1 Introduction

High mountains and oceans combine to create a complex climatic and geomorphological environment in Myanmar (also called Burma), which is situated on the western edge of mainland Southeast Asia (MSEA, for short), on the southern side of the Alpine-Himalayan belt, and connects the Himalayas to the Andaman Sea (Tun 2015). Myanmar borders with China, Laos, Thailand, India, Bangladesh, and the Bay of Bengal, forming a crossroads for multiple cultures. Its unique geographic location is critical for investigating many significant topics in archaeology on both global and regional scales. Particularly, Myanmar is thought to be an important node in modern humans’ coastal migration from Africa to the Asian continent (Li et al. 2015), a crossroads of multiple populations and cultures during the transition from hunter-gatherer (e.g., Hoabinhian groups) to sedentary agricultural societies (Cai et al. 2011; Matsumura et al. 2019; Matsumura et al. 2015; Wang et al. 2011), as well as an intersection point for bronze metallurgical techniques as they spread from the northern Eurasian steppes to MSEA (Pryce 2019; Pryce et al. 2018a). Recently, Myanmar also turned out to be important in discussing possible linkages between Myanmar and the Dian 滇 Culture of Yunnan 云南 Province, China (Moore 2010, 2019), for exploring the rise of complex society and the early Maritime Silk Road (Bellina et al. 2018, 2019; Bennett 2013; Dussubieux et al. 2020; Murphy and Stark 2016), as well as for identifying the interaction networks linking MSEA, India, and China (Carter 2016; Dussubieux and Pryce 2016; Gupta 2018; Matsumura and Oxenham 2014). Overall, from a macro-regional perspective, Myanmar plays a significant role in archaeological research and deserves high concern.

Over the past decades, several researchers have written reviews of the history and practices of Myanmar’s archaeology, in a relatively generalized way (Goh 2017; Higham 2001; Thaw 1976): these have focused on some special years (Lwin 2018; Satt 2020), spotlighted certain prehistoric cultures and chronological sequences (Aung-Thwin 1982, 2001; Glover 2001; Tun 2015), or placed Myanmar in the context of a discussion on a particular topic concerning MSEA as a whole (Forestier et al. 2022; Halcrow et al. 2019; Tan 2019a). This paper, therefore, aims to review the history of prehistoric archaeological research in Myanmar, as well as the main prehistoric discoveries (Fig. 1; Table 1), with particular attention to developments since the 1990s by collecting, sorting, and analyzing as many publications as possible in order to lay a solid foundation for future prehistoric archaeological research on East Asia and MSEA in a macroscopic perspective.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Map showing the locations of the main prehistoric sites in Myanmar: (1) Yenangyaung; (2) Gu Myaung; (3) Padalin; (4) Waiponla; (5) Moegyobyin; (6) Myin Ma Hti; (7) Moebye; (8) Buddhaw Zinaw; (9) Oakaie; (10) Nyaung’gan; 11. Halin; 12. Ywa Htin; 13. Ywa Gon Gyi; 14. Htan Ta Pin; 15. Hnaw Khan; 16. Myo Hla; 17. Ohh Min

Full size image
Table 1 A listing of the main scholarship and discoveries of prehistoric sites in Myanmar
Full size table

2 Spatiotemporal framework for prehistory in Myanmar

The word prehistory generally refers to the earliest stages of human culture before the invention of writing, and discussions are often based on the Danish archaeologist C. J. Tomson’s Three Age System: the Stone Age, Bronze Age, and Iron Age (Daniel 1975). Definitions for what is considered as prehistoric vary in different areas due to the varying developmental trajectories of human history. Many archaeologists have found that the accepted Three Age System does not entirely conform to prehistory in Myanmar (Aung-Thwin 1982; Higham 2001; Hudson 2005). Because of the persistence of archaic stone tools in Myanmar from the Paleolithic to the Iron Age and beyond, the degree of social complexity and technical and economic variety are more crucial indicators for the division of prehistoric periods in the region (Higham 2001). Many academics confine the latest prehistoric period in Myanmar to that preceding the formation of early cities—that is, the pre-Pyu period, around 200 BCE, when different areas of Myanmar began to urbanize sequentially and entered what is considered the protohistoric period (Hudson 2005). Here, the prehistoric period in Myanmar refers to the period before the emergence of the Pyu state and includes developments equivalent to the Stone, Bronze, and Early Iron Ages.

3 Chronological development of prehistoric archaeology in Myanmar

We collected almost 300 publications about the study of prehistoric archaeological research in Myanmar by searching libraries and the Internet, including papers in Burmese, English, French, Chinese, and Japanese. Five distinctive development periods can be recognized by sorting and analyzing these materials.

