2017
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-64407-3_4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Hoabinhian of Southeast Asia and its Relationship to Regional Pleistocene Lithic Technologies

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 50 publications
0
9
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The record of human activity at CMC, and our tentative association between episodes of occupation and abandonment and changes in monsoon intensity provides novel insights in a region where current narratives of the Palaeolithic are based largely on scattered human remains and lithic finds (Dennell & Porr, ; Marwick, ; Marwick, ; Morley, ). To resolve the regional history of human–environment interactions and more fully understand the processes driving settlement, demographic change and adaptation in this diverse and challenging region will require the combination of a range of complementary techniques and approaches, such as those used in this study.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 85%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The record of human activity at CMC, and our tentative association between episodes of occupation and abandonment and changes in monsoon intensity provides novel insights in a region where current narratives of the Palaeolithic are based largely on scattered human remains and lithic finds (Dennell & Porr, ; Marwick, ; Marwick, ; Morley, ). To resolve the regional history of human–environment interactions and more fully understand the processes driving settlement, demographic change and adaptation in this diverse and challenging region will require the combination of a range of complementary techniques and approaches, such as those used in this study.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 85%
“…In North Vietnam, such assemblages are often associated with shell middens in cave sites such as Con Moong Cave (Su, 2009;Thong, 1980) and Hang Boi (Moser, 2012;Rabett et al, 2011), dating to the terminal Pleistocene and later. However, new discoveries across MSEA have blurred the temporal and geographical boundaries of this technological change, rendering the "Hoabinhian" a nebulous archaeological concept, with no demonstrated environmental or economic driver (Ji et al, 2016;Marwick, 2018). As research across Southeast Asia suggests communities employed complex, forest-based procurement strategies from~40 ka and earlier (Bae et al, 2017;Barker et al, 2007;Hunt & Barker, 2014;Hunt, Gilbertson, & Rushworth, 2012;O'Connor & Bulbeck, 2014;Piper & Rabett, 2014;Rabett, 2018;Roberts, Perera, et al, 2015;Wedage et al, 2019), the vectors and chronology of hominin dispersal and adaptation within MSEA persist as enigmas.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The associated tools usually include short axes, discs, hammers, almond-shaped artefacts, scrapers, and choppers, etc. It is a cobble-tool industry and the tempo-spatial distribution of the Hoabinhian is Mainland Southeast Asia and the nearby regions during the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene (Collectif 1932;Gorman 1969Gorman , 1970Marwick 2018;Matthews 1966;Pautreau 1994). This typological definition of the Hoabinhian is often criticized because the sumatralith is seen as the hallmark of the Hoabinhian by many researchers, while other associated tools are too often neglected (Marwick 2008;Reynolds 1990;White and Gorman 2004;Zeitoun et al 2008).…”
Section: What Is the Hoabinhian?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Defining the Hoabinhian is difficult as its chronological and geographical distribution is yet to be clearly defined. Most simply, it can be described as a late Pleistocene-early Holocene industry of Southeast Asia which is characterised by unifacial flaked tools made primarily on water rounded pebbles, core tools ('sumatraliths'), and grinding stones (Chitkament et al 2016;Ji et al 2016;Marwick, 2018). In other cases, clear description of pieces lack the level of detail required to situate them among their contemporaries.…”
Section: Current Evidence: Sunda and Wallaceamentioning
confidence: 99%