Fases del proceso de desarrollo del SMQ

Thailand has received the most archaeological attention within SEA due to large projects headed by archaeologists such as Rasmi Shoocongdej, Surin Pookajorn, Charles Higham, and Joyce White. Both Shoocongdej (1996; 2000; 2006; 2007) and Pookajorn (1985; 1996) have been instrumental in shaping research in Thailand, especially in analysing Late Pleistocene and hunter-gatherer populations. Shoocongdej (1996; 2007) has also offered interesting critiques regarding the use of traditional European chronological frameworks and the lasting impacts of colonialism in SEA. In terms of the chronology and origins of the Neolithic and Bronze Age in Thailand, Higham and White have been significant investigators, and this topic continues to be controversial as a result of these two competing researchers. Although it is out of the scope of this thesis to detail this debate, the basic situation is as follows. Higham and colleagues (Higham 1996; Higham and Thosarat 2004b, 153–5) favour an external impetus for the introduction of agriculture and domesticated animals into Thailand (the so-called ‘short chronology’), linking the two-layer hypothesis for Vietnam to Thailand (see Chapter two, section 2.3.11.). White and colleagues (White and Hamilton 2009; White 2011; 2015) see agriculture as a local development, and argue for connections to the north Ural Mountains during the Bronze Age, favouring the so-called ‘long chronology’. This second view does not hold as much support with other researchers, especially with those working in Vietnam where the migration of agricultural groups appears suddenly in the record (Bellwood and Oxenham 2008; Bellwood 2015a; Oxenham 2015; Oxenham et al. 2015; Pryce 2015).

Within Thailand, there are several key Neolithic and Bronze Age sites that are useful comparisons to MB and CCN (Table 3-8). Ban Non Wat (NBW), Ban Chiang (BC), and Non Nok Tha (NNT) are located in the Khorat Plateau in northern-central Thailand and are relatively close to one another. Khok Phanom Di (KPD) is located on the eastern

coast of the Gulf of Thailand. Since KPD and BNW were more recently and thoroughly analysed, discussion will focus on these two sites.

Higham and Thosarat (2004b) argue that KPD is essentially an indigenous group of hunter-gatherers that increasingly interacted with rice agriculturalists as they migrated into the area. A large part of this argument is based on the strontium isotopic difference on tooth enamel between some of the women at KPD who display different marine enrichment, which suggests they were raised elsewhere (Higham and Thosarat 2004b, 156–8).

For BNW, Higham (2015, 1213) has argued the initial occupation “involved a coalescence of indigenous hunter-gatherers and intrusive Neolithic farmers” akin to MB.

Currently, this interpretation is mainly based on the presence of both flexed and extended burials and Higham (2015) argues flexed burials are characteristic of indigenous hunter-gatherer groups. Bellwood (2015a, 1225) is sceptical on this particular assumption as he

“has difficulty in accepting that flexed burial is a necessary indicator of an indigenous hunter-gatherer origin” and points out craniometric analysis is needed.

3.6.2.1. The fauna

The presence of domesticated dogs, cattle, and pigs has been argued at a number

Site Name Region Type Period Uncal. BP ¹⁴C date BP Reference

Spirit Cave Burial site /

Plateau Burial site Bronze Age 3,120 ±50 to

3,080 ±50 Table 3-8 Main Thai sites mentioned in text. Where calibrated BP dates were not provided by the authors dates were calibrated using Oxcal version 4.2 (Bronk Ramsey 2009), IntCal 13 (Reimer et al. 2013).

of sites on the Khorat Plateau (BNW, NNT, BC, and Ban Na Di). For BNW, the size disparity of the first fore phalanges of Bovinae led Kijngam (2010) to argue that people were hunting wild Bos gaurus whilst maintaining a domestic herd. Bubalus are present but in lesser numbers than Bos and are argued to represent wild populations (Kijngam 2010). Kijngam (2010) argued that pigs and dogs were domesticated but noted Cervidae of various sizes were the most common taxa exploited along with turtles. Further, several species of catfish were abundant as were Filopaludina sp. and Pila sp. shellfish, which points to the importance of freshwater resources in the diet (Thosarat 2010).

At KPD the domesticated status of animals is less clear. Based on the large size of the phalanges Grant and Higham (1991, 148–9) concluded Bubalus bubalis probably represented wild species, while the domestic status of Bovidae (Bos spp.) were uncertain.

