstone and the roof has

eological Studies Program, Basemente Philippines, 1101 Diliman, Quezon

o.ie

n Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

abundant stalactites, both indicating that the caveenvironment here was once much wetter than it iscurrently (Barker et al., 2003). The floor extendsback c. 50 m, sloping down towards the interior,before terminating at a vertical, boulder-strewndrop-off area over two and half metres high. Aladder is required in order to climb up to themouth at this end from inside the neighbouringcavern, although it is accessible this way. The environ-ment outside this part of Niah Cave differs from thatadjoining the West Mouth in that it consists ofswamp forest, rather than typical lowland rainforest,dominated by Dipterocarpacae. The ground here isoften soft and unstable underfoot and is prone toperiodic flooding (Harrisson, 1966). Despite thisand the difficult ascent up the cliff, we nonethelesspresume that this was probably the more likely point

Received 4 November 2006Revised 26 September 2008

Accepted 2 October 2008

552 P. J. Piper and R. J. Rabett

of access in the past, since it does not require along trek through the dark, cavernous interiorof Niah – although this, of course, remainsspeculation.

Lobang Hangus has produced one of the best-preserved and best-excavated zooarchaeologicalassemblages recovered by Tom and BarbaraHarrisson at Niah. This original assemblage hasnow been supplemented by an additional smallsample excavated from behind a rock-fall by theNiah Cave Project (NCP) team in 2003 (seeBarker et al., 2003). The combined assemblagefrom the Harrisson excavations and the NCPinvestigations has produced 9928 bone fragmentsthat can be attributed securely to the TerminalPleistocene and Early Holocene.

Following analysis of the Lobang Hangus data,it has been possible to combine zooarchaeolo-gical results with information on extant speciesecology, osseous technology and modern hunt-ing analogies, in order to identify some of thelikely hunting techniques used by foragers duringthe Terminal Pleistocene in this part of Borneo.

Figure 1. Excavations in progress at Lobang Hangus in 1permission of Sarawak Museum.

Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Archaeology and chronology ofLobang Hangus

Tom Harrisson and a team from Sarawak Museum,Kuching, excavated Lobang Hangus during twoseasons of fieldwork in 1959 and 1965. In theirexcavation, the cave entrance was subdividedinto 31 100 � 100 (3.05� 3.05 m) grid squares,labelled US/1 to US/31 (Figures 1 and 2). Most ofthese grid squares were excavated in 600 (0.15 m)spits to varying depths, dependent on whetherbedrock or archaeologically sterile sedimentaryhorizons were reached.

On-site investigation in 2003 determined thatremnants of Tom Harrisson’s north–south andeast–west aligned baulks still survived. Oncethese had been cleaned back, it was possible toascertain the true nature of the stratigraphicsequence of deposits he had excavated. The mostuseful of these was the east–west profile thatseparated the trenches US/22 and US/18 fromtrenches US/17b and US/21b (Figure 3). During

959 (view from west to east). Reproduced with the kind

Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 19: 551–565 (2009)DOI: 10.1002/oa

Figure 2. The layout of the Harrisson 100 � 100 (c. 3� 3 m) trenches in the entrance to Lobang Hangus. All of the trenchesshaded grey were excavated in 1959 and the animal bones were studied for this project. Trenches US/1 to US/4 at the veryfront of the cave were never included in Tom Harrisson’s trench diagram, and there is no evidence that any of them wasever excavated.

Hunting in a Tropical Rainforest 553

his campaign here, Harrisson had painted a redmark across one of the larger boulders at the eastend of US/22, marking the original ground-levelbefore he started digging. Fortunately, the NCPteam was able to locate this crucial marker andthis allowed us to correlate Harrisson’s spit depthswith the archaeological contexts we had ident-ified across the western end of the site. Finally,photographic records of the original excavation,held at the Sarawak Museum, and our study of thesurviving baulks on-site showed that the cave’sdeposits were located principally in a shallow depres-sion towards the centre of the cave entrance.

Armed now with a clear understanding of thestratigraphy, re-analysis of the material remainsshowed that there had been three distinct phasesof on-site activity at Lobang Hangus, each ofwhich probably represented the accumulation ofseveral cycles of return occupation. The upperlayers, designated layers (1006) and (1007), con-sisted of soft, medium reddish-brown silts andclays containing small amounts of animal bone,shell and small fragments of ceramic (Phase III).An AMS 14C date on charcoal from equivalentdeposits in the baulk demarcating the northernedge of the excavations produced a date of


1280� 27 (uncal.) bp (OxA-13937). Below thiswere layers (1008) and (1009), also of mid-reddish-brown silts and clays, but also containingsome sand, small and large fragments of angularlimestone, freshwater gastropods, land snails andlarge numbers of bones. Layer (1008) corre-sponds to a Harrisson depth of 12–1800 (0.30–0.46 m) below the 1959 ground level (at the westend): the point of transition between the ceramic-bearing deposits and the underlying aceramichorizons. According to the Sarawak Museumteam, these were separated by a thin layer of‘limestone rubble’. The NCP determined that theupper surface of (1008) indeed contained arelatively high concentration of small angularlimestone fragments. This clear division appar-ently marks the start of sediment accumulationduring the Late Holocene.

