Isotopic and technological variation in prehistoric Southeast Asian primary copper production

The ‘Southeast Asian Lead Isotope Project’ (SEALIP) is intended to provide reliable geochemical proxies for late prehistoric through early historic (2nd/1st millennium BCE and 1st millennium CE) local, regional, and inter-regional social interactions, in an archaeological arena lacking established ceramic typologies with which to cross modern national boundaries. We present lead isotope characterisations of the three currently known Southeast Asian prehistoric primary (mining/smelting) copper production centres: Phu Lon and the Khao Wong Prachan Valley in Thailand, and the recently discovered Xepon complex in Laos. Kernel Density Estimation shows that these production centres can be clearly distinguished isotopically, as such fulfilling the core tenet of the ‘Provenance Hypothesis’ (Wilson and Pollard, 2001: 508) and permitting SEALIP to proceed as a research programme tracing regional copper/bronze/lead exchange and provenance patterning. In addition we provide a provisional technological reconstruction of copper smelting processes at Phu Lon to complement our more established understanding of the Khao Wong Prachan Valley. Combined lead isotope and technological datasets allow us to tentatively identify trends in the evolution of Southeast Asian metal technologies and of regional social perceptions of metal exchange.     

Praxis and theory in the writing of American historical geography

The use of primary sources in the writing of American historical geography is a relatively recent practice, and one which warrants more attention than it has been accorded. Of immediate appeal to historical geographers when they finally turned to primary sources were contemporary travel accounts, topographies and geographies. Because they were, and still are, much used, and because they reveal in simple and direct fashion the difficulty of encountering past “reality”, these kinds of material are the focus here. To turn from these essentially qualitative sources to more quantitative sources neither resolves nor avoids the issue we wish to raise, the problem of subjectivity. There are two sides to the problem of subjectivity; the first concerns the contemporary as observer and recorder of facts; the second concerns the latter-day scholar as observer and recorder of facts. The old conception of the geographer as an impersonal observer is no longer acceptable. In the quest for an understanding of the geography of the past, it may well be that “objectivity is the fruit of genuine subjectivity”, and that what is required is a collective effort of subjective scholars engaged in a continuing dialogue.