A new chronological framework for prehistoric Southeast Asia, based on a Bayesian model from Ban Non Wat.

Higham, Charles ; Higham, Thomas

Introduction

As Movius observed of the European Upper Palaeolithic, 'Without ... a [chronological] framework the over-all picture becomes confused and, in certain instances, almost meaningless. Time alone is the lens that can throw it into focus' (Movius 1960: 355). The passage of time is equally vital for a proper understanding of the prehistoric sequence in Southeast Asia. While the cultural sequence is agreed by most scholars, its timing is not. The ancestors of the first rice farmers in Southeast Asia probably lived in the Yangtze Valley to the north (Liu et al. 2007), and spread south, via the coast and the major rivers, to enter the broad riverine plains of Southeast Asia. They brought their Austro-Asiatic languages, and a way of life that centred on settled village communities incorporating widespread exchange in exotica, a sophisticated ceramic industry, weaving, and a mortuary tradition that involved both extended inhumation and interment in lidded jars. This Neolithic settlement phase was followed by the adoption of copper-base metallurgy, in which copper and tin were alloyed from the earliest known contexts. The transition into the Iron Age has not been precisely dated, but it is known that early states were forming by the fourth to fifth centuries AD. The timing and the degree to which Iron Age communities developed social and technological sophistication prior to the rise of early states is poorly documented: Noen U-Loke is the only extensively-excavated Iron Age site in Thailand to be published (Higham, C.F.W. et al. 2007).

We do not know when the first farmers reached Southeast Asia and there remains a basic uncertainty over the date for the inception of copper-base metallurgy in Southeast Asia. This has generated a lack of understanding of the social changes that occurred with the early Bronze Age. As Muhly (1988: 16) stressed 20 years ago in a dictum still true, 'In all other corners of the Bronze Age world ... we find the introduction of bronze technology associated with a complex of social, political and economic developments that mark the rise of the state. Only in Southeast Asia ... do these developments seem to be missing.' One of the objectives of our recent excavations at Ban Non War has been to open an area large enough to identify just those variables Muhly describes.

In retrospect, the causes of controversies over chronology are readily understood (Solheim 1968; 1970; Bayard 1972, 1979; Gorman & Charoenwongsa 1976; Bayard & Charoenwongsa 1983; Higham 1983; Loofs-Wissowa 1983). Radiocarbon determinations have virtually all been derived from charcoal, with its problems of 'old wood'. Only very rarely has the species of tree been specified, a practice that needs to be addressed in future dating programmes. No recognition was given to the unreliability of mixed samples (Ashmore 1999). In many cases, the relationship between a charcoal sample and the event being dated was unreliable. Major cultural changes, such as the beginning of copper-base metallurgy, have been dated on the basis of only a handful of determinations. When a sample of dates was available, the construction of the site's chronology followed procedures now shown to be importantly wrong (Bayliss et al. 2007: 9).

Resolving this situation first requires a prehistoric site with a cultural sequence spanning the early Neolithic to the end of the Iron Age. Such sites are very rare in Southeast Asia. Phases within such a site would need to be ordered in terms of a relative chronology, and we would then require a sufficient number of radiocarbon determinations, preferably generated on the basis of samples with no inbuilt age, to provide dates for the successive cultural phases identified. Armed with such a series of dates we could apply the refinement of the Bayesian approach as outlined by Bayliss et al. (2007). The Bayesian method is able to provide us with quantitative, probabilistic estimates of archaeological events through a combination of calibrated radiocarbon likelihoods and given archaeological information, for example, the sequence of phases within a site's sequence (see Buck et al. 1992, 1996; Bronk Ramsey 1995, 2005; Higham, T.F.G. et al. 2005, 2007; Bayliss & Whittle 2007; Fuller et al. 2007 for further details and examples). The model also generates boundaries and an assessment of the duration of phases, making it possible to consider the rate and impact of cultural changes. This paper presents the results of such a Bayesian analysis undertaken on the sequence at the prehistoric settlement of Ban Non War.

Ban Non War

Ban Non War is a moated prehistoric site located in the upper catchment of the Mun River on the Khorat Plateau of Northeast Thailand (Figures 1 and 2). Its position gives easy communication and exchange by the Mun Valley to the Mekong River in the east. In a westerly direction, a pass following the watershed over the Petchabun Range takes one to the broad plains of the Chao Phraya River system, and the Khao Wong Prachan Valley, a major centre of prehistoric copper mining. Excavations at Ban Non Wat over seven seasons have uncovered an area of 892[m.sup.2], within which 637 human graves have been identified, together with much evidence for industrial and domestic activities including bronze casting (Figures 3 and 4). It is crucial to adopt the most stringent criteria for defining cultural contexts, since Thai settlement and cemetery sites are stratigraphically complicated by numerous pits, postholes and graves, not to mention bioturbation. We define a Neolithic context by mortuary or occupation remains with domestic animals or plants but no evidence for metallurgy. We recognise a Bronze Age context on the basis of a burial with a copper-base artefact in direct association, a hearth associated with moulds and crucibles, or a burial containing crucibles or moulds as mortuary offerings. For the Iron Age, we accept the presence of iron or evidence for iron forging in secure contexts. Adopting these criteria, the cultural sequence falls into at least 12 phases, each characterised by different mortuary and occupational activity.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

There were 13 flexed burials, characteristic of the indigenous Southeast Asian hunter-gatherers (Figure 5A) and the material items placed with these dead are quite distinct from those found with the assuredly Neolithic (Neo) 1 and 2 burials.

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

The Neolithic 1 cemetery contains extended supine inhumation graves and lidded jars for containing the corpse (Figure 5B). The ceramic vessels found in association fall into a widely-recognised tradition, involving decoration with complex incised designs (Higham 2004; Wiriyaromp 2007; Rispoli 2008). Other grave goods included marine shell ornaments, pig skeletons and freshwater bivalve shells. Neo 2 burials are normally found orientated on an east-west axis, and grave goods are markedly poorer than in Neo 1, comprising in the main, globular cord-marked vessels and the occasional freshwater bivalve shell (Figure 5C). When there is a superposition involving Neo 1 and 2, the latter are always later.