Neither genera made up a significant proportion of the taxa in the assemblage with only a NISP of 10 Bubalus and 13 Bovidae. Canids were not found in the lowest layer at KPD but make an appearance in Layer 10:16 (Grant and Higham 1991, 154). Their remains were also relatively rare with an MNI of nine and age ranging from very young to adult based on dentition (Grant and Higham 1991, 152–3). Grant and Higham (1991, 152–3) were cautious regarding the domestic status of the canids, arguing that wolves could be ruled out based on biogeography and Cuon alpinus (dhole) based on the absence of two cusps on lower M1. However, the authors conceded Canis aureus (Asiatic jackal) could potentially be present in the assemblage.

When the NISP of taxa is compared between sites it is clear that wild taxa such as Cervidae and Geoemydidae remain important despite the introduction of domesticates (Higham 1975b; Higham and Kijngam 1979; Grant and Higham 1991; West 1991;

Kijngam 2010). It is difficult to properly compare the BC and NNT fauna; as although the methods were decent for the time the faunal analyses are out-dated.³ A quick comparison of the %NISP of medium to large mammals from KPD and BNW shows there are some individual site differences (Table 3-9). For instance, KPD has a high NISP of Cercopithecidae remains while none are reported at BNW. BNW has a comparably higher

%NISP of Bovinae and canids but fewer pigs than KPD. Both sites have a comparable proportion of total Cervidae but BNW has a greater proportion of muntjacs.

This is likely to be partly reflective of the different environments surrounding the sites, KPD being on the Gulf of Thailand while BNW is situated in the Khorat Plateau.

Paleoenvironmental evidence from KPD suggests estuary conditions during the

Early-3 A reanalysis of the material is currently underway by Cyler Conrad.

Potential domesticates Site NameBubalus sp.Bos sp.Bovinae spp.Total BovinaeSus sp.Canidae KPD1023291 BNW2111326237 Wild taxa Site NameCervus sp.MuntiacusTotal CervidaeCercopithecidaeFelidae spp.Panthera tigrisViverridaeMustelidae KPD39241202022 BNW3494400100

Table 3-9 Comparison of %NISP of medium-large mammalian fauna from KPD and BNW, data for KDP from (Grant and Higham 1991; West 1991) and data for BNW from (Kijngam 2010). Using only these taxa below, KPD total NISP = 2052; BNW total NISP = 1520.

Mid Holocene (Higham and Thosarat 2004b, 156–8). Analysis of clay shows the area was covered in marine sediment which indicates mangrove swamps and saline flats may have surrounded the site (Higham 1990, 2). Conversely, BNW is significantly further inland and the faunal remains indicate woodlands, forest fringes, and fresh water within close vicinity (Kijngam 2010, 197). The faunal remains from the nearby site of BC also indicate the presence of lakes, swamps, and woodlands (Higham and Kijngam 1979). The general picture from the sites in Thailand is a similar one to other SEA sites. Diversity in taxa is a common factor and the hunting and gathering of wild species continued to be an important aspect of the diet even after the introduction of domesticated animals.

3.6.2.2. Comparison of Vietnamese and Thai sites

The wealth of burial goods and skill in creating various bone, lithic, and ceramic artefacts is one of the main characteristics of KPD along with differences in the treatment of males and females and associated artefacts. Higham (2014, 97) argues KPD is “a society that grew to be wealthy and socially graded, on the basis of controlling and participating in long distance exchange.” The implied difference in levels of individual wealth and status within the KDP population is in stark contrast to CCN or MB, which display limited social differentiation. There is also considerable variation between other Neolithic and Bronze Age burials in Thailand, as Oxenham (2015) points out, NNT is ostensibly poor in grave goods while BNW is comparably rich. The BC burials were also described by Higham (2014, 157) as decidedly poor. Oxenham (2015) argues this variety in expression of burial rites is a reflection of the mosaic state of sites, influenced by a range of different political and social aspects.

Both Oxenham (2015), and Bellwood (2015a) agree that Vietnamese sites provide the best and clearest evidence for the two layer hypothesis. Oxenham (2015, 1221) argues Vietnam sees: “a virtual eruption of Neolithic sites across the region c. 4,000 BP, overlapping with the terminal phase of the southern Chinese Neolithic, which no doubt fuelled (in terms of genes and technology) the major transformations observed among its more southerly neighbours.” However, Oxenham (2015, 1222) also argues that work at MB, An Son, and Rach Nui shows “there was no standard Neolithic response to subsistence in MSEA” and that domesticated plants and animals played a relatively minor role initially. A parallel argument has been made for the Neolithic in China, which is significant as the purported origin of this change in MSEA.