| Abstract: |
It is usually accepted that metal technologies arrived in the peninsular and insular Southeast Asian world at some point in the mid 1st millennium B.C. (Bellwood 2007: 268, Higham 2004: 57). Not only is this appearance of metal use at least a thousand years later than that proposed for northern parts of the Southeast Asian mainland (Higham 2004: 52, White [forthcoming]), it also differs significantly there is no Bronze Age intermission between Neolithic and Iron Age periods. The lack of any discernible experimental or developmental copper-alloy and iron technologies has been interpreted as representing the introduction of a complete metallurgical package to the Thai-Malay Peninsula and Island Southeast Asia (Bellwood 2007: 272). Although plausible, this foreign origin proposition must be subjected to testing by archaeometallurgical analysis of material from both metal production and consumption contexts. The accurate technological reconstruction of ancient metallurgical practices, with the aim of identifying past technological choices (Lemonnier 1993, Sillar and Tite 2000) and defining characteristic technological styles (Hegmon 1998, Lechtman 1977) is, at present, our most likely path for understanding the relationships between the metal technologies of South, Southeast, and East Asia. Within Southeast Asia generally, and the Upper Peninsula in particular, our knowledge of metal production and consumption contexts is poor, but we have enough material to begin the learning process, and Khao Sam Kaeo represents an excellent opportunity for investigating metallurgical behaviour at a regional as well as local level. Although this paper is but an early interpretative effort based on preliminary analyses, our long-term goal is to understand the role of metal technologies in early complex societies enroute to urbanisation and state formation. This paper has been organised by metal type, and each section divided for evidence of production, distribution, and consumption, and a short discussion of the significance of each metal for our archaeometallurgical understanding for the Upper Peninsular and the wider region.
|