3.1 Roots (1869–1929)

Like other Southeast Asian nations, foreign scientists conducted the early studies on prehistoric archaeology in Myanmar, occasionally uncovering stone implements during geological surveys. While working for the Geological Survey of India, W. Theobald became interested in Myanmar’s prehistory when he gathered several stone tools during a survey in “Upper Burma” (the central and northern regions of present-day Myanmar). These stone tools were distinct from those discovered in India and Europe, and he reported on them in the Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal in 1869 (Theobald 1873). Following that, J. Evans, who was actively involved in prehistoric research on Southeast Asia, conducted preliminary research on these stone artifacts (Evans 1870). However, their findings and research did not pique the curiosity of Western geologists and archaeologists.

F. Noetling, another member of the Geological Survey of India, was one of the few Western researchers interested in prehistory. He published reports on Upper Miocene or early Pliocene deposits from the Yenangyaung in the Irrawaddy (Ayeyarwady) Valley in 1894 and 1897 in which he described what are now thought to be the earliest stone tools ever discovered in Myanmar (Noetling 1894, 1897). In the early 1900s, Noetling’s discovery piqued people’s interest in the issue, and controversy became almost inevitable. Many scholars—including R. D. Oldham, E. H. Pascoe, and others—questioned whether these (or similar) implements were necessarily associated with Noetling’s stratum, the “Red Bed” (i.e., the Upper Miocene or Lower Pliocene strata). Although Noetling claimed that they were found in situ, he did not provide convincing proof (Oldham 1895; Pascoe 1912; Swinhoe 1902, 1903). While some agreed with Noetling (Das Gupta 1923; Mitra 1923), others remained neutral and waited for further investigations (Brown 1931). Although there was no consensus, these discussions provided a theoretical and practical foundation for the next period of prehistoric archaeological survey and study in Myanmar, which substantially fostered the birth of the field in Myanmar.

Myanmar has had a professional institution dedicated to archaeology since the nineteenth century, when the Indian Archaeological Department, Burma Circle, mainly managed it (Aung-Thwin 1982). The Archaeological Survey of Burma was established in 1902 to take charge of archaeological investigations and research in the country; however, their focus was on historical periods associated with ancient architecture and inscriptions, among other artifacts, while prehistoric finds still came mainly as occasional discoveries made by geologists during their surveys.

The Report of the Superintendent, Archaeological Survey, Burma, was published annually by the Archaeological Survey of Burma and contained the major archaeological reports for the year. The report was one of the essential sources of archaeological results from Myanmar at the time, but it contained few studies on prehistory (Aung-Thwin 1982). The Journal of the Burma Research Society was another local journal that published research papers on prehistory, but most foreign scholars could not access it because it was published in Burmese (Goh 2017). Thus, advancements made in prehistoric research in Myanmar were poorly understood by foreign scholars.

In this period, archaeological work in Myanmar was undertaken by British colonists. Although there were already professional organizations and annual reports by the end of the nineteenth century, they often only focused on above-ground architecture and cultural relics. The discovery of stone artifacts in Upper Burma, particularly the Irrawaddy Valley, marks the start of prehistoric archaeological research in Myanmar, and the true study of prehistoric Myanmar began in the next phase.

3.2 Beginnings (1930–1948)

In the first half of the twentieth century, many Western scholars were involved in archaeological activities in Southeast Asia. However, unlike its neighboring countries, Myanmar received scant attention from Western archaeologists and was considered a barren field for prehistoric research. This opinion did not change until the work by T. O. Morris in the 1930s.

T. O. Morris, recognized as the “Father of Myanmar Archaeology,” undertook the first systematic prehistoric survey and research in the Irrawaddy Valley in the early 1930s (Glover 2001). Armed with fresh data, Morris revealed that many chipped implements, similar to those discussed by Noetling, could be discovered far distant from the “Red Bed” of Yenangyaung, where Noetling found them. As a result, Morris concluded that Noetling’s implements may have belonged to the Pleistocene bed before being redeposited and associated with Pliocene beds (Morris 1932, 1935, 1936a, b, 1937). Morris also sought to study Myanmar’s past using geologic knowledge and made a significant effort to establish the whole sequence of material culture in terms of river terraces. Unfortunately, the correlations between artifact types and various faunal and floral assemblages were too weak for robust interpretation (Aung 2018; Aung et al. 2015).

With several notable discoveries of hominins and Paleolithic sites in East and Southeast Asian countries—such as the discovery of Java Man in 1894 and Peking Man in 1929—academics began to focus on Myanmar. The region was thought of as a pivotal point for early hominins’ migrations from Africa to mainland East Asia and island Southeast Asia (Terra et al. 1943). French archaeologists discovered and defined the Hoabinhian culture in northern Vietnam in the 1920s. Myanmar, with a similar latitude and environment as Vietnam, was also considered in the spatiotemporal framework of the Hoabinhian culture (Aung 2018). Morris’ findings in the Irrawaddy Valley also appear to have sparked Western academics’ interest in traveling to Myanmar to explore ancient history (Glover 2001).