There are five Bronze Age (BA) phases at Ban Non Wat. BA 1 burials were accompanied by a series of small ceramic vessels that have their closest parallels in the late Neolithic graves at the nearby site of Ban Lum Khao. All five individuals were also interred with one copper base artefact (Figure 5D). BA 2 burials fall into four groups, each disposed in a row. The most southerly comprises nine or ten graves. There are seven graves in the second group, 10-11 graves in the third group and a double grave outlier in the far north of the excavated area. BA 2 graves are always stratigraphically later than those of Neo 2 and BA 1, and they display hitherto unrecognised mortuary wealth. The remains of three men and three women had been partially exhumed after interment, and then reburied. We think that this might well reflect their exceptionally high ritual and social status. Mortuary offerings included copper-base socketed axes, chisels and points, anklets and rings (Figure 5E). Up to 50 or 60 ceramic vessels were placed with the corpse, which was wrapped in a fabric shroud and contained within a wooden coffin. Some of these pots were decorated with elaborate painted designs, which harken back to those found on Neolithic 1 ceramics. One vessel, found with an infant, was painted with what looks like a stylised human face. The dead wore exotic shell and marble ornaments and shell beads over the body might have been stitched onto their clothing. Multiple strands of shell beads were worn as necklaces and belts, and some individuals wore up to 22 shell earrings. By any comparative measure, these individuals can be termed elite, even princely.

[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]

BA 3 incorporates 13 very rich burials, set out on a different orientation (Figure 5F). Where there is a superposition, they invariably seal BA 2 graves. Most individuals in this phase were buried on a north-east to south-west axis, wearing numerous marine shell and marble bangles, and associated with well-crafted ceramic vessels. Some people were also buried with socketed bronze axes, while one infant wore bronze anklets embellished with 30 bronze bells.

BA 4 involves many graves, set out in rows with the head usually orientated to the northwest. Where there is physical relativity to BA 1-3, they are always later. While the ceramic vessels are clearly derivative from earlier forms, they are generally smaller and lack painted designs. The burials are markedly poorer in terms of mortuary wealth, and bronzes are very rare. However, one man, surely a bronze founder, was buried with 29 clay bivalve moulds for casting bangles and axes (Figure 5G). These burials are always sealed by those of BA 5. The latter reveal further developments in the form of ceramic vessels. The dead during this phase were often accompanied by spindle whorls and grey clay that may well have been used in dying cloth. One BA 5 individual was accompanied by a crucible for casting bronze.

On the basis of horizontal stratigraphy, BA 5 developed seamlessly into the early Iron Age (IA 1). Indeed, it is only on the basis of the presence of iron artefacts that on occasion one can distinguish the two, for the ceramic vessels are virtually identical. The Iron Age burials contain sets of iron tools; there are both iron and bimetallic (bronze hafts) spears, glass earrings, carnelian and agate ornaments and pots filled with fish skeletons (Figure 5I).

The few burials of the last prehistoric phase, IA 2, are distinguished by ceramics that include vessels of the so-called Phimai Black tradition. Their distribution lies mainly to the west of IA 1 burials, but where there is a superposition, they are always later. Exotic hard stone and glass ornaments are found but most of these burials are not far below the present ground surface, and are badly disturbed by more recent activity.

Radiocarbon dating

Table 1 (see Appendix) shows the radiocarbon determinations for the cultural phases at Ban Non Wat. Further determinations for the surrounding Iron Age moats and embankments are also available but are not incorporated below (McGrath et al. 2007). Samples submitted from the first three seasons comprised charcoal and human bone from in situ contexts, and a handful of determinations were processed in Arizona on the basis of rice chaff found as a ceramic temper. However the human bone had no remaining collagen for dating and the charcoal samples were susceptible to the problem of 'old wood'. This was well illustrated by two samples from burial 28, a Neo 1 jar-burial. The first determination, based on charcoal within the vessel, gave 3680 [+ or -] 30 BP, while the second based on a freshwater bivalve shell artefact found as a mortuary offering gave 3170 [+ or -] 27 BP, a difference of 510 years.

Given our deep scepticism over the validity of a handful of dates from charcoal or organic temper in ceramics as a basis for determining the timing of cultural changes, we decided to base the dated sequence primarily on freshwater shell. Such shells were placed with the dead throughout the prehistoric occupation of Ban Non Wat, probably reflecting a high ritual or spiritual value. There are two genera: Hyriopsis and Pseudodon. These shells may have been valued as heirlooms and thus be antique when buried. However, this seems less likely than is the case for charcoal, and their association with specific individuals is held to be a more reliable index of date than charcoal derived from either grave fill or non-mortuary contexts. Given the ubiquity of well-provenanced freshwater bivalve shells within burial contexts at Ban Non Wat, we investigated their utility for direct AMS radiocarbon determinations. A modern individual collected live in 2006 from the vicinity of the site yielded a measurement of 106.8 [+ or -] 0.3 pMC. When compared with modern terrestrial post-nuclear bomb radiocarbon records and a charcoal standard regularly measured in the Oxford laboratory, the result is indistinguishable, suggesting there is no significant reservoir effect, at least in the modern era. Further comparisons between freshwater shell and well-provenanced charcoal from the same contexts yielded good agreement between the results (e.g. burial 290, Table 1). Again, the results are indistinguishable at 68.2%. Changes in the reservoir from which these shells originate could influence their utility as a chronometer, but in terms of comparison with the contemporary atmospheric [sup.14]C levels at the time, this would only make the results older than their 'true age'. The absence of a limestone-based catchment within the hydrological system makes a hardwater effect unlikely. Taken together, our initial data suggests that freshwater shell ought to be reliable for dating, provided that no recrystallisation has occurred which could introduce exogenous carbon of a potentially younger or older age. This was carefully checked at ORAU prior to AMS dating. None of the shells showed any evidence for recrystallisation.

In practice, however, some charcoal specimens have been included in the dated sequence, especially from settlement contexts (see Table 1). Radiocarbon determinations for Neo 1 come from charcoal associated with occupation middens at the base of the site containing ceramic sherds matching those from Neo 1 burials. The Neo 1 burials are dated by charcoal found within lidded mortuary vessels and freshwater bivalve shells placed as mortuary offerings. Phase 3 Later Neolithic 1 occupation determinations come from charcoal in occupation contexts. As a check, we considered five determinations from the nearby site of Ban Lum Khao taken on charcoal found in the initial Neolithic occupation phase that underlie and thus predate the burials there that are virtually identical with Neo 2 graves at Ban Non Wat (Higham & Thosarat 2004a). Dating material from the Neo 2 burials themselves is difficult because the inclusion of freshwater bivalve shells became infrequent. The fifth phase is early Bronze Age occupation. These determinations come from in situ hearths located at the base of the square Y1, which underlie all subsequent Bronze Age graves in that area of the site. Phase 6 represents BA 1, and phase 7 incorporates the very rich BA 2 graves containing bronze artefacts. This is followed by phase 8 (BA 3). Phase 9 involves BA 4 graves and phases 10-12 are described as BA 5 and Iron Age (IA) 1-2.

