Hist Arch DOI 10.1007/s41636-017-0056-9

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Historical Archaeology in Southeast Asia John N. Miksic

Accepted: 1 August 2017 # Society for Historical Archaeology 2017

Abstract Historical archaeology in Southeast Asia can be divided into two periods: the classic era of the Hindu and Buddhist civilizations, which began approximately 2,000 years ago, and the postclassic era, which began around A.D. 1400 with the expansion of Islam and Theravada Buddhism, followed by the arrival of European colonists in the 16th century. The use of “historical archaeology” to refer to this 2,000-year-long period differs from the sense of the term used in Europe, South Africa, Australia, and North America, where historical archaeology is normally applied to the last 500 years. This essay describes the attitudes toward the transition from antiquity to the present from the perspective of archaeology in various parts of Southeast Asia. The main focus is on the perspective of local archaeologists, rather than those from outside the region. Extracto La arqueología histórica en el Sudeste Asiático puede dividirse en dos períodos: la era clásica de las civilizaciones hindú y budista, que comenzaron hace 2000 años aproximadamente, y la era Posclásica, que comenzó en torno a 1400 con la expansión del Islam y del Budismo Theravada, seguido por la llegada de colonizadores europeos en el siglo XVI. El uso de la "arqueología histórica" para referirse a este período de 2000 años de duración difiere del sentido del término

J. N. Miksic (*) National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected]

utilizado en Europa, Sudáfrica, Australia y Norteamérica, donde la "arqueología histórica" se aplica normalmente a los últimos 500 años. El presente ensayo describe las actitudes hacia la transición desde la antigüedad hasta el presente desde la perspectiva de la arqueología en diversas partes del Sudeste Asiático. El principal foco de atención se encuentra en la perspectiva de los arqueólogos locales, en lugar de en aquellos fuera de la región. Résumé L’archéologie historique en Asie du Sud-Est peut être divisée en deux périodes: la période classique des civilisations hindoues et bouddhistes, qui a débuté il y a 2 000 ans environ, et l’ère postclassique, qui débuta vers 1 400 avec l’expansion de l’Islam et du bouddhisme theravada, suivie de l’arrivée des colons européens au XVIe siècle. L’usage de l’expression « archéologie historique » pour désigner cette période de 2 000 ans s’écarte du sens de l’expression utilisée en Europe, en Afrique du Sud, en Australie et en Amérique du Nord, où « archéologie historique » est normalement utilisée pour les derniers 500 ans. Cet essai décrit les positions à l’égard de la transition de l’Antiquité à nos jours du point de vue de l’archéologie dans différentes parties de l’Asie du Sud-Est. Il est principalement axé sur l’approche des archéologues locaux, plutôt que ceux de l’extérieur de la région.

Keywords urbanization . Islamization . Chinese . trade . ceramics . forts . warfare . art history . Buddhism

Hist Arch

The Definition of Historical Archaeology in Southeast Asia The common definition of Southeast Asia coincides with 11 countries (Myanmar, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines, Brunei, Indonesia, and Timor Leste) (Fig. 1). The use of linguistic, cultural, archaeological, or environmental criteria would include parts of India, China, and Taiwan, where languages

found in Southeast Asia are spoken, and where climate, flora, and fauna are also similar. This article focuses on the modern political units. This region measures 5600 km from east to west, and 3300 km from north to south. Its population in 2017 is approximately 650 million. Indonesia, the region’s largest country and the fourth largest in the world in terms of population, has about one-third of this total. In 1800, the population was only 30 million (Jones 2013:5). For most of the past, Southeast Asia was

Fig. 1 Archaeological sites of importance mentioned in the text. (Map by Goh Geok Yian, 2017.)

Hist Arch

sparely populated, except for a few centers of relatively dense population in Java and along the inland fringes of the deltas of the Ayeyarwadi, Chao Phraya, Mekong, and Red rivers. Southeast Asia’s population is now larger than that of Europe or North America. The reasons for the rapid population growth over the past two centuries are subjects of debate (Hirschman and Bonaparte 2012). The low population in the early historical period had significant implications for settlement patterns, economic and political structure, and many other aspects of historical archaeology. In the 16th century, when European descriptions become available, much of Southeast Asia’s population already lived in cities. This does not seem to have been caused by a scarcity of agricultural land. The circumscription hypothesis does not explain this phenomenon. Southeast Asia contradicts theories about the factors responsible for cultural evolution in this and several other important respects. Southeast Asia has been a critical participant in longdistance maritime trade for 2,000 years. Northern Vietnam was politically incorporated into China for 1,000 years, until the 10th century, and the north end of the Straits of Melaka, including north Sumatra and the west coast of the Malay Peninsula, was politically subordinate to south India from the early 11th to the early 12th centuries, but these foreign occupations did not last. The Kingdom of Majapahit in East Java claimed suzerainty over an area larger than modern Indonesia, and the Khmer Empire based at Angkor controlled parts of Thailand, Laos, and Vietnam, in addition to modern Cambodia, but no kingdom came close to unifying all of Southeast Asia politically. The diversity and logistical problems created by the mountain ranges of the mainland and the division of the equatorial area into more than 30,000 islands and the existence of five language families provide an explanation for this. Sanskrit language and a script imported from India provided a means of communication by the early classic period (A.D. 600–900), but vernacular languages maintained their dominant positions, and Indic script morphed into the regional scripts still used today, thus removing a potential unifying factor. The term “historical archaeology” in North America usually coincides with the study of the spread of European culture (Deetz 1977:5). Orser (1996:27) used the term to refer to those who study “those that inhabited a time ... broadly termed ‘modern times.’” In Europe, “postmedieval archaeology” refers to the period from about 1450 to 1750. This periodization of archaeology is based on the assumption that an important transition

