[Special Seminar on Anthropological Theory Recap] Recognizing and Studying 'Identity' in Archaeological Contexts: Advances and Limitations

Date: 22nd November 2017 (Wednesday)
Time: 09:00 – 11:30 am
Speaker: Francis Allard (Professor, Department of Anthropology, Indiana University of Pennsylvania)
Venue: Room 401 Humanities Building New Asia College, CUHK

Text: Wong Pui Lim, Ginny (Research Assistant)

Identity is a topic discussed a lot for both anthropologists and archaeologists. Prof. Allard introduced some basic ideas about what identity is, why it’s important, and how it can be recovered or misinterpreted from archaeological remains. He discussed the idea of identity and how it is developed with two interesting articles: ‘We are not you: being different in Bronze Age Sicily’ by Anthony Russell (2016); and ‘More than the sum of its parts: Dress and social identity in a provincial Tiwanaku child burial’ by Sarah Baitzel and Paul Goldstein (2014).

Prof. Allard discussed with attendants about the concept of identity and what it is in modern society. There are ways to define someone’s identity, there is a list of characteristics, from age, job, sex, location and so on. He started by the study of identity in the United States (US). Similar to CUHK, archaeology is taught in anthropology in the US. Students learn about the concept of identity through cross-culture comparison. Students are always asked to read articles about things, places, time, period that they know nothing about, and to compare that with their own culture and behavior. Although involved with the problem of generalization, people often want to know about their own past in many countries. He also encouraged attendants to introduce themselves, about their background and how identity is related to the research they are doing. In psychology, identity is the qualities, beliefs, personality, looks or expressions that make a person or group. Background trace is involved in both group and individual identity. The process of identity can be created or restructured. People used to think identity is set in us, which ‘we are who we are’. Now people tend to think of identity as a process, flexible and created.

Prof. Allard further explained this on the topic of identity process in archaeology. There are multiple dimensions of identity, which a person can have many identities at the same time. Some identities are born with, and some achieve with. On one hand, identity is self-reflective, everyone thinks of themselves a specific identity. However, where who you are, how you look, also give an impression who your identity is to someone else. There are different interruptions from different observers, and thus imagine our identity by looking at us. This kind of images can be changed when we talk to each other. However, when you are an archaeologist, you wouldn't have that conversation. All you have are the material reminds, from body, stuff and buried, to imagine and impose the identity of that person. The process of identity can be manipulated, such as for political and ideology purpose. Prof. Allard pointed out that identity of people of the past is linked to the identity of people in present, which may not be the truth. For instance, people tend to think Chinese long civilization as continuous and in one place, which the ancient people lived in the land as their ancestors. The Chinese identity tie to the land.

‘We are not you: being different in Bronze Age Sicily’ by Anthony Russell (2016) is an example of how interpretations by archaeologists influenced the identity. Internal culture is not always about identity. Prof. Allard suggested that identity is made up by ourselves and by others. Most of the time people don’t associate the identity with their behavior, in fact, they just do things they usually do. There is not always a ‘real purpose’ behind one’s or groups’ behavior. The group defines themselves more often when facing ‘others'. There is no need to define us and the others when the group of people is isolated, without connecting to other groups of people. Communications between groups will lead to an increase indifference. However, Prof. Allard suggested that we should doubt and think about interpretation. In Russell’s (2016) article, it is suggested that the culture change of Sicily in the middle-late Bronze Age was influenced by Greece. The author suggested that people Sense of ethnic identity exist and express when faced with the beautiful thing from Greece. The Sicilian absorbed the Greece pottery and recreate it in a local way to show distinctiveness. The shape of Greece pottery is kept but people still use the local and traditional way to produce pottery. The Sicilian adopted a new way to structure sediments but maintain some characteristics of themselves so the product will look different and distinctive. ‘Why this author might be wrong?’ Prof. Allard asked. The distinctive pottery made by the Sicilian may not represent the grown sense of identity. Whether people changed their pottery because they feel their ethnic difference is important. There are different ways to interpret the distinctive pottery. Everything may not be about identity, just like everything we do, make and build is not always to express your identity.