Bayesian analysis

The prior cultural information for the Bayesian analyis was inserted by dividing the dated graves and settlement features into 12 groups in sequence (Figure 6). We used OxCal 4.0 (Bronk Ramsey 1995) to calibrate the radiocarbon determinations, which were then modelled within these groups (Figure 7). Initial runs of the model disclosed some obvious outliers denoted by low agreement indices, variations which might, in part, be due to some of the issues raised earlier (principally inbuilt age and reservoir variability) but could also be influenced by statistical variation (statistically speaking, 5% of the dates would be expected to fail this test). In subsequent runs of the model, these were questioned in the sequence. The final iteration of the model produced acceptably high agreement indices, which act as a measure of the reliability and reproducibility of the model. Posterior probability distributions are shown in Figure 7, and ranges are listed in Table 1 at the 95.6% confidence interval. The model also showed the likely dates of the boundaries between the phases dominated by the cultural groups (Figure 8), and individual probability distributions were obtained for the span of each phase (Figure 9).

Results

The date range for the Neolithic settlement of Thailand has in recent times variously been set anywhere from the fifth to the late third millennium BC, while the inception of the Bronze Age might fall in a range from the late third to the late second millennium BC (Higham 1996; White & Pigott 1996; White 1997). The new data comprise 75 radiocarbon determinations for the cultural sequence at Ban Non Wat and five for the nearby settlement of Ban Lum Khao (Higham, T.F.G. 2004). Our results (Table 2) show that the flexed burials were among the earliest encountered, and lasted until the eleventh century BC. The initial Neolithic settlement of Ban Non Wat began in the mid-seventeenth century BC and lasted in the vicinity of 150 years, while the Neo 1 burials date from about 1460 cal BC, and lasted for two generations or about 50 years. The later Neolithic occupation is dated to about 1400 cal BC, with a very brief time span. This was followed by the Neo 2 burial, which is dated to 1259-1056 cal BC. The transition from the late Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age settlement took place between 1053-996 cal BC. At virtually the same time five BA 1 burials were laid out, followed very soon by four spatially discrete sets of outstandingly rich burials, three containing the graves of men, women, infants and children. The span for these burials lies between 135-185 years at 68.2% probability, so may represent six or seven generations. This is consistent with the number of burials and their disposition. BA 3 burials seal one group of BA 2 graves. Equally wealthy, this group is dated to the ninth century BC with a span of only a few years. Perhaps they were only one generation later than those they overlie.

[FIGURE 6 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 7 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 8 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 9 OMITTED]

The transition from BA 3 to BA 4 took place between 810-780 cal BC. Numerous BA 4 graves were laid out in long rows and were interred over a period of between 20-133 years. It is considered probable that the rows formed at the same period, perhaps reflecting a rise in the population. Individuals were distinctly poorer than their predecessors. Now only a handful of ceramic vessels were placed beyond the head and feet, and bronzes were rare almost to the point of being absent. However, local casting was undertaken, evidenced by one man interred with multiple sets of bivalve clay moulds for the casting of bangles and socketed axes. Some individuals wore shell and marble bangles or beads, but never in the former abundance.

By the eighth century, we enter the region of the radiocarbon calibration curve known as the Hallstatt Plateau (Zaitseva et al, 2005). This has affected the establishment of a tight chronology for the BA 5 cemetery. The burials, while including ceramic vessels derived from BA 4 prototypes, present a new configuration. Graves were tightly grouped in rows and many contained spindle whorls that probably reflect specialist weavers. Again, no burial remotely matches the wealth of those found four centuries earlier during BA 2 and 3.

As one progresses eastward, some burials incorporated iron offerings, in the form of large spears, three at least being bimetallic with bronze hafts and iron blades. The terminus post quem for the Iron Age burials lies between 464-347 cal BC at 68.2% probability. There were sets of iron tools, and iron bangles. Some rare glass ornaments were encountered: earrings and beads. This horizontal stratigraphy with a merging between the late Bronze Age and the use of iron suggests that we have encountered the very beginnings of iron technology at this site, dated in the late fifth century BC. Graves were tightly packed in rows and superimposed in a palimpsest of skeletons. No individuals stood out on the basis of mortuary wealth or display. However, at the site of Noen U-Loke, only 3km distant, we identified a surge in mortuary wealth in the later Iron Age, a phase only poorly represented as yet at Ban Non Wat. It was probably during this slightly later juncture, that the water control measures in the form of banks and moats were constructed round these settlements. These were substantial engineering works that would have entailed much labour. Their construction implies a high degree of social control over resources.

Implications for social change

Excavations at the site of Ban Chiang in 1975 led to White's (1995) view of a heterarchic social organisation for Bronze Age Southeast Asia. However if we were to superimpose the area excavated there over any part of the mortuary plan for Ban Non Wat, we would find that in one area there was no evidence for Neolithic occupation and in another, no rich Bronze Age burials (Figure 4). In the west of the opening at Ban Non Wat, there would be no Iron Age burials and in the north no flexed interments. We feel that small sample sizes lie behind the dating anomalies, and accept that "Explaining (or eliminating) this anomalous situation is one of the major challenges of archaeological and archaeometallurgical research during the next decade" (Muhly 1988: 16).

If, for the moment at least, we accept that the chronological contexts at Ban Non War are the more representative, we find that the initial Neolithic settlement, by a highly sophisticated community, was considerably later than the fifth millennium BC as suggested by White on the basis of two radiocarbon determinations (White 1997: 103), and later than the third millennium BC contexts found as almost standard in the literature. Most significantly, we have found that the Bronze Age began as a brief starburst of social display in about 1000 BC, a millennium later than has been suggested by White and Pigott (1996) and Bacus (2006). With the later Bronze and early Iron Ages, the dense packing of graves is compatible with a longer duration, perhaps reflecting a sharp rise in the population of Ban Non Wat. The site was now the focus of iron forging, bronze casting, weaving and pottery manufacture. It was also a period when salt was processed on a large scale, and when social friction was on the rise, seen in the production of iron weaponry, and the construction of defensive banks and moats round settlements sometimes uncomfortably close to each other. One young man at Noen U-Loke was killed when an iron arrowhead severed his spine (Higham, C.F.W. et al. 2007: 227). These are all factors that underlie the rapid crystallisation of early Southeast Asian states in the fourth and fifth centuries AD.