occurred around 1500, after which new types of human culture appeared. This may be true of Europe, but does not apply to all parts of the world. Some archaeologists in Africa reject the term “historical archaeology” because complex societies already existed there before the appearance of writing. This essay follows the opinion of archaeologists, such as Robert Schuyler (1977), who define the subject of historical archaeology literally as the study of the period since writing appeared. In Southeast Asia, there is a significant difference between prehistoric and historical archaeologists in terms of methods and objectives. In Thailand until the 1960s, historical archaeology was “royal art history” (Glover 2006:18). Similarly, in Indonesia and Cambodia, archaeological priorities for the historical period until recently focused on the interpretation and conservation of major monuments and works of art, while neglecting such topics as technology, trade, and settlement patterns. Archaeological paradigms began to shift in the 1990s, partly due to increasing interest in hypothesis testing and application of analytical techniques from other sciences, and partly due to the transition from dependence on foreign archaeologists to indigenous Southeast Asian archaeologists. Historical archaeology in Southeast Asia has made much progress in the last 50 years, but Southeast Asian archaeological training programs are still hampered by an educational system that separates humanities and social sciences from quantitative laboratory-based fields, such as biology and chemistry. Most research on organic materials, elemental analysis, and dating still has to be performed by laboratories outside the region. Different Southeast Asian countries periodize their pasts in different ways. In the Philippines, for example, the historical period is accepted as beginning in the 16th century, although the oldest locally written document is dated A.D. 900. This is due to the fact that the first detailed records coincide with the arrival of the Spanish. In Indonesia, the current era is considered to have begun around 1400 with the arrival of Islam; the period from 1400 until now is termed the Islamic period. In Thailand, which was never colonized and where Buddhism has been established for 1,500 years, the last 650 years are periodized according to the florescence of the Kingdoms of Ayutthaya (1351 and 1767) and Bangkok (1767–present). The implications of this terminology are complicated by the fact that, whereas these two kingdoms controlled central Thailand, the north and south regions of Thailand were only gradually brought under the control of these capitals.

Hist Arch

One theme that has become increasingly popular among Southeast Asian historical archaeologists, whether dealing with classic or postclassic eras, is that of trade and economics. Historical sources provide some data on this topic, but most local historical texts emerge from the context of religious activity. The operations of markets and commercial networks are still poorly known, as are the locations of production centers. Settlement-pattern study requires no special technical expertise and is a sphere in which Southeast Asian archaeologists are becoming more proficient. In the field of ceramic studies, research has made progress in Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam, where glazed ceramics were produced for export in the 15th century. The subject of unglazed ware, however, has yet to attract many local scholars. This lacuna leaves many questions about technology, population density, site use, and art styles unanswered (Fig. 2).

Colonization, Nationalism, Archaeology European colonization was initiated by the Portuguese when they conquered Melaka, the main spice emporium in Southeast Asia, in 1511. Spain established its rule over parts of the Philippines in the late 16th century; the Portuguese and Spanish also established enclaves in Maluku (the Moluccas), the “Spice Islands” of eastern Indonesia, around the same time. The Dutch seized the port of Jakarta in West Java in 1619, and gradually

Fig. 2 The village of Cheung Ek lies on the outskirts of Cambodia’s capital, Phnom Penh, in an area where the Khmer Rouge executed and buried many of its victims. Due to the recent increase in prosperity in the country, many sites are being disturbed. Some of these, like Cheung Ek, date to the pre-Angkor period. Cheung Ek is a kiln site that has been largely bulldozed, leaving only this small remnant in which at least three kilns can be discerned. (Photo by author, 2013.)

established agreements with local rulers in many parts of Indonesia, guaranteeing the Dutch authority over commerce in return for guaranteeing the status of the ruling families. The British had trading posts (factories) in West Java and the Spice Islands from 1602 to 1685, after which they occupied a small port at Bengkulu, southwest Sumatra, from 1685; in 1786 they acquired another port at Penang, Malaysia. The Portuguese, Dutch, and English also established trading posts in Ayutthaya (Thailand) and at Myauk-U (Arakan), Mottama (Martaban), and Bago (Pegu) in what is now Myanmar. In the 19th century the British, Dutch, and French greatly expanded their hold over the region; by 1900 almost all of Southeast Asia was administered by European powers or the United States, except for Thailand. The high-water mark of European imperialism in Southeast Asia lasted a relatively short time, less than a century, before it was undone by the Japanese invasion, but the colonial experience seared Southeast Asians’ sense of respect for their past and led to the development of fervent nationalism in the 1950s. Southeast Asian archaeology during the colonial period was a patchwork of different policies. Neither the Spanish nor the Americans created an official department of archaeology in the Philippines. The Archaeological Survey of India sponsored some research in Myanmar. Some archaeological research was conducted under the auspices of the museums in Singapore and Malaya in the 20th century. In Indonesia and Indochina the Dutch and French established programs of Oriental studies at the

Hist Arch

beginning of the 20th century (for the École française d’Extrême-Orient in Indochina, see Clémentin-Ojha and Manguin [2007]; for the Oudheidkundige Dienst in the Dutch East Indies and its post-independence successor, the National Research Centre for Archaeology in Indonesia, see Harkantiningsih [2010], in which archaeology and epigraphy played major roles. In both instances, the European vision of the past was the image of once-great civilizations that had long ago decayed and been forgotten by the very cultures that had created them. The recent historical period was of less interest to Europeans, since it was perceived as an era of decline, though in Indonesia the period of early Islamization attracted some attention, perhaps partly because of the archipelago’s connection to the larger Islamic world in which the Ottoman Empire still played a major role. By the 20th century, the Dutch presence in some areas of Indonesia was 300 years old, and some Dutch archaeologists became interested in the older remnants of their own forebears in the archipelago. Articles on Dutch sites in Indonesia appeared in the annual reports of the Archaeological Service of the Dutch East Indies. Some monographs on the subject also appeared, e. g., van de Wall (1928). Archaeology thus occupied a somewhat ambiguous position in the early postcolonial period in Southeast Asia. On one hand, the new nations appreciated the fact that foreigners had shown respect for their ancestors’ achievements and civilizations. On the other hand, the monuments of Angkor or Borobudur were not located in the new capitals; they were in rather remote, bucolic areas that did not project the images of modernity that the new nations wanted to project. The strong association of classical archaeology with foreigners tainted the monuments to some extent; for some they were images of colonial paternalism or even old-fashioned ideas and aesthetics that were opposed to the dynamic societies the new governments wished to foster. They were also associated with particular segments of the new nations’ multiethnic populations. This was especially true of Indonesia; several regions outside Java revolted against the new government based in Jakarta, West Java, on the grounds that their ancestors had been oppressed by the Javanese, who were seen as colonialist or feudal overlords who did not respect non-Javanese culture. In Myanmar, non-Buddhists and other minority groups also disputed the image of the past focused on the dominant Burmese. The palaces of the kings of Vietnam were similarly denigrated by the Communist regime in the north of the country.

