Editing Hoabinhian

{{Short description|Archaeological culture in Southeast Asia}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=March 2025}}
{{Vietnamese Culture list}}

The '''Hoabinhian''' is a lithic techno-complex of [[Archaeological site|archaeological sites]] associated with assemblages in [[Southeast Asia]] from the [[late Pleistocene]] to the [[Holocene]], dated to {{circa|10,000}}–2000 BCE.<ref>the Hoabinhian is a lithic techno-complex from the late Pleistocene to Holocene, found in Mainland and Island Southeast Asia. {{harvcol|Zeitoun| Bourdon| Latsachack| Pierret| Singthong| Baills| Forestier|2019|p=143}}</ref> It is attributed to hunter-gatherer societies of the region whose technological variability over time is poorly understood.<ref>The Hoabinhian is a common lithic assemblage found throughout Southeast Asia. It is generally attributed to hunter-gatherer societies that occupied this region (Higham, 2013), but little is known about these societies in terms of their technological variability over time. {{harvcol|Zeitoun| Bourdon| Latsachack| Pierret| Singthong| Baills| Forestier|2019|p=151}}</ref> In 2016, a rock shelter was identified in [[Yunnan]], [[China]], 40 km from the border with [[Myanmar]], where artifacts belonging to the Hoabinhian technocomplex were recognized, dating from 41,500 BCE.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Ji |first1=Xueping |last2=Kuman |first2=Kathleen |last3=Clarke |first3=R. J. |last4=Forestier |first4=Hubert |last5=Li |first5=Yinghua |last6=Ma |first6=Juan |last7=Qiu |first7=Kaiwei |last8=Li |first8=Hao |last9=Wu |first9=Yun |title=The oldest Hoabinhian technocomplex in Asia (43.5 ka) at Xiaodong rockshelter, Yunnan Province, southwest China |journal=Quaternary International |date=2 May 2016 |volume=400 |pages=166–174 |doi=10.1016/j.quaint.2015.09.080 |bibcode=2016QuInt.400..166J }}</ref>

The [[Bacsonian]] is often regarded as a variation of the Hoabinhian industry, characterized by a higher frequency of edge-grounded cobble artifacts compared to earlier Hoabinhian artifacts, dated to {{circa|8000}}–4000 BCE.<ref>{{cite book|last=Bellwood|first=Peter|year=2007|title=Prehistory of the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago|publisher=ANU E Press|pages=161–167|isbn=978-1-921313-12-7|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4obAfGBGKY0C&pg=RA1-PA373}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |doi=10.1007/978-1-4757-5133-8 |title=Encyclopedic Dictionary of Archaeology |date=2000 |last1=Kipfer |first1=Barbara Ann |isbn=978-1-4419-3322-5 |chapter=Bacsonian |page=50 }}</ref>

==Definition==
The term '''Hòa Bình culture''' ({{langx|vi|Văn hóa Hòa Bình}}; {{langx|fr|culture de Hoà Bình}}) was first used by French archaeologists working in [[Northern Vietnam]] to describe [[Holocene]] period archaeological [[Assemblage (archaeology)|assemblage]]s excavated from rock shelters. The related [[English language|English]] adjective '''Hoabinhian''' (French ''hoabianien'') became a common term in the English-based literature to describe [[rock (geology)|stone]] [[Artifact (archaeology)|artifact]] assemblages in [[Mainland Southeast Asia]] that contain [[Lithic flake|flaked]], [[Cobble (geology)|cobble]] artifacts.<ref>{{cite book |doi=10.1007/978-1-4757-5133-8 |title=Encyclopedic Dictionary of Archaeology |date=2000 |last1=Kipfer |first1=Barbara Ann |isbn=978-1-4419-3322-5 |chapter=Hoabinhian |page=238 }}</ref> The term was originally used to refer to a specific [[ethnic]] group, restricted to a limited period with a distinctive [[subsistence economy]] and [[technology]]. More recent work (e.g., Shoocongdej 2000) uses the term to refer to [[Artifact (archaeology)|artifact]]s and assemblages with certain formal characteristics.<ref>{{cite book |doi=10.1007/978-3-319-64407-3_4 |chapter=The Hoabinhian of Southeast Asia and its Relationship to Regional Pleistocene Lithic Technologies |title=Lithic Technological Organization and Paleoenvironmental Change |series=Studies in Human Ecology and Adaptation |date=2018 |last1=Marwick |first1=Ben |volume=9 |pages=63–78 |isbn=978-3-319-64405-9 |chapter-url=https://osf.io/pjgr5 }}</ref>