In 1938 and 1939, the American Southeast Asiatic Expedition, which consisted of a team of archaeology, geology, and paleontology scholars led by H. L. Movius and H. de Terra, investigated the Irrawaddy Valley and its surroundings. It was the most critical and far-reaching prehistoric survey in Myanmar in the first half of the twentieth century. The resulting report, Research on Early Man in Burma (Terra et al. 1943), is the most important and convincing monograph on Burmese prehistory to date, particularly for foreign researchers without access to most materials published in Burmese (Aung 2018; Aung-Thwin 2001).

Movius and his team gathered approximately 650 stone tools and animal fossils from a total of 12 sites in the Central Plains and Shan Plateau. Many choppers and chopping-tools were found, while typical Acheulian hand-axes were lacking. Because the typology of these implements is remarkably uniform throughout the entire sequence in the Irrawaddy Valley, to Movius would argue that they appear to have diverged dramatically from Europe’s traditional Paleolithic industry and have developed distinct regional characteristics that share formal and chronological similarities with those from Zhoukoudian, China, and Kota Tampam, Malaysia. As a result of Movius’ claim that these distinctive implements represented lithic complexes of the Paleolithic in Burma, they were given a new name: the Anyathian culture, named after Anyatha, the “Upper Burman” in colloquial Burmese (Terra et al. 1943). Movius then separated the Anyathian culture into five successive phases based on the stratigraphic sequences of terraces (T) of the Irrawaddy Valley. Three phases belong to the Early Anyathian, whereas two phases belong to the Late Anyathian: these corresponded to T 1–4, in which the Early Anyathian 1 and 2 phases belong to T1. The Post-Anyathian, found in T5, belongs to the Neolithic. In a chronological sense, the Early Anyathian roughly covers the time-span of the Lower and Middle Paleolithic periods of the Old World, while the Late Anyathian may be considered the equivalent of the Upper Paleolithic period (Fig. 2) (Movius 1943, 1948b). The archeological activities of Morris, Movius, and their colleagues in the Irrawaddy Valley during this period have been extensively recognized, and their results, which provide the most fundamental chronological framework for the study of the Paleolithic in Myanmar, have been applied by succeeding academics, as well.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Generalized cross-section of the Irrawaddy Valley showing the archaeological horizons in relation to the five terraces (T1-5). (redrawn according to Movius 1943: Fig. 56)

Full size image

3.3 Stagnation (1949–1969)

Prehistoric archaeological research in Myanmar came to a standstill during World War II and the decades that followed the war. Despite gaining independence from the British after World War II, Burma’s central government was forced to wage a civil war and prioritize politics. As a result, research on prehistory, which relied on government financing, was a luxury in Myanmar at the time, and “the last item to be earmarked for financial support from Burma’s scarce resources was the study of prehistory” (Aung-Thwin 2001). Despite a lull in research during this period, Myanmar’s stringent internal restrictions formed a disincentive to systematic looting of essential sites and served as a deterrent to the international trade in illicit antiquities, thus allowing for the effective conservation of countless ancient sites and artifacts in Myanmar (Higham 2001).

3.4 Recovery (1970–1990)

Myanmar’s archaeological activities began to revive gradually in the late 1960s, especially during the period 1961–1981, when Aung Thaw was a director of the Archaeological Survey of Burma and he carried out several archaeological excavations at important sites (Goh 2017). Although most of the work initiatives were focused on protecting historical cities and architecture, they did help to support the general resurgence of archaeological activities in Myanmar.

More crucially, Aung Thaw’s efforts resulted in the first systematic survey and excavation of a prehistoric site in Myanmar and the beginning of a process of prehistoric research headed by native Burmese researchers. The Padalin (or Padahlin/ Badahlin) Cave, located on the western side of Shan State, was first excavated in 1969 by a team led by Aung Thaw. This was an interdisciplinary team composed of research workers drawn from the Archaeological Department, the Burma Historical Commission, and the departments of Anthropology, Geology, and Zoology of the Rangoon Arts and Science University, together with representatives from the Party headquarters. The cave was first discovered by a geologist, Khin Maung Kyaw, sometime in 1960 and brought to the attention of the Party headquarters, and then excavated (Thaw 1969a, 1971a). It is one of the most critical and prominent prehistoric sites in Myanmar, and its cave paintings have drawn special attention (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Rock art in Padalin Cave. A Cave 1 A of Padalin Cave, which contains most of the rock art; B-C Painted figures of animals; D-E Stylized human hands. Image sources: A, B, D, E Tan 2014; C Tan and Hoerman 2019

Full size image

The excavations at Padalin Cave unearthed over 1,600 stone artifacts, apart from unworked nodules and fragments made mainly of pebbles. The lithics were crudely made, without marks of secondary flaking or retouch, and resembled Paleolithic tools. Most may be regarded as unfinished implements; however, the techniques of grinding and perforation had begun to be employed. The occurrence of a large number of pebbles, innumerable flakes, and cores, as well as different stages and types of stone tools, indicate that the cave was not simply a habitation site but a tool-making workshop. The site also contained hundreds of bone fragments and animal teeth, many charcoal pieces, and a few cord-impressed pottery sherds. A smooth surface on a piece of red ocher also indicates that the ocher was ground down to obtain pigment powder, which, in all probability, was used in painting the figures on the rock wall (Thaw 1971a). Many experts argue, however, that there is still a lack of clear linkage between the archaeological deposits and the rock paintings (Aung 2018).

