Discovery of an outstanding Hoabinhian site from the Late Pleistocene at Doi Pha Kan (Lampang province, northern Thailand)

Abstract

In Mainland Southeast Asia the Hoabinhian culture corresponds to the legacy of using massive tools made on cobbles, a techno-complex that persisted in a tropical environment for about 30,000 years. During this period, human burial practices also appear to be uniform and limited to burials in "flexed" position. However, stasis in cultural patterns is unlikely over such a long time period and large geographic area, and although new data is emerging on nuances in lithic technologies, the limited number of fully documented burials prevents debate on this issue. In a regional review of Hoabinhian burials we discuss the limitations of using the broad term 'flexed' burials, which can conceal important differences/similarities among cases. We use an archaeo-thanatological approach to describe in detail three burials at Doi Pha Kan site, Lampang province, northern Thailand. Differences are observed in the "flexed" positions of the bodies, the anatomical characteristics of the individuals, and the nature of the offerings. General similarities in burial practices among sites in south China and north Vietnam are now documented in northern Thailand at Doi Pha Kan. We promote the archaeo-thanatological approach to generate relevant descriptions of burials, allowing similarities and/or differences in burial practices over time and within/between regions to be accurately assessed. This approach is essential to establish relevant cultural frameworks that can, in the future, be compared with morphological and genetic data to describe population movements and/or cultural indigenous influences on funerary practices in Mainland Southeast Asia.

Late Pleistocene shell midden microstratigraphy indicates a complex history of human–environment interactions in the uplands of northern Vietnam

“…But due to the nature of the sediments and the challenging conditions of preservation that are characteristics of the region, it is difficult to interpret site stratigraphy or assess the phasing of key features, such as burials, using standard methods [38]. By applying modern scientific techniques of investigation to the molluscan assemblages and archaeological sediments recovered from these upland sites, a number of recent studies, such as those at Hang Boi and Hang Trong in the Tràng An Landscape Complex, Vietnam (figure 1b), have generated new insights into inter-site variability in foraging strategy and site occupation [12,14].…”

Hoabinhian variability in Mainland Southeast Asia revisited: The lithic assemblage of Moh Khiew Cave, Southwestern Thailand

“…To conclude, the diversity of operational sequences and tool types at Moh Khiew Cave and in the Malaysian Peninsula raises, once again, the question of cultural variability and different populations in the Hoabinhian technocomplex and during the Hoabinhian period in Mainland Southeast Asia. This has also recently been noted on the basis of cultural, burial and demographic evidence (Forestier et al 2013(Forestier et al , 2017Forestier 2020;Imdirakphol et al 2017;Matsumura et al 2015;White 2011;Zeitoun et al 2019a). The lithic assemblage of Moh Khiew is reminiscent of contemporaneous industries in Southern China where we observe more diversity than uniformity.…”

“…The sumatralith is just one example of the plano-convex structure, but not the only way of obtaining a plano-convex structure. The Hoabinhian phenomenon appears to be limited to Mainland Southeast Asia and the surrounding regions and is linked to tropical and subtropical forest environments (Forestier et al 2013(Forestier et al , 2015(Forestier et al , 2017Forestier 2020;Zeitoun et al 2008Zeitoun et al , 2019a. Compared with the traditional typological definition, the new definition from a technological perspective presents several advantages.…”

Characterization of painting pigments and ochres associated with the Hoabinhian archaeological context at the rock-shelter site of Doi Pha Kan (Thailand)

“…Due to this particular stratigraphical context, it was difficult to date the archaeological material nearby the graves. However, radiocarbon direct dating of anthropological remains provided dates ranging from 13,172 to 10,986 Cal BC for the three graves (Zeitoun et al, 2019). These dates obtained on bioapatite are younger than those obtained for charcoal (13,732 -13,297 Cal BC) and shell (13,238 Cal BC) due to diagenesis.…”

“…Doi Pha Kan deposits are powdery loamy sediments accumulated over a depth of at least two meters (Imdirakphol et al, 2017;Zeitoun et al, 2019). Due to the loose nature of the sediment, large excavations were not possible without disturbing sediments and the embedded archaeological remains.…”