See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/288041497

LATE PLEISTOCENE-HOLOCENE SITES IN PAHANG: EXCAVATIONS OF GUA

SAGU AND GUA TENGGEK

Article · January 1998

CITATIONS READS

5 367

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Sabah Palaeoanthropolgy View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jeffrey Abdullah on 26 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

MALAYSIA MUSEUMS
JOURNAL
VOLUME 34 NEW SERIES for 1998

.. Special Issue

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH AND

MUSEUMS IN MALAYSIA

edited by
Zuraina Majid

,'

DEPARTMENT OF MUSEUMS AND ANTIQUITIES MALAYSIA

 LATE PLEISTOCENE-HOLOCENE SITES IN
PAHANG: EXCAVATIONS OF GUA SAGU AND GUA
TENGGEK

Zuraina Majid*, Ang Bee Huat** and Jeffri Jtgnatius***

THE SITES
Limestone massifs along Sungai Batu, a tributary of Sungai Pahang, were
discovered while doing a survey for PETRONAS (National Petroleum
Corporation) gas pipeline near the Sungai Lembing area, in October 1990. These
limestone massifs are located in FELDA (Federal Land Development Authority)
Bukit Sagu 4 oilpalm estate. Gua Sagu is a cave in the Bukit Sagu massif, several
metres above the base of the hill and overlooking the west bank of Sungai Batu,
and about 1022 metres above sea level, Longtitude 102°8' N and Latitude 4°0'W.
About 4 Ion to the NNE of this massif is Gua Tenggek, a little cave in a small
limestone outcrop, high above a small tributary of the Sungai Batu (Map 1).
Gua Tenggek had never been identified or excavated prior to our expedition.
Gua Sagu, however, was visited on a one night stay in September 1935 and was
briefly reported (Tweedie 1937). One shallow trial trench was excavated, but
there was no mention of its location in the cave. This trench yielded some pottery
at depths of between 6-18 inches, and 4 stone implements described as a flaked
discoid tool, a broken implement, a small scraper and a broken fragment of a
ground implement (1937:154).
Excavations of Gua Sagu and Gua Tenggek were · conducted in October
1990, and continued in July-August 1991. The team comprised staff from the
Centre for Archaeological Research, USM and the Department of Museums and
Antiquities.

* ' Zuraina Majid is Professor and Director of the Centre for Archaeological Research Malaysia
in USM.
*• Ang Bee Huat is on the staff of the Centre for Archaeological Research Malaysia in USM. He
received his MSc. in archaeology from Sheffield University.
•• • Jaffrie Ignatius is a graduate student doing his M.A. in Archaeology for Universiti Sains
Malaysia.

65
 MALAYS/A MUSEUMS JOURNAL

Map 1: Location Of Gua Sagu And Gua Tenggek Sites In Pahang

/
/M ___ .,.....__..,
f~-·--··
i
·,
---·. . .. '
, ·-
~=-~ --

66
 ZURAINA MAJID. ANG BEE HUAT & JAFFRIE JGNAT/US

GUASAGU
This cave was located several metres above ground level, close to a small
stream. There were a few chambers, but the front opening of the cave was the
only part that was dry and bright, with a slightly sloping floor that appeared
undisturbed. This area is approximately 112 sq metres.
The inner chambers were larger, but the floor was co'Yered with rockfall, in
parts the cave ceiling was low, and the damp and dark conditions which probably
prevailed in earlier times, could have been unattractive for living. Thus, the front
of the cave was selected for excavations (Plate 1).

The Excavation

The cave mouth was approximately 6 metres wide, aligned in a NW-SE

direction. It stretched inwards forming a narrow lighted corridor of about 14
metres long and was then divided into two narrow passages leading into the
unlighted and damp inner chambers.
Magnetometer readings for the squares indicated that A4 and AS (Figure 1),
had the highest potential and this was proven correct by our excavations.
Altogether, ten 2x2 meter squares were excavated, two of which were completely
sterile, and five of the others had artifacts only.in the upper levels. Hence, the
majority of the artifacts were found in three squares, A4, AS and Y3 (Figure 1).
Excavations were conducted according to 1Ocm spits, and continued until
the squares were sterile (Plate 2). Faunal remains were found until spit 11 while
stone tools ended at spit 10 in AS the square with the thickest cultural deposit
(Plate 3). Based on radiocarbon dating, this site was occupied from around
14,000 to 1,000 years ago, almost continuously.
The location of artifacts in the trenches were recorded before they were
carefully removed and packed for analyses at the university. Samples of charcoal
were collected with the usual precautions taken for radiocarbon dating. The
artifacts recovered included stone tools, pottery sherds and faunal remains.
During the excavation, it was observed that cooking ash was constantly seen
throughout the deposit, suggesting that the site could have been used as living
quarters for long stretches of time. If this were so, then it was not an overnight
stop or a brief hunting camp, but a habitation site. Alternatively, the thick levels
of ash seen throughout the spits could suggest that the site was occupied by a
larger group over shorter periods.

67
 MALAYSIA MUSEUMS JOURNAL

Figure 1: Plan Of Trenches In Gua Sagu

cave N
mouth
l
Y2

0 2
~.-- _ ___,Lm

mexcavated areas

68
 ZURAINA MAJID, ANG BEE HUAT & JAFFRIE IGNATIUS

Lithic Artifacts
Almost every spit revealed lithic artifacts. A significant feature of the site
was the near absence of flake tools. There 'were only 3 pieces of flake tools and
these were in no way distinctive. The majority of the flakes found were not flake
tools but debitage --pieces of stone (eg. shale and slate) that had broken off from
a _larg~r piece during use or they could have been the wafte product of edge
trnnmmg.
Another observation of the lithic assemblage here is the recurrence of
truncated tools or elongated tools that had been snapped along its width. The end
opposite the truncated part is often the end that was trimmed or used.
The lithic assemblage was analysed for types, raw material and its
distribution through time. An examination of the lithic artifacts showed that the
assemblage was dominated by pebble tools and these were either modified
(flaked) or unmodified (unflaked). The modified tools were those which were
flaked to form a desired shape, while the unmodified tools were those pebbles
which were used directly and without modification, but after prior selection with
a desired form in mind.
The lithic artifacts may be divided into three main categories namely, pebble
tools, flake tools and debitage. The artifacts -in each of these categories were
examined for their morphological and functional attributes, in order to determine
their types. The pebble tools comprised oval bifacial and unifacial pebble tools,
truncated tools (or short axes), harnmerstone, pounder, grinder, mortar, slab,
anvil and miscellaneous pebble tools (Table 1). The flake tools were too few to
be divided into types. Generally, the raw materials used most often were
quartzite, slate and basalt, raw materials available in the vicinity.

Oval Pebble Tools (N=25, 26%)

These pebbles usually of palm size, were either unifacially or bifacially
flaked, and they dominated the assemblage (Figure 2, Plate 4). Most of them (23,
92%) were bifacially flaked and the unifacials were uncommon (2, 8%). The
average tool measured around 8 em x 6 em with a thiclmess of around 2 em.
There is one large quartzite bifacial (19x7x3cm), the largest oval pebble tool
(Table 2) whose flat surfaces are marked with haematite and scratches from a
grinding motion. This suggests that w,herever possible, an artifact could be used
for more than one function.