Aung Thaw believed that Padalin was an Early Neolithic site, roughly contemporaneous with the Hoabinhian culture in Southeast Asia and the Bacsonian cultures in India. Furthermore, radiocarbon dating revealed a consistent transition from the late Paleolithic to the early Neolithic (13,400–6570 cal. BP) (Thaw 1971a). No precise information is available about the calibrated dates. However, Mya Maung examined the faunal remains from Padalin and concluded that these animals were all wild, with no evidence of domestication (Maung 1971). Sein Htun also looked at the modes of subsistence from an anthropological standpoint and concluded that Padalin inhabitants were still subsisting with a “foraging strategy” (Htun 1971).

The Padalin Cave site was continuously used by ancient people for a long time, based on the numerous unearthed remains. It was also the first systematic excavation and study of a prehistoric site conducted by a native researcher in Myanmar and the first collaboration of scientists from several disciplines, including geology, anthropology, and biology, as well as the first application of absolute dating techniques at a prehistoric site in the country. The excavation of this site was significant not only for understanding the development of prehistoric cultures in Myanmar but also for understanding the culture of all East and Southeast Asia during the transition from the Paleolithic to the Neolithic from a more macroscopic perspective (Nitta 1987).

Myint Aung, a colleague of Aung Thaw, was also another pioneer archaeologist in early Myanmar. In 1972, Myint Aung found a new Neolithic site at Lepanchibaw and conducted a preliminary study of it (Aung 1972). More than 100 scrapers and bifacial artifacts were then discovered in Mu Valley in 1975; these stone artifacts reflect a more advanced lithic industry than the Anyathian culture (Aung 2012).

Ba Maw, one of the few scientists interested in prehistory (particularly the Paleolithic) at the time, discovered a shattered human mandible fossil at Nwe Gwe Hill in 1981 and believed that it belonged to Homo erectus. He estimated the date of this fossil to be 200,000 years ago, based on animal fossils and stone artifacts associated with it (Maw 1995a, b). It is the oldest site in Myanmar with early human fossils and has endless possibilities for in-depth study. However, the site has not yet been scientifically dated. In-depth research on the fossils of humans and animals has not yet been conducted either (Aung 2018). Ba Maw later discovered stone artifacts and fossil mammals at Moegyobyin, which he thought belonged to the Anyathian culture (Maw 1998; Maw et al. 1998). Than Tun Aung published a study of these stone artifacts in 2002 (Aung 2002a, b).

The prehistoric archaeological research in Myanmar during this period has been described as “very much in its infancy, if not still in the womb” (Aung-Thwin 2001); however, this period still marks a recovery and many developments over the prior stage, as local scholars began to organize systematic archaeological surveys and excavations on their own. Many critical prehistoric sites, such as the Padalin Cave, were excavated, and research continued. Multidisciplinary co-operation also gradually became an integral approach to prehistoric research in Myanmar. The mystery of prehistoric Myanmar began to be unveiled progressively, but even today there remains much space for expansion in terms of method and theory, excavation techniques, and follow-up studies on key topics.

3.5 Development (1991–Present)

Prehistoric archaeological research in Myanmar advanced dramatically after the 1990s, with a significant increase in the number of prehistoric site surveys and excavations, particularly in the Shan State plateau. For example, during the period 1997–1998, a geological survey team of the Taunggyi University of Shan State led by Tin Thein investigated Moebye (Thein 1998), Buddhaw Zinaw (Thein 1997), Waiponla (Thein 2000; Thein et al. 2001), Myin Ma Hti (Thein and Bhumiveda 2011), and other karst caves of the Shan plateau and discovered stone artifacts and faunal remains. Thein has argued that the age of these sites (except Waiponla) might be around 6000–4000 BP based on the excavated remains (Thein and Bhumiveda 2011). Hla Gyi Mg Mg excavated the caves explored by Thein shortly afterward, but few stone tools and animal bones were unearthed (Mg et al. 1998). Pyiet Phyo Kyaw excavated Myin Ma Hti Cave again in 2019 and uncovered many stone pieces and some bone tools. Kyaw’s analysis concluded that the cave could also have been the site of a stone tool workshop and, at the same time, might be the first discovery of bone-based technology in Myanmar’s prehistoric archaeological sequence (Kyaw et al. 2020).

