Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T02:48:13.591Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Problems in Contemporary Asian Archeology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2011

Judith M. Treistman
Judith M. Treistman
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor of Anthropology and Asian Studies at Cornell University.
Get access

Abstract

Archeology in Asia during the past twenty years has taken great strides. The three main areas of new research have been in paleoanthropology, investigation of post-pleistocene neolithic sites, and ethnology. The population of Asia is now known to have been distributed over the entire mainland and Indonesia during the Paleolithic period which embraced the first million years of human evolution. There is growing evidence for the existence of many centers of plant domestication in Asia, each of which appears to have developed out of an indigenous “mesolithic” period of collecting and gathering. Recent research in linguistics and ethnology point the way to unravelling the separate histories of Asia's many cultures.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Asian Studies , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , February 1970 , pp. 363 - 371
Copyright
Copyright © The Association for Asian Studies, Inc. 1970

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Simons, Elwyn L., “Some Fallacies in the Study of Hominid Phylogeny,” Science, vol. 141 (1963), 879–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Shensi Lan-t'ien Hsin Sheng-chieh, (Peking: Science Press, 1966)Google Scholar; Woo, Ju-Kang “Mandible Sinanthropus type discovered at Lantien, Shensi,” Vertebrata Palasiatica, vol. VIII, no. 1 (1964), 1–12Google Scholar; Woo, Ju-kang, “Skull cap of ape-man found in Lantien, Shensi,” Vertebrata Palasiatica, vol. IX, no. 1 (1965), 124.Google Scholar

3 Woo, Ju-kang, “Human fossils found in Liuchiang, Kwangsi,” Vertebrata Palasiatica, vol. III, no. 3 (1959), 109–118Google Scholar; Pei, Wen-chung and Woo, JukangTzeyang Paleolithic Man, Institute Vertebrate Paleontology, Academia Sinica Memoir, no. 1, (Peking, 1957).Google Scholar

4 Serizawa, and Ikawa, , “The Oldest Archaeological Materials from Japan,” Asian Perspectives, vol. 2, no. 2 (1958)Google Scholar; Serizawa, C., “Chronology of Paleolithic Sites in Japan” Nihonbunka Kenkyusho Kenkyu, no. 3 (1967).Google Scholar

5 See especially P. I. Boriskovsky, in Archaeology at the Eleventh Pacific Science Congress, Asian and Pacific Archeology Series, no. 1 (1967), 41–46Google Scholar; Boriskovsky, P. I.Pervobytnoe Roshloe V'etnama, Academy of Sciences, Institute of Archaeology, (Lenningrad, 1966)Google Scholar; Walker, D. and Sieveking, Ann, “The Paleolithic Industry of Kota Tampan, Perak, Malaya” Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, vol. XXVIII (London, 1962)Google Scholar; Heekeren, H. R., The Stone Age of Indonesia, pp. 27–35Google Scholar; Sankalia, H. D., Indian Archaeology Today (1962), pp. 36–43.Google Scholar

6 Abramova, F. D., “Krasnyi Yar—a New Paleolithic Site on the Angara,” Arctic Anthropology, vol. 3, no. 1: (1965), 122–128Google Scholar; Dikov, N. N., “The Stone Age of Kamchatka and the Chuckchi Peninsula”Google Scholaribid, pp. 10–25; Chang, K. C., Arctic Anthropology, vol. V (1963).Google Scholar

7 M. Tsukada (1967), “Vegetation in Subtropical Formosa During the Pleistocene Glaciations” Paleography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, no. 3 (1967), 49–64Google Scholar; Chang, K. C., “The Yale Expedition to Taiwan and the Southeast Asian Horticultural Evolution” Discovery, vol. 2, no. 2 (1967), 3–10.Google Scholar

On the evidence of pollen cores studied by Tsukada, Chang suggests “intentional clearing of the forests” ca. 12,000 B.P., although there are no cultural remains from Taiwan at this time horizon. Tsukada does identify some pollen found at the 4200 B.P. level as cereal.

8 Gorman, C., “Hoabhinian: a Pebble Tool Complex with Early Plant Association in Southeast Asia,” Science, vol. 163, no. 3868 (1969), 671–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 “Sian Pan P'o Ts'un,” Kao Ku, no. 9 (1963), 520–522.Google Scholar

10 Spencer, J. E. and Hale, G. A., “The Origin, Nature and Distribution of Agricultural Terracing” Pacific Viewpoint, vol. 2, no. 1 (1961), 1–40.Google Scholar

11 Chang, K. C., Archaeology of Ancient China, (Yale: New Haven, 1968).Google Scholar

12 Treistman, J. M., “China at 1,000 B.C.,” Science, vol. 160 (1968), 853–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 Solheim, W. G., “Southeast Asia and the West,” Science, vol. 157 (1967), 896–902.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

14 Farrell, R., Taiwan Aboriginal Groups: Problems in Cultural and Linguistic Classification, (Nan Kang, 1969).Google Scholar

15 Ma, S. C., The Tribal Composition of Nan Chao and its Slavery System, (Peking, 1962)Google Scholar; Mote, F. W., “Problems of Thai Prehistory” Sangkhomsat Parithat, vol. 2, no. 2 (1964), 100–109.Google Scholar

16 Boisselier, J., “U-Thong et son importance pur l'histoire de Thailand,” Silpakorn, vol. 9, no. 1 (1965), 31–35Google Scholar; O'Connor, S., “An Early Brahmanicat Sculpture at Sonkhla” The Journal of the Siam Society, vol. III (1964), 163–169Google Scholar; Wheatley, P., The Golden Khersonese, (Kuala Lumpur, 1961).Google Scholar

17 Barnard, N., Bronze Casting and Bronze Alloys in Ancient ChinaGoogle Scholar, Monumenta Serica (1961); Li, Chi, “Studies of the Chia Vessel” Archaeological Sinica n. s. # 3 (1968)Google Scholar Nan Kang.

18 Feng, Han-chi, “Studies on the bronzes unearthed at Shih-chai-shan,” Kao Ku, vol. 6, no. 82 (1963), 319–329.Google Scholar