Archaeology is knowledge application of both social science and humanities, which study the ancient-human activities by recovery and analysis of material culture (Little 2006, Sinclair 2016). Archaeological distribution is the pattern of the location of archaeological sites of material culture over regions that get data from field surveys, generalizations, and hypotheses testing (Banning 2002).
Nakhon Sawan Province, Central Thailand has many archaeological sites from the 6th to 11th centuries C.E. distributed along the main river and also the nearby limestone mountain (Murphy, Pongkasetkan 2010). This point is the question that this research attempts to answer, that is, what is the relationship between ancient people's settlement and important geological features. So, this work explores the relationship between archaeology and geology based on the authors’ own experience. Geological features are the characteristics of morphology or material, which have occurred through geological processes such as a river, cave, mountain, gorge, glacier, volcano, coastal regions, hot spring, and other resources. All of these features are called geodiversity that are directly related to space and have a location as well as related to the time component (Gray 2004, Zwoliński 2004). Geological features of archaeological sites may be of heritage value (Moroni et al. 2015). This scheme always has an impact on human life, especially livelihood, occupation, resources, and economy. The goal of this research is to describe the relationship between the archaeological site and geological features for inventorying geoheritage resources. Geoheritage, due to its uniqueness with many values in term of geology, nature, culture, and tourism, can promote this area to the geotourism industry by geology and landscape (Hose 1995, 2000, Gray 2004, 2005, 2008, 2011, Thomas 2006, Newsome, Dowling 2010). There are many works to study a point of geotourism in the outstanding geo-sites of Thailand for developing the knowledge and concept about this scheme (Singtuen, Won-In 2017, 2018a, 2018b, 2018c, Nazaruddin 2019, Singtuen et al. 2019, 2020). Regarding the 12th National Economic and Social Development Plan (2017–2021) of Thailand, geotourism can increase the point of economic, scientific, and social advancements towards sustainable development goals.
Nakhon Sawan Province is located in the central plain of Thailand. This area shows elevated relief, which consists of sparely single mountains located in the floodplain of Chao Phraya River, which runs through a pass in N–S direction. The single mountains are dome, hemisphere, block, and long ridge in shape. They stand vertical in an almost flat plane in this area and are classically identified as monadnocks, however, the structural control ridges are presented in the modern geological reports (Morley et al. 2007, Prasongtham, Kanjanapayont 2014). Chao Phraya River and its watershed area is the greatest river system in central Thailand, with a large number of the Quaternary sediments (alluvial sediments [Qa], alluvial fan [Qaf] and terrace sediments [Qt]) and Bueng Borapet lake in this area (Fig. 1). Under the Quaternary cover, this area is built of igneous rocks, sedimentary rocks, and metamorphic rocks that have been around since the Precambrian. The Precambrian (PЄ) and Cambrian (Є) rocks are distributed in the western part of the area as high mountain landforms composed of high-grade metamorphic rocks (gneisses, schists, and calc-silicate rocks) and quartzites, respectively (Fig. 1). The geological age of single mountains in Nakhon Sawan Province can be divided into seven periods:
Silurian-Devonian (S.D.) low-grade metamorphic rocks (marbles, slates, phyllites, quartzites, meta tuffs) and cherts, such as Khao Nor marble, Carboniferous (C) sedimentary rocks (conglomerates, sandstones, shales, limestone, and cherts), such as small hills in Thakli District, Permian (Ps, Ps-1, Pr) limestone, such as Tham Phet – Tham Thong limestone, Permo-Triassic (PTrv) volcanic rocks (andesites, rhyolites, and associated tuffs), such as Khao Soi Dao, Triassic (Trgr) granites (hornblende granites and syenites), a part of Eastern Belt Granite of Thailand has been formed as arc subduction of Palaeo-Tethys beneath Indochina Terrane (Fanka, Nakapadungrat 2018), Jurassic (Ju) sedimentary rocks (mudstones, siltstones, and sandstones), such as Khao Chon Kan, Cretaceous (Krh) acid volcanic rocks (rhyolite and rhyolite porphyry), such as Khao Panom Chat.
