Basa

IRON AGE IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

Kishor K. Basa. K.K.B. Oept. of Anth ropology, Utkal University, Bhubaneswar,

India (Institute of Archaeology, 1986-90)

In this paper, I shall discuss the issue of the Iron Age in Southeast Asia under
two headings - mainland Southeast Asia and island Southeast Asia. On the
mainland, I shall discuss the evidence from Vietnani, Thailand and Peninsular
Malaysia, but exclude Burma, Laos and Kampuchea for lack of relevant data.
In the islands, I will discuss Indonesia, Sabah, Sarawak and the Philippines.
I would argue that the Iron Age as a separate cultural entity is evident on the
mainland, but in the islands there is no identifiable Bronze Age preceding the
adoption of iron. By the Iron Age, I mean a period associated with iron
artefacts, wet rice farming, brisk internal exchange and external trade and, in
the lowland at least, a ranked society. This corresponds roughly to the
General Period C of Bayard ( l 984b, 163, see also Higham and Kijngam 1984,
13-21). But two points should be made about this scheme:
1 - This is a heuristic device, so all sites in Southeast Asia can not be easily
fitted into it.
2 - There is as yet no general agreement among scholars regarding the
chronology of various periods.

The Iron Age in mainland Southeast Asia

Vietnam
For Vietnam, Chinese sources generally associate iron with the Chinese
annexation of Giao-chi in 111 BC and with the Han Chinese tombs in North
Vietnam. However documentary evidence for iron in "Nam-Viet" is known
from the 3rd century BC (Davidson 1979, 112). Archaeologically, the iron
artefacts are found in two distinct cultural zones, (a) in association with the
classic Dongson Culture of the north and (b) in the Sa Huynh Culture in
Central and South Vietnam.
The Dongson Culture, named after the site of Dongson on the Song
Ma river in Than Hoa province, came to light through the excavations of
Pajot in the 1920's and lanse in the 1930's (Janse 1958; Solheim 1990). It
is well known for its bronze drums, and the rich, high status burials. The first
appearance of iron came in the Dongson sequence, and at Go Chien Vay (Ha
Son Binh Province). It is dated to 400 ± 100 BC (Bln-893) (Ha Van Tan
1980, 131). Iron was rare in the Dongson culture which included some
bimetallic spears with iron blades and bronze hilts and what is claimed to be a
cast iron hoe (for a brief discussion of different views on the origin of the
Dongson Culture in Vietnam, see Davidson 1979, Ha Van Tan 1980, 128-34,
Solheim 1990). However, it is argued by Vietnamese archaeologists that the
classic Dongson marked the culmination of a process of indigenous
evolution of bronze craftsmanship in Vietnam that began in the Phung
Nguyen period from about the first half of the 2nd millennium BC and went
through the Dong Dau and the Go Mun periods (Ha Van Tan 1980, Hoang
Xuan Chinh and Bui Van Tien 1983, 56-9). But this does not explain the
appearance of iron artefacts in some (but not all) Dongson sites,because the
evidence is meagre and the Dongson Culture was clearly in contact with South

52
PIA 2 199}

China (Bellwood 1985, 274-5; Higham 1988, 145, 1989, 198; Murowchick
1988, 184). Bellwood (1985, 275) suggests that the limited iron industry of
the Dongson Culture could have an immediate Chinese origin. The
possibility of an Indian source is ruled out because of the lack of other
evidence for Indian contacts at this time and the differences between the
specific forms of the artefacts. Dongson iron tools seem to be mainly
socketed, or even bimetallic types which are unknown in contemporary
India.
There is more evidence of iron in the Sa Huynh Culture. The type site
Sa Huynh is in Quang-Ngai province on the coast of Central Vietnam. First
discovered by Vinet in 1909 (for a history of the site see Solheim 1961), this
culture was associated with the jar burials, iron tools, ornaments, ear
pendants, glass, agate and carnelian beads and pearls (Parmentier 1918;
Saurin 1963; Trinh Can and Pham Van Kinh 1977; Ha Van Tan 1980, 136-7).
It is broadly distributed along the sea from Central Vietnam to the Mekong
Delta in the south and also in the interior of Xuan Loc region (BeUwood
1985, 275-6; Fontaine 1980, 1983; Janse 1961). Recently, some Sa Huynh
sites �ere discovered in mountainous areas (Ngo Sy Hong 1988, 153). The
iron repertoire included both socketed and unsocketed varieties and, like the
Dongson, did not resemble the Indian bronze and iron artefacts, but iron
sickles from Phu Hoa, a Sa Huynh culture site, are parallel to those in Late
Chou China (Bellwood 1978a, 193). Thus Bellwood (1985, 277) again
suggests a Chinese origin for the iron working, but he keeps his mind open.
As regards the origin of the Sa Huynh culture, Ngo Sy Hong (1988) suggested
that the urnfields with iron artefacts and beads have a long ancestry along the
coasts and hinterlands of Vietnam. But according to Bellwood (1985, 275),
the Sa Huynh culture belonged to an Austronesian speaking (Chamic)
population of Indo-Malaysian origin.
It should also be remembered that the Sa Huynh culture had contacts
with Central Thailand, Sarawak, North Vietnam and the Palawan Island in the
Philippines in the forms of a distinctive knobbed pennanular stone ear-ring
(ling-ling-O ) and a two-headed animal ornament (Loofs-Wissowa 1982;
Murowchick 1988, 197)..
Some radiocarbon dates are available for the Sa Huynh culture
(Bronson n.d.). Bronson and White (n.d., 15) mention two dates, one each
from Con Con Ngua (ZK-375 of 2600 ± 80 BP) and Phu Hoa in South
Vietnam (Gif-1999 of 2590 ± 290 BP) showing the earliest evidence of iron
in Vietnam. However, except these two, dates for the early appearance of
iron in Vietnam are in the range of 500 BC Taking the case of Vietnam and
Thailand together (discussed below), Bronson and White (n.d.) argued that in
many places in northern mainland Southeast Asia iron came into use between
700 BC and 500 BC Bellwood (1985, 278) is sceptical about whether iron
was common in South Vietnam as early as 600 BC., because the internal
phases of sites and cultures are not clear and mostly rely on single dates for
which information on context is not available. Moreover, some comb­
incised pottery from Phu Hoa is similar to that from Oc Eo, a Funanese site in
the south, which developed in the early 1st millennium AD.
Thus two problems remain for the Iron Age in Vietnam - absence of a
secure chronology and the problem of its origin. As regards the former, it