‘More than the sum of its parts: Dress and social identity in a provincial Tiwanaku child burial’ by Sarah Baitzel and Paul Goldstein (2014) is another example of interpretations and identity. When archaeologists excavated a tomb, one common question to ask is ‘who is this person?’ As Prof. Allard suggested, people will easily think about whether the body is male or female, rich or poor, the ethnic background… This leads to another question of how recognize we are about how materials world mean to us and our identity? The author of this article focused on 28 archaeological journals in 2000-2013 to study how people understand identity when people do not focus on this like we are now. Prof. Allard stated the importance of material reality. Identity is constructed when people react with the material world around. Sarah Baitzel and Paul Goldstein (2014) studied the funeral behavior and how the identity of the dead is constructed by the living. Textile and layers of clothes for the dead is communication not just to the dead person but also the living as it is there for everyone to see in the funeral. The textile and meaning of clothes are changed within layers, changing from private to public. Material culture has agency and power to construct someone’s sense of identity.

FROM THE MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA: Sichuan Sanxingdui．Jiangkou Battlefield & Guangdong Nanhai No.I Shipwreck Archaeology Internship 2017-2018 Exhibition Talk Series 3 Treasures of the Deep: Maritime Archaeology in Hong Kong, China and Asia-Pacific

Treasures of the Deep: Maritime Archaeology in Hong Kong, China and Asia-Pacific
深海搜奇——香港、中國大陸及亞太地區的海洋考古

Speaker: Prof. Bill Jeffery (Assistant Professor, University of Guam)
Time: 4:00 - 6:00 pm, 16th November, 2018 (Friday)
Venue: LT4 Esther Lee Building, Chung Chi College, CUHK
Organizers 主辦：
Department of Anthropology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong 香港中文大學人類學系
Sichuan Archaeology Research Institute, China 四川省文物考古研究院
Co-organizer 協辦：
University Library, The Chinese University of Hong Kong 香港中文大學圖書館

Text: Wong Pui Lim, Ginny (Research Assistant)

Maritime archaeology (underwater archaeology) is a relatively new discipline in the anthropology field, focusing on the submerged sites, artifacts, human remains and landscapes. However, with a similar background as archaeology, maritime archaeology commenced with a fascination and collection of curios or antiquities and not always with a motivation to preserve and study the archaeological record for the benefit of the general public. Apart from the monetarily value from artifacts, sites such as Nanhai No. I Shipwreck in China and the Hong Kong waters could potentially contain sites of great interest in China’s maritime activities. How to study these submerged treasures and how to manage them have become a heated debate for Hong Kong, China, Asia Pacific area and all over the world. On 16th November 2018, Prof. Bill Jeffery, who has been involved in maritime archaeology for over 30 years, gave a public lecture on these issues and activities in addition to placing the region’s maritime archaeology into the world context, particularly in association with UNESCO and its Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage.

For archaeologists, treasures of the deep are ‘treasures’ with regards to their historical value instead of their monetarily value.  Prof. Jeffery presented his experience in studying various maritime archaeological sites and highlighted the importance of these ‘treasures’ as cultural heritage rather than merely exotic things for auctions and collecting. Archaeologists study the sites and artifacts, together with its context and maritime environment, and come up with different conservation and management plans.

There are various types of underwater cultural heritage, from shipwrecks like Titanic and Nanhai No. 1 to sunken ruins and cities like of the Pharos of Alexandria in Egypt. These traces of human existence in the past was buried at bottom of lakes, seas and oceans, safely preserved by the submarine environment. Among these heritages, Prof. Jeffery especially addressed on ships. Ships have been ‘the largest and most complex objects produced in most socializes before the industrial revolution’ as Prof. Jeffery described. Ships have been the most important source of transportation until the advent of aircraft and the result of the leading edge of technologies of most preindustrial societies since Mesolithic (Middle Stone Age). It also has an important role in the ancient world, from the building of extraordinary buildings such as pyramids and obelisks to the growth of towns and cities.