A second AMS 14C date was taken from charcoalobtained from the base of (1009), in what wouldhave been the north section of Trench US/22, at anequivalent depth to and in the same depositsas Harrisson’s 24–3000 (0.61–0.76 m) spit. Thissample yielded a date of 12 500� 50 (uncal.) bp(OxA-13936), marking the second, and mostintensive, phase of occupation at Lobang Hangus


Fig

ure

3.

The

south

-facin

gp

rofile

betw

een

trenches

US

/22

and

US

/11

(south

)and

US

/17(b

)and

US

/21(b

)(n

ort

h)

show

ing

the

diffe

rent

str

atig

rap

hic

horizons

identified

during

the

NC

Pin

vestig

ations

of

Lob

ang

Hang

us.

14C

assays

on

charc

oal

from

the

base

of

layer

(1009)

and

from

(1035)

retu

rned

date

sof

12

500�

50

(uncal.)

bp

(OxA

-13936)

and

32

660�

210

(uncal.)

bp

(OxA

-13938)

resp

ectively

.

Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 19: 551–565 (2009)DOI: 10.1002/oa



(Phase II) that also included the underlyingdeposit designated (1010).

Below (1010), a period of activity (Phase I) couldbe ascribed to two further contexts. (1034) and(1035) are two mid- to light-greyish brown siltyclays containing just a few fragments of bone. Acharcoal sample in layer (1035) – which lay close tothe base of the Harrisson excavation at 48–5400

(1.22–1.37 m) – produced a final AMS 14C date of32 660� 210 (uncal.) bp (OxA-13938).

Figure 4. (a) The distribution of animal bones by number of i(b) The distribution of animal bones by number of individualdistribution of animal bones by number of individual fragmenposition of NCP 14C dates on charcoal (�date transposed fro


The spatial distribution of animal bonesindicates that the highest concentration wasdeposited across the aceramic horizons, (1008),(1009) and (1010), which lay on a slight east–west incline, apparent through the sequentialchange of depth at which the highest concen-trations of bone occurred in adjacent trenches –US/14 to US/26 (Figure 2, Figure 4a–c).

In 1959 all of the excavated animal bones werereturned to Sarawak Museum for study. Unfortu-

ndividual fragments and weight recorded in Trench US/14.fragments and weight recorded in Trench US/18. (c) Thets and weight recorded in Trench US/22. Includes relativem the baulk demarcating the northern extent of the site).



nately, logistical restrictions in 1965 meant thatTom Harrisson collected only those bone fragmentshe deemed identifiable by Lord Medway (nowEarl of Cranbrook V), a zoologist who had beenstudying the animal bones from Niah since 1957(see Medway, 1958, 1966). This selection ofspecific identifiable skeletal elements has inevi-tably biased the 1965 assemblage, and it is there-fore excluded from most parts of the NCP analysis.

In addition to the re-analysis of the Harrissonexcavation, the NCP also excavated two smalltest trenches of its own. The purpose of these wasto assess the archaeological potential of intactdeposits peripheral to where Harrisson had dug.One of these trenches (Test Pit A) was excavatedin an area towards the interior of the cave, to thewest of the Harrisson excavation. It revealed theexistence of a sequence of archaeological depositscomparable to that in the centre of the cave. Theupper sedimentary horizons consisted of thinlayers of reddish-brown silty clays containingsmall riverine shells, fragments of bone andceramics. At the base of the sequence, around 0.4m below the modern (2003) ground level, weretwo layers of reddish-brown clayey silt contain-ing high concentrations of animal bone and somelarge angular fragments of limestone. Radio-carbon assays on charcoal from these lower layersproduced dates of 10 450� 45 (uncal.) bp (OxA-13939) and 10 720� 75 (uncal.) bp (OxA-14038)respectively (Piper et al., in prep.). This suggests aTerminal Pleistocene or Early Holocene date forthe deposition of this archaeological assemblage.The increase in human activity at Lobang Hangusat the Terminal Pleistocene corresponds wellwith similar patterns of intensification of use inthe West Mouth. The deepest deposit excavatedhere had accumulated on top of a limestoneflowstone – no attempt was made to breakthrough this crust and investigate the characterand possible content of sediments that may havelain beneath it.

Bone assemblages from LobangHangus

In the areas excavated by the Sarawak Museumteam, animal bones tended to be concentratedwithin a single 600 (0.15 m) spit in trenches US/10


and US/14, towards the entrance, and showedgreater vertical thickness further inside the cave(US/18 & US/22), indicating that there wasconsiderable infilling here and perhaps deliberateefforts to keep debris away from the cave mouth(Figure 4a–c). In total, the authors studied 9928animal bones from Lobang Hangus, of which 3136were identifiable to Family or higher taxonomiclevel. The list includes at least 50 taxa from 27families of large and intermediate-sized mammals,birds and reptiles (Table 1). Physically, the faunalassemblage was in good condition, with excellentsurvival of intact cortical bone, and with it surfacemodification marks such as butchery traces (Piperet al., 2008). Both juveniles and adults of particulartaxa were present in varying proportions,depending on whether they had been targetedby the human hunters (see below).

Associated with the animal bones were num-erous bone and tusk tools (Harrisson & Medway,1962; Rabett, 2005; Piper et al., 2008; Reynoldset al., in prep.); 8.4% (n¼ 7/83) of these artefactswere recovered from the ceramic levels (0–1200) ofPhase III. The middle levels, between 1200 and 3600

(Phase II), contained the remaining 91.6%(n¼ 76/83) of artefacts, although owing to theslight incline in the deposits, one piece recoveredfrom 30–3600 towards the front of the cave, in US/14, may date from Phase III.