69
 Table 1: Distribution of Lithic Artifacts in Gua Sagu

Pebble tools
Spit Unifacial Bifacial Truncated Hammer- Pounder Grinder Mortar Slab Anvil Mise Flake Debitage
stone Tool
1 11
2 3 1 1 2 17
3 3 3 1 3 3 1 9
4 4 2 3 1 2 2 1 2 13
~
r--
5 I 8 I 1 4 2 1 4 I 23 l>

6 I 2 3 3 2 2 9 ~
7 3 2 I 2 2 1 I1 ~
(I)
-.I
0 I rn
c::
8 2 I 1 4
~
9 I 1 3 c...
0
IO I 1 1 ~
11 1 ~
.....
I2
13 -~
- - - - --- - '------- -'-- -- -~
- -- - -
' -..·'ao
--
__1_ _

I Total I 2 I 23 I 9 I 8 I 8 I 12 I 3 I 11 I 3 I 11 I 3 I 103 I
I Tools I 2 23 9 8 8 12 3 11 3 I 11 3 I 93
I % I 2% 24% 10% 9% 9% 13% 3% 12% 3% I 12% 3% I 100%
 ZURAINA MAJID, ANG BEE HUAT & JAFFRIE IGNATIUS

Figure 2: Oval Pebble Tools (Unifacial and Bifacial)

Bifacial Pebble Tool

Unifacial Pebble Tool

71
 MALAYSIA MUSEUMS JOURNAL

A metrical analysis of these oval flaked pebble tools shows that the desired
shape here is a L/W ratio ofbetween 1 and 1.5 where the length is longer than the
breadth or width, and this is seen in the majority of pieces (Table 2). L/W ratio of
1 gives a rounded or squarish shape while a LIW ratio of 1.5 gives an elongated
or rectangular shape. The desired ratio of more than 1 and less than 1.5 produced
tools that were easy to handle if handheld. This ratio also makes it convenient to
produce sharp angled tools. ~

It was observed that each tool had an edge angle of varying degrees. The
minimum and maximum edge angles on every tool were measured and plotted
against tool thickness (Figure 3) and size (Figure 4). The desired minimum angle
produced on a tool was in the range of 35-60 degrees while the maximum ranged
between 70-90 degrees, no matter what the size or thickness of the tool (Figures
3 & 4). Thus, edge angle was a primary consideration in tool flaking and this
angle did not vary according to tool size or thickness. There is a possibility that
each of these tools was made for dual :function where both its thin and thick
!·
I
edges could be used for different purposes.
Although generally there is no correlation between edge angle and size or

I thickness of the oval pebble tools, a closer examination shows that a few of the
larger (and heavier) tools had high readings for their edge angle (Figure 4). ·This
could suggest that they were made for a different function - perhaps as a heavy
duty tool. Together with these were the rest of the oval pebble tools (perhaps
light-duty), that were flaked into a similar range of edge angle - minimum 35-60
degrees, maximum 70-90 degrees, mainly of basalt, slate, and quartzite.
In general, the pebble tools here are sharper than the pebble tools from Gua
1
Cha where the edge angle ranged between 50-80 degrees with a mean of 60
degrees (Adi 1985). Morphologically, the tools from Gua Sagu and Gua Cha are
almost similar.

Truncated (N=9, 10%)

These are rectangular tools with one short end flaked to form the use edge
and the opposite end is straight (Figure 5, Plate 5). The straight end could have
been the result of intentional or unintentional snapping from a larger tool, to form
the truncated piece. There is also a possibility that these truncated tools are just
pebble tools (unifacial/bifacial oval tools) that broke or snapped during use. They
comprised 10% of the total assemblage. These truncated tools were mostly of
basalt and quartzite, raw materials that JU"e hard, and commonly used to make the
oval pebble tools (Table 3).

This is the only site in Peninsular Malaysia with metrical data.

72
 ZURAINA. MAJID, A.NG BEE HUAT JA.FFRIE IGNA.11US

Table 2: Oval Pebble Tools in Gua Sagu

Ref. No. Morphology Location Size Material Cortex

Unif Bif Trch Spit Lg. Wd. Th. '! %
1 X Z4 3 II 7 2.5 Basalt 80
2 X B6 3 19 7 3 [Quartzite 40
3 X Z4 3 10.5 9 3.9 Limestone 0
4 X X2 4 8.5 6 2.9 Basalt 0
5 X Y3 4 8.5 6 2 Slate 10
6 X AS 4 6 4 1.5 Basalt 0
7 X X2 4 7.5 4.5 2.8 Slate 75
8 .. X Y3 5 11 5 2.3 [Quartzite 50
9 X AS 5 6 5 1.9 Basalt 25
10 X Y4 5 8 6 2.3 Quartz Porphyry 20
11 X Y4 5 6 5.5 2.5 Slate 40
12 X X2 5 9 6.5 3 Basalt 50
13 X Y3 5 7.5 6 2.2 Conglomerate 75
14 X Z3 5 8 6.5 2.1 .Quartz 70
15 X Y3 5 6 5.5 2 Slate 20
16 X Y4 5 13 7 3 Limestone 0
17 X Z4 6 10 7 2.2 Basalt 30
18 X Y3 6 12 5.5 3.2 Limestone 0
19 X X3 6 11 6.5 1.9 [Quartzite 80
20 X X3 7 10 7 3.1 Slate 55
21 X X3 7 8.5 6 3.3 Slate 0
22 X AS 7 8 5.5 2.3 Quartzite 0
23 X X3 8 7.5 5 3.6 Basalt 5
24 X X2 8 7.5 5 1.8 Slate 80
25 X AS 9 8 6.5 1.9 ,
Basalt 30

73
'
MALAYSIA MUSEUMS JOURNAL
'
I'
I
Figure 3: Gua Sagu Oval P~bble Tools: Thickness

.,,·.
and Edge Angle
100
90
80
•• . = . .
••• • • •
70 • • •• •

j!!
60 • •• •
"'
c
<Ill 50
"'
"'0 40
••
• •• • •• •• •
••• •
w
30 •
20
10
0
0 0.5 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Thickness (em)

Figure 4: Gua Sagu Oval Pebble Tools: Size and Edge Angle
100

90

80

70
••• .
• •• • • ••
• • •• riJ • • •
• •
•
Ql
c;,
60 • •• •• • •
••• •
• • •• •
c
<Ill 50
•
•• •
C)
"'0
w 40
•
30

20
[;;]X

10

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Size (Lg. x Wd x Th.)

74
lURA INA MAJID, ANG BEE HUAT & JAFFRIE IGNA T/US

Figure.5: Truncated Tools

0 3
I I em

75
 MALAYSIA MUSEUMS JOURNAL

Table 3: Gua Sagu Tnmcated Tools

Ref Location Size Material Remarks

No. Trench Spit Lg. Wd. Th.

1 Y4 2 7 5 1.9 Quartzite Truncated part was polished

2 Y4 2 5 4.5 2.3 Basalt Tlllllcated, polished at one end
I

3 B6 2 5.5 4.5 1.3 Quartzite Haematite marks seen at edge

4 Y4 3 12 6 2 Basalt
5 Y4 3 8 6 1.5 Quartzite
6 X3 3 6.5 6 2 Basalt
7 AS 6 7 4.5 2.4 Slate
8 Y2 6 lU 8.5 2.4 Quartzite
9 Y3 6 12.< 7.5 3.6 Basalt

Hammerstone (N=S, 9%)

A hammerstone is an unmodified pebble, usually oval in form and can be
conveniently handheld. Deep pitted marks are observed on the use surface,
suggesting a rather forceful vertical movement in friction with another stone. One
of the hammerstones was multifunctional, where it could have also functioned as
a grinder. It had red stains and was probably used for grinding haematite besides
being used as a hammerstone. These 8 hammerstones (Table 4) were made of
quartzite (4), sandstone (2), slate (1) and limestone (1). Quartzite was most often
used probably because of its hardness.

Grinder (N=12, 13%)

These are pebbles usually truncated (broken) and with a smooth surface of
use. The use area can vary in its size and location on the pebble. The grinding
surface varies from 2 em - 6 em, depending on the pebble size. The grinding
marks suggest that these tools were used in a grinding motion, perhaps on a slab
as slabs also showed grinding marks of use. The red stains suggest that these
grinders were used to grind haematite. The raw material of these tools are
quartzite (3), sandstone (2), slate (3), basalt (2) and shale (2) [Table 4]. These are
all fme grained material, suitable for use as a grinder.

