PHILIPPINE CHRONOLOGY

Attempting a Chronostratigraphy for Philippine Archaeology

Alfred Pawlik – UP ASP

Based on the Genesis:
The world is 6000 years old

or
“…Man was created by the Trinity about the third houre of the
day, or nine of the clocke in the morning on 23 October 4004 BC.
[John Lightfoot 1642: A few and new observations on the book of
Genesis, the most of them certain, the rest probable, all harmless,
strange and rarely heard of before.]
 DATING OUR HISTORY

• James Ussher, ‘Archbishop of Ireland and

Primate of All Ireland’

• Chronological study based on the Julian

Calendar to establish the time and date of:

• “The entrance of the night preceding the

23rd day of October... the year before Christ
4004"; that is, around 6 pm on 22 October
4004 BC
 MEANWHILE…

Ice
Age

Ediacara fauna: The „Dawn of Animal Life“ (600 ma-542 mya)

CLASSIC CHRONOLOGICAL FRAMEWORKS

• Christian Thomsen: Three Age System

Iron Age
• Arranged the collections of the Danish National Museum
• Established a chronology of the “Dark Age”
Bronze Age

Stone Age

Christian Thomsen (1836)

CLASSIC CHRONOLOGICAL FRAMEWORKS
Refinement of the Three Age System in
the second half of the 19th Century
• Stone Age divided into Palaeolithic
and Neolithic by John Lubbock 1865
• Period of chipped stone (Palaeolithic)
• Period of ground stone (Neolithic)

John Lubbock
CLASSIC CHRONOLOGICAL FRAMEWORKS
Refinement of the Three Age System in
the second half of the 19th Century
• Gabriel de Mortillet (1821-1898)
• Typology: Chronology of the
Palaeolithic based on characteristic
type forms within lithic assemblages.
• Each period (‘culture’) is named
after its type locality (1872):
Gabriel de Mortillet

• Period of Saint-Acheul or Acheuleén

• Period of Moustier or Mousterién
• Period of Solutré or Solutreén
CLASSIC CHRONOLOGICAL FRAMEWORKS
Refinement of the Three Age System
in the second half of the 19th Century

• Oskar Montelius

• ‘Die Methode’ (1901):

“Relative Chronology
tells us if an object is
younger or older than
another object”.
Oskar Montelius

• Typology as a tool for Relative Dating

TYPOLOGY DILEMMA OF LITHIC MATERIALS
Chronological sequences in prehistoric archaeology are generally based
on cultural materials, chiefly stone tools. In the Philippines, however:

• Lack of characteristic, recurring type tool forms until the Neolithic

• No advanced core technology (e.g. Levallois, blade cores, etc.)
• Mode 1 and rarely Mode 2 artefacts in open sites.
• No secure stratigraphic context so far. Although a new biostratigraphic
record in continuous Pleistocene sediments from northern Luzon
might provide an initial timeline.
• ‘Simple and unsophisticated’ tool technology found in cave sites since
the upper Pleistocene, mostly small-sized flakes used without further
modification
• Traditional Typology-based models seem not applicable.
 CURRENT CHRONOLOGICAL FRAMEWORKS
Interdisciplinary Approach:
• Geochronology
• Climate and environmental proxies
• Stratigraphic and contextual field methods
• Absolute dates through radiometric methods

Chronostratigraphy of Geißenklösterle Cave (Conard et al. 2004)

GEOCHRONOLOGICAL CONTEXT
International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS-IUGS)
Quaternary epochs defined by Global Boundary Stratotype Sections and
Points (GSSP)*
• Pleistocene 2.58ma – 11.7ka BP
• Lower/Middle Pleistocene boundary at 0.77ma BP
• Middle/Upper Pleistocene boundary at 126ka BP
• Pleistocene/Holocene Boundary defined by NGRIP2 core at 1492.45m
depth (IUGS 2008)
This boundary is connected to the sharp rise of δ18O within 1-3 years
from glacial to interglacial values. Indicates a rapid temperature
increase at the end of the Younger Dryas at 11.7ka BP