===History===
[[File:Hiem cave, Hoabinhian.jpg|thumb|upright=2|Hiem cave, Hoabinhian]]
[[File:Hiem cave (inside).jpg|thumb|upright=2|Hiem cave (inside)]]

In 1927, [[Madeleine Colani]] published some details of her nine [[Excavation (archaeology)|excavation]]s in the northern Vietnamese province of [[Hòa Bình Province|Hòa Bình]]. As a result of her work the First Congress of Prehistorians of the Far East in 1932 agreed to define the Hoabinhian as:

<blockquote>a culture composed of implements that are in general flaked with somewhat varied types of primitive workmanship. It is characterised by tools often worked only on one face, by hammerstones, by implements of sub-triangular section, by discs, short axes and almond shaped artifacts, with an appreciable number of bone tools (Matthews 1966).</blockquote>

Despite the general terms of the definition, Colani's Hoabinhian is an elaborate [[Typology (archaeology)|typology]] as indicated by the 82 artifacts from Sao Dong that Colani classified into 28 [[Type (biology)|type]]s (Matthews 1966). The original typology is so complicated that most Hoabinhian sites are identified simply by the presence of [[sumatralith]]s (White & Gorman 1979). The chronology of Hoabinhian artifacts was assumed to be Holocene because of the extant [[fauna (animals)|fauna]] found in the assemblages and the absence of [[List of extinct animals#Asia|extinct fauna]] by Colani and others working before the availability of [[radiocarbon dating]] methods in the 1950s.

Problems with Colani's typology were exposed by Matthews (1964) who analysed metric and technological attributes of unifacially flaked cobble artifacts from Hoabinhian levels at Sai Yok Rockshelter, [[Kanchanaburi Province]], west-central [[Thailand]]. His aim was to determine if Hoabinhian artifact types described by Colani could be defined as clusters of constantly recurring attributes such as length, width, thickness, mass, length-width ratio and [[Cortex (archaeology)|cortex]] amount and distribution. Matthews found that Hoabinhian types did not exist and instead Hoabinhian artifacts reflect a continuous range of shapes and sizes.

Following his archaeological excavation and surveys in [[Mae Hong Son Province]], northwest Thailand, [[Chester Gorman]] (1970) proposed a more detailed definition as follows

# A generally unifacial [[Lithic flake|flake]]d tool tradition made primarily on water rounded [[pebble]]s and large flakes detached from these pebbles
# [[Lithic core|Core]] tools ("[[Sumatralith]]s") made by complete flaking on one side of a pebble and grinding stones also made on rounded pebbles, usually in association with [[iron oxide]]
# A high incidence of used flakes (identified from edge-damage characteristics)
# Fairly similar assemblages of food remains including remains of extant shellfish, fish and small-to-medium-size mammals
# A cultural and ecological orientation to the use of rockshelters generally occurring near freshwater streams in an upland [[karst]]ic topography (though Hoabinhian shell [[midden]]s do indicate at least one other ecological orientation)
# Edge-grinding and cord-marked [[pottery|ceramic]]s occurring, individually or together, in the upper layers of Hoabinhian deposits

Gorman's work included a number of radiocarbon dates that confirmed the Holocene age of the Hoabinhian. Gorman's carbon-14 dates place Hoabinhian levels at [[Spirit Cave (Thailand)]] between 12,000 and 8000 BP, these levels have also produced cord-marked [[pottery|ceramic]]s.<ref>Who Needs the Past?: Indigenous Values and Archaeology by Robert Layton, page 154</ref> The term was redefined in 1994 by archaeologists attending a conference held in [[Hanoi]]. At this conference Vietnamese archaeologists presented evidence of Hoabinhian artifacts dating to 17,000 years before the present. A vote was held where it was agreed that<ref>{{Cite web | url=http://www.geocities.com/thai_archaeology/seasia/04/comment1.html | archive-url=https://archive.today/20091026024709/http://www.geocities.com/thai_archaeology/seasia/04/comment1.html | url-status=dead | archive-date=26 October 2009 | title=THE HOABINHIAN 60 YEARS AFTER MADELEINE COLANI: ANNIVERSARY CONFERENCE. HANOI, 28 DECEMBER 1993 - 3 JANUARY 1994.}}</ref>