In the late 1960s, attitudes toward historical archaeology began to change. In Vietnam, Bronze Age archaeology was fostered because it demonstrated that Vietnam had possessed an advanced society before the colonial rule of the Chinese and the French. The Vietnamese felt little interest in studying the 1,000year-long period of Chinese domination until an ancient palace complex from the 9th century in the center of Hanoi was accidentally discovered when a new mausoleum for the revolutionary president Ho Chi Minh was being built. It was discovered that the palace displayed a high degree of incorporation of Vietnamese elements, rather than replicating a Chinese pattern; a major research project was then conducted. Vietnamese felt little interest in studying the Cham Kingdom in the southern part of the country, ruled by a non-Vietnamese group, until the early 21st century, when it was realized that the Cham monuments could be restored and used as tourist attractions. Unfortunately in some cases, this led to hasty reconstructions that were not accompanied by archaeological research into the monuments’ contexts. Some archaeologists have sought to defend the nationalistic tendency of archaeological programs by arguing that national communities needed to be strengthened, and that by performing this function archaeologists were able to secure more funds for research from national governments (Glover 2006). The commoditization of Southeast Asia’s past has accelerated over the past 20 years, as cultural tourism in the region has become a greater source of income. Cambodia and Thailand in particular have profited from this development. In Cambodia, a national authority, Authority for the Protection and Safeguarding of Angkor and the Region of Angkor (APSARA), has maintained a particularly high standard of preservation and has prevented any major degradation of the monuments of Angkor, but in other parts of the country theft and uncontrolled development have led to the disappearance of important sites. In Indonesia, the management of major monuments, such as Borobudur and Prambanan in Central Java, was turned over to semiprivate enterprises that have also done a good job of protecting the monuments. Some critics, however, have complained that not enough of the profits from tourism are distributed to the local population, nor have the tourism authorities that manage the sites invested in further archaeological research, which might enrich the experiences of visitors by adding more layers of interpretation and more context to the displays at the sites.

Hist Arch

In the Muslim-majority countries of Indonesia, Malaysia, and Brunei, one might expect the archaeology of the recent past to be more appealing to local archaeologists, since it coincides with the expansion of Islam in those countries. This has not, however, been the case. One reason for this may be due to an aversion to the commoditization of the Islamic religion through converting religious sites into locations for mass visitorship, including visitation by non-Muslims. Another reason may stem from the desire to avoid calling attention to the fact that there was a pre-Islamic period, a “Time of Ignorance” (masa jahiliah in Malay/ Indonesian). The situation is perhaps further exacerbated by the current tension between various forms of Islam, which fall along a spectrum from extreme fundamentalism to tolerance of other faiths. Another factor that would be expected to militate against the development of an archaeology of the last 500 years in Southeast Asia is the phenomenon of colonialism. Many remnants from the last 200 years have been allowed to disappear, but this can be attributed more to the fact that the sites where major colonial monuments were located tend to be in the centers of modern economic development, rather than to a desire to obliterate traces of the colonial era. Businessmen and government officials alike feel that these sites can contribute more to the nation through their development than their preservation. There has not been a rush to demolish colonial period buildings, however. Instead, after a period immediately following independence, which one might characterize as one of benign neglect, increasingly vocal groups in Southeast Asia have begun to call for preservation of colonial period sites, which are no longer identified with foreign oppressors; in Southeast Asia few people now alive can remember those times. The buildings built before 1950 have now become sites of memory for the living; in most large and many middle-sized or small towns and cities and Southeast Asia the pace of development has been so rapid that few old buildings survive. The colonial stain has been wiped away; what remains is the association of these buildings with events and people from the recent past.

The Chinese Factor Chinese began to form colonies (in the sense of settlements in a foreign land) in Southeast Asia in the 14th

century. Due to colonial policy, colonial period cities in Southeast Asia often were dominated by Chinese and foreign residents, which has inhibited the development of archaeological projects focused on them. In Vietnam, Chinese have been and are still seen as potential invaders. In Thailand and Cambodia, however, most Chinese practice the same basic religion as the indigenous people (Buddhism). The founder of the Bangkok Dynasty in 1767, U Thong, was part Chinese. In the Philippines, many Chinese are devotees of the Roman Catholic religion to which most indigenous Filipinos also subscribe. Intermarriage of Chinese and local families has been common in the non-Muslim countries of Southeast Asia for many generations. In Myanmar, the downfall of the classic period kingdom of Bagan is sometimes attributed to an invasion by Mongols in the 13th century. The ruler at that time is popularly known as “he who fled from the Chinese.” By the 19th century, if not earlier, immigrants from China formed a significant sector of society in north central and northeast Myanmar. It is difficult to form a clear picture of this community, however, since many of them seem to have come from the southwestern province of Yunnan, where a large proportion of the population today is not of Han Chinese descent. Ironically, many of them were Muslim descendants of Uighurs from Central Asia, and thus were Muslim, whereas the local Burmese were and are Buddhist. The same phenomenon still applies today. In Java, in the early 15th century, there were also communities of Muslim Chinese, whereas the local Javanese were either Buddhists or Hindus. In Java, of course, the situation is now reversed. The disproportionate economic power of the overseas Chinese population has also led to tension in the Islamic countries of the region, which has overshadowed the fact that some early Chinese immigrants were, in fact, proselytizers of Islam.

Classic Period Southeast Asian Society In order to comprehend the importance of the transition that took place in Southeast Asia in the 16th century, some familiarity with the pre-1500 period is necessary. Classic period kingdoms in Southeast Asia resembled those of medieval Europe: they were ruled by shifting coalitions of nobles, each of whom had his own armed retainers. Construction of religious monuments of permanent materials (brick or stone) was one way of

Hist Arch

consolidating a leader’s status. Another important source of archaeological data in Southeast Asian historical archaeology is long-distance maritime trade. PierreYves Manguin has excavated centers of population and production near the probable sites of ports in south Vietnam, Sumatra, and Java (Manguin 2004). The relationship between ports and hinterland centers of power cannot yet be determined. During the early classic period, A.D. 600–900, Sanskrit language and Indic script were adopted by the major polities of Southeast Asia. Most of the trade between the Indian Ocean and South China Sea was carried on Malay ships. The largest monuments of this period were built in Central Java: one great Buddhist and one great Hindu complex. The Sumatran kingdom of Srivijaya became known as the major link in the maritime trade network connecting Arabia, Persia, India, and China. Srivijaya in Sumatra became a great center of Buddhist scholarship. Few Chinese visited Southeast Asia in this period. In the middle classic period, 900–1200, Chinese coins became common currency in the Straits of Melaka. The Empire of Srivijaya and the major Javanese kingdom of Mataram disappeared. Two new centers of power and monumental construction arose, both on the mainland: Bagan in Myanmar, Angkor in Cambodia. Neither was a major commercial center; both abolished money and instituted administrative systems of allocating resources (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3 Angkor Wat was erected in the 12th century. It was later converted to use by Buddhists and came under the hegemony of the Thai kingdom of Ayutthaya. This stupa on the east side of the monument was built by a Thai governor of the Siem Reap area. (Photo by author, 2015.)