Accordingly, magmatic activity in this area – both extrusive and intrusive, for example, Permian limestone intruded by Triassic granites – left many ore deposits affected active mines and post-mining areas presently exposed as historical sites in Takhli and Tak Fa districts (Jungyusuk, Khositanon 1992, DMR 2007). A unique distribution of a single mountain morphology and variation of geology (geodiversity), including rock types and periods of formation, makes this area unique in terms of geotourism.
The methodology of this research consists of inventory, geological field investigation, characterization, classification, assessment, and discussion. This research was carried out during the first half of 2018. The prime method was making an inventory of the archaeological sites in Nakhon Sawan Province by literature review. The archaeological sites are distributed in thirteen districts (Table 1): Mueang Nakhon Sawan, Krok Phra, Chum Saeng, Nong Bua, Banphot Phisai, Kao Liao, Takhli, Tha Tako, Phaisali, Phayuha Khiri, Lat Yao, and Tak Fa districts, excluding the western part such as Mae Wong, Mae Poen, and Chum Ta Bong districts (Fig. 1). After that, authors inventoried the geosites by field survey for characterization in geologic knowledge and tourism information (Đurović, Đurović 2010). Four geosites near the archaeological sites were selected to classify in terms of geodiversity, rock, and occurrence. The geosites have an individual identity, are well-known, and also suitable for tourism and learning. Site characterization was carried out by observations and descriptions of geoscientific knowledge and tourism information for classification in terms of geodiversity, scope, rock, and occurrence (Gray 2005, Brocx, Semeniuk 2007, Đurović, Đurović 2010, Nazaruddin 2019, 2020). Both quantitative and qualitative assessments were conducted basis the evaluation of experiences of the authors and tourists to discuss the potential of geotourism in the area. Also, SWOT analysis was taken as the strategic planning technique for geoheritage and geotourism development by focusing on strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of each area.
Location of Archaeological Sites in Nakhon Sawan Province, Thailand.
No. | Archaeological Site | Sub-district | District | Location | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Kiang Krai Temple | Kiang Krai | Mueang Nakhon Sawan | 15°44'24″N, 100°11'24″E | |
2 | Chom Khiri Nakprot Temple | Nakhon Sawan Ok | 15°40'48″N, 100°07'48″E | ||
3 | Khao Kop Temple | Pak Nam Po | 15°42'36″N, 100°08'24″E | ||
4 | Pra Non Cave | Ban Dan | Banphot Phisai | 15°57'00″N, 99°52'48″E | |
5 | Khao No Temple | 15°57'00″N, 99°52'48″E | |||
6 | Dong Mae Nang Mueang | Charoen Phon | 16°01'12″N, 100°00'36″E | ||
7 | Khok Phraya Pao Kao | Samrongchai | Phaisali | 15°30'36″N, 100°40'12″E | |
8 | Mueng Apaisawi (Muengapaisali) | 15°31'12″N, 100°39'00″E | |||
9 | Luang Pho Dam Temple | Khok Duea | 15°36'00″N, 100°38'24″E | ||
10 | Ban Khao Lo Archaeological Site | Don kha | Tha Ta Ko | 15°39'36″N, 100°29'24″E | |
11 | Khok Prasath | 15°38'24″N, 100°30'00″E | |||
12 | Khao Din South Temple | Khao Din | Kao Liao | 15°49'12″N, 100°04'48″E | |
13 | Maha Phot South Temple | Maha Phot | 15°49'12″N, 100°04'48″E | ||
14 | Tha Sud Temple | Bang Prabang | Krok Phra | 15°39'36″N, 100°02'24″E | |
15 | Bang Prabang Temple | 15°37'12″N, 100°02'24″E | |||
16 | Bang Mafo Temple | Bang Mafo | 15°36'00″N, 100°06'00″E | ||
17 | Nong To Temple | Hat sung | 15°30'36″N, 99°58'48″E | ||