76
 Table 4: Hammerstone, Pounder and Grinder from Gua Sagu
Location Size
Ref. Hammer- Pounder Grinder Trench Spit Lg. Wd. Th. Material Remarks
Nn lotnn"'
1 X Y4 3 9.5 3.5 2.2 Slate Broken
2 X Z4 3 9.5 4.3 2.5 Slate Broken
3 X B6 3 11 2.5 2.3 Slate
4 X Y3 3 7.5 6 3.9 Sandstone N
5
6
X
X
A4
X2
4
4
5.5
7
4
s.s
2
3.9
Slate
.Quartzite
Broken
Grinding haematite marks
~
7 X X2 4 8.S s.s 3 !Quartzite ~
8 X A4 4 9.4 4.2 2 Slate Broken ~
9 X X2 4 9.5 4.S 0.9 Slate !::::
,CJ
10 X X3 4 10 7.S 4.8 Limestone )>
11 X AS s 7.5 6.S 4 Basalt <::
C>
12 X Y4 s 12 3.S 3.3 Slate SliKhtly_stained
-..J
13 X X2 s 13 7.S S.8 IQuartzite Heavy piece m
-..J 14 X X2 s 10 7 4.3 !Quartzite Slightly ground, broken :t
1S X Z3 s 8.9 ;,; 3.1 Slate Broken ~
""i
16 X X2 s 13.S 6.1 4.7 Slate Haematite marks at one end !lo
17 X X3 6 9 4 3 Basalt Both surfaces with haematite grinding marks ~
s
~
18 X Z4 6 3.S 1.6 Sandstone
19 X Y3 6 14.S 6.S 4 .S Shale
20 X AS 7 6.5 4.5 2 Shale Broken
21
22 X
X AS
AS
7
7
8
9
6
2.3
3.9
3.6
!Quartzite
Slate
Broken ~
:j
c:
23 X AS 7 10 s 5.8 Sandstone Haematite marks (/)

24 X Y2 7 8 s.s S.7 Quartzite

2S X AS 8 8.S 7 4 !Quartzite
26 X AS 9 7.S 3.S 2.9 Slate
27 X A4 10 8 s.s 3.9 Slate
28 X AS _____ 10 9.S s 3.9 Sandstone
 MALAYSIA MUSEUMS JOURNAL

Pounder/Pestle (N=S, 9%)

These artifacts were distinctly thin elongated pebbles that were snapped at
one end while the use end was rounded in shape. Most of these tools measured
around 9 em in length, 3.5 em in width and 3 em in thickness (Table 4). The
rounded end had pitted marks which were not as deep as those found on
•
hammerstones. The size or diameter of the rounded end appears to fit the
depression or hole of a mortar. Based on this fit, pounders could have been used
as a pestle in conjunction with a mortar. The pitted markings on the pounder and
the depression in the mortar suggest that this artifact was used in a pounding
motion, lighter than the hammering motion of a hammerstone. All the pounders
were made of slate.

Mortar (N=3, 3%)

Mortar is a pebble tool with a small circular depression or hole on its surface
(Figure 6, Plate 6). There are 2 pieces made from quartzite (Table 5) and one
from sandstone. These were probably used with a pounder (pestle) in a pounding
motion. Around the depression or pit are traces of haematite, suggesting that it
could have been used to break and pound haematite, using a pounder in a
pounding (updown) motion. Pitted marks were not obvious probably because the
hitting motion was not very strong.
The cross section of the depression or pit showed a V -shape rather than a
U-shaped depression. Frequent pounding on any surface normally produces
smooth sides that would result in a U-shaped depression. This V shaped pit
suggests that energy was targeted on the intented "materials" and did not
frequently hit the sides of the hole to smoothen it. There is also a possibility that
the mortars were also used for breaking seeds and nuts.

Slab (N=ll, 12%)

These are flat pieces of pebbles that have pitted and grinding marks on a
surface that had become slightly concave through use (Figure 7). Some of the
slabs are 1/2 or 1/3 of a broken flat surfaced pebble. The slab with grinding
marks were probably used with a grinder in a grinding motion leaving marks of
use as long as 6 em. If the slabs were used a lot, a shallow depression with
scratches would appear on the surface, and when used for grinding haematite, it
would appear stained.
The surface of one of these slabs appears smooth and polished. According to
Crater (1976), grinding of grain tends to leave a polish on the stone, while

78
ZURAINA MAJID, ANG BEE HUA T & JAFFRIE /GNA TIUS

Figure-6: Mortar

Figure 7: Slab

79
 MALAYSIA. MUSEUMS JOURNAL

Table 5: Mortar, Anvil and Slab From Gua Sagu

(All With Haematite Stains)

Ref. No. Type Broken Location •' Size Material

Mortar Anvil Slab Trench Spit Lg. Wd. Th.
1 X X AS 2 13 11 5 Quartzite

2 X X Y3 3 14.3 13 4.2 Basalt

3 X X X2 3 11.5 12 3.3 Quartzite

4 X Z3 3 14 8 4.2 Limestone

5 X X AS 4 12 10 4 Quartzite

6 X AS 4 2l.S 14 6.1 Quartzite

7 X B6 4 11.5 7.5 s Quartzite

8 X Y4 4 14.5 8 7.3 Sandstone

9 X X Y3 4 13 9 7.5 Quartz

10 X X Y4 5 6.5 4.5 1.5 Slate

11 X X X2 s 12.S 8.S 3.4 Quartzite

12 X X Y3 s 14.2 13 8.8 Quartz

13 X Y3 6 14 5.5 4.1 Quartzite

14 X X2 6 14.5 7.5 3.3 Quartzite

15 X X X3 7 16.5 9 3.7 Quartzite

16 X X Y3 7 10.5 10 3.1 Slate

17 X X Y3 8 13.5 10.5 8.6 Limestone

80
 ZURAINA MAJID, ANG BEE HUA T & JAFFRIE JGNA TJUS

pigment leaves a stain and scratch marks on the stone. Crater's general
observation seems to fit these Gua Sagu tools thus suggesting the slab had a dual
function - pigment grinding and food processing.
Some slabs also have pitted marks on its surface. These slabs may have
served as a surface for hitting the apex of riverine sl]ells such as Brotia
costulalspinosa, in order to be able to suck out its m~at. The presence of
haematite stains, pitted marks and grinding marks suggest that these slabs served
several functions. Slabs were made of quartzite (7), slate (2), basalt (1) and
limestone (1). The dominance of quartzite showed that it was the preferred raw
material, probably because of its hardness.

Anvil (N=3, 3%)

These were heavy and relatively large stones with its base flaked to form a
flat surface. The top of the anvil shows damage marks. These anvils could have
been used for shaping or trimming tools. One of them is stained with haematite
I

sugges~ing a dual function. They are of quartz (2) and limestone (1) [Table 5].

Miscellaneous (N=ll, 12%)

These are pebble tools that have been shaped as one of a type and do not fit
into any of the other types. There is a piece of fossilised wood with pitted
hamrnerstone marks on one end and the opposite end was ground to form a
smooth surface. The raw materials for tools in this group are quartzite (4), basalt
(2), limestone (2), slate (2) and sandstone (1 ).

Flake Tools (N=3, 3%)

They varied in size, shape and edge use. These flakes showed a bulb of
percussion and some slight retouch. With the exception of one piece that had a
distinct "C" notch, the other flakes may or may not have been utilised.