Spatially, approximately half of the totalnumber of bone artefacts from Phase II camefrom two locations. The first concentration lay intrenches US/14, US/15 and US/19 at 12–2400

(0.3–0.61 m) and accounted for 42.1% (n¼ 32/76) of the entire tool assemblage. The secondconcentration came from trenches further back inthe cave (US/26 and US/27) and at a slightlylower level, 24–3000 (0.61–0.76 m), although,owing to the deposit incline, these are very likelyfrom the same phase of occupation. Material inthis deposit accounts for a further 9.2% of tools(n¼ 7/76). Five pieces (6.6% of the Phase II total)were found in the 30–3600 spit in the line oftrenches US/14 to US/26 and from US/23. Themajority of these latter pieces probably derivefrom the base of the second concentration. Theremaining 42.1% of the bone artefacts attributedto Phase II were distributed around these twoconcentrations at lower densities that mayconstitute evidence for some form of ‘toss-zone’


Table 1. The vertebrate taxa identified in the Terminal Pleistocene bone assemblages that were probably hunted by thehuman inhabitants of the caves (including the human remains)

Class Order Family Taxon Common name

Pisces Siluriformes Ariidae Arius sp(p). CatfishCyprinidae Cyprinidae Cyprinidae Carp

Reptilia Testudines Geoemydidae Cyclemys dentata Asian leaf turtleHeosemys spinosa Spiny hill turtleNotochelys platynota Malayan flat-shelled turtle

Testudinidae Manouria emys Asian brown tortoiseTrionychidae Amyda cartilaginea Asian soft-shelled turtle

Dogania subplana Malaysian soft-shelled turtleVaranidae Varanus cf. salvator Water monitor

Squamata� Boidae Python reticulatus Reticulated pythonCrocodylia Crocodylidae Crocodillus cf. porosus Estuarine crocodile

Aves�� Falconiformes Accipitridae Macheiramphus alcinus BathawkHaliastar indus Brahminy kitecf. Accipiter trivirgatus Crested goshawkcf. Ictinaetus malayensis Black eagleSpizeatus sp. Hawk eagle

Strigiformes Strigidae Bubo ketupa Buffy fish owlStrix leptogrammica Brown wood owl

Mammalia Insectivora Erinaceidae Echinosorex gymnurus MoonratPrimates Cercopithecidae Macaca fascicularis Long-tailed macaque

Macaca nemestrina Pig-tailed macaquePresbytis (presbytis) sp(p). Leaf monkey (not silvered langur)Presbytis cristata Silvered langur

Hylobatidae Hylobates cf. muelleri Bornean gibbonPongidae Pongo pygmaeus OrangutanHominidae Homo sapiens Human

Pholidota Manidae Manis javanica PangolinRodentia Hystricidae cf. Hystrix brachyura Common porcupine

Trichys fasciculata Long-tailed porcupineSciuridae Petauristinae sp(p). Flying squirrel

Ratufa affinis Giant squirrelCarnivora Ursidae Helarctos malayanus Sun bear

Mustelidae Aonyx (Amblonyx) cinera Oriental small-clawed otterMartes flavigula Yellow-throated martin

Viverridae Arctictis binturong BinturongArctogalidia trivirgata Small-toothed palm civetHemigalus cf. derbyanus Banded palm civetHerpestes spp. MongoosePaguma larvata Masked palm civetParadoxurus hermaphroditus Common palm civetViverra tangalunga Malay civet

Felidae Felis bengalensis Leopard catFelis cf. planiceps Flat-headed catNeofelis diardi Clouded leopard

Perissodactyla Rhinocerotidae Dicerorhinus sumatrensis Sumatran rhinocerosArtiodactyla Suidae Sus cf. barbatus Bearded pig

Tragulidae Tragulus cf. napu Greater mouse deerCervidae Cervus unicolor Sambar deer

Muntiacus cf. muntjac MuntjacBovidae Bos sp. Cattle

� There are almost certainly more snake taxa present in the assemblage, but this difficult Order was not studied in anydetail.�� All raptor taxa were identified by Christopher Stimpson and reproduced here with his permission (see Stimpson,2009).

Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 19: 551–565 (2009)DOI: 10.1002/oa



around activity areas. When considered together,these different components of the bone assem-blage (especially that from the Phase II occu-pation) begin to provide an indication of some ofthe hunting techniques being used by the foragerswho were coming to Lobang Hangus during theTerminal Pleistocene and Early Holocene.

Defining hunting practices atLobang Hangus

Arboreal game

Minimum numbers of individuals (MNI) andnumber of identifiable specimens (NISP) valuesshow a slight predominance of taxa adapted toarboreal and arboreal/terrestrial lifestyles in theLobang Hangus assemblage (Figure 5), withmonkeys (Cercopithecidae) being numericallythe most important prey (Figure 6).

