A historical perspective on the Australian contribution to the practice of archaeology in Southeast Asia

Abstract

Archaeology in Asia is still at the stage of completing the basic outline of human evolution and culture history in the region. As yet it is unclear whether Homo arrived in Asia closer to one million or two million years ago (Anton 1997). The region's archaeological and palaeoanthropological record is sporadically documented until the last 40,000 years, for which period we do find suitable rock shelter deposits virtually across the whole of Asia. Of course, the quantity of information exponentially increases as we move towards the present, but even an issue as fundamental as the capital site of the celebrated state of Srivijaya (seventh to fourteenth centuries AD) has been resolved only within the last decade (Manguin 1992). The relative paucity of data in the region has produced a situation far from ideal for the development of archaeological theory which, to the degree that it has been explicitly formulated, tends to follow an idealist conception of culture history, within the constraints of cultural ecology. Similarly, in human evolution, theoretical debate is largely focused on the number of species which should be recognised and their likely relationships by descent. Australia's proximity to Asia has facilitated two schools of interest in Asian archaeology. One school recognises Asia as the source of the first human colonists of Australia and New Guinea, and the likely homeland of later colonising thrusts into the Pacific. This Australasian whose roots go back to the 1930s (McCarthy 1940), has focused on drawing comparisons between Asian and Pacific prehistory. The second interest group, which may be called the Southeast Asianist school, addresses cultural and economic development in Asia as an independent field of study. These archaeologists team up with other Australian-based scholars who have participated in the post-World War II advent of Australia as a world leader in Asian studies. Several players of course have a place in both schools, either as the generators of grand syntheses (notably Peter Bellwood) or from addressing issues where Asian historical developments have influenced Pacific prehistory (e.g., the Macassans who collected sea-cucumbers from Australia's northern shores). The interests of Asian and Australian archaeologists can best be described as complementary. Asian archaeologists show little tendency to generalise across Asia, let alone to be drawn into comparisons with the Pacific, and prefer to leave these esoteric pursuits to their western colleagues. A reason for this phenomenon is the diversity of national languages in Asia, and the status of English as the lingua franca by default. More important, however, is the common interest among Asian scholars to focus on their own national heritage in these post-colonial times. The national boundaries in Asia essentially follow borders established by western colonial governments; even Thailand, never a colony, is defined on all sides by European-imposed borders. Owing to the recency of the colonial withdrawal (1950s to 1970s), Asians have devoted much of their archaeological research to re-appropriating their colonial heritage. Historical archaeology has sought material evidence to shore up the textual evidence for the pre-colonial establishment of national unity, at least in the sense of continuous interaction between the communities within present-day borders. Prehistoric archaeology has endorsed a similarly historical agenda, but one that follows the evidence for these unifying interactions back beyond the written word. This mutual nationalism has left the gate open for western archaeologists to develop initiatives that either lie within, straddle, or transcend political boundaries in Asia.