Archaeological Research in Asia 25 (2021) 100236 2352-2267/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Full length article Hoabinhian variability in Mainland Southeast Asia revisited: The lithic assemblage of Moh Khiew Cave, Southwestern Thailand Hubert Forestier a, * , Yuduan Zhou a, c , Prasit Auetrakulvit b , Chawalit Khaokhiew b , Yinghua Li c , Xueping Ji d , Val´ ery Zeitoun e a Mus´ eum National d’Histoire Naturelle, UMR 7194, Mus´ ee de l’Homme, 17 place du Trocad´ ero, 75116 Paris, France b Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Archaeology, Silpakorn University, Na Phra road, 10220 Bangkok, Thailand c School of History, Wuhan University, 430072 Wuhan, China d Yunnan Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, Kunming, Yunnan Province, China e UMR 7207-CR2P- Cnrs-Mnhn-Sorbonne Universit´ e, case 104, Sorbonne Universit´ e, campus Jussieu 4, place Jussieu 75 252, Paris Cedex 05, France A R T I C L E INFO Keywords: Lithic technology Hoabinhian Variability Southwestern Thailand Southeast Asia Late Upper Pleistocene-Early Holocene ABSTRACT The Hoabinhian has been a major topic in prehistoric research in Mainland Southeast Asia for nearly 90 years. However, its variability in terms of lithic assemblages is still poorly understood, as a limited number of sites have been analyzed from a technological perspective. This variability is to be expected, considering that the Hoa- binhian covers a timespan of more than 30,000 years, a wide region extending from mountainous south-western China to insular Indonesia and diversifed sub-tropical to tropical environments. In this research, we present the variability of Hoabinhian tools at the site of Moh Khiew Cave in Southern Thailand. Unlike other ‘typical’ Hoabinhian sites discovered in this region, the Hoabinhian lithic assemblage (~11,000–9000 BP) at Moh Khiew is dominated by unifacially shaped limaces and unifaces, on large/medium and thick fakes, and thus involves a mixed operational sequence (chaîne op´ eratoire) of debitage and shaping methods. No classic sumatralith tools were found in the site, which are usually made on river cobbles and considered to be the hallmark of the Hoabinhian. Another exceptional tool type is the biface, made on shale slabs or blocks, other cutting tool types include chopper-chopping-tools and fake tools, etc. In view of the production methods of unifaces and limaces, their distinct volumetric structures, and the co-existence of unifaces with other shaped tool types; the Moh Khiew lithic assemblage is different from other Hoabinhian sites, and may represent a local variant of the Hoabinhian in this region of south-western Thailand. 1. Introduction Since its frst defnition by the French archaeologist Madeleine Colani in the early 1930s (Collectif 1932), the Hoabinhian has no doubt been one of the most debated topics of prehistoric research in Mainland Southeast Asia. A wide range of subjects pertaining to the Hoabinhian have been discussed, such as its tempo-spatial distribution (Bowdler 1994; Huong 1994; Matthews, 1964; Reynolds 1990; Saurin 1969; Sol- heim 1974), its defnition (Matthews 1966; Moser 2001; Pautreau 1994; Reynolds 1990; Tan 1994), the technological, experimental and func- tional analysis of the lithic assemblages (Gorman 1969; J´ er´ emie 1990; Pookajorn 1985; Reynolds 1989; Sorensen 1982; White and Gorman 2004), economic aspects of Hoabinhian hunter-gatherers (Glover 1977; Gorman 1969, 1970, 1971; Vu 1994; Yen 1977) and their environmental context (Shoocongdej 2000), the interpretation of the widespread sites in Southeastern Asia (Gorman 1970), the origin, development, and disappearance of the Hoabinhian in the region (Bellwood 1985; Bui 1994; Chu 1984; Ha 1995a, 1997; Nga 1994; Nguyen 1991, 1994a), Hoabinhian human remains (Nguyen 1986, 1987, 1994b) and burial patterns (Pookajorn 1994; Trinh 1993; Zeitoun et al. 2013, 2019a), etc. Over the frst two decades of the twenty-frst century, our knowledge of the Hoabinhian has been greatly enhanced by the application of new methods of research and newly excavated sites. On the one hand, the Hoabinhian has been redefned by a technological approach to the lithic industry, considered as a functional technocomplex containing several chaîne op´ eratoires (Forestier et al. 2005; Forestier, 2010; Forestier et al. 2013, 2015, 2017; Forestier 2020; Zeitoun et al. 2008). On the other hand, the chronology of the Hoabinhian has been largely extended and * Corresponding author. E-mail address: hubforestier@gmail.com (H. Forestier). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Archaeological Research in Asia journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ara https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ara.2020.100236 Received 10 July 2020; Received in revised form 12 October 2020; Accepted 21 October 2020