In modern Southeast Asia, monkeys inhabit avariety of lowland tropical rainforest, coastal man-groves, forest edge or open woodland environments(Lekagul & McNeely, 1988; Morrogh-Bernard et al.,2003). Variation in the frequency of monkeys (andto a lesser extent apes) in the Lobang Hangusmidden probably reflects their relative abundance in

Figure 5. The numbers of identified specimens (NISP) of teTerminal Pleistocene/Early Holocene deposits at Lobang Hanskeletal elements that could be identified in all the taxa beterrestrial turtles, other reptiles and raptors were excluded frthe mammal faunas (total NISP¼ 1453).


the local environment around Niah Cave, as well asdifferences in their individual ecologies and beha-viours. For example, under modern conditions themost locally abundant species of primate, the long-tailed or crab-eating macaque (Macaca fascicularis),forms large troops that spend a considerable amountof time in low scrub or on the ground, often con-gregating along the edge of river banks at dusk anddawn (Aldrich-Blake, 1980). Leaf monkeys (Presbytisspp.) also form troops of varying sizes, but theyrarely descend to the ground, preferring the protec-tion of the tree canopy (Supriatna et al., 1986; GlynDavies et al., 1988). Orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus) issimilarly reluctant to come to the ground, but unlikethe leaf monkeys, they are generally solitary or formsmall family groups. In addition, they have largerhome ranges and have modern population densitiesthat rarely exceed 2–4 individuals per km2 (Mor-rogh-Bernard et al., 2003). Finally, the gibbon(Hylobates cf. muelleri), an extremely agile ape, is welladapted to life high in the canopy of maturerainforest. Gibbons live in small family groups of oneadult male, one female (with two or three young),and commonly with home ranges between 20 and30 ha (Payne & Francis, 1998). Thus, from evidenceof extant group behaviour, macaques and leafmonkeys are likely to have been encountered morefrequently, they venture closer to the ground and

rrestrial, semi-arboreal and arboreal taxa recorded in thegus. Zooarchaeological quantification only includes thoseing compared (following Lyman, 2008). The aquatic andom the quantification due to problems of comparison with


Figure 6. The minimum number of individuals (MNI) of semi-arboreal and arboreal primates and viverrids identified inthe Terminal Pleistocene/Early Holocene archaeological record at Lobang Hangus (total MNI¼ 63; after Piper et al.,2008).


live at greater population densities than either of theapes, making them much more viable targets forgeneral subsistence purposes.

Given that the absolute occurrence of Cerco-pithecidae at Lobang Hangus is likely to be areflection of their availability, a more robustindication of deliberate prey selection is found byexamining population structure: specifically, acomparison of the age ranges in nature and thearchaeological sample. In this way, the approxi-mate age structure of the Cercopithecidaepopulation at Lobang Hangus was calculatedusing dental maturity (eruption and progressivedental wear) and epiphysial fusion of the proximaland distal ends of humeri and femora. Thepopulation was subdivided into three categories:adult, subadult and juvenile. Comparison againstpublished data on the composition of macaqueand leaf monkey troops in wild populationssuggests that a higher than expected proportionof adult monkeys is present in the Pleistocenemidden: 89% compared with 53–66% in moderncommunities (data taken from Aldrich-Blake,1980; Hunt Curtin, 1980; Wheatley, 1980;Glyn Davies, 1994). The age structure of theadult population, calculated from tooth wearprofiles developed by the present authors, shows


there to be a predominance of ‘younger’ adults, asmight be expected in a hunted population, asopposed to one containing high numbers of oldadults that have died through natural attrition(Figure 7). Several humeri lacking the distalepiphysial end were also identified (n¼ 7/64 or10%). In Rhesus macaques (Macaca mullata), thedistal epiphysis of the humerus has been shown tofuse when an individual is two or three years ofage (Cheverud, 1981; King, 2004). Workcompiled by Hill (1974) for M. mullata and thelarger Japanese macaque M. fuscata showed thatcoalescence begins at around nine months andthe distal humerus is completely fused by twoyears. It is very probable that M. fascicularis followsa similar developmental trajectory, and fusion canbe expected to occur in this species at betweentwo to three years of age. This would mean that inaddition to younger adults, a small number ofjuveniles, aged less than two years, were alsotaken by the hunters coming to Lobang Hangus.

Terrestrial game

Most of the large-bodied ungulates inhabitingBorneo during the Pleistocene were identified in


Figure 7. The tooth wear stages of adult Cercopithecidae recorded in the Lobang Hangus Terminal Pleistocene primateassemblage. 1 being unworn and 9 heavily worn. The data show a slight predominance of ‘younger’ adults.


the vertebrate assemblage from Lobang Hangus.These included a species of cattle, possiblybanteng (Bos javanicus), sambar deer (Cervusunicolor), Sumatran rhinoceros (Dicerorhinus suma-trensis) and clouded leopard (Neofelis diardi).However, they are represented by a total of just11 bone and tooth fragments between them.Butchery of a Bos sp. left ulna indicates that thesetaxa were hunted (or scavenged?) within thevicinity of the cave, but it is clear that theycontributed very little to the human diet – or atleast in the actions of human refuse deposition asevidenced at this cave. Instead, the hunting ofterrestrial game appears to have concentrated onthe mid-sized but much more abundant beardedpig (Sus barbatus) (Figure 5). Bearded pigs travel insocial groups of varying sizes, migrating througha home range, taking advantage of various foodresources as they become available (Caldecott,n.d.; Pfeffer & Caldecott, 1986). Compared withthe other, larger terrestrial ungulates, theabundant pigs are also likely to have beenencountered much more frequently and readilyin the forests around Niah as this species is knownto follow (and themselves create) clearly definedtrails. That said, element representation indicatesthat there is a good chance that entire pigcarcasses were being brought back to the cave.This suggests that pig hunting and processing


strategies may well have been different to thoseapplied to other large game.

