SOUTHEAST ASIAN ARCHAEOLOGYINTERNATIONAL NEWSLETTER

ISSUE NO. 19AUGUST 2005

EDITORS

ELISABETH A. BACUS & RASMI SHOOCONGDEJ516 W 8th Street Dept. of ArchaeologyCedar Falls, IA 50613 Silpakorn UniversityUSA Bangkok 10200 Thailandeabacus@msn.com rasmis@mozart.inet.co.th

Greetings! We are pleased to announce that Prof. Wilhelm Solheim has written a brief history of Southeast Asian archaeology up to 1960 for the Newsletter with the first part included in this issue; the second and third parts will appear in Nos. 20 and 21, respectively. Due to the length of this issue, we have divided the Newsletter into Parts I and II, with the latter devoted to Solheim’s history.

Remember, if you have any suggestions for improving the Newsletter, please let us know. We are continuing to distribute the Newsletter primarily by e-mail, but will continue to send copies by regular mail to our colleagues who are not on e-mail. Please send us contributions for the next issue by 1 December 2005.

Part I

REQUEST FOR REPRINTS & PUBLICATIONS

Dougald O'Reilly and Hor Lat, Dean of the Faculty of Archaeology, and the students would like to express their gratitude to those who donated books and articles to the Royal University of Fine Arts in Phnom Penh. These items were deeply appreciated. The library of the Royal University of Fine Arts, Phnom Penh though is still in serious need of archaeology textbooks and other archaeology publications, so please send any such publications to them C/O Dr. Dougald O’Reilly, #8, Street 236 Phnom Penh, Cambodia. For further information, contact Dougald at: doog@mobitel.com.kh

ANNOUNCEMENTS

NSF-ARIZONA ACCELERATOR MASS SPECTROMETRY OUTREACH PROGRAM. The University of Arizona NSF-Arizona Mass Spectrometry Laboratory is announcing a program to foster scholarly research in developing nations. The program’s objective is to provide radiocarbon dates at no cost to colleagues who, due to limited funding or limited instrumental infrastructure, would not otherwise have access to accelerator mass spectrometry.

Twenty AMS radiocarbon dates per year will be awarded to successful applicants in the fields of archaeology, geoscience, and environmental science.

Applications are being accepted from Southeast Asian and the Pacific Island nations at this time. Qualifying nations include Burma, Laos, Thailand, Viet Nam, Cambodia, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, and all indigenous Pacific Nations. Australia, Brunei, French Polynesia, Hong Kong, Hawaii, New Caledonia, and New Zealand are excluded.

The Application Process. The application process requires the submission of a brief project description, including a detailed description of the samples, their contexts, and their significance (2 pages maximum). Applicants must also submit an NSF-Arizona AMS Laboratory Sample Submission Form and the Dating Agreement Form. These are available on-line at: www.physics.arizona.edu/ams

A single applicant may request up to three (3) AMS dates per project, per year. Closing dates are January 1, May 1 and September 1 in each year, and in each round the committee will allocated approximately one third of the 20 dates available for each calendar year.

Successful applications will have several characteristics, crucially: 1) The proposal should show scientific merit and clearly demonstrate that AMS radiocarbon dating is appropriate to address the question at hand. 2) The project’s principal investigator should be based in the country in which the project is conducted, and should be directly and actively involved in conducting and completing the project.

Applicants must also agree to publish the dates within scholarly journals and make them freely available to other researchers upon request. Acknowledgement of the program and the NSF-Arizona AMS Laboratory in any papers, reports and publications that develop from the project would be appreciated.

For more information, feedback, and submission of applications, please contact one of the following: Felicia Beardsley Peter Bellwood Greg Hodgins Dept. of Sociology & School of Arch & NSF-Arizona AMS Laboratory Anthropology Anthropology University of Arizona University of La Verne ANU 1118 E Fourth Street 1950 3rd Street Canberra ACT 0200 Tucson, Arizona La Verne, CA Australia USA 85721 USA 91750 peter.bellwood@anu.edu.au ghodgins@physics.arizona.edu beardsle@ulv.edu

THE ANTHONY F. GRANUCCI FUND. This announcement is targeted towards archaeologists who are nationals of Indonesia and Timor Leste. The Anthony F. Granucci Fund, through the Australian National University (ANU), will make capital available to fund small research grants to qualified applicants. It is hoped that the first awards can be made in 2006, and planning is now underway to appoint a selection panel to receive the first applications.

The fund has been established to encourage younger researchers – in general those under the age of forty five - who are of Indonesian and Timorese nationality or who are resident in the Republic of Indonesia or the Republic of Timor Leste. Researchers may be in collaboration with non-qualified parties in connection with their projects.

2

Topic Area: The topic area shall be the prehistory and protohistory of the geographical area covered at the time of the creation of the fund by the territory of the Republic of Indonesia and the Republic of Timor Leste. For purposes of this fund, prehistory and protohistory shall include the time period beginning from 40,000 BP to and including the early metal age (to 1000 BP).

3

Topics falling outside these geographic and temporal ranges may be considered for prizes and grants when they include a significant aspect inside the range such as, by way of example, interactions between indigenous cultures and Indic influences or comparative studies of issues and material outside and inside the geographical area.

The Fund will provide: a) One or more research grants per annum to researchers submitting worthy proposals within the topic area; b) Funds to assist in the translation of papers into English for their publication and dissemination.

Awardees of grants shall be obligated to submit reports on their work and utilisation of funds and to submit a final report or paper in the Indonesian or English languages.

If a paper has not been published, a portion of the grant could be used towards the costs of translating the paper into English (if necessary or advisable for broad circulation) and assisting in the publication of the article or paper.

In 2006 the total amount to be awarded in all categories will be US$10,000. Anthony F. Granucci. Anthony F. Granucci, an attorney by profession, with a lifelong

interest in archaeology, lived in Indonesia from 1972 to 1987. During his residence in Jakarta he developed a deep interest in Indonesian culture and in particular the prehistory of insular Southeast Asia, which he studied as an “informed observer”.

Upon retiring from the legal profession in 2003 for medical reasons, Anthony turned to the full time study of archaeology and obtained a master’s degree (with distinction) in archaeology and ancient history from the University of Leicester in England in 2004. His dissertation entitled The Design Principles of Prehistoric Monumental Architecture in Java and Bali examined the architectural design elements of terraced ceremonial structures (punden berundak). He has just completed a book on the art history of the Lesser Sunda islands, entitled Arts of the Lesser Sundas, which will be forthcoming in 2006.

Long aware of the crucial lack of funding available for local researchers, Anthony has established this fund to provide research grants to young Indonesian and Timorese archaeologists in the hope of encouraging the next generation of local archaeologists. He sees the creation of the fund as his best way to make a lasting contribution to the archaeology of the region.

Addendum. At the time of going to press, the Anthony F Granucci Fund is still being established. But qualified persons who read this announcement are advised to contact IPPA (IPPA@ANU.EDU.AU) to request details of how to apply to the Fund. We hope that the first deadline for applications will be October 31, 2005.

PALAEOWORKS is a new web site that is designed to be a portal to key resources being developed to facilitate palaeo- and archaeobotanical research in the Asia-Pacific region. Please take the time to visit the web site. Comments and contributions welcome. PalaeoWorks home page http://palaeoworks.anu.edu.au/index.html. Contents include:

Information for students interested in studying palaeoecology and archaeobotany in the Department of Archaeology and Natural History    at the ANU. http://palaeoworks.anu.edu.au/students.html

The Indo-Pacific Pollen Database contains information on over 600 pollen sites from a region extending from the Indian to the Pacific Ocean. The database and is available as a FileMaker Pro 5 file and a bibliography of 645 references is also available as a PDF file.

The Australasian Pollen and Spore Atlas is a pollen image database under development at ANH that will provide web access to the pollen and spore collection held in the department. A draft version of the database is accessible through this site.

Publications include online "Technical Reports" that are intended to support palaeoecological and archaeobotanical research in the Asia-Pacific and Australian region (e.g. Fairbairn, A., 2005. Simple bucket flotation and wet-sieving in the wet tropics. PalaeoWorks Technical Report 4. p.18).

4

Individual collections of pollen floras from sites investigated by members of PalaeoWorks are being developed and will be freely available.

Up-to-date information on the groups current research activities, news and publications.Price list for analytical services provided to Australian and international clients.

HONG KONG ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY JOURNALS VOL I-XI and MONOGRAPHS I-III (out-of-print) are now being digitized by Hong Kong University Library and will be available soon.

HERITAGEWATCH is a new Cultural Heritage NGO in Cambodia. It was established as a non-profit organisation to try and slow the destruction of cultural heritage in Southeast Asia. The organisation, which is funded by the US embassy and private donors, has a number of strategies to combat the destruction of sites and temples in Cambodia. Currently the staff is compiling a database of incidents of looting reported in the Khmer and English language media in Cambodia since the early 1990s. We are also tracking the sale of Khmer antiquities through Sotheby's Auction Houses. HeritageWatch is also engaged in a public education campaign which includes the production of radio and television spots highlighting the issue and the placement of sign boards at the international airports. A comic book has been produced to educate rural children of the importance of heritage preservation. A number of other initiatives are scheduled for the future including a site museum project, training for customs and national police agents and a continuation of the public education campaign. Readers are invited to visit the HeritageWatch web site at www.heritagewatch.org and are strongly encouraged to make a donation(tax deductible in the USA) to help preserve Cambodia's heritage sites.

SHERD LIBRARY AT NUS. The National University of Singapore Museum, part of the NUS Centre for the Arts, has decided to allocate space to a Sherd Library. This facility will house a wide-ranging reference collection of ceramics from archaeological sites along the Silk Road of the Sea, which linked West, South, Southeast and East Asia.

The Sherd Library will provide facilities where scholars and students of all levels from all over the world can view and handle earthenware, porcelain, and stoneware for the purpose of comparative research. For this purpose, the Museum is seeking donations of sherds from as many sites as possible. We hope to collect sherds from all types of archaeological sites, from kilns in their countries of origin, to sherds from shipwrecks and from habitation sites.

The Museum would like to solicit donations for this unique facility. The Museum is willing to pay the cost of packing and shipping. We will also provide a copy of the book Earthenware in Southeast Asia in exchange for larger sherd collections. Should donors wish, their names will be prominently displayed (though those who may prefer to remains anonymous may do so), and those using the collection will be required to cite the name of the donor in any publications which make use of their donation.

Please address all inquires, suggestions, etc. to: Prof John Miksic, Southeast Asian Studies Programme, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117570. Email: cfav2@nus.edu.sg

WEB SITES

HERITAGEWATCH has launched a new web site: www.heritagewatch.org

MARITIME ASIA: www.maritimeasia.ws/

THE UNITED STATES AND ITS TERRITORIES. 1870-1925: THE AGE OF IMPERIALISM – www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=philamer – is “drawn from the

5

University of Michigan Library's Southeast Asia collection and comprises the full text of monographs and government documents published in the United States, Spain, and the Philippines between 1870 and 1925. .... The text collection is complemented by digitized images from key photograph collections drawn from the Special Collections Library.” Among the many on-line digitized resources is the complete set of THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, 1493-1803, edited by E. Blair and J. Robertson.

RESEARCH REPORTS & NEWS

PRELIMINARY REPORT ON THE FIRST SEASON OF SURVEY AT KHAO SAM KAEO (CHUMPHON) by Bérénice Bellina (CNRS, France) and Praon Silapanth (Silpakorn University, Thailand).

The project ‘Ancient Khao Sam Kaeo and its Role in the Early Exchange of the Northern Thai Peninsula’ is a four year survey program. It is a collaborative project between Silpakorn University in Thailand and the Centre National de Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), l’Ecole Française d’Extreme-Orient in France. It benefits from the support of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the French Embassy in Thailand. The objectives of the research are to:

A. Determine the role of Khao Sam Kaeo and of the Chumphon region in the late prehistoric and early historic period in the regional and inter-regional exchange network. To that end, the project intends to define the: a. Nature and importance of the settlement of Khao Sam Kaeo by determining the size and chronology of its occupation and by locating the areas where different human activities took place, such as the port of trade, craft industries, habitation, and eventually the cemeteries. b. Links of Khao Sam Kaeo and their nature at a regional level by locating archaeological sites in the region of Chumphon and comparing the evidence.c. Links of Khao Sam Kaeo at an inter-regional level by comparing the evidence with other Asiatic regions such as Central Thailand to the north, Vietnam to the east, and the Indian subcontinent to the west.

B. Investigate the organisation of craft production of some of the ancient items traded on regional and inter-regional levels. To that end, the project aims at identifying the different on-site crafts produced and to define:a. Their nature, by determining the different stages of the production line.b. Their quality, by evaluating the technological skills involved.c. The nature and origin of the raw materials used, by determining if they were locally produced or imported and if so, at which stage they were arriving at Khao Sam Kaeo (as raw material or as half-finished artifacts) and from where.d. The possible destination of the finished products: were they responding to local needs and/or were they possibly adapted to answer specific regional or inter-regional demands?

C. Explore the cultural interactions between the different Asiatic social groups in contact based on two grounds of evidence. The first one consists in the analysis of skilled on-site industries having South Asian involvement, such as the agate and cornelian ornament and possibly that of glass; the analysis could provide essential clues to understand the mechanism of the transfer of complex knowledge. The second consist in reconstructing the paleo-flora and paleo-fauna. This study aims at determining if contacts between different Asiatic groups entailed change in diet behaviour due to the introduction of new floral and fauna species.

D. The project includes a study of the paleo-environment at the regional and site levels based on the interpretation of satellite images, aerial photographs (of different periods), geological radar images, fieldwork checking and sediment analysis in laboratory. On a regional level, the objective is to localise the possible human settlements, cultivated valleys and the ancient fluvial and maritime ports. To that end, it will be necessary to situate the marshes and

6

wetland, the paleo-channels and palaeo-shorelines. At the archaeological site level, the study should reconstruct the possible defensive and hydraulic systems. Those consist of earth walls recorded during our first campaign of survey. Some are visible on the field, others remains to be discovered.

During this first campaign, ground survey has been intensively carried out in the Khao Sam Kaeo area that is composed of four pebbly hills. The archaeological features observed on the site during our field survey and the test pits opened are referenced thanks to GPS points. Those are plotted on the archaeological map based on a geo-referenced aerial photograph.

Among important features evidenced this year is the discovery of four and potentially five long earth walls scattered in different areas of the site. Those situated in accessible areas could be traced; others situated in densely forested zones could only be partially found. In order to determine if these features were geological features or were built, we opened test pits across and on both sides of two of these features that ran from hill 1 (called Wall n°1) to hill 2 (Wall n°2). Amongst a total of 15 test pits excavated, six were devoted to explore these earth walls (test pits 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15). Their excavations showed that they had been built using a mixture of lateritic soil, pebbles and gravels; this mixture had been extracted from digging into the bedrock. Walls n°1 and n°2 are north-south oriented and are aligned. They were part of the same rampart, the total length measuring about 490 m. This rampart encloses the southern part of the ancient town of Khao Sam Kaeo to the east, the western part being naturally protected by the Tha Tapao River. In test pits 9 and 15, two occupation layers were found below the layer corresponding to the construction of Wall n°1. These layers yielded some ornaments in glass and in cornelian as well as many sherds and pieces of charcoal. Charcoal collected in those layers gave the three following calibrated radiocarbon dates: 2316 ± 45 BP, 2217 ± 33 BP and 2188 ± 47 BP. A looting pit situated a few centimeters from Pit 12 opened in Wall n°2 yielded a sherd of the very characteristic Indian luxury Rouletted Ware, a ceramic of the very late BC and early centuries AD. This ceramic is among the diagnostic evidence of the earliest exchange between Southeast Asia and India.

Three other earth walls were observed (not excavated) both in the valley and on the top of Hill 3.

Other test pits (1 and 2) were opened at the bottom of the western part of Hill 2, near the Tha Tapao River. In pit 1, an ancient well dug into the bedrock was found. Its depth was of 3 m and its diametre was of 90-95 cm. The filling of the well contained interesting sherds, including a possible small sherd of the characteristic Late Iron Age and Early Historic Indian Northern Black Polished Ware, as well as several pieces of evidence for glass ornament working such as bracelets and beads. Charcoal collected from this filling gave a radiocarbon date of 2182 ± 49 BP.

One pit (7) was also located at the bottom of on the southern side of Hill 2. All layers yielded important evidence of glass and some of stone ornament production. Preliminary analysis of the glass ornaments reveals that some of them were produced using lapidary techniques: chunks of glass were knapped into roughouts, then ground and polished as if they were stone beads). Lapidary glass beads have been found in the late prehistoric burial site of Ban Don Ta Phet (Kanchanaburi province) and in small numbers in South-East Asia and India. Two layers were radiocarbon dated from 2258 ± 33 BP and 2236 ± 45 BP.

Evidence of glass and stone ornament production seem to concentrate in this flat area, situated not far from the Tha Tapao River (Pits 1, 2, 7 and 8).

Four test pits (3, 4, 5 and 6) were located in different areas of the Hill 1. One pit (3) yielded the floor of a habitation site. This hill yielded significant of evidence for metal working. As yet the smithing hearth bottoms appear to be wholly attributable to the smithing of iron (Oli Pryce, personal communication). Villagers informed us that in this part of the Hill, looters used to obtain lots of metal artifacts of bronze and of iron.

Conclusion. Though we still need to determine if all of earth walls were built, as well as their purpose and dating, looking at the preliminary archaeological map allows us to suggest a

7

possible size of the site. In total, the zone enclosed by the elevations is approximately 17 hectares. If we include the areas that yielded material, it is possible to estimate the size at about a-half of one square kilometer (45 hectares). Though the chronological sequence has yet to be set up, it seems probable that the ancient town of Khao Sam Kaeo has been occupied in different periods. Some materials date to the Late Prehistoric Period while others belong to early Historic period, maybe up to the Ayutthaya Period.

The preliminary analysis of the excavated material also suggests the localisation of different human activities in Khao Sam Kaeo. The hills might have been used for habitation (and possibly for burials, a suggestion based on some looters comments on their finds). The test pits opened on Hill 1 and 2 clearly showed occupations layers as well as evidence for habitation settlement (post-holes and possibly a drainage system). On the contrary, the valleys and bottom of the hills nearby the river and the flooded areas yielded evidence for crafts activities. Such localisation does not appear surprising. First because it was close to the river where material and artifacts used and produced by craft centers could be loaded on embarkations to reach the river and then the sea. Second, because those ornaments are prestige goods and, according to ethnohistorical sources, the elite usually controlled their production. This might explain why such activities would have been enclosed by the ramparts.

This first campaign revealed that Khao Sam Kaeo could have been a significant “polity” at some stage. The project aims to determine when it was first settled and the different stages of development of the town. Evidence already supports the idea that Khao Sam Kaeo could have played a significant role in trans-Asiatic exchange as well as possibly on the political scene of the Late Prehistoric period. We expect our future investigations will help us to define to what extent.

CHILDREN’S WORKSHOP, “DETECTIVE OF THE PAST” IN HIGHLAND PANG MAPHA, MAE HONG SON PROVINCE, NORTHWESTERN THAILAND by Rasmi Shoocongdej, Highland Archaeology in Pang Mapha Project.