# The concept of the Hoabinhian should be kept
# The best concept for "Hoabinhian" was an [[Archaeological industry|industry]] rather than a [[culture]] or [[techno-complex]]
# The chronology of the Hoabinhian industry dates is from "late-to-terminal [[Pleistocene]] to early-to-mid Holocene"
# The term "Sumatralith" should be retained
# The Hoabinhian Industry should be referred to as a "cobble" rather that a "pebble" tool industry
# The Hoabinhian should not be referred to as a "[[Mesolithic]]" phenomenon

==Pre-Hoabinhian technology==
[[Hà Văn Tấn]] outlined in his paper his definition of a lithic technology that occurred before the Hoabinian. He found primitive flakes in stratigraphy below Hoabinian pebble tools across several sites in Southeast Asia which led him to name the flake technology, Nguomian — named after a large assembly of flakes found at the [[Ngườm]] rock shelter in [[Thái Nguyên province]], Vietnam.<ref name=van>Van Tan H. (1997) The Hoabinhian and before. ''Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association'' (Chiang Mai Papers, Volume 3) 16: 35-41</ref> Hoabininhian technology is also claimed to be a continuation of the Sonvian technology.<ref name=van/>

==Geographical distribution==
Since the term was first used to describe assemblages from sites in Vietnam, many sites throughout mainland and island [[Southeast Asia]] have been described as having Hoabinhian components. The apparent concentration of more than 120 Hoabinhian sites in Vietnam reflects intensive research activities in this area rather the location of a centre of the prehistoric Hoabinhian activity.

The oldest Hoabinhian complex was discovered at Xiaodong, a large rockshelter in [[Yunnan]], China, {{convert|40|km}} from the Burmese border. It is the only Hoabinhian site discovered in China.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Ji |first1=Xueping |last2=Kuman |first2=Kathleen |last3=Clarke |first3=R.J. |last4=Forestier |first4=Hubert |last5=Li |first5=Yinghua |last6=Ma |first6=Juan |last7=Qiu |first7=Kaiwei |last8=Li |first8=Hao |last9=Wu |first9=Yun |title=The oldest Hoabinhian technocomplex in Asia (43.5 ka) at Xiaodong rockshelter, Yunnan Province, southwest China |journal=Quaternary International |date=May 2016 |volume=400 |pages=166–174 |doi=10.1016/j.quaint.2015.09.080 |bibcode=2016QuInt.400..166J }}</ref>

Archaeological sites in [[Terengganu]], [[Sumatra]], Thailand, [[Laos]], [[Myanmar]] and [[Cambodia]] have been identified as Hoabinhian, although the quality and quantity of descriptions vary and the relative significance of the Hoabinhian component at these sites can be difficult to determine.

Recent archaeological research indicates that variation in Hoabinhian artifacts across regions are largely influenced by local, region-specific proximity to resources and changes in environmental conditions.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Marwick |first1=Ben |title=Multiple Optima in Hoabinhian flaked stone artefact palaeoeconomics and palaeoecology at two archaeological sites in Northwest Thailand |journal=Journal of Anthropological Archaeology |date=December 2013 |volume=32 |issue=4 |pages=553–564 |doi=10.1016/j.jaa.2013.08.004 |doi-access=free |url=https://ro.uow.edu.au/articles/journal_contribution/Multiple_Optima_in_Hoabinhian_flaked_stone_artefact_palaeoeconomics_and_palaeoecology_at_two_archaeological_sites_in_Northwest_Thailand/27744585/1/files/50503440.pdf }}</ref>

Beyond this core area, some archaeologists argue that there are isolated inventories of stone artifacts displaying Hoabinhian elements in [[Nepal]], South [[China]], [[Taiwan]] and [[Australia]]  (Moser 2001).

