H
History and Current Debates
of Archaeology in Island
Southeast Asia
Hsiao-chun Hung
Department of Archaeology and Natural History,
The Australian National University,
Canberra, ACT, Australia
Introduction
Island Southeast Asia (ISEA), situated between
Mainland China, Mainland Southeast Asia
(MSEA), and Oceania, has been among the
world’s most significant passageways of human
migrations since more than one million years ago
(1 Ma). Hominids such as Homo erectus lived in
Java at least as early as 1.2 to 0.8 Ma. The high
diversity of landscape, population, and culture in
ISEA makes it an attractive place for archaeology,
especially regarding issues such as the origins,
dispersal, and interaction of ancient populations
at different time depths and geographic routes.
One challenge, though, has been the fragmented
nature of the archaeological record here, well
documented in some cases while under-studied
in other areas.
As almost every region in ISEA has been
colonialized by external countries, the discipline
of archaeology has developed with influence
from those imposed political systems. Some
distinctions can be noticed before and after
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019
C. Smith (ed.), Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51726-1_3373-1
World War II. At different times, the Philippines
were claimed by Spain and the USA, Malaysia
was under British authority, Indonesia was controlled by the Netherlands, East Timor was ruled
by Portugal, and a broad and diverse expanse of
the region was occupied by Japan.
This entry offers a large-scale view of
archaeological practice in the region of ISEA.
First, the history of the discipline is reviewed,
from its inception through the present day. Next,
key research issues and debates are identified,
such as regarding the formation of the major
populations of cultural groups living in ISEA
during different periods of human evolution.
Special focus here is given to the ongoing
questions about the origins and dispersals of
the Austronesian groups, involving input from
archaeology, linguistics, genetics, and additional
studies over the last few decades. This review
provides a basis to consider international perspectives and future directions of archaeology
in ISEA.
Definitions
In this entry, the region of Island Southeast Asia
(ISEA) extends from Taiwan in the north and
continues southward through the Philippines,
Island Malaysia (including Sarawak and Sabah
of Eastern Malaysia, plus Brunei), Indonesia,
and East Timor.
2
History and Current Debates of Archaeology in Island Southeast Asia
History of Regional Research
The development of archaeology in ISEA traditionally has been divided into three major
stages (see Tsang 2000; Chia 2017; Paz 2017;
Simanjuntak 2017a). The early years of the discipline have been described as an emergent period,
leading up to (and in some cases continuing into)
World War II (WW II: 1939–1945). Next, a transitional period has been mentioned as operating
after World War II (1945) and lasting until the
1970s. The current status of regional archaeology
has been considered as a continuation of a developmental period since the 1970s.
Emergent Period, Before World War II
As was the case in many parts of the world,
the earliest archaeology activities in ISEA were
due to the adventures of foreign travelers in
the habit of collecting antiquities. The initial
pioneering forays were designed to learn the
baseline scope of archaeological sites and artifacts
in each area, for example, as potentially could be
displayed in a museum. These explorations began
as early as the 1800s, at a time when the discipline
of archaeology was just beginning to take shape
internationally.
Formally proclaimed as a British Colony in
1867, Malaysia witnessed archaeological inquiries earlier than most other countries of ISEA.
Visiting researchers explored the rainforests and
caves, and some of the region’s first museums
were established. Sarawak in particular attracted
attention at the Niah and Bau Caves, studied in
1873–1878 by Alfred Hart Everett, Charles
Darwin, Alfred R. Wallace, and Thomas
H. Huxley (Harrisson 1954). Slightly later, projects were launched at caves along the east coast
of Sabah, studied by C.V. Creagh in 1888–1895
(Rutter 1929: 217). Two of the oldest traditions of
ISEA archaeology were stablished as the Sarawak
Museum in 1886 and the Sarawak Museum Journal in 1911.
Indonesia has attracted natural scientists and
curious collectors since Dutch control of the
region as early as the 1600s, although archaeology
specifically became more popular after major discoveries of the late 1800s. The key turning point
for archaeology began with the historic finds of
hominin fossils, Pithecanthropus erectus (later
H. erectus), recovered by Eugène Dubois at Trinil,
East Java in 1891 (Fig. 1) (Dubois 1896). Since
then, several other Homo erectus discoveries have
been reported, such as the fossils at Ngandong
and the findings associated with stone tools
of a “Sangiran flake industry” at Sangiran.
Meanwhile, archaeology research offices were
established, notably including Oudheidkundige
Dienst (archaeological office) (Simanjuntak
2017a). Between 1931 and 1937, H. R. van
Heekeren worked with W.J.A. Willems in East
Java and South Sulawesi, and then 2 years later
(in 1939) van Heekeren started the first excavation
in Indonesia at Kedeng Lembu, Jember (Glover
1974). Farther south, in today’s East Timor,
Alfred Bühler conducted the first excavation
there in 1935 (Sarasin 1936).
The first discovered archaeology site in
Taiwan, Zhishanyan in Taipei Basin, was reported
by Japanese school teacher Awano Dennojou in
1896. Before 1949 when the Chinese archaeologists moved from mainland China to Taiwan,
Japanese scholars had discovered more than
100 prehistoric sites in Taiwan and surrounding
islands. One of the most influential figures of that
period was Tadao Kano, known for discovering
numerous sites and for developing the first archaeological chronology of Taiwan (e.g., Kano 1946,
1952) (Fig. 2).
Philippines archaeology can be traced back to
the early 1920s. H. Otley Beyer, an American
anthropologist who later shifted to archaeology.
Beyer conducted several excavations in
Novaliches, and he collected large numbers of
artifacts especially from Rizal, Bulacan, and
Batangas of southern Luzon (Beyer 1926, 1947,
1948). Beyer was the first scholar to build a chronological narrative of material artifact categories
in the Philippines. Until now, Beyer’s chronology
has influenced the thought and practice of
Philippines archaeology.
Transitional Period, from World War II
(1945) Through the 1970s
After World War II, archaeology as a discipline
transformed worldwide, including major change
History and Current Debates of Archaeology in Island Southeast Asia
3
History and Current
Debates of Archaeology
in Island Southeast Asia,
Fig. 1 The Solo River at
Trinil in East Java where
Eugène Dubois discovered
the first Java Man (Homo
erectus) in 1891. (Image
source: Hsiao-chun Hung)
History and Current
Debates of Archaeology
in Island Southeast Asia,
Fig. 2 Pinglin jade
workshop in Hualien of
eastern Taiwan (at least
46,000 square meters with
very dense worked-jade
deposit), first discovered
and excavated by Tadao
Kano in 1929, is so far
known the largest jade
workshop in Southeast
Asia. (Image source: Hsiaochun Hung)
not only in political influence but also in broad
aspects of theory, method, and technique. Most
countries in ISEA transferred into new political
status and associations, with direct influence
on how archaeology could be practiced and on
how the research findings were perceived in
national and international narratives. Meanwhile,
profound impacts in archaeology developed in
philosophical thought, as well as in the science
of excavation procedures.
Overall during the decades of the 1940s
through 1970s, archaeology became accepted as
a way to learn concrete evidence directly from the
past. Controlled excavations proceeded in carefully exposing individual geological and sedimentary layers, each associated with a measured time
period and characterized by a set of tangible
objects. Chronological sequences became even
more robust after the availability of radiocarbon
dating since the 1950s.
4
History and Current Debates of Archaeology in Island Southeast Asia
At the end of the Chinese Civil War (in 1948),
a group of Mainland Chinese archaeologists
moved into Taiwan with the Kuomintang (KMT)
government of the Republic of China. Those
scholars mostly had worked in northern China,
and they brought their experience into Taiwan
while forming the first archaeology division of
the Institute of History and Philology (IHP)
at Academia Sinica. LI Chi became the first
head of this archaeology division at IHP, and
furthermore he established the Department of
Archaeology and Anthropology (now re-named
Department of Anthropology) at National Taiwan
University in Taipei.
In the Philippines during the 1950s through
1960s, American archaeologist Robert Fox
conducted the first two systematic archaeological
excavations, aiming to delineate the chronological
sequence of artifacts in dated archaeological
layers. One project was at Calatagan in Batangas
of southwest Luzon (Fox 1959), and another was
at the Tabon Cave Complex in Palawan (Fox
1970). The results supported a long-term chronological narrative that outlined thousands of years
of cultural history, starting with ancient huntergatherer sites and continuing through later historical contexts.
In Sarawak and in Sabah of Malaysia, Tom
Harrison organized excavations at several caves
during the 1950s through 1960s, with special
emphasis at the Niah Caves of Sarawak. The
project at the Niah Caves expanded to accommodate input from paleontology, zoology, geology,
botany, and radiocarbon dating (e.g., Harrisson
1957, 1958a, b, c, 1959a, b, 1967, 1968, 1970).
Harrison explored caves along the east coast of
Sabah (Harrisson 1973), yet the project at Niah
Caves consistently attracted the most international
attention for the numerous burial findings that
extended through several thousands of years.