Since the 1970s, over 50 shipwrecks have been investigated in and around China that highlighted the trade between China, Korea, Japan and Southeast Asia. Nanhai No. 1 Shipwreck in China is one of the examples that had provided rich information about trade in the 13th century. Prof. Jeffery was the trainer to teach the first generation of Chinese maritime archaeologists and assisted with the investigation of Nanhai No. I Shipwreck in the 1990s. Frame, layers and construction of the ship are studied. Silt, coral and other maritime environment protected the heritage especially for wood like timbre which is comparatively difficult to surface on land. The shipwreck is a Fukien type (Foochow junk) during the Song dynasty, loaded with numerous set of good quality ceramics, coins and foreign style artifacts such as the gilt belt. Some of the artifacts are of Islamic style, suggesting the connection between Song and the Middle East. A stone stock from the anchor is also found. The stone stock of similar style and material was found in waters off High Island in Hong Kong by members of Hong Kong Underwater Heritage Group. It represented the maritime trade that linked China with Hong Kong and the overseas during Song dynasty, as well as the shipbuilding and ceramics development history of China. Shipwrecks and documents reflected the ‘Four Oceans Navigation’ before foreign contact. China built the Guangdong Maritime Silk Road Museum and salvage the shipwreck and its cargoes as a whole for indoor excavation. It is a new practice that allows archaeologists to excavate the underwater heritage on land. The excavation is also showcased in the museum for visitors. However, Prof. Jeffery pointed out that there are problems brought by the change of the water environment of the shipwreck. Further regulations to the physical and chemical components are needed for easing degradation and for permanent preservation of the Nanhai No. I Shipwreck.

In the talk, Prof. Jeffery discussed the issue of pillaging or commercial exploitation attempts on the underwater cultural heritage sites. Collectors and treasure hunters have taken their toll on terrestrial and underwater sites, recovering and collecting artifacts for selling or keeping as personal possessions. Tek Sing is one of the examples. The ship was carrying thousands of immigrants sailing from China to Batavia yet sank, causing a tragic disaster. The shipwreck was discovered with human remains and countless ceramics. However, the excavation was motivated by treasure hunting which valuable ceramics found were sold and auctioned to private owners for a huge profit. The controversy of commercial underwater archaeology happened again in the case of Belitung shipwreck in Indonesia. Commercial trade is allowed by the government and the excavated artifacts are kept by the Indonesian government and sold to Singapore with millions of dollars, despite the truth that the ship belonged to China and part of the history of its people. Prof. Jeffery pointed out that the shipwreck was excavated within a short period that much of the information it might have provided about the ship’s crew and cargo was lost. An academic and comprehensive archaeological excavation is absent that important knowledge about our shared history is lost forever.

Finally, Prof. Jeffery drew the attention to the urgent need to developed maritime archaeology in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong waters, located in a significant part of the maritime Silk Road, could potentially contain sites of great interest in China’s maritime activities. The Song Dynasty anchor stock found in Hong Kong waters suggested a tantalizing link between Hong Kong and the other parts of the world in the past. Currently, the research on Hong Kong's underwater heritage excavation is supported by The Hong Kong Underwater Heritage Group (HKUHG), a group of maritime archaeology trained divers who voluntarily implementing a host of maritime archaeology activities. They are developing underwater archaeological sites database through analyzing and consolidating data for almost 300 Hong Kong sites in a wrecks database from the United Kingdom’s Hydrographic Office (UKHO). Hong Kong Maritime Museum also provided basic training in maritime archaeology. There are a lot of maritime cultural landscapes and seascapes in Hong Kong that worth more attention from government and the community. Prof. Jeffery shared his idea of training more divers and maritime archaeologists in Hong Kong to assist with local research and to protect cultural heritage.

【講座回顧】考古現場的多視角三維重建

日期：2017年11月7日
地點：香港中文大學聯合書院考古實驗室
講者：劉建國(中國社會科學院考古研究所研究員)
題目：考古現場的多視角三維重建
文：黃珮琳 (研究助理)

考古發掘過程需要把一層一層的發現記錄下來，日後向公眾展示。考古工作者一般會在考古現場拍照和作文字記錄，但這些都只是二維的資料。人們生活在三維空間中，三維訊息的展示最符合的人們的習慣。隨着考古學研究和文化遺產保護的不斷深入，以及三維訊息獲取技術的飛速發展，考古工作中全方位空間訊息的獲取顯得越來越重要。中國社會科學院考古研究所研究員劉建國老師在2017年11月7日到訪我系並以「考古現場的多視角三維重建」為題，從攝影測量原理、多視覺影像三維重建、超低空拍攝與三維重建以及「大疆精靈4」(Phantom4)遙控飛機拍攝四方面講述最新的三維重建技術。

