Article

Archaeology

From Munshipedia, the MBRAS digital historical encyclopedia

Archaeology

Archaeology in the Malay Peninsula and Borneo, as documented in the Society’s journal, encompasses a wide range of fieldwork, typological study, and interpretive debate spanning from the Neolithic to the early modern period. The discipline’s regional practice has been shaped by the fragmentary nature of the material record, the destructive pressures of guano mining and river erosion, and the shifting priorities of colonial and post-colonial institutions. From the first systematic excavations in Kedah in the 1930s to the radiocarbon-dated sequences at Niah Caves and the scientific analysis of gold artefacts at Kota Cina, Sumatra, the literature reveals a field that has progressively moved from catalogue-style reporting toward integrated, multi-disciplinary investigation, while remaining constrained by limited funding, political access, and the physical vulnerability of its sites.

Scope and Historical Definition

The earliest archaeological reporting in the journal reflects the conventions of colonial administration: finds were documented as they came to light, often through the accidental exposure of river floods or the destructive activity of guano diggers, and were interpreted through the lens of available textual sources. W. Linehan’s 1928 survey of the Tembeling River basin in Pahang, for instance, was prompted by the great floods of 1926–27, which had torn away riverbank earth and exposed buried artefacts at four sites—Jeram Kwi, Kuala Nyong, Teluk Lubok Puai, and Bukit Jong [1, pp. 66–77]. Linehan’s overarching thesis identified these as the remains of a non-Malay, likely Siamese, settlement engaged in iron smelting, bronze casting, and cannon manufacture, flourishing roughly from the 14th to the mid-15th century before the Malaccan Malay conquest [1, pp. 67–74]. His 1930 follow-up extended this catalogue with finds ranging from Neolithic stone tools to early Ming porcelain, and argued that the co-occurrence of stone and iron implements at Bukit Jong represented the first clear evidence of a stone-to-iron transition culture in the interior of the Peninsula [2, pp. 314–317].

Similarly, Linehan’s 1928 report on ancient brick structures in the Pekan district of Pahang documented four quadrilateral buildings at Tambak Siam, Kuala Chini, Pekan, and Pengkalen Durien, which he dated between the 14th century and the mid-15th century on the basis of a Sawankalok jar identified by Mr. Rackham of the Victoria and Albert Museum as a 14th-century product of potteries north of Bangkok [3, pp. 78–81]. The dating argument proceeded by elimination: gun-flints at Tambak Siam, if contemporaneous, would push the date no earlier than 1635 A.D., but their small size suggested they might be intrusive relics of later occupants, while the Sawankalok jar provided a firm terminus post quem of the 14th century [3, p. 80].

By the early 1950s, the format had shifted toward more structured field reporting. P.D.R. Williams-Hunt, serving as Acting Director of Museums and Adviser on Aborigines in the Federation of Malaya, published a comprehensive catalogue of archaeological material recovered across six states during 1951 [4, pp. 181–190]. His report explicitly acknowledged that conditions in the Federation prevented serious excavation work, but his dual appointment allowed him to direct museum personnel on field trips that yielded substantial material [4, p. 181]. A recurring theme was the destructive role of guano diggers, who had already excavated most of the major cave sites; in several cases, State Governments agreed to restrict guano removal until archaeological work could be completed [4, p. 181].

The Borneo Sequence: Niah and the Deep Past

The most sustained archaeological programme documented in the journal’s history is Tom Harrisson’s work at Niah Caves in north-west Sarawak, Borneo. Harrisson’s 1971 monograph on prehistoric double-spouted vessels presents the first comprehensive study of a class of pottery that had been largely neglected in the literature despite its conspicuous presence in the cave deposits [5, pp. 35–78]. Drawing on fifty vessels recovered across nine caves over a decade of excavation, Harrisson establishes a typology of four types and traces a developmental sequence spanning roughly two millennia, from c. 2000 B.C. to c. 1000 A.D., arguing for a fundamentally local, indigenous origin rather than external diffusion [5, pp. 44–45]. Radiocarbon dates anchor the sequence: a Jeragan coffin burial yields c. 2250 B.C. (4,300 ± 160 years), a Jeragan jar burial c. 1120 B.C. (3,070 ± 410 years), and a Magala burial c. 1180 B.C. (3,130 ± 240 years) [5, pp. 69–70].