After World War II, H.R. van Heekeren
returned to Indonesia in 1945, continuing his
prior studies with new techniques and motivation.
He completed his major works for outlining
the chronological sequence of Indonesia and
for describing the artifacts belonging to the
individual time periods, especially concerning
the Bronze–Iron Age of Indonesia (van
Heekeren 1958) and the Stone Age of
Indonesia (van Heekeren 1972). From 1950 until
leaving Indonesia in 1956, van Heekeren trained
new staff for the archaeological office, while he
undertook several excavations with R.P. Soejono
at Anjar in West Java, at sarcophagus burials in
Bali, and at cave sites in Flores and Centeral Java
(Glover 1974).
During the decades leading up to the 1970s,
archaeology in ISEA for the most part was
performed by foreign researchers, while those
projects created opportunities for the first generations of local scholars. Among those local
scholars were Wen-Hsun Sung in Taiwan, Alfredo
E. Evangelista in the Philippines, and
R.P. Soejono, T. Jacob, and S. Sartono in Indonesia. Soon, they assumed the responsibilities for
archaeological investigations and museum programs in their home countries.
Developmental Period, Since the 1970s and
Continuing Now
Since the 1970s and continuing now, two aspects
have characterized archaeology in ISEA,
mirroring worldwide trends. One aspect has
involved the development of new schools of
thought in how to perceive of the archaeological
record and how to formulate questions of
relevance for broader social studies such as in
the field of anthropology. Another aspect has
involved the increasing role of indigenous
scholars in shaping the practicalities of archaeology in each country.
In Taiwan, one of the major influential projects
occurred during the 1970s, known as the Interdisciplinary Cooperation Research Plan for the
Natural and Cultural History of the Zhuoshui
River and Daduxi River Basins in Taiwan Province. The project was developed by Taiwanese
archaeologist K.C. Chang, who had received formal Ph.D. training at Harvard University in the
U.S., in collaboration with the local Taiwanese
scholar Wen-Hsun Sung. During the years of
1972–1976, this project linked archaeology with
ethnology, geology, landscape ecology, zoology,
botany, and pedology. The results greatly
strengthened the baseline of chronological studies
in Taiwan, and furthermore archaeology was situated prominently within an interdisciplinary context. Meanwhile, archaeology in Taiwan grew in
History and Current Debates of Archaeology in Island Southeast Asia
its international standing, owing to a number of
unique characteristics of the local cultural traditions linking between Mainland East Asia and
ISEA, with further implications of linking with
Pacific Oceania, all potentially studied through
the archaeological record.
In the Philippines since the 1970s, archaeology
projects have continued at a number of key sites,
viewed as representative or perhaps even iconic of
the region’s cultural history. Multi-disciplinary
teams have incorporated archaeology as part of
studying sites of Palawan, led by the National
Museum of the Philippines (Peralta 1983),
and this particular area attracts an ever growing
number of archaeologists with different research
interests. Archaeology has been the central or
sole focus of studies in other regions of the
Philippines, for example in northern Luzon,
involving the discovery of ancient animal bones
and stone tools in the Liwan Plain (Fox and
Peralta 1974; Shutler and Mathisen 1979; Wasson
and Cochrane 1979), the deep excavations for
disclosing many thousands of years of human
presence at the Peñablanca Caves (e.g., Ronquillo
1981; Thiel 1986a–1987, 1988–1989; Mijares
2005, 2006a, b; Mijares et al. 2010), and the
excavations within and extending deep beneath
the extensive shell middens along the Cagayan
River (e.g., Cabanilla 1972; Thiel 1986b–1987;
Aoyagi et al. 1993, 1997; Ogawa 2002a, b, 2005;
Tanaka 2002, 2004; Hung 2005, 2008). So far,
more than 30 sites in the Cagayan Province have
revealed layers spanning through the last few
thousands of years of changing pottery and other
artifacts, thus providing substantial detail about
the regional archaeological sequence (Fig. 3).
During the 1970s and 1980s, local Malaysian
scholars began to receive overseas academic training in Australia and elsewhere, and they returned
to Malaysia as the first generation of archaeologists shaping the discipline internally. Their
primary interests were in outlining the local chronological sequence and then refining specific
aspects of the sequence to address particular questions such as about the ancient lives of huntergatherers, the emergence of pottery traditions, the
development of sedentary societies, and more
(Chia 2017). Among the first local scholars,
5
Zuraina Majid provided new understanding of
the Malaysian archaeological sequence and food
resource economy at Niah, based on her primary
excavations in 1977 (Majid 1982). Adi Haji
Taha’s excavations at Gua Cha and other sites
documented the long narrative of human presence
since more than 10,000 years ago and continuing
through the modern-day Orang Asli (e.g., Taha
1985, 1987, 1991). In 1995, the Center for
Archaeological Research Malaysia at the University of Science Malaysia was established, and
so far it has produced more than 15 Ph.D. and
30 M.A. graduates (Chia 2017), while serving as
the leading archaeology institute and authority of
the country (Fig. 4).
Since the 1970s in Indonesia, archaeology has
been increasingly important in government policies, national identity, and international relations.
In 1975, the Institution of Archaeology and
National Heritage (Lembaga Penelitian Purbakala
dan Peninggalan Nasional) was divided in two
new entities, including the Directorate of History
and Archaeology (Direktorat Sejarah dan
Purbakala) for the duty of protection and conservation, and the National Research Center for
Archaeology (Pusat Penelitian Arkeologi
Nasional), for the purpose of research. Since
then, the National Research Center for Archaeology has undertaken innumerable national archaeological projects, as well as collaborations with
visiting international teams (see Simanjuntak
2017a). Among the many significant findings
have been the definition of Acheulean stone
tools in Sangiran, central Java (e.g., Simanjuntak
and Forestier 2008; Simanjuntak 2011), of Homo
floresiensis at Liang Bua, Flores (e.g., Brown et al.
2004, Morwood et al. 2004; see below), of rock
art in Maros, Sulawesi (Aubert et al. 2014) and in
Borneo (Aubert et al. 2018), of a large burial
complex of Australo-Melanesian and East Asian
populations of two layer formation at Harimau
cave, South Sumatra (Simanjuntak 2016;
Matsumura et al. 2018) (Fig. 5), and of early
pottery-bearing sites in the Karama Valley in
Sulawesi (e.g., Simanjuntak 2008; Anggraeni
et al. 2014).
The above-mentioned research projects
(among many others not detailed here, due to the
6
History and Current Debates of Archaeology in Island Southeast Asia
History and Current
Debates of Archaeology
in Island Southeast Asia,
Fig. 3 One of the large
shell midden sites, Magapit
shell midden, located in
Lal-lo, Cagayan, northern
Philippines. (Image source:
Hsiao-chun Hung)
History and Current
Debates of Archaeology
in Island Southeast Asia,
Fig. 4 The field station at
Lenggong for intensive
field research in this region
undertaken by the Center
for Archaeological
Research, University of
Science Malaysia. (Image
source: Hsiao-chun Hung)
space limit), have contributed to our baseline
understanding of archaeology in ISEA, and they
have provided the essential core data for guiding
new investigations. Some of those projects have
been ongoing and continually re-shaping with
new generations of archaeologists. Inevitably,
interpretations of the data have been variable, in
some cases creating the grounds for academic
debates.
Key Issues and Current Debates
In ISEA, several archaeology research issues of
global significance have been controversial, leading to debates among scholars and shaping much
of the published literature. Perhaps the most
enduring debates have revolved around the dating
and context of Homo erectus fossils, the
History and Current Debates of Archaeology in Island Southeast Asia
7
History and Current Debates of Archaeology in Island Southeast Asia, Fig. 5 The Harimau cave in South
Sumatra, so far more than 80 human remains belong to two layers of ancient populations (the earlier Australo-Melanesian
and the later East Asian-Austronesian) have been discovered. (Image source: Hsiao-chun Hung)
appearance of the first anatomically modern
human (AMH) or Homo sapiens in the region,
and the development of cultural groups today
known as the Austronesian people.
Homo erectus in ISEA: Dating, Craniometric
Variation, and Relation with Fossils in
Northern China
Fossils of Homo erectus in Indonesia have prompted questions about how long ago these ancient
hominids reached into ISEA, how they related
with other groups of their species in other regions,
and what happened later with the appearance of
anatomically modern humans (AMH or Homo
sapiens). The major fossil findings in ISEA have
been in Java, at sites such as Trinil, Sangiran,
Mojokerto, Sambungmacan, and Ngandong.
Dating has been imprecise, relying on approximations of the ages of associated geological layers,
but the age range overall has been congruent
with Homo erectus in other regions, as old as
1.2–0.8 Ma and continuing at least through
0.75–0.4 Ma.
