Developing Complex Societies in Southeast Asia: Using Archaeological and Historical Evidence

A number of archaeologists are making significant advances in the historical archaeology of Southeast Asia. The papers presented in this issue, and the one that preceded it, provide new insights and exciting directions for future research.     

The Transition to History in Southeast Asia: An Introduction

Studies of the transition from prehistory to history in Southeast Asia have traditionally relied primarily on documentary sources, which tend to emphasize foreign influences, rather than on the archaeological record, which suggests a series of indigenous developments. The papers in this journal issue and the next discuss strategies for using both documentary and archaeological evidence to study the transition to history and the emergence of early states in the region. These papers investigate how political units were structured and integrated in Cambodia, Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines, and South China, and illustrate how historical and archaeological data can cross-check each other to inform on Southeast Asian sociopolitical and economic developments during the early historic period.     

The later prehistory of mainland Southeast Asia

Until the recent expansion of research into the prehistory of mainland Southeast Asia, the development of civilizations employing Indian religious and political concepts had been seen as a major fulcrum in the area's history. The prehistoric sequence in the area is reviewed, with particular attention being paid to evidence for ritual, display, exchange, and ranking behavior within lowland sedentary communities. These date to the two or three millennia preceding Indian contact. It is argued that already by the end of the prehistoric period, there were complex centralized societies with a long tradition of recognizing status differentials among individuals, affiliated groups, and communities. The sequence incorporates the exploitation of rice, and bronze and iron working. The chronology of these innovations is compared with that in China. It is not possible at present to argue for single or multiple origins, but the area of southern China is suggested as a crucial one in further research to resolve these issues.     

Resolve and Credibility: U.S. Policy toward Southeast Asia

Books reviewed in this article:
Fredrik Logevall, The Lost Chance for Peace and the Escalation of the War in Vietnam
Robert McMahon, The Limits of Empire: The United States and Southeast Asia since World War II     

The Bakau wreck: an early example of Chinese shipping in Southeast Asia

Very few early Chinese shipwrecks have been discovered in Southeast Asia, despite the enormous volume of trade with China. This article describes the surprising hull features of one such wreck, and its diverse ceramic cargo. The Bakau Wreck dates to the early 15th century, and was bound from southern China to Indonesia via a Thai entrepot port.     

The Origins of the Bronze Age of Southeast Asia

White and Hamilton (J World Prehist 22: 357–97, 2009) have proposed a model for the origin of the Southeast Asian Bronze Age founded on seven AMS radiocarbon determinations from the Northeast Thai site of Ban Chiang, which would date the initial Bronze Age there to about 2000 BC. Since this date is too early for the derivation of a bronze industry from the documented exchange that linked Southeast Asia with Chinese states during the 2nd millennium BC, they have identified the Seima-Turbino 3rd millennium BC forest-steppe technology of the area between the Urals and the Altai as the source of the Southeast Asian Bronze Age. We challenge this model by presenting a new chronological framework for Ban Chiang, which supports our model that the knowledge of bronze metallurgy reached Southeast Asia only in the late 2nd millennium BC, through contact with the states of the Yellow and Yangtze valleys.