Fig 1.
Map of South Sulawesi, Indonesia, showing sites mentioned in the text.
1. Ralla, 2. Mallinrung, 3. Leang Panninge, 4. Leang Bulu’ Sipong 4, 5. Leang Bulu’ Sipong 1, 6. Leang Sakapao, 7. Leang Rakkoe, 8. Leang Lompoa, 9. Leang Lambatorang, 10. Leang Pajae, 11. Ulu Leang 1, 12. Leang Bulu Bettue, 13. Leang Burung 1 & 2, 14. Leang Jarie, 15. Leang Karassa, 16. Tallasa, 17. Lamoncong, 18. Balang Metti, 19. Pammangkulang Batua, 20. Pangnganikang, 21. Batu Ejayya, 22. Silolo, 23. Jammeng. Bulbeck’s “Classical Toalean” Line [20], shown in black, marks the known extent of hollow-based denticulated Maros points and backed microliths which he has proposed may represent a ‘southwest’ Toalean entity [e.g. 52]. Recently both artefact types have been recovered from the site on Leang Panninge, just north of this Line [54]. Basemap made with Natural Earth 2009–2020 under CC-O, DEM created from STRM files available from the USGS Earth Explorer, image compiled by Kim Newman and Yinika L Perston.
Fig 2.
Heavily retouched flakes or ‘scrapers’ from Leang Panninge.
(a) Artefact recovered from square S16T6, 182–202 cm below the surface. (b) Artefact recovered from square T17S6, 162–1720 cm below the surface. Scale bar = 1 cm.
Fig 3.
Bipolar reduction involves bracing a core on an anvil and striking it from above, a process which can initiate fracturing at both points of contact.
Fig 4.
Anvils and hammerstones from Leang Pajae, Test Pit 1.
The battered areas on these river cobbles are circled in blue. (a) Cobble recovered 0–10 cm below the surface, within Layer 1. (b) Cobble recovered 50–60 cm below the surface, Layer 3. Associated finds suggest these are Toalean deposits [unpublished], though (a) originates from a layer which includes mixed Neolithic finds. These two artefacts are more likely to be associated with bipolar reduction than nut or seed processing [105]. Scale bar = 5 cm.
Fig 5.
Early reports of backed microliths in Indonesia.
(a) Backed microlith reported by Bandi in 1951 from Ulu Tjanko, Java [adapted from 118 Fig 8.1]. (b) Toalean backed microliths from Lamoncong, published by Sarasin and Sarasin in 1905 [adapted from 23 pl. 1.6 & 1.8].
Fig 6.
Different classification systems used on the backed microliths recovered from Toalean assemblages [8, 53, 85].
Red arrows indicate percussion axis. Artefact variation adopted from Glover & Presland [85 p. 19].
Fig 7.
Leang Panninge backed microliths.
The microliths are oriented with the percussion axis vertical, the dorsal surface facing up, and the flake blank’s proximal end towards the top of the page. The extent of backing is indicated by dotted lines, and diacritical marks denote the retouching across the visible face of the microliths. Scale bar = 1 cm. Image credit: Nur Ihsan.
Fig 8.
Backed microliths from Leang Panninge with extensive retouch across the dorsal and ventral faces. Retouching was done after the artefacts were backed, using the backed edge as the striking platform. Scale bar = 1 cm.
Fig 9.
Toalean ‘sawlettes’ recovered from the upper 40 cm of Leang Bulu’ Sipong 1, trench T9S1. Scale bar = 1 cm.
Table 1.
Dimensions of the 14 sawlettes recovered from Leang Bulu’ Sipong 1 and Leang Jarie.
Fig 10.
Microdenticulates from Upper Paleolithic Europe.
These small Gravettian artefacts closely resemble the sawlettes of Toalean Sulawesi. (a) Adapted from [129 p.3 Fig 2]; (b) adapted from [130: p. 161, Fig 6.8–6.10]. Scale bar = 1 cm.
Fig 11.
Point recovered from Leang Pajae, Test Pit 1, 20–30 cm below the surface. Scale bar = 1 cm.
Fig 12.
Subclasses of Toalean retouched points.
a [e.g. 8, 50, 55, 57, 123, 141], b [28, 85], c [25], d [8], e [20, 50], f [139], g [8, 55], h [28], i [9, 85], j [3], k [8], l [50].
Fig 13.
Key for identifying the defining Toalean lithic classes.
Fig 14.
(a)–(g) Classic Maros points; (h)–(i) Lompoa points; (m) Pangkep point. (n), (o), (r) Appear to be unfinished classic Maros points; (p)–(q) Mallinrung points. Some artefacts may not be clearly classifiable, such as the double-based example (s). Scale bar = 1 cm.
Fig 15.
Lompoa points made on a bipolar flakes.
(a) Artefact recovered from Leang Pajae, Test Pit 2, 0–10 cm below the surface. (b) Artefact from Leang Rakkoe, Test Pit 1, 1–10 cm below the surface [32]. The pressure retouching scars intrude into the scars created in bipolar reduction. Scale bar = 1 cm.
Fig 16.
Diversity in Maros point shapes.
The outlines of 26 Maros and Lompoa points demonstrate the high variation of morphology of the margins and relatively consistent basal shape. Scale bar = 1 cm.
Table 2.
Toalean points measured in this studya.
Fig 17.
Maros point dimensions by type.
3D scatterplot of the dimensions of 102 unbroken point types, illustrating a similar range of sizes across all point types.
Fig 18.
The platform width of the denticulation scars (indicated by blue lines; see Table 2) was measured as a proxy for the maximum width of the tip of the notching tool. Scale bar is marked in 1 mm increments.
Fig 19.
Pointed osseous artefacts from Leang Pajae and Leang Bulu’ Sipong 1 made on suid teeth.
Table 3.
Metrics for the osseous points of Leang Bulu’ Sipong 1 and Leang Pajae.