> archaeologists of a traditional bent tend to have a particular thought structure called essentialism, which means that they do everything they can to come up with a coherent story according to a progressive view of social change. They keep looking for and exaggerate specific evidence to fit that progressive model. Southeast Asia is different. It offers an outstanding example of bottom-up social change, of community-level decision making. It’s a chance to study prehistoric societies in a more granular way, and it’s a fundamental shift for archaeologists. We’re still early on in trying to promote this different point of view and in using metals as a vehicle to gain this perspective.
Summary seems to be that testing the metals of different regions showed evidence of community trading not facilitated by ruling elites?
>we can contribute to a larger discussion of how we all live in this world going forward, to have a more successful existence on this Earth, by studying ancient societies like those in prehistoric Thailand that were enduring, resilient, and peaceful.
Counterpoint to the quote: There's also an idealistic bent in archeology/humanities where they do everything they can to build a narrative of a Matriarchal Eden in the past. The evidence is spotty at best and evidence like this are exceptions that highlight norm.
Summary seems to be that testing the metals of different regions showed evidence of community trading not facilitated by ruling elites?