根據劉老師所述，以往一般會使用激光掃描，但是這種技術花費較高、操作比較複雜，只有少部分考古工作者懂得使用，而且在大範圍應用中不夠精準，有許多誤差。為此，中國考古研究中引進了數字近景攝影測量與三位激光掃描等系統，用於對考古為止發掘區域、石刻、造像、乃至器物進行三位訊息提取，生成地面或石刻、古建築立面的各種綫劃圖、等值綫腳圖、數字高程模型、正射影像圖和三圍數字模型等產品，滿足各種文物考古工作的需要。

首先，攝影測量是一門通過攝影，對所獲得的影像進行測量的學科測量。攝影的基本原理是前方交會方法，在兩個已知的控制點（A 、B）上加設全站儀，分別測量水平角∠PAB 、∠PBA和BP方向的坐標值，然後根據測量數據與已知點A和B的座標值計算未知點P的座標。攝影測量是在被測物體前的兩個已知位置(攝影站或攝影中心)攝取兩張影像，然後在室內利用攝影測量儀器測左右影像相同名點（即空間同一個點，在左、右影像上的像點）的影像座標交會得到空間點的三維座標。因為左右影像是同一個空間物體的投影，所以利用影像上任意一對同名點都能交會得到一個對應空間點和其座標。攝影測量不僅可以測量一個空間的點，而且能夠利用影像重建和測量空間三維物體的模型，對影像進行測量。劉老師指出投影差產生的像點位移問題，無論是起伏的地形還是高出地面的事物，在照片中與其平面位置相比會產生位置的移動，三維重建軟件能解決這些誤差並建立空間關係。

多視覺影像三維重建技術是普通數碼相機作為影像獲取工具，從不同角度圍繞被拍攝物體獲取多幅數碼影像，然後根據計算機視覺原理，對獲取的全部數字影像進行相互匹配，生成被拍攝物體的表面三維點雲，加載影像數據後得到真實的三維模型。野外工作主要是測量控制點和拍攝影像一般先使用電子全站儀測量4個控制點，用作攝影測量數據處理的過程中絕對定向，並將測量對象置入特定的三維直角坐標系統中。紅黃配搭的標誌會更清晰。

劉老師特別指出，拍攝影像的數量和採用鏡頭的焦距應該根據現場情況而定。相鄰影像的重疊度至少須大於80%，交會個不少於5°，並需盡量減少樹木等的遮蔽以免降低匹配成果。所拍攝的目標要充滿整幅影像的八成以上，不同影像上的同一地物應該大致相等。控制點座標需要使用電子全站二儀或實時動態技術 (Real Time Kinematic, RTK) 進行測量。電子全站儀測量精度高，特別是使用免棱鏡方式直接瞄準控制中心進行測量時，能夠得到3至5毫米的測量精度。而使用棱鏡測量時，應該盡量降低棱鏡的高度以提高測量精度。而使用RTK進行測量時的誤差可能達到10 厘米左右。劉老師認為使用相機拍下現場測量的控制點座標，或者直接聯機導出成本文件更好，能避免筆錄時進行抄寫錯誤。劉老師就此解釋拍攝常用的相機設置，例如光圈數值8、10左右，景深好而曝光所須時間亦較短。感光度應在100至400之間，使用手動白平衡和TTL閃光燈模式，並應該在中心單點、單次對焦。如果光線不足、死白或死黑、拍攝角度太斜等便須要大量後期工作，因此在開頭拍一張好照片很重要。他又簡單解釋了如何使用軟件做後期，指出導出影像時TIFF會比JEPG和PNG檔更好，後期處理後輸出的影像質素較佳。其後劉老師再講述深入文物拍攝技巧。文物拍攝時應先擺放座標紙或控制板，擺正文物角度，四個對焦點分別是器物內底、口沿內、口沿外、底部外側。