In a global view, Homo erectus as a species has
been regarded as an ancient and now extinct hominid, including some members of the species who
had migrated from Africa into Asia and evidently
as far as Indonesia in ISEA, prior to the evolutionary appearance of Homo sapiens. Any findings of Homo erectus fossils can offer insights into
our ancient evolutionary history. The findings in
ISEA in particular deserve close attention about
the possibility of localized variation within the
species, given the geographic distance from
other areas where Homo erectus had lived.
The fossils of Homo erectus in Java have
exhibited some variation in their forms, and
accordingly scholars have argued about what
those morphological differences could imply or
represent (e.g., Weidenreich 1943; Antón 2002;
Baba et al. 2003; Kidder and Durband 2004;
Zeitoun et al. 2010). Some scholars have
proposed that Homo erectus had evolved with
distinctive physical traits uniquely in Java,
while other scholars have proposed a population
replacement by other members of the Homo
Genus. Currently, the evidence points to
8
History and Current Debates of Archaeology in Island Southeast Asia
a long-term unbroken continuity of Homo erectus
in Java (Kaifu 2017), yet this framing still could
allow for debates about how much physical variation can be accepted within the overall definition
of a biological species such as Homo erectus.
The Homo erectus fossils in Java definitely
look different from the counterpart fossils of the
same species as reported in China, specifically in
Zhoukoudian at 0.75–0.4 Ma (see Shen et al.
2009; Antón 2002). Measurements of cranial morphology reveal that the faces looked different
among those individuals in different regions.
These variations are difficult to interpret, to
some extent constrained by the small numbers of
individuals that can be represented in the fossil
records. The key point of debate has been about
how to view the range of variation as occurring
within the biological species or else suggesting
distinctively separate variants or even perhaps
subspecies.
Appearance of Anatomically Modern Humans
(AMH or Homo sapiens) in ISEA: Timing,
Migration Routes, and Number of Migrations
In ISEA, the appearance of anatomically modern
humans (AMH or Homo sapiens) relates with
several significant questions. First of all, when
did the species enter into the region? Related
with this first question, what was the migration
route, and were multiple routes possible? Could
more than one migratory event have occurred?
Furthermore, how did the members of the Homo
sapiens species interact with other members of the
Homo Genus in different areas?
The dating issue can be framed within the
parameters of when Homo sapiens first dispersed
from the African continent and then when their
descendants definitely had reached as far as
Australia and New Guinea. The oldest evidence
of Homo sapiens outside Africa could be
interpreted as perhaps 100,000 years ago in the
Israel, thus constituting an oldest bracket for the
possible dating of the species entering into ISEA.
Equally important, human remains have been
confirmed in Australia about 50,000 years ago
(noting older dating still under debate), supported
by further evidence of stone tools in New Guinea
within the range of 47,000–42,000 years ago, thus
indicating that Homo sapiens must have passed
through ISEA by that time and perhaps much
earlier. Given those time brackets, Homo sapiens
first may have migrated into ISEA at some time
between 100,000 and 50,000 years ago.
Ancient remains of Homo sapiens have been
reported at several sites in ISEA, but dating has
been problematic with poor preservation and contextual association in many cases. From Fox’s
excavations in Palawan of the Philippines,
human remains have produced dating of approximately 47,000 years ago by Uranium series
(Detroit et al. 2004). Also in the Philippines,
a metatarsal element from Callao Cave in
Peñablanca of northern Luzon has been suggested
as belonging to Homo sp., dated at 66,700 years
ago by Uranium series (Mijares et al. 2010)
(Fig. 6). The “Deep Skull” of the West Mouth of
the Niah Caves in Sarawak, East Malaysia, has
been dated to approximately 40,000 years ago
(e.g., Harrisson 1959a, 1970; Brothwell 1960;
Kennedy 1979; Barker et al. 2007). In Indonesia,
bones of early Homo sp. have been reported at
Punung (Storm et al. 2005) and Wajak in Java
about 37,000–24,000 years ago) (Storm et al.
2013), as well as at Lida Ayer in Sumatra about
73,000–63,000 years ago) (Westaway et al. 2007).
These early findings of Homo sapiens in ISEA
could be questioned on technical grounds. For
instance, radiocarbon dating so far cannot extend
beyond 50,000 years ago, and therefore any older
dating must rely on other procedures with inherently wider error ranges of several thousands of
years. Additionally, some of the taxonomic identifications have been challenged, such as the metatarsal fragment at Callao Cave in the Philippines,
possibly attributed to a species other than
Homo sapiens with similar metatarsal structure
(O’Connell et al. 2018).
Ongoing research programs have been investigating issues of Archaic Hominin populations and
early Homo sapiens in ISEA. Researchers have
sought to clarify and refine the dating, biological
affinities, geographic extent, and contexts
of extinction of various species of the Homo
Genus. Among the most notable examples have
History and Current Debates of Archaeology in Island Southeast Asia
9
History and Current Debates of Archaeology in Island Southeast Asia, Fig. 6 The Callao Cave in Peñablanca of
northern Luzon of the Philippines has produced Homo sp. (?) dated as 66.7 1 ka. (Image source: Mike T. Carson)
been the studies of fossils of Homo floresiensis in
Flores Island of eastern Indonesia (e.g., Brown
et al. 2004; Morwood et al. 2004, 2005; Jacob
et al. 2006; Morwood and Jungers 2009; Brown
and Maeda 2009; Kaifu et al. 2011, 2015a, b;
Kubo et al. 2013; Henneberg et al. 2014; Sutikna
et al. 2016; Brumm et al. 2016; van den Bergh
et al. 2016), as well as the studies of ancient
DNA suggesting admixture between modern
and archaic (premodern) hominins such as
Denisovans (e.g., Reich et al. 2011; Cooper and
Stringer 2013; Kaifu 2017).
Formation of Major Cultural Groups in ISEA:
Cultural History of the Austronesian-Speaking
Populations
Another enduring debate in ISEA archaeology has
involved notions of how the region’s different
cultural groups and traditions came to exist, possibly through a series of migrations and interactions. Central to these debates, scholars have
considered how the modern-day Austronesianspeaking groups came to be so broadly distributed
all across the region and extending farther into
Madagascar and into Pacific Oceania (Fig. 7).
Much of the scholarly interest at first was pursued
through studies of language history and living
cultural traditions, and archaeology was added
into the debates mostly since the 1970s. Many of
the disagreements among archaeologists can be
traced back to the 1970s or even earlier, prior to
the availability of the most relevant archaeological data in the region. Currently, the archaeological records have developed with considerably
more refinement than was possible in the 1970s,
and meanwhile physical anthropology and other
lines of evidence have provided additional
supporting information.
Two quite different hypothetical models have
been proposed about the origins of modern Southeast Asian populations, now known as the
Regional Continuity Model and the Two-Layer
Hypothesis. The Regional Continuity Model proposes that modern Southeast Asians developed in
situ from local ancestors without significant
incoming genetic admixture (e.g., Turner 1990).
The Two-Layer Hypothesis argues that SEA
was occupied initially by groups such as the
10
History and Current Debates of Archaeology in Island Southeast Asia
History and Current
Debates of Archaeology
in Island Southeast Asia,
Fig. 7 Children of IlocanoAustronesian in Alaguia,
Lal-lo, Cagayan of northern
Luzon, Philippines. (Image
source: Hsiao-chun Hung)
Australo-Melanesian populations, and then later
substantial genetic admixture occurred with East
Asian immigrants who brought farming and other
innovations into the local cultural inventories
(e.g., Jacob 1967). Recently, the Two-Layer
Hypothesis has gained solid support from bioarchaeology studies of cranio-morphometric comparison (e.g., Matsumura et al. 2018, in press) and
ancient DNA studies (e.g., McColl et al. 2018).
These studies concluded an earlier layer of
Australo-Melanesian groups and a second layer
of East Asian groups.
The research themes about the Austronesian
origins and dispersals have been at the center of
numerous projects all across ISEA for the last few
decades. The related issues and debates can be
complicated, and they are treated in more detail
here in terms of the development of archaeology
as a discipline in ISEA.
Academic Debates of Austronesian
Origins
As the Austronesian-speaking populations comprise the majority of the modern ISEA communities, their origins and homelands have been
subjected to ongoing debates among scholars of
different fields (e.g., Bellwood 1997, 2005;
Oppenheimer 2004; Tsang 2005; Solheim 1988,
2006; Barker and Richards 2013). Numerous
hypothetical models have been contradictory,
and many have failed to refer to convincing evidence. The two most influential models provided
by archaeologists have been the Nusantao
Maritime Trade and Communication Network
(NMTCN) Model and the Farming-language Dispersal Hypothesis (aligned with the Out of Taiwan
Model).
The Nusantao Maritime Trade and
Communication Network Model
A popular model has persisted as the Nusantao
Maritime Trade and Communication Network
(NMTCN) Model, despite no actual archaeological or linguistic evidence in support of it. The
intellectual basis refers to the strong sea-faring
traditions in ISEA, noting that people for several
centuries have been highly skilled long-distance
navigators. Solheim (e.g., 1988, 2006) described
these people as the Nusantao. Some groups have
been known as sea nomads, ranging over vast
expanses of the region.
