The lithic assemblage from the 700,000-year-old butchery site of Kalinga (Luzon Island, Philippines): New insights into technological variability in the Early Paleolithic in Island Southeast Asia

Despite a long history of archaeological and paleoanthropological research, our understanding of the Early Paleolithic in Island Southeast Asia remains limited as only a few sites with clear stratigraphic contexts—Mata Menge (Flores Island), Ngebung 2 (Java Island), Calio and Talepu (Sulawesi Island)—have been documented. This scarcity of well-stratified assemblages has led to a poor characterization of technological variability and cultural sequences, which mainly rely on surface collections and early typological classifications/facies (e.g., Pacitanian, Cabengian, Cabalwanian, Liwanian, Arubian, etc.). These classifications, mostly based on a handful of cobble artifacts, have long obscured the technological diversity of early hominin settlements in the region. The Kalinga site (Luzon Island, Philippines), dated to ca. 709 ka, provides a rare opportunity to examine an Early Paleolithic assemblage in a secure stratigraphic context. Previous studies offered only a brief description of the lithic assemblage. In this article, we present the first comprehensive technological and structural analysis of the Kalinga lithic assemblage from two archaeological layers (units F and Y), applying analytical approaches developed for West Eurasian Early Paleolithic contexts. We also reassessed and questioned two previously defined Philippine ‘lithic facies’—Cabalwanian and Liwanian—based on surface finds in the Cagayan Valley since the 1930s. By comparing the technological characteristics of Kalinga artifacts with these assemblages, our aim is to clarify their variability, evaluate the validity of typological distinctions, and recontextualize Philippine lithic industries within broader Asian Paleolithic frameworks, with particular focus on small flake technologies. This study contributes new data on early hominin technological behaviors in Southeast Asia and provides a basis for revising cultural classifications built on limited evidence.

• View at Publisher