53
 Basa

seems safe to conclude that the Iron Age developed not before the mid-1st
millennium BC As to the latter, I would keep an open mind, but it is clear
that in the north of Vietnam, at least, iron appears only as the area comes
under strong Chinese influence.

Thailand
During the last two decades, much archaeological work has been
carried out in Thailand. During the early days of the discovery of the Ban
Chiang Culture in the 1970's when some archaeologists argued that the
Bronze Age dated from the early 4th millennium BC, the beginning of the
Iron Age was correspondingly pushed back to about 1600-1200 BC at Ban
Chiang (Gorman and Charoenwongsa 1976,23). Since then the chronology
for bronze and iron has been shortened and, although not every one is in
agreement (see for example the arguments in Bayard 1979, 1986-7; Bayard
and Charoenwongsa 1983; Higham 1986-7; Loofs-Wissowa 1983a, 1983b;
Solheim 1983; White 1986 and 1990), the dating for the first appearance of
bronze and iron in Thailand is roughly the same as in China - late 3rd
millennium BC for bronze and mid-1st millennium BC for iron.
Higham (1989,204-28) discussed the iron age sites in Thailand·under
two divisions - Central Thailand and the Khorat Plateau. In Central Thailand,
iron appeared first in the sites of Nil Kam Haeng about 700-500 BC (Pigott
n.d.) and Tarn Ongbah with a single radiocarbon date of 2180 ± 100 BP
(K.1300), (Sorenson 1974,139), Ban Don Ta Phet dated to the early 4th
century BC (Bennet 1982,Glover 1990,155), Chansen (Period l a),dated to
800-500 BC (Bronson 1979, 317-8), and Ban Tha Kae (Period 11), dated to
500 BC-1 (Hanwong 1985).
Recently Glover (n.d.) argued that in case of Westcentral Thailand,the
iron age was not preceded by a bronze age,as one finds in the Khorat Plateau;
rather, it succeeded a developed late neolithic technology, starting perhaps
between 700 and 500 BC. However, by about 400 BC iron had mostly
replaced the stone technology. Glover emphasized the role of external
westerl/ trade in this transition.
More work has been done on the Khorat Plateau. To cite some
examples, the earliest complete iron objects with the most well defined
stratigraphic contexts occurred in Ban Chiang MP VII (dated 800-400 BC),
although several iron fragments appeared to be from earlier contexts (White
1986, 291-2). At Ban Na Di, iron first appeared as a fragment from level 7
(c.900-500 BC), but it was from level 5 (c.100 BC-AD 200) that it became
abundant along with the evidence for smelting (Higham and Kijngam 1984,
121). Iron was recovered (along with bronze) from the earliest phase at Non
Chai (500-350 BC), but became dominant in Phase V (50 BC-AD 200)
(Charoenwongsa and Bayard 1983,521)
With regard to the Iron Age, differences arise on two issues : a)
whether the earliest evidence can be dated to the earlier or the later part of the
1st millennium BC and b) whether the beginnings of the iron technology was
due to evolution in Thailand or diffusion from outside.
According to Higham, the transition from the Early Period to the
Middle Period in Northeast Thailand was accompanied by the advent of iron,
water buffalo and Om Kaeo pottery (Higham 1983, 244-5, Higham and