The NMTCN model involves more than just the
movement of sea-crossing experts, and it explicitly calls for a locus of cultural origin activity
within the central to southern provinces of ISEA,
expanding radially from there into the farther
edges of the region. In this view, Taiwan could
not have been the origin of the population movements, and thus it disagrees with the Out of
Taiwan Model. Moreover, the traditions of
History and Current Debates of Archaeology in Island Southeast Asia
sea-crossing networks are described as originating
long prior to a pottery-bearing horizon and predating the Austronesian-speaking groups.
In one variant of NMTCN Model, Meacham
(1988) proposed that Austronesian languages
and other cultural traits evolved locally within
a large triangular area with apex points at Taiwan,
Sumatra, and Timor. The pottery-bearing horizon
could be seen as emerging within this large region
overall, termed Austronesia as a whole, rather
than spreading from Taiwan into other areas in
steps or stages (Fig. 8). This model now has been
contradicted by the archaeological evidence and
by independent linguistic studies.
Another iteration of the NMTCN Model was
formulated by Solheim (2006: 90), most recently
articulated as:
The Nusantao began developing Pre-Austronesian
as their trade language starting around 12,000 BP
[years before present], forming over the vast territory from the east coast of Vietnam to the Bismarcks
in northwestern Melanesia (Wallacea could be considered its homeland), and then Proto-Austronesian
developed among the sailors and their families of
the NMTCN in their communication and trading
back again to the west through much of coastal
eastern Indonesia and the Philippines, and along
the coast of eastern Vietnam and South China.
Many of the concepts of the NMTCN Model
had emerged prior to the availability of highresolution archaeological data and other lines
of evidence. For example, Solheim (e.g., 1964,
2006) stressed the links between Sa Huynh pottery in Vietnam and Kalanay pottery in the
Philippines as evidence of a deeply ancient
Nusantao sea-crossing network that would
have excluded Taiwan from the origin story of
Austronesians. Now these Sa Huynh-Kalanay
pottery traditions are abundantly documented as
post-dating 2500 years ago in Iron Age contexts
(e.g., Reinecke et al. 2002; Hung et al. 2013), at
least 1500 years more recent than the initial spread
of a pottery-bearing horizon in ISEA (see below).
While the NMTCN Model lacks direct
supporting evidence, its proponents have sought
support in two ways. First has been to question the
validity of the historical linguistics conclusions of
a Taiwan origin of the Austronesian languages
that spread into other parts of ISEA, although so
11
far this conclusion has not been overturned.
Second has been to question the dating of
pottery-bearing horizons in different areas,
although in fact the dating in Taiwan was much
older than anywhere else in ISEA and then proceeded in discernable steps across the region.
The Farming-language Dispersal Hypothesis
and Out of Taiwan Model
The Farming-language Dispersal Hypothesis and
the Out of Taiwan Model have been linked
together conceptually, but they should not be mistaken as a singular entity. Both are outlined here.
According to the Farming-language Dispersal
Hypothesis, many of the world’s major migrations
occurred by farmers seeking new lands for their
crops and livelihood, and the farming populations
in most cases spoke unified languages (Bellwood
and Renfrew 2002). In this view, land-dependent
farming eventually would force some portion of a
population to move into new territory. When people migrated, they brought their languages and
other cultural traits with them, and they tended
to move in multiple instances within short periods
of time, resulting in archaeological records of
apparently rapid geographic spreading.
The Farming-language Dispersal Hypothesis
in itself does not point to any specific migration
route of the Austronesian-speaking groups who
eventually spread through ISEA, but rather
an independent line of evidence has come from
linguistic studies that point to Austronesian language origins in Taiwan, hence building the
framework for the Out of Taiwan Model (Fig. 9).
According to the historical linguistic studies,
the Austronesian languages are unified in a number of branches that reflect their order of separation and divergence form one another through
time. When examining the inter-relationships of
these branches in the Austronesian family, the
oldest variants appear to be retained in Taiwan,
and then a series of later branches can be mapped
moving into various parts of ISEA and even later
into the provinces of Pacific Oceania (Blust
2013).
Conceptually, this hypothesis would require
testing through the material archaeological inventories of ISEA to identify what traits could reflect
12
History and Current
Debates of Archaeology
in Island Southeast Asia,
Fig. 8 Successive
Austronesian language
homelands and movements,
suggested by Solheim and
by Meacham. (Graphics
source: Solheim 2006:
88, 91)
History and Current Debates of Archaeology in Island Southeast Asia
History and Current Debates of Archaeology in Island Southeast Asia, Fig. 9 The Out of Taiwan Model according to Bellwood. (Graphics source: Peter Bellwood,
modified from Bellwood et al. 2011, Fig. 16.8)
History and Current Debates of Archaeology in Island Southeast Asia
13
14
History and Current Debates of Archaeology in Island Southeast Asia
History and Current Debates of Archaeology in Island Southeast Asia, Fig. 10 Examples of red slipped pottery,
including a carinated jar with everted rim and an open footed bowl, from Nagsabaran Neolithic cultural layer, Cagayan,
northern Luzon, Philippines. (Image source: Hsiao-chun Hung)
the arrival of Austronesian-speaking groups and
their geographic expansion across the region.
Depending on the patterns that are found, they
may or may not validate the linguistic outline of
the Out of Taiwan Model. Those material inventories could be examined for signs of past farming
or other food production, toward testing the
Farming-language Dispersal Hypothesis.
Bellwood (2005) recognized the potterybearing horizon as the most likely candidate to
mirror past populations movements in ISEA.
Looking at the cross-regional archaeological findings of ISEA, a sudden pottery-bearing horizon
can be traced as moving generally from Taiwan
well prior to 5000 years ago, then into different
parts of ISEA after 4000 years ago and continuing
for some centuries. This pottery trail reflected
the geographic spread of cultural traits and ideas
that logically involved the movement of
people to certain degree. The geographic pattern
accorded with the major steps in the linguistic
history outline of the Out of Taiwan Model
(Blust 2013). Bellwood further postulated that
the Austronesian-speaking groups had migrated
not only with pottery traditions but also with
land-dependent farming systems or other forms
of formal food-producing economies that forced
people to seek new territories, in alignment with
the Farming-language Dispersal Hypothesis.
Current Evidence and Research Questions
Now with more investigations throughout ISEA,
as well as in neighboring areas of MSEA and East
Asia, a more refined picture is emerging about the
Two-layer Hypothesis. The older “first” layer of
Australo-Melanesian hunter-gatherers now can be
associated with flexed-burial traditions, and then
the later “second” layer of East Asian sedentary
groups now can be associated with extendedposition burial traditions. Additionally, this “second layer” included the Austronesian-speaking
groups who derived from East Asian biological
affinities, and many of the sites in Mainland China
and Taiwan showed clear evidence of rice farming
economy (e.g., Hung et al. 2017; Matsumura et al.
2018, in press).
In terms of seeking how the apparent two population layers could match with a change in the
archaeological record of ISEA, the association
coincided mostly with the appearance of a
pottery-bearing horizon at sites that furthermore
have shown signs of sedentary lifestyle, beginning as early as 4000 years ago in some places
of ISEA. Even later extensions of the pottery trail
moved into Pacific Oceania after 3500 years ago
(e.g., Hung 2005, 2008; Hung et al. 2011; Carson
et al. 2013).
So far, the cross-regional evidence of a pottery
trail indicates at least three major steps in the
large-scale picture of ancient population movements across ISEA. First, people in Taiwan had
developed traditions of farming rice and millets,
living in formal villages, and making varied pottery by 4800 years ago or perhaps earlier. Second,
by 4000 years ago, related groups moved into
the northern Philippines, bringing a sudden and
distinctive pottery-bearing horizon with links to
Taiwan at that time (Fig. 10), yet the composition
History and Current Debates of Archaeology in Island Southeast Asia
of food production has been unclear. Third,
by 3500 years ago, the pottery-bearing horizon
spread through more areas of ISEA. This
pottery-bearing horizon often has been regarded
as a Neolithic or New Stone Age association, overlaying and eventually replacing the older contexts
of hunter-gatherer sites in the region. Those material traits appeared suddenly and then spread
incrementally across the geographic expanse of
ISEA, consistently replacing the older traditions
of stone tool complexes. Furthermore, the new
traditions of pottery, other artifacts, village
layouts, and farming systems could be linked
with the modern-day and historically known
Austronesian-speaking groups of ISEA.
Overall,
the
pottery-bearing
horizon
represented the geographic spread of people,
materials, and ideas throughout ISEA, generally
during the centuries following 4000 years ago.
