The three-age system: A struggle for southeast asian prehistoric periodisation

Abstract

This article explores the concept of the “Three-Age System” that has to some extent stymied the conceptualization of Southeast Asian prehistory. The direct transfer of this system from its European application to Southeast Asia has substantially influenced the analysis and characterization of Southeast Asian data. In particular, the chronological division of ‘Bronze Age’ and ‘Iron Age’ has overemphasized the linkage between the development of metal technology in relation to socio-economic development. It is agreed that absolute chronology needs to be established, however the terminology of ‘Bronze Age’ and ‘Iron Age’ should be used specifically for the classification of artefact chronology, separately from the explanation of stages of social organisation. Archaeological data from west-central Thailand will be discussed to demonstrate the issue of the incompatible framework of the Three-Age System (Figures 1-2). The apparent absence of clear age subdivisions and the lack of a “real” Bronze Age has made the chronology of this region seem incomplete. Stone tools had been abundantly used throughout the prehistoric period, and bronze and iron materials were often found at the same sites. However, little scientific data prior to 500 BCE has been obtained from any site in the region. This may or may not be the reason for west-central Thailand being considered peripheral in the discussion of the socio-economic development of mainland Southeast Asia. In consideration of these issues, archaeological methodology and the formation of knowledge from Southeast Asia prehistory will be discussed, including the necessity to move from the imported “Three Age System” to concepts that better fit the local data in west-central Thailand. The distorted prehistoric analysis needs to be adjusted so that our understanding of prehistory in Thailand does not become a scientific illusion.