During the late classic period, 1200–1400, Bagan and Angkor declined, and two new centers of power arose: Ayutthaya in Thailand and Majapahit in Java. Islam began to take root in the archipelago, and overseas Chinese communities began to form. Southeast Asian cities and maritime trade became more complex. The postclassic was not a time of regression, as the colonial paradigm assumed; it was a time when more flexible and egalitarian structures replaced older rigid patterns. Society became more diverse with the addition of permanent communities of Chinese, Arabs, Persians, and Indian Muslims. Evidence for settled foreign enclaves (“colonies” in the original sense of the term) in Southeast Asia is nonexistent until the 11th century, when archaeological data from three sites at the north end of the Straits of Melaka suggest that semipermanent foreign communities formed there. Inscriptions and temples of south Indian style in the northwest Malay Peninsula indicate that Chola viceroys ruled there for about a century (Miksic 1995, 2013). At Barus, on the Indian Ocean coast of Sumatra, large quantities of south Indian and Persian pottery and glass have been found, together with an inscription in Old Tamil dated 1088 that was erected by a south Indian trading guild. At Kota Cina on the Straits of Melaka coast, Hindu and Buddhist stone statues made in south India and/or Sri Lanka have been found, together with large quantities of Chinese glazed ceramics and coins of the Song Dynasty (960–1279). It is impossible to tell whether these foreign communities

Hist Arch

were semipermanent or seasonal (Miksic 2013:397– 398,402–404). By the end of the classic period there were at least five cities with at least 5,000 Chinese inhabitants in Southeast Asia. One common feature that these early sites with cosmopolitan populations possess is evidence of fortifications. At Barus these consist of a rampart and ditch. At Kota Cina no traces of fortifications exist, but the site’s name in Malay means “Chinese stockade”; it may have been made of wood. Marco Polo in 1292 described how the Yuan fleet that took him to Persia had to stop at the north tip of Sumatra for five months to wait for a favorable monsoon to return; they built a stockade for protection and lived inside it while trading with the local population (Latham 1958:254). Zheng He followed the same practice at Melaka (Mills 1970:113). Oc-èo in the Mekong Delta is the only site in 1st millennium Southeast Asia to yield evidence of a dense conglomeration of inhabitants pursuing a wide variety of productive occupations within a walled settlement. No walled cities appeared until the 11th or 12th centuries; these were ports with foreign enclaves. This type of settlement may have been established as the result of the formation of semipermanent communities of merchants from outside Southeast Asia. When the Portuguese attacked Melaka in 1511, they found it stoutly defended with many cannon, and walls that the Portuguese only breached with great difficulty. Warfare does not seem to have been a major factor in the design of settlements in Southeast Asia until the 14th century. Whether the most significant factor was increased frequency of warfare, new weaponry, or something else is uncertain. The appearance of walled settlements may have arisen as a result of foreign settlement, but it may also have been associated with the introduction of gunpowder. The Chinese report that the Javanese had cannon by the time of the Zheng He voyages. Thus, fortified settlements and cosmopolitan populations with evidence of a diversity of occupations, including trade as a major occupation, all hallmarks of “modernity,” appeared in the middle classic. The same applies to money. Already in 1074 a Chinese official complained that China’s economy was suffering because foreign ships were taking large quantities of Chinese coins back to Southeast Asia (Rockhill 1914:422). Chinese officials were supposed to inspect ships leaving China to make sure they were not taking away coins and other strategic items, such as weapons and books (Sen 1996:257). In the postclassic era,

Southeast Asian kingdoms, such as Melaka and Banten, made their own copper coins in shapes imitating those from China.

Southeast Asia since 1500: The Introduction of Islam The beginning of the early modern period in Southeast Asian historiography is conventionally dated to 1450 (Reid 1988). The first wave of overseas Chinese settlement had come to an end around 1365; the next 150 years were marked by the rapid expansion of trade with the Islamic ports of the Indian Ocean (Harkantiningsih and Wibisono 2013). When the Portuguese arrived in 1509, they quickly established enclaves at the port of Melaka and in the Spice Islands of eastern Indonesia. Their impact on Southeast Asian economy and society was, however, quite limited. The archaeology of the period from 1500 to 1700 is mainly the story of Southeast Asian urbanization and expanding trade (Reid 1993:69–89). In the 15th and 16th centuries, the main external partners of the Southeast Asians were located in the Indian Ocean (Chaudhuri 1985). When Chinese were allowed to go overseas again in 1567, trade in the region received an added impetus. The arrival of more Europeans after 1600, particularly the Dutch, led to changes in the pattern of trade as the Dutch monopolized an increasing share of the spice trade (Andaya 1992). Japanese trade was also important in both mainland and insular Southeast Asia in the 17th century; some specialized studies have been devoted to the archaeology of Japanese contact in Southeast Asia during this period (Sakai 2013). The earliest Muslim grave in Southeast Asia is found in Brunei, north Borneo. It commemorates a Chinese Muslim who died in 1264. This is also the oldest known Chinese grave in Southeast Asia. Marco Polo reported in 1292 that a city that he called Pĕrlak/Ferlac was ruled by a Muslim. This is the oldest evidence of an Islamic kingdom in Southeast Asia. In the early 20th century, Dutch archaeologists discovered the gravestone of Sultan Malik as-Salih, who died in A.H. 696 (A.D. 1297). The Islamization of insular Southeast Asia took place through a series of processes. Different agents and different modes of communication were important in different places and different times. In some cases teachers are credited with disseminating the religion, merchants in others, and sometimes warriors or kings. These

Hist Arch

individuals came from various places. South Indian influence is indicated by the importance of the Shāfi’i school of jurisprudence. Gujerati merchants were prominent members of the Melaka community when the Portuguese arrived there in 1509. Tombstones from Cambay, northwest India, have been found in Sumatra and Java. Early Persian tombstones were found in Barus. The first long inscription written in Arabic was found in 1902 on the east coast of Malaysia. It dates from the 14th century (Al-Attas 1984) and records a legal edict. It is written in the Malay language with some Sanskrit words, such as “dewata mulia raya” (god), as well as “Allah.” The law code prescribes different fines for people of different social ranks, a practice that does not accord with orthodox Islam. It thus incorporates some preexisting customs, together with Islamic precepts. Several early Muslim rulers of north Sumatra used the reign name and title “Al-Malik al-Zahir,” possibly in honor of a Mamluk sultan of Egypt of the mid-13th century. The Mamluk sultans became wealthy due to their involvement in the spice trade with Southeast Asia. They resold the spices to the Venetians. It was this relationship that inspired the Portuguese to find a route around Africa, then going directly to the port of Melaka. By the beginning of the postclassic period in 1400, at least three kingdoms in north Sumatra were under Muslim rulers: Samudera-Pasai, Aru, and Lamuri. The earliest evidence for Islam in Java is found at the modern village of Tralaya, which was part of the capital city of Majapahit (Trowulan) in the 14th and 15th centuries. A group of tombstones there is inscribed on one face with verses from the Koran in Arabic script and on the other face with Javanese motifs, including a sunburst symbolizing the Kingdom of Majapahit and a symbol that may represent a palm-leaf book. The stones bear dates in Javanese numerals and are of the pre-Islamic Shaka era, rather than the Muslim Hegira era. The dates range from 1376 to 1475 (Damais 1968). Another relevant site for the study of early Islam at the Javanese capital is known as the “Grave Complex of the Cham Princess.” A local folktale describes this complex as the tomb of a Muslim princess from Champa (south Vietnam) or China. Its ground plan resembles that of a Balinese temple. Some elements of Chinese garden architecture are present, including a bridge over an artificial canal, walls with curving tops resembling the back of a coiling dragon, and round

