Henrik Lekenvall. Master´s thesis. Socio Economic Dynamics in Peninsular Thailand. Food Producing...

7/31/2019 Henrik Lekenvall. Masters thesis. Socio Economic Dynamics in Peninsular Thailand. Food Producing Strategies in

1/99

Socio-Economic

Dynamics in Pe-

ninsular

Thailand:

Food-Producing

Strategies in

Stone Agecommunities

Masters thesis. Department of Archaeology

and Ancient History. Uppsala University.

2010. Henrik Lekenvall.

Supervisor: Paul J.J. Sinclair

Based on field

studies in

Songkhla,lower penin-

sular Thailand


2/99

2


3/99

3

Masters thesis at Uppsala University May 2011.

ABSTRACT

Lekenvall, H. Socio-Economic Dynamics in Peninsular Thailand: Food-Producing Strategies in Stone

Age communities.Department of Archaeology and Ancient History. Uppsala University.

The conventional view of Stone Age communities in Southeast Asia is that they consisted of foraging

hunter-gatherers, who became colonized by Austroasiatic speaking agriculturalists from southern Chi-

na in the second millennium BC. For this reason, it has been argued that rice agriculture was the earli-

est type of food-production in the region. Consequently, agriculture and later urbanism and state for-

mation have become associated with rice domesticating communities, neglecting alternative interpre-

tations, such as indigenously developed cultivation strategies. Recent environmental data from various

parts of Southeast Asia and elsewhere, however, suggest that forager groups practiced forest clearance

in the late Pleistocene, and that there was an increase in landscape management practices during the

Holocene. During this time, communities also started to cultivate plants.

The archaeological survey of Songkhla Province in lower peninsular Thailand presented here was

aimed at locating Stone Age cave and rock shelter sites. Up till now only a few sites from this periodhave been found in peninsular Thailand. I base my analysis on the notion that environment and present

day land-use reflect the diversity of past cultivation strategies. The aim is therefore to enhance our

archaeological understanding of the area and connect the survey results with environmental data and

current land-use strategies. One of the most important tasks for the study is to address archaeological

site visibility in landscapes associated with land forms, soils and water. In doing so, the sites may be

used to explain the changes in land-use which took place around 4000 BP. The archaeological record

attests the presence of Late Stone Age groups from 4000 BP. By reviewing environmental research

and archaeological data, I establish a link between past and present land-use and sites found during the

archeological survey. The function of cave and rock shelter sites changing from temporary residential

sites to their role as burial localities after 4000 BP supports this notion. On this basis, I suggest inves-

tigations of cave and rock shelter sites benefits our understanding of Holocene land-use and subsis-

tence strategies, as they indicate a connection between local economic systems and site use.However, environmental evidence suggests a much earlier adaptation to a food-producing econo-

my, which intensified in later Holocene periods. The increase in disturbed taxa and land-use seems to

be associated with the supposed contemporary immigration of agricultural groups. Archaeological and

environmental data from neighboring regions suggests intensified land-use connected with food-

producing strategies of horticulture and arboriculture during this period. I propose similar interpreta-

tions for peninsular Thailand, and support this by local environmental data. It is also important to note

that the environmental data does not support the idea of a cultural and chronological gap between

hunter-gatherers and expansionary agriculturalists. There are also indications of overlapping in the

archaeological assemblages commonly associated with hunter-gatherer communities (the so-called

Hoabinhian material culture) and those attributed to agriculturalists (Neolithic material culture).

This further questions the necessity of continuing the use of these concepts.

Local level explanations are also crucial to exploring specific socio-environmental interactions andthe resulting cultural implications. This does not preclude regional patterns but local level explanations

stresses the possibility the possibility of several interrelated factors, which affected the agricultural

development in the region. Similarly, sub-cultures and predominant-cultures are always affecting

and influencing one another, resulting in an inter-marriage of cultures. On this basis, I suggest a con-

tinuation of internal (indigenously) developed food-producing strategies in interaction with external

(immigrating) cultural and economical influences attributed to Austroasiatic speaking agriculturalists,

rather than relying on a simplistic monocausal explanation, namely the introduction of domesticated

rice and rapid replacement of hunter-gatherers by expanding agriculturalists. In this framework, both

indigenous activities and external stimuli, had an effect on and contributed to the development of

agriculture, and in the long run, also urbanism and state formation in the region.


4/99

4

Keywords

Peninsular Thailand; archaeology; caves; rock shelters; land-use; cultivation; agriculture; food-

production; Late Stone Age; hunter-gatherers; Pleistocene; Holocene; environmental data.