==Hoabinhian and plant domestication==
Gorman (1971) claimed that [[Spirit Cave, Thailand|Spirit Cave]] included remains of ''Prunus'' ([[almond]]), ''Terminalia'', ''Areca'' ([[betel]]), ''Vicia'' ([[Vicia faba|broadbean]]) or ''Phaseolus'', ''Pisum'' ([[pea]]) or ''Raphia lagenaria'' ([[bottle gourd]]), ''Trapa'' ([[water caltrop]]), ''Piper'' ([[Piper (genus)|pepper]]), ''Madhuca'' ([[butternut tree|butternut]]), ''[[Canarium]]'', ''Aleurites'' ([[candle nut]]), and ''[[Cucumis]]'' (a [[cucumber]] type) in layers dating to c. 9800-8500 BP. None of the recovered specimens differed from their wild [[phenotype]]s. He suggested that these may have been used as foods, [[condiment]]s, [[stimulant]]s, for lighting and that the [[legume|leguminous]] plants in particular 'point to a very early use of [[domestication|domesticated]] plants' (Gorman 1969:672). He later wrote (1971:311) that 'Whether they are definitely early [[cultigen]]s (see Yen n.d.:12) remains to be established... What is important, and what we can say definitely, is that the remains indicate the early, quite sophisticated use of particular species which are still culturally important in Southeast Asia.'

In 1972, [[Wilhelm Gerhard Solheim II|W. G. Solheim]], as the director of the project of which Spirit Cave was part, published an article in ''[[Scientific American]]'' discussing the finds from Spirit Cave. While Solheim noted that the specimens may 'merely be wild species gathered from the surrounding countryside', he claimed that the inhabitants at Spirit Cave had 'an advanced knowledge of [[horticulture]]'. Solheim's [[chronology|chronological]] chart suggests that 'incipient [[agriculture]]' began at about 20,000 BC in southeast Asia. He also suggests that ceramic technology was invented at 13,000 BC although Spirit Cave does not have ceramics until after 6800 BC.

Although Solheim concludes that his reconstruction is 'largely [[hypothetical]]', his [[hyperbole|overstatement]] of the results of Gorman's excavation has led to inflated claims of Hoabinhian agriculture. These claims have detracted from the significance of Spirit Cave as a site with well-preserved evidence of human [[subsistence]] and palaeoenvironmental conditions during the Hoabinhian.

Viet (2004), however, focuses on mainly Hoabinhians in Viet Nam. Within his wide range of study of this area, Da But is a site that he has worked at which is dated to about fifth to sixth millennium BC to the end of the third millennium BC. Within this site, Viet observed that the food Hoabinhians mostly focused on are mountainous shellfish, nuts, and fruit. Interesting enough, the site even shows a new shellfish species that they consumed: an as-yet-unnamed species of freshwater clam of ''[[Corbicula]] spp''; species are known to live in swampy areas and lakes.

[[File:Hiem cave (selected flakes).jpg|thumb|Hiem cave (selected flakes)]]

The general food sources of Hoabinhians were gathered from the follow environmental conditions:
* Limestone rock mountains (delivering land snails and some small mammals)
* Mountain water sources like streams, small rivers, swamps and lakes (providing snails and fish)
* Valley earthen surfaces (nuts, fruits, fungi, vegetables, wild cereals, and wild mammals)<ref>{{cite book|last=Viet|first=Nguyen |title=Hoabinhian Food Strategy in Viet Nam|pages=14–15}}</ref>