*Gibbard et al. and the Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy. 2010. Formal ratification of the Quaternary
System/Period and the Pleistocene Series/Epoch with a base at 2.58 Ma. Journal of Quaternary Science 25: 96–102.
GEOCHRONOLOGICAL CONTEXT
Time (cal BP) Europe/N-America

Holocene usually subdivided by regional climate stages

11700 Younger Dryas ends

11700 – 10600 Preboreal

10600 – 9200 Boreal

Two Global Boundary Stratotype Section and Points*:
9200 – 5650 Atlantic

1. Early/Mid Holocene boundary at 8200 BP (8.2 Event) 5650 - 2400 Subboreal

2400 -present Subatlantic

2. Mid/Late Holocene boundary at 4200 BP (4.2 Event)

*Walker et al. 2012. Formal subdivision of the Holocene Series/Epoch. Journal of Quaternary
Science 27: 649–659
THE 8.2ka EVENT*
Selected published proxy records
Sudden decrease in global temperatures.
Grey bar marks the approximate duration
of the climatic anomaly associated with the
8.2ka event

Zoller, H. (1960): “Misox oscillation”, pollen record of Valle Mesolcina, CH

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=13309952

*Walker et al. (2012). Formal subdivision of the Holocene

Series/Epoch. Journal of Quaternary Science 27: 649–659
THE 4.2ka EVENT
Selected published proxy records:
Orange bar marks the likely onset and
termination of the 4.2 anomaly
Indicates a sharp drop in temperature (and a
sharp rise after its end)

The Mawmluh Cave d18O record, showing the GSSP of the 4.2 event
as clear isotopic signal (NE-India; Berkelhammer et al., 2012)
THE 4.2ka EVENT and its climatic effects

• Marine and terrestrial proxy indicators in Australasia and S-America suggest a

major climatic transition after 5.0 ka BP (McGlone et al., 1992)
• Marked cooling of southern ocean waters at c. 4.3 ka BP (Moros et al., 2009)
• Widespread and severe drought conditions are evident around 4.2 ka BP in
pollen, diatom and testate amoebae assemblages, cave speleothem stable
isotopes and dune systems (Weiss 2012)
• Pollen evidence from the tropical northeast Australia suggests the onset of an
ENSO-dominated climatic régime at c. 4.0 ka BP (Schulmeister & Lees, 1995)
• Onset of much colder conditions at c. 4.0 ka BP (Mischke & Zhang, 2010)
• In China, the 4.2 event is also marked by drought and, paradoxically, by extreme
flooding (Huang et al., 2011)
• In Taiwan, an increase in palaeoprecipitation, reflecting a strengthening of the
East Asia summer monsoon, happened about 4.2 ka BP (Yang et al., 2011).
A BASIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL CHRONOLOGY OF THE PHILIPPINES

1. PALAEOLITHIC

• TIME: Pleistocene to mid/late Holocene boundary (c. 4200 cal. BP),

• MATERIAL CULTURE: Flaked lithic artefacts, shell artefacts in coastal sites,

no pottery

• SUBSISTENCE: Hunting and gathering (foraging) of terrestrial and marine

resources
A BASIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL CHRONOLOGY OF THE PHILIPPINES

1. PALAEOLITHIC

a) LOWER PALAEOLITHIC: Currently appearing only in open sites (e.g. Arubo, Espinosa,
Huluga).
Assemblages contain larger flake cores and core tools (“Mode 1”), rarely with “Mode 2”,
i.e. unifacial and bifacial tools.

A direct association of potentially early Palaeolithic sites in the Philippines with its
extinct Pleistocene megafauna (Kalinga, Cagayan) still needs to be verified as well as
absolute dates obtained.
A BASIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL CHRONOLOGY OF THE PHILIPPINES

1. PALAEOLITHIC

a) LOWER PALAEOLITHIC: A formal similarity can be

established with lithic artefacts from lower
Palaeolithic sites in the Region:
South China, e.g. Bose Basin (0.8ma BP)
Thailand, e.g. Lampang (E/MPL)
Central Vietnam, e.g. Roc Tung (0.7-0.9ma BP)
Indonesia, e.g. Sangiran (>1ma BP) and
Soa Basin sites on Flores (0.8-1ma BP)
A BASIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL CHRONOLOGY OF THE PHILIPPINES

1. PALAEOLITHIC

b) UPPER PALAEOLITHIC:

Dominantly small flake production. Core tools are generally absent.