Aung Kyaing engaged in another survey and excavation at the Moegyobyin site at the beginning of the twenty-first century (Kyaing 2005; Kyaing et al. 2005). Following that, Moe Nwe Nwe, a Ph.D. candidate at Yangon University, conducted a comprehensive study of the artifacts excavated from Moegyobyin, including an analysis of the cultural characteristics and human survival strategies, as well as the relationship between culture and environment, by combining typological and technological methods (Moe 2014, 2018). Following more profound research in the Irrawaddy River basin, Win Kyaing, the Pyay Archaeology Field School principal, presented fresh interpretations of the Anyathian culture and its distribution (Kyaing 2010a, b; Kyaing et al. 2008, 2009).

Aside from surveys and excavations performed by local researchers, a growing number of Western experts have tried to collaborate with Burmese counterparts to solve some of the topics that are a common concern for the international academic community, such as the Bronze and Iron Age culture features, their dissemination routes, and so on (Higham 2001). A joint archaeological team led by Pauk Pauk, a researcher at the Department of Archaeology, Ministry of Culture, and Elizabeth Moore, a professor at the University of London, excavated the Nyaung’gan/Nyaung Gon site in northwestern Mandalay in 1998. It is an important Bronze Age burial site for studying the transition from late prehistoric culture to urbanization. The site’s location is especially notable, as it is situated on a crater and next to the rich copper resources on the Chindwin River’s opposite bank. The area’s low rainfall and access to navigable waterways also link it to other sites in the central zone, Pyu and Pagan. Ceramics, stone rings, and bronze were the three primary types of items discovered at the site. In addition, a reconnaissance of the surrounding region suggested potential smelting and stone ring manufacturing locations (Moore and Pauk 2001). The site’s unique geographic location is critical for research into Myanmar’s cultural links with China, Thailand, and the surrounding territories, as well as commerce and transmission of bronze smelting technology (Glover 2001). The location of Nyaung’gan, which is in the country’s arid zone, also poses the interesting question of subsistence agriculture, particularly if rice was involved (Higham 2001). Following this line of thinking, Nancy Tayles’ team at the University of Otago, New Zealand, studied human bones from the site to learn more about the people’s food habits and health state and compared them to those unearthed from elsewhere in Southeast Asia at the same time (Tayles et al. 2001).

Charles Higham has pointed out, however, that Pauk and Moore did not remove all the human bones during the excavation, and those found in situ were not well preserved and were severely degraded, making further research impossible. This is an irreversible loss for archaeological research. The value of data extraction integrity in the excavation and the balance between archaeological study, heritage protection, and site tourism may be among the challenges that must be addressed in Myanmar (Higham 2001).

Since 2001, a Franco-Myanmar research team has conducted a series of archaeological excavations in the Samon River basin. The team is composed of scholars from the Department of Archaeology of Myanmar and France’s National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS), led by Pauk Pauk and J.-P. Pautreau. Pautreau has made significant contributions to our understanding of Myanmar’s prehistory, mainly through his research on the wealth of Late Bronze and Early Iron Age burial sites in the Samon Valley, including Ywa Htin, Ywa Gon Gyi, Htan Ta Pin, Hnaw Khan, Myo Hla, Ohh Min, and Nyaung’gan (Coupey et al. 2010, 2011; Pautreau et al. 2001, 2004a, b, 2005, 2006a, b, 2007, 2008, 2010; Pautreau and Jarriage 2007; Pautreau and Maitay 2009, 2010; Pautreau and Mornais 2003). The Samon River basin exploration has been undertaken by an interdisciplinary team of experts from various fields, and each type of remains excavated in these sites has been subjected to specialized research, including but not limited to pottery, human bone, bronze, and stone tools (Bellina 2007; Coupey 2008; Maitay 2008; Pautreau and Maitay 2010; Rambault 2007). The study of the Ywa Htin and Oakaie sites is the most comprehensive and detailed (Bentley et al. 2018; Georjon et al. 2021; Pautreau and Jarriage 2007; Pradier et al. 2019; Pryce et al. 2015, 2018b). Although their research results are primarily published in French, they are among the most important fruits of Metal Age research in Myanmar. The metallurgical data derived from Pautreau’s research sites have furthered the understanding of Myanmar’s role in the story of the origin and development of metallurgy in Southeast and East Asia (Goh 2017).

