Fabrice Demeter

Despite the importance of its geographical position for early modern human migration through Australasia, the Indochinese Peninsula has produced relatively few fossils or well-documented archaeological sites, resulting in a poor chronology for early occupation. Tam Pà Ling (TPL), a cave in northern Laos, is one of the rare sites yielding fossils contemporaneous with the earliest migrants into Australasia within a securely established chronology. From its discovery in 2008 until the most recently filed season in 2016, TPL has provided evidence of a modern human presence in the region by marine isotope stages 4 and 3. A partial cranium (TPL1), two mandibles (TPL2, TPL3), and assorted postcranial fragments (TPL4, TPL5) represent the earliest well-dated, anatomically modern humans in the Indochinese Peninsula and introduce new migration routes into the area. The sedimentary context of TPL is described and refined elsewhere, resulting in an approximate age of 44–63 ka for the TPL1 and TPL2 fossils and a maximu...

Little is known about the timing of modern human emergence and occupation in Eastern Eurasia. However a rapid migration out of Africa into Southeast Asia by at least 60 ka is supported by archaeological, paleogenetic and paleoanthropological data. Recent discoveries in Laos, a modern human cranium (TPL1) from Tam Pa Ling‘s cave, provided the first evidence for the presence of early modern humans in mainland Southeast Asia by 63-46 ka. In the current study, a complete human mandible representing a second individual, TPL 2, is described using discrete traits and geometric morphometrics with an emphasis on determining its population affinity. The TPL2 mandible has a chin and other discrete traits consistent with early modern humans, but it retains a robust lateral corpus and internal corporal morphology typical of archaic humans across the Old World. The mosaic morphology of TPL2 and the fully modern human morphology of TPL1 suggest that a large range of morphological variation was present in early modern human populations residing in the eastern Eurasia by MIS 3.

Uncertainties surround the timing of modern human emergence and occupation in East and Southeast Asia. Although genetic and archeological data indicate a rapid migration out of Africa and into Southeast Asia by at least 60 ka, mainland Southeast Asia is notable for its absence of fossil evidence for early modern human occupation. Here we report on a modern human cranium from Tam Pa Ling, Laos, which was recovered from a secure stratigraphic context. Radiocarbon and luminescence dating of the surrounding sediments provide a minimum age of 51–46 ka, and direct U-dating of the bone indicates a maximum age of ∼63 ka. The cranium has a derived modern human morphology in features of the frontal, occipital, maxillae, and dentition. It is also differentiated from western Eurasian archaic humans in aspects of its temporal, occipital, and dental morphology. In the context of an increasingly documented archaic–modern morphological mosaic among the earliest modern humans in western Eurasia, Tam Pa Ling establishes a definitively modern population in Southeast Asia at ∼50 ka cal BP. As such, it provides the earliest skeletal evidence for fully modern humans in mainland Southeast Asia.

In 1963, E. Saurin and J.‐P. Carbonnel discovered the Sre Sbov site on an alluvial terrace of the Mekong River in central Cambodia. Saurin described a lithic typology dating to the Lower/Middle Pleistocene from this site. Although the original lithic assemblage has been lost, this typology has been used continuously as a reference by Southeast Asian prehistorians. In 2007, a Khmer–French team conducted excavations at Sre Sbov that yielded numerous pebbles and cobbles showing apparently convincing handmade removals, as Saurin had previously described. However, an in‐depth study of this assemblage, combined with a geological survey of the area, led to the conclusion that the stones were, in fact, of natural origin, and that for this reason their typology should be disregarded. Using satellite imagery and geological surveys, we explain how such a misinterpretation may have occurred and define a “buffer zone,” corresponding to the maximal extent of the proto‐Mekong River, where fluvially reworked pebbles and cobbles resembling artifacts may be recovered.