User talk:Jldoan96/sandbox

Article Draft

The Dendritic Model is a hypothesized trade system network of the 15th and 16th centuries in the maritime regions of Southeast Asia with a particular focus on the Philippines. At the models core it works to postulate as to how relatively complex and stratified Chiefdom societies arose during the temporal range it encompasses, specifically with the newly forming coastline polities in the lowland/coastal areas needing to rely on trade for essential items to live, let alone thrive and grow. The first to attempt to tackle this issue was Ben Bronson (1977), who proposed a model of exchange along the river network of South East Asia's ancient societies which he coined "the Dendritic Model", based on the dendritic pattern formed by a major river source and its tributaries. Also known as the "tree model", essentially Bronson argues that trade begun at the "trunk", or mouth, of a river, with the local chiefdoms comprising the trunk trading with seafaring peoples of the time period. The "branches" of this model are the peoples dwelling higher in the mountains, whom were cultivating and bringing goods to the coastal chiefdom communities on the islands. These "trunks" and "branches" provide a positive feedback loop which allowed for the mutual benefit of the island dwellers and seafarers from a trading perspective. Bronson also argues that while the certain mainland and insular communities in modern day Malaysia, Philippines, and Indonesia would have been involved, that the island of Java would have most likely been excluded due to its ability to create and maintain a thriving agricultural paradigm which the others had not. These sparsely populated societies involved in his model left behind very little in the archaeological record, and therefore much of the theory is based on other external factors. The involved chiefdoms would have been at an intersection of being incredibly dependent on trade for basic items such as clothing and food because of their lack of an agricultural complex, and their trade-able goods would have been specialized, making their goods attractive to seafaring peoples who could trade them for larger gains on their journeys. This difference between trade oriented coastal societies of maritime regions in comparison to the agriculturally based societies of the drainage basin areas supports this use of theoretical information to support his model, even with sparse archeological record support.

Bronson's proposed diagram to support the Dendritic Model is: A - coastal center at the river mouth B and C - upriver secondary and tertiary centers located at river junctions D - distant upstream centers involved in market exchange as initial concentration points for products originating from remote locations E and F - producers of products or centers with access to “interior forest products” X - overseas traders; main consumers of goods exported from A and suppliers of its imports A* - rival river-mouth coastal center; similar to A

Laura Lee Junker (1993), in her paper Craft Goods Specialization and Prestige Goods Exchange in Philippine Chiefdoms of the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries, both supports and expounds upon the Dendritic Model to explain the development of political economies of Philippine chiefdoms. Junker argues that the development of politically complex societies characterized by social stratification can be valid based on the Dendritic Model. Her work has a strong tie to the pottery found in the archaeological record during the temporal range both previous to and beyond the 15th and 16th centuries utilized by Bronson. Her work has led to some referring to the “Junker” model, and is based on intraregional exchange networks between upland and lowland societies to obtain prestige goods acquired from foreign traders, which functioned as symbols of status and indicators of political authority. Due to their strategic locations along major trade routes, coastal Philippine chiefdoms "played a central role in administering a complex regional economy" (2) involving the distribution of foreign luxury goods and the transportation of exportable goods. Junker's paper, focuses on the Bais Region, which was important for the understanding of the formation of complex societies in the Philippines. Archaeological excavations and ethnographic sources on the trade-oriented chiefdom suggest that the region was occupied by the lowland Visayan population, upland swidden agriculturalists, and hunter-gathering groups (5). The lowland Visayan population was centered in the Tanjay coastal center, which Junker referred to as the "'primate' dendritic settlement system" (7), and relied on upriver secondary and tertiary centers with access to “interior forest products,” to obtain raw materials and other desired Philippine exports to trade with foreign traders from China and other Mainland Asian states. Junker argues that the Tanjay site showed evidence of a “strong centralized control over the distribution of trade resources from the interior to the coast” (7). Claessen and Skalnik (1978) defined the “early” state as a centralized socio-political organization for the regulation of social relations in a complex society. More specific features included a fixed territory, a minimum population of five thousand, a production system capable of producing a reasonable surplus, and an ideology that legitimizes a political and social hierarchy. Much is still unknown of this area which is why Jan Wisseman Christie’s goal is to gather what little information has been published on state formation in Southeast Asia and attempt to organize and make sense of it all. There are many conflicting thoughts on how states first originated within early maritime Southeast Asia. Early on the belief was that Indian culture was a major influence on state development within this region: this idea is referred to as “Indianization”. Many argued that the ideas, beliefs, and models were borrowed from Indian culture and reused to help facilitate the development of states in Southeast Asia. In 1977 Mabbett even said that, “Southeast Asians were not far removed from a Hoabinhian level of technology and life-style when Indians finally arrived in sufficient numbers to supply not only the ideology and leadership, but even the agricultural technology which made possible the establishment of the first states in the region.” (Christie 1995, 236). However newer ideas have come out that have changed the narrative. Kulke (1990) argued for a “convergence hypothesis”, highlighting the relative lateness of state formation within eastern and southern parts of India. Kulke believes that Southeast Asia was not so much influenced by India, however experienced the same growth and developed as India did at the same time. For example, Kulke looks at temple building within these regions to explain this simultaneous development. Temples in Java had their own unique characteristics, suggesting that Java was not influenced by Indian temple building rather developed their own ideas and methods for temple building at the same time. Archaeological investigations have begun to produce data which challenges the assumption that state formation in the region awaited the arrival of cultural influence from South Asia. The same data has given added weight to the argument that long-distance sea trade itself played a key role in stimulating political developed that lead to state formation. Due to the lack of data in this area and during this time period many of these models are simply theoretical. The lack of studies done in this area combined with the fact that much of the archaeological evidence has been destroyed has made it difficult for anyone person to come up with a sound theory to explain state formation within Southeast Asia. However the work done by Junker Christie, Bronson and others continues to develop the understanding around this topic and open the doors for further investigation.