Debitage
The debitage may be divided into two types, namely flakes and chunks.
Flakes occupied 71% (73) of the debitage and they were mostly of slate (28%),
quartzite (21%) and basalt (18%), the raw materials most frequently used in
making oval pebble tools and truncated pebble tools (Figure 8). Thus, they could
be the debitage from tool making or tool use. The ltmestone chunks may have
been debitage from tool making as well as waste products from obtaining
haematite embedded in the limestone cave walls.

81
 MALAYSIA. MUSEUMS JOURNAL

Figure 8: Raw Materials Of Debitage

35r---------------------------------------------------------~

30

25

20

15

i.
!'
'

10

5 1111 Debitage I

0
.,
s
·~
..
s ~ ".." " i:! "'
Oi ~ s :::::
~>o
s
•t;
s
·a ""
s
·a
u:; "' B
..e ~ £1 .c .c I! "
1-o "'e B
e
e-
..
"e Oi
<I)
!!
"'.." .c
C:Q
£1 (Y u Cl
(Y
;::3 <I)
0
I:J.. ..9 I:J..
"'"'
:X:
i:ii
ti 0
(Y u

82
 ZURAINA MAJID, ANG BEE HUAT & JAFFRIE /GNAT/US

In general, the lithic material (Table 6) most often used for tool making was
quartzite (30%) followed by slate (26%) and basalt (20%). The debitage also
reflected the use of these raw materials in the lithic industry, as the debitage was
also made up mostly of slate (28%), quartzite (21%) and basalt (18%). There
were single pieces of calcite, siltstone, phylite and granite in the debitage but
there were no tools of these materials from the trenches e~cavated. There could
be more debitage and tools of these raw materials present irt other trenches yet to
be excavated. It can be concluded that the debitage from the excavated trenches
corresponded to or matched the tools in terms of raw materials, where both tools
and debitage reflected the dominant use of quartzite, slate and basalt.
Each of the tool types was made of a variety of raw materials, with the
distinct exception of pounders. There were 8 pounders or pestles and they were
all made of slate. Pounders were selected for its thin elongated pebble shape and
these attributes were perhaps found only in slate pebbles. Hence, in the case of
pounders, there is a high probability that form rather than raw material was a
more important selection criteria. The most dominant tool type (Figure 9) the
oval pebble tools (26%) were most often made of slate and basalt (Table 6),
materials that would allow for bifacial flaking.
Harnrnerstone, mortar and slab were all most often of quartzite (Table 6), a
raw material that is hard and therefore suited to the functions required of these
artifacts types. Thus, in Gua Sagu the raw materials were selected with function
in mind- whether it is its form (as seen in pounders) or its qualities (eg. hardness
of quartzite for slabs and hammerstone) or flaking ease (basalt and slate for oval
pebble tools).
The tool makers had various criteria in mind when selecting raw material,
and the criteria depended on what artifact he was going to produce. Certain
artifacts demanded defmite qualities in raw material and these had to be met,
especially for pounders, hammerstone and slab.
The vertical distribution of stone tools shows that the largest number of
tools were found in the middle levels and the fewest number in the lowest levels
(Figure 10). The debitage distribution corresponds to the tool distribution (Figure
11 ). Since the debitage comprises mostly waste flakes from toolmaking, its
vertical distribution should correlate with the quantity of oval unifacial and
truncated tools, as these were the only modified pebble tools. Figures 10 and
11 show that the density of modified or flaked tools -- oval unifacial and bifacial
and truncated tools generally correspond to the d;ensity of debitage, throughout
the spits, suggesting a high probability that these tools were flaked on site.

83
 MALAYSIA MUSEUMS JOURNAL

Figure 9: Lithic Artifacts From Gua Sagu

Flake Tools
3%

Oval Pebble
Tools
26%

Anvil

Slab
12%

Truncated
3% 10%

Hammerstone
13%
9%
Pounder
9%

84
 Table 6: Gua Sagu Lithic Raw Material Used In Toolmaking
N

~
R. Material Quartzite Slate Basalt Limestone Sandstone Quartz. Shale Qt2. Porphyry Conglomerate Tuff Total
Uni!Bifacial 4 7 8 3 1 1 I 25
Truncated 4 1 4 9 ~
Hammerstone 4 I 1 2 8 ~
Pounder
Grinder 3
8
3 2 2 2
8
12
.5
)>
4!
Mortar 2 1 3 (j)
Anvil I 2 3
co Slab 7 2 I I 11 rn
~
(J1
Flake Tool 2 I 3
'-t
Miscellaneous 4 2 2 2 I II
""~
Total: 28 24 19 8
6%
6 3 2 I I 1 93
~
% 30% 26% 20% 9% 4% 2% 1% 1% 1% ili
(5
Shale Haematite Phyllite Quartz Qt2. Porphyry Calcite Siltstone !Granite I
~
R. Material Slate Quartzite Basalt Limestone Sandstone
Debitage 29 22 19 16 4 3 3 2 I 1 1 I I 1 I ::::!
~
·~~
 Figure 10: Vertical Distribution of Stone Tools In Gua Sagu
Truncated ltammerstone liouniler (ftiniler ~ortar Slao Anv. Mtsc. Fl. Too

I I
• •
• t
' t I - I
• I I

' I
I
I
~
~
Ol
);:

i
1 une ptece
co
0>
Figure 11: Vertical Distribution of Stone Tools And Debitage
6
~
~
r-

I One Piece
 ZURAINA MAJID, ANG BEE HUAT & JAFFRIE IGNATIUS

Earthenware

In Gua Sagu, pottery or earthenware was not abundant and the earliest
evidence may be said to come from spit 6. The few sherds found lower in spit 8
(none in spit 7) suggest that these were intrusive material probably from spit 6
(Table 7). Although the earliest presence of pottery was in Spit 6, the highest
concentration was in spits 2-4 (Figure 12). These spits revealed 76.5% of the
total pottery sherds excavated. These sherds were small and mostly body sherds
with some rim sherds. There were no base sherds.
There were three types of surface designs - cord-marked, incised and plain
and these all appeared at about the same time in the site (Figure 12, Plate 7).
Cord-marked earthenware dominated the pottery assemblage (52.55%), while
plain ware accounted for 34.01% of the pottery. Incised ware was the least
popular, 13.44% (Figure 12, Table 7). There was no evidence of a combination of
designs on any one sherd. Thus, there is a possibility that a vessel could have
been decorated mainly with one design. However, this need not necessarily be
the case as the sherds recovered were small in size, perhaps too small to reveal a
combination of designs.

Table 7: Distribution of Gua Sagu Pottery According to Surface Design

Spit Plain Cord-marked Incised Total

·(gm) (gm) (gm) (gm)

1 65 78 36 179
2 145 144 33 322
3 181 242 61 484
4 45 250 26 321
5 45 15 27 87
6 15 45 60
7
8 5 15 20
Total(gm) 501 774 198 ' 1473
% 34.01 52.55 13.44 100

87
 Figure 12: Vertical Distribution of Gua Sagu Pottery

Cord-marked Incised Total

~
~
~
);;

00
00
~
(I)
m
~
(5
~
I I ~
....

5 gram
 ZURAINA MAJID, ANG BEE HUAT & JAFFRIE IGNATIUS

Generally, the sherds excavated did not suggest vessel shape as most of
them could not be fitted together to reveal form. There was only one case where a
few sherds could be fitted to indicate part of a flat bottomed vessel (Plate 8). The
sherds for the base of this flat bottomed vessel could be mistaken for body sherds
as they were not the typical base sherds. There were no typical or recognisable
base sherds. This apparent absence of the typical base coulq mean that the vessels
here were flat bottomed with no ring base. ~
The earthernware in Gua Sagu was tempered with sand and fired in an
uneven firing atmosphere as some parts of the sherds are grey while other parts
are of various shades of the earthernware pink-grey. Based on general visual
examination of the sand temper, the sherds can divided into fine (32%) with 5%
or less sand of< 1 mm grain size; medium-coarse (45%) with 20% sand and< 2
mm grain size; and coarse (23%) with> 20% sand and 2 mm grain size. Thin
section analysis of one sample by Chia (1997) showed that one sherd revealed
the use of grog (crushed pottery) as temper.
The black soot marks on the surface of sherds and at the bottom of the
partially recovered vessel suggest that the pottery here was used as cooking
vessels. The small quantity of sherds excavated from all the trenches may
indicate that pottery was not a commonly used artifact (Table 7). There is also no
evidence of pottery making in the cave, suggesting that pottery could have been
an item derived from barter, or made elsewhere.