在超低空拍攝方面，低空空域是指1000米以下的空域，其中200米以下稱為超低空。中國在2013年11月18日實施的《民用無人駕駛航空器系統駕駛管理暫行規定》指出，重量少於或等於7公斤的微量無人機，飛行範圍在半徑500米內、相對高度低於120米的目視視距範圍內無需證照管理。因此一般使用無人機拍攝都會依照這個規定，並留意什麼地方最不能拍照的。控制點標示版的大小應該根據飛行高度和相機焦距來確定。使用全畫幅相機、2千萬像素、21至25 毫米焦距鏡頭拍攝時，相對高度30米內可以使用10 X 10 厘米的控制點標誌板；相對高度在30至60米是可以使用20 X 20厘米的控制點標誌板；相對高度在60至100米時可以使用30 X 30厘米的控制點標示板。標誌板大小合適的時候才能在拍攝的影像中清晰明顯，易於標誌中心位置。另外，拍攝時的飛行高度需要根據影像的分辨率來確定。一般飛行3至4米的相對高度可以獲1毫米的正射影像圖；30至40米的相對飛行高度可以獲得1厘米的正寫影像圖。在相機設置方面，應該選擇短焦距的手動對焦鏡頭，並選擇拍攝範圍內最亮的地面物體進行測光，使最亮地物的照片上曝光合適，其他地物的曝光可以稍為減弱一點。光圈為8左右，使用日光型而非自動白平衡。在數據處理方面，三維重建前需要對全部影像進行篩選，盡量減少參與像素處理的影像數目。沒有樹木、房屋而且地勢平穩的區域相鄰影像應該具有50至60%的航向重疊。相反，較複雜的地貌，相鄰影像需要具有80%左右的航向重疊。200幅而內的影像可以使用6000X4000，超過200幅影像是最好把像素減到3000×2000像素，一次處理的影像數目最好不超過800幅。

最後劉老師介紹中國社會科學院考古研究所使用的無人遙控飛機Phantom4，並從無人機拍攝開始到後期修圖，展示整個三維重建流程，分享各種考古現場和文物拍攝經驗及個案研究。

【文化遺產研究中心講座回顧】「上山下海」四川三星堆及江口古戰場．廣東南海I號沉船遺址：香港中文大學人類學系考古實習成果展系列講座一：四川三星堆遺址的新認識——三星堆古城與器物坑

日期：2018年10月19日 (星期五) 下午4:00-6:00
地點：香港中文大學聯合書院鄭棟材樓C1講室
講者：孫華教授 (北京大學考古文博學院教授及文化遺產保護研究中心主任)
題目：四川三星堆遺址的新認識——三星堆古城與器物坑
文：黃珮琳 (研究助理)

香港中文大學人類學系、文化遺產研究中心、四川省文物考古研究院主辦的《「上山下海」四川三星堆及江口古戰場．廣東南海I號沉船遺址：香港中文大學人類學系考古實習成果展》已於早前順利開幕。展覽系列講座一是「四川三星堆遺址的新認識——三星堆古城與器物坑」，由北京大學考古文博學院教授及文化遺產保護研究中心主任孫華教授主講，吸引了一眾師生和公眾人士出席。

四川廣漢市的三星堆遺址是古代蜀國的中心都城，著名的「祭祀坑」在此發現。隨著成都平原青銅時代考古的快速發展，三星堆遺址考古工作的全面推進，以及兩個器物坑文物復原研究的新成果，大眾對三星堆遺址、三星堆文化和三星堆古代國家也有了全新的認識。孫華教授主要從三方面探討三星堆文明，分別是三星堆的相關背景知識、重要發現及研究成果。
四川盆地被群山環繞，特殊的地理環境造就了其獨特的文化。在秦漢時代的中央政權進入這片土地前漫長的歲月，四川一直處於一種相對封閉、少受外來影響的狀態，使其文化相對獨立並連貫。然而，歷史文獻關於四川或古蜀國的記錄甚少。漢晉時期的文獻雖然有對古蜀的記載，但歷史和傳說神化程度非常高。因此，考古發現和研究成為了解蜀地真實歷史的重要途徑。

孫華教授指出，自1934年三星堆遺址發現至今，已有多個四川不同時期的遺址被發掘和研究，四川的先秦考古學文化序列得以建立，亦將古蜀的歷史由戰國時代上遡至夏代。對於古蜀國的族群構成、統治集團、宗教觀念和社會狀態等方面的認識大增。四川盆地可以被劃分為四個青銅文化，除了新一村文化中心城市尚未發現外，三星堆文化、十二橋文化和巴蜀文化的中心城市都已被確認。80年代四川考古學家對三星堆遺址南部的多次大規模發掘為認識三星堆文化奠下重要基礎，城牆、建築、墓地及器物坑等重要遺存被發現。目前三星堆研究已分辨出三星堆遺址的興起、繁榮、衰落過程。他指出三星堆古城的空間佈局有明確劃分，河流將城市分為南北兩部分，其中南部是宗教祭祀活動，北部則形成並列雙城根據社群階級分隔不同區域。孫華教授認為三星堆文化的人們可能源自陜西關中及陝北地區，與三星堆相似的人面和眼睛形象可以在該地區的西安高陵區楊官寨遺址和神木縣石峁遺址中找到，兩地可能有某種未知聯繫。