In 2002, the multidisciplinary Highland Archaeology Project began a long-termresearch in Pang Mapha, Mae Hong Son Province, including archaeology, physical anthropology, dendrochronology, ethnoarchaeology, and GIS. This project will continue through 2006. The second phase of research (2004-2006) has mainly focused on analyses of excavated materials from Tham Lod and Ban Rai rockshelter. During April 24-26, 2005 the project, which aims to serve the local communities, conducted a children’s workshop entitled, “Detective of the Past” for the Thai, Shan and Lisu tribal children in the research area. The objectives included: 1) to disseminate research information to the local community through the school children, 2) to use the archaeological sites as learning centers, 3) to draw the young people’s attention to cultural and environment resources in order to increase their awareness about the need to protect the archaeological sites in Pang Mapha, and 4) to create a positive relationship between the local communities and research teams. The children participated in environmental and archaeological survey, excavations, and analyses of skeletal remains, teeth, faunal remains, tree-rings, and pottery. Interestingly children from the different ethnic groups gradually interacted with each other over the course of the workshop, though they still stayed in their respective ethnic groups. At the end of workshop, the project brought the Shan Performance/Opera called “Liikae Thai Yai” from Ban Mae Lana to draw attention to story-telling techniques through performance which was very well received by the local communities.

HUANWANG AND PANDURANGA: THE COASTAL STATES OF CHAMPA IN CENTRAL VIETNAM C. AD 750-875 by William A. Southworth, Affiliated Fellow at the International Institute for Asian Studies (IIAS) in Leiden, from October 2004 to September 2005.

8

This research project is part of a wider study on the coastal states of Champa between AD 750 and 875, and examines the importance of both Buddhist connections and of maritime trade networks with insular Southeast Asia, in particular with Java and Sumatra. The research is also intended to provide a geographic focus for a more general re-evaluation of the cultural, economic and political changes that transformed Southeast Asia during this period.

From the 3rd to early 8th centuries AD, Chinese authors referred to the north-central coastline of modern Vietnam by the name of Linyi or ‘Forest City’. According to the Xin Tangshu or New History of the Tang dynasty, the name of Linyi was changed to Huan or Huanwang after the Zhide period (AD 756-758). The origin and meaning of this name is unknown, and it is found only in the Chinese histories. Two important kingdoms are also known from Sanskrit and Cham epigraphy during the same period. The first is Kauthara, a coastal state based on the modern port of Nha Trang in the Khanh Hoa Province of south-central Vietnam. This kingdom is first mentioned in an inscription on the main shrine of Po Nagar at Nha Trang dated to 706 śaka (c. AD 786). The name of Panduranga also appears for the first time during this period. This kingdom survived as a separate political entity until the early 19 th century (Po Dharma 1987) and was based near Phan Rang in modern Ninh Thuan Province, to the south of Nha Trang. The earliest mention of Panduranga is again from an inscription on the main shrine of Po Nagar at Nha Trang dated to 739 śaka (c. AD 817). It is clear from these inscriptions that particularly powerful kings were able to gain control of both kingdoms in the late 8 th and early 9th

centuries, but that they nevertheless retained an independent identity.In the standard history of Champa by Georges Maspero (1928: 95-108), Huanwang and

Panduranga are treated as a single political entity, and the evidence from both Chinese sources and inscriptions are combined into a single historical narrative. However, I have argued that this unity is deceptive, and that Huanwang existed as an entirely separate kingdom in the Thu Bon valley of Quang Nam province to the north. This valley had been the center of a powerful kingdom during the 7th and early 8th centuries, as evidenced by a series of sixteen Sanskrit inscriptions found at the political settlement of Tra Kieu and at the religious site of My Son. However, between AD 731 and 875 there is a complete hiatus in the epigraphic sequence from this area. A similar hiatus in the epigraphic corpus is also evident in Cambodia. While a total of roughly 200 inscriptions can be dated to the 7th century in Cambodia, Michael Vickery has recently noted that, ‘with one exception in 803, there is a complete break in the Cambodian epigraphic corpus from 791 to 877, and only 16 inscriptions, 11 in Khmer, for the entire 8 th

century’ (1998: 84). This period is nevertheless vital for our understanding of the transition of economic and political power to the region of Angkor, a process that Vickery has suggested may be linked to the growth of Panduranga in central Vietnam during the late 8th century.

The sudden economic significance of Panduranga at this time is itself perplexing. The area it occupied is the most arid region of Vietnam, where water and efficient agricultural land is scarce. This is also true for the port of Nha Trang, which commands only a small area of agricultural hinterland and depended almost exclusively on international trade for surplus wealth. However, the record of trade embassies to China during this period suggests a major depression in maritime trade in the South China Sea. Although a total of seventeen embassies are recorded by sea from Southeast Asia during the first half of the 8th century, only five were received in the second (Wang Gungwu 1958: 123), including the only embassy from Huanwang in AD 793. It is notable however that two of the five embassies received between 750 and 800, and six of the eight embassies recorded between 800 and 875, were from Heling or Shepo, both identified with Java. Both Kauthara and Panduranga stand on the natural maritime trade route leading from the north coast of Java to northern Vietnam and southern China, and it seems probable that their wealth was largely derived from this trade connection.

Of particular interest are contacts made through the international Buddhist network. Statues and votive tablets of the historical Buddha, and of the Boddhisattvas Avalokiteśvara, Padmapani and Maitreya have been found in Champa-culture sites along the coastline of what is

9

now central Vietnam, and have been compared to similar artefacts found in Java and Sumatra, and across mainland and insular Southeast Asia as a whole. The importance of Buddhism during this period may in fact account for the paucity of inscriptions from Cambodia and north-central Vietnam during the late 8th and early 9th centuries, and may be culturally and intellectually associated with the general patronage of Buddhism under the Śailendra dynasty of central Java. It is these possible Buddhist connections that I am currently studying in Leiden, as part of a fellowship sponsored by the Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO) under the supervision and advise of Dr. Marijke J. Klokke and Véronique de Groot. In particular, I will be compiling an inventory of Buddhist sites and finds listed in the archaeological reports and photographic archives housed in the library of the Kern Institute, with the aim of comparing this material to similar finds in Vietnam, and ultimately to the wider historical changes manifest during this period.

ReferencesMaspero, Georges. 1928. Le royaume de Champa. Paris et Bruxelles: Les Éditions G. Van Oest (Reprinted by the École Française d’Extrême Orient, Paris 1988).

Po Dharma. 1987. Le Panduranga (Campa) 1802-1835. Ses rapports avec le Viêtnam. Paris: École Française d’Extrême Orient (Publication CXLIX).

Vickery, Michael. 1998. Society, Economics, and Politics in Pre-Angkor Cambodia: The 7 th-8th Centuries. Tokyo: The Centre for East Asian Cultural Studies for Unesco, The Toyo Bunko.

Wang Gungwu. 1958. ‘The Nanhai Trade: A Study of the Early History of Chinese Trade in the South China Sea’. In Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society XXXI, Part 2 (No. 182): 1-135.

FIELDWORK IN LAOS by Joyce C. White and Bounheuang Bouasisengpaseuth.

The Middle Mekong Archaeological Project (MMAP) conducted a successful phase 1 reconnaissance survey in northern Laos in March and April 2005. The goal of the survey was to find prehistoric sites within the basins of the Ou, Seung, and Khan tributaries on the left bank of the Mekong. National Geographic Society and the National Science Foundation’s high risk archaeology program provided funds for the fieldwork.

The joint research program between the University of Pennsylvania Museum (UPM) and the Lao Department of Museums and Archaeology (DOMA) comprised an international team with US, Lao, British, Australian, and Thai participants (see www.museum.upenn.edu/mmap). A “mobile GIS” methodology was implemented whereby on-site data entry into Arcpad on hand-held computers enabled speedy digitized recording of survey data. The data from the independent survey teams were downloaded and integrated nightly into ArcGIS on laptops.

The survey found 56 sites, of which 39 are cave/rockshelter sites, and 17 are open air. Representative surface collections recovered sumatraliths, reduction flakes, stone adzes, incised and cordmarked ceramics, stoneware, and occasionally other small finds, demonstrating a long archaeological sequence in the region. Follow-up research is planned first to analyze the materials found during the survey, and subsequently to excavate selected sites and expand the survey.

UPCOMING CONFERENCES, SYMPOSIA, WORKSHOPS

THE 10TH SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE ON ARCHAEOLOGY AND CONGRESS OF THE ASSOCIATION OF INDONESIAN ARCHAEOLOGISTS will be held in Bandung, West Java from 25 to 30 September 2005. The conference will discuss the management and development of archaeology in Indonesia. For further information, contact: Thomas Sutikna or Aliza Diniasti, Tel: 62-21-7988171, Fax. 62-21-7988187, Mobile phone: 08129854179. E-mail: atik@usaha-keluarga.com

10

WATER IN MAINLAND SOUTHEAST ASIA is a cross-disciplinary workshop on the many aspects of water, will be held in Siem Reap in November 2005, and is organized by the Centre for Khmer Studies, Siem Reap, Cambodia and the International Institute for Asian Studies. The workshop will focus on three sub-themes on the role of water in people’s livelihoods: 1) trade and commerce – local and foreign trade, transport, port cities; 2) natural resource use and management – rice cultivation, fisheries, water quality, environmental changes; and 3) socio-cultural life – rites of passages, traditional medicine, religion. For further information, contact Wil Dijk (IIAS affiliated fellow) at: w.o.dijk@let.leidenuniv.nl

INDO-PACIFIC PREHISTORY ASSOCIATIONS’S 18TH CONGRESS will be held from 20 to 26 March 2006 on the campus of the University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City in MetroManila. The meeting will be hosted by the Archaeological Studies Program at the University of the Philippines; by the Archaeology Division, National Museum of the Philippines; and by the W.G. Solheim II Foundation.

Plans are afoot to organise Post Congress tours to El Nido and Tabon (Palawan), Cagayan Valley and Banaue Rice Terraces (northern Luzon). Mid-Congress trips will be arranged to the National Museum and Intramuros in Manila, and to visit excavations in Novaliches or Batangas.

Accommodation will be organised on the University of the Philippines campus, in three establishments: the University Hotel (1300 pesos per night single, 1600 double), NISMED Hostel 455-780 pesos per night single), and International House (638-1045 pesos per night per room). (US$1 = 56 pesos, AUD1 = 40 pesos, £1 = 100 pesos at present). These rates could change in the next year or so. At present this information is for interest only, and we will be taking accommodation bookings later.

If you wish to attend the congress and give a paper, please contact a relevant session organiser from the draft program below – email addresses are listed there. You should also send a copy of your email to: ippa@anu.edu.au. If your paper does not fit any of the sessions listed below please send it to IPPA and we will hold it in case further sessions are proposed. We cannot guarantee that all papers will be accepted.

We look forward to seeing you all again in Manila in 2006.Draft Program (as of February 2005; only conveners are listed) is as follows:

Major Theme 1: Lithic Studies and Allied Topics. Revisiting the Movius Line: A Reassessment of the Eastern Palaeolithic (S. Keates and N. Rolland; keats20039@yahoo.co.uk, rolland@uvic.ca). Technology, Exchange and Ideology: New Approaches to the Study of Volcanic Glass (R. Torrence; robint@austmus.gov.au). Missing Types: Overcoming the Typology Dilemma of Lithic Archaeology in Southeast Asia (M. Haidle and A. Pawlik; alred.pawlik@uni-tuebingen.de, mnhaidle@web.de). Major Theme 2: Hunter-Gatherers in Prehistory. Agricultural Frontiers and the Persistence of Hunter-Gatherers (R. Korisettar and D. Fuller; dorianfuller@yahoo.co.uk, korisettar@yahoo.com). The Nature and Limits of Hunter-Gatherer Complexity in the Indo-Pacific Region (M. Hudson, mjhudson63@hotmail.com). Late Pleistocene-Early Holocene Forager Organizations: Timing and Causes of Changes in Southeast Asia (R. Shoocongdej and B. Marwick; rasmi13@hotmail.com, venesia10@yahoo.com, benjamin.marwick@anu.edu.au). Major Theme 3: Heritage and Resource Management. The Management of Cultural Heritage in Southeast Asia (R. Engelhardt; r.engelhardt@unescobkk.org). Integrating “Commercial” Archaeology and “Academic” Research (P. Rogers, E. Cameron, K. Yip and J. Van Den Bergh; prr@archassess.com, julia@archassess.com). Major Theme 4: Regional Archaeology. Archaeology in the Western Extension of Southeast Asia (D. Medhi; dkbharat1@sancharnet.in). Current Archaeological Research in Laos (J. White, A. Kallen and V. Souksavatdy; banchang@pop.sas.upenn.edu, anna.kallen@arkeologi.uu.se). The First People in the Pacific Islands (P. Nunn;

11

nunn_p@usp.ac.fj). Current Research in Chinese archaeology (Li Liu and Chen Xingcan; l.liu@latrobe.edu.au). Maritime Adaptation and Population Movements in Neolithic Southeast China (T. Jiao; tjiao@bishopmuseum.org). Research in Progress in Indonesian Prehistory (T. Simanjuntak and R. Handini; dandin@uninet.net.id). Current Archaeological Research in Vietnam (J. Cameron and Pham Minh Huyen; judith.cameron@anu.edu.au). Early Historic Archaeology of Eastern Coastal India and its Bearing on Overseas Trade (A. Datta; akd19@rediffmail.com). The Sa Huynh-Lin-Yi-Champa Succession: New Evidence from Field Work in Central Vietnam (I. Glover, M. Yamagata and Tran Ky Phung; myamagata@nifty.com, ian.glover@ruthall.com). Cambodia: Pre to Post Angkor (M. Henrickson; mhen2260@mail.usyd.edu.au). Mortuary Variability in Prehistoric Thailand (S. Lertrit and J. Voelker; jcv200@hotmail.com, lertritsawang@hotmail.com). Major Theme 5: Thematic Issues. The Prehistory of the Daic (Tai) Speaking Peoples (R. Blench and M. Dendo; r.blench@odi.org.uk). The Archaeology of Food in the Asia-Pacific Region (A. Fairbairn, J. Stevenson and S. Haberle; andrew.fairbairn@anu.edu.au, janelle.steveson@anu.edu.au, simon.haberle@anu.edu.au). The Impact of Mid-Holocene Sea Level Rise and Stabilisation in the Southern Philippines-Eastern Indonesia-New Guinea-Bismark Archipelago Region (J. Specht; jimspecht@bigpond.com). Identity or Manipulation? Archaeological Perspectives on the Manifestation of Identities Inside and Outside China (G. Shelach and M. Fiskesjö; magnusfiskesjo@yahoo.se, gshelach@ias.edu). Maritime Migration and Colonisation in Indo-Pacific Prehistory (A. Anderson and G. Irwin; g.irwin@auckland.ac.nz, aja@coombs.anu.edu.au). Current Research in Bioanthropology in Southeast Asia (M. Oxenham; marc.oxenham@anu.edu.au). Regional and Comparative Perspectives in Material Culture Studies (K. Szabo and M. Kelly; maryclare@coombs.anu.edu.au, katherine@coombs.anu.edu.au). Exploring Political Economy from Trade Ceramics Recovered from Controlled Excavations: From Dating and Sourcing to Consumption and Markets (R. Pearson; pearsonrj@shaw.ca). New Work in Mainland Southeast Asian Archaeology using New Technologies (C. Cary; cari@uclink4.berkeley.edu). Trade, Social Interaction and Political Economy in Southeast Asian Archaeology (S. Acabado, C. Calugay and W. Noonsuk; dresh37@yahoo.com).

For further details, visit the IPPA website: arts.anu.edu.au/arcworld/ippa/ippa.htm#18TH_CONGRESS_MANILA_MARCH_20-26_2006

EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHEAST ASIAN ARCHAEOLOGISTS 11th

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE will be held at the Tumulus Bougon Museum (Deux-Sèvres, Poitou-Charentes), France from 14 to 17 September 2006. Papers on all aspect of Southeast Asian archaeology are invited, from prehistory to art history and studies of architecture and ceramics and other materials of the historical period. If you wish to submit a paper title and/or wish to receive future announcements of conference details, contact: euraseaa2006@club-internet.fr

RECENTLY HELD CONFERENCES, SYMPOSIA, WORKSHOPS

The 2005 UK ARCHAEOLOGICAL SCIENCE CONFERENCE was held from 13 to 16 April 2005 at the University of Bradford, hosted by the Department of Archaeological Sciences. The overall theme of the conference was “Archaeology at the Interface” with the specific topics of: The life cycle of the artefact; People and geo-landscapes: integrated studies; Locality and movement; Diet and diversity; Archaeology and forensic investigation. There were also two site specific sessions: Niah Cave, and Pompeii. For further details please contact the organisers at: ArchSci-Conference@Bradford.ac.uk. UK Archaeological Science 2005, Department of

12

Archaeological Sciences, University of Bradford, Bradford, BD7 1DP. See website for further details: www.bradford.ac.uk/archsci/archsci2005/menu.php?0

FORUM UNESCO UNIVERSITY AND HERITAGE 10TH INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR was held by the International Centre for Cultural and Heritage Studies at the University of Newcastle, UK in April 2005. The title of the conference was “Cultural Landscapes in the 21st Century” and the following themes were addressed: Cultural Landscapes, Museums and Heritage (Tangible and Intangible), Cultural Landscapes and Visual Culture, Cultural Landscapes, Identities and Communities, Cultural Landscapes, Tourism and Economics, Cultural Landscapes and Architecture, Cultural Landscapes and Education, Cultural Landscapes Management and Protection. Further information can be found on the website: www.ncl.ac.uk/unescolandscapes.

FIRST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON LAO STUDIES (ICLS) was held 20 to 22 May 2005 in DeKalb, Illinois, USA. The main objective of this conference was to provide an international forum for scholars to present and discuss various aspects of Lao studies. For more information, please contact: Center for Southeast Asian Studies Outreach Coordinator Julia Lamb: jlamb@niu.edu; Professor Catherine Raymond: craymond@niu.edu; Professor John Hartmann: jhartman@niu.edu; Vinya Sysamouth: laolanxang@yahoo.com Contact Address: Center for Southeast Asian Studies 412 Adams Hall Northern Illinois University DeKalb, IL 60115 USA Phone: 1-815-753-1771. FAX: 1-815-753-1776. Webpage: www.seasite.niu.edu/lao/events/Conference2005/FICLS.htm

OLD MYTHS AND NEW APPROACHES – ADVANCES IN THE INTERPRETATION OF RELIGIOUS SITES IN ANCIENT SOUTHEAST ASIA was held in Melbourne and hosted by the Centre of Southeast Asian Studies/Monash Asia Institute, Monash University, Melbourne from 13 to 15 July 2005. The focus of the two day conference was on the religious sites of ancient Southeast Asia, and their integration into and interaction with the surrounding cities and landscapes. These sites have received considerable attention from the colonial period onward, and a substantial body of documentation has been accumulated over time. During the past few years this body of knowledge has been extended even further due to the introduction of new technology. While this information has helped advance the understanding of issues ranging from water management to construction techniques, the question of how it affects our understanding of the links of the temples with their surroundings has received far less attention. The temples were socially lived sites, interconnected inseparably with the rhythms of everyday life of the surrounding community. The conference endeavoured to present new insights regarding the temples themselves as well as the surrounding land- and cityscape, and will focus on the incorporation of temple sites into the lived environment – physically, metaphysically and socially.