54
 PIA 21991

Kijngam 1984, 707). Moreover, the initial appearance of iron was as

prestige items of import, most probably from the Dongson Culture of North
Vietnam because of the similarity of cast-on bronze hafts of Ban Chiang and
Dongson spear points (Higham and Kijngam 1984, 721), and also because of
the bimetallic tradition in Southeast Asia, particularly in areas offering easy
contact with China (Higham 1983, 236-7). Iron technology, that is the local
manufacture of iron, was introduced from India in the Chi and Mun valleys
through the same exchange network that brought glass and semi-precious
stone beads from India (Higham and Kijngam 1984, 720-1). Higham (1989,
190) was reluctant to accept any evidence for iron working in Southeast Asia
before 500-400 BC, but more recently Pigott's excavations at Nil Kam Haeng
in the Wong Prachan Valley northeast of Lopburi city has yielded buriel
tombs in a metal working site with secure contexts and dated to c. 700 BC
(Pigott, n.d.)
Higham has been criticized by others as allowing too short a
chronology for the introduction of iron in Thailand. Thus, White (1986,
292-3) pointed out that though iron blades and bangles are available from
well defined stratigraphic positions in MP VII, dated 800-400 BC, at Ban
Chiang, there are about half a dozen iron objects which could be earlier than
those with a good context. On the whole, she feels that iron was certainly
present by 500 BC and possibly earlier. She also pointed out the following
limitations in Higham's scheme (White 1986, 296-302):
1 - The advent of iron, Om Kaeo pottery and bones of water buffalo did not
appear simultaneously at the beginning of the Middle Period.
2 - White did not rule out the possibility of import of iron artefacts from
Kampuchea and Vietnam. According to her, these three regions constituted a
"metallurgical province". She felt that within a couple of centuries the
people in northeast Thailand should have learnt the technology because of
an already rich bronze technological tradition; therefore, there was no need
for them to have learnt how to make iron from some Indian technological
diffusion to the northeast, in view of the linguistic and logistical barriers,
and the lack of other evidence for Indian contacts at this time.
3 - The bimetallic spear points were iron versions of bronze artefacts
already well established in Thailand. If there were any imports, they might
have come from South Vietnam, in view of the similarity of iron bangles
from both regions. Iron bangles were not found in the Dongson Culture nor
in Yunnan.
4 - Iron can be an inevitable by-product of copper and lead smelting
through an accidental encounter and subsequent use of iron ore. This could
explain the occurrence of a few iron artefacts to begin with (see also Piggott
and Marder 1984, 279 and 298; Bennet 1988).
5 - Higham's assumption that iron working could not have developed
prior to Late Period (Level 5) at Ban Na Di for lack 6fevidence of slag might
not be true, because of the possibility of smelting done near the ore source
rather than in the village.
Bronson (1985, 206-07) drew attention to the evidence for iron in
Thailand prior to the period of intensive contact with India and China which
occurred, in his opinion, not until the 1st century BC. At least eight
radiocarbon dates associated with the Iron Age, and earlier than 500 BC are

55
 Basa

available. He saw that the evidence of iron was earlier in the northeast and in
the east-central part of Thailand than in the the west-central part (Bronson
and Charoenwongsa 1988, 14). For lack of hard evidence, Bronson did not
enter into the controversy of whether iron was independently evolved inside
or diffused from outside. But he was certain that it never came from China,
because early evidence of iron in Thailand was a product of direct iron
working, . while the indirect process dominated early iron production.in China
(1985, 209, 213).
Higham (1989, 190) points out that we do not have a satisfactory date
for the appearance of iron and the beginning of Indian contact; however, he
assumes that local bronze workers in Thailand learnt iron working sometime
between 600-400 BC.
While the chronology of the Iron Age in Thailand is yet settled, it
may be safe to conclude that iron had certainly appeared in Thailand by the
mid-1st millennium BC and possibly a few centuries earlier. Whether one
agrees with the idea of an initial diffusion of iron technology from India to
Thailand or not, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the pace of the iron
technology would have accelerated because of contacts with India.