The old Penan tradition of keeping pigmandibles as hunt trophies has provided an idealmeans by which to estimate the age structure ofone recent local pig population killed byblowpipe hunting (Cranbrook & Labang, 2003).Examination of these mandibles revealed that thePenan only targeted adult or aged pigs, irrespec-tive of sex. These results contrast markedly withresults of the age profiling of pigs (following Bull& Payne, 1982; Rolett & Chui, 1994) recoveredfrom Lobang Hangus, where juvenile, subadultand adult pigs are all represented in the midden(Figure 8). This difference suggests that con-spicuous selection for adult pigs was not a featureof Late Pleistocene hunting at Niah.

In sum, these data suggest that particular agecohorts of Cercopithecidae (notably youngadults) were deliberately targeted and broughtto Lobang Hangus. The presence of juvenilemonkeys possibly results from hunters targetingadult females with the very young still clinging tothem (Hongo, personal communication). Theeating of large terrestrial game appears to havefeatured only minimally, with the exception ofpigs. As with the primates, this bias is likely tohave been at least partly a product of differingencounter rates; however differences in element


Figure 8. The approximate age at death of pigs in the Terminal Pleistocene assemblages from Lobang Hangus. Thevery fragmentary nature of the bones and isolated teeth precludes more accurate age profiling of the pig community.The data indicate that one individual was recorded as being less than six months of age at the time of death, with anotherless than one year. Six more individuals were recorded as being less than two years old, and 11 in total over 2.5 years(MNI¼ 19). Ageing data for the bearded pig does not exist, therefore the approximate age at death of the pig communitywas calculated using known data on the Eurasian wild boar (Sus scrofa) (after Bull & Payne, 1982).


representation do suggest that the hunting of pigsmay have followed a specific set of huntingstrategies that set it apart from other largemammals. Unlike the primate data, there is noevidence of age-selective hunting practices whenit comes to the pigs. Differences in huntingtechnique are implied by the data and would havebeen necessary in order to deal with the habitatpreferences of individual taxa.

Hunting strategies

In recent centuries, the blowpipe appears to havebeen the most effective method of huntingprimates (e.g. Noone, 1955; Rambo, 1978;Endicott, 1984), although the gregarious andinquisitive behaviour and rather catholic diet ofthe macaque makes it susceptible to entrapment(P. Piper, personal observations). Certainly itseems likely, from the ecology of the gibbon andorangutan in particular, that successful huntingwould have required the use of accurate rangeweapons. The blowpipe has also been the tradi-tional range weapon of choice against pigs and


other arboreal and arboreal/terrestrial vertebratesin Borneo in the recent past. Blowpipe darts areusually made from degradable plant products, suchas the leaf stalks of sago (Evans, 1937).

In light of this, it is significant that the archaeo-logical record from the Terminal to early Post-Pleistocene at Lobang Hangus is very wellrepresented by osseous artefacts. Several modi-fied fragments in this assemblage almost certainlyconstitute debris from bone-tool production acti-vity, indicating that tool manufacture was probablytaking place within the cave (Piper et al., 2008),possibly in the two areas indicated.

Of the 83 bone fragments in the LobangHangus assemblage (Harrisson & Medway, 1962;Medway, 1966; Piper et al., in prep.; Reynoldset al., in prep.), all available pieces (n¼ 65) werere-studied by the NCP for surface modification.These included: 38 point-forms, two edge-formtools, and 25 worked/modified fragments of boneor pig tusk. When categorised, a total of 47.3%(n¼ 18/38) of the point-forms fell into toolclasses that were defined by combinations ofsurface modification that appear on bone pro-jectile points (following observations in Guthrie,1983; Rabett, 2002; also see Reynolds et al.,



in prep.). This does not prove that many of theLobang Hangus point-forms were used asprojectiles; however, it does provide solid andobjective grounds for such an interpretation,based on extensive comparative studies withethnographic and experimental material carriedout by one of us (RR). Further support comes fromtwo worked bone fragments in the LobangHangus collection that bore characteristicsclearly consistent with a prepared single-bevelledhafting surface (see Barton et al., in prep.). Finetransverse striations, similar to those caused bytiny abrasive particles moving within a toolbinding (Rabett, 2002), were also identified onthe cortical surface of one of these pieces.

The implication is that these point fragmentsare likely to represent the broken tips of projectilepoints, making the two concentrations of arte-facts potentially re-tooling areas, where arma-tures were repaired or even removed from gamethat was in the process of being butchered.

Other evidence from the West Mouth of NiahCave (Reynolds et al., in prep.) provides verycredible evidence of a developed projectile tech-nology by the Early Holocene. The presence ofsuch artefacts in close association with an assem-blage of predominantly arboreal taxa – some ofthem strictly so – at Lobang Hangus, representssome of the best evidence that a tradition ofprojectile technology may have been available tohuman groups in Borneo before the Holocene(Piper et al., 2008). It is at present, however, stillunclear whether raptors represented in the LobangHangus fauna are the result of human predation orthe result of natural accumulation (see Stimpson,2009). Birds of prey and hornbills are of significantsocial and ideological importance throughoutBorneo, with the feathers and skulls being usedin the production of headdresses and other materialculture (Bennett et al., 1997).