==Hoabinhian stone artifact technology==
An experimental Hoabinhian assemblage was created and analyzed by Marwick (2008), which identified variables and methods that are the most useful in analyzing Hoabinhian assemblages. In particular he advocated for the use of a new method involving the dorsal cortex location of a flake. This method in particular was found to be especially useful in determining reduction intensity and may prove instrumental in answering broader archaeological questions involving subsistence, geographic range, and domestication.<ref name="Marwick 2008 1189–1200">{{cite journal|last=Marwick|first=Ben|date=2008 |title=What attributes are important for the measurement of assemblage reduction intensity? Results from an experimental stone artefact assemblage with relevance to the Hoabinhian of mainland Southeast Asia.|journal=Journal of Archaeological Science|volume=35|issue=5 |pages=1189–1200|doi=10.1016/j.jas.2007.08.007|bibcode=2008JArSc..35.1189M }}</ref> Based on Marwick's own research<ref name="Marwick 2008 1189–1200"/> and Shoocongdej's (2000, 2006), [[Optimal foraging theory|behavioral ecological models]] were applied to examine human behavior through lithic assemblages which found in [[Tham Lod rockshelter|Tham Lod]] and Ban Rai rockshelters. In theory, high frequencies of pre-processing should reflect logistical mobility strategy. However, at Tham Lod, a high frequencies of pre-processing (CPM) but a residential mobility strategy (ODM) and a low intensity of occupation (PCM) was observed: We can see an internal conflict between models. A multiple optima model is proposed to explain this contradictory result. Multiple optima model allows more than one optimal scenario and is valid to explain high time-devoting lithic technology (i.e., pre-processing of lithic) and more residential mobility strategy in the same time.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Marwick |first1=Ben |title=Multiple Optima in Hoabinhian flaked stone artefact palaeoeconomics and palaeoecology at two archaeological sites in Northwest Thailand |journal=Journal of Anthropological Archaeology |date=December 2013 |volume=32 |issue=4 |pages=553–564 |doi=10.1016/j.jaa.2013.08.004 |doi-access=free |url=https://ro.uow.edu.au/articles/journal_contribution/Multiple_Optima_in_Hoabinhian_flaked_stone_artefact_palaeoeconomics_and_palaeoecology_at_two_archaeological_sites_in_Northwest_Thailand/27744585/1/files/50503440.pdf }}</ref>

==Genetic links to ancient and modern East and Southeast Asian populations==
{{anchor|Genetics}}
[[File:Phylogenetic_structure_of_Eastern_Eurasians.png|thumb|400px|Phylogenetic position of the Hoabinhian lineage among other [[East-Eurasian|Eastern Eurasians]].

Hoabinhian ancestry is described to be deeply diverged from the common ancestor of present-day East and Southeast Asians.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Yang |first1=Melinda A. |title=A genetic history of migration, diversification, and admixture in Asia |journal=Human Population Genetics and Genomics |date=6 January 2022 |pages=1–32 |doi=10.47248/hpgg2202010001 }}</ref>]]
{{As of|2022}}, only two [[ancient DNA]] samples have been extracted from individuals excavated in Hoabinhian contexts: one specimen from in Pha Faen in [[Bolikhamxay Province]], Laos (7888 ± 40 BP)<ref>{{cite journal | last1=McColl | first1=Hugh | last2=Racimo | first2=Fernando | last3=Vinner | first3=Lasse | last4=Demeter | first4=Fabrice | last5=Gakuhari | first5=Takashi | last6=Moreno-Mayar | first6=J. Víctor | last7=van Driem | first7=George | title=The prehistoric peopling of Southeast Asia | journal=Science | publisher=American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) | volume=361 | issue=6397 | date=6 July 2018 | issn=0036-8075 | doi=10.1126/science.aat3628 | pages=88–92| pmid=29976827 | bibcode=2018Sci...361...88M | s2cid=206667111 | hdl=10072/383365 | url=https://researchmgt.monash.edu/ws/files/344873217/343042905_oa.pdf | hdl-access=free }}</ref> and one from [[:ms:Gua Cha|Gua Cha]] in [[Ulu Kelantan (federal constituency)|Ulu Kelantan]], [[Malaysia]] (4319 ± 64 BP). While the Upper Paleolithic origins of this Hoabinhian ancestry represented by the two samples are unknown, Hoabinhian ancestry has been found to be related to the main 'East Asian' ancestry component found in most modern East and Southeast Asians, although deeply diverged from it.<ref name=McColl2018>{{cite journal | last1=McColl | first1=Hugh | last2=Racimo | first2=Fernando | last3=Vinner | first3=Lasse | last4=Demeter | first4=Fabrice | last5=Gakuhari | first5=Takashi | last6=Moreno-Mayar | first6=J. Víctor | last7=van Driem | first7=George | last8=Gram Wilken | first8=Uffe | last9=Seguin-Orlando | first9=Andaine | last10=de la Fuente Castro | first10=Constanza | last11=Wasef | first11=Sally | last12=Shoocongdej | first12=Rasmi | last13=Souksavatdy | first13=Viengkeo | last14=Sayavongkhamdy | first14=Thongsa | last15=Saidin | first15=Mohd Mokhtar | last16=Allentoft | first16=Morten E. | last17=Sato | first17=Takehiro | last18=Malaspinas | first18=Anna-Sapfo | last19=Aghakhanian | first19=Farhang A. | last20=Korneliussen | first20=Thorfinn | display-authors=5| title=The prehistoric peopling of Southeast Asia | journal=Science | publisher=American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) | volume=361 | issue=6397 | year=2018 | issn=0036-8075 | doi=10.1126/science.aat3628 | pages=88–92| pmid=29976827 | bibcode=2018Sci...361...88M | s2cid=206667111 | hdl=10072/383365 | url=https://researchmgt.monash.edu/ws/files/344873217/343042905_oa.pdf | hdl-access=free}}</ref><ref name=Yang2022>{{Cite journal |last=Yang |first=Melinda A. |date=6 January 2022 |title=A genetic history of migration, diversification, and admixture in Asia |journal=Human Population Genetics and Genomics |volume=2 |issue=1 |pages=1–32 |doi=10.47248/hpgg2202010001|doi-access=free }}</ref>