18 | Koei Chai North Temple | Koei Chai | Chum Saeng | 15°52'12″N, 100°16'12″E | |
19 | Nong Pha Krot Nok Temple | Phan lan | 15°48'00″N, 100°15'36″E | ||
20 | Tham Noen Phraprang Temple | 15°49'48″N, 100°15'36″E | |||
21 | Tham Pra | Tak Fa | Tak Fa | 15°17'24″N, 100°32'24″E | |
22 | Ban Phu Nimit | 15°18'00″N, 100°30'00″E | |||
23 | Ban Phu Men Archaeological Site | Phu Nok Yung | 15°23'24″N, 100°27'00″E | ||
24 | Tham Pon Sawan Temple | Lam Phayon | 15°19'12″N, 100°34'48″E | ||
25 | Ban Khok Chan Sen Museun | Chan Sen | Takhli | 15°07'02″N, 100°27'07″E | |
26 | Ban Ta Khli | Ta Khli | 15°14'24″N, 100°21'00″E | ||
27 | Ban Bo Din Khao | Phrom Nimit | 15°09'36″N, 100°25'48″E | ||
28 | Muenag Bon (Ban Nong Mai Den) | Tha Nam Oi | Phayuha Khiri | 15°25'12″N, 100°09'00″E | |
29 | Khok Mai Den Ancient Group | 15°24'36″N, 100°09'00″E | |||
30 | Phrapang Lueang Temple | 15°25'12″N, 100°08'24″E | |||
31 | Khao Kaew Temple | Phayuha | 15°27'36″N, 100°08'24″E | ||
32 | Ban Khao Bo Pub | Muang Hak | 15°22'48″N, 100°13'12″E | ||
33 | Sa Thale Temple | Sa Thale | 15°29'24″N, 100°09'00″E | ||
34 | Khok Sam Rit Archaeological Site | Khao Thong | 15°32'24″N, 100°10'12″E | ||
35 | Ban Khu Muang Museum | Nikhom Khao Bo Kaeo | 15°26'24″N, 100°16'12″E | ||
36 | Khao Sa Nang Song | 15°27'36″N, 100°15'00″E | |||
37 | Ban Khlong Kradan | Ban Rai | Lad Yao | 15°55'12″N, 99°47'24″E | |
38 | Huai Thua Tai Archaeological Site | Huai Thua Tai | Nong Bua | 15°50'24″N, 100°28'12″E |
Symbols:
The archeological sites in Nakhon Sawan present the Dvaravati culture (6th–11th century C.E.), similar to other archeological sites in central Thailand (Murphy, Pongkasetkan 2010). Dvaravati, the ancient kingdom of Southeast Asia, was first established in Thailand. There are shreds of evidence that indicate the critical political, economic, religious, and artistic center in the Upper Chao Phraya Basin played an important role as a propagator of Indian culture (Murphy, Pongkasetkan 2010, Rispoli et al. 2013). There are many highlights of archaeological sites in Nakhon Sawan such as Muaeng Bon stupa (Fig. 2a), ancient Buddha's image in Khok Mai Den (Fig. 2b), Khok Mai Den ancient city wall (Fig. 2c), Chan Sen Museum (Fig. 2d), and SEMA (evidence of ancient temple) by volcanic rocks (Fig. 2e). The archeologists suggest that this area had metallurgical activities in the early Iron Age and also had fields for agriculture (Rispoli et al. 2013, Higham et al. 2011). For example, near Tham Phet-Tham Thong cave, metallurgical activities (Fig. 3a) are presented by evidence as an exhibition in their museum or temple near the excavation sites. Museums listed in Table 1 exhibit cultural objects of ancient Thais and some evidence related to geology or geological materials of the area such as mining, the stratigraphy of ancient ponds, mortars (rock) pestles for pharmacy, potteries, and clay artifacts (Fig. 3b–c).
Geoheritage in archaeological sites were inventoried as four areas, which comprise Chao Phraya river, Bueng Boraphet lake, Tham Phet-Tham Thong cave, and Khoa Nor mountain. All of these are spectacular geomorphological sites supported and promoted in tourism activity, especially Kho Nor Mountain that is a favorite place of adventure tourists. Based on geodiversity, the studied area composed of rocks, minerals, fossils, landforms, landscapes, processes, and other resources (Gray 2005). Geoheritage were classified into two main groups by difference in identity scope as hydrological and speleological sites.