For further details, please contact Dr. Alexandra Haendel (alexandra.haendel@adm.monash.edu.au), postdoctoral research fellow, Centre of Southeast Asian Studies/Monash Asia Institute, or visit the web site for the conference programme and abstracts: www.arts.monash.edu.au/mai/sacredsites/

INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR ON ARCHAEOLOGY AND NATION BUILDINGwas held in Penang, Malaysia on 4 to 5 August 2005 in celebration of the 10 th Anniversary of the Centre for Archaeological Research Malaysia at the University of Science Malaysia. The objectives of the seminar were: 1) to explore how archaeology can contribute to the goals of nation building, 2) to identify the tangible and intangible impact of archaeology on society, and 3) to recommend ways to channel research to the larger society. The papers explored how archaeology can go beyond the boundaries of knowledge generation or academia and help contribute towards the larger goals of society. The tangible role of archaeology in the nation is

13

usually visible in its economic contribution through museums and tourism. In its intangible role, archaeology has often been said to contribute in abstract ways towards national memory or the memory bank of its past, national pride and identity. The papers explored the question of how archaeological findings can contribute towards the tangible and intangible aspects of a nation and its peoples. Archaeology began as a study for aristocrats and nobility, and was regarded as a leisure pursuit. It is still not a bread and butter discipline as students are not encouraged by the lack of uptake in the job market, and lecturers find it hard to compete with other disciplines for grants. Thus, it is important for archaeologists to position themselves to be of relevance in national development. For further information, please contact: The Secretariat (Attn: Assoc. Prof. Stephen Chia), Centre for Archaeological Research Malaysia, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800, Penang, Malaysia, tel: 604-6533888, ext 4118, fax: 604-6573546, email: stephenchia@rediffmail.com

FELLOWSHIPS

The ASIA FELLOWS PROGRAM offers opportunities to outstanding young and mid-career Asian scholars, policy makers, journalists and media professionals, to study and conduct research in a participating Asian country for up to nine months. Applications are accepted for projects in the arts, humanities and social sciences.

The principal goal of the program is to increase overall awareness of the intellectual resources in the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and South and Southeast Asia. Projects contribute to the development of long-range capabilities for cross-regional knowledge sharing. The program is establishing a multilateral network of Asian specialists in Asia, and contributing to new developments within existing area studies communities.

Fellowship Activities: Fellowships may involve a variety of activities, including field-based research, language study, or courses related to another Asian country (preferably in a different region of Asia). Fellows may also have opportunities to present guest lectures or to conduct seminars and workshops at the invitation of host institutions. The program is open to applicants who are citizens of and resident in Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Republic of Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Brunei, Burma, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, the People's Republic of China, and the Republic of Korea. Projects can be carried out only in these countries. The program is not open to applicants from Afghanistan, Singapore, Japan, Hong Kong, North Korea, or Taiwan, and projects cannot be carried out in these countries. Projects must focus on an Asian country other than the applicant's own. While an applicant from South or Southeast Asia may propose a project in a country within his/her own region, preference is given to applicants who propose to study or conduct research in a region of Asia other than their own (e.g., a fellowship to an Indian scholar or professional for research/study in China). Applicants should not plan to study or conduct their research in a country with which their home country has a difficult diplomatic relationship because of the uncertainties of securing an affiliation and obtaining a visa for research or study for a long-term stay. Fellowships are not for the principal purpose of completing doctoral dissertations.

For further information visit the web site at: www.iie.org/cies/ASIAfellows/

ASSOCIATION OF COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITIES GENERAL SCHOLARSHIPS, ACADEMIC STAFF SCHOLARSHIPS, SENIOR RESEARCH AWARDS (Commonwealth Fellowships and THES Exchange Fellowships). Web site: www.acu.ac.uk/awards/awpguk01.html.

CSFP General Scholarships are normally available for study towards a Masters or Doctoral degree. Subject: Unrestricted. Eligibility: Commonwealth citizens and British protected persons who have completed a first degree or master's degree within last 10 years, and who are

14

permanently resident in Commonwealth countries other than UK. Primarily for postgraduate study or research. Candidates should hold a minimum upper second class honours degree or equivalent. Value: University fees, Scholar's return travel, allowances for books, apparatus, approved travel within country of tenure, personal maintenance (plus allowances, where applicable, for spouse and children). Tenable at approved institution of higher learning for 1-2 years initially; maximum 3 years. Number. Up to 200 annually. Application for Commonwealth Scholarships, by nomination only through Commonwealth Scholarship Agency in country in which candidate permanently resides. Closing date: (For receipt of nominations in London) 31 December of year preceding tenure.

CSFP Academic Staff Scholarships are normally available for study towards a Masters or Doctoral degree, but may form part of a higher degree programme in the scholar's home university. The Commonwealth Scholarship Commission normally accepts nominations only from the Vice-Chancellor of the university on whose permanent staff the nominee serves. Academic Staff eligible for these awards may alternatively apply for a CSFP General Scholarship. Subject: Unrestricted. Eligibility: Commonwealth citizens and British protected persons who have completed a first degree or master's degree within last 10 years, and who are permanently resident in Commonwealth countries other than UK. Primarily for postgraduate study or research. Academic Staff Scholarships are open only to candidates not older than 42, holding or returning to a teaching appointment in a university in the developing Commonwealth. Value: University fees, Scholar's return travel, allowances for books, apparatus, approved travel within country of tenure, personal maintenance (plus allowances, where applicable, for spouse and children). Tenable at approved institution of higher learning for 1-2 years initially; maximum 3 years. Number. Up to 100 annually. Application for Commonwealth Academic Staff Scholarships, by nomination by executive head of own university. Closing date: (For receipt of nominations in London) 31 December of year preceding tenure. For all awards, application must be made to the relevant country's Scholarship Agency.

Senior Research Awards, CSFP Commonwealth Fellowships. Commonwealth Fellowships are available each year to enable academic staff in universities in the developing Commonwealth to receive training and experience in Britain, so as to increase their usefulness as teachers in their own universities. The Fellowships are not open for study for a degree or diploma, but there are in addition a number of Commonwealth Academic Staff Scholarships, for work-related study by more junior members or potential members of university staffs, which may include study for a higher degree in any academic discipline. The Commonwealth Scholarship Commission normally accepts nominations only from the Vice-Chancellor of the university on whose permanent staff the nominee serves. Subject: Tenable in any academic subject (including medicine and dentistry). Eligibility: Commonwealth citizens and British protected persons, normally university teaching staff, who have completed their doctorate (or relevant postgraduate qualifications) no less than 5 and no more than 10 years by the date of taking up an award, and who are permanently resident in Commonwealth countries other than UK. Fellowships will not be offered to candidates over the age of 50. Value: Research support grant, Fellow's return travel, allowances for books, apparatus, approved travel within country of tenure, personal maintenance (plus allowances for spouse and children). Tenable at approved institution of higher learning for a 6 month period or a 12 month period, which may optionally be split across 2 academic sessions. Up to 75 annually. Nomination for Commonwealth Fellowships through executive head of own university. Closing date: (For receipt of nominations in London) 31 December of year preceding tenure.

Senior Research Awards, THES Exchange Fellowships. The ACU administers the Times Higher Education Supplement Exchange Fellowship, financed by the (London) Times Higher Education Supplement, for the support of (a) attachments of university staff, both academic and administrative, to other universities in Commonwealth developing countries to obtain greater experience and training; (b) short study tours of university staff in Commonwealth

15

developing countries to enhance their ability to contribute to national development. 24 fellowships have been awarded to date. Subject: Unrestricted. Eligibility: Open only to academic, administrative, professional and library staff of ACU member universities in developing Commonwealth. Age limit 55. Value: Up to 3,000 pounds. Funded by THES. Tenable only in another developing Commonwealth country, for up to 3 months. Number. 1 annually. Application through executive head of staff member's own university. Closing date: (For receipt of nominations in London) 31 May.

THE BRITISH ACADEMY VISITING PROFESSORSHIPS AND FELLOWSHIPS The Academy's Visiting Professorships scheme enables distinguished scholars from overseas to be invited to spend a minimum of two weeks in the United Kingdom. The Academy grants the title of British Academy Visiting Professor or (for a more junior scholar) British Academy Visiting Fellow and awards a sum of money towards the estimated travel and maintenance costs. All arrangements are undertaken by the visitor's British sponsor. While the delivery of lectures and participation in seminars is not precluded, the main purpose of the visit should be to enable the visitor to pursue research. It is not intended that the Academy's Fellowships and Professorships should be used in conjunction with a non-stipendiary university fellowship. Eligibility: Candidates for nominations must be either established scholars of distinction or younger people who show great promise and who would benefit from time to pursue their research in the United Kingdom. Level of grant: The Academy will meet travel expenses to the United Kingdom, and provide subsistence for Visiting Professors and Fellows up to a maximum of 700 pounds a week. Applicants will be expected to submit a carefully-costed budget within this limit. The normal maximum length of visit will be one month, but applications for longer periods will be considered, although it will be expected that the weekly budget for longer visits will be set at a more moderate level. Method of application and closing date: The British sponsor should apply on the Visiting Professorships application form, available from the Academy's International Relations Department (Tel. 20 7969 5220, overseas@britac.ac.uk). Applications direct from foreign scholars will not be accepted. The closing date for applications is 31 December. Applications are considered in late February, for visits to take place during the financial year beginning 1 April. (It may be possible to entertain applications at other times of the year, but the Academy's aim is to allocate the available funds at one time.)

THE ROYAL SOCIETY SOUTHEAST ASIA FELLOWSHIPS PROGRAM aims to foster science and technology links between the UK and Southeast Asia. The Programme covers the following Southeast Asian countries: Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia, Brunei, Burma (Myanmar), Cambodia and Laos. The fellowships are for periods between six and twelve months enabling outstanding postdoctoral scientists from Southeast Asia to acquire additional knowledge and skills by working with colleagues in the UK. Closing date: 30 September.

Eligibility: Fellowships are for research in various fields including archaeology. Applicants must be postdoctoral or equivalent status at the time application is made. If applicants do not possess a PhD, evidence must be given in the application of equivalent status in the form of positions of responsibility, research undertaken and publications in authoritative independent scientific journals. Applicants must be nationals of one of the countries mentioned above or resident in a country other than the one of nationality but holding a permanent position at a research institute there. Applicants currently in the UK are not eligible to apply. UK hosts must be British or EU citizens resident in the UK. Non-UK/EU citizens must have held a permanent position at a UK institute for three years minimum to act as a host. Substantial contact between host and applicant prior to the application is essential. This contact should lead to a clearly defined and mutually-beneficial research project. English Level: Applicants must have a good

16

command of written and spoken English and must submit a copy of the certificate which indicates the highest English examination taken in their home countries.

For further details contact: china&southeastasia@royalsoc.ac.uk or visit their website: www.royalsoc.ac.uk/international/index.html

THE ROYAL SOCIETY MALAYSIAN FELLOWSHIPS to the UK are administered by the British Council in Malaysia. For further details please contact the British Council directly at:Scholarships and Training Unit, The British Council, Jalan Bukit Aman, PO Box 10539, 50916 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Tel: 00 60 3 298 7555 Fax: 00 60 3 293 7214. Annual closing date: Forms must be submitted to the British Council in Malaysia by the annual closing date of 25 November. Contact details: www.britcoun.org.my/work/SCH/index.htm or by e-mail at scholarships@britcoun.org.my.

SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL. Vietnam Dissertation Field Research Fellowships. Dissertation fellowships of up to $15,000 a year are available to support research in Vietnam for periods between 12 and 24 months. Eligibility: Graduate students enrolled full-time in Ph.D. programs in any of the social sciences or humanities at accredited universities in the U.S. or Canada are eligible. Awards are subject to proof of completion of all departmental requirements other than the dissertation. There are no citizenship restrictions. Contact: Social Science Research Council, 810 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10019 USA. Phone: 212.377.2700, fax: 212 377.2727, web: www.ssrc.org/levels.htm

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION FELLOWSHIPS. Fellowships support independent research in residence at the Smithsonian Institution. Predoctoral fellowships and directed research fellowships are available in the following disciplines: American History, Material Culture, Anthropology, Biological Sciences, Earth Sciences, History of Art, Astronomy, and Ecology. For information write to: Office of Fwps & Grants L'Enfant Plaza 7300, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560 USA.

WENNER-GREN FOUNDATION FOR ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL FELLOWSHIPS (Please note: this fellowship replaces the Developing Countries Training Fellowship, effective January 200). Description: Professional Development International Fellowships are intended for scholars and advanced students from countries in which anthropology or specific subfields of anthropology are underrepresented and who therefore seek additional training to enhance their skills or to develop new areas of expertise in anthropology. The program offers three types of awards: Predoctoral Fellowship for study leading to a Ph.D.; Postdoctoral Fellowship for scholars wishing advanced training; Library Residency Fellowship for advanced students and postdoctoral scholars within five years of receiving their doctorate to travel to libraries with outstanding collections in anthropology.

Requirements for Predoctoral and Postdoctoral Fellowships: Applicants must be prepared to demonstrate: the unavailability of such training in their home country; their provisional acceptance by a host institution that will provide such training; their intention to return and work in their home country upon completion of their training. The applicant must have a home sponsor who is a member of the institution with which he/she is affiliated in the home country and a host sponsor who is a member of the institution in which the candidate plans to pursue training. The host sponsor must be willing to assume responsibility for overseeing the candidate's training. Because the fellowship is intended as a partnership with the Host Institution in providing the fellow's training, it is expected that candidates will also be offered support by the host institution.

17

Requirements for Library Residency Fellowships: Applicants must be prepared to show that travel to a library is necessary for preparing a research proposal or completing a project designed to advance teaching and scholarship in the home country. They must also be able to obtain a letter from their home supervisor or chairperson attesting to the applicant's need of library materials not available in the home institution. The foundation has set up host sponsors at several libraries with excellent collections in different areas of anthropology, from which the applicant can choose. An applicant must be accepted by one of these sponsors before a library residency can be awarded.

Amount and Duration of Awards: Predoctoral Fellowships are made for amounts up to $15,000 per year. Fellows may apply for up to two renewals. Postdoctoral Fellowships are made for amounts up to $35,000 for one year, with the possibility of one renewal. Library Residency Fellowships are made for amounts up to $5,000 for a maximum period of three months. They are not renewable.

Application Information: Inquiries about the predoctoral and postdoctoral awards should be made by means of a one-page Summary Statement of Purpose. Preliminary requirements must be met to determine eligibility for a formal application. There is no deadline for these programs, however, those interested in receiving a Predoctoral or Postdoctoral Fellowship application must contact the foundation at least six months prior to enrollment in the host institution. Library Residency Fellowship candidates should contact the foundation at least three months before their intended starting date.

Address and contact details: The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, 220 Fifth Ave, 16th Floor, New York, NY 10001-7708. Fax: 001.212.683.9151. Forms can be requested by e-mail (inquiries@wennergren.org), by letter or telephone (001 212-683-5000). Web address: www.wennergren.org/programsirg.html

RESEARCH GRANTS

THE FORD FOUNDATION awards grants for archaeological research and training. Headquarters: The Ford Foundation, 320 East 43rd Street, New York, NY 10017 USA, Main Voice: (212)573-5000, Main Fax: (212)351-3677, web address: www.fordfound.org In the Philippines, contact: Makati Central P.O. Box 1936, Makati 1259 Metro Manila, Philippines, e-mail ford-manila@fordfound.org. In Vietnam, contact: 340 Ba Trieu Street, Hai Ba Trung District, Hanoi, Socialist Republic of Vietnam, tel. 84-4-976-0164/5/6, fax. 84-4-976-0163, e-mail ford-hanoi@fordfound.org.

LEAKEY FOUNDATION The Leakey Foundation was formed to further research into human origins, behaviour and survival. Special research Grants (up to $20,000) available to post-doctoral and senior scientists for exceptional research projects studying multidisciplinary palaeoanthropology. For further information, contact: Grants Officer, The Leakey Foundation, P.O. Box 29346, 1002A O'Reilly Ave, San Francisco, CA, 94129-0346 USA; Telephone: (415) 561-4646; FAX: (415) 561-4647; E-mail: grants@leakeyfoundation.org; or visit their web site at: www.leakeyfoundation.org/

NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY For information write to: Committee for Research and Exploration, National Geographic Society 17th and M Streets, N.W., Washington, DC 20036 USA; or visit their web site at: www.nationalgeographic.com/research/grant/rg1.html

ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION Awards to assist women and men of outstanding promise to make significant contributions to research and teaching or public service in the future as potential

18

staff members of developing-country institutions associated with the Foundation. For information write to: Rockefeller Foundation 1133 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036 USA.

WENNER-GREN FOUNDATION FOR ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH. For information on their research grants write to: 220 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10001-7708, USA or visit their web site at: www.wennergren.org

RECENT PHD AND MA THESES

AUEREAKULVIT, PRASIT 2004. The Late Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Thailand: An Archaeozoological Approach. Diplome de Docteur de l’ Universite de Provence Aix-Marseille.

Abstract. Faunal exploitation by prehistoric humans in the tropical rainforest of peninsular Malaysia (Southern Thailand) has been little studied. Until now, research on animal bones from sites of the Hoabinhian lithic tradition has emphasized the importance of bovine, deer and wild boar. For the present study, over 74,000 faunal remains were obtained from the Moh Khiew and Thung Non Nien rockshelters excavated in 1994 and 2002. These two sites were in use from the Late Pleistocene to the Late Holocene (12000-2000 BC). Faunal remains indicate the important role played by animals of small size in the diet of these communities. Within this wide-ranging faunal sample, reptiles (land/freshwater turtle and monitor lizards), primates and rodents (squirrels, bamboo rats and porcupines) predominate. Numerous traces of burning were observed on bone indicating the cooking and consumption of meat. Moreover, for the first time, the presence of bone tools points to the diversity of the bone industry.

Observation of modern hunter-gatherers (Sakai) who live in the area of the two sites provides some information on hunting strategies in the tropical rainforest which may have been used previously by the Hoabinhian communities.

KHAOKHIEW, CHAOWALIT 2004 Geoarchaeology of Tham Lod Rockshelter, Changwat Mae Hong Son, Northern Thailand. MA Thesis. Department of Geology, Faculty of Science, Chulalongkorn University. Co-Chairs: Dr Titima Chroentitirat and Dr Rasmi Shoocongdej.

Abstract. This research aims to apply geological methods in interpreting archaeological data at the Tham Lod rockshelter, a prehistoric site in Changwat Mae Hong Son, northern Thailand. The objectives of this study are to study the relationship among stratigraphy, sedimentology and archaeological materials, and to examine land-use patterns and natural resource exploitation in the past.

