Organized recording of historical sites and monuments was started by Sir Stamford Raffles during the British interregnum in Java, and he made several visits to some of these sites. He included a chapter on antiquities in his two-volume work on the history of Java. In 1822, following the departure of Raffles, a Commission for the Exploration and Conservation of Antiquities was founded, but there is no indication that anything was done by this body. By the middle of the nineteenth century most of Java’s historic sites were known through the efforts of a variety of travelers, some connected with the Batavia Society of Arts and Sciences. An archaeological society was founded in 1885 in Yokyakarta and its Chairman, J.W. Ijzerman, in the same year discovered the hidden foot of Borobudur. A report was made on an excavation of the Prambanan temples in 1887 by the Yokyakarta society. W.P. Groeneveldt published a catalog of the Jakarta Museum archaeological collection in 1887. In 1885 a catalog of Javanese antiquities in the Leiden Museum in Holland was published by C. Leemans, and in 1891 R.D.M. Verbeek published a list of descriptions of field antiquities in Java (Soekmono 1969, 94).

With prodding from W.P. Groeneveldt, H. Kern, L. Serrurier, and G.P. Rouffaer, the Dutch government organized the “Commission in the Netherlands Indies for Archaeological Research in Java and Madura.” Under the direction of J.L.A. Brandes several monuments were studied and annual reports (Rapporten van de Commissie Nederlandsch Indie voor Oudheidkundig Onderzoek op Java en Madoera) were issued. Unfortunately Brandes died in 1905 and the only important work that continued was registration of antiquities and the restoration of Borobudur by T. van Erp. During this period Indonesian monuments were thought to be Hindu in origin, and this view continued until the second quarter of the twentieth century (Soejono 1970, 11–12; Soekmono 1969, 94–95).

In 1913 the Archaeological Service in the Netherlands Indies was established. With N. Krom as its director, a permanent staff, and the expansion of its duties, at this point it had become a truly professional body. Krom was followed in 1915 by F.D.K. Bosch, who continued as the head of the Archaeological Service for twenty years and expanded coverage to include all of Indonesia. Islamic archaeology became a part of the program under R. de Vink in Acheh, northern Sumatra. Under Bosch it was recognized that the monuments and associated art were not simply a transplanted Hindu tradition but had been reinterpreted to combine Javanese elements.

Bosch introduced the reconstruction (anastylosis) of monuments against the opposition of Krom, who felt this should be done only on paper. A special commission was organized to examine this question. Only after many years did this commission finally agree with Bosch. With this principal established, reconstruction of the main temple at Prambanan was begun in 1918, and “became a permanent branch of the Archaeological Service’s activities and led to the establishment of a special architectural division at Prambanan” (Soekmono 1969, 95).

W. F. Stutterheim followed Bosch in 1936 as the director, and in 1937 the full reconstruction of the main temple at Prambanan was started. With the entry of japan into World War II all archaeological activity in Indonesia came to a halt, except for the gradual anastylosis of the Prambanan main temple. Stutterheim died in 1942, in a Japanese prison camp. While the Archaeological Service was under the direction of Bosch a special branch on prehistory was started, due to the urging of P.V. van Stein Callenfels, who became its first director.

From 1923 until the Japanese invasion of Indonesia during World War II is the period most thoroughly covered by prehistoric archaeology. This article uses primarily seven sources for this period: Heine-Geldern 1945; Van Heekeren 1957, 1958a, 1958b, and 1972; and Soejono 1969 and 1970.

Soejono called this the period of systematic prehistoric research. Although, relative to what was being done before, the research could be called systematic, there does not appear to have been any overall plan made or direction established. “This period was marked by efforts to synthesize work in both small and large scale projects toward understanding the framework of prehistoric Indonesia, and to extend researches