Henrik Lekenvall

Layout, maps, photographs and illustrations by Henrik Lekenvall, unless otherwise indicated.


5/99

5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ILLUSTRATIONS.................................................................................................................................. 8

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................. 10

INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................. 11

1. RESEARCH BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 15

1.1 Southeast Asia ............................................................................................................................. 15

1.2 Previous research and general trends .......................................................................................... 16

The Thai-Malay Peninsula ............................................................................................................ 18

The issues of definitions................................................................................................................ 20

1.3 The archaeological and environmental evidence ........................................................................ 22

Prime indicator (1): stone implements, pottery and rock paintings............................................... 23

Prime indicator (2): pollen and phytolith ...................................................................................... 26

1.4 Defining the problem................................................................................................................... 28

2. THE RESEARCH AREA ............................................................................................................. 37

2.1 Environmental history and archaeology ...................................................................................... 37

Seal level changes ......................................................................................................................... 38

GIS ................................................................................................................................................ 39

2.2 Environmental setting.................................................................................................................. 40

Main landforms ............................................................................................................................. 40

Land development ......................................................................................................................... 42

Sediments ...................................................................................................................................... 43

Soils ............................................................................................................................................... 46

Land-use ........................................................................................................................................ 49

3. THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY ........................................................................................ 54


6/99

6

3.1 Survey strategies.......................................................................................................................... 54

Oral testimony associated with Satingphra ................................................................................... 56

Khao Daeng Rockshelter............................................................................................................... 57

Khao Rakian Mountain ................................................................................................................. 58

Khao Nui Mountain....................................................................................................................... 60

Khao Khua Cave ........................................................................................................................... 60

Khao Joompa Hill.......................................................................................................................... 62

Khao Tok Nan Hill ........................................................................................................................ 63

Khao Chang Lon Mountain ........................................................................................................... 65

The museum collections ................................................................................................................ 67

3.2 Is the material culture evidence of food-production? .................................................................. 69

3.3 Sites in GIS.................................................................................................................................. 72

3.4 Site location and environment ..................................................................................................... 72

4. DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................... 81

4.1 Summary and a local model ........................................................................................................ 81

Relating the data............................................................................................................................ 81

An alternative perspective ............................................................................................................. 87

REFERENCES CITED ......................................................................................................................... 91


7/99

7


8/99

8

ILLUSTRATIONS

Figures:

1.1. Map of Southeast Asia showing the research area, p. 16.

1.2. Lang Rongrien Rockshelter after Anderson 1990: 2, p. 19.

1.3. Material culture of contemporary Semang hunter-gatherers, p. 33.

2.1. Land development: geological land forms, p. 41.

2.2. Land development: sediments, p. 42.

2.3. Land development: spit formations, p.45.

2.4. Land development: river meanders, p. 45.

2.5. Land development: soil types, p. 47.

2.6. Current land-use system over lower peninsular Thailand. The research area emphasized p. 50.

2.7. Rubber tree plantation close to Khao Rakian Cave. 51.

2.8. Current land-use and topography in Rattaphum district after Panapitukkul et al. 2005: 150, p. 51.

3.1. Late prehistoric and historic sites on the Satingphra Peninsula and Stone Age sites in the inland as

indicated by potsherds, stone tools and oral testimony, p. 55.

3.2. Map of cities and road system in lower peninsular Thailand, p. 55.

3.3. The wall of the rockshelter showing disturbance of ground surface, p. 57.

3.4. Khao Daeng Rockshelter and present day altar and house, p. 57.

3.5. View of the landscape from the highest point of Khao Rakian Mountain, p. 59.

3.6. The entrance of Khao Khua Cave, p. 61.

3.7. Potsherds found inside Khao Khua Cave, p. 61.

3.8. Khao Joompa hill from the ground level, p. 62.

3.9. Khao Tok Nan from ground surface, p. 63.

3.10. View towards Khao Joompa and Khao Khua, p. 63.

3.11. The entrance of Khao Tok Nan Hill where a polished stone axe is reported to have been found, p.64.

3.12. Khlong Paum Canal south of Khao Tok Nan Hill, p.64.

3.13. Polished stone axe found in the vicinity, p. 65.

3.14. Khao Chang Lom situated at the foot of the mountain, p.65.

3.15. The wall inside the cave showing removal of soil, p. 66.

3.16. Hammerstone found in one of the chambers, p. 66.

3.17. The entrance of Khao Chang Lom from the inside, p. 67.

3.18. The entrance of Tham Kra Duk from the inside, p. 67.

3.19. Polished stone axe with cutting edge. Songkhla National Museum, p. 68.

3.20. Polished stone axe. Songkhla National Museum, p. 68.

3.21. Polished shouldered stone adze. Songkhla National Museum, p. 68.

3.22. Stone tool collection. Wat Machimawat National Museum, p. 68.3.23. Stone knife? Wat Machimawat National Museum, p. 68.