holes resembling windows, but it is not known whether any of these are original. Evidence that the site does date from the 14th century includes a tombstone inscribed with a date in Javanese characters and Shaka era equivalent to 1368/69. Stories about Chinese princesses are common in Southeast Asian folklore. Chinese records of such marriages are rare, but Marco Polo confirms that one such marriage was contracted with Persia. Majapahit's official religion consisted of a blend of indigenous and South Asian concepts until the kingdom disappeared around 1530. Islam in Java was a minority faith found mainly in the ports along the north coast until the 16th century, when it spread into the interior of Java and was adopted by most of the agrarian population. One of Indonesia’s first Islamic royal courts was formed at Cirebon, on the northwest coast of Java (Pesisir). A chronogram corresponding to 1447 is found on a gateway at the Kasepuhan Palace there. Cirebon was an influential port from the 15th to 17th centuries. Little research has yet been published on the settlement patterns and everyday material culture of this period and region. Most research has focused on written sources and architectural remains. This Pesisir art combines elements from China, the Indian Ocean, and Java to create a unique style. Human figures are absent from this art, but various motifs depicted in stone and wood include pavilions set in mountain forests or gardens that symbolize meditation in remote places by ascetics (Miksic 2005). The site of Banten Lama (known in English as Bantam) is the best-documented archaeological complex of the 16th through 18th centuries in Southeast Asia. Bantam became the major spice emporium in Southeast Asia after Melaka fell to the Portuguese in 1511. In the 15th century, a site known as Banten Girang (“upstream Banten”), 20 km inland from Banten Lama, consisted of a complex of earthworks, possibly defensive in nature, and ceramics of the 13th to 15th centuries (Mundardjito et al. 1978; Dupoizat and Harkantiningsih 1994). A few traces of pre-Islamic settlement have been found at Old Banten, including a statue of Shiva's bull, Nandi, plus sherds of 15th-century Thai pottery. On the southern limit of the old city, Keradenan has yielded obsidian artifacts, suggesting that the site may have been inhabited much earlier. Many excavations have been conducted at Islamic period sites at Banten Lama (Harkantiningsih 1986; Ambary et al. 1988; Ueda

Hist Arch

2015). The site flourished from 1525 until 1685. In that year Banten surrendered its right to conduct foreign trade to the Dutch who established a fort there. The port continued to enjoy some prosperity during the 18th century, but it was eventually eclipsed by Jakarta (“Batavia” under the Dutch) (Kathirithamby-Wells 1990). Major structures remaining at Banten Lama include the site of the Surosowan Palace of the sultans (Figs. 4, 5), the Great Mosque, the Tiyamah, the Dutch fort, the Kaibon Palace of the sultan’s mother, and the Tasik Ardi, a royal garden. The city was surrounded by a wall, within which lived the indigenous population. The enclosed area was subdivided into wards by wooden palisades, each under the control of a nobleman. Foreign Muslims lived outside the eastern wall; non-Muslims, including Chinese and English, lived outside the western wall. Research at these sites has recovered much evidence of life at the site in the form of imported and local ceramics, coins and other metal objects, glassware, and organic remains. Documentary sources in Javanese, English, Dutch, and other languages provide important comparative material.

The Archaeology of European Contact with Southeast Asia (1509–1950) The archaeology of the period from 1500 until the present in Southeast Asia has pursued very different paths in the countries of Southeast Asia. In Vietnam, where a rich literary heritage existed in an independent court until the French incursion in the mid-19th century, Fig. 4 The Great Mosque of Banten Lama and its minaret were built in the mid-16th century. The mosque roof consists of five tiers in traditional Indonesian style, while the octagonal minaret is related to contemporary Muslim architecture in India. (Photo by author, 1995.)

this period is mainly considered the province of the historians, though the port of Hoi An, which flourished during the period 1600–1800, has developed a prosperous tourist trade based on its well-preserved old town, and has attracted the attention of historic preservationists. Underwater archaeological sites from this period in Vietnamese waters, such as Binh Tuan and Vung Tau, have attracted significant attention. These ships, which sank around 1600–1610 and 1690, are well-preserved Chinese vessels that carried cargoes, including much valuable Chinese porcelain, possibly for delivery to the Europeans in Banten or the Malays in Johor (Flecker 1992, 2004). In Thailand, which was never colonized, few reports on sites from the last 400 years have been published in English. Research on the period up to 1767 has focused on temple murals in Ayutthaya that depict Europeans, and excavations of graveyards of the Portuguese, Dutch, and Japanese colonies there (in the sense of enclaves of foreign merchants, not rulers) (Fig. 6). The Dutch established a factory at Ayutthaya in 1608. They were granted a larger area in 1634 that extended for 300 m along the Chao Phraya, with warehouses, wharves, and housing. This factory continued to operate until Ayutthaya was conquered by the Burmese in 1767 (Bradford 2013). The Thai Department of Fine Arts excavated the site in 2004. The research yielded a well-defined stratigraphy consisting of seven layers, foundations of three buildings, and a large quantity of artifacts. Ceramics were mainly Thai and Chinese, with the main category of Dutch pottery comprised of tobacco pipes. Bronze tobacco pipes made in Japan were also present. Some Chinese coins from the Ming Dynasty were found, but the tradition of using cowrie shells as

Hist Arch Fig. 5 Surosowan Palace site, Banten Lama. The site was occupied in the late 15th century, and continued in use until the early 19th century. Few Europeans ever entered the palace of the sultans of Banten Lama. Archaeological research began here in the 1960s and has recovered much material evidence of life at the site from the 15th to the 20th century. (Photo by author, 1995.)

currency appears to have continued in this period, judging from the quantity of these objects in the site. In Malaysia, the cities of Melaka and Georgetown, Penang, were jointly inscribed on the Unesco World Heritage List in recognition of their well-preserved urban areas dating to the 18th and 19th centuries. Melaka was ruled by the Portuguese from 1511 to 1643, by the Dutch from 1643 until 1824, and by the British from 1824 until 1957. Georgetown was founded by the British in 1786. Unfortunately, no organized archaeological projects designed to uncover the material remains of this period have been implemented. Most attention has been devoted to the preservation of standing architecture (Fig. 7). Fig. 6 The ruins of Ayutthaya, a Thai capital founded in 1351 and sacked by invaders in 1767, are still well preserved. (Photo by author, 1984.)

