Research at Megalithic Jar Site 52 and the Discovery of New Jar Sites in Xiang Khouang Province, Laos
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Research at Megalithic Jar Site 52 and the Discovery of New Jar Sites in Xiang Khouang Province, Laos Dougald O’Reilly1✝, Louise Shewan2✝, Mailo Khamphouvong3, and Amphai Butphachit3 1School of Archaeology and Anthropology. The Australian National University, Canberra, 2601, Australia. [email protected], +61261250622 2School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia. 3Department of Heritage, Ministry of Information, Culture and Tourism, Lao P.D.R. Government ✝ These authors equally contributed to this work. Abstract: Ban Phakeo is a village in central Laos near which 415 megalithic jars and other associated lithic objects were discovered. There are over 80 such sites known in central Laos and this site was assigned the number 52 in the Lao National Inventory. Site 52 was excavated in eight discrete locations. Prospection was undertaken in the surrounds of Site 52 leading to the discovery of several previously undocumented sites which appear to be quarries or transport sites. The present paper focuses on the archaeological excavations undertaken at Site 52 and the newly discovered sites presenting the results of this research. Keywords: Laos; megaliths; archaeology; Plain of Jars Running Title Research at Megalithic Jar Sites in Laos 1.1 Introduction Site 52, located in Paek District, Xieng Khouang Province, near the village of Ban Phakeo, was first recorded in 2005 by the Department of Heritage of the Ministry of Information, Culture and Tourism (MoICT) (Figure 1). The site comprises a collection of 415 megalithic stone jars, 219 discs, lids, and hundreds of boulders in six discrete groups located in elevated terrain (Figures 2 & 3). The archaeological research undertaken at Site 52 is part of a project entitled “Unravelling the Mystery of the Plain of Jars; Lao PDR,” a joint research initiative between the MoICT and Australian universities and funded by the Australian Research Council. Megalithic jars in Laos were first recorded in the nineteenthcentury but it was not until the 1930s that research on these was undertaken. However, our understanding of these sites is rudimentary. Dates for the creation of the monuments has been lacking, and nothing is known of the people who created them. The aim of the current research is to document the morphology of the megaliths, map selected sites, and undertake excavations to determine the nature of the archaeological deposits around the jars. The research comprises archaeological, geochronological, bioarchaeological, genetic, and isotopic analysis to 1) ascertain the date of the archaeological deposits, 2) investigate the mortuary population through an analysis of health, demography, and burial treatment, and 3) gain a greater understanding of the regional interactions represented by the archaeological material recovered. This paper presents the findings of excavations and survey at Site 52 and a discussion of the wider implications of the research. Figure 1. Location of Sites 1 and 52 (black dots represent other megalithic jar sites). Site 52 was selected for excavation as it provides a compelling comparison to a previously excavated site, Site 1 (c.f. O’Reilly et al. in press; O’Reilly and Shewan 2016; Shewan et al. 2016), near the provincial capital of Phonsavan. While Site 52 contains a similar number of jars, it is more typical of the majority of jar sites as most of the over 80 sites are located at elevations of ca. 1400 m asl on ridges, hill slope spurs or on the fringes of upland valleys (O’Reilly et al. 2018; Travers and Nuan, 2010). Site 1 by comparison, is located on an undulating plain, largely devoid of trees, at ca. 1100 m asl. Figure 2. Recumbent jars (most at the site are erect) in Group 1 at Site 52. Figure 3. Location of jar groups and excavation units (based on map by K. Hanus). The research at Site 52 comprised mapping and cataloguing of all the archaeological features and the excavation of eight locations. Samples of grass, soil, water, and rock were also collected for isotopic analysis. Further prospection was undertaken in the surrounds of Site 52 leading to the discovery of several previously undocumented sites which appear to be quarries or transport sites, as indicated by the presence of unfinished jars and roughouts, from which stone was sourced to create the jars. 2.1 Geographical Description The plateau on which most of the megalithic jar sites are found comprises limestone, sandstone with minor conglomerates, and shales of unknown age. Shallow soil covers limestone, sandstone, and siltstone formations although weathering into red soils can be, locally, very deep. The hills and mountains attain elevations of up to 2800m. The mountains were formed by the tectonic uplift of a series of interbedded limestone, mudstone/shale, and sandstone, whilst a large granitic intrusion dominates the southeast of the area. The foothills and mountains are heavily wooded although very little primary forest exists indicating a long history of human activity in the plateau. The mountains are deeply incised by steep sided, relatively straight, and heavily wooded river valleys. Much of the colluvium at the bottom of the foothill slopes has been developed into rice paddy fields. It is possible that some of the foothills may have been cleared and terraced for wet rice cultivation as early as the Iron Age (ca. post-500 BCE) (Van Den Bergh n.d.). Site 52 is located on a mountain top ca. 1300 m asl in woodland, some of which has been cleared by local swidden agriculturists. 