Peninsula Malaya
In Malaysia, the archaeological context for iron working is far less
good than in Thailand, and no excavations have yielded in situ dateable
material. Linehan (1951, 55-6) felt that in Malaysia the Bronze Age did not
precede the Iron Age, but that both cultures were connected from the
beginning, introduced from Funan between the 1st and 3rd centuries AD..
Funan, in turn, got the inspiration from the Dongson Culture. Because of the
lack of copper in Malaysia he felt that the bronze objects were items of
import, while the iron artefacts were locally made.
Loewenstein (1%2, 60-5), however, felt a Bronze Age had preceded
the Iron Age in Malaysia, because iron tools were very rare in the Dongson
Culture. It should be remembered that Loewens�in, like many archaeologists
of his day, extended the term Dongson Culture very widely. On the other
hand, many iron objects were found in Malaya, so there must be a
considerable time gap for the diffusion of iron smelting to Malaysia. He
assumed a difference of at least 1000 years between the emergence of the
Bronze and the Iron Age in Malaya.
Sieveking (1962) identified four types of pottery - Slim River, Bukit
Chumpong, Kalumpong and Pontian wares. According to him, the Malaysian
iron industry was derived from Indo-China and penetrated from Northeastern
Malaya (ibid., 112). The break up of the Dongson Culture might have led to a
shift to Cambodia and Malaya (ibid.: 122). Though the designs of the iron
tool types seemed to have derived from the Dongson Culture, he found it
difficult to trace any direct connection (ibid., 124). More recently we can see
a close link between the iron tools of Malaya and west central Thailand (e.g.
Ban Don Ta Phet ) but this material was described only after Sieveking had
written.
Peacock (1979, 205) considered Sieveking's attempts to find
similarity between the Dongson artefacts and those from the Peninsular
Malaysia to be over-contrived. He pointed out that the Iron Age materials

56
PIA 21991

were near tin and gold mining areas of Western Malaysia, and again argued for
the contemporaneity of the Bronze and the Iron Ages, (or the lack of separate
ones) taking into account the evidence of both bronze and iron artefacts from
Kampong Sungei Lang and Kuala Terengganu (ibid., 213).
Bellwood (1985, 290-92) addressed the two issues of chronology and
origin. He referred to artefacts of low carbon steel found with the Klang bells
and the Kampong Sungeilang drums dated to between the late centuries BC
and the early centuries of the Christian era and rejected Loewenstein's belief
that the Malaysian Iron Age was as late as 1000 AD Regarding origin, he
referred to the socketed artefacts from Sa Huynh in South Vietnam, Tarn
Ongbah and Ban Don Ta Phet in Westcentral Thailand and also from South
Thailand which are dated to the last few centuries BC..
Only a few radiocarbon dates are available for the Iron Age in
Peninsular Malaysia (Bronson n.d.). Except one from Sungailang (GX-280,
2435 ± 95 BP), they date from about 300 BC onwards. The exceptional
sample from Sungailang is from a source of large wood, hence its ability to
give a precise date when the context of burial is doubtful.
Thus, in Peninsular Malaysia, while we do not get clear evidence of
the Bronze and Iron Ages as separate entities as we find in the case of
Vietnam and Northeast Thailand, iron here too can be dated from about the 3rd
century BC..

Iron Age in Island Southeast Asia

Indonesia
It is unfortunate that despite the vast area and good potential, work on
late prehistoric archaeology in Indonesia is deplorably inadequate. In 1958
Heekeren wrote of a 'Bronze-Iron Age' in Indonesia following the Neolithic
period (1958, 1). But Bellwood (1985, 297) suggested that some sites
included Heekeren's Bronze-Iron Age might be historic.
Usually bronze and iron objects occur together in sites excavated
recently such as Gilimanuk in Bali (Soejono 1979, 193), Plawangan
(Sukendar and Awe 1981) Lamongan and Leuwiliang in Java (Sutayasa 1979,
69), Leang Buidane in Salebabu (Bellwood 1978b, 277-8, 1985, 307). There
are only a very few pieces of bronze, dated and clearly preceding the
appearance of iron, at Uai Bobo 1 in East Timor (Glover 1986, 153) and at
Sasi in the Lou Island, Papua New Guinea. (Ambrose 1988). The former has a
radiocarbon date of 2190 ± 80 BP (ANU-237). Three radiocarbon dates on
charcoal are accepted for the latter - 2200 ± 140 BP (ANU- 2155), 2040 ± 100
BP (ANU-3014) and 2060 ± 180 BP (ANU-5398) (Ambrose .1988,489).
The chronology also remains unclear except in a' few cases. The
Dongson drums are distributed from Java and Sumatra in the west to the Kai
Islands in the south and New Guinea in the east (Bellwood 1985, 280-1). But
in the absence of proper contexts, these cannotbe used to date the Early Metal
Age in Indonesia. Nine radiocarbon dates on charcoal are reported for
Gilimanuk, Bali - the earliest being 2020 ± 165 BP (GrN-7129) (Bronson
and Glover 1984, 41). Pasir Angin is dated to 2460 BP (lndraningsih
1985,136) but is a single date with no mention of its context or laboratory
number. The Early Metal Phase at Leuwiliang near Bogor and Pejaten near
Jakarta is dated to before 200 AD (Bell wood 1985, 301). A date for iron from