In terms of large terrestrial game, pig-huntingby modern indigenous human populations inBorneo, prior to the introduction of the shotgun,was generally undertaken with packs of dogs(Sloan, 1975). There is currently, however, nosubstantiated evidence of domestic dogs in Borneoprior to the Mid–Late Holocene (Clutton-Brock,1959), although Cranbrook (1988) did report onthe remains of a canid, possibly dhole (Cuon alpinus),recovered from deposits 14C dated to around


10 kya at Agop Sarapad, Madai Caves, Sabah. Thusuntil the absence of domestic dogs in Borneoduring the Early Holocene is verified, their usageshould not be totally discounted.

A plausible alternative hunting method, how-ever, is trapping. A variety of traps constructed bythe indigenous peoples of Borneo and other partsof island and mainland Southeast Asia are used tocatch pigs and other terrestrial vertebrates. Theseinclude noose and leg snares, pit traps, baitedtraps and spear traps (e.g. Low, 1848; Alvard, 2000).

Age profiling of the few rhinoceros and tapirbones from archaeological sites in Borneo haveshown that almost all those skeletal elements thatcan be aged are from juvenile or subadultindividuals (Cranbrook & Piper, 2007, 2009).Cranbrook and Piper (2007, 2009) have arguedthat the age bias observed in the Perissodactylamight be related to inadvertent trapping of youngand/or naıve animals in traps set for pigs – theadults being too big, bulky and/or wily to becaught. Other smaller ungulates are also knownto take advantage of the tracks produced by pigs,and this may at least go some of the way toexplain the small numbers of other terrestrial taxarepresented in the assemblage (Table 1).

Other intermediate-sized mammal taxa repre-sented in the Lobang Hangus assemblage, such asthe Felids (e.g. leopard cat) and Viverrids (e.g.binturong and masked palm civet), not only havethe predilection of being arboreal, but are generallyactive at night. These taxa can be encounteredduring the daytime and killed using the blowpipe(Sloan, 1972), or, as the Semang of the MalayPeninsula do, sought out whilst asleep in their nestholes (Hongo, personal communication). Never-theless, the frequency of predominantly noctur-nal taxa in quite large numbers in the archae-ological record suggests that the TerminalPleistocene visitors to Lobang Hangus wereactively hunting during the night as well as inthe daytime. Contemporary hunting at nightnormally requires the use of a light beam that isfocused on the reflective retinas of the prey(‘lamping’). Such a tactic is not possible usingdiffuse undirected light sources such as burningtorches, and it must be assumed that a remotehunting method after dark was employed. Cer-tainly, the presence of adults, subadults andjuveniles (Medway, 1966) possibly indicates that



a hunting technique that was unselective for preysize and age was being implemented. There arenumerous ingenious types of trap employed by thepeoples of Borneo to capture small and intermedi-ate-sized nocturnal prey. These types of trap can bequite specialised and include noose snares and legtraps constructed on the boughs and branches oftrees (e.g. Sloan, 1972). The presence of omnivoresand carnivores including monitor lizards in thearchaeological assemblage might also indicate thatbaited traps were employed.

The presence of freshwater catfish and carpsand hard- and soft-shelled turtles also indicatethat a range of aquatic environments were beingexploited during the Terminal Pleistocene toEarly Holocene (see Piper et al., 2008, for discussion).

Conclusion

A combination of the analysis of the animal boneassemblage, on-site archaeological investigationsand study of the archival records have providedevidence for the spatial and temporal patterningof human activity at Lobang Hangus. The mostintensive and extensive human activity appears tohave occurred during the Terminal Pleistoceneand Early Holocene (Phase II), when a large boneassemblage in association with osseous tools,shells and other material culture accumulated inthe cave entrance (Barton et al., in prep.). Anotable lack of hearths or fires in the cave may bean indication that daily domestic activities wereprobably not taking place within the entranceitself. However, the few burnt bones discoveredin the cave imply that people were certainlycooking meals in the immediate vicinity, possiblybeneath the rock overhang along the cavefrontage where deposits have been eroded away.Activities in the cave appear to have included thedisarticulation of animal carcasses and theproduction of osseous tools, with the deeperinterior used primarily for the discard of waste.

The faunal assemblage shows considerabletaxonomic diversity. Although no single taxonwas targeted as a specialised resource base,primates and pigs did figure prominently, at leastpartly due to their availability in the locallandscape. The evidence suggests that early


hunters coming to Lobang Hangus used a rangeof techniques to capture game that had beha-vioural and ecological adaptations to variousterrestrial, semi-arboreal and aquatic ecosystems.

From the age-at-death profiles of the primatesand the presence of a range of other arboreal taxain association with bone projectile points, itappears that one hunting innovation available tothe hunters at Niah was some form of rangetechnology. It is possible that this was a bow andarrow, although this remains to be refuted orcorroborated by future research. However, itsparticular antiquity within the tropics would be inkeeping with the pronounced vertical distributionof resources that distinguishes hunting in thistype of environment from most others. Forterrestrial and nocturnal game, trapping mayhave been the primary technique of capture. It is afeature of traps that once constructed they mustbe regularly checked and maintained. This levelof commitment may be an indication that siteresidency at Lobang Hangus lasted for severaldays at a time, if not longer. Taken together,these strands of evidence begin to reveal the truecomplexity of early tropical hunting practices inthe rainforests of Island Southeast Asia.