The classification of the stratigraphic sequence has been made on the basis of physical analysis, chemical analysis, field observations of site stratigraphy, correlation of layers, and absolute dating (AMS and TL dating technique). The stratigraphic sequence can be grouped into four main units which are classified into three geological periods as:

Unit A – Late Pleistocene Period I (dated to before 32,000 BP). This unit was created by natural depositional processes. The lower layer is lateritic soil overlayed by a fining of small gravel-sized homogenous deposit in area 1. It can be assumed that an old stream passed through this area. Unit B – Late Pleistocene Period II (dated to approximately 32,000-10,000BP). This unit was of complex deposition, a mixing of cultural and natural depositional processes. The layer resulting from cultural processes is thick and of homogeneous sediments. This unit has a high density of artifacts (stone tools, animal remains) which provide significant evidence of human occupation, and are important clues to identify this unit from other units. The evidence of natural processes was evident in areas 1 and 2, and was characterized

19

by weathered angular gravel to boulder-sized limestones, and deposited as a lens having an inclined orientation. This unit was clearly the result of limestone rock fall during this period, which might have been caused by neotectonic or earthquake activity in the past. Unit C – Early Holocene to Middle Holocene (dated to approximately 9980-2900 BP). The deposition of this unit shows a discontinuity and unconformity caused by flooding in the past which was characterized by increasing amounts of organic matter and clay particle size (montmorillonite). Unit D – Late Holocene (approximately dates to after 2,900 BP to the present); it is a top soil layer.The cultural chronology, which informs on past land-use patterns and natural resource

exploitation, was established on the basis of the stratigraphic sequence and archaeological analyses from blocks of soil samples of random sampling from each excavated area. The chronology is divided into four occupational periods. The first, Late Pleistocene period I, is comprised of numerous stone tools, animal, shells and fish remains. Their spatial distribution indicates the site was used as a temporary camp and lithic workshop. The second period, Late Pleistocene period II, was a similar occupation as period I with the addition of two burials. The third period, the Early Holocene to Middle Holocene Period, is comprised of transported pottery sherds and beads. Flooding process might have been a major factor affecting the redeposition of archaeological remains which mixed the sherds and beads together. The fourth period, the Late Holocene Period, contained archaeological remains such as potsherd, beads, and iron tools which can be relatively dated to the late Holocene.

WANNASRI, SINEENART 2004. A Dendroarchaeological Study of Log Coffins: Bo Krai Cave and Ban Rai Rockshelter in Pang Mapha District, Mae Hong Son Province. M.Sc. Thesis. Technology and Environmental Management, Faculty of Graduate Studies, Mahidol University, Thailand. Co-Chairs: Dr Natsuda Pumijumnong and Dr Rasmi Shoocongdej.

Abstract. This thesis documents the dendrochronological and radiocarbon chronology of log coffin head styles in the Log Coffin culture from Bo Krai and Ban Rai rockshelter at Pang Mapha District, Mae Hong Son Province. At Bo Krai Cave, 71 wood samples were taken from 36 coffin lids and three supporting posts. At Ban Rai rockshelter, 116 wood samples were taken from 27 coffin lids and 26 supporting posts. These samples were taken for dendrochronological analysis and radiocarbon dating. Statistical analysis of the dates and log coffin styles was then undertaken to test the hypothesis that the style of coffin heads becomes increasingly complex over time.

At Bo Krai Cave, analysis of correlations between these samples resulted in five dendrochronological series. These series indicated that the cave has functioned as a burial site with the same styles of log coffins used over a relatively long period of time. It means the people of the Log Coffin culture probably used each log coffin style continuously and simultaneously. All three chambers of Bo Krai Cave were probably used at the same time because tree-ring cross-dating of samples from the three chambers shows that they have overlapping date ranges. At Ban Rai Rockshelter, correlations of tree-ring width cross-dating resulted in seven dendrochronological series. These series show this area was used as a burial site in several periods. The chronology of the log coffin head styles indicate that different styles of log coffins were used at the same time, a similar pattern of coffin use as at Bo Krai Cave. Different styles of log coffins, including 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, and 2C styles were used in several periods at this site. The different styles of log coffin do not show a pattern of increasing design complexity over time and/or correspond with any cultural change in this area.

Radiocarbon dates were obtained for 15 samples of wood from the coffins at Bo Krai Cave and Ban Rai rockshelter. The radiocarbon data show that the log coffins in the study area date to between 1090±210 and 2330±230 BP. This age is similar to other log coffin sites in Pang

20

Mapha that date from the late Holocene period. Moreover the radiocarbon data confirms the dendrochronological data because it shows an overlap between the simple styles and complex styles of coffin heads. This means that the chronology of log coffins results have important implications for an understanding of the archaeology and cultural history of this area. The simultaneous use of different coffin styles suggests that style may be related to the status of the buried individual or to their ethnic affiliation rather than cultural changes over time.

RECENT PUBLICATIONS

BELLWOOD, PETER, DORREN BOWDERY, SUSAN KEATES, LI LIU and HELENE MARTINSSON-WALLIN (eds) 2004. Indo-Pacific Prehistory: The Taipei Papers (Vol. 2). Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association Vol. 24.

DETROIT, F., E. DIZON, C. FALGUERES, S. HAMEAU, W. RONQUILLO, and F. SEMAH 2004. Upper Pleistocene Homo sapiens from Tabon cave (Palawan, The Philippines): Description of new discoveries. Human Palaeontology and Prehistory 3: 705-12.

HEIN, DON, GARY HILL and W. RAMSAY 2004. Raw or pre-fired: Kiln construction at Sawankhalok, north Central Thailand, as a guide to ceramic history. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 8: 247-266.

HIGHAM CHARLES and RATCHANI THOSARAT (eds) 2005. The Excavation of Ban Lum Khao. The Origins of the Civilization of Angkor, Vol. 1. Bangkok: The Fine Arts Department.

MEACHAM, WILLIAM 1980 Archaeology in Hong Kong and 1976 Rock Carvings in Hong Kong: An Illustrated and Interpretive Study have been digitized by the University of Hong Kong Library, and are available for viewing as .pdf files. The urls are: www.lib.hku.hk/open-ebooks/B30143421.pdf (for Archaeology in Hong Kong) and www.lib.hku.hk/open-ebooks/B30143445.pdf (for Rock Carvings in Hong Kong). The ebooks can be downloaded (free) by clicking on the Save File icon on the tool bar. Each file is about five megabytes.

MIKSIC, JOHN 2004. From megaliths to tombstones: the transition from prehistory to the early Islamic period in highland west Sumatra. Indonesia and the Malay World 32: 191-210

O’CONNOR, SUE, MATTHEW SPRIGGS, AND PETER VETH (eds) 2005. The Archaeology of the Aru Islands, Eastern Indonesia. Terra Australis 22. Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, the Australian National University, Pandanus Books.

REINECKE, ANDREAS 2004. Rich graves - early salt, 600 days of field research among the dunes and rice fields of Vietnam. KAVA Forschungen Band 10. (A web page, in English, on Reinecke’s research project is available at: http://www.dainst.org/index_657_en.html)

REINECKE, ANDREAS and TILL HANEBUTH 2005. Gò Ô Chùa - ein neu entdeckter Salzsiedeplatz des 1. Jahrtausends v. Chr. - Indikator für Küstenveränderungen in Südvietnam? Bericht über eine archäologisch-geologische Expedition am Nordostrand des Mekong-Deltas nahe der südvietnamesisch-kambodschanischen Grenze. In Annalen der Hamburger Vietnamistik, Heft 1.

21

SAGART, LAURENT, ROGER BLENCH and ALICIA SANCHEZ-MAZAS 2005. The Peopling of East Asia: Putting Together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics . London: RoutledgeCurzon.

Articles in Asie due Sud-Est: de L’Homo erectus a l’Hommo sapiens, Dossiers d’Archeologie 203 (Avril 2005). “Coup de bambou sur la paléoanthropologie en Asie du Sud-Est” by V. Zeitoun; “Présentation” by J.-P. Pautreau and V. Zeitoun; “Les premiers indices d'un faciès acheuléen à Sumatra Sud” by H. Forestier, H. T. Simanjuntak and D. Driwantoro; “Les hommes fossiles en Asie du Sud-Est” by V. Zeitoun; “Ban Fa Suai” by V. Zeitoun, A. Seveau, H. Forestier, A. Lenoble and S. Nakbunlung; “Données récentes sur l'industrie lithique ancienne” by H. Forestier, A. Seveau, T. Doy-Asa and V. Zeitoun; “L'abri-sous-roche de Pha Mai” by J.-P. Pautreau and T. Doy-Asa; “Les ateliers de taille de Nan” by J.-P. Pautreau, M. Santoni and S. Prishanchit; “Sumatra, anthropologie, espace et temps” by D. Guillaud, H. Forestier, H. T. Simanjuntak and R. Handini; “Gens des karsts au Néolithique à Sumatra” by H. T. Simanjuntak, H. Forestier, Jatmiko and B. Prasetyo; “La fin des temps préhistoriques en Birmanie centrale” by J.-P. Pautreau and P. Mornais; “Vallée de la Samon” by J.-P. Pautreau, P. Mornais, A.-S. Coupey, C. Maitay, F. Pelle and A. A. Kyaw; “Premières analyses des poteries protohistoriques birmanes” by C Maitay; “Les sépultures protohistoriques de Thaïlande du Nord” by J.-P. Pautreau, P. Mornais and T. Doy-Asa; “La sépulture d'Obluang” by M. Santoni and J.-P. Pautreau; “Éléments de parure archéologiques en verre” by B. Gratuze and L. Dussubieux; “La genèse des échanges à longue distance” by B. Bellina; “Nouvelles recherches dans le delta du Mékong” by P.-Y. Manguin; and “Avant Angkor” by C. Pottier.

PRESENTED PAPERS

ACABADO, STEPHEN 2005. Village Boundaries and Communication Routes: A GIS-based Analyses of Central Cordillera, Philippines. Paper presented in symposium entitled, Finding the Overlooked: Exploring Smaller Social and Ethnic Groups in the Archaeological Record , at the 70th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology.

BARKER, GRAEME 2005. The Transition from Foraging to Farming in the Rainforests of Island Southeast Asia: The Evidence of the Niah Caves, Sarawak. Paper presented in the symposium entitled, Rethinking Rain Forest Occupation: New Research Directions in Tropical Archaeology, at the 7-th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology.

BARTON, HUW 2005. Hunter-gatherer Technology and Mobility in Sundaland: A Long-term Perspective from Niah Cave, Sarawak. Paper presented in the symposium entitled, Rethinking Rain Forest Occupation: New Research Directions in Tropical Archaeology , at the 70th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology.

BISHOP, PAUL et. al 2005. Toward a Landscape Ecology of Funan: Palynological Records of Environmental Change from Southern Cambodia. Paper presented in the symposium entitled, Space, Time, Metal and Mud: New Developments in the Reconstruction of Cultural Landscapes in Southeast Asian Archaeology, at the 70th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology.

BROWN, ROXANNA 2005. Ayutthaya and the Ceramics Trade. Presented in session entitled, Assessing Ayutthaya: New Directions in Thai Art History, at the Association for Asian Studies Annual Meeting, Chicago.

22

Abstract: For a very long time, the fact that ceramics are not mentioned among trade goods from Thailand in Tome Pires’ Suma Oriental (a Portuguese report on Asian trade composed about 1511–1515) was used as evidence against their existence. Shipwreck finds however now reveal that at least three major production centers were actively supplying trade ceramics and servicing the shipping industry in the 16th century. For this century the common term ‘Martaban’ for large storage jars is a major misnomer, since only a handful of actual Burmese jars has been recovered from shipwrecks compared to many hundreds of jars from the Thai Singburi kilns near Ayutthaya. Even after Thai Sukhothai ceramics disappear from shipwrecks about 1530, and Thai Sawankhalok ware disappears about 1570, Thai Singburi jars continue to be a characteristic find until at least 1727. This contrasts with other assumptions drawn from Pires’ mention of Vietnamese ceramics and their high quality. After a period of high export circa 1470–1510, Vietnamese ceramics in fact disappear from shipwrecks by 1520 at a time when Thai production centers increased output.

CONNELL, SAMUAL 2005. Identification of Burial Features in Vietnam using Three Remote Sensing Techniques. Poster presented at the 70 th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology.

EVANS, DAMIEN et. al 2005. Applications of Radar Remote Sensing to Settlement Sites in Cambodia: Past, Present and Future. Paper presented in the symposium entitled, Space, Time, Metal and Mud: New Developments in the Reconstruction of Cultural Landscapes in Southeast Asian Archaeology, at the 70th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology.

FLETCHER, ROLAND 2005. Thinking Angkor. Paper presented in the symposium entitled, Space, Time, Metal and Mud: New Developments in the Reconstruction of Cultural Landscapes in Southeast Asian Archaeology, at the 70th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology.

GLOVER, IAN 2005. Excavations at Go Cam, Quang Nam Province, Vietnam, 2000–2003. Paper presented in session entitled, Southern China and Southeast Asia in Archaeological Perspective, at the Association for Asian Studies Annual Meeting, Chicago.

Abstract: Go Cam lies on a sandy riverbank 3.5 km east of the ancient walled Cham city at Tra Kieu. Work in March 2000 after the discovery of complete ovoid pottery jars close to the ground surface. Similar vessels were found in the lowest levels at excavations at the Tra Kieu citadel where they have been dated to the 2nd–3rd centuries AD. Twenty-six largely complete ovoid jars, a mass of roof tiles, broken glazed and unglazed Han Chinese vessels, two with a Chinese Wu Zhu coin-stamp design, triangular bronze crossbow bolt heads, a bronze dagger guard, glass beads and waste, iron hooks and "ehrtang" ear ornaments with high-fired geometric and textile-impressed jars and local, Sa Huynh low-fired pottery. Organic residue analysis shows the ovoid jars to have been oil storage jars.

An outstanding find was a clay sealing cord marked on the reverse, with four characters read as "Huang Shen Shi Zhe Zhang" (Seal of the Envoy of the Yellow God). A second, very damaged, clay Han sealing with parts of a personal name was also found in 2002.Substantial timbers of a large burnt wooden structure were found, extending over 13 m by 7.8 m. with over 60 carbonized floor planks, 16 wooden posts, and small stakes marking wall ends, more bronze crossbow bolts, glass and metal waste, iron slag and a bloom, roofing tiles and local pottery.

Four charcoal samples gave 2-sigma calibrated radio carbon dates that range from 755 BC to AD 73, but these include a significant "old wood factor." Two more recent AMS dates from a laboratory in Korea gave uncalibrated dates of 2020+-60 BP and 2060+-40BP, closer to the age indicated by the artifact finds, but still too early on account of the "old wood factor."

23

GRAVE, PETER and LISA KEALHOFER 2005. Changing Patterns of Land Use around Kamphaeng Phet, Central Thailand. Paper presented in the symposium entitled, Space, Time, Metal and Mud: New Developments in the Reconstruction of Cultural Landscapes in Southeast Asian Archaeology, at the 70th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology.

HAMILTON, ELIZABETH 2005. Vulcan in Arcadia: 2000 Years of Metal-working in Prehistoric NE Thailand. Paper presented in the symposium entitled, Space, Time, Metal and Mud: New Developments in the Reconstruction of Cultural Landscapes in Southeast Asian Archaeology, at the 70th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology.

HENDRICKSON, MITCH 2005. Caution – Roadwork Ahead: Reconstruction and Deconstruction of the Archaeology of the Khmer Road Network. Paper presented in the symposium entitled, Space, Time, Metal and Mud: New Developments in the Reconstruction of Cultural Landscapes in Southeast Asian Archaeology, at the 70th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology.

JUNKER, LAURA 2005. The Archaeological Evidence for Changing Strategies of Tropical Forest Adaptation in Prehistoric to Historic Period Philippine Foragers. Paper presented in the symposium entitled, Rethinking Rain Forest Occupation: New Research Directions in Tropical Archaeology, at the 70th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology.

KEALHOFER, LISA 2005. Late Pleistocene Phytoliths from Niah Cave. Paper presented in the symposium entitled, Rethinking Rain Forest Occupation: New Research Directions in Tropical Archaeology, at the 70th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology.

KRIGBAUM, JOHN 2005. Stable Isotopes and Lowland Rain Forest Archaeology: New Data from Niah Cave. Paper presented in the symposium entitled, Rethinking Rain Forest Occupation: New Research Directions in Tropical Archaeology, at the 70th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology.

LAPE, PETER 2005. Feeding the Beasts: Human-Landscape Interactions in Colonial and Post-Colonial East Timor. Paper presented in the symposium entitled, Rethinking Rain Forest Occupation: New Research Directions in Tropical Archaeology, at the 70th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology.

MUDAR, KAREN 2005. Copper and Cattle: Animal Exploitation at Copper Production Sites Dating to the 2nd-1st Millennium BC in Central Thailand. Paper presented in the symposium entitled, Space, Time, Metal and Mud: New Developments in the Reconstruction of Cultural Landscapes in Southeast Asian Archaeology, at the 70th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology.

PENNY, DAN 2005. Palaeo-vegetation Records of the Decline of Angkor. Paper presented in the symposium entitled, Space, Time, Metal and Mud: New Developments in the Reconstruction of Cultural Landscapes in Southeast Asian Archaeology, at the 70th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology.

POLKINGHOME, MARTIN 2005. Do the Temples Measure Up? Pattern and Disjuncture in Khmer Temples. Paper presented in the symposium entitled, Space, Time, Metal and Mud: New Developments in the Reconstruction of Cultural Landscapes in Southeast Asian Archaeology , at the 70th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology.

24

SAYAVONGKHAMDY, THONGSA 2005. Recent Archaeological Research in Lao PDR. Paper presented at the First International Conference of Lao Studies

Abstract: My presentation will try to bring information to these three questions: 1. How the archaeological research is organised in Lao PDR? 2. What is the recent archaeological research? 3. What are the perspectives of archaeological research in Lao PDR?

1. For the first question, the mandate of the Department of Museums and Archaeology (DMA), Ministry of Information and Culture (MIC) will be briefly presented. The DMA is the leading governmental organization that deals with four inter-related issues: 1. Creation and development of museums; 2. Protection of national antiquities; 3. Conservation of national cultural heritage and 4. the archaeological research. Policy, legislation, organization and programmes will be briefed.

2. The recent archaeological research will briefly present the results from survey and excavation that have been conducted at these sites: 1. Tam Hua Pu (LPB Province), Tam Nang An (LPB Prov), Plain of Jars (Xieng Khuang Prov), Lao Pako (Vientiane Prov), Megalithic stones of Muong Hua Muong (Hua Pan Prov), Tam Hang (Hua Pan Prov), Pu Bia (Saysomboun Special Zone), Xepon (Savannakhet Prov) and Phe Phen of Nam Theun 2 Hydroelectric Project (Khammuane and Bolikhamsay Prov).

3. The concerns for the future are of double fold: firstly the national capacity building and lastly the current trends of thematic research, in particular the matters that would bring light to the birth of an agriculturalist society in Southeast Asia. This theme is related to the peopling of the region and more specifically the migrational movements of the human expansion within the Asian continent.

SHOOCONGDEJ, RASMI 2005. Late Pleistocene Resource Utilization in Higland Seasonal Tropical Environment of Pang Mapha, Northwestern Thailand. Paper presented in The 30th

Anniversary of Yuanmou Man, Yuanmou, Yunnan Province, P.R. China.

STARK, MIRIAM et. al 2005. Monumetality in the Mekong Delta: Luminescence Dating and Implications. Paper presented in the symposium entitled, Space, Time, Metal and Mud: New Developments in the Reconstruction of Cultural Landscapes in Southeast Asian Archaeology , at the 70th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology.

TZEHUEY CHIOU-PENG 2005. An Archaeometallurgical Investigation of Yunnan Artifacts: China or Dongson? Paper presented in session entitled, Southern China and Southeast Asia in Archaeological Perspective, at the Association for Asian Studies Annual Meeting, Chicago.