In Indonesia, the period of foreign (mainly Dutch) domination is subsumed under the rubric of Islamic archaeology. Since independence in 1945, Indonesian archaeologists have, however, conducted numerous archaeological projects devoted to sites of Dutch presence, including forts, ports, and individual buildings. The duration and intensity of Dutch occupation of Indonesia provides an unusually good opportunity to conduct regional-scale studies, but few such projects have yet been conducted (for an exception, see Abbas [2001]). The inception of Dutch colonial rule in Indonesia is conventionally dated to 1619, when the representatives of the United East India Company of the Netherlands

Hist Arch Fig. 7 Melaka’s sultans and colonial rulers lived on a hill overlooking the Straits of Melaka, one of Asia’s major commercial waterways. The hill was surrounded by walls until they were torn down by the British in the early 19th century. Some excavations have revealed foundations of old fortifications, such as this bastion, called Middelburgh, built by the Dutch East India Company in 1678, with a partial reconstruction in the background. (Photo by author, 2012.)

usurped control of the port of Jayakarta, or Sunda Kelapa, which had previously been a minor dependency of Bantam. Jayakarta was renamed Batavia. The port that bore this name for the next 350 years became the headquarters of an empire of islands that included more than 300 principalities and 17,000 islands. Dutch recognition of Indonesian independence came exactly 350 years later, and the city was renamed Jakarta. One archaeological study of an old section of the city yielded a good range of materials from the pre-1619 era up to the 20th century (Miksic 1981). In the Philippines, the archaeology of the last 500 years is also associated with religious change, but in this case it is the conversion to Roman Catholicism, the religion of the Spanish colonial rulers, that is commemorated. The search for early sites of Spanish missions is popular in much of the Philippines, except for the Sulu region in the far south where Islam was and is still practiced. The history of foreign occupation of Manila is earlier than even that of Jakarta; the Spanish took control of Manila in 1571. One welldocumented site there is the Bastion de San Diego, a section of the old walled enclave known as Intramuros. Construction began here in 1585. Conservation work at the site began in 1979, in the course of which some archaeological data were collected. A well-illustrated history of the bastion and the 20th-century research and conservation has been published (Gatbonton 1985). Another aspect

of the Hispanic period in the Philippines has been the subject of focused archaeological research: the shipyards where the famous Manila galleons were built (Bolunia 2011). In the central Philippines, one of the most informative sites examined is Salug in Cebu. This was a visita, or Spanish mission outpost, established in 1599 and abandoned, perhaps due to an attack by the indigenous Visayan people, around 1622. Research by the University of San Carlos in 2001 and 2002 was conducted there with the objectives of defining local social and political organization, examining the impact of early Spanish colonization efforts, and developing a regional archaeological strategy for the region (Peterson et al. 2005). A long-term regional study was conducted in the Bais area of southeastern Negros, Visayas, by a joint project of the University of San Carlos and the University of Michigan (Hutterer and Macdonald 1982). This project was mainly focused on the preHispanic period, but data on the historical period were also collected. The project identified six phases, beginning around 2000 B.C. The last two, the Osmena phase (A.D. 1400–1800) and the historic phase (1800–present), incorporate data on the period of intensive contact between this area of the Philippines and Europeans. The main objective of this research was to examine the development of complex societies in the region (Junker 1999:57).

Hist Arch

The southern Philippines has been a difficult area in which to work, due to frequent conflicts between Muslims and non-Muslims. During a period of relative calm in the late 1960s, research in the region southwest of the main island of Mindanao succeeded in collecting data from sites ranging from prehistoric rock shelters to forts built in the 17th century (Spoehr 1973). Spoehr’s report contains one of the most complete studies of unglazed Southeast Asian earthenware from the period from 1500 to the present. In Central Java, the last precolonial bastion of Javanese power was Kartasura, near modern Yogyakarta and Surakarta (Adrisijanti 2000). Other Indonesian cities of the early Islamic and colonial eras in which some archaeological research has been conducted include Samudera-Pasai, Surabaya, and Ternate (Ambary 1998:127–162). Two seasons of research were devoted to the excavation of the site of the first British fort in Southeast Asia: York Fort, Bengkulu, southwest Sumatra (Miksic 1990, 2011b). In addition to the British fort, of which only foundations now exist, part of the nearby Malay village of the same period was also excavated. The fort was built in 1685 and abandoned in 1715, when a new fort, Fort Marlborough, was constructed nearby. Excavations demonstrated that the site of York Fort was occupied before 1685, perhaps as early as the 15th century. Most British-made artifacts were shards of glass bottles, many for brandy. The inhabitants of the fort used mainly Malay and Chinese pottery for cooking and food storage. The fort also yielded many remains of clay tobacco pipes. The Malay village yielded neither of these types of artifacts, but many coins made in India and imported by the British were found there (Fig. 8). In Singapore, archaeological research has been devoted to two main periods: 1400–1600, during which time no European artifacts were recorded; and 1800– 1950, the period of British colonization (Miksic 2013). Colonial period sites excavated include the Malay palace at Kampong Gelam, first occupied around 1815 (Barry 2009; Miksic 2013); an island in the Singapore River that was used for various functions, including warehousing, garbage disposal, and opium smuggling (Barry 2000); and Duxton Hill, which evolved from a 19th-century nutmeg plantation to an upper-class residential area to a squalid dwelling area for horse-cart drivers, rickshaw peddlers, and secret-society gang fights (Miksic 1989). Archaeological data have also

Fig. 8 York Fort was built on the west coast of Sumatra in 1685 by the English East India Company and abandoned in 1715 when Fort Marlborough was erected a mile away. Excavations in the late 1980s revealed the coral foundation on which the fort walls were constructed. (Photo by author, 1988.)

been collected from other sites in the downtown area, where they represent the upper layer of stratigraphy stretching back to the 14th century. During the 1960s through the 1990s, ethnoarchaeology of Southeast Asia was a flourishing subfield, generating many publications (e. g., Lefferts [2003]). In the early 21st century, however, this type of study was almost completely replaced by a focus on cultural resource management (Miksic 2007; Miksic et al. 2011). This field is now very popular in the region due to its close relationship with heritage management, tourism, and economic development. One of the practitioners of this type of study was Stanley Ann Dunham, known in the 1970s and 1980s as Ann Soetoro, who conducted research on the archaeology and ethnoarchaeology of traditional ironworking in the Gunung Kidul area of Central Java for her doctoral dissertation (Dunham 2009; Miksic 2011a). She is now best

Hist Arch

known as the mother of Barack Obama, the 44th president of the United States.