57
 Basa

Pejatan in Java was 2550 ± 200 BP (ANU-1520), but the association between
the dated carbon and the iron artefact is not clear (Bronson and White n.d.,
15)
Glover (1979, 179) talked of seven principal types of burial structure
(urn-fields, stone slab or cist graves, stone built graves, terrace graves,
dolmens, rectangular stone sarcophagi and cylindrical stone vats), associated
with the Early Metal Age in Indonesia. While the Western Indonesian sites
were associated with mixed burials - including those of jar and slab - (for
example, for Gilimanuk, see Soejono 1979, 195-7 and for Plawangan, see
. Sukendar and Awe 1981), the Eastern Indonesian sites were primarily jar
burial, for example, Leang Buidane (Bellwood 1978b, 267-74), the Melolo
cemetery in Sumba (Heekeren 1958, 85-9). The slab graves of Western
Indonesia are said not to be of South Indian origin, despite their formal
similarity to some Indian megalithic graves, due to a lack of diagnostic
Indian black-and-red ware. Moreover, slab graves were known from the
Neolithic onwards in Central and Eastern Taiwan (Bellwood 1985, 303).
One can conclude, for the moment at least, that there was no separate
Bronze and Iron Ages in Indonesia; rather the metals appear together. The
evidence of the Early Metal Age is much earlier in Western Indonesia
beginning in the late centuries BC than that in Eastern Indonesia, dated to the
second half of the 1st millennium AD

Sabah and Sarawak

Harrisson and Harrisson (1971, 209), feel it is not possible to
distinguish between Bronze and Iron Age in Sabah. Bronze and iron objects
occur together in the Early Metal Age jar burial sites of Madai-Baturong,
Sabah (Bellwood 1984, 50-2). Five radiocarbon dates - one from shell and
four from charcoal, are reported from Madai Cave 1 (Bronson n.d. , Entry No.
95, 97-100). The earliest date from the shell sample (ANU-2943) is 2820 ±
70 BP. but is considered about 500 years too early (ibid., Entry No.95). The
other dates range from about 2nd century BC to mid-1st millennium AD
Usually iron is believed not to precede the 7th century AD in Borneo
(Harrisson 1972, 36). Although two radiocarbon dates (No. unknown),
associated with iron from the Painted Cave at Niah in Sarawak are dated 2300
± 80 BP and 2115 ± 150 BP, the excavator thought them to be errors because
of the samples of wood from large trees (Harrisson 1967, 96).

P h i lippines
Subscribing to Heine-Geldern's grand theory of diffusion rather than basing
their arguments on local evidence, Beyer (1947) and Beyer and De Veyra
(1947) advocated that in the Philippines the Copper-Bronze Age started
between ca. 800-500 BC and the Iron Age ca 300-200 BC, coinciding with
their scheme of the fifth and sixth waves of migrations respectively. Beyer
. (1948, 66) thought that iron technology came from South India reaching the
Philippines through the Malay Peninsula and Borneo, probably not earlier
than 2nd or 3rd centuries BC.. The Iron Age of the Philippines, according to
Beyer, was characterised by four industries - the ma�ufacturing of iron
artefacts, decorated pottery, cloth weaving and glass bead making.

58
PIA 21991

Solheim (1964, 207-12) saw iron first coming to the Philippines

between c.400 and 100 BC.. He discussed the four associated pottery
complexes of the Filipino Iron Age - the Kalanay, the Bau, the Novaliche and
the Lo Boc. He felt that Iron technology was carried to separate areas in the
Philippines by two or three groups - the Kalanay people brought iron to the
Visayan islands, Mindoro, the Calamianes and Palawan; the Novaliche group
to the Manila Bay and the Northern Palawan and the Malays (with the Bau
pottery complex) brought iron and glass to Mindanao.
Fox (1970, 14-6, 163-6, 172; also see Jocano 1975, 109-22) used the
term Metal Age which he divided into the Early Metal Age from 700 BC to
200 BC with copper, bronze and gold artefacts, and the Developed Metal Age
which included iron and dated from 200 BC to AD 1000. The earliest
radiometric date (UCLA-992C) for iron comes from Chamber B of the
Manunggul cave, 2140 ± 100 BP (Fox 1970, 15). However,he did not
consider the Bronze Age as a major period in the Philippines because, "the
early appearance and rapid diffusion of iron and iron-making precluded the
development in the Philippines of a true 'Bronze Age' (Fox 1970, 122).
Solheim (1981, 47) found no evidence of rapid diffusion of iron and
iron-making. In his revised periodization for Filipino prehistory, the
earliest evidence of bronze is found in the Early Formative Period (1000-500
BC) from the Tabon caves around 800-700 BC (ibid., 44) and the first
evidence of iron artefacts in the Middle Formative Period (500 BC-AD100 )
(ibid, 39). As opposed to bronze and bronze technology, there was a time
gap between the introduction of iron artefacts and the appearance of iron
technology (ibid., 57). The iron objects were basically prestige items with
no evidence of local manufacturing of iron artefacts until the Established
Period (AD 500-1521). Moreover, "Nusantao" sailors played an important
role during the Formative Period (ibid.,39).
Hutterer (1977) opposed the idea of a Filipino Iron Age. He
(ibid.,184-86) rejected the diffusionist idea of population movement to
different islands as the cause of the spread of metal technology. Rather, for
him, metals (both iron and bronze which, in his opinion, are dated to 500-
300 BC in the Philippines) found their way to Island Southeast Asia by
maritime trade.