Abstract: This paper summarizes a systematic metallographic investigation of 200 samples taken from scientifically excavated Bronze Age sites in eastern Yunnan. The study focuses the following topics: corrosion of metal objects, tin or silver enriched bronze surface, bronze casting and manufacturing techniques, alloying techniques and chemical composition of bronzes, repousée and gliding techniques with gold materials, and ancient mining and smelting activities in Yunnan. The work is conducted as part of a research project aiming at deciphering the full metallurgical process used to produce metal artifacts in ancient Yunnan. It reviews the long debated questions pertaining to the origin of these material goods, in particular issues on the relationship between Yunnan and Dongson sites of Vietnam, which, being geographically linked to Yunnan by the Yuan/Upper Red River, had progressed as part of Southeast Asian continuum while shared similar artifact types and artistic ideas with ancient Yunnan cultures. The lab analysis of the Yunnan artifacts, completed at the University of Science & Technology Beijing in 2003 and 2004, has produced data to address technical issues not thoroughly understood previously. The study has now provided insights for accurately interpreting the Yunnan artifacts in their socio-economic and historical contexts, as well as allowed a comparative study with a

25

number of Dongson bronzes that are currently undergoing similar metallographic analysis in Beijing. The investigation suggests that the Yunnan artifacts used in the analysis clearly were manufactured locally, although exchanges of ideas between the two cultures indeed have occurred.

VOELKER, JUDY and VINCE PIGOTT 2005. Patterns in the Organization of Production at Early Copper Production Sites in Central Thailand. Paper presented in the symposium entitled, Space, Time, Metal and Mud: New Developments in the Reconstruction of Cultural Landscapes in Southeast Asian Archaeology, at the 70th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology.

WHITE, JOYCE 2005. Middle Mekong Archaeological Project Phase I: The Luang Prabang Survey. Paper presented at the First International Conference of Lao Studies.

Abstract: The paper will report on the first phase of the Middle Mekong Archaeological Project (MMAP), a reconnaissance survey of three left bank tributaries of the Mekong River in Luang Prabang province, Laos scheduled to occur in March and April 2005. The main objective of this initial survey is to find sites likely dating to the middle Holocene, roughly 6000-2000 BC calibrated, in order to begin acquiring data to test alternative models for the appearance of agriculture in mainland Southeast Asia. Models postulating migration mechanisms for the appearance of agriculture in this region suggest the Mekong as one highway for southward-migrating rice cultivators originating in southern China. One migration model favors the late 3rd millennium BC for this expansion based primarily on dates associated with a widespread ceramic decorative syntax (Higham 2001:8, 2002:110). Another model based on linguistics favors the 6th millennium BC for expansion of rice cultivators down the Mekong from Yunnan (Blust 1996:132). However, northern Vietnamese data show that an autochthonous transition from hunting and gathering to use of domesticated foodstuffs during the middle Holocene cannot be ruled out (Bui Vinh 1997). Existing data from the middle Holocene in mainland Southeast Asia are currently too poor in quantity and quality to scientifically evaluate these alternative scenarios.

Determination of the timing and nature of the development of early agriculture in Southeast Asia has implications not only for the culture history of one region, but also for the validity of the proposal that modern day global distributions of languages and populations represent expansions from a few well-defined regions where agriculture is proposed to have originated (Diamond and Bellwood 2003). In this view, Southeast Asian languages, populations, and agriculture derived from the Yangtze basin where the earliest domesticated rice has been found. However, assumptions of this model for demography, plant genetics, and human biology may not hold for mainland Southeast Asia. Knowing if the subsistence regime underlying Southeast Asia’s long-term socioeconomic development emerged from an extraregional expansion driven by the development of rice cultivation, an autochthonous development of plant cultivation perhaps of multiple crops, or some combination of processes is important not just for evaluation of the universality of the Diamond/Bellwood proposal. Knowing if a rice-focused cropping system as opposed to a multi-species horticultural cropping system characterized Southeast Asia’s original agricultural regime is fundamental to understanding the region’s distinctive social, economic, political, and environmental trajectories (White 1988, 1995a, 1995b; White and Pigott 1996; White et al. 2003).

The survey along three left bank tributaries to the Mekong in Luang Prabang province should identify sites that will allow evaluation of these alternative models for the emergence of plant cultivation in this core region. Luang Prabang is upstream from Ban Chiang cultural tradition sites in northern northeast Thailand where the earliest agricultural societies so far identified in the middle Mekong basin lie. Luang Prabang province is also on the western side of a divide whose eastern side witnessed subsistence changes during the middle Holocene that the Vietnamese claim involved exploitation of domesticated livestock. These two geographic factors

26

indicate that there is no better location in all of Southeast Asia to seek evidence for changes in middle Holocene subsistence regimes than Luang Prabang province.

JOURNAL & NEWSLETTER ANNOUNCEMENTS

JOURNAL OF AUSTRONESIAN STUDIES (JAS) is a refereed journal published biannually, beginning June 2005, by the National Museum of Prehistory, Taiwan, Republic of China. JAS is devoted to the study of Austronesian societies from archaeological, anthropological, biological anthropological, and linguistic perspectives. Published both in Chinese and English, JAS welcomes contributions from domestic and international academic communities in the form of research articles, field research reports, research materials, review articles, and book reviews relating to aspects of culture, history, and society amongst Austronesian-speaking peoples.

Editor-in-Chief - Cheng-hwa Tsang. Honorary Editor - Peter Bellwood. Publisher - National Museum of Prehistory, No.1 Museum Road, Taitung, 950. Taiwan, R.O.C. (Phone:886-89-381166; Fax:886-89-381199; E-mail:JAS@nmp.gov.tw, Web site: http://linux01.nmp.gov.tw/messenger/notes/940603-2.doc)

Subscriptions and orders may be placed via any bookseller or subscription agency, or directly to the publisher. Individual JAS issues are available domestically for NT$200 and internationally for US$20 (surface mail). Annual subscriptions are available through SMC Publishing Inc., First Floor, No.14, Alley 14, Lane 283, Roosevelt Rd., Sec.3, Taipei, Taiwan, 106 (Phone: 886-2-2362-0190; Fax: 886-2-2362-3834; E-mail: weitw@smcbook.com.tw).

Issue 1 contains the following papers: P. Bellwood and E. Dizon, “The Batanes Archaeological Project and the ‘Out of Taiwan’ hypothesis for Austronesian dispersal;” Y. Iizuka and H. Hung, “Archaeomineralogy of Taiwan nephrite: sourcing study of nephrite artifacts from the Philippines;” Y. Iizuka, P. Bellwood and H. Hung, “A non-destructive mineralogical study of nephritic artifacts from Itbayat Island, Batanes, northern Philippines;” H. Hung, “Neolithic interaction between Taiwan and northern Luzon: the pottery and jade evidences from the Cagayan Valley.”

INDONESIA, Cornell University Southeast Asia Program’s journal is now available online. All issues will be accessible to the Cornell community without restrictions, and all articles more than five years old will be accessible to the public free of charge. Indonesia's archives, which date back to 1966, include essays discussing the history, politics, anthropology, arts, and culture of the nation. Visit the site to find out more information concerning annual print and online subscriptions and pay-per-view access to recent articles (this function will be up and running in the near future, but is not necessary for anyone with a Cornell IP address). http://e-publishing.library.cornell.edu/Indonesia

SOUTHEAST ASIAN CERAMICS MUSEUM NEWSLETTER Volume II, Number 4 (June 2005) is available on line: www.museumnewsletter.bu.ac.th This newsletter is edited by Roxanna Brown and Phariwat Thammapreechakorn, Southeast Asian Ceramics Museum, Bangkok University. Email: museumnewsletter@bu.ac.th

UNESCO-ICCROM ASIAN ACADEMY FOR HERITAGE MANAGEMENT NEWLSETTER Issue No. 4 (April 2004) is available on their web site: www.unescobkk.org/culture/asian-academy. Issue nos. 1-3 are available at: www.unescobkk.org/culture/asian-academy/news/ev.asp?ev=246&id=24

27

WORLD ARCHAEOLOGY will be published quarterly from 2004. The fourth issue will be called Debates in World Archaeology, and will appear in December each year. The first three issues of the year will continue in the existing format.

Debates in World Archaeology will be exactly what the title says: a forum for debate, discussion and comment on topics of interest in the archaeology of the world. Papers may be of a variety of sizes and types, and may be submitted in topical groups, or individually (see below). Each issue of Debates will have an editor. For further information, please consult a recent issue of World Archaeology or visit the website at: www.tandf.co.uk/journals/authors/rwarcfp1.asp

CALL FOR PAPERS

SIKSACAKR (the peer-reviewed journal of the Center for Khmer Studies) seeks papers for its upcoming issues. The deadline for No 8 (Spring 2006) is 21 December 2005. Siksacakr welcomes articles related to Khmer & Southeast Asian Studies. All articles must be written either in Khmer, English or French and should not exceed 6,500 words (notes and references included). Articles are to be reviewed by the Editorial Committee, which alone decides of their acceptance or not. Accepted articles are published in their original language and translated into Khmer. For further information, contact the Editor-in-Chief: Michel Rethy Antelme. Manuscripts may be submitted to: siksacakr@khmerstudies.org

For those wishing to write an electronic article, there is a new on-line version of SIKSACAKR (published every six months). There is a maximum of 1000 words + references, and no footnotes. Articles must be written either in Khmer, English or French, with a brief abstract (1 paragraph) in English. Manuscripts will be submitted for a review by the Editorial Committee, which alone decides of their acceptance or not. Articles will be displayed in their original language. Articles that have been accepted for on-line publication may eventually be re-submitted in a long version (up to 6,500 words) with footnotes and references. The manuscript will again go through a peer-reviewed process. Contact the Editor-in-Chief: Michel Rethy Antelme. Manuscripts may be submitted to: siksacakr@khmerstudies.org

Submissions are currently being sought for WORLD ARCHAEOLOGY 38(2) on the theme: Sedentism in Non-Agricultural Societies. Papers are invited which explore relationships between sedentism, economy and socio-political complexity in non-agricultural societies. Questions addressed might include: What is sedentism? To what extent is sedentism a feature of hunter/gatherer/fisher and gardening/horticultural societies? What social, political or environmental conditions foster or result from sedentism in non-agricultural societies? Submissions are due by September 2005 for publication in June 2006. For further information, or to submit a paper, contact the editor of this issue: Yvonne Marshall, Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ UK; or by email: ymm@soton.ac.uk

ASIAN PERSPECTIVES (The Journal of Archaeology for Asia and the Pacific) is currently soliciting manuscripts on Southeast and East Asian archaeology (prehistoric, historic, bioarchaeological, ethnoarchaeological) for review. Asian Perspectives is the leading archaeological journal devoted to the archaeology of Asia and the Pacific region. In addition to archaeology, it features articles and book reviews on ethnoarchaeology, palaeoanthropology, and physical anthropology. International specialists contribute regional reports summarizing current research and fieldwork, and present topical reports of significant sites.

We are especially interested in receiving manuscripts from our Southeast Asian and Asian colleagues on recent work in their regions. We accept manuscripts for review throughout the year and encourage potential contributors to send us manuscripts at any time. For more information on Asian Perspectives (and information on issue contents), consult the following

28

URL: http://www.hawaii.edu/uhpress/journals/ap Our web site also has a page with formatting guidelines for contributors to the journal.

Please submit AP-formatted manuscripts to: Dr. Miriam Stark, Asian Perspectives Co-Editor, Department of Anthropology, University of Hawai`i, 2424 Maile Way, Social Sciences Building 346, Honolulu, HI 96822-2281 USA. Email: miriams@hawaii.edu

The BULLETIN OF THE MUSEUM OF FAR EASTERN ANTIQUITIES invites original manuscripts from scholars worldwide on all aspects of ancient and classical East Asia and adjacent regions, including archaeology, art, and architecture; history and philosophy; literature and linguistics; and related fields. Contributions seriously engaging contemporary critical thought in the humanities and social sciences are especially welcome.

The BMFEA primarily publishes articles in English, and occasionally in other European languages. Manuscripts are accepted for review in English, German, French, Japanese and Chinese. Article manuscripts for general issues are reviewed continuously. There are also special thematic issues with separate manuscript deadlines (see our webpage for the latest news). All contributions are peer-reviewed. An electronic copy of articles, submitted together with publication-quality illustrations, is required for final accepted versions. Author¹s instructions will be sent on demand. E-mail correspondence is preferred. All manuscripts and enquiries should be sent to the BMFEA Editor at: Box 16176, SE-103 24 Stockholm, Sweden. E-mail: MFEA@ostasiatiska.se. Web site: www.ostasiatiska.se.

HUKAY, the journal of the Archaeological Studies Program, University of the Philippines, seeks papers on archaeology, material culture, paleohistory, ethnoarchaeology, and cultural resource management. The journal aims to promote the advancement of archaeological research in the Philippines and in the Southeast Asian region. It is publish by the University of the Philippines Press and comes out three times a year. All articles are reviewed by local and international referees. Articles must be written on short bond paper, double-spaced, size 12 font (Times New Roman), 15-25 pages long including references and pictures; they must also contain an abstract and short information on the author/s. Please submit a hardcopy and a disc copy to: The Editor, HUKAY, Archaeological Studies Program, Palma Hall, University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City 1101, Philippines; or email them to: batanes98@yahoo.com

(end of Part I)

SOUTHEAST ASIAN ARCHAEOLOGY

INTERNATIONAL NEWSLETTER

Issue No. 19, Part II

A BRIEF HISTORY OF MAINLAND SOUTHEAST ASIAN PREHISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGY TO 1960 (Part I) by Wilhelm G. Solheim II.

IntroductionThere are several words in the title that need a definition of how I use them. For

prehistory I include in “Southeast Asia,” Madagascar and Sri Lanka, and for Mainland Southeast Asia—Eastern Pakistan, East India, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Burma, Thailand, Peninsular Malaysia, Singapore, Cambodia, Laos, Viet Nam, Hong Kong, South China (the Yangtze

29

drainage and south); and for Island Southeast Asia all of the islands off the coasts of these areas, including—the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Indonesia (including Irian Jaya), East Malaysia (Sarawak and Sabah), Brunei, Philippines and Taiwan, plus Madagascar in the far west next to Africa. I always capitalize Mainland and Island Southeast Asia, as I do not consider the words Mainland and Island are used as adjectives in this case but as proper nouns naming true geographic/cultural area subdivisions of the totality of Southeast Asia.

The primary subdivision of Southeast Asia into Mainland and Island Southeast Asia came at the Eleventh Pacific Science Congress held in Tokyo in 1966. At the end of this congress several resolutions were passed by the congress as a whole. Among these was resolution 2.2, which read as follows: “Resolved that for the sake of clarity researchers be encouraged to designate areas in the Pacific as follows: Northeast Asia, Mainland Southeast Asia, Island Southeast Asia, Oceania, Australia, and the American Rim, and continue to focus on those regions of Oceania, Island Southeast Asia, and Mainland Southeast Asia which present the most critical gaps in our understanding of Pacific culture history” (Solheim 1967:2).

This resolution was developed by an ad hoc committee of the Anthropology Division of the Pacific Science Congress, approved at its final meeting and passed on to the congress as a whole. This ad hoc committee was made up of RP Soejono, Tom Harrisson, and myself. We had further suggested tentative boundaries for these areas as follows: “Northeast Asia would extend from the thirtieth parallel of latitude to the north and would include Japan; Mainland Southeast Asia would extend from the thirtieth parallel of latitude (approximately the Yangtze River) to the south as far as Singapore, and from the Irrawaddy River to the South China Sea; Island Southeast Asia would include all the islands off the coast of Mainland Southeast Asia, from Formosa around to the Andaman Islands.... These boundaries are not meant to be absolute: western Burma, Assam, and portions of eastern India no doubt should be included in Mainland Southeast Asia for some time periods, and western New Guinea very possibly should be a part of Island Southeast Asia for some periods” (Solheim 1967:3). For my purposes I have expanded Mainland Southeast Asia as presented above. Charles Higham (1989) has presented the first, archaeologically based, coverage of Mainland Southeast Asian prehistory and proto-history of what could be considered the later core area of Southeast Asia, i.e. Thailand, peninsular Malaysia, Cambodia, and Viet Nam. He includes (ibid:18-28) a brief history of the development of archaeological research in these countries.

I do not include Island Southeast Asia in this review as this area is available in an other published review (Solheim 2001a).

I am not personally acquainted with this large area as a whole and do not have a first class library to work from. I include little data about eastern India, Nepal, Bhutan and Bangladesh. Coverage of South China would be an article in itself so I only include a moderate amount of information on this huge area. I believe that in these areas except for eastern India there was little that developed before the end of the time periods that I cover here. Higham (1996), in his book The Bronze Age of Mainland Southeast Asia, includes good coverage of South China for that period.

Prehistory does not need defining, but as I use it here I include proto-history as much of the latter is usually prehistoric for a majority of the peoples and the cultures of Southeast Asia when first written records from China, India or the European and American colonialist empires start with a bit of written recording. There are areas of Irian Jaya that were, in effect, prehistoric until after the Second World War when historic exploration extended into mountainous areas of the interior.

30

If my knowledge extended well enough to Linguistics, Physical Anthropology, Ethnohistory, Geography, and Geology, I would include them as well. I do not intend to cover them though now and again I do include a bit of one or more of these subjects.

I divide prehistory into subdivisions, and have done so before for Southeast Asia as whole. Those subdivisions were: Lithic, Lignic, Chrystallitic, Extensionistic, and Conflicting Empires (Solheim 1969a, 1975:150-151). I do not use these here as they are culturally descriptive for the area as a whole and a mnemonic device, but are not useful when presenting the subject here covered. In no way should they be considered stages. There is much overlapping between these generalized periods with cultural elements of all of the earlier periods continuing on into later periods.

My subdivisions are based on what sort of archaeological research was being done and who was doing it. My first subdivision is for the time of accidental discoveries reported in non-archaeological publications with no organizations supporting either the discoveries or publications. This starts at about 1700 and extends roughly to the end of the 19 th century. The second subdivision begins with either the organization of some sort of government institution in charge of archaeological research or research by outsiders with a program of their own but no local support. This came to an artificial end with the beginning of the Second World War, though more specifically with the Japanese invasion of Southeast Asia. The third, and final period that I will cover is the recovery after the end of the war until about 1960 when local trained archaeologists started taking over their own archaeological research and publication.

Each of these subdivisions came at different times in every country of Southeast Asia. Rather than trying to cover each subdivision as a unit for the whole of Southeast Asia I cover each country or area from its beginnings in archaeology to approximately 1960. This is logical for the possible audience of this review as most individuals are probably interested in one country or area and would have a difficult time going through the whole paper bringing together the information on their area of interest. I present these in more or less geographical order from East India to Viet Nam, Hong Kong, and South China.

Malleret (1969:43) said about archaeological knowledge of Southeast Asia at the beginning of the French presence: “En 1861, dans l’année même où la France commençait à s’éta blir dans le Sud de l’Indochine, un eminent professeur du College de France à Paris, Barthélemy Saint-Hilaire, écrivet: ‘…á l’exception peut-être du Birman, tous les outres pays de l’Inde transgangétique, Tonkin, Cochinechine, Cambodge, Laos, Peguu, Arakan, méritent à peine les regards de l’histoire.” In other words, as far as history is concerned there is nothing in Southeast Asia worth looking at. Two eminent British and American archaeologists in two different books on world prehistory published in the early 1960s said exactly the same thing. These are good examples of what was widely known about the prehistory and early history of Southeast Asia up until the 1960s when local archaeologists started to take over research on their own prehistory. On the other hand there is one book by Ralph Linton (1955) which for its time had a very good presentation on Southeast Asia that was well ahead of its time. I have reviewed this coverage in moderate detail (Solheim 1957c). On looking back at it one can only be impressed with how tremendously the picture has been changing once local, trained archaeologists started working in the different countries of Southeast Asia.