The archaeological records prove that people
already had been living in the region for many
thousands of years prior to that time, so logically
some degree of population admixture must have
occurred. In some exceptional cases, local indigenous populations may have continued entirely
intact in a biological sense, simply adopting
some of the technologies and lifeways associated
with the new pottery-bearing contexts. In other
extreme cases, people bringing pottery and additional traits may have completely replaced the
pre-existing groups. The reality probably was
more complicated and variable, but eventually
the Austronesian languages came to be spoken
all across the region with definite implications
about actual population dynamics. If the
Austronesian languages were so successful in
spreading throughout the region, then other
cultural traditions and probably the physical
populations were involved as well to a significant
degree.
Given the strong congruence of the linguistic
and archaeological findings (Bellwood et al.
2011), the Out of Taiwan Model appears to be
robust and valid for describing the geographic
spread of populations across ISEA. This descriptive evidence overall is consistent with the expectations of the Farming-language Dispersal
Hypothesis, particularly for the starting point in
eastern Taiwan where rice was cultivated in rather
15
limited land, dated to 4200 years ago (Deng
et al. 2018).
According to the Farming-language Dispersal
Hypothesis, the population movements most
likely were motivated by people seeking new
lands for their food-producing land-use systems,
but currently the direct evidence of farming has
been inconsistent, and apparently the timing and
composition differed across ISEA. Looking critically into these issues, the precise details of landuse systems must have been variable over the
vast geography and time spans involved in the
Austronesian diaspora. Rice farming eventually
gained prominence in most areas of ISEA, but
each of those earliest movements may have
involved somewhat different motivations for the
migrant groups, as well as somewhat different
subsistence land-use patterns. Research into this
topic has been ongoing (Carson and Hung 2018),
and the findings have been varied in different sitespecific cases. This current understanding suggests a different scenario from a prior characterization of a rapid movement of people from
Taiwan all the way eastward into Polynesia, as
an Express Train Model (e.g., Diamond 1988).
Recently, Simanjuntak (2017b) proposed an
Eastern Route Migration (ERM) of Austronesian
people who brought red-slipped pottery traditions
from Taiwan into the Philippines, northern
Borneo, Sulawesi, and Pacific Oceania, separate
from a Western Route Migration (WRM) of
Austroasiatic people who brought cord-marked
pottery traditions from MSEA through Peninsular
Malaysia and into Sumatra and Borneo (Fig. 11).
While the red-slipped pottery horizon has been
well documented and dated at several sites of
ISEA reflecting a large-scale ERM, the situation
has been considerably more complicated for
a WRM at the western edge of ISEA, as
there are pre-existing early hunter-gatherer
communities of Australo-Melanesian affiliation
(Matsumura et al. in press) lived along the western
side of the South China sea coast (in southern
China, coastal Vietnam, Thailand, and the Malaysian Peninsula) with pottery production at least as
early as 7000–4000 years ago (Hung in press).
Thus, the role of WRM will need future investigation for clarifying its relation with ancestral
Austronesian groups.
16
History and Current Debates of Archaeology in Island Southeast Asia
History and Current Debates of Archaeology in Island Southeast Asia, Fig. 11 The proposed two routes of
Neolithic migrations, Austroasiatic and Austronesian, into Indonesia and the geographic distribution of sites with redslipped and cord-marked pottery. (Graphics source: Simanjuntak 2017b)
Looking just at the pottery-bearing horizon as
a prime indicator, ancient population dispersals
occurred over the course of some centuries, and
conceivably the contexts of population movements had changed through time. Some of the
internal details have been arguable and subjected
to ongoing investigations that continue to generate new factual datasets. At least four major
research programs have targeted: (1) the dating
and definition of different early pottery assemblages in coastal Mainland SEA (e.g., Peninsular
Malaysia) and Sumatra, noting their relation with
ancient Austronesian societies in the region;
(2) the roles of domesticated animals (e.g., dogs,
pigs, and chicken), especially in cases of their seacrossing translocation; (3) the emergence of farming or other formalized food-producing land-use
systems in early ISEA; and (4) the ancient relationships between two or possibly more biological
populations meeting in this region of ISEA.
In summary, the linguistic evidence is essential
for outlining the Out of Taiwan Model of
Austronesian dispersals through ISEA, and
archaeology offers a way to test this model and
furthermore to clarify the dating and associated
context of the individual steps in ancient population movements. So far, the weight of archaeological evidence currently supports the Out of Taiwan
Model, with strong suggestions in favor of the
Farming-language Dispersal Hypothesis as well
as the Two-Layer Hypothesis. As mentioned, studies of both modern and ancient DNA consistently
have confirmed the expectations of the Two-Layer
Hypothesis and of the Out of Taiwan Model (e.g.,
McColl et al. 2018). The findings suggest a preexisting widespread Australo-Melanesian affinity
throughout ISEA, later with increasing amounts
of East Asian affinity in contexts of red-slipped
pottery after 4000–3500 years ago. The East
Asian affinities include definite links with Taiwan
and coastal China as the deeper ancestral origin of
the people who later spread throughout most of
ISEA. No evidence at present can support the
NMTCN Model.
History and Current Debates of Archaeology in Island Southeast Asia
While the Out of Taiwan Model may be
regarded as portraying ancient population movements accurately, a number of core questions continue to drive regional research. The major focus
for improving knowledge will be in developing
and testing explanatory theories of the evident
patterns and trends, such as proposed in the
Farming-language Dispersal Hypothesis as a
way to explain the evidence for the Out of Taiwan
Model. In this regard, new lines of evidence
will need to be brought into a comprehensive
re-evaluation of the evidence, most likely looking
at the new emerging findings in archaeo-botany
and other specializations that still are in process
of recovering primary datasets from relevant
sites cross-regionally. Moreover, other hypothetical explanatory theories should be considered,
although they would need to be logically consistent with the evidence in order to withstand testing
with real data.
International Perspectives
Within the scope of what currently is known of
ISEA archaeology, ample opportunities can be
explored for solving questions and refining the
available datasets. At present, the region-wide
chronological narrative describes the early Homo
erectus at 1.2–0.8 Ma, the first modern human
more than 50,000 years ago, followed by the
arrival and spread of rather large scale of human
migrations, and then the Austronesian groups
with a number of other changing conditions
within the last 4000 years. The exact dating and
the inventories of material findings have varied
from one site to another, in total revealing crossregional patterns and chronological trends that
have been essential for outlining the large-scale
narratives of ancient migrations in different time
intervals.
The most enduring research themes in ISEA
archaeology, such as the issues of the first arrival
of Homo sapiens and the issues of Austronesian
migrations, have been cross-regional and transcending political boundaries involving Taiwan,
the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, East Timor,
and beyond. A cross-regional approach has characterized ISEA archaeology for several decades,
17
and this perspective continues to guide most
research. The most enduring themes still relate to
cross-regional questions, for example:
1. How many species of the Homo Genus have
lived in ISEA? What were the relations
between these Homo Genus and others outside
ISEA?
2. How did different groups of the Homo Genus
come to populate this broad and diverse
region?
3. How, when, and why did ancient groups
transition evidently from hunting-gathering to
variable food-producing economies such as
horticulture and farming?
4. How did the Austronesian language traditions
develop into the historically known contexts of
the region?
5. How did ISEA contribute to the formation
of early Lapita cultural group in the Pacific
Oceanic region?
6. How did ISEA begin its Metal Age (bronze
and iron), historical kingdoms, and complex
state polities?
Within the established large-scale parameters
of the archaeological record, these and other
questions continue to be addressed with increasingly refined results. The work as a matter of
practicality has proceeded one site at a time, and
gradually the site-specific details have allowed
re-assessment of the large-scale narratives.
Future Directions
Archaeology as a discipline in ISEA has undergone more than 100 years of development. A number of transformations occurred under foreign
colonial and imperial influence, then again during
and after World War II, and continuing more with
professional advancements and training in each
ISEA country. At present, numerous international
collaboration projects are operating in ISEA for
archaeology research. Through time, we can
expect more projects by indigenous archaeologists, along with more research collaborations
among countries within ISEA (or SEA more
generally).
18
History and Current Debates of Archaeology in Island Southeast Asia
In order to solve many research questions and
debates, the need of linking data from multiple
lines of evidence has been increasingly obvious.
For example, several debates have continued
about the Out of Taiwan Model, based on
conflicting views of the archaeological findings
in the western part of ISEA, such as in Borneo, in
principle resolvable through clarifying the actual
material evidence. Adding to these debates are
long-standing disagreements about the concepts
of Neolithic societies, the role of farming or other
modes of subsistence economies, and the ability
to examine pottery assemblages as cultural
markers. Another factor in debates has been
a healthy skepticism of grand narratives, effectively resisting them even without alternative evidence. Overall, the situation is beginning to be
clarified through continual integration of archaeology with more lines of evidence from the
advancing research in ancient genetics, archaeobotany, palaeo-landscape reconstructions, and
other perspectives.