3.1 Previous Research The megaliths of Laos have long been noted in the Western literature (McCarthy 1994; Pavie 1919), but the first published archaeological research at sites comprising megalithic stone jars was undertaken by Madeleine Colani (1935) who documented over 20 sites and excavated around the megaliths at several of these (see O’Reilly et al. 2018; Shewan and O’Reilly 2019). The jar sites came to be known by the term ‘the Plain of Jars’ based on the location of three of the best-known sites, (Sites 1, 2 and 3), which are located in a broad plain in Xieng Khouang Province. The term is, however, a misnomer, as many sites are known outside this plain, mostly found in mountainous locations (O’Reilly et al. 2018) such as Site 52 which only came to light in the 2000s. The jar sites vary in terms of the number of jars at each, some hosting over 300 jars and others only one or two. Recent research indicates that there are potentially 119 megalithic jar sites in northern Laos (O’Reilly et al. 2018) covering an area of approximately 7000km2, and the recent discovery of several new sites (Khamphoumy 2013, Genovese 2018) suggests that there may be many more yet to be identified. As well as jar sites, quarries have also been identified, sites at which incomplete jars have been identified, in some cases partially removed from the bedrock. Some other locations have been identified as ‘transport sites’ at which no evidence of a propinquent lithic source has been identified and may represent partially completed jars that were abandoned on the way to their intended destination. To date, no evidence for residential occupation has been found that relates to the megalithic sites or quarries. Given the paucity of archaeological data, it is difficult to offer any interpretation of the socio-political organization of the society responsible for the creation of the jar sites, nor do we have any evidence of who these people were, although it appears that they were engaged in inter-regional exchange based on the presence of semi-precious stone and glass beads found in some contexts. Colani (1935) excavated several megalithic jar sitesbut focused her efforts on Site 1. She concluded that the jars were used for a mortuary purpose and that the limestone cave that dominates Site 1 was used as a crematorium. The material culture recovered comprised glass and carnelian beads, ceramics, spindle whorls, ceramic ear-discs, iron, bronze, jewelry, and ground stone artifacts. The first research undertaken since Colani was led by Nitta (1996) who excavated Site 1 in 1994. Human remains associated with iron knives and glass beads were found around two stone jars. Nitta also recovered an incised ceramic jar which contained fragments of bone and three teeth. Three excavations were conducted at Site 1 by Sayavongkhamdy in 1996 (Sayavongkhamdy and Bellwood 2000) revealing 11 burial contexts. The material culture recovered was similar to that found by Colani. Minor rescue excavations were undertaken at Site 1 in 2004 by Van Den Bergh and Luangaphay during the clearance of unexploded ordnance. The team identified burial assemblages adjacent to quartz breccia boulders at Site 1 and documented further megalithic sites in Xieng Khouang Province, greatly expanding the corpus of known sites. Subsequent work by Genovese (2015)has enhanced our understanding of thegeographic extent of the sites. The results of the investigations above have led most to agree that the megalithic jars served some role in mortuary practice. Some have suggested that the jars were used to hold cremated remains (Colani 1935) or that they were used to decompose human remains for later secondary burial (Van Den Bergh pers. comm.). The issue may never be resolved as core samples taken from the interior of jars at Site 52 were inconclusive regarding the presence of lipids which may have lent support to Van Den Bergh’s hypothesis. Colani (1935) does report finding human remains and other items of material culture in some jars but none have been reported since. It is clear that the matrix around the jars (but not directly beneath them) did serve a mortuary purpose as human remains have been found in the form of secondary bundle burials, ceramic jar burials, and even extended inhumation (Sayavongkhamdy and Bellwood 2000; Nitta 1996; O’Reilly et al.