Two areas were divided into hydrological sites, which have the criteria of hydrology and water resources. The Chao Phraya River is one of the most magnificent rivers in Thailand and also has
Bueng Boraphet lake is the largest freshwater swamp in Thailand and home to many species of animals. The white-eyed river martin (Turner, Rose 1989) is believed to overwrite here but has not been recorded since 1980 and may now be extinct. Siamese tiger perch is the most important fish species, while the marsh grassbird was first seen here at the end of 2019. The area has research and training centers for the study of freshwater animals including an aquarium, museum, animal exhibitions as well as a tourism center. Boat trips are also available for tourists to enjoy the lake fauna and flora (Fig. 4b). Many souvenir shops sell local products related to the Chao Phraya River. The cultural value of Bueng Boraphet is less than the Chao Phraya River but ancient railways and rice fields present the Thai cultural harvest and indigenous bird species (Fig. 4c).
The national park sector protects Tham Phet-Tham Thong cave as a forest park, which conserves plants, wildlife, and physical features by Thai legislation. This forest park is located on Chon Deua hill, Takli District, with interesting scenery of forest and limestone mountain (more than 70 caves). However, the forest park opens only five big caves with stalagmites and stalactites in various shapes and colors as attractions (Fig. 4d). In addition, there are also the teenage local guides (10–15 years) and authorities to let tourists travel natural trail and visit limestone caves. Permian limestone in this area present many kinds of fossils, such as bivalves, crinoids, gastropods, and
Khoa Nor mountain is covered by Silurian-Devonian recrystallized limestone (Bunopas 1981) with a strike-slip fault structure (Morley et al. 2017), which makes this area a structural site. It is a dominant landform in this region that is standing on the central plain of Thailand. This place is very famous for adventure tourism; tourists hope to stand on the peak of the mountain at 314 m a.s.l. (Fig. 4e). Khoa Nor has the potential to promote scientific knowledge, especially geology to people. In addition, this area has a local guide to let tourists visit the nature trail, climbing area, and ancient temple (Fig. 4f) with hundreds of forest monkeys. Furthermore, there is a beautiful scenery of a number of bats flying out from the cave in the evening.
Nakhon Sawan has the potential for qualitative and quantitative assessments of geotourism development as geological features and archeological sites (Table 2), together with other special tourism attractions. Here, interesting geosites that have historical significance are evaluated. Qualitative data were described, characterized and classified in the previous chapter. The geoarchaeological sites present the history of the area as four exhibitions consisting of the temple, evidence with original site (no information), archaeological sites (informative panels in an open-air site) and a museum with a curator.
Classification and Assessment of the Geoheritage in Nakhon Sawan, Thailand.
Area | Geodiversitya | Scopeb | Value | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rock | Mineral | Fossil | Landform | Landscape | Process | Other Resources | Science & education | Culture | History | Nature | Aesthetically | Tourism | Economy | Total | ||
Chao Phraya river | – | – | – | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | S, W | Gm, Hd | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 35 |
Bueng Boraphet | – | – | – | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | W | Gm, Hd | 5 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 33 |
Tham Phet-Tham Thong cave | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Fe | Gm, Sg, Sp | 5 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 25 |
Khoa Nor mountain | ✓ | ✓ | – | ✓ | ✓ | – | – | Gm, St, Sp | 5 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 32 |
0 – none, 1 – very bad, 2 – bad, 3 – fair, 4 – good, 5 – very good, S – sand, W – water, Fe – iron deposite (skarn), St – structural site, Gm – geomorphological site, Hd – hydrogeological site, Sg – stratigraphic site, Sp – speleological site.
This paper focuses on the development of the archaeological sites comprising outstanding geological features of rivers, mountains, caves and mineral resources to increase the historical value of the area. The Wat Phra Prang Luang archaeological site is located along the Chao Phraya River (Fig. 5). Many royal activities took place at the port in front of the temple hundreds of years ago. This area is supported by the local authorities who have created an exhibition to present local food, souvenirs and cultural shows to encourage people to wear traditional dress and join this annual festival.
