The conclusions and recommendations resulting from a number of meetings held in Port Louis, Mauritius (1974); Colombo, Sri Lanka (December, 1978); and Perth, Australia (August, 1979) could serve as authority for the present work. Running through them was a continuity and logic that is stimulating for research, and from them emerged an appeal for the coordination of efforts. From all the evidence, the idea that inspired the meetings was that the countries of the Indian Ocean make up an entity. The consideration of this entity, moreover, had been the guideline for the work of a number of international conferences, among which were the colloquies held in 1962, 1966 and 1972 by the International Commission of Maritime History of the Indian Ocean. The first studied the commercial societies and companies in the Orient and in the Ocean; the second, the joint role of the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean in maritime relations; and the third, the movement of populations in the Indian Ocean.

The earliest Chinese record of the maritime relations between India and China can be found in the “History of the Former Han Dynasty” (Chien Han-shu) which covers the period from B.C. 206 to A.D. 23. In its chapter (28b) on geography it is stated that ever since the time of the Emperor Wu (Wu Ti, B.C. 14087) the country called Huang-chih has sent tribute to the Chinese court, which in turn dispatched envoys to this remote country. Huang-chih has been identified by many scholars with Kāñcī (Conjeeveram) on the east coast of South India. It is recorded that there were chief interpreters belonging to the Yellow Gate (the office of eunuchs serving in the palace) who went to sea to buy bright pearls, opaque glasses and other rare articles, taking with them from China gold and various kinds of silk for exchange.

It is only of late that some attention is paid to the importance of studies on the South Arabian Diaspora in the Horn of Africa, the African side of the Red Sea, the East African littoral, the Indian subcontinent, the Indian Ocean island groups and Southeast Asia, in throwing new light on (i) the process of Islamization, (ii) the origins of local dynasties, (iii) the problem of trade-routes, and (iv) navigational and maritime techniques and a host of other related problems.

On the shores of Madagascar there appeared in the 19th century an influential group whose members were called—erroneously —by strangers as well as by the Merina oligarchy, the “Malagasy creóles”. As a matter of fact the latter are half-castes born of Malagasies and (prevalently) Frenchmen. However, their contemporaries did not confuse them with the mulattos or malata (zona malata), descendants of filibusters or pirates who frequented the East Coast, and their Malagasy mates; on the other hand they, themselves, refused the designation of malata. Thus the name of “Malagasy creole”—even if false, because it does not describe Europeans born in Madagascar—defines a precise social group well into the 19th century.

One of the major problems (or sometimes pseudo-problems) that archaeologists and historians encounter in the study of ancient cultures is the need to differentiate and to identify the sources of the various concepts, techniques, institutions, forms, designs, motifs, etc., that, at any given moment of time, form the constituent elements of the culture or cultural product to which they have turned their attention; or—to pose the question in its proper framework—to analyse the process of cultural formation inherent in the subject of their study. Such considerations have a special significance for archaeologists, whose essential concern is with the often incomplete assemblages of material remains left behind by the cultures and civilizations of the past, and whose central task is to enumerate and reconstitute the structures and processes that were operative in the societies in question. The study of acculturation—culture change, cultural diffusion, “stimulus diffusion,” culture contact, etc.—has been part of the theoretical and empirical concerns of anthropologists and sociologists since some decades ago, and the subject of an old and now almost abandoned debate. While the terminology of the social sciences concerned with living societies can also be found in archaeological and historical discussion, such concerns have had inadequate application in the fields of archaeological and historical practice. What has dominated and, to a great extent, continues to dominate historical studies is what we might call “the ‘theory’ of influence” and its corollary, “the migration hypothesis.” Thus, it would not be an exaggeration to say that one of the leading aspects of the study of a past society or culture is the concern with the “parent” culture(s) which influenced it, or the search for the location of its “migratory origins.” While this is especially true of studies relating to the societies of the Third World, it is not exclusively so—as we see, for instance, in the case of European prehistory. The immediate epistemological sources of such approaches are not difficult to identify, being principally located in 19th century diffusionism and, as we shall see shortly, in colonial ideology.

Many obscure aspects of the growth of civilization in its early phase are illuminated when the traditional Iranian lore contained in the Zend-Avesta and the Pahlavi texts is analysed side by side with the Vedas and Brahmanical literature. Simultaneous study of the tradition of the two branches of the Aryans fills many gaps that would inevitably remain if we were to confine ourselves only to the Indian tradition.

Fifteen years ago, at the XII International Congress of Historic Sciences (Vienna, 1965), when historians finally decided to address the problem of “acculturation” (a concept and term first formulated and defined by sociologists), their reaction, with few exceptions, proved to be rather hesitant.