W.G.H. Solheim’s 1977 assessment of the Niah research programme, published in a memorial issue of the journal, provides a rare insider’s account of the operational realities of the excavation [6, pp. 28–40]. Solheim identifies Harrisson’s approach as ecological from the outset—encompassing zoology, ethnohistory, geology, soil science, and palaeoclimatology—predating the widespread adoption of such frameworks in archaeology [6, p. 29]. The programme’s strength lay in its integration of multiple scientific disciplines, with first-class specialists in bone, shell, and living fauna contributing extensively, even as the core archaeological methodology remained rudimentary [6, p. 29]. Excavation proceeded by artificial six-inch levels in rectangular trenches of varying sizes, with no published section drawings, no attempt to correlate strata across trenches, and no sieving of soil [6, p. 35]. By the time of Barbara Harrisson’s 1967 burial classification, the Great Cave had been divided into 370 individual trenches, with 166 burials recorded in the excavated area [6, p. 35]. The earliest human skull from Niah was initially dated at approximately 40,000 B.P. but was revised downward to c. 35,000 B.P. in Harrisson’s 1976 UISPP congress paper [6, p. 39]. Solheim positions Niah alongside the Tabon Caves of Palawan as the two foundational sequences for the prehistory of Island Southeast Asia between 50,000 and 1,000 years ago [6, p. 39].

Harrisson’s 1949 survey of gold and Indian influences in west Borneo represents a different mode of archaeological argumentation, synthesising approximately 115 recorded gold objects, numerous stone and ceramic artefacts, and roughly 50 golden legends to demonstrate that West Borneo was a major early gold-producing region whose material record reveals a complex pattern of Indian and Javanese cultural contact [7, pp. 33–110]. The core of the argument rests on the Limbang hoard, which Harrisson identifies as the most informative single find after the Sambas figures [7, p. 52]. Through detailed comparison with the Franks Collection in the British Museum, the Fort Canning hoard from Singapore, and Javanese parallels identified by Coedes and Sastri, he demonstrates that the Limbang rings belong to a Javanese craft tradition of the late Hindu (Majapahit) period, roughly the 14th century [7, pp. 66–67]. The single inscribed ring, bearing Nagari characters read as “Araksara,” provides the only datable epigraphic evidence from West Borneo and anchors the hoard to the 13th–14th century [7, pp. 57–58]. Harrisson is careful to distinguish between the presence of objects and the presence of their makers, emphasising that small precious items are highly mobile across space and time [7, p. 66].

The Kedah Complex and the Question of Cultural Attribution

The archaeology of north-west Malaya, particularly the ancient Indianised city-state of Kataha (Langkasuka), has been the subject of sustained investigation and debate. Michael Sullivan’s 1958 report on the University of Malaya Archaeological Society’s 1957 excavation campaign documents work at four sites in southeast Kedah and northern Province Wellesley, extending the known spatial and chronological range of the settlement [8, pp. 188–219]. The core argument emerges from the typological analysis of the structures themselves: at Matang Pasir, Sullivan demonstrates that the rectangular plan, west-facing orientation, surrounding processional path, and stupa-core block distinguish the shrine as Buddhist rather than Hindu—a significant correction, since all previously excavated shrines in the Kedah complex had been identified as Hindu [8, pp. 189–192]. The bronze Buddha head and lotus flower reinforce this identification and point to a Mahayana Buddhist revival in the ninth or tenth century under Sailendra influence [8, p. 192].