3.24. Late Stone Age pottery. Thaksin Folklore Museum, p. 68.

3.25. Tripod. Thaksin Folklore Museum, p. 69.

3.26. Hoabinhian stone tools. Kedah State Museum, p. 69.

3.27. Polished stone tools. Kedah State Museum, p. 69.

3.28. The surveyed archaeological sites seen in relation with the different environmental features and

distance between them, p. 73.

3.29. Current land use and topography of the research area after Panapitukkul et al, 2005: 150, with

the archaeological sites found during survey, p. 74.


9/99

9

Tables:

1.1.Evolutionary scheme of plant-food production adapted from Harris 1996: 4, p. 30.4.1.Scheme over socio-economic dynamics during contemporary time periods in the research area by

Lekenvall, p. 88.


10/99

10

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My research in Thailand has been carried out with financial support from Sida (Minor Field

Studies) and the Rydbergs fond and African and Comparative Archaeology, Department of

Archaeology and Ancient History, Uppsala University. I am grateful for the support, without

which the archaeological fieldwork could not have been carried out. In Thailand, many people

contributed to the study. Firstly, I want to acknowledge the 13th Fine Arts Department,

Songkhla. I should like to thank Supot Prommanot and Pornthip Pantukowit for accepting and

allowing me to carry out fieldwork in the area. I am especially grateful to Siriporn Limwijit-

wong for assistance and cooperation in the field. I also wish to thank the staff at the office.

You all made me feel welcome and I will never forget your hospitality. My gratitude also

goes to Songkhla National Museum, Thaksin Folklore Museum, Wat Machimiwat National

Museum, Nakhon Si Thammarat National Museum, Satun National Museum and Kedah State

Museum. I should like to thank the personnel for answering questions regarding collections

and allowing me to take photographs. In addition, the local residents must not be forgotten.

Your words became an important part of this thesis. Restaurant owners, farmers, fishermen,

Monks, you all contributed to this final work. Your warmth and hospitality charmed me. Last

but not least, my deepest gratitude goes to my colleagues at the Institute of Archaeology,

Uppsala University.

I should like to thank Anna Karlstrm, who helped me with the initial work for this thesis,

suggesting literature and people to contact in Thailand, and Karl-Johan Lindholm, who super-

vised my bachelors thesis and was one of the lecturers in a course on Landscape Archaeology

and GIS at Uppsala University. He has contributed to my development as a researcher regard-

ing writing academic texts and has also been helpful with GIS. Thanks to Anneli Ekblom forher comments and Marjaana Kohtamki for helping me with the English and for being such a

good friend. I am indebted to my supervisor, Paul Sinclair, for proposing the research area for

my Masters thesis and his constant support throughout my studies at Uppsala. I am grateful

for the comments which he has provided on this thesis and all other help.


11/99

11

INTRODUCTION

The prevailing questions in Southeast Asian archaeology have traditionally focused on the

origins of rice agriculture in the Late Stone Age and the organizational changes during the

Bronze Age, which are believed to have been the foundation for state development along the

coast and inland river valleys. Northeast and central Thailand is also characterized by a rich

Hoabinhian and Neolithic past. The aforementioned cultural periods have been used to

explain two distinctive food procurement systems: hunting and gathering and agriculture.

The conventional view is that Austroasiatic-speaking (AA) rice agriculturalists (i.e. Neo-

lithic communities), from southern China colonized the continent in the second millennium

BC. For this reason, it has been argued that communities prior to this intrusion must have

been hunter-gatherers (i.e. Hoabinhian foragers).

An indisputable result of this perception is that alternative food-producing strategies and

ensuing cultural trajectories have usually been ignored. However, in the last decade or so, an

alternative view has emerged. An increasing amount of environmental data suggests that

communities from the late Pleistocene and onwards developed different strategies to cope

with environmental change. Forest-burning by human agencies in Thailand is evident from

the pollen and phytolith record. This has also been considered evidence for the existence of

agro-ecosystems and food-production prior to the colonization by AA agriculturalists.