Acceptance of this dated cultural sequence means viewing Southeast Asian prehistory in a new light. Until the eighteenth century BC, the uplands and inland plains were occupied by small groups of hunter-gatherers, while the rich coastal estuaries attracted settlement that was probably of a more sedentary nature (Higham & Thosarat 1998). This extensive area then witnessed the intrusion of fully-fledged Neolithic groups bringing with them their domestic rice, millet and domestic stock. These people can be traced in terms of their material culture, north into Lingnan and ultimately, the valley of the Yangtze River. Possibly at Ban Non Wat, and assuredly at the site of Khok Phanom Di, we can identify cultural contacts between hunter-gatherers and farmers (Higham & Thosarat 2004b; Bentley et al. 2007). Exchange networks rapidly formed, bringing marine shell and exotic stone to inland communities. It may well have been through such networking, that during the late eleventh and tenth centuries, copper and tin smelting and trade in finished bronzes, or metal in ingot form, were established. At this point, social display in mortuary contexts rapidly entered a new and impressive phase. This was not confined to one or two individuals in a group, nor was it restricted to members of one sex. Rather, we find mortuary lobes in which men, women, infants and children were equally endowed with wealth objects. Whereas at Ban Non Wat, all burials of this period were wealthy, contemporary graves at nearby Ban Lum Khao, while containing virtually identical early ceramic vessels, were starkly poorer, without a single bronze grave good being encountered (Higham & O'Reilly 2004). Identifying a similarly poor BA1-2 lobe of the Ban Non Wat cemetery would suggest a markedly hierarchic social order there.

However, after a handful of generations, the degree of wealth at Ban Non Wat declined sharply. Only in the latter stages of the Iron Age, just on the cusp of state formation, did mortuary wealth rival the level attained in the Early Bronze Age. White (1995: 101) commenting on the late development of states in Southeast Asia, wrote that 'This lateness seems striking, as prehistoric archaeology has demonstrated the long term presence of two technological and economic factors considered important in state formation elsewhere: i) cultivation since the fourth millennium BC of a cereal (rice), ... and ii) specialized production of copper-base metals dating at least from the first half of the second millennium BC.'

The chronological framework for Ban Non War provides a stark contrast. It implies that in little over two millennia, a series of cultural developments that began with pioneer rice farmers, ended with the early foundations of the Kingdom of Angkor. The sequence at Ban Non Wat when linked with that of Noen U-Loke suggests that there were at least two periods of hierarchic social development during the Early Bronze and the later Iron Age, and a much more rapid development of indigenous states than has previously been suggested.

Conclusion

With the development of Bayesian statistical analyses of large samples of provenanced radiocarbon determinations, we have entered a new phase in the appropriate employment of the radiocarbon dating technique. We have identified and dated a cultural sequence that radically shortens the duration of the prehistoric period from the initial settlement of farmers to the foundation of early states. Hence, a vibrant, innovative and constantly changing cultural pattern appears in place of five somnolent millennia. In our view, the number of samples on which previous interpretations are based is insufficient, and their correspondence with the events being dated is often questionable. We conclude that problems associated with inbuilt age, mixed samples, the unreliability of results from organic ceramic tempers, insufficient determinations and methods of interpretation now shown to be importantly wrong, require the rejection of all previous attempts to date Southeast Asian prehistory radiometrically. While this might seem radical and drastic, we feel that in establishing a firmer chronological foundation, we offer a stronger model for future testing. We are well aware that in doing so, the chronological framework for Ban Non Wat is unlikely to incorporate the earliest regional evidence for Neolithic, Bronze or Iron Age periods, but demonstrating this will require many dates from assured contexts, in which prior knowledge permits the application of the Bayesian method. These will necessarily entail periods of long, dedicated and intensive fieldwork.

Appendix: Table 1. The radiocarbon determinations for Ban Non Wat.

Laboratory
code Sample [[delta].sup.13] C
 ([per thousand])
Period 1. Flexed burials

OxA-18141 Burial 454, bivalve shell -4.61
OxA-18142 Burial 461, bivalve shell -5.12
OxA-15942 Burial 438, bivalve shell -5.00

Boundary, initial Neolithic occupation 1814-1544 cal BC
Initial Neolithic occupation

Wk-12647 B3 layer 4:9 feature 1, charcoal -27.2
 from Neolithic hearth
OxA-12660 B2 4a:8 feature 35, charcoal -25.6
 from Neolithic shell midden
OxA-13468 C1 4:15 feature 1, charcoal -27.3
 from Neolithic shell midden
OxA-15248 AA1 5:3, charcoal from -26.5
 Neolithic shell midden
OxA-17457 E2 5:2 feature 1, charcoal -4.5

Boundary transition, Neolithic occupation to Neolithic 1 burials
1502-1428 cal BC

Neolithic 1 burials

OxA-11722 Burial 28, charcoal -24.3
OxA-18133 Burial 28, bivalve shell -6.10
OxA-13467 Burial 179, charcoal -26.2
OxA-13534 Burial 195, charcoal within -25.7
 infant jar burial
OxA-16700 Burial 86, bivalve shell -6.74
 Pseudodon
OxA-11723 Burial 32, charcoal within -28.7
 mortuary vessel
OxA-16699 Burial 32, bivalve shell -5.5

Boundary transition, Neolithic 1 burials to late Neolithic
occupation 1430-1345 cal BC Later Neolithic occupation

OxA-12661 B4 5:1 feature 4, charcoal from -25.9
 a hearth
OxA-15247 D5 4:11 to 5:1, charcoal from -27.6
 late Neolithic pit
OxA-12545 B2 4A:5 feature 34, late -24.8
 Neolithic charcoal

Late Neolithic occupation at Ban Lum Khao

Wk-4507 B1:B 3:3 pit 1, charcoal -26.9
WK-4508 A1:C 3:2, charcoal -27.0
Wk-4509 A1:C3:2 feat. 1, charcoal -25.7
Wk-4510 B1:A3 surf. 3 pit 1, charcoal -26.1
Wk-4511 A1:A surf. 3 lens 1, charcoal -25.9

Boundary transition, Neolithic 1 to Neolithic 2 burials
1389-1139 cal BC Neolithic 2 burial

OxA-18140 Burial 31, bivalve shell -2.89

Boundary transition, Neolithic 2 burial to Bronze Age initial
occupation 1147-1006 cal BC Early Bronze Age occupation

OxA-12657 Y1 9:2 feature 5, charcoal -26.4
OxA-12544 Y1 9:2 feature 1, charcoal -24.3
OxA-12658 Y1 8:4 feature 2, charcoal -26.3
OxA-12659 Y1 8:4 feature 3, charcoal -26.9
OxA-12543 Y1 8:4 feature 1, charcoal -25
OxA-15246 AA5 4:7 feature 4, charcoal -25.6

Boundary transition, Bronze Age occupation to Bronze Age 1
burials 1114-955 cal BC Bronze Age 1 burials

OxA-16705 Burial 446, bivalve shell -4.0
OxA-17465 Burial 569, bivalve shell -7.1

Boundary transition, Bronze Age 1 to Bronze Age 2 burials
1003-940 BC Bronze Age 2 burials

