Missing Types

Overcoming the Typology Dilemma of Lithic Archaeology in Southeast Asia

Bibliographic Data

ID11227720
AuthorsMiriam Haidle (0000-0002-4923-7880, University of Tübingen, corresponding author), Alfred Pawlik (0000-0002-3435-550X, University of the Philippines Diliman)
Year2009
Volume29
Issue0
Publication date2009-06-29
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueBulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0156-1316 • E-ISSN: 1835-1794
PublisherUniversity of Washington Libraries (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.7152/bippa.v29i0.9470
OpenAlexW2082826129
LanguageEN
Citations received8
References cited2

In Europe as well as in the Americas, typology of at least some key forms was and still is the basis of relative chronology. For Southeast Asian prehistory, attempts to classify lithic assemblages morphologically and technologically in order to fit them into established stone tool typologies from other parts of the world have not proved to be very useful. Up to now, the formation of a specific regional typology system has failed. Session 1C of the 18th Congress of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association at Manila (Fig. 1) wanted to explore the “missing types”-problem and adjacent questions. Is the typological approach not appropriate to the special characteristics and circumstances of lithic industries in Southeast Asia? Why do we know of only a few formal “Asian ” types and how did the availability and acquisition

Ancient history · Archaeology · Dilemma · Geography · Geometry · Southeast asia · Typology · History · Maritime and Coastal Archaeology · Mathematics · Pacific and Southeast Asian Studies · Geology

Tools

Open DOI