Most flakes remained unmodified. Limited secondary modification observed.

Seemingly unchanged production technology. No formality, no typological method

applicable.

Osseous artefacts appear.

Various burial practices in the later period, e.g. flexed, cremation; no or few grave goods
A BASIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL CHRONOLOGY OF THE PHILIPPINES

1. PALAEOLITHIC

b) UPPER PALAEOLITHIC:
Lack of Typology as tool for relative chronological classification
currently prevents the establishing of a detailed chronological
sequence. No clear association with Hoabinhian traditions in the
mainland (e.g. no Sumatraliths, edge ground tools, short axes).
Lithic assemblages associated with stratified contexts in caves
and rockshelters.

14C dates start at c. 35-30ka cal. BP (Tabon, Callao, Bubog 1).

Less secure U-series dates might suggest as early as c. 50ka BP.
Ille Cave, c. 14-12ka BP
A BASIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL CHRONOLOGY OF THE PHILIPPINES

1. PALAEOLITHIC

c) EPI-PALAEOLITHIC:

Time: Late Holocene (after c. 4200 cal BP)

Material culture: Flaked lithic artefacts, shell artefacts in coastal sites, pottery

Subsistence: Hunting and gathering (foraging) of terrestrial and marine resources

Continuation of foraging as main subsistence strategy during a time when immigrant farming
societies were already established the Philippines. Largely unchanged behavior although
contacts and material exchange with the new migrants and/or adoption of their cultural
traits is visible through the material culture.
A BASIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL CHRONOLOGY OF THE PHILIPPINES

2. NEOLITHIC

• TIME: Late Holocene (after c. 4200 cal. BP)

• MATERIAL CULTURE: Ground adzes, pottery, wide range

of ornamental items, imported objects and raw materials

• SUBSISTENCE: Dominantly farming, evidence for plant cultivation and

animal domestication. Introduction of new species.

• Arrival of the first Austronesian speaking groups coincides with the

climate anomaly and drastic cooling associated with the 4.2 Event

• Direct date on Sus scrofa P4 from Nagsabaran: 4447-4280 cal. BP.

Earliest known introduction of domestic pig (Piper et al. 2009)
THE 4.2ka EVENT
POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON HUMAN COMMUNITIES
• Cultural upheaval in north Africa, the Middle East and Asia
• The collapse of the Akkadian Empire around 4.2 ka BP
has been linked to sudden aridification (Weiss et al., 1993)
• In Egypt, the Old Kingdom seems to have collapsed following a series of
exceptionally low Nile floods at about 4.1 ka BP (Stanley et al., 2003)
• In China, drought conditions during the late fifth millennium BP may have
caused the demise of a number of Neolithic cultures (Stanley et al., 1999;
Wu & Liu, 2004; Gao et al., 2007; Liu et al., 2010)
• In the Yangtze and Yellow River basins, there is a marked decline in the
number of recorded archaeological sites from c. 4.2 ka BP onwards (Liu &
Feng, 2012)
• Potential trigger of the Austronesian Diaspora
METAL AGE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Attempt to merge absolute dates with relative periodization was affected by

problems of context interpretation and association as well as sample quality
Spriggs 1989: Chronometric hygiene necessary! Several dates for the
Neolithic that are too early raise questions on quality and the context
METAL AGE OF THE PHILIPPINES
How to securely distinguish Bronze Age from Iron Age?

• Beyer (1947): Beginning of the Iron Age about 250-200 BC, similar to mainland
SE-Asian chronology

• Fox in Berger & Libby (1966): Charcoal samples from Manunggul Chamber A
associated with Early Iron Age and Sa-Huy’nh pottery. 14C dated to 2840± 80
and 2660 ± 80 BP (3168-2777 cal. BP and 2961-2493 cal. BP).