The quantitative assessment focused on seven rubric criteria as follows:
Science and education: research and learning activities of the area at nursery, high school and university, Culture: activities of the local people such as lifestyle, tradition, language, music, cloth and food, History: the previous culture of the local people, presented by historical sites and archaeological evidence, Nature: biodiversity of both plants and animals as well as protection of national parks, Aesthetics: scenery and recreational activities to attract and encourage visitors, Tourism: accessibility, infrastructure, restaurants, hotels/resorts, souvenir shops, tourism information and local guides, Economy: financial transactions between the local people and visitors to generate employment and promote a sustainable society.
An assessment was made using scores ranging from 0–5 points per criterion with 35 points as the maximum. A zero score related to no value, while 5 attained the highest significance. The Chao Phraya River scored highest in the assessment, while Tham Phet-Tham Thong Cave recorded the lowest score. National parks attract visitors and local people who are concerned about conservation. Some local activities and commerce are not permitted in these areas; therefore, cultural and economic values in national parks are reduced compared to other geoheritages.
Figure 6 presents the strategic planning technique used to identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats as a SWOT analysis of geoheritage and geotourism development in Nakhon Sawan Province. This area has many strengths as (1) good accessibility via highway number 1, (2) protection with National Park status, (3) management and support by local authorities, (4) academic activities by schools and universities, (5) Tham Phet-Tham Thong Cave demonstrating geoscientific panels in an open-air exhibition, (6) high biodiversity and history and (7) a great province for tourism with local guides, and infrastructure. However, some sites have weaknesses and lack geoscientific panels, which leads to difficulty in developing geotourism. This area can develop because of the opportunities given as follows:
Cooperation between the local authority, university, community, and department of mineral resources, as well as national park sector, Create geologic panels and geotour map, Increase research and educational activities, Educate local people to understand better the geologic story in the area as well as concerns about geoconservation and geohazard.
Geoheritage resources should be protected from threats such as floods at the end of the rainy season during October and November, drought in summer, which is low-season for tourism along the river from March to May, as well as biological (plants) and physical weathering (systematic joints) in the case of Khao Nor.
Nakhon Sawan is a land of culture, both past and present, comprising many archaeological sites in the Dvaravati culture (6th–11th century C.E.). All of these sites have significant settlements related to the outstanding geologic features. Accordingly, as can be seen from the archaeological site distribution, ancient peoples always selected to settle their home or maybe city in the land that was rich in resources for their living. This study provides two hypotheses about the settlement of ancient people in Nakhon Sawan as follows;
Water resources: people always need water for their living and occupation, such as agriculture, fishery, transportation, as well as consumption. This hypothesis is agreeable with the location of archeological sites along the Chao Phraya river. In addition, the river could give people clay resources for making potteries as well as accessories. Ore deposit: skarn is the ore deposit (i.e., iron) originated from granitic rocks contact with limestone. The archeological sites have close neighborhoods with limestone mountains in Nakhon Sawan that are far from river or water resources. The researchers gave a hypothesis suggesting that ancient peoples had more critical things to do, which were the metallurgical activities that could make them develop rapidly more than stone and wood. This hypothesis can be proved by many pieces of evidence, which describe their activities with metallurgy, especially steel smelting.
So, the archeological sites in Nakhon Sawan were always related to water resources and ore deposits (Fig. 7). This concept can make a great story-telling of this region about A+C relationships (abiotic and culture components) in the past many hundreds of years ago. Furthermore, it can be a highlight of geotourism development in Nakhon Sawan, which has many geosites connected with culture and history as well as nature. All of these geosites are very famous for local people, students, and tourists by their scientific, educational, cultural, historical, natural, aesthetical, and tourism values that can increase economic growth.
The government of Thailand is supporting the geoparks’ establishment and geotourism development for local people can understand and manage their georesources for better livelihood and environment, which is the concept of a sustainable community.
The archeological sites in Nakhon Sawan Province are distributed near two main geoheritage resources that are two hydrological and two speleological sites. Based on the historical evidence, the location of thirty more ancient communities related to two hypotheses for the excellent livelihood of ancient people: 1) water for assumption, and 2) metallurgy for life development. Four geoheriatges in Nakhon Sawan are the famous geomorphological sites for researchers, students, and tourists. The confluence of the Chao Phraya River, the greatest meandering river of Thailand, is presented in the center of the city as a vibrant cultural area. In addition, the biggest fresh-water swamp of Thailand is