The most speculative but potentially significant finding comes from Kota Aur, where two small rectangular brick structures of a type unknown in Malayan or Indian temple architecture were excavated [8, pp. 213–215]. The discovery of a crushed iron vessel containing perished organic material, combined with the structures’ elongated plan and east-west orientation, leads Sullivan to tentatively identify them as tombs—possibly of Jain patriarchs, drawing an analogy with the tombs at Moodbidri in South India [8, p. 215]. This identification, if confirmed, would introduce a new religious dimension to the Kedah complex and would be the first such find in the region [8, p. 215].

Alastair Lamb’s 1959 field report challenges the dominant narrative established by H.G.Q. Wales, arguing that the architectural and ritual features of the Kedah temples—particularly the nine-chambered reliquary—point to Javanese rather than Indian origins [9, pp. 214–232]. Lamb engages directly with Stutterheim’s 1939 thesis that the chandi ritual and its associated nine-chambered reliquary originated in pre-Hindu Javanese culture, not in India [9, p. 220]. If Stutterheim is correct, then Wales’s inference—that the presence of nine-chambered reliquaries in Kedah proves Indian (Pallava) origin—collapses [9, p. 220]. Lamb extends this scepticism to Wales’s dating methodology more broadly, noting that Wales relied on associated finds of uncertain provenance to assign sixth- or seventh-century dates, and suggests these objects may simply be trade goods or ballast carried by Indian merchants [9, p. 221]. The intact granite casket discovered in the sanctuary of Site 8, which Lamb identifies as almost certainly a third nine-chambered reliquary, provides the physical basis for this argument [9, pp. 221–222].

Maritime Trade, Gold, and the Sumatran Connection

The Kota Cina site near Medan, Sumatra, represents a cosmopolitan entrepôt active from the twelfth to the mid-fourteenth century, and the 1980 study by Manning, Edwards McKinnon, and Treloar presents the first scientific analysis of gold fragments recovered from the site [10, pp. 102–116]. The article argues that gold was both manufactured and traded at Kota Cina, that the metal was derived from alluvial sources in the Bukit Barisan hinterland, and that Chinese craftsmen participated in the local gold trade during the Sung-Yuan period [10, p. 102]. The analytical section employed two complementary methods: atomic absorption spectroscopy and the Archimedes specific gravity method [10, p. 111]. The results consistently show very low copper content (all below 1%), which the authors interpret as diagnostic of alluvial gold rather than deliberately alloyed metal [10, p. 111]. A particularly significant find is sample 1, a piece of gold foil stamped with two Chinese characters, one of which means “gold” (金), implying the foil was prepared or at least assayed by Chinese craftsmen [10, p. 107]. The authors draw a parallel with the Santubong site in Borneo, where Chinese and Indian influences mingled with indigenous activity, and suggest a similar pattern of cultural convergence at Kota Cina [10, p. 110].

C.A. Gibson-Hill’s 1955 study of the Johore River sites addresses the question of pre-sixteenth-century occupation, dismantling the case for Han-period dating proposed by Han Wai Toon and Braddell on the basis of stamped earthenware sherds and Roman glass beads [11, pp. 163–181]. Gibson-Hill argues that the stamped wares show a long local tradition of manufacture rather than evidence of Han imports, and that the earliest datable Chinese porcelain carries Hsuan Te reign marks (A.D. 1426–35), placing the founding of the settlements at the beginning of the fifteenth century at the earliest [11, p. 164]. The 1954 Johore Lama hoard contained Chinese porcelain with imperial reign marks of Lung Ch’ing (1567–72) and Wan Li (1573–1619), consistent with burial during the Portuguese assault of 1587 [11, p. 161].

Research and Documentation

The Society’s literature on archaeology reveals a clear evolution in methodological sophistication and interpretive ambition across the period covered by these records. The earliest reports—Linehan’s surveys of Pahang in 1928 and 1930—follow the conventions of colonial-era field documentation: finds are catalogued, typologically compared with specimens in the F.M.S. Museums, and interpreted through the lens of the Malay Annals and local traditions [1, pp. 66–77], [2, pp. 314–317]. The institutional framework is minimal, with Evans of the F.M.S. Museums serving as the authoritative classificatory voice [2, p. 317].