In the Thai-Malay Peninsula has archaeological research predominantly focused on the

development of urbanism in Satingphra and Kedah during the first centuries AD. Regional

prehistory has mostly remained unexplored. The peripheral location of the area, which lies in

the southern parts of Mainland Southeast Asia, is probably the reason for its exclusion from

research. Current knowledge on Stone Age communities is based on archaeological informa-

tion extracted from a few, often very disturbed, caves and rock shelters. Lang Rongrien Rock-

shelter, in Krabi Province, is one of few well-excavated sites in the region, which has revealed

a continuous occupation from the late Pleistocene until early historic times. Polished stone

implements, rock paintings and pottery have also been recovered at many locations on the

peninsula but the provenience of the remains has rarely been determined. Very often, they

derive from excavations carried out in the first half of the last century. At that time, not much

was known about site stratigraphy, and radiocarbon dating had not yet been invented.

Based on similar Late Stone Age material culture found in the Thai-Malay Peninsula andin the rest of Southeast Asia, scholars have argued for a similar chronological socio-economic


12/99

12

sequence in these areas. As a result of this concept, all local groups are believed to have been

hunter-gatherers prior to the agriculturalist influence. The existence of indigenous food-

production has not been acknowledged. Yet, different food-procurement strategies prevailed

in the area prior to the introduction of rice agriculture. On the basis of environmental data and

comparative studies from similar ecological settings elsewhere, a subsistence regime of ar-

boriculture and horticulture and other crops can be interpreted from burned taxa in the pollen

and phytolith record. This advocates a local/regional trajectory of agro-ecosystem develop-

ment and food-production, which predates the adoption of rice agriculture.

Moreover, this thesis is also partially based on an archaeological survey carried out in

Songkhla Province in south-eastern peninsular Thailand. Situated in the humid tropics, the

local land has experienced substantial land development throughout time. Fluctuating sea lev-

els, chemical weathering and transportation of sediments by wind and water have formed the

contemporary landscape, composition of soils and the extent of land. The past and current

environment is used to facilitate an understanding of the landscape in which Stone Age com-

munities interacted. The possibility of conducting food-production for past communities in

this kind of environment is also discussed in relation with current local land-use.

An archaeological survey carried out by the author revealed eight caves and rock shelters

with direct (surface finds) or indirect (oral testimonial) evidence of Late Stone Age material

culture. Since the majority of these sites is associated with Late Stone Age pottery and ske-

letal remains, it is argued that the material culture can be linked with burial practices, which

signals some sort of societal change in the Late Stone Age. It is possible that this change is

related with the arrival of early farming communities. Based on this hypothesis, it could be

argued that incoming agriculturalists had a great impact on the socio-economic organization

of the region. Nevertheless, in my opinion, it also shows that the complexity of farmer/hunter-

gatherer interaction requires an approach alternative to merely assigning cultural associations

to material culture of immigrant farmers or resident hunter and gatherers, as different sources

of data points towards an intertwined process of change in lower peninsular Thailand. By

taking on a landscape approach to the understanding of these processes, rather than just focus-

ing on material culture, I aim to succeed where the cultural historical orientation has failed,

namely to argue in favor of food-production and socio-economic diversification during con-

temporary time periods.

The main argument in this thesis is that even if rice agriculture contributed to the emer-

gence of urbanism and state formation in the region, other food-producing strategies andcrops cultivation, were already employed prior to its arrival. This implies that both internal


13/99

13

and external factors contributed to the subsequent rise of urbanism and state formation in the

region. The indigenous food-producing communities had also developed certain cultivation

strategies, which were beneficial to later rice cultivation communities. Notwithstanding, hunt-

ing and gathering did continue and has done so until today. Therefore, these communities

must also have had an impact on the development of the region, considering that contact and

interaction between forager and farmer groups surely occurred.


14/99

14


15/99

15

1. RESEARCH BACKGROUND

1.1 Southeast Asia

Mainland Southeast Asia usually refers to Burma (Myanmar), Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia,

Thailand and (peninsular) Malaysia although some scholars, e.g., Higham (1996) incorporates

southern China into the same geographical classification. To the north, hill ranges divide

Southeast Asia from China, spreading south and subdividing the region into geographically

delimited areas, many of which constitute contemporary national boundaries. Complex so-

cieties rose in regions which witnessed frequent contact and trade between people of contrast-

ing cultural backgrounds from different environments. Great river valleys flowing into the

wet-dry boundaries provided ideal environments for such encounters (Yasuda, 2004: 15).