Excavation at the Halin site is another important activity of Pautreau’s team. Halin, together with Beikthano and Sri Ksetra, was listed as Myanmar’s first World Cultural Heritage site in 2014. Although it is widely acknowledged that Halin was an ancient Pyu city, later archaeological excavations extended its period from the Proto-historic Period to the Prehistoric Period (Aung 1970), and this plays a vital role in filling the gap of evolution from prehistory to urbanization and clarifying the cultural characteristics of the Metal Age. Halin thus became one of Myanmar’s most attractive archaeological sites, not only for local archaeologists but also for international researchers. The aims of the excavation at Halin by Pautreau’s team are to establish the Bronze and Iron Age development sequence of Myanmar using scientific methods and by comparing Halin with other excavated sites and comprehensive research on Bronze and Iron Age cultures between the Irrawaddy and Chindwin Rivers, in the Sagaing Region (Satt 2020).

T. O. Pryce, Pautreau’s successor at CNRS, has engaged in close co-operation with Kyaw Aung Aung, a researcher from the Ministry of Religious Affairs and Culture of Myanmar (formerly the Myanmar Ministry of Culture). Their research has also focused on the Bronze and Early Iron Ages, and the cultural characteristics of Myanmar’s Metal Age have grown clearer due to their efforts (Bentley et al. 2018; Coupey et al. 2013; Dussubieux and Pryce 2016; Georjon et al. 2021; Pradier et al. 2019; Pryce et al. 2011, 2014, 2015, 2018a, b). A group of scholars led by Bob Hudson of the University of Sydney have also engaged with Burmese archaeology in recent years, focusing on the Bronze and Iron Ages before the Pyu culture (Hudson 2001, 2005, 2006).

Researchers from Myanmar have learned new research methods and techniques through collaboration and exchange with Western scholars and were the first to use these new methods and techniques in key sites in the country. This includes the first application of luminescence dating methods, at Padalin and Gu Myaung Caves, suggesting human occupation of the two sites by 30 ka and 25 ka, respectively (Schaarschmidt et al. 2019).

There are, however, no professional periodicals of prehistoric archaeological research in Myanmar. Most papers on this subject are distributed around the nation and overseas in various multidisciplinary journals. The Myanmar Historical Research Journal, a bilingual journal published by the Burma Historical Commission, is an important historical journal that has published many significant results from prehistoric research in Myanmar (Aung 2000; Maw 1995b, 1998; Maw et al. 1998; Ni Ni Myint 1998; Thaung et al. 1998; Thein et al. 2001). Of particular note is the 2001 special issue of Asian Perspectives, the first comprehensive study of the history, development, and conditions of the discipline of archaeology in Myanmar. The volume features contributions from established archaeologists and historians specializing in Myanmar and/or Southeast Asian studies. It is also an essential source for studying archaeology in Myanmar before the twenty-first century (Aung-Thwin 2001; Aung-Thwin and Stark 2001; Glover 2001; Higham 2001; Hudson et al. 2001; Miksic 2001; Moore and Pauk 2001).

The International Conference on Southeast Asian Archaeology has been held every 3 years since 2010 by the Regional Centre for Archaeology and Fine Arts (SPAFA) of the Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization (SEAMEO). The conference introduces and reviews archaeological work and developments in Southeast Asia during the three years between conferences. The meeting papers are published in Advancing Southeast Asian Archaeology, a window to current archaeological work in Southeast Asia (Tan 2018, 2020), but there is scant research on Myanmar in particular. Often, there is only an official report, Archaeological Development in Myanmar, on the primary field work, progress, and goals of archaeology in Myanmar, but most of the material focuses on historical archaeology (Lwin 2018; Satt 2020).

In terms of education, Myanmar archaeology has advanced substantially. Yangon University, Myanmar’s most important archaeological academic base, plays a vital role in teaching and developing talent for the archaeological profession. Mandalay University, Yadanarbon University, Dagon University, and the Pyay Archaeology Field School also offer archaeology courses (Tan 2019b). Objectively speaking, Myanmar has numerous archaeological educational institutions compared to other Southeast Asian countries, and Myanmar’s offerings provide support to developing talents for the future development of the field. However, there is still a considerable gap between theory and practice, especially in prehistoric studies, in part because these institutions often strongly emphasize historical studies, such as research on the Pyu and Bagan. There is also a scarcity of adequately trained employees who are up to date on the latest topics, challenges, and techniques. The costs of such training must also be mentioned, because once trained, more costs must be anticipated as scientific testing of excavated data incurs even more expenses to meet the standards required by scholars in the field of prehistoric research today (Aung-Thwin 2001; Goh 2017; Miksic 2001).

In general, the current phase of prehistoric archaeological study in Myanmar has made an historical advance compared to previous periods. The face of Stone Age industries is better understood, and Bronze and Iron Age research has begun to pique the interest of researchers both at home and abroad, as these topics are quickly becoming a hotspot in international academic communities. Interdisciplinary and inter-regional collaboration has become one of the distinguishing features of prehistoric archaeological research in Myanmar today, and the population of Myanmar’s native academics is growing due to their collaboration with international colleagues, which in turn is advancing the study of prehistory.