The 1950s mark a transition toward more systematic excavation and specialist collaboration. Williams-Hunt’s 1952 report, while still provisional in character, introduces external specialist identifications (P.E. Corbett of the British Museum for Greek pottery; the Department of Human Anatomy, Oxford University for human remains) and establishes the first external chronological anchor for the Malayan Neolithic through the Attic black-glazed sherds from Bukit Tengku Lembu [4, pp. 187–188]. Sullivan’s and Lamb’s 1958–59 reports on Kedah represent the first sustained challenge to the dominant narrative of direct Indian colonisation, introducing Stutterheim’s pre-Hindu Javanese thesis and questioning the methodological validity of dating by associated finds of uncertain provenance [9, pp. 220–221], [8, pp. 189–192].

The 1970s and 1980s witness the full emergence of multi-disciplinary and scientific approaches. Harrisson’s Niah programme, despite its methodological shortcomings as identified by Solheim, integrates radiocarbon dating, palaeoclimatology, and faunal analysis to construct a deep-time sequence for Island Southeast Asia [6, pp. 28–40], [5, pp. 69–70]. The Kota Cina gold analysis represents one of the earliest applications of atomic absorption spectroscopy to Southeast Asian archaeological material [10, p. 111]. The 2007 exchange between Solheim and Nik Hassan Shuhaimi Nik Abdul Rahman highlights a persistent tension in the field: the relationship between Malaysian-based research and the broader Southeast Asian archaeological literature, with Solheim arguing that a thorough treatment of Malaysian archaeology would require engagement with publications in Asian Perspectives and the Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association that were not accessible through the library holdings of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia [12, pp. 102–104]. Nik Hassan’s rejoinder notes that the majority of Malaysian excavation reports are published in Malay-language venues such as Jurnal Arkeologi Malaysia and PURBA, which Solheim may not have consulted [12, p. 104]. This exchange underscores the ongoing challenge of integrating local and international scholarly traditions in the archaeology of the region.

MBRAS Sources

Borneo

China, Indonesia, Thailand

Malaya

Periodic progress reports

Sumatra

References

  1. W. Linehan (1928). Some discoveries on the Tembeling JMBRAS 6(4): 66–77.
  2. W. Linehan (1930). Notes on some further archaeological discoveries in Pahang JMBRAS 8(2): 314–317.
  3. W. Linehan (1928). Notes on the remains of some ancient brick structures in Pekan district JMBRAS 6(4): 78–81.
  4. P.D.R. Williams-Hunt (1952). Recent archaeological discoveries in Malaya (1951) JMBRAS 25(1): 181–190. Read on JSTOR
  5. Tom Harrisson (1971). Prehistoric double-spouted vessels excavated from Niah Caves, Borneo JMBRAS 44(2): 35–78. Read on JSTOR
  6. W.G.H. Solheim (1977). The Niah research program JMBRAS 50(1): 28–40. Read on JSTOR
  7. Tom Harrisson (1949). Gold and Indian influences in west Borneo JMBRAS 22(4): 33–110. Read on JSTOR
  8. M. Sullivan (1958). Excavations in Kedah and Province Wellesley, 1957 JMBRAS 31(1): 188–219. Read on JSTOR
  9. A. Lamb (1959). Recent archaeological work in Kedah (1958 JMBRAS 32(1): 214–232. Read on JSTOR
  10. E. Edwards et al. (1980). Analysis of gold artefacts from the Kota Cina site, near Medan, Sumatra (with appendices). A. Manning, E JMBRAS 53(2): 102–116.
  11. C.A. Gibson-Hill (1955). Johore Lama and other ancient sites on the Johore River. {In Papers on Johore Lama and the Portuguese in Malaya (1511–1641 JMBRAS 28(2): 126–197. Read on JSTOR
  12. W.G.H. Solheim (2007). Comments on Nik Hassan Nik Abdul Rahman’s article in MB 80(1 JMBRAS 80(2): 102–104.