Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T22:13:00.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Archaeological Studies of Style, Information Transfer and the Transition from Classical to Islamic Periods in Indonesia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 April 2011

Abstract

Archaeologists have long sought to identify the key indicators which would allow them to measure the level and rate of cultural development. Technology and energy capture are two of the indicators which have been proposed, but there are grounds for objecting that these are still variables dependent on another factor: the capacity of a culture to record and process information. The communication of information has been studied by archaeologists but their paradigms, such as the diffusionist model, have been found wanting and discarded. The goal of studying ancient communication processes is an ideal, but achieving it with the data available to archaeologists will be very difficult.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The National University of Singapore 1989

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 Hawkes, C., “Archaeological Theory and Method: Some Suggestions from the Old World”, American Anthropologist 56 (1954): 155–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Hill, J.N., “Systems Theory and the Explanation of Change”, in Explanation of Prehistoric Change, ed. Hill, J.N. (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico, 1977), pp. 59104.Google Scholar

3 Wenke, R.J., “Explaining the Evolution of Cultural Complexity: A Review”, in Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Volume 4, ed. Schiffer, M.B. (New York: Academic, 1981), pp. 79127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Hall, R.L., “Ghosts, Water Barriers, Corn, and Sacred Enclosures in the Eastern WoodlandsAmerican Antiquity 41 (1976): 360–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Adams, R.M., Heartland of Cities (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1981).Google Scholar

6 Riggs, F., “Comments on Winzeler”, Current Anthropology 17/4 (1976): 635–36.Google Scholar

7 Hill, J.N., “Systems Theory and the Explanation of Change”.Google Scholar

8 Wheatley, P., The Pivot of the Four Quarters (Chicago: Aldine, 1971)Google Scholar ; Nagara and Commandery, Nos. 202–208 (Chicago: University of Chicago, Department of Geography Research Paper, 1983)Google Scholar.

9 Kijngam, A., Higham, C. and Wiriyaromp, W., Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in North East Thailand, Vol. 15 (Dunedin: University of Otago Studies in Prehistoric Anthropology, 1980).Google Scholar

10 Flannery, K.V., “Cultural Evolution of Civilization”, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 3 (1972): 399426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 Johnson, G.A., “Information Sources and the Development of Decision-making Organizations”, in ed. , Redman et al. (1978), pp. 87112.Google Scholar

13 Plog, S., “Measurement of Prehistoric Interaction between Communities”, in The Early Meso-american Village, ed. Flannery, K.V. (New York. Academic, 1976), pp. 255–72.Google Scholar

14 Mundardjito, Hasan Muarif Ambary and Djafar, Hasan, “Laporan Penelitian Arkeologi Banten 1976”, Berita Penelitian Arkeologi 18 (1978).Google Scholar

15 Crucq, K.C., “Aanteekeningen over de manara te Banten”, TBG 79 (1939): 193201.Google Scholar

16 Merklinger, E.S., Indian Islamic Architecture: The Deccan, 1347-1686 (Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1981).Google Scholar

17 Fritz, J.M., “Paleopsychology Today: Ideational Systems and Human Adaptation in Prehistory”, in Social Archaeology, ed. Redman, C.L. et al. (New York: Academic, 1978), pp. 3759.Google Scholar

18 Hall, k.R., Maritime Trade and State Development in Early Southeast Asia (Honolulu: University of Hawaii, 1985).Google Scholar

19 Wolters, O.W., History, Culture, and Region in Southeast Asian Perspectives (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1982).Google Scholar