People have settled along the Red, Mekong, and Chao Phraya Rivers for thousands of years

and also today (e.g. see Higham, 1989, 1996, 2005).

Southeast Asia is one of the most fertile and bio-diverse areas of the world (Baker &

Phongpaichit, 2005: 1-2; Higham, 1989: 3; Tougard, 2001: 337). The tropical and subtropical

temperatures and moisture regimes create a particularly abundant environment, which is di-

rectly affected by the southwest monsoons and the northwest monsoons which cause the dry

season (Yasuda: 2004: 12). The proximity to the equator means that high annual humidity,

precipitation and temperatures prevail all year round. Some areas also maintain micro climatic

variations.

Individual climate characteristics on macro and micro scale are determined by high or

low altitude and inland or littoral location (Strahler & Strahler, 2005; Horton et al. 2005:

1200). Generally, the lowlands in northern Southeast Asia have a wet equatorial climate with

stable abundant precipitation, whereas the southern parts have a monsoon and trade-wind in-fluenced coastal climate, with abundant rainfall and a stronger seasonal pattern (Strahler &

Strahler, 2005: 258-61). In the north vegetation, generally consists of deciduous thick forest,

while tropical rainforest dominates further south with dense mangroves along the coast (Baker

& Phongpaichit, 2005). Today, much of the lowlands are cultivated and the highlands are to a

larger extent still forested (Higham, 1989: 5-14).

The research area comprises Surathani, Nakhon Si Thammarat, Trang, Phattalung, Satun

and Songkhla provinces (fig 1.1.) but the archaeological survey was carried out in Songkhla

and Phattalung provinces. The southern provinces of peninsular Thailand, namely Pattani,


16/99

16

Yala and Narathiwat, are excluded from the study as political instability has hindered arc-

haeologists from carrying out fieldwork in the region during the past few decades.

Figure 1.1. Map of Southeast Asia showing the research area.

1.2 Previous research and general trends

Prehistory in Southeast Asia is relatively novel area of research (Higham, 1996: 3) for which

there are several reasons. For instance, the wide spread of Buddhism in region has played part

in the lack of prehistoric studies as the inception of Buddhism in historic times used to be the

focal point of research. Thus, archaeological research primarily focused on the origins of

Buddhism, art, architecture and artifacts (Karlstrm, 2009: 20). From the 1960s and onwards,

however, prehistoric archaeology has advanced significantly (Bayard, 1993). Ban Chiang, a

prehistoric site on the Khorat Plateau, northeast Thailand, which was discovered in the 1960s


17/99

17

(Higham: 2002a: 24), marked the beginning of prehistoric archaeology in the region. Since

then, research on the Khorat Plateau and Chao Phraya basin in central Thailand has been fa-

vored (e.g. see Higham, 1989, 1996, 2002a). Subsequently, more sites from the same time

period, such as Non Nok Tha, Ban Na Di and Chansen, have been found, dating back to c.

5000 2500 BP (Higham, 1989, Higham, 1996: 2). The excavations resulted in an increased

emphasis on social organization (e.g. Bayard, 1992; Bronson, 1985, 1992; Glover, 1991;

Glover et al. 1992; Higham & Thosarat, 1998; White, 1982, 1995; White & Pigott, 1996) and

the organizational changes which occurred from approximately 500 BC to 500 AD. The

changes which took place during this period are believed to have led to the formation of the

earliest states of the region along the coast and inland river valleys (Stark & Allen, 1998;

Stark, 2006: 408). These changes have usually been attributed irrigated rice agriculture and

trade (for example see Allen, 1997; Bentley, 1986; Glover, 1990; Manguin, 2000; Stargardt,

1973, 1976, 1977, 1983, 1992).

Nonetheless, the Stone Age in the region remains relatively unknown. What is known

about this long cultural sequence is based on material culture remains from cave and rock

shelter sites. Cave archaeology has shown a rich Pleistocene/Palaeolithic and late Pleisto-

cene to mid Holocene/Hoabinhian human past in the region. Major sites include Sakai Cave,

Spirit Cave, Banyan Valley Cave, Lang Rongrien Rockshelter and the Ban Kao Cave sites. It

has been proposed that pre-agrarian communities in the late Pleistocene to the mid-late Holo-

cene occupied both interior and coastal tracts (Higham, 2002b: 228-30). Late and post-

Pleistocene hunter-gatherer settlement patterns have been reviewed by Shoocongdej (2000),

who emphasizes the role of foraging strategies, mobility and settlement organization in the

analyses of late Pleistocene and early Holocene cave sites in western Thailand. Shoocongdej

(2000) has proposed a model of a dual mobility organizational system in seasonal tropical

environments. She argues for residential mobility in the wet season and logistical mobility as

an organizational response to the dry season.