Today, new discoveries from ISEA frequently
attract the world’s attention, such as the recently
reported “700,000-year-old stone tools point to
mysterious human relative in Northern Luzon”
(Ingicco et al. 2018), and “World’s oldest figurative painting discovered in Borneo cave” (Aubert
et al. 2018). New discoveries continually change
our knowledge about ISEA, and furthermore
they revise our thoughts about the ancient world
in general. As many parts of ISEA still are
unexplored by modern-day archaeologists, ISEA
will continue to support significant discoveries by
new generations of investigators.
References
Anggraeni, M., T. Simanjuntak, P. Bellwood, and P. Piper.
2014. Neolithic foundations in the Karama valley, West
Sulawesi, Indonesia. Antiquity 88 (2014): 740–756.
Antón, S.C. 2002. Evolutionary significance of cranial
variation in Asian Homo erectus. American Journal of
Physical Anthropology 118 (4): 301–323.
Aoyagi, Y., M. Aguilera Jr., H. Ogawa, and K. Tanaka.
1993. Excavation of hill top site, Magapit shell midden
in Lal-lo shell middens, norhern Luzon, Philippines.
Man and Culture in Oceania 9: 127–155.
Aoyagi, Y., H. Ogawa, and K. Tanaka. 1997. Excavation,
and ornaments discovered at the Magapit shell-midden
site, in northern Luzon. The Journal of Sophia Asian
Studies 15: 167–180.
Aubert, M., A. Brumm, M. Ramli, T. Sutikna,
E.W. Saptomo, B. Hakim, M.J. Morwood, G.D. van
den Bergh, L. Kinsley, and A. Dosseto. 2014. Pleistocene cave art from Sulawesi, Indonesia. Nature 514:
223–227.
Aubert, M., P. Setiawan, A.A. Oktaviana, A. Brumm,
P.H. Sulistyarto, E.W. Saptomo, B. Istiawan,
T.A. Ma’rifat, V.N. Wahyuono, F.T. Atmoko,
J.-X. Zhao, J. Huntley, P.S.C. Taçon, D.L. Howard,
and H.E.A. Brand. 2018. Palaeolithic cave art in
Borneo. Nature. (Published: 07 November 2018).
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0679-9.
Baba, H., F. Aziz, Y. Kaifu, G. Suwa, R.T. Kono, and
T. Jacob. 2003. Homo erectus calvarium from the
Pleistocene of Java. Science 299 (5611): 1384–1388.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1081676.
Barker, G., and M.B. Richards. 2013. Foraging-farming
transitions in Island Southeast Asia. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 20: 256–280. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10816-012-9150-7.
Barker, G., H. Barton, M. Bird, P. Daly, I. Datan, et al.
2007. The ‘human revolution’ in lowland tropical
Southeast Asia: The antiquity and behavior of anatomically modern humans at Niah Cave (Sarawak,
Borneo). Journal of Human Evolution 52: 243–261.
Bellwood, P. 1997. Prehistory of the Indo-Malaysian
Archipelago. Revised ed. Honolulu: University of
Hawaii Press.
Bellwood, P. 2005. Examining the farming/language dispersal hypothesis in the East Asian context. In The
peopling of East Asia, ed. L. Sagart, R. Blench, and
A. Sanchez-Mazas, 17–30. New York: Routledge
Curzon Press.
Bellwood, P., and C. Renfrew (eds). 2002. Examining the
Farming/Language Dispersal Hypothesis. Cambridge:
McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
Bellwood, P., G. Chambers, M. Ross and H.C. Hung. 2011.
Are “cultures” inherited? Multidisciplinary perspectives on the origins and migrations of Austronesianspeaking peoples prior to 1000 BC. In Investigating
Archaeological Cultures: Material Culture, Variability
and Transmission, eds. B. Roberts and M. Vander Linden, 321–54. Dordrecht: Springer.
Beyer, H.O. 1926. Recent discoveries in Philippine archeology. In Proceedings third Pan-Pacific science conference, vol. 3, 2469–2491. Tokyo.
Beyer, H.O. 1947. Outline review of Philippine archaeology by Island and Provinces. The Philippine Journal of
Science 77 (3–4): 205–390.
Beyer, H.O. 1948. Philippine and East Asian archaeology,
National Research Council of the Philippines bulletin
29. Quezon City: National Research Council of the
Philippines.
Blust, R. 2013. The Austronesian languages.
Revised ed. Canberra: Asia-Pacific Linguistics,
History and Current Debates of Archaeology in Island Southeast Asia
Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, the
Australian National University.
Brothwell, D.R. 1960. Upper Pleistocene human skull
from Niah Caves, Sarawak. Sarawak Museum Journal
9: 323–349.
Brown, P., and T. Maeda. 2009. Liang Bua homo
floresiensis mandibles and mandibular teeth:
A contribution to the comparative morphology of
a new hominin species. Journal of Human Evolution
57 (5): 571–596.
Brown, P., T. Sutikna, M.J. Morwood, R.P. Soejono, et al.
2004. Anew small-bodied hominin from the Late Pleistocene of Flores, Indonesia. Nature 431: 1055–1091.
Brumm, A., G.D. van den Bergh, M. Storey, I. Kurniawan,
B.V. Alloway, et al. 2016. Age and context of the oldest
known hominin fossils from Flores. Nature 534:
249–253.
Cabanilla, I. 1972. Neolithic shell mound of Cagayan: The
Lal-Lo excavation, Field report no. 1. Manila: National
Museum of the Philippines.
Carson, M.T., and H.C. Hung. 2018. Learning from paleolandscapes: Defining the land-use systems of the
ancient Malayo-Polynesian homeland. Current Anthropology 59 (online 12 Dec, 2018; https://doi.org/10.
1086/700757).
Carson, M.T., H.C. Hung, G. Summerhayes, and
P. Bellwood. 2013. The pottery trail from Southeast
Asia to remote Oceania. Journal of Island & Coastal
Archaeology 8 (1): 17–36.
Chia, S. 2017. A history of archaeology in Malaysia.
In Handbook of East and Southeast Asian
archaeology, ed. J. Habu, P.V. Lape, and J.W. Olsen,
125–141. New York: Springer.
Cooper, A., and C. Stringer. 2013. Did the Denisovans
cross Wallace’s line? Science 342: 321–323.
Deng, Z., H.C. Hung, M.T. Carson, P. Bellwood,
S.L. Yang, and H. Lu. 2018. The first discovery of
Neolithic rice remains in eastern Taiwan: Phytolith
evidence from the Chaolaiqiao site. Archaeological
and Anthropological Sciences 10: 1477–1484. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s12520-017-0471-z.
Detroit, F., E. Dizon, C. Falguères, S. Hameau,
W. Ronquillo, and F. Sémah. 2004. Upper Pleistocene
Homo sapiens from the Tabon cave (Palawan, The
Philippines): Description and dating of new discoveries. Comptes Rendus Palevol 3 (8): 705–712.
Diamond, J.M. 1988. Express train to Polynesia. Nature
336: 307–308.
Dubois, E. 1896. On Pithecanthropus erectus:
A transitional form between man and the apes.
The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great
Britain and Ireland 25: 240–255.
Fox, R. 1959. The Philippines in Pre-historic times:
A handbook for the first national exhibition of Filipino
pre-history and culture. Manila: UNESCO National
Commission of the Philippines.
Fox, R. 1970. The Tabon caves. Manila: National Museum
of the Philippines.
19
Fox, R., and J. Peralta. 1974. Preliminary report on the
Paleolithic archaeology of Cagayan valley, Philippines,
and the Cabalwanian Industry. First regional seminar
on Southeast Asian prehistory and archaeology,
100–147. Manila.
Glover, I.C. 1974. The death of Dr. H. R. van Heekeren.
Indonesia Circle. School of Oriental & African Studies.
Newsletter 2: 5–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/030628477
08723575.
Harrisson, T. 1954. Bornean archaeology to 1955. Sarawak Museum Journal 6 (4): 188–192.
Harrisson, T. 1957. The Great Cave of Niah, a preliminary
report on Bornean prehistory. Man 57: 161–166.
Harrisson, T. 1958a. The caves of Niah: A history of
prehistory. Sarawak Museum Journal 8 (12): 549–595.
Harrisson, T. 1958b. Niah’s Lobang Tulang: Cave of
bones. Sarawak Museum Journal 8 (12): 596–619.
Harrisson, T. 1958c. The great Niah Caves, Sarawak:
A-ship-of-the-dead cult and related rock paintings.
Archaeological Newsletter 6 (9): 199–203.
Harrisson, T. 1959a. New archaeological and ethnological
results from Niah Caves, Sarawak. Man 59: 1–8.
Harrisson, T. 1959b. Radiocarbon-C14 dating B.C. from
Niah: A note. Sarawak Museum Journal 9 (13–14):
326–332.
Harrisson, T. 1967. A classification of stone age from Niah
Great Cave, Sarawak. Sarawak Museum Journal
15 (30–31): 126–199.
