Salazar, Noel B.

The Handbook of Post-colonialism and Archaeology, pp.93-112, World Archaeological Congress Research Handbook Series,Volume Editors Jane Lydon and Uzma Rizvi, Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA. 2010. (Book chapter).

We are happy to bring out Human and Heritage: An Archaeological Spectrum of Asiatic Countries (Felicitation to Professor Ajit Kumar) as a symbol of appreciation for the commendable work Prof. Ajit Kumar carried out in the field of archaeological research for the last 36 years. His contributions have covered areas like Buddhist Art, Kerala Archaeology, Ethnography, Rock art, Indian art and Iconography. The role he played in imparting archaeological knowledge to the younger generation and inspiring them to take archaeological research as a profession has been remarkable. There were occasions, especially at its inception stage when the Department of Archaeology started admitting students for Post Graduate courses, he shouldered the responsibility of running a University Department single handedly to the satisfaction of students as well as the authorities of the University. When we started working on this volume, the response we received from scholars in India and abroad was impressive, and indicative of the respect Prof. Ajit Kumar widely enjoyed in the field of Archaeology. We received 71 articles from established archaeologists and budding scholars, especially the youngsters who pursue Archaeology as a profession, for this volume. These articles dealt with a wide variety of aspects in Archaeology like Prehistory, Protohistory, Iron Age, Historic Period, Art History, Museology, Tourism Studies, Architecture, Ethno archaeology, Numismatics and Iconography. We, as editors, take this opportunity to thank all the contributors of this volume, who spared their valuable findings with us for the enrichment of this felicitation. We are grateful, in particular, to authors from abroad, who made this publication a remarkable one with their scholarly articles. We hope that this volume will be useful as an important reference work for all those who are interested and conducting research in Archaeology.

2005

This volume offers an archaeology of Asia whose geographic coverage ranges from the equator to the upper latitudes, and from the South China Sea to the lakes of eastern Kazakhstan. For many readers picking up this book, their first question is likely, " Why Asia? " The answer is fourfold: Asia is vast; it is diverse; its history merits comparison with other regions of the world; and for the last century Western archaeologists have largely ignored Asia's archaeology. The primary goal of this volume is to bring to the fore Asia's past as part of world archaeology by including case studies on subjects of global archaeological interest. Asia is vast in geographic, demographic, economic, and political terms. Physically , Asia constitutes the world's largest landmass, contains a large percentage of the world's population, and all of the world's institutionalized religions. Three of the world's four most populous countries today (China, India, Indonesia) a...

Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 1995

In the late 1960s, archaeological theory underwent a period of rapid and significant change. Some of the more self-consciously "new" approaches which were advocated by the archaeological avant-garde have been critized as mere rhetoric and lacking in substance, but it cannot be denied that much archaeological research and analysis performed during the 1970s and 1980s followed a new and more constructive agenda. Some of the new archaeological approaches were spurred by the availability of new techniques from natural science, but the most important factor was a changed concept of the goals of archaeology. Archaeologists were enjoined to employ greater rigour in interpretation and exposition, to ally themselves more closely with natural science, and to employ methods of data collection and analysis which would make it easier to verify or falsify their conclusions. The major distinction between "new" and "old" archaeology consisted of placing greater stress on explanation, on the search for cause-and-effect relationships, in addition to description distinguished "new" from "old" archaeology. During the past quarter-century, Southeast Asian archaeology has taken on what W.G. Solheim II, senior scholar in the field, as called a "new look". Another dominant figure in the field, K. Hutterer, has questioned whether the difference is in fact no more than "old wine in a new skin". Is the "new look" no more than a superficial change? To explore this question, we can examine two of the more obvious new factors which characterize Southeast Asian archaeology, and then seek to determine whether these factors have merely replaced one component with another which functions in an identical fashion, or whether the underlying nature of the discipline has in fact been altered. The first obvious new factor has been the transfer of the major burden of research from foreigners to Southeast Asian archaeologists. Most archaeological fieldwork performed in Southeast Asia is of a much higher professional standard than formerly. The second new factor has been a shift to a writing style in a more explicitly hypothetical-deductive paradigm. In order to determine whether this new mode of expression is merely rhetorical, or whether it has in fact brought about changes in the nature of archaeological thought in Southeast Asia, will require more inferences to be drawn. This article will first cite examples of professionalisation of the discipline and the application of new archaeological techniques to Southeast Asian problems, and will also note the implcations of these new approaches for an appreciation of ancient Southeast Asia which is still in the process of formation. The article will conclude with a consideration of some reasons for the failure of the archaeological enterprise in Southeast Asia to make more rapid progress.

Journal of Community Archaeology & Heritage

Archaeological practice in Southeast Asia has recently shifted to active engagement with local stakeholders. This is due to the realization that involving communities results in meaningful research outcomes. A growing number of investigations are actively seeking the involvement of communities as both contributors and as active and involved research participants. These undertakings humanize our community partners and counter the exclusivity often associated with scholarly authority. An increasing number of scholars approach research as inter-disciplinary, breaking state and ethnic boundaries and engaging communities, emphasizing that we no longer work alone. This special issue of the Journal of Community Archaeology and Heritage provides examples of this trend. It is predicated on the concepts of practice and agency and their impacts on cultural heritage in Southeast Asia. As every article in this issue focuses on communities drastically transformed by colonialism, we hope it will illustrate how archaeological and heritage scholars can empower indigenous and descendant communities through heritage conservation. We focus on the concept of cultural heritage here since it encompasses and transcends disciplinary boundaries. It also has its origin in Western scholarship, and thus, has colonial connotations in post-colonial Southeast Asia. It is also important in identity formation, nation building, and empowerment. Although there is no all-encompassing definition that catches its magnitude, heritage unifies an interdisciplinary study and practice that focuses on the perceived importance of cultural or historical phenomena. As Smith (2006, 83) puts it, heritage is an intangible process replete with cultural and social values. In other words, heritage goes through a process of negotiation based on each community's experience. Therefore, it becomes important to those who have a shared history, experience, and memory. Intrinsic in the concept of heritage is the idea of community. There can be no heritage if there is no group composed of multiple individuals who own history or a building or an artifact. Heritage has different levels of meaning to different groups and it is also a cultural product (Lowenthal 1985; 1996). In the social sciences, the term heritage invokes our relationship with the past. It also provides a paradigm to link present-day identities to historical narratives. As such, the term becomes a powerful political tool that can be used for either inclusivity or exclusivity in nation-building (Tunbridge and Ashworth 1996; Shoocongdej 2007). Indeed, heritage has been used to call for unity among peoples with similar historical experiences (

2017

Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 2006

Historical Archaeology, 2017

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