Hoabinhian ancestry has been described as a "deeply branching East Asian ancestry" and inferred to represent the indigenous hunter-gatherer groups of large parts of Southeast Asia.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Bennett |first1=E. Andrew |last2=Liu |first2=Yichen |last3=Fu |first3=Qiaomei |date=3 December 2024 |title=Reconstructing the Human Population History of East Asia through Ancient Genomics |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/elements/reconstructing-the-human-population-history-of-east-asia-through-ancient-genomics/0524D629660B5E43FC7094C043D54C6A# |journal=Elements in Ancient East Asia |language=en |doi=10.1017/9781009246675|isbn=978-1-009-24667-5 |doi-access=free }}</ref> They display the highest genetic affinities to the Upper Paleolithic [[Tianyuan man]] from northern China, the [[Jōmon people|Jōmon peoples]] of Japan,<ref name="McColl20182" /><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Liu |first1=Dang |last2=Duong |first2=Nguyen Thuy |last3=Ton |first3=Nguyen Dang |last4=Van Phong |first4=Nguyen |last5=Pakendorf |first5=Brigitte |last6=Van Hai |first6=Nong |last7=Stoneking |first7=Mark |date=1 September 2020 |title=Extensive Ethnolinguistic Diversity in Vietnam Reflects Multiple Sources of Genetic Diversity |url=https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/37/9/2503/5821431?login=false |journal=Molecular Biology and Evolution |volume=37 |issue=9 |pages=2503–2519 |doi=10.1093/molbev/msaa099 |pmid=32344428 |issn=0737-4038|hdl=21.11116/0000-0006-4AD8-4 |hdl-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Kusuma |first1=Pradiptajati |last2=Cox |first2=Murray P. |last3=Barker |first3=Graeme |last4=Sudoyo |first4=Herawati |last5=Lansing |first5=J. Stephen |last6=Jacobs |first6=Guy S. |date=28 November 2023 |title=Deep ancestry of Bornean hunter-gatherers supports long-term local ancestry dynamics |url=https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstreams/ef9e05b0-b0d3-423b-ae2f-2bba0a379aee/download |journal=Cell Reports |language=English |volume=42 |issue=11 |doi=10.1016/j.celrep.2023.113346 |issn=2211-1247 |pmid=37917587}}</ref> the [[Andamanese peoples|Andamanese]] [[Onge]] and [[Jarawas (Andaman Islands)|Jarawa]], [[Semang]] (also known as "Malaysian [[Negritos]]") and [[Maniq people|Maniq]] in the interior of the Malay Peninsula.<ref name="McColl20182">{{cite journal |last1=McColl |first1=Hugh |last2=Racimo |first2=Fernando |last3=Vinner |first3=Lasse |last4=Demeter |first4=Fabrice |last5=Gakuhari |first5=Takashi |last6=Moreno-Mayar |first6=J. Víctor |last7=van Driem |first7=George |last8=Gram Wilken |first8=Uffe |last9=Seguin-Orlando |first9=Andaine |last10=de la Fuente Castro |first10=Constanza |last11=Wasef |first11=Sally |last12=Shoocongdej |first12=Rasmi |last13=Souksavatdy |first13=Viengkeo |last14=Sayavongkhamdy |first14=Thongsa |last15=Saidin |first15=Mohd Mokhtar |display-authors=5 |year=2018 |title=The prehistoric peopling of Southeast Asia |journal=Science |publisher=American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) |volume=361 |issue=6397 |pages=88–92 |bibcode=2018Sci...361...88M |doi=10.1126/science.aat3628 |issn=0036-8075 |pmid=29976827 |s2cid=206667111 |hdl-access=free |last16=Allentoft |first16=Morten E. |last17=Sato |first17=Takehiro |last18=Malaspinas |first18=Anna-Sapfo |last19=Aghakhanian |first19=Farhang A. |last20=Korneliussen |first20=Thorfinn |hdl=10072/383365|url=https://researchmgt.monash.edu/ws/files/344873217/343042905_oa.pdf }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Göllner |first1=Tobias |last2=Larena |first2=Maximilian |last3=Kutanan |first3=Wibhu |last4=Lukas |first4=Helmut |last5=Fieder |first5=Martin |last6=Schaschl |first6=Helmut |year=2022 |title=Unveiling the Genetic History of the Maniq, a Primary Hunter-Gatherer Society |journal=Genome Biology and Evolution |volume=14 |issue=4 |doi=10.1093/gbe/evac021 |pmc=9005329 |pmid=35143674}}</ref>