OxA-16340 Burial 290, bivalve shell -7.80
OxA-16341 Burial 290, bivalve shell -7.40
OxA-15245 Burial 290, charcoal -25.4
 adhering to a femur
OxA-16701 Burial 90, bivalve shell -7.5
OxA-17456 Burial 571, bivalve shell -11.3
OxA-17458 Burial 550, bivalve shell -8.10
OxA-17459 Burial 555, bivalve shell -9.4
OxA-17460 Burial 522, bivalve shell -8.8
OxA-17461 Burial 532, bivalve shell -6.8
OxA-17462 Burial 536, bivalve shell -7.4
OxA-17463 Burial 536, bivalve shell -7.0
OxA-17464 Burial 543, bivalve shell -8.3
OxA-17465 Burial 569, bivalve shell -7.1
OxA-17467 Burial 570, bivalve shell -10.7
OxA-17714 Burial 105, bivalve shell -7.7
OxA-17715 Burial 106, bivalve shell -8.2
OxA-17889 Burial 197, bivalve shell -8.7
OxA-17892 Burial 293, bivalve shell -G.7
OxA-17893 Burial 302, bivalve shell -7.9
OxA-17897 Burial 458, bivalve shell -7.2
OxA-17989 Burial 4G8, bivalve shell -7.4
OxA-17990 Burial 468, bivalve shell -7.4
OxA-18131 Burial 455, bivalve shell -7.23
OxA-18132 Burial 456, bivalve shell -10.98

Boundary transition, Bronze Age 2 to Bronze Age 3
burials 874-793 cal Bronze Age 3 burials BC

OxA-17888 Burial 196, bivalve shell -6.00
OxA-17891 Burial 263, bivalve shell -6.00
OxA-17721 Burial 154, bivalve shell -5.60

Boundary transition, Bronze Age 3 to Bronze Age 4 burials
830-701 cal BC Bronze Age 4 burials and occupation

OxA-17466 Burial 564, bivalve shell -8.00
OxA-17720 Burial 145, bivalve shell -7.90
OxA-12644 Y1 7:7 feature 1, charcoal -25.5

Boundary transition, Bronze Age 4 to Bronze Age 5 burials
764-439 cal BC Bronze Age 5 burials

OxA-16703 Burial 241, bivalve shell -4.70
OxA-16702 Burial 124, bivalve shell -4.70
OxA-17716 Burial 124, bivalve shell -8.10
OxA-17717 Burial 126, bivalve shell -6.8
Ox-A-17718 Burial 133, bivalve shell -6.60
OxA-17719 Burial 135, bivalve shell -2.7

Boundary transition, Bronze Age 5 to Iron Age 1 burials
639-249 cal BC Iron Age 1 burials and occupation

OxA-16704 Burial 360, bivalve shell -6.0
OxA-17992 Burial 476, bivalve shell -6.2
OxA-17896 Burial 386, bivalve shell -3.4
OxA-17991 Burial 473, bivalve shell -7.4
Ox-A17895 Burial 383, bivalve shell -4.2
OxA-17894 Burial 341, bivalve shell -1.7
OxA-17890 Burial 237, bivalve shell -6.2
Wk-12646 Y2 5:5 f. 3, charcoal -25.4

Boundary transition, end Iron Age 1 burials 411 cal BC-AD 164
Iron Age 2 burials

Ku-221 Burial 100, rice chaff temper -23.8
Ku-218 Burial 102, rice chaff temper -24.7
Ku-219 Burial 102, rice chaff temper -24.0
Ku-220 Burial 95, rice chaff temper -17.5

 Calibrated age
Laboratory Radiocarbon range (95.4%
code age (BP) confidence)

Period 1. Flexed burials

OxA-18141 3362 [+ or -] 27 1741-1537 cal BC
OxA-18142 3204 [+ or -] 27 1521-1423 cal BC
OxA-15942 2948 [+ or -] 29 1262-1055 cal BC

Boundary, initial Neolithic occupation 1814-1544 cal BC
Initial Neolithic occupation

Wk-12647 3221 [+ or -] 40 1608-1418 cal BC
OxA-12660 3348 [+ or -] 30 1734-1531 cal BC
OxA-13468 3316 [+ or -] 30 1682-1521 cal BC
OxA-15248 3349 [+ or -] 29 1735-1531 cal BC
OxA-17457 3181 [+ or -] 29 1505-1409 cal BC

Boundary transition, Neolithic occupation to Neolithic 1 burials
1502-1428 cal BC

Neolithic 1 burials

OxA-11722 3680 [+ or -] 45 2150-1935 cal BC
OxA-18133 3170 [+ or -] 27 1499-1407 cal BC
OxA-13467 3399 [+ or -] 32 1862-1616 cal BC
OxA-13534 3213 [+ or -] 30 1598-1419 cal BC
OxA-16700 3100 [+ or -] 28 1434-1304 cal BC
OxA-11723 3190 [+ or -] 55 1611-1321 cal BC
OxA-16699 3156 [+ or -] 28 1497-1392 cal BC

Boundary transition, Neolithic 1 burials to late Neolithic
occupation 1430-1345 cal BC Later Neolithic occupation

OxA-12661 2978 [+ or -] 30 1371-1114 cal BC
OxA-15247 3014 [+ or -] 29 1386-1132 cal BC
OxA-12545 3078 [+ or -] 30 1419-1268 cal BC

Late Neolithic occupation at Ban Lum Khao

Wk-4507 3080 [+ or -] 50 1435-1209 cal BC
WK-4508 3010 [+ or -] 60 1394-1068 cal BC
Wk-4509 3000 [+ or -] 80 1410-1019 cal BC
Wk-4510 3043 [+ or -] 82 1449-1019 cal BC
Wk-4511 3120 [+ or -] 50 1461-1255 cal BC

Boundary transition, Neolithic 1 to Neolithic 2 burials
1389-1139 cal BC Neolithic 2 burial

OxA-18140 2955 [+ or -] 26 1266-1055 cal BC

Boundary transition, Neolithic 2 burial to Bronze Age initial
occupation 1147-1006 cal BC Early Bronze Age occupation

OxA-12657 2978 [+ or -] 29 1370-1115 cal BC
OxA-12544 2853 [+ or -] 32 1121-924 cal BC
OxA-12658 2852 [+ or -] 28 1117-927 cal BC
OxA-12659 2829 [+ or -] 29 1108-905 cal BC
OxA-12543 2830 [+ or -] 45 1127-850 cal BC
OxA-15246 2823 [+ or -] 28 1052-904 cal BC

Boundary transition, Bronze Age occupation to Bronze Age 1
burials 1114-955 cal BC Bronze Age 1 burials