Harrisson, T. 1968. A Niah Stone Age jar-burial, C-14
dated. Sarawak Museum Journal 16 (32–33): 64–66.
Harrisson, T. 1970. The prehistory of Borneo. Asian
Perspectives 13: 17–46.
Harrisson, T. 1973. Newly discovered prehistoric rock
carvings – Ulu Tomani, Sabah. Journal of Malaysian
Branch of The Royal Asiatic Society XLVI (1):
123–139.
Henneberg, M., R.B. Eckhardt, S. Chavanaves, and
K.J. Hsü. 2014. Evolved developmental homeostasis
disturbed in LB1 from Flores, Indonesia, denotes
Down syndrome and not diagnostic traits of the invalid
species Homo floresiensis. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 111: 11967–11972.
Hung, H.C. 2005. Neolithic interaction between Taiwan
and Northern Luzon: The pottery and jade evidence
form the Cagayan Valley. Journal of Austronesian
Studies 1 (1): 109–134.
Hung, H.C. 2008. Migration and cultural interaction in
Southern Coastal China, Taiwan and the Northern
Philippines, 3000 BC to AD 100: The early history of
the Austronesian-speaking populations. PhD thesis,
Australian National University, Canberra.
Hung, H.C. in press. Prosperity and complexity without
farming: The South China Coast at 5000–3000 BC.
Antiquity.
Hung, H.C., M. Carson, P. Bellwood, et al. 2011. The first
settlement of Remote Oceania: From the Philippines to
the Marianas. Antiquity 85 (329): 909–926.
Hung, H.C., K.D. Nguyen, P. Bellwood, and M.T. Carson.
2013. Coastal connectivity: Long-term trading
20
History and Current Debates of Archaeology in Island Southeast Asia
networks across the South China Sea. Journal of Island
& Coastal Archaeology 8 (3): 384–404.
Hung, H.C., C. Zhang, H. Matsumura, and Z. Li. 2017.
Neolithic transition in Guangxi: A long development
of hunting-gathering society on Southern China. In
Bio-anthropological studies of early Holocene huntergatherer sites at Huiyaotian and Liyupo in Guangxi,
China, Monograph No. 47, ed. H. Matsumura,
H.C. Hung, Z. Li, and K. Shinoda, 205–228. Tokyo:
National Museum of Nature and Science.
Ingicco, T., G.D. van den Bergh, C. Jago-on, J.-J. Bahain,
et al. 2018. Earliest known hominin activity in the
Philippines by 709 thousand years ago. Nature 557:
233–237.
Jacob, T. 1967. Some problems pertaining to the racial
history of the Indonesian regions. PhD dissertation,
University of Utrecht.
Jacob, T., E. Indriati, R.P. Soejono, K.J. Hsü, et al. 2006.
Pygmoid Australomelanesian Homo sapiens skeletal
remains from Liang Bua, Flores: Population affinities
and pathological abnormalities. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 103 (36): 13421–13426.
Kaifu, Y. 2017. Archaic Hominin populations in Asia
before the arrival of modern humans: Their phylogeny
and implications for the “Southern Denisovans”.
Current Anthropology 58 (17): S418–S433.
Kaifu, Y., H. Baba, T. Sutikna, M.J. Morwood, D. Kubo,
E.W. Saptomo, R.D. Awe Jatmiko, and T. Djubiantono.
2011. Craniofacial morphology of Homo floresiensis:
Description, taxonomic affinities, and evolutionary
implication. Journal of Human Evolution 61 (6):
644–682.
Kaifu, Y., R.T. Kono, T. Sutikna, E.W. Saptomo, Jatomiko,
and Rokhus Due Awe. 2015a. Unique dental morphology of Homo floresiensis and its evolutionary implications. PLoS One 10 (11): e0141614.
Kaifu, Y., R.T. Kono, T. Sutikna, E.W. Saptomo, R.D. Awe
Jatmiko, and H. Baba. 2015b. Descriptions of the
dental remains of Homo floresiensis. Anthropological
Science 123: 129–145.
Kano, T. 1946. Studies in the ethnology and prehistory of
Southeast Asia. Vol. I. Tokyo: Yajima Shobo Press.
(in Japanese).
Kano, T. 1952. Studies in the ethnology and prehistory of
Southeast Asia. Vol. II. Tokyo: Yajima Shobo Press.
(in Japanese).
Kennedy, K.A.R. 1979. The deep skull of Niah: An assessment of twenty years of speculation concerning its
evolutionary significance. Asian Perspectives 20:
32–50.
Kidder, J.H., and A.C. Durband. 2004. A re-evaluation of
the metric diversity within Homo erectus. Journal of
Human Evolution 46 (3): 299–315.
Kubo, D., R.T. Kono, and Y. Kaifu. 2013. Brain size of
Homo floresiensis and its evolutionary implications.
Proceedings of the Royal Society B 280 (1760):
20130338.
Majid, Z. 1982. The West Mouth Niah in the prehistory of
Southeast Asia. Sarawak Museum Journal 31 (52).
Special monograph 3.
Matsumura, H., K. Shinoda, T. Shimanjuntak,
A.A. Oktaviana, et al. 2018. Cranio-morphometric
and aDNA corroboration of the Austronesian dispersal
model in ancient Island Southeast Asia: Support from
Gua Harimau, Indonesia. PLoS One 13 (6): e0198689.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198689.
Matsumura, H., H.C. Hung, C. Higham, C. Zhang, et al. in
press. Craniometrics reveal “Two layers” of prehistoric
human dispersal in Eastern Eurasia. Scientific Reports.
Meacham, W. 1988. On the probability of Austronesian
origins in south China. Asian Perspectives 26 (1):
90–106.
Mijares, A.S.B. 2005. The archaeology of Peñablanca cave
sites, northern Luzon, Philippines. Journal of the
Austronesian Studies 1 (2): 65–93.
Mijares, A.S.B. 2006a. The early Austronesian migration
to Luzon: Perspectives from the Peñablanca cave sites.
Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 26:
72–78.
Mijares, A.S.B. 2006b. Unearthing prehistory: The
archaeology of Northeastern Luzon, Philippine
Islands, BAR international series. Vol. 1613. Oxford:
Oxbow.
Mijares, A.S., F. Détroit, P. Piper, R. Grün, et al. 2010.
New evidence for a 67,000 year-old human presence at
Callao Cave, Luzon, Philippines. Journal of Human
Evolution 59: 123–132.
McColl, Hugh, F. Racimo, L. Vinner, F. Demeter, et al.
2018. The prehistoric peopling of Southeast Asia.
Science 361: 88–92.
Morwood, M.J., and W.L. Jungers. 2009. Conclusions:
Implications of the Liang Bua excavations for hominin
evolution and biogeography. Journal of Human
Evolution 57: 640–648.
Morwood, M.J., R.P. Soejono, R.G. Roberts, T. Sutikna,
et al. 2004. Archaeology and age of a new hominin
from Flores in eastern Indonesia. Nature 431:
1087–1091.
Morwood, M.J., P. Brown, T. Sutikna, E.W. Saptomo, et al.
2005. Further evidence for small-bodied hominins
from the Late Pleistocene of Flores, Indonesia. Nature
437: 1012–1017.
O’Connell, J.F., J. Allen, M.A.J. Williams, A.N. Williams,
et al. 2018. When did Homo sapiens first reach Southeast Asia and Sahul? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115 (34): 8482–8490. https://doi.org/
10.1073/pnas.1808385115.
Ogawa, H. 2002a. Chronological study on the red slipped
pottery of Lal-lo shell middens: Special reference on
the non-decorated red slipped pottery under the shell
middens. Journal of Southeast Asian Archaeology 22:
59–80.
Ogawa, H., ed. 2002b. Archaeological research on the
Lower Cagayan River. Tokyo: Tokyo University of
Foreign Studies.
History and Current Debates of Archaeology in Island Southeast Asia
Ogawa, H. 2005. Typological chronology of pottery
assemblages from the Lal-lo shell middens in northern
Luzon, Philippines. Journal of Southeast Asian
Archaeology 25: 1–30.
Oppenheimer, S. 2004. The ‘express train from Taiwan
to Polynesia’: On the congruence of proxy lines of
evidence. World Archaeology 36 (4): 591–600.
Paz, V. 2017. An outlined history of Philippine archaeology and its periodization. In Handbook of East and
Southeast Asian archaeology, ed. J. Habu, P.V. Lape,
and J.W. Olsen, 151–156. New York: Springer.
Peralta, J., ed. 1983. Tau’t Batu studies. Manila: National
Museum of the Philippines.
Reich, D., N. Patterson, M. Kircher, F. Delfin, et al. 2011.
Denisova admixture and the first modern human dispersals into Southeast Asia and Oceania. American
Journal of Human Genetics 89 (4): 516–528.
