The Ban Don Mun artifacts: A chronological reappraisal of human occupations in the Lampang province of Northern Thailand

Despite recent stone tool evidence demonstrating a much older Early Pleistocene human presence in India, the timing and geography of human demographic expansions in continental Southeast Asia remains ambiguous. The recent discovery of a series of stone artifacts spread over a basalt level at Ban Don Mun in the Lampang province of northern Thailand presents an ideal opportunity for reevaluating lithic assemblages documented during the 1970s and 1980s in the same region. Both the position of these stone tools and new absolute dates indicate a Middle Pleistocene age and call into question the status of these artifacts as the oldest yet found in Southeast Asia. The uncertain geo-chronological context and technological analysis of the chopper industry from previous work in the Lampang area prompted us to undertake new surveys in continental Southeast Asia in order to help clarify the route and timing of Pleistocene human expansions in this part of the world.     

The perforated stones of the Doi Pha Kan burials (Northern Thailand): A Mesolithic singularity?

Throughout continental Southeast Asia, the Hoabinhian techno-complex stands out in clear contrast with the universal chrono-cultural model essentially established on the basis of western prehistory. Following this model, early authors considered perforated stones and associated lithic artefacts as markers of what was then believed to pertain to a Southeast Asian Mesolithic. However, Southeast Asian Mesolitithic has progressively been abandoned in favour of a ubiquitous Hoabinhian spanning from 30,000 to 3000 BP. Here, we present and discuss the discovery of perforated stones at the Doi Pha Kan site in northern Thailand. Perforated stones have almost never been found in undisturbed stratigraphic conditions nor dated with any sufficient degree of certainty. At Doi Pha Kan site, such a kind of artefacts was found in burials intersecting sedimentary layers that could be ascertained as Hoabinhian. In contrast with similar perforated stones described in the literature, that found at Doi Pha Kan are well-dated (13,000 BP), thus providing a time-reference for a putative Southeast Asian Mesolithic. We therefore advocate that such non-Hoabinhian artefacts support the early authors’ hypothesis of the existence of a Southeast Asian Mesolithic. Finally, the funerary practices, the unusually high stature of individuals found at Doi Pha Kan in conjunction with the particular lithic assemblages further contributes to raise the question of the co-occurrence of several cultures or populations at the Pleistocene–Holocene interface in continental Southeast Asia.