Summary
While one can distinguish the Bronze from the Iron Age as separate
cultural entities in mainland Southeast Asia (except Westcentral Thailand and
Peninsular Malaysia), it is difficult to do the same in the case of the islands ,
where the two metals come together as an 'Early Metal Age'. There is no
consensus regarding the chronology for the iron but iron had certainly
appeared by the mid-1st millennium BC and possibly, a few centuries earlier
in certain areas of the mainland. In the islands and Peninsular Malaysia, iron
appeared from about the 3rd century BC onwards. The origin of iron
technology is uncertain. But considering the scale and elaboration of bronze
production through the 2nd millennium BC in the "Metallurgical Province"
of Thailand, Kampuchea and Vietnam, iron may have developed
independently in Southeast Asia. Irrespective of the origin, iron industry
was spread by the development of an active trade and exchange with India

59
 Basa

from the late centuries BC. However, iron tools from different areas in
Southeast Asia have distinct local forms and a single source of origin and
inspiration is unlikely.

Ack nowled gement

I convey my sincere thanks to Dr. I. C. Glover, my academic supervisor, for
commenting on an earlier version of this paper. However, I am responsible
for the interpretation put forward here

References
Ambrose, W. R. 1988 An early bronze artefact from Papua New Guinea.
Antiquity 62(236):483-91.
Bayard, D. 1979 The chronology of prehistoric metallurgy in north-east
Thailand : Silabhumi or Samrddhabhumi . In Smith, R. B. and
Watson, W. (ed.) Early Southeast Asia .15-32 Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Bayard, D. (ed.) 1984a Southeast Asian Archaeology at the XV PacifIC
Science Congress. University of Otago Studies in Prehistoric
Anthropology, Vol. 16.
Bayard, D. 1984b A tentative regional phase chronology for Northeast
Thailand. In Bayard, D. (ed), 161-8
Bayard, D. 1986-7 Chronology, evolution and diffusion in the later
Southeast Asian cultural sequence. Bulletin of the Indo-PaciflC
Prehistory Association 7: 118-40.
Bayard, D. and Charoenwongsa, Pisit 1983 The development of metallurgy
in Southeast Asia : reply to Loofs-Wissowa. journal of Southeast
Asian Studies 14(1): 12-17.
Bellwood, P. S. 1978a Man's Conquest of the Pacific. Auckland: CoIlins.
Bellwood, P. S. 1978b Archaeological research in Minahasa and the
Talaud Islands, Northeastern Indonesia. Asian Perspectives XIX(2)
(for 1976): 240-88.
Bellwood, P. S. 1984 Archaeological research in the Madai - Baturong
region, Sabah. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association
5:38-54.
Bellwood, P. S. 1985 Prehistory of the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago.
Sydney: Academic Press.
Bennet, A. N. 1982. Metallurgical analysis of iron artefacts from Ban Don
Ta Thet, Thailand. B.Sc. report, London: Institute of Archaeology.
Bennet, A. N. 1988. Prehistoric copper smelting in Central Thailand. In
Beyer, H. Otley 1947 Outline review of Philippine archaeology by
islands and provinces. Philippine Journal of Science 77(3-4).
Beyer, H. Otley 1948 Philippine and East Asian archaeology and its relation
to the origin of the Pacific Islands population. National Research
Council of Philippines, Bull 29, Quezon City.
Beyer, H. Otley and De Veyra, J. C. 1947 Philippine Saga. A Pictorial
History of the Archipelago since time began. (Third Edition).
Manila: Capitol Publishing House, Inc.

