In the last few decades, archaeological research has reached the point where it is widely recognized that the study of origins, living conditions, and diseases of ancient populations  cannot rely on classical archaeological methods alone. As a result, in recent years, an increasing number of bioarchaeological projects have been launched in Europe, in which traditional archaeology and anthropology cooperate closely. In addition specialists from other scientific fields – such as genetics, physics, zoology, and botany –, are becoming increasingly involved. Due to this interdisciplinary approach, we can learn significantly more than before about the origins of former populations living in the Carpathian Basin, as well as their everyday activities, lifestyles and diseases.

In this presentation, through several examples from the Bronze Age and Early Medieval Carpathian Basin, we will review the type of questions that can be addressed by biological anthropology research today. We will also discuss the opportunities and limitations of analyzing the remains of past individuals and outline new trends in the international archaological research. Finally, the discussion will also reflect - to some extent - on recent bioarchaeological results from Indonesia, highlighting shared methodological challenges, regional specificities, and emerging trends in global bioarchaeology.

The authors’ work was supported by the grants of the Hungarian Research, Development and Innovation Office (PD146612 and ADVANCED152134).

As one of centers for world human evolution, Java Island plays an important roll since the discovery of Pithecanthropus erectus by Eugene Dubois in Trinil, East Java, in 1891. These scull-cap and thigh bone of the first Homo erectus lead to the birth of palaeoanthropology in a boarder sense  in Indonesia and even in the world, that was followed by other important discoveries in many places of the planet, from Africa, Europe, and Asia itself. Most of the human evolutionist stated that this human species was originated from Africa during the Early Pleistocene, then they migrated to different places across the continents, before --for example-- they arrived in Java some 1.5 mya according to the oldest remains unearthed form the middle level of Pucangan black clay formation in Sangiran. This date was for longtime  believed as the oldest arrival of Homo erectus in Java.

But the progress of research in some oldest stratigraphical levels in Java  makes difference recently. The newest survey and excavations in the geological formation from early Pleistocene in Bumiayu and Sangiran, since 2019, displayed a fantastic new novelty about their presence on this island. The human remains of two caput femoralis from Bumiayu and fragment of pubic bone from Sangiran were interpreted from stratigraphical layer of 1.8 to 1.7 mya. Vertebrate fossils like Stegolexodon sp and Panthera tigris revealed as well from the same horizon, make these fauna just already arrived on the island long before they were first interpreted. This paper will discuss the first arrival of human and fauna in Java,  and how they dispersed then through the island.

Studies of ancient watercraft in Indonesia and Southeast Asia face persistent natural and cultural challenges, leaving most sites already disturbed and with disarticulated ship components. To date, only a handful of intact shipwrecks have been studied archaeologically, while some potential shipwrecks have been lost to commercial salvage. As a result, knowledge of vernacular ships and shipbuilding has largely been derived from intensive examination of disarticulated, often displaced, ship timbers. Nonetheless, scholars have identified lashed-lug shipbuilding as a tradition widely practiced in pre-modern Southeast Asia. This tradition survived into the late 20th century on some islands in eastern Indonesia and continues today in a very few villages.

The rise in the number of sites identified over the past decade called for a more rigorous methodology for examining disarticulated vessel components. This presentation discusses the limitations and benefits of studying disarticulated lashed-lug ship timbers, particularly those from various sites in Sumatra, Indonesia. It elaborates on how meticulous nautical archaeology methods, along with comparative analysis and analogies with iconography and ethnography, were applied to yield information from an incomplete assemblage. This presentation also highlights key findings from the latest research on lashed-lug shipbuilding, including the new chronology of lashed-lug sites in Indonesia and Southeast Asia and how this reflects interconnectivity in Southeast Asia and, possibly, beyond.

Southeast Asia played a pivotal role in the Maritime Silk Roads, not merely as a redistributive hub for goods between China, South Asia, and the Mediterranean, but as an active participant in these exchanges. However, internal dynamics—particularly the relationships between Vietnam and the insular world, in particular the islands of Java and Sumatra—remain understudied compared to the major trans-regional trade routes. These networks are essential for understanding the cultural and political integration of the region, as they shaped local and regional exchange systems long before the rise of major maritime empires.