Stone Age archaeology has also often been interpreted in relation to linguistics and the

modern distribution of ethnic groups in Southeast Asia. The general theory is that AA-

speaking farming communities migrated from their native homeland in southern China (Bell-

wood, 1997: 28687, Diamond & Bellwood, 2005; Bellwood, 2006: 112). According to Hig-

ham (2002b: 231), this migration of peoples led to cultural and socio-economic assimilation

of hunter-gatherer groups by AA farming communities. Similarly, the early (AA-speaking)

farmers were later overtaken by other intrusive groups, such as the Thais (Austro-Thai-


18/99

18

languages), the Chams (Austronesian), the Burmese (Sino-Tibetan) and Indo-Aryan languages

(ibid, also see Bellwood, 2005).

Some of the fundamental issues discussed in contemporary archaeological research are the

chronology of the Neolithic and Bronze Age and the origins of rice agriculture (Bellwood,

1997; Bayard 1972, 1979; Higham, 1989, 1996; Solheim 1968). However, it is now generally

accepted, that rice derived from Yangtze Valley, southern China, in the second millennium

BC (Higham, 2005, C. Higham & T. Higham, 2009; Liu et al. 2007). It has even been pro-

posed that communities in the Yangtze River Valley domesticated rice and produced pottery

as early as 20, 000 BP (Yasuda, 2002). Recent excavations at Ban Non Wat, a Late Stone Age

site with long cultural continuity from c. 1750 BC 500 AD, have added substantial know-

ledge to the issue. The earliest introduction of rice cultivation has previously been argued to

have taken place c. 2300 BC among inland and coastal groups of hunter-gatherers in central

and northeast Thailand (Higham, 1996: 6; Higham, 2005a: 250-51). A more recent set of ra-

diocarbon dates from Ban Non Wat suggest a later date for the introduction of rice cultivation

as the samples have been dated to c. 1650 BC (C. Higham & T. Higham, 2009: 134).

Khok Phanom Di (4000-3500 BP) in central Thailand is a key site in this period. Although

hunting and gathering and fishing was practiced at the site, rice was present both in cultivated

and wild form. One of the key questions has been whether hunter-gatherers at the site actively

engaged in rice cultivation. It has been proposed that foragers traded cultivated rice from in-

land agricultural groups (Higham & Bannanurag, 1990, 1991; Higham & Thosarat, 1993,

1994; Higham, 1996, Tayles, 1999, also see Halcrow et al. 2008). Yet, it has also been sug-

gested that forager groups at least periodically cultivated rice (Higham, 2005: 254-55). The

aforementioned site, together with Ban Chiang, Non Kao Noi, Ban Non Wat, Ban Lom Khao

in the Mekong catchment, and Ban Kao, Non Pai Wai and Ban Tha Kae in the Chao Phraya

River Area (see Higham, 2002b: 228) are among the only open air Stone Age sites found in

the region. Therefore, more field research on open air sites is urgently needed.

The Thai-Malay Peninsula

Research on the prehistory of peninsular Thailand is synonymous with cave research, which

begun at the end of the 1980s and still lags behind in other parts of Southeast Asia (Anderson,

2005: 137). More information on the archaeology of the late Pleistocene and subsequent pe-

riods has only recently become available (e.g. see Anderson, 1986, 1988, 1990, 1997, 2005;


19/99

19

Matsamura & Pookajorn, 2005; Mudar & Anderson, 2007; Pookajorn, 1991, 1994, 1996).

Excavations at the Long Rongrien Rockshelter site in Krabi (fig 1.2.), southwestern peninsu-

lar Thailand (Anderson, 1988, 1990, 1997, 2005), and at one of the sites in Perak in northern

peninsular Malaysia (Zuraina, 1994, 2005, Matsamura & Zuraina, 1999) have revealed that

the earliest sequences of human occupation in the region date back to the late Pleistocene (

Henrik Lekenvall. Master´s thesis. Socio Economic Dynamics in Peninsular Thailand. Food Producing...

Documents

Transcript of Henrik Lekenvall. Master´s thesis. Socio Economic Dynamics in Peninsular Thailand. Food Producing...