For those needing information on specific languages in Southeast Asia the Summer Institute of Linguistics has brought together much data. I do not have any recent information on this organization, but I have a short reference that would furnish an introduction (Barker 1959).

Before I begin with the country-by-country summaries I briefly cover the development of archaeological communication within Southeast Asia as a whole through a few individuals and then the development of international organizations and publications.

The Development of Archaeological Communication

31

I have gone into the history of archaeological beginnings by individuals and organizations before (Solheim 1957a-e, 1969b, 2001a-b). Here I will summarize and give several references.

Communication among the archaeologists of differing parts of Southeast Asia did not start before about 1930. I (Solheim 1969b:9) had stated, “A small group of Southeast Asian prehistoric archaeologists was interested in the prehistory of Southeast Asia as [an area which they could, more or less, define.]. The core of this group was probably Beyer, van Stein Callenfels, and Heine-Geldern. The others’ interests were primarily in their own areas.” Ivor H. N. Evans, of Malaya and Borneo, was also involved to a moderate degree. Heine-Geldern was the only one concerned with the area as a whole.

To show the small number of archaeologists interested in “Southeast Asia” I quote (ibid:10):

A portion of a letter from van Stein Callenfels to Beyer, written in August 1933, illustrates the interaction of these three men: “Your excavations in Batangas look most interesting. A copy of that part of your letter is immediately sent to Heine-Geldern in Vienna by airmail.... Heine-Geldern proposes to call the adze or axe ‘Stufen-Beil,’ or something like ‘stepped axe,’ a name that suits it very well. Please give me your idea about generally accepting that name [the name is now standard]. The axe with the ridge we could call Luzon-type, as it is in modern times only known in New Zealand, and, as you write me, with you only in the Manila neighborhood. I wrote to Heine-Geldern to accept that name also [now called the Luzon ridged adze]. Will let you know his answer as soon as I get it. We three being the only men in the world writing about these things can fix the names (Beyer 1951a).

Van Stein Callenfels was most concerned with the Indonesian islands but became so well known that he was brought in for consultation on archaeology throughout much of Asia, including Japan. He died in Sri Lanka (Ceylon at that time) where he was doing fieldwork in the highland interior. He also did a fair amount of fieldwork in what became peninsular Malaysia. Most of his early publication was in Dutch. I only include a few of his many publications, those being primarily on the former Malaya.

H. Otley Beyer was the father of and specialist in Philippine prehistory. He was interested in prehistoric contacts between the Philippines and the surrounding countries of Taiwan (during his time Formosa), Indonesia, Borneo, Viet Nam and coastal South China. Back in the early 1950s he was one of the world’s experts on tektites. He no doubt had the world’s largest collection of tektites, having according to his reckoning over 400,000. These objects were from outer space and came to earth in different areas in “showers” at different times. When the United States was working hard to put man in space and visit the moon these tektites were one important object that could give information about outer space. Two experts on the subject with the Smithsonian Institution spent the greater part of two years here in Manila studying Beyer’s collection. In the 1930s to 1950s Beyer was one of the world’s experts on Chinese porcelain and stoneware. Little research had been done on the Chinese tradewares in China, but a large number had been recovered in sites in the Philippines and Beyer spent much of his time studying them. He never published much on this knowledge, but he was consulted and in contact with the few early well known specialists. One of his best-known publications (1949) The Outline Review of Philippines Archaeology by Islands and Provinces also included coverage of archaeology in Taiwan, Sulawesi, Borneo, and Viet Nam. I (Solheim 1969b) wrote an obituary of him that can be consulted for more detailed information.

32

Heine-Geldern was the best known of the “specialists” on Southeast Asia as his base was in Vienna and he was much more “international” than his two associates, both of whom traveled considerably in the 1920s and 1930s, but not after the Second World War. He was not a “dirt archaeologist” but the word “prehistorian” fit him perfectly. His reconstruction of Southeast Asian prehistory was standard from the time it was written and published in 1923 and 1932 until the 1960s. Erika Kaneko (1970:1-10), a Ph.D. student of his, wrote a very good obituary of him with three-and-a-half pages of his bibliography (6-10) in fine print. Most of the earlier papers were in German and have not been translated. I will select a moderate number of the publications to include here with no particular organization to them other than including some of his best-known reports. I knew Heine-Geldern moderately well. He was a fine, very kind and unassuming man, and a first class scholar.

The tremendous number of new, somewhat specialized journals instead of helping communication among those interested in Southeast Asian archaeology has more hindered than helped those of us living in Southeast Asia. No library in the Philippines, and I am sure this applies to all the countries of Southeast Asia, can afford more than a small number of the many journals and books where reports are published on Southeast Asia in any one academic field. This is particularly the case for archaeology as no university in the area considers archaeology to be a primary field. Many of the few final reports on archaeological excavations, when published, are put out by commercial presses that print only a small number of copies at such a high price that most interested individuals can not afford to buy them and the universities can not afford them either. I often find out about reports that would be of much interest to me only in reading a general book and looking at their references. Several of the newsletters that focus on or include Southeast Asian archaeology as a part of their coverage are a help, but they only let you know of the publications that are appearing and are of no help in making them available to those that need them. Another problem, of course, is that most of the countries in Southeast Asia understandably publish reports in their own languages so that their contents are available only to those very few outside of the country who are able to read these languages.

I do not have the time to research other publications that are of use for keeping up to date or finding references, but I present a few with which I am directly acquainted. IIAS, International Institute for Asian Studies Newsletter includes a section on Southeast Asia that usually has something of archaeological interest, often particularly of an ethnoarchaeological variety. Their website is www.IIAS.nl and to subscribe you can contact them by e-mail at iias.subscribe@let.leidenuniv.nl or the website www.iias.nl/iiasn/subscribe.html. An other very helpful newsletter, specifically archaeological, is the Southeast Asian Archaeology International Newsletter. To make contact with this newsletter one should contact one or both of the two present editors. They are: Elisabeth A. Bacus, e-mail eabacus@msn.com, and Rasmi Shoocongdej, e-mail rasmi@su.ac.th.

I have often received rapid assistance looking for a specific reference from either Joyce White or Christopher King of the Southeast Asian Archaeology Bibliographic and Skeletal Databases. They can be reached at: Joyce C. White, University of Pennsylvania, banchang@sas.upenn.edu or Christopher A. King, University of Hawai’i, kingchri@hawaii.edu.

The origins and development of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association have been well covered in published articles. Some of the first of these are in publications no longer widely available. Rather than summarizing these contents again I include two papers that appeared in the first issue of Asian Perspectives (Groslier 1957; Solheim 1957c) as Appendix I and II. Jack Golson (1998; Solheim and Golson 1985) has given talks at two of the IPPA congresses that also presented information on the development of IPPA. Golson’s 1998 article has a long list of references that I will not repeat except where otherwise referred to. The most recent coverage of IPPA history appeared in 2001 (Solheim 2001).

The congresses of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association and the publication of many of the papers presented at these meetings by the Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association

33

are particularly helpful. Even more important is the opportunity of the workers in the field to get together at these congresses and become acquainted with each other so that individual contacts and communication results. Partial proceedings of the 4th Far-Eastern Prehistory Association Congress in Manila in 1953 (Solheim 1968) and the Eleventh Pacific Science Congress with its associated FEPA congress (Solheim 1967) were published in the new Asia and Pacific Archaeology Series produced by the Social Science Research Institute of the University of Hawaii. The papers presented in the Eleventh Pacific Science Congress issue included three papers concerning earlier research in Southeast Asia (Boriskovski 1967; Shutler 1967; Solheim 1967b).

I thought that Asian Perspectives, which I founded in 1957, would serve the purpose of wide communication, and it does to some extent. I presented a brief review of what had been achieved as of ten years of publication (Solheim 1966:27-28). I have found, however, that archaeologists in many countries of Asia, and Europe as well, are not acquainted with it. I read articles presented at the congresses of the IPPA that include no references to papers that appeared in AP that had data very relevant to the subject covered, about which the writer had no knowledge. For those not acquainted with Asian Perspectives I include as “Appendix No. III” my Editorial (Solheim 1957a) that appeared in the first issue following one page ( ii in the original) that presents the organization behind the publication. Some changes that followed this were presented in 1958 (Solheim 1958a:1-2, 1958b:vii) and problems of publication with an optimistic view of continued publication (Solheim 1959a). Somehow good communication, while having been improved over that of 50 years ago, still has a long way to go. Is the Internet the answer, but how do you organize that into one organization rather than many, or one overlapping organization that provides communication between and among the many?

The few years of publication of COWA (Council for Old World Archaeology), founded and supported by Laureston Ward, did well for presenting news and bibliography for both Mainland (listed as Southeast Asia, Area 19) and Island Southeast Asia (listed as Indonesia, Area 20). Each issue was divided into two parts, the COWA Survey of Current Work and the COWA Bibliography of Current Publications. David Horr (1959a-b and 1963a-b) was the first editor for Southeast Asia (mainland) and Harold Conklin (1957) for Indonesia. I (Solheim 1961, 1964a, 1969) took over for Indonesia in 1961 and for Southeast Asia in 1966 (Solheim 1966a) and with Jean Kennedy in 1971 (Solheim and Kennedy 1971), the end of the program and its publications.

Southeast AsiaThe first three volumes of Asian Perspectives had considerable coverage in regional

reports of Southeast Asia as a whole. Volume 2 No. 1 was a special issue on the Palaeolithic of Asia with its Guest Editor Hallam L. Movius, Jr. (1958). It included articles on China (Chang Kwang-chih 1958; with numerous references in Chinese which I will not list but I will list those in English on South China), Thailand (Heider 1958) and Malaya (Sieveking, A. 1958) with an Introduction by Hallam Movius (1958). There was a brief report on Southeast Asia (Solheim 1959d) that dealt primarily with Japanese interest in ethnographic data suggesting relationships between Japan and Southeast Asia. There was one archaeological report included in the Bibliography (Esaka 1959). My following section on Southeast Asia (Solheim 1960a) was made up primarily of an exchange between Tom Harrisson and Wang Gungwu concerning Gungwu’s placing in his paper (1958) of the ports in Southeast Asia involved in the trade with China from about 200 B.C. to A.D. 960. There was no conclusion to the argument, but interesting points were raised by both authors.

My first fieldwork in Southeast Asia was in the Philippines, where I arrived in 1959. My Ph.D. thesis (Solheim 1964b) included my research on the Kalanay Cave Site on Masbate, in the central Philippines islands, and the earthenware pottery and associated artifacts of the Guthe Collection at the University of Michigan. Carl Guthe (1951) had surveyed in the Philippines from 1922 to 1925. I described the Kalanay Pottery Complex (Solheim 1964b:26-72, 1967a) and

34

with the pottery from the Guthe Collection showed that sites with this pottery were widely scattered in the central and southern Philippines (Solheim 1964b:180-183, 208-209). When I first arrived in Sarawak, Borneo in 1958, I discovered a very similar pottery complex from Niah Cave and with visits at that time to museums in Malaya, Thailand and Viet Nam (Solheim 1959b-c) I realized that related pottery was present on the mainland of Southeast Asia as well. I therefore organized a special issue of Asian Perspectives (Solheim ed.:1959) on this pottery. In this issue were papers on this pottery in Viet Nam (Janse 1959; Malleret 1959a; Solheim 1959b) and Malaya (Peacock 1959) as well as other locations in Island and Mainland Southeast Asia (Solheim 1959c). Details on this material and other general Southeast Asian subjects are covered in the individual sections below.

Africa would appear to be outside this coverage as previous to 1961 there had been little done on possible prehistoric relationships between Southeast Asia and Africa. Peter Murdock stuck his neck out when he wrote his book on Africa, its People and Their Cultural History (1959). In this book he proposed that African cultures, not only in Madagascar, owed a great deal to contacts from Southeast Asia from around 1000 B.C. and on. This proposition was heavily shot down by practically all reviewers, with the exception of one or two agreeing to possible sources in Africa from Southeast Asia of music and some musical instruments. I (Solheim 1960b) was one of the very few who expressed a rather neutral opinion, that at that time there was not enough evidence to argue either way. I still feel that contact with the east coast of Africa by Southeast Asian maritime peoples (The Nusantao Maritime Trading and Communication Network) could have been of considerable importance to African cultures from about the time Murdock suggested.

MadagascarI include Madagascar with Southeast Asia because its first colonizers, though originally

almost certainly maritime oriented sailors (Nusantao) from Indonesia, had cultural contacts with the west coast of peninsular Malaysia and with India before reaching the east coast of Africa and ultimately Madagascar.

The first appearance of Madagascar in Asian Perspectives was in Volume 6 for 1962 (Vérin 1962a-b). In this first Regional Report for Madagascar Vérin (1962a) covers the development of official organizations which would become involved with the research on prehistory in Madagascar. The one report Vérin (ibid:45) noted on an archaeological site, included in his brief reference section, is Vérin et al. (in press). I have found no further reference to that specific article in following Regional Reports by Vérin, but the same authors are listed in different order for a report on the same site (Battistini et al. 1963) so this is no doubt the same report.

In the same AP issue Vérin (1962b) presents a much more detailed report, in French with a good summary in English. I won’t go into summarizing this report, but give simplified translations of the headings of the sections of the report: “Research on the cultural history of Madagascar” subdivided into “Linguistics” (198-199), “Ethnography” (199-201), and “Physical Anthropology” (201-202). “Archaeological Research” included “The Rasikajy Culture” (202-206), “Research on interior sites” (206-207), and “Rock inscriptions of Ivolamena and Ambohimiera” of an unknown language (207). There are two plates with three photos each. One of these (Pl. IIa) interests me particularly. It is of a burial jar cover found accidentally, but to my knowledge never the subject of a report. There is incised decoration on the cover which cannot be made out in detail. Its form is almost exactly the same as the ‘trunconical’ burial jar covers illustrated from Sa Huynh in Vietnam (Janse 1959:110 Fig. 1) and the Tabon caves on the west coast of Palawan, Philippines (Fox 1970:155 Fig. 49d, f, and h), in both cases associated with Sa Huynh-Kalanay style pottery. This would suggest a date possibly in the first half of the 1 st

millennium A.D. Though outside of our end date of 1960 I bring in one much later publication by Marimari Kellum-Ottino (1972) which reported finding an unfinished, trapezoidal stone adze

35

and associated hammerstone from a surface site in southwestern Madagascar. This could suggest an early “Iron Age” site in use before iron became at all common, i.e. first half of the 1st

millennium A.D.The long “Bibliography” is also subdivided by subject: “General works on cultural

history and ethnology” (210-211), Linguistics (211-212), “Physical Anthropology” (212-213), “Ethnobotany” (213), “The ‘Rasikajy’ Culture of Madagascar, the Comores and on the east coast of Africa” (213-217), “Archaeological sites and artifacts other than those of the ‘Rasikajy’ Culture” (217), and “Rock inscriptions” (217-218).

Sri LankaThe first report for Asian Perspectives on Sri Lanka (Ceylon) did not appear until 1963

(Deraniyagala 1963). While it was only four pages long, with its references it covered the history of prehistoric archaeology quite well. P.E.P. Deraniyagala was a naturalist and not an archaeologist. He was considered one of the world’s top specialists on elephants and crocodiles, but he was interested in many things, including prehistory. He reported that the first archaeologists to do research in Ceylon were the Sarasins in 1908. There had been no coordinated program by 1960 and the few scattered primarily surface finds (Seligman, C. G. and B. 1911; Hartley 1913; Wayland 1919) did not allow for accurate summaries of prehistory, though such was made for the late Stone Age (Allchin 1958). I refer readers to Deranyagala’s (1963) report for details.

East IndiaTwo articles in Asian Perspectives present a history of prehistoric archaeology in India

(Khatri 1962; Lal 1963). While AP covers the entire Indian subcontinent, eastern India and far northern India are the portions of India closely related to Southeast Asia during prehistoric times. Those wishing information on India as a whole should consult Khatre, and Lal for 1951-1960. Those interested in the Indus Civilization could consult an extensive bibliography on that area (Brunswig 1973).

I do not go into detail for East India, but for the most part mention publications that point to the connections of this area with Southeast Asia. The most ambitious of these was a book by A. H. Dani (1960) who did his Ph.D. thesis for the University of London examining the conclusions about Southeast Asia/India prehistoric relationship made by Woman and others. Worman, in his study of stone tools from eastern India (1949), came to the conclusion that eastern India was closely related prehistorically to Southeast Asia. Dani’s book was thoroughly researched as of 1955, long before any reliable dating for Southeast Asian sites became known and his conclusion I quote (Dani 1960:222):

Eastern India is not a homogeneous zone having any distinctive cultural grouping of its own. It is comprised of several natural regions falling today into two broad divisions: (1) centripetal areas of river basins, and (2) refuge areas of the hills and plateaus. These areas have been exploited differently by man at different times, influenced as they were by monsoonal climate.

However, Eastern India is a part of the Indo-Pakistan sub-continent, and has through all the periods of human history shared the cultural life of the sub-continent. There is a land connection with South East Asia, and the Tertiary Ranges form transitional zones, now occupied by several hill tribes whose cultures show evidences of such contact. The Bay of Bengal could, again, serve as a sea-way but only after a knowledge of the monsoonal winds had been gained. The relationship of Eastern India with South East Asia has been correctly

36

put by F. J. Richards (1933, p. 235) thus: ‘The eastern frontier is ... difficult; true the Burmese and Shans have ravaged Assam, and the Arkanese East Bengal; but the flow of Indian influence is eastward, penetrating Indo-China and the isles as far as Borneo. The meeting points of Chinese and Indian cultures are in Turkistan and North Annam.’

The interpretation of the data presented by Dani would have been very different if he had available the dates we now have. Among other major mistakes of interpretation he made with the lack of accurate dating was that the Bacsonian Culture of Viet Nam was older than and to a considerable degree ancestral to the Hoabinhian (Dani 1960:144-149). I will not go into other, similar errors, as assumed dating was his problem all along.

A. P. Khatri (1962:180-181), in his article on the history of a century of prehistoric research in India, indicated that other archaeologists acquainted with eastern India do not agree with the Pleistocene Southeast Asian relationship. Khatri (1962:193) does not believe that the Sohan chopper-chopping tools of northeastern India are related to the chopper-chopping tools described by Movius from Burma (1943, 1948), unlike the opinions of Movius and those who worked with him in India and Burma (De Terra and Paterson 1939; De Terra and Movius 1943; Teihard de Chardin; and others).

Take one look at the chopper-chopping tools illustrated by Lal (1963a: 28 Fig. 1) from Bilaspurin Himachal Pradesh and compare them to the Son Vi pebble tools I am illustrating from northern Viet Nam, similar tools from Tabon Cave, Palawan, Philippines, from Taiwan, and Japan (Solheim N.D.:Figs. 1-6) and see if these are not all very similar and unlike the stone tools of the same dating in western India. The Son Vi in Viet Nam is the Late Pleistocene culture which developed into the Hoabinhian of Viet Nam illustrates the chopper-chopping tool ancestry of the Hoabinhian. (See section below on Viet Nam.).

