Dating the megalithic culture of laos: Radiocarbon, optically stimulated luminescence and U/Pb zircon results

Abstract

The megalithic jar sites of Laos (often referred to as the Plain of Jars) remain one of Southeast Asia’s most mysterious and least understood archaeological cultures. The sites, recently inscribed as UNESCO World Heritage, host hollowed stone jars, up to three metres in height, which appear scattered across the landscape, alone or clustered in groups of up to more than 400. Until now, it has not been possible to estimate when the jars were first placed on the landscape or from where the stone was sourced. Geochronological analysis using the age of detrital zircons demonstrates a likely quarry source for one of the largest megalithic jar sites. Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) dating suggests the jars were positioned at the sites potentially as early as the late second millennium BC. Radiocarbon dating of skeletal remains and charcoal samples places mortuary activity around the jars from the 9-13th century AD, suggesting the sites have maintained ritual significance from the period of their initial placement until historic times.

Secondary burial practice at megalithic jar site 1, Plain of Jars Laos

“…In Unit 1 at Site 2 dates ranged from the eighth century to the twelfth century (two late dates were also returned, possibly related to recent activity at the site). Units 2 and 3 at Site 2 returned dates from the 7th to eighth century (Shewan et al 2021). Optically Stimulated Luminescence dates, obtained from sediments from beneath the jars at Site 2, suggest the emplacement of the megaliths as early as the 2nd millennium BC (Shewan et al 2021).…”

“…Units 2 and 3 at Site 2 returned dates from the 7th to eighth century (Shewan et al 2021). Optically Stimulated Luminescence dates, obtained from sediments from beneath the jars at Site 2, suggest the emplacement of the megaliths as early as the 2nd millennium BC (Shewan et al 2021). How the secondary burials (both bundle and ceramic jar) relate to each other and to the megalthic jars requires further investigation.…”

A multimethod approach to the genesis of Menga, a World Heritage megalith

“…This is exactly the situation at Menga, which suffers from a complete lack of Neolithic human bone and a dearth of animal bone associated with its construction phase and early use. In general, the application of OSL to the dating of megalithic monuments started very recently (Galli et al, 2020;Shewan et al, 2021;Parker Pearson et al, 2021;Kim et al, 2022). In Iberia, despite some earlier This paper attempts (see Calado, 2003;López Romero, 2011;Athanassas et al, 2016Athanassas et al, , 2017, the use of OSL is still not widespread, and its full potential has not yet been realized.…”

Copper-base metal supply during the northern Vietnamese Bronze and Iron Ages: metallographic, elemental, and lead isotope data from Dai Trach, Thành Dên, Gò Mun, and Xuân Lâp

“…1). (Shewan et al 2021), which corresponds to the MSEA Bronze Age. Nevertheless, there is no evidence to suggest prehistoric copper production activity in the area, despite extensive local copper deposits, and no clear occupation by a metal-using population-metallurgy not being adopted across MSEA at the same time, or even at all.…”

“…Based on the solid Thai and Myanma chronological data cited above, some MSEA social groups transitioned from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age in the final centuries of the 2nd millennium BC, though there was likely a great deal of regional variation, with some essentially hunter-gatherer groups remaining to the present day. Radiocarbon dates from central Laos (Cadet et al 2019;Pryce et al 2011a) are compatible, though the northern Lao chronology remains uncertain (Pryce and Cadet 2018;Shewan et al 2021). Cambodian Bronze Age sites are few, with Samrong Sen lacking radiometric dates as it was excavated in the 19th century (Mansuy 1902) but Koh Ta Meas, in the Western Baray at Angkor, provided a single ca.…”