OxA-16705 2709 [+ or -] 28 907-809 BC
OxA-17465 2818 [+ or -] 29 1051-901 cal BC

Boundary transition, Bronze Age 1 to Bronze Age 2 burials
1003-940 BC Bronze Age 2 burials

OxA-16340 2866 [+ or -] 31 1130-926 cal BC
OxA-16341 2817 [+ or -] 30 1056-896 cal BC
OxA-15245 2796 [+ or -] 30 1020-890 cal BC
OxA-16701 2733 [+ or -] 27 926-816 cal BC
OxA-17456 2697 [+ or -] 28 902-806 cal BC
OxA-17458 2731 [+ or -] 27 925-815 cal BC
OxA-17459 2817 [+ or -] 28 1047-904 cal BC
OxA-17460 2912 [+ or -] 29 1248-1010 cal BC
OxA-17461 2641 [+ or -] 28 889-785 cal BC
OxA-17462 2807 [+ or -] 27 1041-898 cal BC
OxA-17463 2768 [+ or -] 28 997-837 cal BC
OxA-17464 2798 [+ or -] 29 1021-846 cal BC
OxA-17465 2818 [+ or -] 29 1051-901 cal BC
OxA-17467 2712 [+ or -] 28 909-810 cal BC
OxA-17714 2756 [+ or -] 28 976-828 cal BC
OxA-17715 3007 [+ or -] 29 1380-1130 cal BC
OxA-17889 2837 [+ or -] 29 1112-914 cal BC
OxA-17892 2745 [+ or -] 30 975-818 cal BC
OxA-17893 2793 [+ or -] 30 1014-845 cal BC
OxA-17897 2933 [+ or -] 29 1261-1029 cal BC
OxA-17989 2857 [+ or -] 29 1122-929 cal BC
OxA-17990 2588 [+ or -] 28 815-601 cal BC
OxA-18131 2804 [+ or -] 27 1040-860 cal BC
OxA-18132 2680 [+ or -] 26 896-802 cal BC

Boundary transition, Bronze Age 2 to Bronze Age 3
burials 874-793 cal Bronze Age 3 burials BC

OxA-17888 2627 [+ or -] 29 835-774 cal BC
OxA-17891 2826 [+ or -] 29 1073-902 cal BC
OxA-17721 2803 [+ or -] 28 1039-855 cal BC

Boundary transition, Bronze Age 3 to Bronze Age 4 burials
830-701 cal BC Bronze Age 4 burials and occupation

OxA-17466 2441 [+ or -] 28 752-407 cal BC
OxA-17720 2586 [+ or -] 28 814-599 cal BC
OxA-12644 2553 [+ or -] 39 807-5542 cal BC

Boundary transition, Bronze Age 4 to Bronze Age 5 burials
764-439 cal BC Bronze Age 5 burials

OxA-16703 2457 [+ or -] 27 754-413 cal BC
OxA-16702 2432 [+ or -] 28 750-404 cal BC
OxA-17716 2812 [+ or -] 29 1048-899 cal BC
OxA-17717 2688 [+ or -] 28 898-804 cal BC
Ox-A-17718 2704 [+ or -] 28 906-807 cal BC
OxA-17719 2429 [+ or -] 28 749-403 cal BC

Boundary transition, Bronze Age 5 to Iron Age 1 burials
639-249 cal BC Iron Age 1 burials and occupation

OxA-16704 2197 [+ or -] 27 370-189 cal BC
OxA-17992 2462 [+ or -] 28 756-415 cal BC
OxA-17896 2000 [+ or -] 27 51 BC- cal AD 6G
OxA-17991 2152 [+ or -] 28 356-93 cal BC
Ox-A17895 2235 [+ or -] 28 388-206 cal BC
OxA-17894 2495 [+ or -] 29 782-512 cal BC
OxA-17890 2408 [+ or -] 29 734-399 cal BC
Wk-12646 2243 [+ or -] 38 393-204 cal BC
Boundary transition, end Iron Age 1 burials 411 cal
BC-AD 164 Iron Age 2 burials

Ku-221 2320 [+ or -] 3 410-230 cal BC
Ku-218 1960 [+ or -] 30 40 BC-cal AD 120
Ku-219 1870 [+ or -] 25 80-220 AD
Ku-220 1680 [+ or -] 40 250-430 AD

 Posterior probability
Laboratory distribution (95.4%
code probability)

Period 1. Flexed burials

OxA-18141
OxA-18142
OxA-15942

Boundary, initial Neolithic occupation 1814-1544 cal BC
Initial Neolithic occupation

Wk-12647 1606-1446 cal BC
OxA-12660 1685-1526 cal BC
OxA-13468 1661-1517 cal BC
OxA-15248 1688-1525 cal BC
OxA-17457 1522-1440 cal BC

Boundary transition, Neolithic occupation to Neolithic 1
Burials 1502-1428 cal BC

Neolithic 1 burials

OxA-11722 1489-1402 cal BC
OxA-18133
OxA-13467 1866-1609 cal BC
OxA-13534 1487-1415 cal BC
OxA-16700 1442-1377 cal BC
OxA-11723 1481-1391 cal BC
OxA-16699 1472-1394 cal BC

Boundary transition, Neolithic 1 burials to late Neolithic
occupation 1430-1345 cal BC Later Neolithic occupation

OxA-12661 1372-1059 cal BC
OxA-15247 1391-1217 cal BC
OxA-12545 1407-1273 cal BC

Late Neolithic occupation at Ban Lum Khao

Wk-4507
WK-4508
Wk-4509
Wk-4510
Wk-4511

Boundary transition, Neolithic 1 to Neolithic 2 burials
1389-1139 cal BC Neolithic 2 burial

OxA-18140 1263-1056 cal BC

Boundary transition, Neolithic 2 burial to Bronze Age initial
occupation 1147-1006 cal BC Early Bronze Age occupation

OxA-12657 1310-1120 cal BC
OxA-12544 1116-974 cal BC
OxA-12658 1116 976 cal BC
OxA-12659 1116-979 cal BC
OxA-12543 1118-973 cal BC
OxA-15246 1116 972 cal BC

Boundary transition, Bronze Age occupation to Bronze Age 1
burials 1114-955 cal BC Bronze Age 1 burials

OxA-16705 909-811 cal BC
OxA-17465 1039-938 cal BC

Boundary transition, Bronze Age 1 to Bronze Age 2 burials
1003-940 BC Bronze Age 2 burials