Reinecke, A., C. Nguyen, and T.M.D. Lam. 2002. Neue
Entdeckungen zur Sa-Huynh-Kultur. Köln: LindenSoft Press. (in German and Vietnamese).
Ronquillo, W. 1981. The technological and functional
analysis of lithic flake tools from Rabel Cave, Northern
Luzon, Philippines. Manila: Anthropological Paper.
Rutter, O. 1929. British North Borneo: An account of
history, resources and native tribes. London: Constable
& Company Limited.
Sarasin, F. 1936. Beiträge zur Prähistorie der Inseln Timor
und Roti. Verhandlungen der Naturforschenden
Gesellschaft 47: 1–59.
Shen, G., X. Gao, B. Gao, and D.E. Granger. 2009. Age of
Zhoukoudian Homo erectus determined with 26Al/
10Be burial dating. Nature 458 (7235): 198–200.
Shutler, R., and M.E. Mathisen. 1979. Pleistocene studies
in the Cagayan valley of northern Luzon, Philippines.
Journal of the Hongkong Archaeological Society 8:
105–114.
Simanjuntak, T., ed. 2008. Austronesian in Sulawesi.
Jakarta: Center for Prehistoric and Austronesian
Studies.
Simanjuntak, T. 2011. Acheulean tools in the Indonesian
palaeolithic. In Handaxes in the Imjin River. Diversity
and variability in the East Asian Paleolithic, ed. S. Yi,
179–192. Seoul: Seoul National University Press.
Simanjuntak, T., ed. 2016. Gua Harimau cave and the long
journey of Oku Civilization. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada
University Press.
Simanjuntak, T. 2017a. The archaeology of Indonesia.
In Handbook of East and Southeast Asian
archaeology, ed. J. Habu, P.V. Lape, and J.W. Olsen,
143–150. New York: Springer.
Simanjuntak, T. 2017b. The western route migration:
A second probable Neolithic diffusion to Indonesia.
In New perspectives in Southeast Asian and Pacific
prehistory, ed. P. Piper, H. Matsumura, and
D. Bulbeck, 201–211. Canberra: ANU EPress.
Simanjuntak, T., and H. Forestier. 2008. Handaxe in
Indonesia: Question on the Movius Line. Journal of
Human Evolution 23: 97–107.
Solheim, W.G.I.I. 1964. Further relationships of the
Sa-Huynh-Kalanay pottery tradition. Asian Perspectives 8 (1): 196–211.
21
Solheim, W.G.I.I. 1988. The Nusanto hypothesis:
The origin and spread of Austronesian speakers.
Asian Perspectives 26 (1): 77–88.
Solheim, W.G.I.I. 2006. Archaeology and culture in
Southeast Asia: Unraveling the Nusantao. Quzon:
The University of the Philippines Press.
Storm, P., F. Aziz, J. de Vos, D. Kosasih, S. Baskoro, and
L.W. van den Hoek Ostende. 2005. Late pleistocene
Homo sapiens in a tropical rainforest fauna in East
Java. Journal of Human Evolution 49: 536–545.
Storm, P., R. Wood, C. Stringer, A. Bartsiokas, J. de Vos,
M. Aubert, et al. 2013. U-series and radiocarbon
analyses of human and faunal remains from Wajak,
Indonesia. Journal of Human Evolution 64: 356–365.
Sutikna, T., M.W. Tocheri, M.J. Morwood, E.W. Saptomo,
D.A. Jatmiko, W. Rokus, et al. 2016. Revised stratigraphy and chronology for Homo floresiensis at Liang
Bua in Indonesia. Nature 532: 366. https://doi.org/
10.1038/nature17179.
Tanaka, K. 2002. Ceramic chronology in Northern Luzon:
Typological analysis of pottery from the Lal-lo Shell
Midden. PhD thesis, University of the Philippines,
Quezon City.
Tanaka, K. 2004. The continuity and the gap of the occupation of shell midden sites in the lower reaches of the
Cagayan River, northern Luzon. In Southeast Asian
archaeology, ed. V. Paz, 158–183. Quezon City:
University of the Philippines.
Taha, A.H. 1985. The re-excavation of the rock-shelter of
Gua Cha, Ulu Kelantan, West Malaysia. Monograph
Federation Museums Journal 30:1–134. Kuala
Lumpur.
Taha, A.H. 1987. Archaeology in peninsular Malaysia:
Past, present and future. Journal of Southeast Asian
Studies 18 (2): 205–211.
Taha, A.H. 1991. Gua Cha and the archaeology of the
Orang Asli. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory
Association 2 (11): 363–372.
Thiel, B. 1986a. Excavations at Arku Cave, northeast
Luzon, Philippines. Asian Perspectives 27 (2):
229–264.
Thiel, B. 1986b. Excavations at the Lal-lo shell middens,
northeast Luzon, Philippines. Asian Perspectives
27 (1): 71–94.
Thiel, B. 1988–1989. Excavations at Musang cave, northeast Luzon, Philippines. Asian Perspectives 28: 61–81.
Tsang, C.H. 2000. The archaeology of Taiwan. Taipei:
Council for Cultural Affairs, Executive Yuan.
Tsang, C.H. 2005. Recent discoveries at the Tapenkeng
culture sites in Taiwan: Implications for the problem
of Austronesian origins. In The peopling of East
Asia, ed. L. Sagart, R. Blench, and A. SanchezMazas, 63–73. London: Routledge Curzon.
Turner, C.G.I.I. 1990. Major features of Sundadonty and
Sinodonty, including suggestions about East Asian
microevolution, population history and late Pleistocene
relationships with Australian aborigines. American
Journal of Physical Anthropology 82: 295–317.
Van Den Bergh, G.D., Y. Kaifu, I. Kurniawan, R.T. Kono,
A. Brumm, E. Setiyabudi, Fachroel Aziz, and
M.J. Morwood. 2016. Homo floresiensis-like fossils
22
History and Current Debates of Archaeology in Island Southeast Asia
from the early Middle Pleistocene of Flores. Nature
534: 245–248.
Van Heekeren, H.R. 1958. The bronze iron age of
Indonesia. In Verhandelingen van het Koninklijk
Instituut voor Taal-,Land-, en Volkenkunde, Deel
XXII. S’Gravenhage: Martrinus Nijhoff.
Van Heekeren, H.R. 1972. The stone age of Indonesia. In
Verhandelingen het Kononklijk Instituut voor Taal-,
Land-, enVolkenkunde, deel XXI. The Hague: Martinus
Nijhoff.
Wasson, R., and R. Cochrane. 1979. Geological and geomorphological perspectives on archaeological sites in
the Cagayan valley, northern Luzon, Philippines.
Modern Quaternary Research in Southeast Asia 5:
1–26.
Weidenreich, F. 1943. The skull of Sinanthropus
pekinensis: A comparative study on a primitive
hominin skull. Paleontologia Sinica, New Series D
10: 1–484.
Westaway, K.E., M.J. Morwood, R.G. Roberts, J.X. Awe
Due Rokus, P.S. Zhao, Fachroel Aziz, Gert Van Den
Bergh, et al. 2007. Age and biostratigraphic significance of the Punung rainforest fauna, East Java, Indonesia, and implications for Pongo and Homo. Journal
of Human Evolution 53 (6): 709–717.
Zeitoun, V., F. Détroit, D. Grimaud-Hervé, and
H. Widianto. 2010. Solo man in question: Convergent
views to split Indonesian Homo erectus in two categories. Quaternary International 223–224: 281–292.
Future Reading
Barker, G., ed. 2013. Rainforest foraging and farming in
Island Southeast Asia. Cambridge: McDonald Institute
for Archaeological Research.
Barker, G., ed. 2016. Archaeological investigations in
the Niah Caves, Sarawak, 1954–2004. Cambridge:
McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
Bellwood, P. 2017. First Islanders: Prehistory and human
migration in Island Southeast Asia. Hoboken: Wiley
Blackwell.
Carson, M.T. 2018. Archaeology of Pacific Oceania:
Inhabiting a Sea of Islands. London/New York:
Routledge.
Chia, S. 2017. A history of archaeology in Malaysia.
In Handbook of East and Southeast Asian
archaeology, ed. J. Habu, P.V. Lape, and J.W. Olsen,
125–141. New York: Springer.
Kaifu, Y., M. Izuho, T. Goebel, H. Sato, and A. Ono, eds.
2015. Emergence and diversity of modern human
behavior in Paleolithic Asia. College Station: Texas
A&M University Press.
Paz, V. 2017. An outlined history of Philippine archaeology and its periodization. In Handbook of East and
Southeast Asian archaeology, ed. J. Habu, P.V. Lape,
and J.W. Olsen, 151–156. New York: Springer.
Simanjuntak, T. 2017. The archaeology of Indonesia.
In Handbook of East and Southeast Asian archaeology,
ed. J. Habu, P.V. Lape, and J.W. Olsen, 143–150.
New York: Springer.