On the Use of Archaeology and History in Island Southeast Asia

Abstract

This paper reviews the use of archaeological and documentary sources in the understanding of the past in Island Southeast Asia. The relationship between these two sources of data (and data sources that cross the boundaries of these categories) has varied over time, depending on the availability of data, changing interpretive strategies and scholarly trends and in uences. The wealth of documentary sources relevant to Island Southeast AsiaÕs past, and the increasing availability of detailed archaeological data have increased the potential to understand the past in this region from a variety of points of view. While this potential has not yet been fully realized, in part due to an unsophisticated use of these separate lines of evidence, recent scholarship has pushed the boundaries and revealed new information and insights into this history.Cet article passe en revue lÕutilisation de sources documentaires et arch ologiques dans la connaissance du pass des "les du Sud-Est asiatique. La relation entre ces deux sources dÕin-formation (et les sources qui d passent les limites de ces deux cat gories) a volu au l du temps en fonction de la disponibilit des donn es, des changements dans les strat gies dÕin-terpr tation et des tendances et in uences acad miques. La richesse des sources documentaires utiles dans lÕ tude du pass des "les du Sud-Est asiatique, et la disponibilit croissante de donn es arch ologiques d taill es ont permis, ˆ plusieurs niveaux, de faciliter la compr hension du pass de cette r gion. Bien que ce potentiel nÕait pas encore t compl tement exploit , en partie ˆ cause dÕune utilisation peu raf n e de ces distinctes cat gories de preuves, des tudes universitaires r centes ont repouss ces limites et ont d voil de nouveaux indices, permettant ainsi de mieux p n trer lÕhistoire des "les du Sud-Est asiatique.

Back to basics: returning to the evidence and mapping knowledge in south Asian archaeology

“…Indeed, while specific concerns of scholarship might be different, similar disjunctures are common in other areas where the historical past is considered stable and "known." We might cite, for example, the study of the Iron Age in the Levant (Joffe 2002;Levy and Higham 2014) where archaeological studies have long been informed by Biblical accounts; the study of historical periods in China from at least the Zhou period, c. sixth to fourth centuries BCE (von Falkenhausen 1993;Min 2003); and the use of archaeology and history in Island Southeast Asia (Lape 2006). These are by no means the only parts of Asia whose study can bear witness to such a trend.…”

A Latest Discovery of Austronesian Rock Art in the North Peninsula of Buano Island, Maluku

“…Variety of rock art findings in the Maluku Islands with an estimated age range based on dating tests from environmental samples from supporting sites (not from rock art samples themselves), from left to right, top to bottom: hand stencil motifs at Wamkana Site (Buru Island ± 7,000 years), geometric motifs at Tanjung Bintang (North Coast of Buano Island), anthropomorphic motifs at Hatupatola Hill (Seram Island), hand stencil motifs at Sawai Site (Seram Island ± 3,000 years), geometric motifs at Watu Sika Site (Seram Laut Island), human face motifs at Ohoidertawun Site (Kei Islands ± 2,000 years), boat motifs at Kaimear Site (Kei Islands), engraving foot motifs at Lisaibam Cave (Aru Islands ± 27,000 years), boat motifs in Tawuwun Cave (Wetang Island, Babar Islands), anthropomorphic and animal motifs in Her Sor Sorot (Kisar Island ± 15,000 years) (Source: Author's Documentation, 2016; Kealy, Wattimena, & O'Connor, 2018;Mujabuddawat, 2019bMujabuddawat, , 2019aOktaviana et al, 2018; Ririmasse, 2013; Salhuteru, 2009b; Wattimena, Nussy, & Ferdinandus, 2019; Wattimena, Peseletehaha, et al, 2019) the Maluku Islands, including the dating test at the location of Fatiba Cave, Sanana Island, showing the numbers 16,200-17,200 cal BP (Tanudirjo, 2001). Referring to the dating results of pottery fragments found in Ay Island, Banda Islands is known to be 2,887-3,827 cal BP, indicating the oldest cultural findings being 8,000 years old (Lape, 2000(Lape, , 2002(Lape, , 2003. The minimum number of findings characterized by stone tools, bone inserts, and pieces of mollusk shells at Liang Lembudu, Kobror Island, Aru Islands shows a figure of about 26,000 years, and human skeletons are known to be between 16,000-10,000 years old (Ririmasse, 2012b;Spriggs, 1998).…”

“…The crossing of the migration paths that reached the Southeast Asian region is believed to have occurred in several waves, from the earliest initiation period around 60,000 to 70,000 years ago to the presence of evidence of archaeological remains characterized by the earliest Austronesian culture around 3,000 to 5,000 years ago (O'Connell & Allen, 2012). Various archaeological findings characterized by Austronesian culture in the Southern Maluku Islands that have been recorded so far include Banda Island around 3,000 years ago, with indications of the oldest archaeological evidence on Banda Island about 8,000 years ago (Lape, 2000(Lape, , 2002(Lape, , 2003. The arrival of this Austronesian community marked the start of the Neolithic period, bringing a variety of new cultures and knowledge.…”