• Fox (1970): Manunggul Chamber B: Iron artefacts associated with earliest 14C
date: 2140±100 BP or 2344-1921 cal. BP

• Fox’s initial periodization based on context association and the returned 14C
dates from UCLA did not match

• Fox (1970): Manunggul Chamber A and Spirit Boat Jar revised to Late Neolithic.
Positioned the beginning of the Early Metal Age immediately after

• Fox (1970) rejected the recognition of a “Bronze Age” as too brief period
METAL AGE OF THE PHILIPPINES

However:
• Fox (1970): Ling-ling-o diagnostic ornament of the Early Metal Age in Palawan
(Tabon, Duyong and Uyaw).
• Fox (1970): Early Metal Age burial sites contain bronze and/or copper
implements and stone tools. General absence of iron objects

• Fox’s classification of Early Metal Age and Late Metal Age uses the same
criteria as for Bronze Age and Iron Age. Merely a replacement of terms

• Although several studies on the related material culture for the Philippines
appeared since, majority of researchers still uses the term “Metal Age”

• Remaining problem: Reference sites are mostly associated with antiquated

14C dates, ‘bad’ dates or have no dates at all. No direct dates available

• Ch. Higham et al. (2011): The Origins of the Bronze Age of Southeast Asia.
Large set of AMS 14C dates and Bayesian modelling for several sites in Thailand
indicate that bronze metallurgy reached Southeast Asia in the late 2nd
millennium BC. Ban Non Wat: Transition into the Bronze Age at c. 1200 cal. BC
A BASIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL CHRONOLOGY OF THE PHILIPPINES

3. BRONZE AGE
• TIME: After c. 3000 cal. BP

• MATERIAL CULTURE: Addition of items made of

copper and copper alloys to the Neolithic material
culture. Appearance of Lingling-o and other
ornamental objects, shell and stone beads

• Subsistence: Continuation of the Neolithic and

further development of agricultural production

• Continuation of jar burial practices

A BASIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL CHRONOLOGY OF THE PHILIPPINES

4. IRON AGE
• Time: After c. 2200 cal BP (Manunggul Cave B)

• Material culture: Addition of ferrous items made of

iron alloys (e.g. wrought iron, steel) produced by
smelting and forging to the Bronze Age material
culture. Beads from glass and semi-precious stones

• Subsistence: Continuation of the Bronze Age and

agriculture production. Growth of trade and exchange
networks and complex social systems (chiefdoms)
Contacts with imperial states on the Asian mainland
SYNTHESIS
A BASIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL CHRONOLOGY OF THE PHILIPPINES

Back to Thomsen, Lubbock and Montelius – and Beyer and Fox?

Establishing a basic chronology system that is supported by:
• Stratigraphic record
• Environmental data
• Morphological analogies of artefacts
• Referenced by absolute dating
• Absolute dating remains an issue for the periodization of metal bearing
assemblages. More dates from good contexts required
• Bronze Age and Iron Age are as good terms as are Early and Late Metal Age
CHRONOLOGICAL STRUCTURE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Time BP GSSP (IUGS) Geol. Stage Archaeological Stage
500 Historic Period
1000
Iron Age
2000
Late Holocene
3000 Bronze Age
4000 4.2ka Event Neolithic
5000
6000
7000 Mid Holocene

8000 8.2ka Event

9000
10000 Upper Palaeolithic
11000 Early Holocene

12000 11.7ka Event

13000
…..
30000
40000 Pleistocene

50000 Lower Palaeolithic

….. Proposal for a revised Philippine Chronology
CHRONOLOGICAL STRUCTURE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Time BP GSSP (IUGS) Geol. Stage Archaeological Stage
500 Historic Period
1000
Iron Age
2000
Manunggul B
Late Holocene Manunggul A
3000 Bronze Age
Nagsabaran
Vito UA
4000 4.2k Event Neolithic
Vito LA
Balobok
5000 Minori
Duyong Burial
6000
7000 Mid Holocene

8000 8.2k Event

9000 Bubog 2
Duyong Gouge

10000 Upper Palaeolithic

Tabon Ib
11000 Early Holocene

12000 11.7k Event

13000
Ille TPL
…..
30000 Callao Bubog 1 L9b

40000 Pleistocene Tabon VI

50000 Lower Palaeolithic

….. Proposal for a revised Philippine Chronology