Ethnoarchaeology gives further support to eastern India’s relationship with Southeast Asia. Research on recent pottery manufacture in India, and other traditional elements of material culture, shows that the relationships are with Southeast Asia and not western India (Saraswati and Behura 1966; Griffin and Solheim 1988-1989:146). Sankar Kumar Roy’s article (1981) on prehistoric and present day tools for and methods of shifting agriculture in the Garo hills of Meghalaya, northeastern India certainly suggests Southeast Asian relationships. Linguistics also indicates relationships of at least portions of eastern India as languages belonging to Austro-Asiatic and Tibeto-Burman are spoken in Assam and in some areas of interior-central eastern India. The Khasis of Assam speak a language of the Mon-Khmer linguistic family (Rao 1977:204).

D. P. Agrawal (1969:118) has said: “It may be noted that eastern India had contacts with Southeast Asia in Neolithic times (Worman 1949; Dani 1960).... And north-east India has been considered an integral part of Southeast Asia in the Neolithic period (Bongard-Levin and Deopik 1957).” S. N. Rao (1977:202) has said: “Yet there appears to be no doubt about the relationship between Northeastern India and the countries of Southeast Asia as far as Neolithic prehistory is concerned.”

B. B. Lal (1963b:144) noted that in 1963 we decided to increase the area coverage of Asian Perspectives to include India, Pakistan and Ceylon (as well as the several small countries just to the north of eastern India).

37

BangladeshThe only information I have for Bangladesh previous to 1960 comes from Dani

(1963:183), when it was still East Pakistan. The information he presents is part of a short paragraph so I quote it in toto:

The eastern wing (Dani 1960:ch. 1) is mainly the delta of the Ganges and the Brahmaputra, fringed with tertiary uplift and folding on the north and the east. The main deltaic region is a khadar area. The new alluvium overlapping the old, and though the old alluvium is traceable in the red laterite soil of Barmedra (northern part of East Pakistan) and much more so in the Lalmai-Mainamati Range in Comilla district and near Sitakund in Chittagong district, nothing has so far been discovered about early man in this region. Only in the hilly parts have some neolithic tools been found. ‘A piece of fossil wood, pointed, elongated, one side flat, truncated butt, beautifully polished’ was picked up from Sitakund (Brown 1917:130). Four more specimens are preserved in the British Museum. All of them are varieties of the faceted tools of Assam (Dani 1960:87).

BurmaOrganized archaeological research in Burma did not get started until the 1937-1938

American South-East Asiatic Expedition for Early Man. There were, however, the usual scattered finds that started considerably earlier.

U Aung Thaw, a former Director of the Archaeological Survey of Burma, reported (Aung Thaw 1971:123) that it appeared that W. Theobald (1973) reported the first stone artifacts from Burma. I have located references to a number of early reports of prehistoric artifact finds in Burma and found that Theobald (1869) had an earlier article published on stone tools in Burma. I list a few of these through until the 1930s to give some idea of these reports (Fryer 1872; Mason 1872; Noetling 1894a-b, 1897; Oldham 1895; Balfour 1901; Swinhoe 1903; De Beylie 1907; Ko Taw Sein 1911; Aung Shwe Zan 1912; Heine-Geldern 1917, 1927; Stuart 1919; Enriquez 1923; Evans 1928a; Lack 1931). T. O. Morris (1932, 1935, 1937, 1938) specialized in polished stone tools and made other reports as well (Aung Thaw 1971:123; Aung-Thwin 1982-1983:3). Morris must have been the person who donated the many drawers full of polished stone adzes that I saw when I visited the archaeology museum at Oxford many years ago.

Before the founding of the Archaeological Survey of Burma and its publication (1901-1927) reports on Burmese archaeology appeared in the publication of the Indian Archaeological Department, Burma Circle (India, Archaeological Survey 1892). Michael Aung-Thwin (1982-1983:1-2) presents some details on the development of the Archaeological Survey of Burma followed by a very good, brief summary of archaeological research in Burma on sites dating earlier than Pagan (ca. A.D. 900). Another organization that was important for the publication of archaeological reports was the Burma Research Society, founded in 1911. An article that appeared in the 29 March 1970 issue of Sunday Working People’s Daily presenting details of the founding and development of the Burma Research Society was quoted in the March 1998 issue of the Bulletin of the Burma Studies Group (Anon. 1998):

There was no systematic exploration of prehistoric sites [in Burma] until the 1937-38 American South-East Asiatic Expedition for Early Man, led by Hellmut de Terra and Hallam L. Movius (de Terra and Movius 1943). They collected materials from Palaeolithic and Neolithic sites on the terraces along the middle

38

course of the Irrawaddy and explored some caves in the Shan States. As a result of the study of these materials, the Palaeolithic culture of the region was properly recognized and was named the Anyathian culture [Aung Thaw 1971:122].

A short report on pottery in Burma, including some historical information and details on pottery manufacture and use around 1894 is of interest (Taw 1895). At that time it was believed that the Martaban jars were manufactured in Martaban, Burma and exported mainly to India (ibid:5) H. Marshall (1929) made a report on the bronze drums kept by the Karen.

Most of the work done by the Archaeological Survey of Burma, with its very small budget and unsettled conditions in many areas, was the conservation and some restoration of historical sites. G. H Luce (1948) presented a review of Burmese history and archaeology. Brief reviews of what had been done since the Second World War were presented in the Regional Reports of Asian Perspectives and the Council for Old World Archaeology (Editor 1957c; Horr 1959a-b; Peacock 1959; Aung Thaw 1961).

In 1959 a turning point was reached and active fieldwork started and publication, at first primarily on protohistoric sites of the Pyu Culture (Aung Thaw 1959; Peacock 1960; Horr 1963:3-6). In 1959 B. A. V. Peacock, a trained, British archaeologist, moved from Malaya to Burma where he became the Head of the Department of Anthropology at the University of Rangoon (Horr 1963:3). U Aung Thaw started excavations at Peikthanomyu, a major Pyu site. Both Horr (1963:3-5) and Peacock (1960:71-74) give detailed summaries of the results of the four seasons of excavation at Peikthanomyu between 1959 and 1961.

ThailandI have a virtual blank for any prehistoric finds in Thailand before a very few foreign

archaeologists started doing a bit of survey from 1925 and on. There may well be some information of this nature in publications in Thai, but I know nothing about them. The earliest mention of, at the time, prehistoric archaeology is a note by Malleret (1969:62-63) concerning work by L. Fournereau (1895-1908) presenting plans and photos of ancient pagodas and monuments in Siam. This was followed by a joint French-Siamese mission of archaeological exploration of what were later recognized as historic sites by Lunet de Lajonquière (1909, 1912). Malleret continues on the same pages with further information about French research on historic sites in Siam.

There are several summary accounts of Thai archaeology including a bit of history besides the ones mentioned above by French archaeologists. These include reports by Heider (1958a-b), Horr (1959a:5-6, 1959b:5-6, 1963a:12-16, 1963b:7-9), Solheim (1960c, 1964c, 1966), and Sullivan (1957).

The first person that I know of with experience in prehistoric archaeological field survey to do any work in Thailand was Ivor H. N. Evans (1926). Evans made a later and somewhat longer trip to Thailand and published two more short articles on the artifacts he had recovered (1931f-g). His reports were primarily on polished stone adzes (Solheim 1966b:11). Evans was followed shortly be Fritz Sarasin (1933a-b) who searched for Palaeolithic sites in caves in northern Thailand around Chiengmai and near Ratburi in the south (Heider 1958b:65; Solheim 1964c:47, 1966:10).

I have references to other articles I have not seen, but from their titles I suspect they would be of interest. Louise Cort sent me a paper of hers (Cort and Lefferts) on the 1867 manufacture in Northeast Thailand of stoneware pottery. The information came from reports by Garnier (1870-71:377) and Joubert (1873:98). From Cort’s report she noted that local manufacture of stoneware, for local use and not for export, was common in Northeast Thailand in 1867 and continues until today. Also concerning Tai pottery is P’raya Nak’ôn P’rah Ram (1936)

39

and Reginald le May (1939). Other reports were on human skeletal finds by Quaritch-Wales (1937) followed with a correction to this article (Quaritch-Wales 1944), and O. Schlaginhaufen (1940); having to do with megaliths by E. W. Hutshinson (1939a-b; Solheim 1966b:12-13), Chin You-di (1959:28) and E. Seidenfaden (1943). In 1941 Seidenfaden reported on some neolithic artifacts he had recovered (Solheim 1966b:11). U. Guehler had an article published on bronze drums in Thailand in 1944.

Following the Japanese invasion of Indonesia H. R. van Heekeren, as a Dutch official, became a prisoner of war and was sent to Thailand to work on the Japanese railroad (Heekeren 1947a-b, 1948) from Thailand to Burma. In spite of a death sentence for making collections he collected and was able to hide from the Japanese and save a few Palaeolithic tools near the Kwai Noi River to the west of Kanchanaburi (Teihard de Chardin 1950; Beyer 1952; Heider 1958b:63). After the war he published several notices of these tools (1947a-b, 1948). In 1956 the movie “Bridge on the River Kwai” was filmed on location near Kanchanaburi. Karl Heider happened to come by this area to try and locate van Heekeren’s site and was hired to play van Heekeren and the incident of the original finding of these tools. Unfortunately this scene was edited out of the movie. Heider, however, did locate possible sites like that found by van Heekeren and made collections from that area (Heider 1957, 1958b; Solheim 1964c:47:). Van Heekeren’s finds, followed by those of Heider led to the Thai-Danish Prehistoric Expedition 1960-1962 (Solheim 1960c:67; The Siam Society 1960) and many following articles and books (Horr 1963a:12-15; Solheim 1964c: 47-48). Van Heekeren was invited to join this expedition and published one of the first notes on the finds (1961).

An article by Williams-Hunt that appeared in 1950 concerned irregular earthworks that he had noted in eastern Thailand on aerial photographs (Higham 1996:32-33, 37 211, 215-216). In time this has led to much later research and publication, not only in northeastern Thailand but also in Cambodia.

The Regional Reports on Thailand that appeared in Asian Perspectives contained miscellaneous information. Most of the fieldwork by the Fine Arts Department of Thailand was concerned with proto-historic and historic ruins, primarily in Phimai, Lopburi and Ayuthya. Solheim (Ed. 1957b:60-61 also reported that Quaritch Wales had made exploratory excavations in Buddhist sites of about the 6th century A.D. He quoted a statement from Sullivan (1957) that “In fact, scarcely any scientific excavation has been undertaken since 1927, when members of the Ecole Francaise d’Extreme Orient collaborated with the Siamese government in excavating Buddhist sites of Pong-tuk and Pra-Pathom.” Included in this report was information from Karl Heider (1957) on his surveys in Thailand in 1956 where he visited the site near Ban Kao, Kanchanaburi, where van Heekeren (1947a-b, 1948) had discovered Palaeolithic-like artifacts, and recovered stone, metal and pottery artifacts from a nearby site.

An exhibition of archaeological and historical treasures of Thailand toured a number of museums in the United States starting in 1960 (Bowie 1960; Solheim 1960c:68). Theodore Bowe of the University of Indiana organized the project and was the editor of its catalogue.

Peninsular MalaysiaPeninsular Malaysia does not have the many accounts of early finds of prehistoric

artifacts that several of the other Southeast Asian countries have. The earliest notice of archaeological finds on the mainland of Southeast Asia is of architectural finds. The earliest report I have noted for the former Malaya is to a publication by James Low (1840) to ruins in the Bujang Valley of temples, which at that time would be considered prehistoric. Another difference for Malaya is that the truly prehistoric reports were often archaeological in nature rather than concerned only with surface finds. I list some of those early reports: D. J. MacGowan on maritime Malays 1850; G. Earl (1860 [A 32]1, 1861) reported on coastal shell midden sites on

1 Bracketed ‘A’ plus page number/s refers to articles annotated in Solheim et al. 1986.

40

the west coast of Province Wellesley. F. Huxley (1863) was sent the human bone from these sites and gave a short report on them. These sites later became known as Hoabinhian sites. These reports were followed by: Groeneveldt 1876; Maxwell 1878; de Morgan 1885; Hale 1885, 1886, 1888). L. Wray was the first curator of the Taiping Museum in Perak. He published a few papers primarily on cave sites (1897, 1903, 1905; Tweedie 1953:6). The Perak Museum had the best prehistoric archaeological collections in Malaya until the National Museum in Kuala Lumpur was founded and took over much of the archaeological collection of the Perak Museum. Wray founded the Journal of the Federated Malay States Museums, which much later became the Federation Museums Journal, published by the National Museum. Papers that followed were by Rosenhain (1901); Swan in 1904 described polished stone tools from Pahang (Scrivenor 1906). Following this last note there is a gap of about eleven years until Ivor H. N. Evans appears on the scene.

I find it difficult to report on Evans, he did so much research on a great variety of both ethnographic—in a very wide sense—and archaeological subjects. He became the director of the Perak Museum in about 1917 and was the Editor of the Journal of the Federated Malay States Museums for many years and published many of his articles in that journal. Unfortunately I do not find listed the editor’s name in the issues of the journals that I have from 1920 through 1929. I noted above the many major sites, prehistoric cultures, different types of artifacts about which he was the first to publish for Malaya. Many of his ethnographic reports are of value for their ethnoarchaeological content. Evans published many interesting and valuable articles between 1918 and 1932. His few later articles were of a different nature or area. I list a somewhat random sample of his publications. As an example of his activities I include all of the articles that he authored in one issue of the journal (Part 5 of Volume 12 for 1928) in which all the papers were by him. Rather than commenting on their contents here I suggest that those who are interested look at the references I have included in the reference section at the end of this article, their titles usually tell something about their content. I give dates here for the publications I list: 1918, 1920a-e, 1921 (complimenting this 1921 article was a paper by W. A. Wallace 1921), 1922a-g, 1923, 1927a, b [A 32-34], 1928b, c [A 33-34], d-i, 1929a-d, 1930a-e, 1931a-e, 1932, 1938, 1939.

A book about the Sea Gypsies of Malaya by Walter White appeared in 1922 and an article on them by David W. Hogan in 1972. Information on Malay boats and their uses by Dalton Goring appeared in 1926. P. V. van Stein Callenfels, who can be considered the father of prehistoric archaeology in Indonesia, came to Malaya to excavate with Evans in 1926 (Callenfels and Evans 1926, 1928 [A 25-26]). He returned several times and excavated with others from Malaya (Callenfels 1936a [A 25], b; Callenfels and Noone 1940 [A 26]). A companion paper to Callenfels 1936a report on excavations of a midden site in Province Wellesley was by W. Mijsberg (1940) who reported on a lower jawbone that was recovered. A companion paper to the report by Callenfels and Noone on the excavation in a rock shelter in Perak was by H. D. Collins (1940 [A 29]) on the pottery recovered there and by Snell (1949) on the human skeletal material.

W. Linehan started publishing articles on archaeology in 1928 (a-b) and following years (1930, 1936, 1951a [A 63], b-d, 1968). His research was more with proto-historic sites than prehistoric. R. O. Winstedt was one of the biggest names in Malaysia for his knowledge of and publications on Malay culture and history. While he was not an archaeologist he did publish a bit on prehistory (1922, 1929, 1932, 1935, 1941, 1947, 1949). Two publications concerning research on human skeletal material from archaeological sites are by G. Harrower (1933) and W. Duckworth (1934 [A 29]). Several papers having to do with stone and glass beads appeared in the 1930s. The first of these, by Horace Beck (1930 [A 22-23]), began with a description of beads from various locations in India. This was followed with descriptions of beads recovered by Evans at Kuala Selinsing and comparison with beads from Santubong in Sarawak, and finally descriptions of heirloom beads collected by local groups in Sarawak. Other articles were by Beck (1937), Gardner (1932, 1937), Quaritch-Wales (1940:63) and Gibson-Hill (1955:184-185).

41

R. Braddell produced a series of articles concerned with “ancient times in Malaya that appeared in the Journal of the Malay Branch Royal Asiatic Society. The first of these appeared in 1935 and the last in 1950.

The Perak Museum in Taiping has been the most important institution for archaeological research from its founding until the early 1930s. Then the major archaeological activity moved to the Raffles Museum in Singapore, with F. N. Chasen as its director. The Carnegie Corporation of New York made a grant of U.S. $12,000 in 1934 and a second of $8,000 in 1937 to the Raffles Museum for prehistoric research in Malaya. Besides the development of active research in the field it also led to a flurry of archaeological publication in the newly created Series B of the Bulletin of the Raffles Museum (Solheim et al. 1986:3).

“Only four issues were published, No. 1 in 1936, Nos. 2 & 3 in 1937, and No. 4 in 1940, but several of the more important preliminary site reports for peninsular Malaya appeared therein (Callenfels 1936 [A 25]; Collings 1936a [A 28], 1936b, 1937a-b, 1937c [A 28-29], 1938a; Sheppard 1936; Trattman 1937; Tweedie 1936 [A 79]). Other important reports that resulted from the Carnegie grant appeared elsewhere (Collings 1938b, 1940 [A 29]; Noone 1939 [A 66], 1941, 1956; Callenfels and Noone 1940 [A 26]; Tweedie 1940 [A 79]; Sieveking 1954-55 [A 70], 1956a-b; Harrisson and Tweedie 1959 [A 54]). H. D. Noone was with the Perak Museum as a field ethnographer while Collings and Tweedie were with the Raffles Museum. The Asian portion of World War II brought this work to an uncompleted end with no final report on any of the excavated sites ever published” (Solheim et al. 1986:3).

Tweedie gave a list of the activities and publications resulting from these grants (1953:7-8) and a final report on what happened to notes and workers during the war with a correction on some of this by Mubin Sheppard (Solheim et al. 1986:3-4). Tweedie continued after the Second World War as the Director of the Raffles Museum and published mostly summary reports on Malaysian prehistory (1942, 1947, 1949, 1953, 1955).

Other reports at this time that were not a part of the Carnegie supported program include: R. Wilkinson (1935); G. Hough (1940); Quaritch-Wales (1940 [A 80-81], 1947); D. Hooijer’s papers on fossil finds and their interpretation (1946, 1950), a reply by von Koenigswald (1952) to Hooijer’s 1950 paper and Hooijer’s answer to that (1952).

During the Second World War Williams-Hunt was involved with interpretation of aerial photographs of portions of Mainland Southeast Asia. He noted circular earthworks and other human-made disturbances of the natural landscape and reported on this for Malaya (1948), as he had done for Thailand. He continued to do archaeological research in Malaya after the war and published annual reports for two years before his untimely death (1951, 1952). In 1949 J. Scrivenor reported on sea-level changes during prehistoric times.

Much of what follows is from my Regional Report on the Federation of Malaya (Ed. 1957d). When Tweedie retired as Director of the Raffles Museum in about 1953 Carl Gibson-Hill became the Director. As with Tweedie, most of the research done by the Raffles Museum took place in Malaya. While he was not an archaeologist Gibson-Hill was very supportive of archaeology and became involved (1951, 1952 [A 36-37], 1955, 1955 Ed. [A 35-36]).

The 1955 report, which Gibson-Hill edited, was on Johore Lama, a Malay fort and settlement that were built after the fall of Malacca. The reports in that issue (Gibson-Hill 1955; Macgregor 1955a-b; Sieveking 1955a), particularly the one by Gibson-Hill, give a comprehensive look at the history and relationships of the site. Sieveking, Wheatley and Gibson-Hill (1954; Gibson-Hill 1955:135-138; Sieveking 1955b) had surveyed and made a small excavation in the fort of Johore Lama in 1953. Quaritch-Wales had done a bit of work there in the 1930s and reported shallow deposits (1940:63; Gibson-Hill 1955:183). Considerably larger excavations were made by Solheim and John Matthews in 1960 (Solheim 1960; Solheim and Green 1965 [A 77]).