60
PIA 21991

Bronson, B. 1979 The late prehistory and early history of Central Thailand
with special reference to Chansen. In Smith, R. B. and Watson, W.
(eds.) , 315-336.
Bronson, B. 1985 Notes on history of iron in Thailand. The Journal of the
Siam Society 73(1-2):205-25.
Bronson, B. n.d. Radiocarbon dates for Southeast Asia, by country,
subdivision, and site. Part 1: Burma, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia,
Philippines.
Bronson, B. and Glover, I. C. 1984 Archaeological radiocarbon dates from
Indonesia: a first list. Indonesia Circle 34:37-44.
Bronson, B. and Charoenwongsa, Pisit 1988 Introduction: prehistoric
chronology in Thailand. In Charoenwongsa, Pisit and Bronson, B.
(eds) Prehistoric Studies: The Stone and Metal Ages in Thailand, 9-
15, (Papers in Thai Antiquity, vol. 1) . Bangkok: The Thai Antiquity
Working Group
Bronson, B. and White, J. n.d. Radiocarbon and Chronology in Southeast
Asia.
Charoenwongsa, Pisit and Bayard, D. 1983 Non Chai: New dates on metal
working and trade from Northeastern Thailand. Current Anthropology
24(4) : 521-23.
Davidson, J. H. C. S. 1979 Archaeology in Northern Vietnam since 1954.
In Smith, R. B. and Watson, W. (eds) 98-124.
Fontaine, H. 1980 A note on the iron age in Southern Vietnam. Journal of
the Hong Kong Archaeological Research Society, 8 (for 1979): 91-8.
Fontaine, H. 1983 On the extent of the Sa Huynh culture in continental
Southeast Asia. Asian Perspectives 23 (for 1980): 67-70.
Fox, R. B. 1970 The Tabon Caves. Manila: Monograph No. 1 of the
National Museum.
Glover, I. C. 1979 The late prehistoric period in Indonesia. In Smith, R. B.
and Watson, W. (eds) 167-184.
Glover, I. C. 1986. Archaeology in Eastern Timor, 1966-67 . Canberra:
Australian National University (Terra Australis 11) .
Glover, I. C. 1990. Ban Don Ta Phet: the 1984-85 excavation. In Glover,
I. and Glover, E. (eds) Southeast Asian Archaeology 1986 . 139-183.
Oxford : B.A.R. International Series.
Glover, I. C. n.d. The late prehistoric period in westcentral Thailand. Paper
presented at the 4th Congress of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory
Association, held in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, during 25 August-2
September, 1990.
Glover, I. and Glover, E. (ed.) 1990. Southeast Asian Archaeology 1986 .
Oxford : B.A.R. International Series 561.
Gorman, C. F. and Charoenwongsa, Pisit 1976. Ban Chiang: a mosaic of
impressions from the first two years. Expedition 18(4) : 14-26.
Hanwong, Thanongsak 1985. Artefact analysis from the excavation at Ban
Tha Kae. Amphoe Muang. Changwat. Lopburi. (in Thai) .
M.A.Dissertation, Silpakorn University.
Harrisson, T. 1967 Niah caves: progress report to 1967. The Sarawak
Museum Journal XV(30--1) (New Series):95-6.

61
 Basa

Harrisson, T. 1972. The prehistoric Borneo. Asian Perspectives 13 (for

1970):17-45.
Harrisson, T. and Harrisson, B. 1971. The Prehistory of Sabah. Sabah
Society Journal IV (for 1969-70)(Monograph).
Ha Van Tan 1980. Nouvelles recherches prehistorique et protohistorique au
Vietnam. Bulletin de I'Ecole Francaise d'Extreme Orient 68: 113-54.
Heekeren, H. R. van 1958. The Bronze-Iron Age of Indonesia. The Hague:
Martinus Nijhoff.
Higham, C. F. 1983. The Ban Chiang Culture in wider perspective..
Proceedings of the British Academy 69: 229-61.
Higham, C. F. 1986-7 Chronology, evolution and diffusion in the later
Southeast Asian cultural sequence: further comments. Bulletin of the
Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 7:141-7.
Higham, C. F. 1988. Prehistoric metallurgy in Southeast Asia : some new
information from the excavation of Ban Na Di. In Maddin, R. (ed.)
The Beginning of the Use of Metals and Alloys. 130-155.
Cambridge, Mass: Mass. Institute of TechnologyIT
Higham, C. F. 1989. The Archaeology of Mainland Southeast Asia.
Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Higham, C. F. and Kijngam, Amphan 1984. Prehistoric Investigations in
Northeast Thailand. 3 vols. Oxford : B.A.R. International Series
231.
Hoang Xuan Chinh and Bui Van Tien 1983. The Dongson culture and cultural
centres in the metal age in Vietnam. Asian Perspectives XXIII( l )
(for 1980): 55-65.
Hutterer, K. L. 1977. Prehistoric trade and the evolution of Philippine
societies : a reconsideration. In Hutterer, K. L. (ed.) Economic
exchange and social interaction in Southeast Asia : Perspectives from
Prehistory, History and Ethnography. Ann Arbor : Michigan Papers
on South and Southeast Asia, No. 13., 177-196.
Indraningsih, R. 1985. Reaearch on prehistoric beads in Indonesia.
Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 6:133-41.
Janse, O. R. T. 1958. Archaeological Research in Indo-China. Volume Ill,
The Ancient Dwelling Site of Dong-Son (Thanh-Hoa, Annam).
Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Janse, O. R. T. 1961 Some notes on the Sa-Huynh complex. Asian
Perspectives 3(2) (for 1959): 109-111.
Jocano, F; L. 1975. Philippine Prehistory. Quezon City : Philippine Centre
for Advanced Studies.
Linehan, W. 1951. Traces of a bronze age culture associated with iron age
implements in the regions of Klang and the Tambeling, Malaya.
Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 24(3): 1-
59.
Loewenstein, J . 1962. The origin o f the Malayan metal age. Journal o f the
Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 29(2) (for "1956):5-
.7 8 .
Loofs-Wissowa, H . H . E . 1982. Prehistoric and protohistoric links between
the Indo-Chinese Peninsula and the Philippines. Journal of the Hong
Kong Archaeological Research Society 9 (for 1980-81): 57-76.