The emergence of the [[History of Southeast Asia#Neolithic Migrations|Neolithic in Southeast Asia]] went along with a population shift caused by migrations from southern China. Neolithic Mainland Southeast Asian samples predominantly have East Asian ancestry related to [[Ancient Southern East Asian|ancient populations from southern China]], but many of these samples also display admixture with Hoabinhian-related ancestry to a smaller degree. In modern populations, this admixture of East Asian and Hoabinhian-related ancestry is most strongly associated with [[Austroasiatic languages|Austroasiatic-speaking groups]],<ref name=McColl2018/> and can also be reproduced in models where Onge samples are taken as proxies for Hoabinhian ancestry.<ref name=Liu2020>{{cite journal | vauthors = Liu D, Duong NT, Ton ND, Van Phong N, Pakendorf B, Van Hai N, Stoneking M | title = Extensive ethnolinguistic diversity in Vietnam reflects multiple sources of genetic diversity | journal = Molecular Biology and Evolution | date = April 2020 | volume = 37 | issue = 9 | pages = 2503–2519 | pmid = 32344428 | doi = 10.1093/molbev/msaa099 | pmc = 7475039 | url = | doi-access = free }}</ref>

==See also==
* [[Con Moong Cave]]
* [[An Son (archaeological site)]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

==Sources==
{{refbegin}}
* {{cite journal |last1=Zeitoun |first1=Valéry |last2=Bourdon |first2=Emmanuel |last3=Latsachack |first3=Keo Oudone |last4=Pierret |first4=Alain |last5=Singthong |first5=Sommay |last6=Baills |first6=Henry |last7=Forestier |first7=Hubert |title=Discovery of a new open-air Hoabinhian site in Luang Prabang province (Lao PDR). Dating and technological study of the lithic assemblage |journal=Comptes Rendus Palevol |date=January 2019 |volume=18 |issue=1 |pages=142–157 |doi=10.1016/j.crpv.2018.05.003 |bibcode=2019CRPal..18..142Z |url=https://hal.sorbonne-universite.fr/hal-02172171/file/Zeitoun%20et%20al%202019.pdf }}
{{refend}}