Recent discoveries on sites in southern Vietnam and Sumatra, such as Karang Agung (South Sumatra) and southern Vietnam, in reveal early material and cultural connections (3rd–7th centuries). Glass beads, fine ceramics, bronze artefacts, provide evidence of exchanges between these regions which may also have contributed to the wealth and development of early historical regional political centers.

In conclusion, while less visible than long-distance trade routes, these internal networks were instrumental in shaping the cultural and political integration of ancient Southeast Asia

Research on early East–West connectivity beyond the Indian subcontinent has long been shaped by assumptions that equate non-local artefacts—particularly objects labelled “Roman”—with direct trade between distant regions. Using Indonesia as a case study, this paper demonstrates that Mediterranean-identified objects found there present a far more complex and fragmented picture. Most lack diagnostic morphological features, have ambiguous provenance, or reflect chronologies incompatible with antiquity-era exchange, as some can be shown to have entered Southeast Asian circulation only centuries after their production. Far from being clear markers of ancient cross-cultural commerce, these finds challenge simplistic trade reconstructions involving the Mediterranean world and undermine interpretations that treat them as automatic evidence of intercontinental exchange. 

Through the application of a systematic analytical framework based on techno-stylistic classification, the paper differentiates the various subcategories of genuine Mediterranean imports from Asia-made objects inspired by Mediterranean techniques or iconography. This distinction is critical, as locally produced inspirations—often embedded in regional cultural and symbolic systems—have frequently been misidentified as “Roman” in earlier scholarship. Moreover, even within the import category, chronological disjunctions point to differing levels of interaction: certain Mediterranean objects reached Southeast Asia only centuries after their production, reflecting later circulation mechanisms—or the pathways of modern collections—rather than ancient maritime trade.

The study emphasises that the archaeological context of these non-local artefacts is indispensable for understanding their movement, classification, and historical significance. Through contextualised material analysis, the paper outlines differing levels of interaction and reception, demonstrating that Indonesia’s engagement with Mediterranean-interpreted evidence was neither uniform nor primarily driven by direct Roman trade. Instead, the evidence reflects layered and regionally mediated processes of transmission, selective reception, and reinterpretation, which together illuminate different degrees of cultural and material connectivity across maritime Asia.

The Indian Ocean has been known in historical records since the early millennium AD. Traces of the archipelago's interaction in the Indian Ocean trade network can be traced through archaeological data and historical records. The place name that stands out on the west coast of Sumatra in global interactions is Barus or Fansur. So far, the earliest foreign written sources that can be linked to Barus are the records of Ptolemy from the second century AD, which mention “the five islands of Baroussai” as one of the countries in the Far East. Other written sources come from China, mentioning names often associated with Barus, such as the Chinese translation of a Sanskrit text entitled Ârya Mañjusrimûlakalpa, which was translated between the 8th and 10th centuries AD. In this text, the place name Vāruça is translated into Chinese as Bo-lu-sha. In addition to written sources from Greece and China, other records that can be linked to Barus or Fansur are contained in a book entitled Nazm al-Djauhar by a Melkite patriarch from Alexandria named Sa'id ibn Batriq (877-940 AD). Apart from historical sources, evidence of global interaction involving the west coast of Sumatra is also recorded in archaeological data. Between 1995 and 2005, archaeological studies were conducted on ancient sites in Barus, namely Lobu Tua and Bukit Hasang. Studies of the Lobu Tua site show that it was active between the 9th and 11th centuries AD. In another part of the Gulf of Tapanuli, about 60 km southeast of Barus, there is the Bongal Site, which was intensively studied between 2021 and 2022. A study of the archaeological data from excavations at the Bongal Site shows that this site was active in global interactions between the 7th and 10th centuries AD. The various foreign artifacts found in Lobu Tua and Bongal are evidence that the west coast of Sumatra was part of an ancient global trade network. Traces of these ancient interactions were not only found on the west coast of Sumatra. In other parts of the Indian Ocean, similar archaeological data was found on the west coast of Sumatra, as well as in India and Sri Lanka.