Metalartefakter i Sydøstasien udfordrer langvarig arkæologisk teori

I arkæometallurgi, studiet af gammelt metal, arkæologer har historisk taget en top-down tilgang, hvilket betyder, at smykker, værktøjer, våben, og andre artefakter, de opdager, er kommet til at betegne en dominerende herskende gruppe, der udøvede overordnet kontrol over, hvordan man bruger sådanne ressourcer.

Penn Museums Joyce White og Elizabeth Hamilton har en anden idé.

I en artikel med åben adgang i Arkæologisk forskning i Asien , forskerne hævder, at i Sydøstasien, hvor de har udført hovedparten af ​​deres arbejde, lokalsamfund tog faktisk en bottom-up tilgang, hver beslutter, hvordan de skal bruge disse dyrebare ressourcer i stedet for at blive fortalt, hvad de skal gøre med dem. Artiklen fremhæver vigtige resultater fra en fire-binds monografisuite, der udgives af Penn Press.

"Et progressivt syn på menneskelig udvikling, der stammer fra 1800-tallets opfattelser af kulturel evolution, bliver fortalt igen og igen. Men det fungerer ikke godt, når man ser på områder i nærmere og finere detaljer, " siger White, direktør for museets Ban Chiang-projekt og adjungeret professor i Penns afdeling for antropologi. "Vi bør se på kulturel udvikling på finkornede måder analogt med genetik, naturlig selektion, de små, grove mekanismer, hvorved kulturer udviklede sig."

Selvom denne tankegang ikke er helt ny, det er aldrig før blevet anvendt til Sydøstasien, siger Hamilton. "En sådan genovervejelse har fundet sted, for eksempel, i europæisk arkæologi og andre steder, " siger hun. "Men hvor vi arbejder, de gamle måder at tænke på har en tendens til at dominere."

Penn Today talte med White og Hamilton om det paradigmeskifte inden for arkæologi, som de håber at udløse med denne forskning, plus tanker om, hvor de ser feltet på vej hen.

For Sydøstasien, hvilke specifikke metaller henviser du til?

Hamilton:Metaller fundet i det gamle Sydøstasien har tendens til at være kobber/bronze og jern. Bronze er en legering af kobber og tin. I store dele af verden, udseendet af bronze har en tendens til groft at korrelere med fremkomsten af ​​socialt hierarki, til dels, det antages, fordi bronze er en smuk, hårdt metal du kan bruge til våben eller værktøj.

De fleste steder, tin er relativt sjældent, så du skal normalt importere det langvejs fra. Der er denne teori om, at eliter, i det gamle nærøsten f.eks. forsøgte at kontrollere tinhandelen, fordi det er et prestigevare. Men Sydøstasien er et af de få steder, hvor både kobber og tin er let tilgængelige. Ingen behøver at kontrollere det; ingen kan kontrollere det.

Hvordan afslørede disse metaller en bottom-up-tilgang, som disse samfund tog?

Hvid:Til metal, der skal produceres, du skal finde malmene og så skabe de rette fysiske forhold, som er en kombination af atmosfære og temperatur. I tilfælde af bronze, du skal gøre dette med både tin og kobber og derefter kombinere enten de to malme i en ovn eller de to metaller i en digel i bestemte proportioner.

Hamilton:Og så skal du støbe og/eller hamre produktet.

Hvid:Evnen til at producere metaller var uden tvivl en betydelig teknologisk udvikling i menneskelige samfund.

Hamilton:Du kan selv lave et stenværktøj eller en krukke. Men at skabe et metalværktøj, en metalartefakt er en gruppebestræbelse og en kompleks.

White:Complex and also requiring a great deal of knowledge, expertise, know-how. The big discomfort scholars from a European background have with metallurgy in Thailand is that all this complexity was done by non-urban, non-warring, non-hierarchical societies. Part of the point of our article is to offer a solid counternarrative to how this metal technology could be developed and exchanged not reliant on a top-down model but using an economic model that has been way underutilized in archaeology, one based on communities making decisions about how to participate in regional exchange systems.

Can you provide an example based on your findings?

White:In northern northeast Thailand, at Ban Chiang, bracelets were by far the most popular metal object made, and almost all of them were made of a tin-bronze alloy. If we go a few hundred kilometers south to another prehistoric site, bangles weren't all that prominent. That community wasn't so focused on jewelry. I stedet, they had these odd-shaped adzes, which I haven't seen from any other site, these little paddle shapes. At least two of them were made not of tin-bronze but of copper.

Looking at a small amount of evidence from lead isotopes, we can see that the northern site is getting its copper from Laos, and the southern site is getting its copper from central Thailand. Til mig, this is one of the coolest and most significant things we have found so far. In very early stages, villages are linking to different metal supply lines. They're using locally specific technologies, and they're making locally specific items. Production was not uniform.

Hamilton:There's also evidence that a lot of these small villages were manufacturing their own metal artifacts. We've found crucibles in most villages, along with other evidence for casting final products including molds. They were not importing them from some big central emporium that was churning out metal and metal products.

How does this research turn previous thinking about metallurgy on its head?

Hamilton:Most laboratory work on ancient metals is still performed on a loose collection of metal artifacts that were commonly excavated from graves, so they're well-preserved, or they happen to be what the excavator allows the analyst to sample. Those studies often don't sample all artifact types, periods, and contexts. Med andre ord, most previous technical studies cherry-picked their samples.

Gennem vores arbejde, which sampled from entire populations of excavated metal objects, we can get a picture of the full evidence for the place metals held in an ancient society. We can look at specific changes through time, in context, in artifact type. The vast majority of archaeometallurgical investigations cannot reliably perceive such fine-grained details. We were lucky, selvfølgelig, that we had pretty well-preserved metal artifacts.

White:Beyond that, archaeologists of a traditional bent tend to have a particular thought structure called essentialism, which means that they do everything they can to come up with a coherent story according to a progressive view of social change. They keep looking for and exaggerate specific evidence to fit that progressive model. Southeast Asia is different. It offers an outstanding example of bottom-up social change, of community-level decision making. It's a chance to study prehistoric societies in a more granular way, and it's a fundamental shift for archaeologists. We're still early on in trying to promote this different point of view and in using metals as a vehicle to gain this perspective.

What do you hope for the future of the field?

White:I really call on the next generation of up-and-coming Southeast Asian archaeologists to test, fill in, and develop the new paradigm further. I also think that as archaeologists, broadly, we can contribute to a larger discussion of how we all live in this world going forward, to have a more successful existence on this Earth, by studying ancient societies like those in prehistoric Thailand that were enduring, robust, and peaceful.