Conclusion Historical archaeology in Southeast Asia is conducted in accordance with a range of different paradigms. During the classic period (roughly A.D. 600–1400), the main sources of data are epigraphy and art history. This approach and period occupied the attention of the vast majority of archaeologists working in Southeast Asia until the 1960s. The archaeology of the postclassic (1400–1600) and modern periods has received somewhat more attention in the last 40 years, during which archaeological projects designed to elucidate urbanization and trade have become more common. The archaeology of the 17th through 20th centuries in Southeast Asia has the potential to contribute to many subjects of archaeological interest, including the development of maritime commerce on a global scale, massive demographic changes, and human impact on the natural environment, to name only a few of the most obvious general topics. This potential has, however, been only minimally exploited. Compliance with Ethical Standards Conflict of Interest The corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References Abbas, Novida 2001 The Dutch Forts of Java: A Study on Locational Analysis. Master’s thesis, Southeast Asian Studies Programme, National University of Singapore, Singapore. Adrisijanti, Inajati 2000 Arkeologi Perkotaan Mataram Islam (Urban archaeology of Islamic Mataram). Jendela, Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Al-Attas, Syed Muhammad Naguib 1984 The Correct Date of the Terengganu Inscription, 2nd edition. Muzium Negara, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Ambary, Hasan Mu’arif 1998 Menemukan Peradaban: Jejak Arkeologis dan Historic Islam Indonesia (Tracing civilization:

Historical footprints and historic Islam in Indonesia). Logos Wacana Ilmu, Jakarta, Indonesia. Ambary, Hasan Mu’arif, Halwany Michrob, and John N. Miksic 1988 Katalog Koleksi Data Arkeologi Banten (Catalogue of Sites, Monuments and Artifacts of Banten). Directorate for Protection and Development of Historical and Archaeological Heritage, Jakarta, Indonesia. Andaya, Leonard 1992 Interactions with the Outside World and Adaptation in Southeast Asian Society, 1500–1800. In The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia: Volume One: From Early Times to c. 1800. Nicholas Tarling, editor, pp. 345– 401. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Barry, Jennifer 2000 Pulau Saigon: A Post-Eighteenth Century Archaeological Assemblage Recovered from a Former Island in the Singapore River. Rheidol Press, Stamford, UK. Barry, Jennifer 2009 Istana Kampong Glam: Archaeological Excavations at a Nineteenth-Century Malay Palace in Singapore, revised edition. Rheidol Press, Stamford, UK. Bolunia, Mary Jane Louise 2011 Astilleros: The Spanish-Period Shipyards of Donsol, Pilar and Magallanes. In Ancient Harbours in Southeast Asia, John N. Miksic, editor, pp. 119–154. SPAFA, Bangkok, Thailand. Bradford, Malcolm 2013 Early Inter-Regional Trade in the Gulf of Siam and the Archaeology of Trade in Ayutthaya. In Ancient Harbours in Southeast Asia, John N. Miksic and Goh Geok Yian, editors, pp. 155–167. SPAFA, Bangkok, Thailand. Chaudhuri, Kirti N. 1985 Trade and Civilization in the Indian Ocean: An Economic History from the Rise of Islam to 1750. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Clémentin-Ojha, Catherine, and Pierre-Yves Manguin 2007 A Century for Asia: The École française d’ExtrêmeOrient, 1898–2000. Editions Didier Millet/EFEO, Singapore. Damais, Louis-Charles 1968 L’épigraphie muselmane dans le Sud-Est asiatique (Islamic epigraphy in Southeast Asia). Bulletin de l’École française d’Extrême-Orient 54:567–604. Deetz, James 1977 In Small Things Forgotten: The Archaeology of Early American Life. Anchor/Doubleday, New York, NY. Dunham, Stanley Ann 2009 Surviving against the Odds: Village Industry in Indonesia, Alice G. Dewey and Nancy I. Cooper, editors. Duke University Press, Durham, NC. Dupoizat, Marie-France, and Naniek Harkantiningsih 1994 La céramique importée (Imported ceramics). In Banten avent l’Islam: Étude archéologique de Banten Girang (Java-Indonésie) 932?–1526, Claude Guillot, Lukman Nurhakim, and Sonny Wibisono, editors, pp. 137–168. EFEO, Monografies 173. Paris, France. Flecker, Michael 1992 Excavation of an Oriental Vessel of c. 1690 off Con Dao, Vietnam. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 21(3):221–244.

Hist Arch Flecker, Michael 2004 Treasures of the Binh Thuan. Heritage Asia 1(4):7–11. Gatbonton, Esperanca B. 1985 Bastión de San Diego (San Diego Bastion). Intramuros Administration, Manila, Philippines. Glover, Ian C. 2006 Some National, Regional, and Political Uses of Archaeology in East and Southeast Asia. In Archaeology of Asia, Miriam Stark, editor, pp. 17– 36. Blackwell, Malden, UK. Harkantiningsih, Naniek 1986 Pemekaran kota Banten Lama ditinjau dari data arkeologi (The growth of old Banten viewed from archaeological data). In Pertemuan Ilmiah Arkeologi IV, Vol. 2a, pp. 265–276. Pusat Penelitian dan Pengembangan Arkeologi Nasional, Jakarta, Indonesia. Harkantiningsih, Naniek (editor) 2010 Arkeologi Indonesia dalam Lintasan Zaman (Indonesian archaeology through the ages). Pusat Penelitian dan Pengembangan Arkeologi Nasional, Jakarta, Indonesia. Harkantiningsih, Naniek, and Sonny Wibisono 2013 Indonesia: A Brief History of Research on Trading Ports and Harbour Sites. In Ancient Harbours in Southeast Asia, John N. Miksic and Goh Geok Yian, editors, pp. 31–44. SPAFA, Bangkok, Thailand. Hirschman, Charles, and Sabrina Bonaparte 2012 Population and Society in Southeast Asia: A Historical Perspective. In Demographic Change in Southeast Asia: Recent Histories and Future Directions, Lindy Williams and Michael Philip Guest, editors, pp. 5–41. Cornell University Southeast Asia Program, Ithaca, NY. Hutterer, Karl L., and William K. Macdonald (editors) 1982 Houses Built on Scattered Poles: Prehistory and Ecology in Negros Oriental, Philippines. University of San Carlos, Cebu City, Philippines. Jones, Gavin 2013 The Population of Southeast Asia. National University of Singapore, Asia Research Institute, Working Paper No. 196. Singapore. National University of Singapore, Asia Research Institute . Accessed 23 July 2017. Junker, Laura Lee 1999 Raiding, Trading, and Feasting: The Political Economy of Philippine Chiefdoms. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Kathirithamby-Wells, Jeyamalar 1990 Banten: A West Indonesian Port and Polity during the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. In The Southeast Asian Port and Polity: Rise and Demise, J. Kathirithamby-Wells and John Villiers, editors, pp. 107–126. Singapore University Press, Singapore. Latham, Ronald (translator) 1958 The Travels of Marco Polo. Penguin, Harmondsworth, UK. Lefferts, Leedom 2003 A Preliminary Cultural Geography of Contemporary Earthenware Production in Mainland Southeast Asia. In Earthenware in Southeast Asia, John N. Miksic, editor, pp. 353–364. Singapore University Press, Singapore.

