The way that many of us view the past today is the product of scholaship that has been produced in the post-colonial era, and that has in some cases specifically sought to counter what some scholars have perceived as certain faults of colonial-era scholars.
One clear example of this concerns the role that migration played in the history of mainland Southeast Asia. During the colonial era, migration was presented as having played a key role in various historical transformations (such as the emergence of agriculture) in the history of mainland Southeast Asia.
Then in the post-colonial era this interpretation of the past was criticized by scholars (both Southeast Asian and foreign) for being Euro-centric and racist as they saw it as arguing that u201ccivilizationu201d was brought to a u201cbackwardu201d mainland Southeast Asia rather than developed indigenously.
Now in the twenty-first century, genetic scientists, as well as some archaeologists, are once again associating certain historical changes in mainland Southeast Asia (such as the emergence of agriculture) with historical human migrations.
For some people, this u201creturn of migrationu201d is a problem, because for many years it has been the norm (or fashion) among historians and archaeologists to dismiss the role of human migration in the history of mainland Southeast Asia as a colonial/Euro-centric/racist paradigm.
After reading recent genetic and archaeological research, I spent some time examining colonial-era scholarship about migrations in prehistory. What I have come to realize is that colonial-era scholarship on migrations in Southeast Asian prehistory is much more complex than the dismissals of post-colonial-era scholars suggests.
Further, when one compares what genetic scientists are saying today with what colonial-era scholars argued in the 1930s, one finds striking similarities.
So what does that mean?
Does this mean that genetic scientists are colonial, Euro-centric and racist? No, the problem, as I see it, is that many of us havenu2019t fully appreciated what colonial-era scholars wrote and why they wrote what they did.
Does this mean that genetic scientists and colonial-era scholars have found all of the answers? No, but I think that they both identified an important starting point for investigating the prehistory of Southeast Asia. And this is what we will examine in the posts that follow.