Body Sherds
The body sherds here have an average thickness of 6.8 mm (minimum 3.9
mrn, maximum 9.5 mrn). This value is lower than the average pottery thickness
in Peninsular Malaysia, said to be about 8 mm (Chia 1997). Both plain sherds
and cord-marked pottery have an average thickness of 6.7 mm and incised pieces
are only slightly thicker with an average of 7 mm. The varying thickness of body
sherds cannot be correlated to depth or surface design. The different parts of one
vessel could be of varying thickness.

Rims
Rim sherds constituted 30% of the overall pottery fmds. Almost all rims
were of plain sherds. The few decorated pieces (4 pieces) were of cord-marked
design. Plain rims could have been part of a vessel with surface design. The rim
thickness varied between 6.7 em and 9.7 em with,an average of 7.6 em. This
value is higher compared with the body sherds which has the average of 6.8 em
(minimum 3.9 em, maximum 9.5 em).

89
 MALAYSIA MUSEUMS JOURNAL

Majority of the rim fragments (80%) are less than 10 square em in size.
Only one piece of rim could be partially fitted and this provided an estimate of
the orifice diameter which could have been between 22 and 25cm. There appears
to be no vessel with a small orifice (diameter less than 10cm). Only 6 pieces of
sherds suggested that there were shoulder sherds. Differences in the height and
texture of those sherds indicate the presence of at least two restricted vessels
(with shoulder)- vessels normally used for storage.
The rims can be divided into 3 types: namely the ridged rim, the grooved
rim, and the plain rim (Figure 13). There are very few ridged rims (3 pieces). All
of them have cord-marked designs. Perhaps there is only one vessel of this rim
type. The maker probably made this design by pushing the edge of the outer lip
downwards with his finger while it was still wet. The grooved rim came from a
large vessel (22-23cm in orifice diameter). This rim clearly indicated that it was
made with a slow wheel as concentric groves could be seen on its surface. These
three concentric grooves were probably made while turning the vessel of the
wheel. The third type was plain rim. These rims had either a flat lip (which could
support a lid) or a rounded lip.
The rounded lip rims were also found in Gua Cha (Sieveking 1954, Adi
1985), Gua Kechil (Dunn 1964), and in Lembah Lenggong. The flat lip rim in
Gua Sagu is perhaps equivalent to rim profile type C in Gua Kechil.

Faunal Remains

Food remains in the form of bones and shells were found throughout the
spits. The Gua Sagu inhabitants hunted a variety of animals for food, and among
the recurrent types were pig, deer, goat and turtle. They also gathered riverine
shells Brotia costula/spinosa and there was also evidence of a small amount of
marine bivalves.
The animal bones were mostly (79.7%) uncharred (Table 8). The charred
remains (20.3%) were probably due to disposal into the ambers or fire after
eating. The animals identified were pig, goat, deer, seladang, tiger, rat, monkey,
tortoise, turtle, reptile, mousedeer, and primate. Their distribution through time
(Figure 13) shows a distinct concentration in the lower levels, i.e. between spits 5
and 8. Before and after these levels, the density of animal bones were found in
decreasing quantities.
The shells excavated were of riverine and marine vareties. The riverine
Brotia spinoza was more abundant (85.7%) thanmarine shells (Table 9). Brotia
spinoza is usually sucked after the apex is chopped off and 68% of them here are
broken i.e. with the apex chopped off(Table 10, Figure 15).

90
ZURAINA MAJID, ANG BEE HUAT & JAFFRIE IGNATIUS

Figure 13: Rim Types In Gua Sagu

Plain rim -- rounded lip

'
Plain rim -- flat lip
! !

Grooved Rim

91
 MALAYSIA MUSEUMS JOURNAL

Table 8: Food Remains of Animal Bones From Gua Sagu

Spit Charred (gm) Uncharred (gm) Identification •J

1 26 108 Moonrat, Sus scrofa.

2 98 550 Sus scrofa, reptile, Bamboo rats primate, turtle

3 36 365 Goat, tortoise, Sus scrofa

4 128 659 Macaca sp .(?), reptile, tortoise, turtle, Sus scrofa

5 222 665 Mousedeer, large reptile (Varanus sp .?), deer,

tortoise, reptile, GeNus unicolor, turtle

6 112 893 Sus scrofa

7 246 788 Seladang, reptile, goat, tortoise

8 431 1048 Sus scrofa , goat

9 30 150

10 4 29 Bamboo rat, tiger

11 10 28

13 1 4

Total 1344 5287 6631

% 20.3 79.7 100

92
 Figure 14: Vertical Distribution Of Food Remains In Gua Sagu

Uncharred N
c:
~
~
f
~
):.
:c:
(j)
OJ
Ill
Ill
....,
\0 J:
..,~
S1o

,~
:B
iii
G)
1 10 gram 20 gram 20 gram ?;
g
(I)
 MALAYSIA MUSEUMS JOURNAL

Table 9: Distribution Of Shell In Gua Sagu

Soit Brotia Spinoza Marine Shells Total

1 115 15 130
2 144 20 164
3 89 17 106
4 69 24 93 A

5 108 25 133 i

6 27 27
7 18 18
8 33 33
Total 603 101 704
% 85.70% 14.30% 100%

Table 10: Distribution Of Shell According to Size And Broken/Unbroken Apex

Small Medium Large Total %

Broken 239 132 39 410 68%
Unbroken 132 54 7 193 32%
Total 371 186 46 603
% 61.52% 30.85% 7.63% 100%

Figure 15: Shells Analysis Of Gua Sagu

450

400

350

300

~250
..
"'c
:I
0 200

150

100

50

0
Small Medium Large Total
Size

94
 ZURAINA MAJID, ANG BEE HUAT & JAFFRIE IGNATIUS

These riverine shells excavated were mostly small (61.52%) and medium
(30.85%) in size, and can still be found in the streams in the vicinity of this cave.
The marine shells appeared from spit 5 upwards. The vertical distribution of shell
remains increased from spits 5-l (Figure 16), just as the bone remains decreased
(Figure 14). It appears that towards the later part of site occupation, shellfish
became an additional source of protein in their diet. But, shellfish could not
displace animals hunted as a source of protein. The quantity bf shellfish present
was too small to suggest that it could replace meat from animals as a main source
of food. Pigs were consumed throughout the levels, and shellfish was an
additional source of protein.

GUATENGGEK

About 4 km to the north of Gua Sagu, is a small cave, Gua Tenggek, high
above a stream (Map 1). The floor ofGua Tenggek is triangular in shape, about 8
metres wide at the mouth, and less than 2 metres wide at the deep end, which is
approximately 6 meters from the mouth (Figure 17). A 5 metre drop separates the
mouth of this cave from a stream below, a tributary of Sungai Batu (Plate 9). The
front part of the cave was bright and better lighted than the back area. The cave
ceiling sloped towards the inside of the cave so that one had to bend when
standing against the back wall of the cave.