42

Sieveking (1954-1955; [A 70]) made an excavation in Gua Cha in 1954, a site discovered by Noone (1939) shortly before the Second World War. This was the first site excavated and reported, in part, in a modern, scientific way. Excavations have continued at that important Hoabinhian/neolithic site in Kelantan. A report on the skeletal material recovered by Sieveking was made by Trevor and Brothwell (1962, 1986).

A geologist, D. Walker (1955) made a study of sea level changes during the Pleistocene and hypothesized a much higher sea level for one period of the Early Pleistocene. He worked with Ann Sieveking (1958) in 1954 (Shutler 1984) on a site in Perak. This site had been discovered by Collings (1938b) before the Second World War and Collings considered that it produced Palaeolithic style stone artifacts (Shutler 1990:569). Movius (1948:403) considered these as bonified tools and named the culture the Tampan Culture without studying the site or the artifacts in detail. Sieveking felt the same (Walker and Sieveking 1962). The site was dated by Walker to be Early Pleistocene. Later this dating was questioned (Haile 1971:333-343; Harrisson, T. 1975; Shutler 1990) and it is no longer believed that the stones in question were man made. Zuraina Majid has discovered verified Late Pleistocene sites in a nearby area.

At the very end of my coverage two new archaeologists entered the picture in Malaya. These were B.A.V. Peacock (1959c) and John Matthews (1960, 1962) who started publishing shortly after their arrival. Lamb, who had been in Malaya for a few years, started a new area of publications on early Indian sites (1958, 1959a-c, 1960b, 1961a-b). Wang Gungwu was an historian, not an archaeologist, but his interest was in the proto-history and early history of Chinese contacts with Southeast Asia (1960).

I am acquainted with three different reports that have a considerable content on the history of archaeology in peninsular Malaysia. The most extensive, by Nik Hassan (1993) is titled “Archaeology in Malaysia, 1840s – 1990s: An overview.” Hassan and Yatim (1990:95-108) have included a very extensive bibliography in their publication on Antiquities of Bujang Valley. M. W. F. Tweedie has put out several publications on the prehistory of Malaya (1953, 1955, 1965). In the 53rd edition he presents a history of Stone Age Research (6-8). The 1955 publication was written for the general public and includes archaeological activities through 1954. This is a much more general work without much of the detail presented in the 1953 report. It covers “The Stone Age in Malaya” (1-26) and “The Bronze and Iron Ages in Malaya” (27-43) with little on the history of archaeology in Malaya and no bibliography or reference section. He referred to a long article on “The Origin of the Malayan Metal Age” by Prince John Loewenstein (1956 [A 63-64]) for references on this subject but gave an incorrect reference to that article as to the volume number and year of publication. The reader will find the correct reference in my reference section. I have been unable to locate my copy of the 1965 publication and one later, revised edition of the 1965 publication, both of which were longer with more detail. Loewenstein’s article is followed with one by G. de G. Sieveking (1956 [A 70-71]) with several corrections to Loewenstein’s article. Further archaeological research showed that many of Loewenstein’s interpretations of the available data were incorrect. An earlier article by Loewenstein appeared in 1953. Finally, Solheim, Floyd Wheeler and Jane Allen-Wheeler (1986) have presented a short history and of the archaeology of Malaysia, Brunei and Singapore to 1984 that covers the history for West Malaysia (1-11) and includes a selected, annotated bibliography (21-83). For all articles referenced herein which have been annotated in Solheim et al. 1986 I add in brackets “A” plus the page number(s).

While not a history, Monica Sim Joo Kuak and Che Puteh binti Ismail made quite an extensive bibliography of Malaysian archaeology (1980). More or less annual reports on the archaeological activities in Malaya appeared in the Journal of the Malayan Branch Royal Asiatic Society (Williams-Hunt 1951a-b, 1952; Sieveking 1955; Sieveking et al. 1955) and in Asian Perspectives (Ed. Solheim 1957d; Lamb 1959, 1960; Matthews 1962). Brief summaries of current work and publication appear in the COWA (Council for Old World Archaeology) Surveys

43

and Bibliographies by David Horr (1959a:3-5, 1959b:2-3, 1963a:11-12, 1963b:3-4). Adi Taha (1991:147-148) has presented a brief summary of the history and content of Malaysian prehistory.

Dr. Leong Sau Heng (1986:84-85), a professional archaeologist with the History Department of the University of Malaya, took me to task for three different interpretations I had made in portions of my text in the above review. First she stated “This commentator feels ‘Solheim’s remark about ‘high level politicization of archaeology in Malaysia’ to be quite unnecessary in what is apparently an academic paper.” In no way was I reflecting on the three, at that time, professional archaeologists. Their work was and has been of high quality. Nor was I referring to the requirement for several years of not allowing foreign archaeologists to work there. The paper was to provide information for other archaeologists on the conditions for doing archaeology in Malaysia. Malaysia was a young nation at that time and a multi-racial one too. As such, it is not surprising that there were some restriction to foreigners conducting research in the country. The Prime Minister in a talk before an audience of historians had remarked about the problem of foreign archaeologists doing research in Malaysia because of the bias they would have. He encouraged local archaeologists, however, to do archaeological research as long as they would be careful about making the “right” interpretations.

Leong’s second criticism was that I felt that Ivor H. N. Evans’ considerable archaeological research and many publications were “today of little more than historical interest.” She did not note in her criticism, however, that I went on to say: “He was, however, of major importance in the history of Malayan archaeology because his reports put on record the Hoabinhian culture, the following ‘neolithic’ cave cultures, megalithic sites, the slab grave sites (with their associated iron tools, many different types of stone, bronze, iron, and glass artifacts), and the late prehistoric trading site of Kuala Selinsing. When professional archaeologists appeared on the scene, Evans had provided a general knowledge of what was to be found, and where to find it.” Though I did not state it in so many words, I have always felt that Evans was the father of prehistoric archaeology in what became Malaysia. He was a personal friend through correspondence and I have always admired him as a person and what he did for not only Malayan archaeology but for Southeast Asian archaeology as a whole.

Leong’s third criticism was concerning an inaccuracy of mine in saying that no further research had been done on the sites at Kuala Selinsing since Evans’ early excavations there. It is unfortunate that I did not know about the other work that had been done. I have long felt that the several closely related sites in the area of Kuala Selinsing were some of the most important sites in Malaysia. Much further excavation has and is being done there and this continuing work certainly indicates its major importance.

SingaporeThe history of archaeological research on the prehistory of Singapore previous to 1960

summarizes very easily. There was none. One accidental find that was probably prehistoric was made accidentally in 1926 during the construction of a reservoir. This find was a deposit of a few small gold ornaments (Miksic 1985:92, Plate I and Fig. 3 p. 43), reported on by Sir Richard Winstedt (1928) and no follow-up exploration or research was conducted.

Another probable prehistoric object was the Singapore Stone reported from the south side of the mouth of Singapore Creek (Miksic 1985:40-42). When first reported in 1819 there was a considerable inscription on it, but little attention was paid to it. Before any recording was made the stone was broken up to be used in some form of construction. Later three fragments of the stone (Fig. 1 ibid: 41, from Laidlay 1848:Pl. 3) were recovered and these were sent to Calcutta for analysis in 1848. A fourth fragment (Fig. 2 ibid:420) was later discovered and it is now in the National Museum of Singapore. Two publications by Miksic (1985, 2000) present the recent archaeological work done in Singapore with information on 13 th-14th century A.D. Singapore.

44

One other recent publication (Soon 2002) presents a reconstruction of Banzu, a settlement of the 14th century A.D. on Singapore Island, a port of the Malay polity known as Temasik. This would be valuable to any future excavators of the site if and when it is discovered. The author suggests (88) that this reconstruction would be typical of larger Malay ports at this time. It is hypothetical based on not too reliable historic Malay reports and is not supported by any archaeological research.

IndochinaThe present day countries of Cambodia, Laos and Viet Nam were until sometime after

the end of the Second World War known as French Indochina. I translate the French of part of a quote from Louis Malleret (1969:43; a former Director of l’École Française d’Extrême-Orient) explaining the origin of the term.

The term “Indochine” has been created in the 19th century by the geographer Malte-Brun to designate that part of Southeast Asia making up the countries intermediate between India and China, having been impelled by the extent of the diversity through the attraction of these two great countries. It is in regard to the recent French portion of the peninsula, this dualism of the cultures was taken as evidence for the fact of union which separated during a time the two words, and it resulted from an administrative act of the Governor General Paul Doumer to bring these together in a unique word. Burma, Siam, Cambodia, Laos and the territory we now call Viet Nam, were brought together as “India from the Ganges” or “India beyond the Ganges” the expression used by the earlier cosmographers. Under the French Viet Nam was divided into Cochin China in the south and Tonkin in the north.

The word Indochina was used by some to refer to all of Mainland Southeast Asia. This trans-Ganges area plus those countries and areas I included in my original definition are what make up Southeast Asia today, as I define it. There has been some argument on where the term “Southeast Asia” itself originated. Anderson (198?), a Political Scientist, stated that it came into use during the Second World War when the military needed a name for the region between the India Theater and the China Theater of war. I disagreed with him (Solheim 1985), as back in the 1930s, before I was in my teens, I wanted to be a specialist in the archaeology of Southeast Asia and had used that term. I felt that I must have gotten the term from issues of the National Geographic. Where they might have gotten the term I have no idea.

The temple that made Cambodia (and to some extent Southeast Asia) famous in Europe was Angkor Wat. While it had been noted long before Mouhot (1864, 1986, 1989, 1992; Rooney 1998:9) had explored it and nearby Khmer temples. It was not until his drawings and his book were published in 1864, after his death in Laos, that it became known and excited a European audience.

Both Louis Malleret (1969) and E. Saurin (1969) have presented very good summaries of the history of archaeology in Indochina up to 1950 and 1966, respectively. Saurin’s article covers only the prehistoric archaeology of Cambodia, Laos, and Viet Nam while Malleret covers primarily the early historic archaeology, but also has a section on prehistoric archaeology. While there is overlap in the two papers on prehistory there is differing information and presentation by the two and the two should be read together. Both Saurin’s and Malleret’s papers have a good bibliography; Saurin’s is the longer of the two. Robert Hackenberg’s report (1957) on “Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam” included a good bibliography on publications of the 1950s and I added some information in 1959 (Solheim 1959e). The École Français was the institution primarily concerned with the historic archaeology of Indochina.

Malleret divides the parts of his paper on historic and proto-historic archaeology into four parts: Khmer archaeology (43-55), including five very interesting plates on early restoration of some of the monuments and the fifth showing Victor Goloubew, Louis Finot and Henri Parmentier, three of the major archaeologists working in French Indochina, in front of one of the

45

monuments of Angkor. Next is the archaeology of Champa (55-57), of Viet Nam (57-61) and finally of Laos and Siam (61-63). His section on prehistory is from pages 63 to 67 followed by a summary bibliography of about two pages. Malleret mentions four journals that carried important articles on French Indochina archaeology: Bulletin de l’École Française d’Extrême-Orient, published in Hanoi and then in Paris from 1901; Bulletin de la Commission Archéologique de l’Indochine, Paris, 1908 to 1923; the review Arts et Archéologie Khmèrs, Paris, 1921-1926 (2 volumes); and Bulletin des Amis du Vieux-Hué, Hanoi 1914-1944. Others that he did not list are: Bulletin de la Société des Études Indochinoises, Saigon; Bulletin de la Service Géologique Indochine, Hanoi; Memoirs de la Service Géologique d’Indochine, Hanoi; and Publications de l’École Français d’Extrême Orient, Paris. For prehistoric archaeology most of the workers were with the Geological Service who very often published their reports in the geological journals. Malleret did considerable fieldwork in various locations in Indochina. His report on Sa Huynh (Malleret 1959a) on the east coast of Viet Nam appears to have been made through research on museum collections rather than fieldwork in the site area. Saurin (1971) wrote an obituary of Malleret, which I have not seen.

Saurin’s primary interest was in prehistoric archaeology. To make a living, however, he felt it necessary to study and earn degrees in geology and he was able to get a job with the Geological Service in Indochina. He had done archaeological research in France, with publications, before he turned to geology. The Geological Service in Indochina under Mansuy and with Madelaine Colani had developed a tradition of doing archaeological research along with their geology so when Saurin came to Indochina in 1928, two years after both Mansuy and Colani had left the service, he found a home. While Colani was no longer with the Service she continued active archaeological research and publication until the late 1930s. Henri Fontaine (1980) wrote a fine obituary of Saurin with information of how archaeology was combined with geology in Indochina. The first part of this obituary concerned his work in France from 1920-1927 (1-2), followed with a section on his work in French Indochina from 1928 to 1964, and finishing with his life back in France where he wrote a number of papers on his previous fieldwork in Indochina. Following a one-page bibliography of Saurin’s publications on French archaeology he has almost two pages on his publications concerning Cambodia, Laos, and Viet Nam. I met Saurin at the 8th Pacific Science Congress in Manila in 1953 and became well acquainted with him. He was a fine and very friendly man and a very good archaeologist.

Jacques Fromaget (1932) presented a paper at the “First Congress of Prehistorians of the Far East,” held in Ha Noi, summarizing the Tertiary geology of Indochina and the prehistoric research (55-59) that had been done from 1902 to 1931. He closed out this section with praise for Melle Colani and M. Mansuy saying that they were “… the only ones of Indochina who do not let rest the cultures of quaternary man” (translation by Solheim). At the end of this paper he presented a “List of the Work Published on the Prehistory of Indochina (Période Lithique [which I would roughly translate as “Stone Age”]) (pp. 60-61). Fromaget also presented two papers at the 3rd Congress of Far-Eastern Prehistorians (1940a-b; see section on Laos following). Madeleine Colani presented three short and one longer paper at the “First Congress...” (Colani 1932a-d).

Another paper of interest that appeared in the 3rd Congress proceedings, by Fred McCarthy (1940), presented comparisons of prehistoric artifacts from Australia to some from Indochina, Malaya and Indonesia. This paper resulted in an interest in this subject that lasts until today. In looking at the article while writing this review I came across a section I had not read before on “Bronze Age influences in Australia” (45-46). First McCarthy notes that the decorative art of central and northwestern Australia “…consists of spiral and concentric circles, meanders and sets of close parallel lines (pl. ix, fig. 5). The designs are incised on the stone and wooden tjurunga, painted on ceremonial shields and other articles and on the bodies of performers in ceremonies, and are fashioned in feather-down on ceremonial objects.” He compares these

46

designs to those on the Dongson bronzes. I would agree but would also compare them to the incised designs on the pottery of the Sa Huynh-Kalanay Pottery Tradition (Solheim [Ed.] 1959, Solheim 1959c:158, Fig.1). Second McCarthy noted the close similarity of some very unusually shaped stone tools from eastern Australia and New Guinea (pl. xi, fig. 1) to unusual bronze axes from Luang Prabang, Haut Laos, and Indochina. Since the time of this article there has been several similar bronze axes reported from other sites in Mainland Southeast Asia and Indonesia.

When the French government departed from “Indochina” and Vietnamese archaeologists took over their own prehistoric research the first two or three years of their publications were very concerned with the value to Viet Nam of the research done by the French archaeologists. They signaled Colani as the one they could fully trust and admitted that most of the work done by Mansuy could also be trusted.

47

Laos

I have seen very few of the early reports on archaeology in Laos and have seen, briefly, only Madeleine Colani’s (1945) famous Mégaliths du Haut-Laos. This is a very rare book and I do not have it available here in the Philippines. I am able to include a number of references from the articles by Malleret (1969), Saurin (1969), Fontaine (1980) and Higham (1989), which I have not seen. The format of their references varies considerably so I am often unable to give complete references in the format I have been using here.

The primary archaeological work done in Laos was by the French professionals Colani, Saurin, and Fromaget. Colani’s research on the Plains de Jars (1932d-f, 1935, 1940) and other locations opened Laos to world recognition. The large, stone jars were associated with earthenware burial jars as well as artifacts indicating a metal age dating and probable association with the Sa-Huynh sites on the east coast of Viet Nam. The Laotian sites appear to have been on a major overland trade route between the Vietnamese coast, Laos, Burma, South China and possibly India. Higham (op. cit.: 229-230) suggested that besides becoming wealthy by way of this international trade these people produced salt for the trade as well.

Saurin’s research and publication I been mentioned in the introduction to French Indo-China. His research and publication was very broad, including besides prehistoric archaeology: linguistics, physical anthropology and ethnohistory/ethnic traditions. Fromaget, who often worked with Saurin, was more specialized, dealing mostly with geology and physical anthropology as well as with cave explorations and excavation (Fromaget 1932, three in 1936, 1940a-b; Fromaget and Saurin 1936). “The Crown Prince of Laos, Prince Phetserath, and Joel Halpern investigated and made collections in a burial cave near Luang Prabang in northern Laos (Horr 1959a:2-3)” (Solheim 1970:48). Other brief reports containing information on the history of archaeology previous to 1960 are by R. A. Hackenberg (1957) and Solheim (1959).

Cambodia

Prehistoric archaeology had a slow start in Cambodia. Much of the early research on archaeology in Cambodia has been presented in the section above on Indochina. Asian Perspectives with its first issue in 1957 started presenting Regional Reports on Southeast Asian countries where news was available. By this time the term ‘Indochina’ was not being used much other than in France. The first Regional Report on Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam (Hackenberg 1957:54) noted that Bernard Groslier had started making stratigraphic excavations at the Royal Palace of Angkor Thom in 1952 and from this research had developed a chronology of Chinese export wares recovered. Aerial surveys of Cambodia were conducted and from these many new sites were discovered and 250 canals were mapped and photographed dating to the Funan period.

Mr. Jean Leur, the curator of monuments at Angkor at that time reported sites in the Mekong Delta on artificial mounds rising above the marsh and hypothesized that these had been created by the first inhabitants of the area. The only note of interest in the next Regional Report (Solheim 1959e:25) was that Groslier, just before the end of the excavation season in 1959 “... discovered a neolithic site directly beneath the classical site which he was excavating” (Groslier personal communication). I do not know of this having been mentioned in any of his publications or of any exploration of this site having been made later, until today.

I had mentioned in the section above on Indochina that the first archaeological site in Cambodia which had been examined and published was Samron Sen. What I did not mention was that an archaeologist who presumably excavated at Samron Sen and other Cambodian sites was the first person I know of involved in an archaeological scandal in Southeast Asia. Ludovic Jammes published (1891, 1892) astonishing reports on his excavations at Samron Sen and other sites, which were accepted by many archaeologists in Europe and elsewhere (Cartailhac 1890;

48

Casanowicz 1922; Patte 1924). He was finally exposed by Louis Finot (1928). Higham (1996:20-23) presents a very good and detailed account of this early adventure.

Since early in the 1990s a major change in prehistoric archaeological research in Cambodia has developed with intensive training of young Cambodian archaeologists at the Department of Anthropology of the University of Hawaii Manoa. Foreign archaeologists from Europe and the United States with the young, local archaeologists have undertaken joint archaeological field programs. Much reconstruction is taking place at various Angkor sites, but unfortunately this does not appear to involve excavations beneath the extensive monuments to try and understand their beginnings and what went before.

(To be continued in Issue No. 20)

49