OxA-16340
OxA-16341 988-916 cal BC
OxA-15245
OxA-16701 930-827 cal BC
OxA-17456 906813 cal BC
OxA-17458 925-823 cal BC
OxA-17459 1004-844 cal BC
OxA-17460 1248-1010 cal BC
OxA-17461 897-801 cal BC
OxA-17462 991-843 cal BC
OxA-17463
OxA-17464 997-846 cal BC
OxA-17465 1004-844 cal BC
OxA-17467 911-816 cal BC
OxA-17714 975-831 cal BC
OxA-17715 1380-1130 cal BC
OxA-17889 1006--908 cal BC
OxA-17892 973-825 cal BC
OxA-17893 998-842 cal BC
OxA-17897 1260-1041 cal BC
OxA-17989 1007-912 cal BC
OxA-17990
OxA-18131 1000-846 cal BC
OxA-18132 898-810 cal BC

Boundary transition, Bronze Age 2 to Bronze Age 3
burials 874-793 cal Bronze Age 3 burials BC

OxA-17888 831-787 cal BC
OxA-17891 1067-906 cal BC
OxA-17721 1041-845 cal BC

Boundary transition, Bronze Age 3 to Bronze Age 4 burials
830-701 cal BC Bronze Age 4 burials and occupation

OxA-17466 769-502 cal BC
OxA-17720 806-596 cal BC
OxA-12644 803-550 cal BC

Boundary transition, Bronze Age 4 to Bronze Age 5 burials
764-439 cal BC Bronze Age 5 burials

OxA-16703 720-410 cal BC
OxA-16702 717-406 cal BC
OxA-17716 1048-901 cal BC
OxA-17717 901-802 cal BC
Ox-A-17718 906-810 cal BC
OxA-17719 720-407 cal BC

Boundary transition, Bronze Age 5 to Iron Age 1 burials
639-249 cal BC Iron Age 1 burials and occupation

OxA-16704 361-180 cal BC
OxA-17992 757-414 cal BC
OxA-17896 167 AD-54 cal BC
OxA-17991 356-96 cal BC
Ox-A17895 382-202 cal BC
OxA-17894 775-516 cal BC
OxA-17890 734-400 cal BC
Wk-12646 388-203 cal BC
Boundary transition, end Iron Age 1 burials 411 cal
BC-AD 164 Iron Age 2 burials

Ku-221
Ku-218
Ku-219
Ku-220

Acknowledgements

The excavation of Ban Non Wat was undertaken with the permission of the National Research Council of Thailand and the Thai Fine Arts Department. Dr Rachanie Thosarat and Dr Amphan Kijngam have been co-directors of the excavation programme. Dr Nancy Tayles, Dr Nigel Chang, Dr Siam Halcrow, Professor William Boyd, Dr Alex. Bentley, Mr Peter Petchey, Dr Warrachai Wiriyaromp and numerous graduate students have contributed vital support from the beginning of the project. We wish to acknowledge the Marsden Fund and Earthwatch and its research corps for financially supporting the excavation of Ban Non War. Funding for radiocarbon determinations has been provided by the Marsden Fund, the Arts and Humanities Research Council of the United Kingdom grant AH/F009275/1 and by Ben Castricone and Patti Yamane of Uniforce Sales and Engineering. Staff of the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, University of Oxford, are thanked for their careful analytical work on the samples dated from Ban Non Tat. We are grateful to Professor P. Bellwood, Dr Elizabeth Moore, Dr Alex Bentley, Dr V. Pigott, Dr Hayden Cawte, Oliver Pryce, Dr Per Sorensen, Dr Dougald O'Reilly, Dr Sarah Talbot, Professor James Muhly and an anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments on this article.

Received: 9 March 2008; Accepted: 23 June 2008; 18 August 2008

References

ASHMORE, P.J. 1999. Radiocarbon dating: avoiding errors by avoiding mixed samples. Antiquity 73: 124-30.

BACUS, E.A. 2006. Social identities in Bronze Age Northeast Thailand: intersections of gender, status and ranking at Non Nok Tha, in E.A. Bacus, I.C. Glover & V.C. Pigott (ed.) Uncovering Southeast Asia's past: 105-15. Singapore: NUS Press.

BAYARD, D.T. 1972. Early Thai bronze: analysis and new dates. Science 176: 1411-2.

--1979. The chronology of prehistoric metallurgy in Northeast Thailand: Silabhumi or Samrddhabhumi?, in R.B. Smith & W. Watson (ed.) Early South East Asia: 15-32. New York & London: Oxford University Press for School of Oriental and African Studies.

BAYARD, D.T. & P. CHAROENWONGSA. 1983. The development of metallurgy in Southeast Asia: reply to Loofs-Wissowa. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 14(1): 12-17.

BAYLISS, A., C. BRONK RAMSEY, J. VaN DER PLICHT & A. WHITTLE. 2007. Bradshaw and Bayes: towards a timetable for the Neolithic. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17(1) (Supplement): 1-28.

BAYLISS, A. & A. WHITTLE (ed.) 2007. Histories of the dead: building chronologies for five southern British long barrows (Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17(1) Supplement). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

BENTLEY, R.A., N.G. TAYLES, C.F.W. HIGHAM, C. MACPHERSON & T.C. ATKINSON. 2007. Shifting gender relations at Khok Phanom Di, Thailand. Current Anthropology 48: 301-14.

BRONK RAMSEY, C. 1995. Radiocarbon calibration and analysis of stratigraphy: the OxCal program. Radiocarbon 37(2): 425-30.

--2001. Development of the radiocarbon calibration program OxCal. Radiocarbon 43(2A): 355-63.

--2005. Improving the resolution of radiocarbon dating by statistical analysis, in T.E. Levy & T. Higham (ed.) The Bible and radiocarbon dating--archaeology, text and science: 57-64. London: Equinox.

BUCK, C.E., C.D. LITTON & A.G.M. SMITH. 1992. Calibration of radiocarbon results pertaining to related archaeological events. Journal of ArchaeologicalScience 19: 497-512.

BUCK, C.E., W.G. CAVANAGH & C.D. LITTON. 1996. Bayesian approach to interpreting archaeological data. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

FULLER, D., N. BOMN & R. KORISETTAR. 2007. Dating the Neolithic of South India: new radiometric evidence for key economic, social and ritual transformations. Antiquity 81: 755-78.

GORMAN, C.F. & P. CHAROENWONGSA. 1976. Ban Chiang: a mosaic of impressions from the first two years. Expedition 8: 14-26.

HIGHAM, C.F.W. 1983. The Ban Chiang culture in wider perspective. Proceedings of the British Academy 69: 229-61.

--1996. The Bronze Age of Southeast Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

--2004. The opposed human figure at Khok Phanom Di. Journal of the Siam Society 92: 15-36.