The Excavation

Unlike Gua Sagu, the cave floor was uneven and sloping. There were also
large rocks on the floor, and the soil was loose and powdery. 1birteen trenches
measuring. lx1 meter were excavated, and most of these were either disturbed or
became sterile between spits 4 and 7. It was thus not possible to connect the spits
from one trench to another for an analysis of the vertical or spatial distribution of
the artifacts excavated.
The front trenches op either side of the cave, A 1, B 1, A7, A8 did not reveal
many artifacts (Figure 17). Al and B1 appeared disturbed and was almost sterile,
while A7 and A8 were trenches with fallen rocks leaving little excavation space.
Shells and bones were found in these trenches. The trenches in the centre of the
cave, B4, BS, C4, C5, and D4 revealed some pottery sherds only in the first spit.
This part of the cave also revealed a small amount of shells, bones and stone

95
 " Figure 16: Vertical Distribution Of Shell In Gua Sagu

Marine Shells Total

~
~
~
);;
\0
0\
~
~
~
(I)
c..
0
§i
?;
r-
2 pieces

__ ... -·..:,-.- .,.•--;+'~t~.... R!"ii$ 'r"t...$~;~-~'\l..~-.,::, - ·~ tv-+

 ZURAINA MAJID, ANG BEE HUAT & JAFFRIE IGNATIUS

Figure 17: Plan of Trenches in Gua Tenggek

0 2
I !m

IJ excavated areas

97
 MALAYSIA MUSEUMS JOURNAL

tools, and became sterile around spit 4. The trenches in the inner part of the cave,
F6, F7, G6 and G7 revealed stone tools, shells and bones. Some of the stone tools
and food remains were found in (cooking) ash deposit, and based on the
appearance of the bones (charred) and stones (cracked, broken) these artifacts
were probably thrown into the hearth.

Lithic Artifacts

An examination of the lithic assemblage from the Gua Tenggek excavation

showed that they shared similar attributes with the Gua Sagu assemblage and
therefore could be similarly classified. Thus, the Gua Sagu classification can be
applied to the Gua Tenggek artifacts. However, not all the Gua Sagu lithic types
were present in Gua Tenggek assemblage. The oval pebble tools in Gua Tenggek
were all bifacially flaked, none unifacially flaked. There were also no mortar or
flake tools in Gua Tenggek (Table 11, Figure 18).

Oval Pebble Tools (N=ll, 23%)

The oval pebble tools in Gua Tenggek were all bifacially flaked. There were
no unifacially flaked oval pebble tools. These were made of basalt (2), slate (4),
limestone (2), sandstone (2) and quartzite (1) as shown in Table 12. These
bifacial tools have a average length of 8.18 em, 6.16 em width and 2.37 em
thickness (Table 13). Among them, two bifacial tools appeared badly cracked as
if they had been thrown into a burning hearth.

Truncated Tools (N=6, 13%)

These truncated artifacts also appeared to have been affected by high
temperatures -- probably discarded into a burning hearth. Similar to the truncated
tools (or short axes) from Gua Sagu, these tools had an average length of7.6 em,
width of 5.7 em and thickness of 2.8 em. These tools showed use marks on the
end opposite the snapped end and /or on one long side of the tool. These pieces
were ofbasalt (1), slate (3), sandstone (1) and haematite (1) as seen in Table 12.

Hammerstone (N=l4, 30%)

This artifact dominated the tool kit as it formed 30% of the assemblage
(Table 11). The hammerstones were made from basalt (4), quartz (2), sandstone
(3) and quartzite (S) as seen in Table 12. The average size of a hammerstone is
8.1 em of length, 6.1 em of width and thickness were 4.9 em. Among them were
3 pieces that were broken.

98
 ZURAINA MAJID, ANG BEE HUA T JAFFRIE /GNAT/US

Table 11: Stone Tool Distribution In Gua Tenggek

Spit Bifacial Truncated Hammerstone Pounder Anvil Slab Miscell. Total
1 1 1 1 1 4
2 1 1 3 1 6
3 3 1 4 1 2 11
4 3 1 3 2 1· 2 12
5 1 2 1 4
6 1 1 1 3
7 1 1
8 2 1 2 5
9
10 1 1
11
Subtotal 11 6 14 1 .3 5 7 47
% 23% 13% 30% 2% 6% 11% 15% 100%

Figure 18: Gua Tenggek Stone Tools

Oval Pebble
Tool (Bifacial)
23%

Anvil
Truncated
6%
13%

2%

Hammerstone
30%

99
 MALAYSIA MUSEUMS JOURNAL

Table 12: Gua Tenggek Lithic Material Used In Toolmaking

Limestone Slate Basalt Sandstone Quartzite Quartz Haematite Phyllite

Bifacial 2 4 2 2 1

Truncated 3 1 1 1

Hammerstone 4 3 5 2
~
Pounder 1

Anvil 2 1

Slab 1 1 3

Mlscell. 3 3 1

Total

Total 4 12 9 12 6 2 1 1 47

o/o 9% 25% 19% 26% 13% 4% 2% 2% 100%

Table 13: Oval Bifacial Tools In Gua Tenggek

Ref.Num location Size Material Cortex

Trench Spit lg. Wd . Th . o/o

1 04 2 10 7 3.7 Quartzite 0

2 04 3 9 5.5 2.7 Limestone 0

3 F7 3 6 6 2.5 Sandstone 0

4 A6f7 3 9 7 .5 2.4 limestone 0

5 F6 4 6 3.5 2.6 Slate 10

6 F7 4 5 3 .3 O.B Sandstone 0

7 - 4 9 7.5 2 Basalt 25

B C4/5 5 10 6 3.4 Basalt 10

9 C5 6 9 6.5 1.6 Slate 0

10 F6 B 6 6 2.7 Slate 55

11 F7 6 7 7 1.5 Slate 60

100
 ZURAFNA MAJID, ANG BEE HUAT & JAFFRFE fGNA T/US

Pounder/Pestle (N=l, 2%)

This tool was made of slate (Table 12), just as all those pounders in Gua
Sagu. The slight pitted marks on the pounder probably meant that less force was
applied -- unlike the distinct pitted marks on a hammerstone, made by hard
hammering. This long, slender pounder measured 19 em long, • 3.5 em wide and
1.5 em thick.

Anvil (N=3, 6%)

These anvils (Table 12) were of limestone (2) and basalt (1). Their average
dimension was 16.3 em long, 9.7 em wide and 6.43 em thick. They were
probably used to trim the edge of the modified tools -- bifacial oval pebble tools
and truncated tools.

Slab (N=S, 11%)

These were rectangular pieces, part of a broken flat stone. It usually has both
top and bottom surfaces flat and level, so that both surfaces can be used. The
surfaces showed pitted and grinding marks. The average size is 10.3 em x 7.3 em
x4.6 em. These slabs were of sandstone (3), basalt (1) and slate (1).

Miscellaneous (N=7, 15%)

There were 5 pieces (11 %) of pebble tools that could not be fitted into the
classification. They also did not show any shared attributes among them. They
were all partially broken and made of slate (3), phyllite (1) and sandstone (3).

Debitage
The debitage from Gua Tenggek were in the form of chunks, flakes and
chips. Quartzite (25%) and basalt (23%) dominated the raw material of the
debitage (Table 14). But, the tools were mostly of sandstone (26%) and slate
(25%), while 19% were of basalt and 13% of quartzite (Table 12). The quartzite
and basalt debitage were probably the debitage from tool flaking and chipped
hammerstones (Table 14). Although 25% of the tools were of slate (Table 12),
and more than half of this were modified (flaked) tools, only 1 piece of slate
debitage was found (Table 14). This could suggest that tool making was done
elsewhere and perhaps only trimming was done at the site. There is a strong
possibility that there may be more evidence in the unexcavated trenches.