62
PIA 21991

Loofs-Wissowa, H. H. E. 1983a . The development and spread of metallurgy

in Southeast Asia: a review of the present evidence. JourTWl of
.
Southeast Asian Studies 14(1): 1-11.
Loofs-Wissowa, H. H. E. 1983b. The development of metaJlurgy in
Southeast Asia : reply to Bayard, Pisit and Solheim. Journal of
Southeast Asian Studies 14(1): 26-31.
Maddin, R. (ed;) 1988. The Beginning of the Use of Metals and Alloys.
Cambridge, Mass: Mass. Institute of Technology.
Murowchick, R. E. 1988. The development of early bronze metallurgy in
Vietnam and Kampuchea : a reexamination of recent work. In Maddin,
R. (ed.), 182-199.
Ngo Sy Hong 1988. The Sa Huynh culture: recent discoveries. Asian
Perspectives XXVJ(I)(for 1984-85): 153-5.
Parmentier, H. 1918. Depots de jarres a Sa-Huynh. Bulletin de l'Ecole
Francaise d'Extreme Orient 24: 325-43.
Peacock, B. A. V. 1979. The later prehistory of the Malay Peninsula. In
Smith, R. B. and Watson, W. (eds), 199-214.
Piggott, V. C. and Marder, A. R. 1984. Prehistoric iron in Southeast Asia :
new evidence from northeast Thailand. In Bayard, D. (ed.), 278-301.
Piggott, V. C. n.d. Excavations at Nil Kham Haeng and the archaeology of
prehistoric copper production in Central Thailand. Paper presented at
the 3rd conference of the Association of Southeast Asian
Archaeologists in Western Europe. Bankok, 18-20 December 1990.
Saurin, E. 1963. Stations prehistoriques a Hang-Gon pres Xuan-Loc.
Bulletin de l'Ecole Francaise d'Exrreme-Orient 51: 433-52.
Sieveking, G. de G. 1962. The iron age collections of Malaya. Journal of
the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 29(2) (for 1956):
79-138.
Smith, R. B. and Watson, W. (eds) 1979. Early Southeast Asia. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Soejono, R. P. 1979. The significance of the excavations at Gilimanuk
(Bali). In Smith, R. B. and Watson, W. (eds), 185-198.
Solheim 11, W. G. 1961 Introduction to Sa Huynh. Asian Perspectives III(2)
(for 1959): 97-108.
Solheim 11, W. G. 1964. The Archaeology of Central Philippines: A Study
Chiefly of the Iron Age and Its Relationships . Manila : Bureau of
Printing.
Solheim 11, W. G. 1981. Philippine prehistory. In Casal, F. G., Jose Jr., R.
T., Casino, E. S., Ellis, G. R., and Solheim 11, W. G. (ed.) The People
and Art of the Philippines. Los Angeles : Museum of Cultural
History, University of California Los Angeles, 17-83.
Solheim 11, W. G. 1983. The development of metallurgy in Southeast Asia :
another reply to Loofs-Wissowa. JourTWl of Southeast Asian Studies
14(1): 18-25.
Solheim 11, W. G. 1990. A brief history of the Dongson concept. Asian
Perspectives XXVIII(I)(for 188-89):23-30.
Sorenson, P. 1974. Prehistoric iron implements from Thailand. Asian
Perspectives XVJ(for 1973): 134-73.

63
 Bosa

Sukendar, H. and Awe, R. D. 1981. Laporan peneIitian TeIjan dan

Plawangan, Jawa Tengah. Berita Penelitian Arkeologi 27.
Sutayasa, I. M. 1979. Prehistory in West Java, Indonesia. Artefact 4(1 and
2): 61-75.
Trinh Can and Pham Van Kinh 1977. Excavations of the umfield of Tarn My.
(in Vietnamese). Khao Co Hoc 24: 49-57.
.

White, J. C. 1986. A Revision of the Chronology of Ban Chiang and its

implications for the Prehistory of Northeast Thailand. Ph. D. Thesis,
University of Pennsylvania, University Microfilms.
White, 1. C. 1990. The Ban Chiang chronology revised. In Glover, I. and
Glover, E (eds), 121-129.

64