4 Discussion

4.1 Chronology

Through combining the literature both in the libraries and on the internet, our review and analysis of published materials revealed five stages in the development of research on prehistoric archaeology in Myanmar, from its origins in the late 1860s, more than 150 years ago, through its beginnings in the 1930s, the near-complete stagnation during World War II and the following decades witnessing its gradual recovery after the 1970s, and then the current period, after the late 1990s, showing a clear trend of international and multidisciplinary cooperation.

Prehistoric archaeological research in Myanmar began with the investigations and discoveries by Western scholars during the colonial period. By the end of the nineteenth century, the discovery of old stone tools from the Irrawaddy River basin raised the research interest of Western scholars, and the field was born. In the 1930 and 1940 s, an increasing number of Western scholars came to Myanmar to conduct prehistoric surveys, as represented by Morris and Movius, who explored the Irrawaddy valley and designated Myanmar’s first Paleolithic culture, the Anyathian culture. Their research had a lasting influence on Paleolithic research in Myanmar, as well as in South and Southeast Asia. It is no exaggeration to claim that this was the first pinnacle of Paleolithic research in Myanmar, but a turnaround came abruptly: during World War II and the two decades following the war, prehistoric archaeological research in Myanmar, including historical archaeology, came to an almost complete halt. This was in stark contrast to the post-war scenes of political independence, economic recovery, and cultural development in many other Southeast Asian countries. Not until the 1970s did prehistoric archaeological research in Myanmar begin to recover gradually, led by Aung Thaw, who conducted a series of systematic archaeological surveys and excavations that discovered and studied many essential prehistoric sites. In the 1990s, scholars from Myanmar began to collaborate with foreign researchers to investigate key themes of worldwide academic interest and learn new theories and methodologies. Prehistoric research today is developing in depth, and the potential and prospects are gradually emerging Myanmar.

4.2 Characteristics

Several salient characteristics of prehistoric archaeological research in Myanmar can be highlighted.

The most striking feature of Myanmar’s prehistoric studies is the considerable disparity in the degree of research interest between the prehistoric and historic periods. According to a departmental report (Aung 2018; Win 2007), only 8 of the 145 archaeological projects carried out by the then Ministry of Culture’s Department of Archaeology between 1903 and 2007 were prehistoric research initiatives. The Department of Archaeology focused its attention on above-ground remains that belonged to the historical period, notably the Pagan and Pyu periods. Not only were the artifacts from the historic era unparalleled in Asia, but the preservation process was also less difficult, less time-consuming, less expensive, probably more cost-effective, and based on a far stronger knowledge base (Aung-Thwin 2001). Prehistoric archaeology, in contrast, was, not unexpectedly, “the last thing to be considered,” because of it being a subject strongly reliant on financial support, with high expenditure, and undramatic results that are challenging to study.

In Myanmar, archaeology is an important field to which much attention has been given. Faculties of archaeology are established in at least five universities (more than other Southeast Asian countries, such as Thailand), but overall, the historical lack of local prehistoric archaeologists has hindered the development of archaeology in Myanmar. In addition, the subject of research and teaching in archaeology is still predominantly focused on historical archaeology, with minimal instruction and experience in prehistoric archaeology. After graduation, few students work in archaeology-related institutes.Aung-Thwin and Stark (2001) noted the small number of prehistorians working in Myanmar, observing that most of them were “out of touch with current techniques and approaches and desperately in need of modern equipment and proper finance,” a condition that has remained unaltered for more than two decades. The necessity for formal training of Myanmarese archaeologists is still a major problem in the twenty-first century (Aung-Thwin 2001; Goh 2017; Miksic 2001).

The distribution of known prehistoric sites is also clearly unbalanced. Most of the important prehistoric sites were discovered in central Myanmar, including the Shan plateau, Irrawaddy valley, Chindwin valley, and Samon valley. However, other vast lands, including the southern coastal areas, and the northern, northeastern, and eastern regions have lacked research attention and have not seen many discoveries of prehistoric sites. In contrast, many important prehistoric sites have been in bordering regions of Myanmar, such as in the southwest of China and the northwest of Thailand, so it can be expected in theory that more prehistoric sites will be discovered in these regions.

Close collaboration between foreign and Myanmarese scholars has been one of the characteristics of prehistoric archaeological research in Myanmar since the late 1990s. It may also be one of the routes that would allow the field to break free from the shackles of the lack of local talent and funding, since international cooperation brings more advanced techniques, theories, and methods, and financial resources, and this has spurred the rapid development of prehistoric archaeology over the last decades. The new generation of prehistoric archaeologists is using new techniques, such as dating, imaging, and geographic information technologies, to study new and existing sites in the context of strong international collaboration. More importantly, this collaboration allows Myanmar’s prehistoric research to come into the view of the global academic community and allows Myanmar’s archaeologists to learn methods and theories and stay current on areas of international academic interest.