Manguin, Pierre-Yves 2004 The Archaeology of Early Maritime Polities of Southeast Asia. In Southeast Asia: From Prehistory to History, I. Glover and P. Bellwood, editors, pp. 282–313. Routledge Curzon, New York, NY. Miksic, John N. 1981 Excavation Report: Pasar Ikan, Jakarta, Hasan Mu’arif Ambary, editor. Ceramic Society of Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia. Miksic, John N. 1989 Archaeology in the City: Digging at Duxton Hill. In Tanjong Pagar, pp. 31–42. Tanjong Pagar Citizens Consultative Council, Singapore. Miksic, John N. 1990 York Fort, Bengkulu, and the Archaeology of Southwest Sumatra. In Asian Panorama; Essays in Asian History, Past and Present, K. M. de Silva, S. Kiribamune, and C. R. de Silva, editors, pp. 123–138. International Association of Historians of Asia, New Delhi, India. Miksic, John N. 1995 Hubungan sejarah antara Srivijaya Palembang dan Lembah Bujang (Historical connections between Srivijaya Palembang and the Bujang Valley). In Tamadun Melayu, Vol. 3, Ismail Hussein, A. Aziz Deraman, and Abd. Rahman Al-Ahmadi, editors, pp. 894–917. Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Miksic, John N. 2005 The Art of Cirebon and the Image of the Ascetic in Early Javanese Islam/Kesenian Cirebon dan Citra Pertapa pada Islam Jawa Awal. In Crescent Moon: Islamic Art and Civilisation in Southeast Asia, James Bennett, editor, pp. 120–144. Art Gallery of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia. Miksic, John N. 2007 Ethnoarchaeology: A Forgotten Subdiscipline? In Kriyamika: Melacak Akar dan Perkembangan Kriya. Merayakan 65 Tahun Prof. Dr. Sumijati Atmosudiro, Inajati Adrisijanti and Musadad, editors, pp. 349–360. Universitas Gadjah Mada, Fakultas Ilmu Budaya, Jurusan Arkeologi, Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Miksic, John N. 2011a Ann Soetoro and the Ethnoarchaeology of IronWorking in Central Java. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Asian Studies, Honolulu, HI. Miksic, John N. 2011b Archaeology of the Early Colonial Period in Sumatra. In Special Issue: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Exchange of Material Culture over the Sea: Contacts between Europe and East and Southeast Asia in the 16th to 18th Centuries. Field Archaeology of Taiwan 14(1&2):105–130. Miksic, John N. 2013 Singapore and the Silk Road of the Sea. NUS Press, Singapore. Miksic, John N., Goh Geok Yian, and Sue O’Connor (editors) 2011 Rethinking Cultural Resource Management in

Hist Arch Southeast Asia: Preservation, Development, and Neglect. Anthem Press, London, UK. Mills, John V. G. (editor and translator) 1970 Ma Huan, Ying-yai Sheng-lan. Hakluyt Society, Cambridge, UK. Mundardjito, Hasan Mu’arif Ambary, and Hasan Djafar 1978 Laporan Arkeologi Banten (Report on the archaeology of Banten). Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, Proyek Penelitian dan Penggalian Purbakala, Berita Penelitian Arkeologi 18. Jakarta, Indonesia. Orser, Charles E., Jr. 1996 A Historical Archaeology of the Modern World. Plenum Press, London, UK. Peterson, John A., Amalia de la Torre, Nida Cuevas, Angel Bautista, and Mark D. Willis 2005 Visayan Settlement by the River: Archaeological Investigations at the Late 16th and Early 17th Century Site of Salug in Carcar, Cebu. Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society 33(3&4):155–217. Reid, Anthony 1988 Southeast Asia in the Age of Commerce 1450–1680, Vol. 1, The Lands below the Winds. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. Reid, Anthony 1993 Southeast Asia in the Age of Commerce 1450–1680, Vol. 2, Expansion and Crisis. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. Rockhill, William W. 1914 Notes on the Relations and Trade of China with the Eastern Archipelago and the Coast of the Indian Ocean during the Fourteenth Century: Part I. T'oung Pao 15(3):419–447.

Sakai, Takashi 2013 Research on Harbour Cities: Tirtayasa at Banten and Two Sites in Sulawesi. In Ancient Harbours in Southeast Asia, John N. Miksic and Goh Geok Yian, editors, pp. 45–60. SPAFA, Bangkok, Thailand. Schuyler, Robert L 1977 Parallels in the Rise of the Various Subfields of Historical Archaeology. In Conference on Historic Site Archaeology Papers 1975, Vol. 10, Stanley South, editor, pp. 2–10. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia. Sen, Tansen 1996 Administration of Maritime Trade during the Tang and Song Dynasties. China Report 32(3):251–265. Spoehr, Alexander 1973 Zamboanga and Sulu: An Archeological Approach to Ethnic Diversity. University of Pittsburgh, Department of Anthropology, Ethnology Monographs No. 1. Pittsburgh, PA. Ueda, Kaoru 2015 An Archaeological Investigation of Hybridization in Bantanese and Dutch Colonial Encounters: Food and Foodways in the Sultanate of Banten, Java, 17th– Early 19th Century. Doctoral dissertation, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Boston University, Boston, MA. University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, MI. van de Wall, Victor I. 1928 De Nederlandsche Oudheden in de Molukken (Dutch antiquities in the Moluccas). Martinus Nijhoff, the Hague, the Netherlands.