HIGHAM, C.F.W. & D.J.W. O'REILLY. 2004. Social aspects of the Ban Lum Khao cemetery, in C.F.W. Higham & R. Thosarat (ed.) The origins of the civilization of Angkor. Volume 1: the excavation of Ban Lure Khao: 301-23. Bangkok: Fine Arts Department of Thailand.

HIGHAM, C.F.W. & R. THOSARAT (ed.). 1998. The excavation of Nong Nor, a prehistoric site in Central Thailand (Otago University Studies in Prehistoric Anthropology 18). Otago: University of Otago, Department of Anthropology.

HIGHAM, C.EW. & R. THOSARAT. 2004a. The excavation of Khok Phanom Di. Volume VII: summary and conclusions (Report of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London 72). London: Society of Antiquaries of London.

HIGHAM, C.F.W. & R. THOSARAT (ed.). 2004b. The origins of the civilization of Angkor. Volume 1: the excavation of Ban Lum Khao. Bangkok: Fine Arts Department of Thailand.

HIGHAM, C.F.W., A. KIJNGAM & S. TALBOT (ed.). 2007. The origins of the civilization of Angkor. Volume 2: the excavation Noen U-Loke and Non Muang Kao. Bangkok: Fine Arts Department of Thailand.

HIGHAM, T.F.G. 2004. Dating the occupation of Ban Lum Khao, in C.F.W. Higham & R. Thosarat (ed.) The origins of the civilization of Angkor. Volume 1: the excavation of Ban Lure Khao: 5-7. Bangkok: Fine Arts Department of Thailand.

HIGHAM, T.F.G., J. VAN DER PLICHT, C. BRONK RAMSEY, H.J. BRUINS, M. ROBINSON & T.E. LEVY. 2005. Radiocarbon dating of the Khirbat-en Nahas site (Jordan) and Bayesian modeling of the results, in T.E. Levy & T.F.G. Higham (ed.) The Bible and radiocarbon dating--archaeology, text and science: 164-78). London: Equinox.

HIGHAM, T.F.G., J. CHAPMAN, V. SLAVCHEV, B. GAYDARSKA, N. HONCH, Y. YORDANOV & B. DIMITROVA. 2007. New perspectives on the Varna cemetery (Bulgaria)--AMS dates and social implications. Antiquity 81: 640-54.

LIU, L., G. AH-LEE, L. JIANG & J. ZHANG. 2007. Evidence for the early beginning (c.9000 cal BP) of rice domestication in China: a response. The Holocene 17: 1059-68.

LOOFS-WISSOWA, H.H.E. 1983. The development and spread of metallurgy in Southeast Asia: a review of the present evidence. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 14: 1-11.

McGRATH, R.J., W.E. BOYD & R.T. BUSH. 2007. The palaeohydrological context of the Iron Age floodplain sites of the Mun River Valley, Northeast Thailand. Geoarehaeology 23: 151-72.

MOVIUS, H.L. 1960. Radiocarbon dates and Upper Palaeolithic archaeology in Central and Western Europe. Current Anthropolagy 1: 355-91.

MUHLY, J. 1988. The beginnings of metallurgy in the Old World, in R. Maddin (ed.) The beginnings of the use of metals and alloys: 2-20. Cambridge (MA) & London: MIT Press.

REIMER, P.J., M.G.L. BAILLIE, E. BARD, A. BAYLISS, J.W. BECK, C.J.H. BERTRAND, P.G. BLACKWELL, C.E. BUCK, G.S. BURR, K.B. CUTLER, P.E. DAMON, R.L. EDWARDS, R.G. FAIRBANKS, M. FRIEDRICH, T.P GUILDERSON, A.G. HOGG, K.A. HUGHEN, B. KROMER, G. McCoRMAC, S. MANNING, C. BRONK RAMSEY, R.W. REIMER, S. REMMELE, J.R. SOUTHON, M. STUIVER, S. TALAMO, F.W. TAYLOR, J. VAN DER PLICHT & C.E. WEYHENMEYER. 2004. IntCal04 terrestrial radiocarbon age calibration, 0-26 cal kyr BP. Radiocarbon 46(3): 1029-58.

RISPOLI, F. In press 2008. The incised and impressed pottery style of mainland Southeast Asia: following the path of Neolithization. East and West 57 (in press).

SOLHEIM II, W.G. 1968. Early bronze in Northeastern Thailand. Current Anthropology 9: 59-62.

--1970. Northern Thailand, Southeast Asia, and World prehistory. Asian Perspectives 13: 145-62.

WHITE, J.C. 1995. Incorporating heterarchy into theory on socio-political development: the case from Southeast Asia, in R. Ehrenreich, C. Crumley & J. Levy (ed.) Heterarehy and the analysis of complex societies: 101-23. Washington (D.C.): American Anthropological Association.

--1997. A brief note on new dates for the Ban Chiang cultural tradition. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 16: 103-6.

WHITE, J.C. & V.C. PIGOTT. 1996. From community craft to regional specialisation: intensification of copper production in pre-state Thailand, in B. Wailes (ed.) Craft specialization and social evolution: in memory of V. Gordon Childe (University Museum Monograph 93): 151-76. Philadelphia (PA): University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.

WIRIYAROMP, W. 2007. The Neolithic period in Thailand. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Otago.

ZAITSEVA, G.I., K.V. CHUGUNOV, N.A. BOKOVENKOI, V.I. DERGACHEV, V.G.DIRKSEN, B. VAN GEEL, M.A. KOULKOVAI, L.M. LEBEDEVA, A.A. SEMENTSOV, J. VAN DER PLICHT, E.M. SCOTT, S.S. VASIHEV, K.I. LOKHOV & N. BOUROVA. 2005. Chronological study of archaeological sites and environmental change around 2600 bp in the Eurasian steppe belt (Uyuk valley, Tuva Republic). Geochronometria 24: 97-107.

Charles Higham (1) & Thomas Higham (2)

(1) Department of Anthropology, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand

(2) Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, Research Laboratory of Archaeology and the History of Art, Dyson Perrins Building, University of Oxford, OXI 3QY, UK

Table 2. A summary of the prehistoric chronology for the upper
Mun Valley, based on the radiocarbon determinations for Ban Non
Wat, Ban Lum Khao and Noen U-Loke.

Cultural period Date in calibrated radiocarbon years (BC)

Flexed burials 1750-1050
Neolithic 1 1650-1250
Neolithic 2 1250-1050
Bronze Age 1 1050-1000
Bronze Age 2 1000-900
Bronze Age 3 900-800
Bronze Age 4 800-700
Bronze Age 5 700-420
Iron Age 1 420-100
Iron Age 2 200-AD 200
Iron Age 3 AD 200-400
Iron Age 4 AD 300-500
Early Historic 500-