101
 MALAYSIA MUSEUMS JOURNAL

Table 14: Raw Material OfDebitage From Gua Tenggek

Ql!art Basalt Lime st. H'tite Sandst. Siltst. Phyllite Quartz Shale Slat( Tuff
z1te

Total 10 9 7 4 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 41
% 25 23 17 10 10 5 2 2 2 2 2 100

Since the site appeared partially disturbed and the cave floor uneven, rocky
and sloping, any attempt at vertical and spatial analyses of the lithic tools would
not produce reliable results. However, throughout the cave occupation, oval
bifacial tools were used. When the maximum and minimum edge angle of each
tool was plotted against size (Figure 19) and thickness (Figure 20), it appeared
that there was a desired range of edge angle; approximately 55-70 degrees
(minimum) and approximately 70-80 degrees (maximum). There was one tool at
both ends of the scale that did not adhere to this norm. These tools (a small one
with a thin edge and a large one with a thick edge) could have been used for
different functions from those which clustered in the normal range (Figures 19 &
20). This could also suggest that the small one had been through a lot of
reshaping and rejuvenating to arrive at that size, while the large one was "new"
and the rest that clustered in the normal range had gone through a more or less
similar amounts of rejuvenation.

Earthenware

Gua Tenggek did not reveal many sherds. Plain pottery sherds totalling
2,130 gms (Table 15) were excavated from the top levels mostly in spit 1, and
associated with shells. There were no cord-marked pottery. The average
thickness of the sherds was around 1.3 em. All the sherds were of similar texture
(coarse) and color (reddish brown). The pottery sherds were concentrated in spit
1, with only a few pieces in spit 3 which were probably intrusive material.
More than 80% of the pottery were found in the innermost part of the cave,
in trenches F dan G. Given the similarity in texture, surface decoration and
colour, together with the fact there were relatively small number of sherds, it is
highly probable that they belonged to one or a few vessels that were similar.
I
I Faunal Remains

l
I

~
Animal bones amounted to only 372 gms, and a total of 843 shells were
recovered from the site. The total weight of animal bones is equivalent to that

102
 ZURAINA MAJID, ANG BEE HUA T JAFFRIE JGNA TIUS

Figure 19: Gua Tenggek Oval Pebble Tools: Size And Edge
Angle
90

80 • ••• ••
70
• •
:.• •
60 • •
Q)

~50 • • •
<
~40 •
"0
w
30
• •
20

10

0
~ X

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Size (Lg x Wd. x Th.)

Figure 20: Gua Tenggek Oval Pebble Tools: Plot of

Thickness and Edge Angle
90

80 • • • •• •• •
70 • •••
• •
• ••
60
Q)

~50 •
<
Q)
•
.g' 40
w
30
• •
20
~ X

10

0
0 0.5 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Thickness (em)

103
 MALAYSIA MUSEUMS JOURNAL

Table 15: Distribution ofEarthenware In Gua Tenggek

Trench Spit Design Weight(gm) Thickness
Body Rim Base (nun)

C4 1 Plain 20 10
F6 1 Plain 250 10.3
G7 1 Plain 570 10.6
F7 1 Plain 300 10.1
F4 1 Plain 500 10.5
F6 2 Plain 310 10.5
B5 2 Plain 60 10.3
F6 3 Plain 140 10.3
Total 2,130

from the carcass of 2 chickens. This is an unusually small amount of food

remains in a site.
Among the bones recovered, 30.11% were charred. Based on those that ha~
identifiable parts, the animals hunted and -consumed included wild boar, tortoise,
large and small mammals. The animal bones were associated with stone artifacts,
suggesting that the stone artifact were used for food preparation.
The shells, mainly brotia costula/spinoza (Table 16), were found in almost
every trench, throughout the site, but mostly in the upper levels. Among the 843
shells, 3 were marine shells while the rest were riverine shells.

Table 16: Vertical Distribution Of Shells In Gua Tenggek

Spit Brotia spinoza Marine shells Total

1 247 247
2 226 3 229
3 217 217
4 103 103
5
6 18 18
7 29 29
--

Total 840 3 843

% 99.65 0.35 100

104
 ZURAINA MAJID, ANG BEE HUAT & JAFFRIE IGNATIUS

The low frequency of artifacts suggests that the site was occupied by a small
group for short periods. It was not possible to construct a cultural sequence for
the site as a large part of it was disturbed. However, this site revealed 2 dates
from the centre of the cave: C5 30 em, Beta-40968 {charcoal) 10,545 ± 80BP,
and D4 40cm, Beta-40969 (shell) 10,660 ± llOBP.
The surface between CS and D4 is a slope, where D4 is on higher ground,
and this could explain the contemporaneity of the two spits \iespite a difference
in depth. The deepest spits, 60-70 em in the innermost part of the cave (F and G
trenches) with no samples for radiocarbon dating, may be estimated to be of late
Pleistocene age. This is further strengthened by the similarity in artifact types
between those found in the deepest spits here and in the fate Pleistocene levels of
Gua Sagu. Thus, Gua Tenggek was occupied at different times during the
Palaeolithic and Neolithic, by small groups for very brief periods, as seen by the
low frequency of artifacts excavated from this small cave.

DISCUSSION

Gua Sagu is more than twice the size of Gua Tenggek. But, careful
excavation of these caves by our team (Plate 10) did not reveal a rich and varied
assemblage. The relatively small and sparse amounts of lithic, faunal and pottery
remains in both sites suggest that these sites were occupied for short periods and
probably by a small group of people from the late Pleistocene until the Holocene.
Gua Tenggek, a smaller cave and with meager remains, was probably used for
very brief periods perhaps as an overnight stop during a hunting expedition. Gua
Sagu may have been used for relatively longer periods, perhaps as a temporary
habitation site for these nomadic groups.
Thus far, Gua Sagu with its date of 14,410 ± 180BP is the earliest evidence
of human occupation east of the Main Range. Other sites in this part of the
peninsula date from the Holocene. Thus, as of now, this is the only late
Pleistocene Palaeolithic site on the east coast of Peninsular Malaysia. Gua
Tenggek provided a date of 10,660 ± 110 BP. Based on relative dating within
Gua Tenggek, and similar lithic assemblage to Gua Sagu, there is a high
probability that Gua Tenggek was also occupied during the late Pleistocene.
Given that the two caves are within walking distance, it is credible that they were
both occupied during the same period.
The artifacts excavated from these two caves also fall within the same
cultural mould -- a Palaeolithic (and epi-Palaeolithic) culture of oval bifacials
associated with similar faunal remains. This was later followed by a relatively
short pottery period, with a reduced number of lithic artifacts. There was little

105
 MALAYSIA MUSEUMS JOURNAL

change in lithic types and the faunal remains included shells. The dominant tool
type was the palm-sized oval pebbles that were usually flaked bifacially, and
sometimes called "Hoabinhian" tools. There appeared to have been a desired size,
a LIW ratio of between 1 and 1.5. These were found from the lowest levels of
cave occupation, - the late Pleistocene - and showed no change in morphology or
technology throughout the occupation ie untill;240 ± 100 BP. There were only 2
unifacials (Gua Sagu) and when re-examined, the flake removal surfaces on the
cortex side could suggest that these unifacials were in its initial stages of being
bifacially flaked. There was no change in edge angle over time and the variability
in size and decorticization could be a reflection of reduction for resharpening and
rejuvenation of a tool rather than an indication of function.
Another characteristic of the assemblage in these caves is the truncated
pebble tool. Some of these wer~ shaped prior to use while others may not have
been. The distal end and sometimes the sides showed marks of use. These have
been termed "short axes" (Ha Van Tan 1994, Nishimura 1994). Like those from
Gua Sagu and Gua Tenggek, those from Xom Trai Cave also resembled a broken
"Hoa1Jmhian" tool, and this was proven so in the conjoined pieces. Were these
intentionally knapped or w~re t~ey broken through use? Nishimura (1994:7)
argues that these tools were mtentionaUy produced, based on the clear percussion
point and straight fractures.
All the other tool types (ha~erstone, anvil, pounder, mortar, grinder) were
morphologically preselected pnor to use. The pebbles used were all of types
easily available in the nearby streams. There was a preference for basalt, slate
and quartzite. These t<>?ls we:e mostly used for pounding and grinding and they
often revealed haematlte stams as Well as grinding and pitted marks on their
surface.
The tools here generally were multifimctional. For instance, the slabs
revealed pitted marks together with scratch marks/polish (grain grinding?) and
haematite stains. The mortars were USed for producing haematite powder and
perhaps cracking nuts ~nd seeds. The varying thickness of the edge of a bifacial
tool also suggests that 1t could be USed for more than one function. In fact, one
large bifacial in Gua Sagu also. showed grinding marks and haernatite stains ou
one surface, indicating the multl-functional nature of the tool.
Raw material was selected with function in mind. Form was important when
choosing raw material fo: a ~under, stone hardness was important for
hammerstone and slab, while flakmg ease is a consideration when' they chose
basalt and slate for oval bifacials and truncated tools. Tool flaking was done in
the site as evidenced by the presence of anvil and hammerstone. Also the
debitage were of the same raw material as the flaked tools.