Acknowledgements

Our thanks to Chris Stimpson for allowing us topublish a list of the raptor remains recovered fromLobang Hangus in this paper (see Stimpson,2009). We would also like to thank Jo Cooper,Head of Birds at Tring, Natural History MuseumLondon, for access to the comparative collectionsin her care. Many thanks to Haji Sanib Haji binSaid and Ipoi Datan of the Sarawak Museum,Kuching, for permitting access to the Niah Cavevertebrate remains. Our gratitude also to John deVos for access to the collection of vertebrateremains from Niah Caves held in the Paleontol-ogy section, Naturalis, Leiden; Daphne Hill, PaulaJenkins, Louise Tomsett and Richard Sabin of theNatural History Museum, London; Dr Smeenk(Mammals) and Dr Arntzen (Reptiles) of Naturalis;and Dr Pritchard of the Chelonian Institute,Florida, for permission to study comparativematerial. Special thanks to the Earl of Cranbrook



for all his support and expert advice, and GraemeBarker, Director of the Niah Caves Project. PhilipPiper would like to thank the Leverhulme Trust,and Ryan Rabett the Templeton Foundation, forfunding the authors during the preparation of thispaper.

References

Aldrich-Blake FPG. 1980. Long-tailed macaques. InMalayan Forest Primates, Chivers DJ (ed.). Plenum:New York; 147–162.

Alvard M. 2000. The impact of traditional subsistencehunting and trapping on prey populations: datafrom Wana horticulturalists of upland central Sula-wesi, Indonesia. In Hunting for Sustainability in TropicalForests, Robinson JG, Bennett EL (eds). Columbia:New York; 214–230.

Barker G, Barton H, Bird M, Cole F, Daly P, Dykes A,Farr L, Gilbertson D, Higham T, Hunt C, Knight S,Kurui E, Lewis H, Lloyd-Smith L, Manser J, McLa-ren S, Menotti F, Piper P, Pyatt B, Rabett R,Reynolds T, Shimmin J, Thompson G, TricketM. 2003. The Niah Cave Project: the fourth(2003) season of fieldwork. Sarawak Museum Journal58 (79 New Series): 45–120.

Barton H, Piper PJ, Rabett RJ, Reynolds T. In prep.Later Pleistocene foragers c. 35,000–12,000 yearsago. In Rainforest Foraging and Farming in Island SoutheastAsia: The Archaeology and Environmental History of theNiah Caves, Sarawak, Vol. 1, Barker G, Gilbertson D,Reynolds T (eds). McDonald Institute and SarawakMuseum Monograph: Cambridge.

Bennett E, Nyaoi J, Sompud J. 1997. Hornbills (Bucerosspp.) and culture in northern Borneo: can they con-tinue to co-exist? Biological Conservation 82: 41–46.

Bull G, Payne S. 1982. Tooth eruption and epiphysialfusion in pigs and wild boar. In Aging and Sexing AnimalBones from Archaeological Sites, Wilson B, Grigson C,Payne S (eds). BAR British Series 10: Oxford;55–72.

Caldecott J. n.d. Ecology of the Bearded Pig Sus barbatusbarbatus in Sarawak. Unpublished report for theNational Parks and Wildlife Service, Sarawak ForestDepartment.

Cheverud JM. 1981. Epiphyseal union and dentaleruption in Macaca mulatta. American Journal of PhysicalAnthropology 56: 157–167.

Clutton-Brock J. 1959. Niah’s Neolithic dog. SarawakMuseum Journal 8 (13–14 New Series): 143–145.

Cranbrook, Earl of. 1988. The contribution of archae-ology to the zoogeography of Borneo, with the first


record of a wild canid of early Holocene age.Fieldiana 1385, Zoology 12 (New Series): 1–7.

Cranbrook, Earl of, Labang D. 2003. Bearded pigs (Susbarbatus): tooth-wear and aging wild populations inSarawak. Sarawak Museum Journal 58 (79 NewSeries): 163–182.

Cranbrook, Earl of, Piper P. 2007. Sarawak throughthe ice ages to present time: environmental changeand human impacts on the past and presentdistribution of mammals. In Proceedings of the RegionalConference of Biodiversity Conservation in TropicalPlanted Forests in Southeast Asia, 15–18 January, 2007.Stuebing R, Unggang J, Ferner J, Ferner J, Giman B,Ping KK (eds). Forest Department, SarawakForestry Corporation, Grand Perfec Sdn Bhd.:Kuching; 75–92.

Cranbrook, Earl of, Piper PJ. 2009. Borneo records ofMalay tapir, Tapirus indicus Desmarest: a zooarch-aeological and historical review. International Journalof Osteoarchaeology. DOI: 10.1002/oa.1015

Endicott K. 1984. The economy of the Batek of Malaysia:annual and historical perspectives. Research inEconomic Anthropology 6: 29–52.

Evans IHN. 1937. The Negritos of Malaya. CambridgeUniversity Press: Cambridge.

Glyn Davies A. 1994. Colobine populations. In Colo-bine Monkeys: Their Ecology, Behaviour and Evolution,Glyn Davies A, Oakes JF (eds). Cambridge Univer-sity Press: Cambridge; 285–309.

Glyn Davies A, Bennett EL, Waterman PG. 1988.Food selection by two South-east Asian colobinemonkeys (Presbytis rubicunda and Presbytis melalophos)in relation to plant chemistry. Biological Journal of theLinnean Society 34: 33–56.