==Literature==
* Colani M. (1927) L'âge de la pierre dans la province de Hoa Binh. ''Mémoires du Service Géologique de l'Indochine'' '''13'''
* Flannery, KV. (1973) The origins of agriculture. ''Annual Review of Anthropology'' '''2''': 271-310
* Forestier H, Zeitoun V, Winayalai C and Métais C (2013). The open-air site of Huai Hin (Northwestern Thailand): Chronological perspectives for the Hoabinhian. Comptes Rendus Palevol 12(1)
* Gorman C. (1969) Hoabinhian: A pebble tool complex with early plant associations in Southeast Asia. ''Science'' '''163''': 671-3
* Gorman C. (1970) Excavations at Spirit Cave, North Thailand: Some interim interpretations. ''Asian Perspectives'' '''13''': 79-107
* Gorman C. (1971) The Hoabinhian and After: Subsistence Patterns in Southeast Asia during the Late Pleistocene and Early Recent Periods. ''World Archaeology'' '''2''': 300-20
* Matthews JM. (1964) The Hoabinhian in Southeast Asia and elsewhere. PhD thesis. Australian National University, Canberra
* Matthews JM. (1966) A Review of the 'Hoabinhian' in Indo-China. ''Asian Perspectives'' '''9''': 86-95
* Marwick, B. (2008) What attributes are important for the measurement of assemblage reduction intensity? Results from an experimental stone artefact assemblage with relevance to the Hoabinhian of mainland Southeast Asia. ''Journal of Archaeological Science'' 35(5): 1189-1200
* Marwick, B. and M. K. Gagan (2011) Late Pleistocene monsoon variability in northwest Thailand: an oxygen isotope sequence from the bivalve Margaritanopsis laosensis excavated in Mae Hong Son province. ''Quaternary Science Reviews'' 30(21-22): 3088-3098
* Moser, J. (2001) ''Hoabinhian: Geographie und Chronologie eines steinzeitlichen Technocomplexes in Südostasien'' Köln, Lindensoft.
* Pookajorn S. (1988) ''Archaeological research of the Hoabinhian culture or technocomplex and its comparison with ethnoarchaeology of the Phi Tong Luang, a hunter-gatherer group of Thailand.'' Tübingen: Verlag Archaeologica Venatoria: Institut fur Urgeschichte der Universitat Tübingen.
* Shoocongdej R. (2000) Forager Mobility Organization in Seasonal Tropical Environments of Western Thailand. ''World Archaeology'' '''32''': 14–40.
* Solheim, W.G. (1972) An earlier agricultural revolution. ''Scientific American'' '''226''': 34-41
* Van Tan H. (1994) The Hoabinhian in Southeast Asia: Culture, cultures or technocomplex? ''Vietnam Social Sciences'' '''5''': 3-8
* Van Tan H. (1997) The Hoabinhian and before. ''Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association (Chiang Mai Papers, Volume 3)'' '''16''': 35-41
* White JC, Gorman C. (2004) Patterns in "amorphous" industries: The Hoabinhian viewed through a lithic reduction sequence. IN Paz, V. (ed) ''Southeast Asian archaeology: Wilhelm G. Solheim II Festschrift'' University of the Philippines Press, Quezon City. pp.&nbsp;411–441.
* White JC, Penny D, Kealhofer L and Maloney B 2004. Vegetation changes from the late Pleistocene through the Holocene from three areas of archaeological significance in Thailand. Quaternary International 113(1)
* Zeitoun, V., Forestier, H., Pierret, A., Chiemsisouraj, C., Lorvankham, M., Latthagnot, A., ... & Norkhamsomphou, S. (2012). Multi-millennial occupation in northwestern Laos: Preliminary results of excavations at the Ngeubhinh Mouxeu rock-shelter. Comptes Rendus Palevol, 11(4), 305–313.

[[Category:Ancient Vietnam]]
[[Category:Prehistoric Thailand]]
[[Category:Archaeological cultures of Southeast Asia]]
[[Category:Archaeological cultures in Vietnam]]
[[Category:Mesolithic cultures of Asia]]
[[Category:Archaeological cultures in Cambodia]]