106
 ZURAINA MAJID, ANG BEE HUAT & JAFFRIE IGNATIUS

Earthenware was not a common item in both caves. The excavated sherds
suggest that they were in the shape of round bottomed vessels that were either
plain or decorated with incised and cord-marked design. The vessels were used
for cooking as evidenced by the soot marks on their surface. Since pottery vessels
were not commonly found in the site, bamboo and forest products could have
been exploited for use as cooking and storage vessels.
The culture-chronological sequence of these two dves in Pahang may be
constructed from the chronometric dates and the vertical distribution of the
artifacts (Table 17). Given the kind of data derived from these excavation sites
that are not completely undisturbed, the sequence discusssed is only a general
interpretation of the cultural development. The site was first occupied during the
Pleistocene around 14,000 years ago by a Palaeolithic group of people whose
tool kit included oval bifacials, hammerstone, anvil and grinder. Among the
earliest animals present in their food remains are wild pig, goat, tiger and
bamboo rat. Towards the end of the Pleistocene, there was an increase in the
number of tools and faunal remains, perhaps indicating that the site was used
more often than in the earlier periods. This trend continued into the Holocene.
Around 3,000 years ago, pottery was introduced, and these pottery levels also
revealed an increase in the frequency and types of stone tools (e.g. mortar),
associated with a larger variety of animals in their diet, and an increase in
riverine shells, suggesting a broader subsistence base and a higher level of
technological development.
The paleoenvironment during the periods of occupation appears to be rather
similar to the climate and vegetation of today. The subsistence activities of the
nomadic life during this time focussed on hunting and gathering. The animals
hunted and consumed were those part of a normal prehistoric menu in the
tropics, dominated by wild boar. Therefore, in terms of hunting skills, technology
and diet, the occupants of these caves fitted the norm of the local prehistoric
population.
These sites, Gua Sagu and Gua Tenggek, cle~rly show a long preceramic
period, followed by a short ceramic period (Figure 21). It may be concluded that
there was little change in the lithic assemblage throughout the periods. The
earlier lithic types continued into the ceramic periods with the addition of a few
new types (mortar, pounder). Grinding was an early feature (seen in the late
Pleistocene) in the site. The changes in the total assemblage from the preceramic
to ceramic levels do not bear strong or sufficient evidence of a change in
subsistence pattern from the late Pleistocene to the Holocene.

107
 Table 17: Cultural-Chronological Sequence And Palaeoenvironment Of Gua Sagu And Gua Tenggek

Years Palaeoenvironment Gus SaQu Gua Tenooek

BP) Sea Level (m)• En vironment Dating Culture Dating Culture

HOLOCENE

1,000 0 In general the Holocene environment is as today.

1,240:!:. 100 BP
-0 .4
2,835:!:. 70 BP Neolithic Neolithic
3,000 +1.5
i

+2.5 to +5.8 4,500-Phase of swampy condition (De Dapper 1983)

~
5,000 +1 ~
I ~
+1 .2
I b
~

0
~
111
0> 7,000 Warm and humid throughout Holocene c:
-12.8
~
<....
0
c:
~
'
9,000 Epl-palaeolithic
r-
10,545:!:. 80 BP Epi-palaeolithic
-38 (World) 10,660:!:.110 BP·'
11,000

12,750:!:. 160 BP
13,000

Below -55 Warm and humid

14,410:!:. 180 BP Palaeolithic Palaeolithic
15,000 Between
·120 and -150 Cool and dry
 Figure 21: Culture Sequence Of Gua Sagu

Spit Stone

~
Neolithic ~
~
~
2,835 ± 70BP '-
.6
)>.
;::
-
0
\0
G)

m
J::
§;:
SpitS -i
Qo

Spit9 14,410 ±180BP ~

Spit,IO 12,75,0 ±160BP Palaeolithic ~

G5
11 ~
:::l
12 c:
(/)

13

I =I piece I =lOOg 1=50g D =!O pieces

 MALAYSIA MUSEUMS JOURNAL

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We would like to thank Mohd Mokhtar Saidin, Stephen Chia, and
Zolkurnian Hassan from the Centre of Archaeological Research in Universiti
Sains Malaysia, for their help in the excavations of Gua Sagu and Gua Tenggek.
Staff from the Department of Museums and Antiquities, Junaidi Rashid, Hamid
!sa, Sanim Ahmad, Tahir Rusin and Krishnan 0. ,were also involved in the
archaeological expedition and we are grateful for all -~heir help.

REFERENCES

Adi Haji Taha

1985 TheRe-excavation of the Rockshelter ofGua Cha, Ulu Kelantan, West
Malaysia, monograph Federation Museums Journal, Vol 30,.Museums
Department, Kuala Lumpur.
Chia, S.
1997 Prehistoric Pottery Sources and Technology in Peninsular Malaysia
Based on Compositional and Morphological Studies, monograph
Malaysia Museums Journal, Museums Department, Kuala Lumpur.
Crater, G.F.
1976 "The Matate: an early grain-grinding implement in the New World", IN
Origins ofAgriculture, C.Reed (ed.), Mounton Publishers, The Hague.
Dunn,F.L.
1964 "Excavation at Gua Kechil, Pahang", Journal ofthe Malayan Branch of
the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol37(2), Kuala Lumpur.
Ha Van Tan
1994 "The Hoabinhian and before", paper presented at the 15th Congress of
Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Nishimura, M.
1992 "Recent development and problem of Hoabinhian study", Journal of
Southeast Asian Archaeology, Vol 12.
Sieveking, A.G.
' 1954 "Excavation at Gua Cha, Kelantan", Federated Museums Journal, Vol
1, Kuala Lumpur.
Tweedie, M.W.F.
1937 "Minor excavations carried out in caves in Pahang and Johore", British
Raffles Museums, Vol 1(3).

110
ZURAINA MAJID, ANG BEE HUAT & JAFFRIE IGNATIUS

Plate 1: Front view of Gua Sagu.

Plate 2: Excavation in progress at Gua Sagu.

111
 MALAYSIA MUSEUMS JOURNAL

Plate 3: Study of soil profile in A5.

Plate 4: Oval bifacial tool.

112
ZURAINA MAJID, ANG BEE HUAT & JAFFRIE IGNATIUS

Plate 5: Truncated tool.

Plate 6: Mortar

113
 MALA YS/4 MUSEUMS JOURNAL

Plate 7: Incised and cord-marked sherds.

Plate 8: Partially reconstructed vessel-- with soot marks at base.

114
 ZURAINA MAJID, ANG BEE HUAT & JAFFRIE IGNATIUS

Plate 9: Gua Tenggek.

Plate 10: Part of the excavation team.

115
View publication stats