Guthrie RD. 1983. Osseous projectile points: bio-logical considerations affecting raw material selec-tion and design among Paleolithic and Paleoindianpeoples. In Animals and Archaeology 1: Hunters and TheirPrey, Clutton-Brock J, Grigson C (eds). BAR Inter-national Series 16: Oxford; 273–294.

Harrisson T. 1966. Lobang Angus, a frequentationcave at Niah – I. Sarawak Museum Journal 14 (28–29New Series): 217–223.

Harrisson T, Medway Lord. 1962. A first classificationof prehistoric bone and tooth artifacts (based onmaterial from Niah Great Cave). Sarawak MuseumJournal 10 (19–20 New Series): 335–362.

Hill WCO. 1974. Primates: Comparative Anatomy andTaxonomy VII: Cynopithecinae (Cercocebus, Macacacynopithecus). Edinburgh University Press: Edin-burgh.

Hunt Curtin S. 1980. Dusky and banded leaf monkeys.In Malayan Forest Primates, Chivers DJ (ed.). Plenum:New York; 107–146.



King SJ. 2004. Relative timing of ontogenetic eventsin primates. London: Journal of Zoology 264: 267–280.

Lekagul B, McNeely JA. 1988. Mammals of Thailand(2nd edn). Saha Karn Bhaet Company: Bangkok.

Low H. 1848. Sarawak Its Inhabitants and Productions.Richard Bentley: London.

Lyman RE. 2008. Quantitative Paleozoology. CambridgeUniversity Press: Cambridge.

Medway Lord. 1958. Food bone in Niah Cave exca-vations: preliminary report. Sarawak Museum Journal7 (12 New Series): 627–636.

Medway Lord. 1966. Animal remains from LobangAngus, Niah. Sarawak Museum Journal 14 (28–29New Series): 185–216.

Morrogh-Bernard H, Husson S, Page SE, Rieley JO.2003. Population status of the Bornean orangutan(Pongo pygmaeus) in Sebangau peat samp forest,Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Biological Conservation110: 141–152.

Noone HD. 1955. Notes on the trade in blowpipesand blowpipe bamboo in north Malaya. FederationMuseums Journal 1/2: 1–18.

Payne J, Francis CM. 1998. Mammals of Borneo. SabahSociety: Kota Kinabalu.

Pfeffer P, Caldecott J. 1986. The bearded pig in EastKalimantan and Sarawak. Journal of the MalaysianBranch of the Royal Asiatic Society 109(2): 81–100.

Piper PJ, Rabett RJ, bin Kurui E. 2008. Using com-munity, composition and structural variation inTerminal Pleistocene vertebrate assemblages toidentify human hunting behaviour at the NiahCaves, Borneo. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific PrehistoryAssociation 28: 88–98.

Piper PJ, Rabett RJ, Reynolds TEG. In prep. Exca-vations in Lobang Hangus. In The Archaeology of theNiah Caves, Sarawak: Excavations, 1954-2004, Vol. 2,Barker G, Gilbertson D, Reynolds T (eds). McDo-nald Institute and Sarawak Museum Monograph:Cambridge.


Rabett RJ. 2002. Bone Technology and Subsistence Varia-bility in Prehistoric Southeast Asia. Unpublished PhDdissertation, University of Cambridge.

Rabett RJ. 2005. The early exploitation of SoutheastAsian mangroves: bone technology from caves andopen sites. Asian Perspectives 44: 154–179.

Rambo T. 1978. Bows, blowpipes and blunderbusses:Ecological implications of weapons change amongthe Malaysian Negritos. Malayan Nature Journal 32:209–216.

Reynolds T, Barton H, Cole F, Rabett RJ, Szabo K,Thompson G. In prep. Artefacts of stone, shell,bone, tusk, and wood. In The Archaeology of the NiahCaves, Sarawak: Excavations, 1954-2004, Vol. 2, BarkerG, Gilbertson D, Reynolds T (eds). McDonaldInstitute and Sarawak Museum Monograph:Cambridge.

Rolett BV, Chui M. 1994. Age estimation of prehis-toric pigs (Sus scrofa) by molar eruption and attrition.Journal of Archaeological Science 21: 377–386.

Sloan C. 1972. Punan hunting methods. SarawakMuseum Journal 20 (40–41 New Series): 262–269.

Sloan C. 1975. A study of the Punan Busang, II: Punanhunting methods. Malayan Nature Journal 28(3/4):146–151.

Stimpson CM. 2009. Raptor and owl bone from NiahCaves, Sarawak: identifications and morphologicalvariation in the humerus and tarsometatarsus ofselected raptors. International Journal of Osteoarchaeol-ogy. DOI: 10.1002/oa.1047

Supriatna J, Manullang BO, Soekara E. 1986. Groupcomposition, home range, and diet of the maroonleaf monkey (Presbytis rubicunda) at Tanjung PuttingReserve, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Primates 27:185–190.

Wheatley BP. 1980. Feeding and ranging of eastBornean Macaca fascicularis. In The Macaques: Studiesin Ecology, Behaviour and Evolution, Lindburg DG (ed.).Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York; 215–246.


Hunting in a tropical rainforest: evidence from the Terminal Pleistocene at Lobang Hangus, Niah...

Documents

Transcript of Hunting in a tropical rainforest: evidence from the Terminal Pleistocene at Lobang Hangus, Niah...