4.3 Key issues concerning prehistoric archaeology in Myanmar

Although prehistoric archaeological research in Myanmar has developed rapidly since the 1990s, it is still “in its infancy, if not still in the womb,” as Aung-Thwin (2001) reminded us two decades ago, and many issues need to be further explored.

The first topic is modern humans’ dispersal, especially before the Holocene. Myanmar has been considered as a route for humans’ migrations from continental to insular Southeast Asia or from the west to east (Aung 2017; Li et al. 2015; Lipson et al. 2018; Macaulay et al. 2005; Marwick 2009; Oppenheimer 2009; Schepartz et al. 2000). However, since Movius discovered some stone tools from the Irrawaddy valley, there still have been only very limited discoveries of lithic artifacts, human fossils, and faunal remains, and this to some extent is resulting in the slow development of Myanmar’s Paleolithic archaeology. Many prospects remain, however, in areas with limited or no research, and prehistoric remains should be expected to be found in the other vast frontier areas that border China, Thailand, and India. At the same time, more survey and excavation, and more profound interdisciplinary and cross-regional research, need to be conducted to determine the nature and characteristics of the ancient human fossil from Nwe Gwe Hill.

The second topic is the transition from hunter-gatherer societies to sedentary agricultural ones, as well as human groups’ relationships and cultural exchange and communication. Broad, macro-regional scale research should be carried out as well as interdisciplinary methods. For example, isotopic analyses can be applied to determine affinities and social diversity in Southeast Asia (e.g., Bentley et al. 2021). Clearly there is great potential for future research on this issue.

The third set of topics is related to the Neolithic, such as the emergence and development of pottery, agriculture, animal/plant domestication, and residential patterning: for each, little evidence has been found to date. Pottery is one of the important artifacts in research of Neolithic archaeology, and its typological, morphological, and aesthetic features are important indicators for determining archaeological cultures and their exchange and communication, but cultural-historical research based on typology (usually of ceramics) and stratigraphy is not well-developed in Myanmar. Also, in Myanmar fieldwork it is often difficult to identify residential structures in a settlement, and so it is still a mystery in what sort of houses the Burmese lived during the Neolithic. Many questions still need to be answered through multidisciplinary cooperation concerning agriculture and animal/plant domestication, although such work has already started, with many international scholars now involved in long-term research (Eda 2021).

The fourth topic concerns the Bronze Age and Iron Age, as well as the emergence of the state and civilization, which is also hotly-discussed among international scholars. One question stands out as the most popular one, and this has to do with Myanmar’s metallurgical development and dispersal. Some experts suggest that Myanmar was a probable crossroads for spreading “linear furnace technology” from Sri Lanka to Cambodia, Sarawak, and Japan (Juleff 2009). Future lead isotope research may support or refute this hypothesis, and this also suggests that there is still a lot of research potential and space for metallurgical issues in the future (Pryce et al. 2011, 2014).

Overall, these topics need to be discussed in the context of the whole of Southeast Asia, East Asia, and South Asia, so it is crucial to compare the archaeological evidence from Myanmar with that from surrounding regions: this would lead to more robust interpretations concerning the relationships between ancient cultures and technologies, as well as concerning DNA data. In addition, international cooperation between scholars from Myanmar and other countries and multi-disciplinary research are both essential for advancing the field. At the same time, more analyses based in the cultural-historical paradigm might still be effective in constructing a systematic spatial-temporal framework for local cultures’ evolution: this has already proven highly effective and significant in Chinese prehistoric archaeology. Of course, the effectiveness of this paradigm also depends on whether there are enough and appropriate archaeological materials.

5 Conclusion

Interest in prehistoric Myanmar remains limited, both at the local and international levels, especially when compared with historical archaeological research in Myanmar. Prehistoric archaeology has witnessed over 150 years’ of development, especially during the current period of rapid advancement that began in the 1990s. In light of its significant geographic location, Myanmar plays a crucial role in international discussions surrounding many key issues in prehistoric research, including the dispersal of modern humans, the transition from hunting-gathering to agriculture, the diffusion of metallurgy, and so on. China, adjacent to Myanmar, should and can be integrated into research on frontier topics through extensive collaborations with scholars from both Myanmar and other countries of the world.

Through collecting and re-organizing research results about Myanmar’s prehistoric archaeology as comprehensively as possible, this paper identifies and summarizes five major periods in the development of prehistoric archaeology as a field in the country, and highlights the main activities and characteristics of research over the last century and a half. In our overview, we also highlight the restrictions on the study of prehistory in Myanmar, as well as areas for development in future research. These may provide a reference for future prehistoric archaeological research and exploration in MSEA. However, due to access restrictions, certain Burmese sources could not be included in this review, and this study mainly focuses on English, French, and Chinese materials while striving to sort out and evaluate them objectively from the perspective of the “other”. Because of the dynamic development of academic research, this sorting process has inevitably subjected this paper to some limitations.