此外在宗教方面，三星堆人們的有著原始宗教崇拜。三星堆祭祀坑發掘出三件凸目尖耳的銅面像，一大二小復原後發現銅像應是人首鳥身、頭上有羽冠。當時人們應該以這一主二從的三神像為主要崇拜對象。孫華教授提出這種三神崇拜的思想可能得以延續，四川戰國時代都江堰上的「三神石人」、漢晉時期道教崇拜核心「三官」等都可能是三星堆三神崇拜的影響。三星堆亦有太陽鳥及太陽樹崇拜。器物坑中發掘出兩株高大的銅樹，每根樹枝上各有一鳥，其中一株樹上更有龍盤繞，兩株應屬某種神樹。考古學家結合銅樹器形及《山海經》等古代神話傳說，分析銅樹可能是當中的太陽神樹，分別象徵日出日落的扶桑和若木，反映出當時人們的宗教思想和世界觀。

最後，孫華教授深入淺出地闡釋三星堆國家的族群和統治階級的構成，並從中解釋三星堆文化衰落的可能原因。「祭祀坑」出土的大量青銅人像可根據髮型分為兩類——「辮髮」和「笄髮」。孫華教授指出兩種髮型可能兩個不同的族群，「笄髮」人群是少數，專門從事宗教活動如；「辮髮」人群是社會中的主流，社會階層較低。兩個族群可能出現了權力、財富分配失衡的情況，「辮髮」人群與其他地區某個使用尖底和圜底陶器的族群結盟推翻「笄髮」的統治。另外，孫華教授從三星堆器物坑有大量金、玉等珍貴器物出土而城內外都甚少出土此類器物一點而推測，當時三星堆的上層貴族不單佔據著大量財富，甚至連城外的周邊地區和族群都大肆掠奪資源，令這些地區尤其荒蕪。直至三星堆城被廢棄，這些被壓迫的地區才得以發展。

孫華教授亦提到三星堆文化的技術可能不如一般人想像的高深精細。那些造型特殊、巧奪天工的銅器物，可能並非由三星堆生產而是從其他地方入口。一些發掘出來的器物有拼接的痕跡，而拼接的技術明顯比製作技術低。銅面具的加工鑽孔技術亦比較差。三星堆文化可能並非科技發達的文明，而是以較落後的方式使用武力統治。考古的發現為大眾帶來三星堆古城的演變、佈局、規劃思想及其影響的新看法，使人更了解三星堆國家的族群構成、統治集團、宗教觀念和社會狀態。

【開幕典禮回顧】「上山下海」四川三星堆及江口古戰場．廣東南海I號沉船遺址：香港中文大學人類學系考古實習成果展

文：黃珮琳 (研究助理)

只有通過田野經驗，我們才能明白過去的物質遺存文化，明瞭如何和當下的人溝通，解釋為何我們要在乎過去的盆罐磚瓦。

香港中文大學人類學系考古學副修學生今年在四川和廣東等地參加了各種「上山下海」的考古實習，親身體會調查、整理文物的過程以及遺址背後的意義，學習各類考古技術和國際考古學研究前沿概況。同學通過為期約三個月的展覽展示了他們的實習成果。四川三星堆、江口古戰場及廣東南海I號沉船遺址都先後成為中國全國十大考古新發現，這些考古遺址發掘和研究為中國考古學提供古代人類生活的新知識，具有重要歷史、藝術和科學價值。是次展覽以學生實習經驗為主線，把不同時空的陸上和水下考古發現連繫起來，讓公眾思考古代中國文明的多樣性與差異性，以及廣東和四川在古代絲綢之路的意義。 

三個遺址出土了許多珍貴文物，但本次展覽特別之處在並沒有以文物為重心，而是展出與水陸考古相關的工具、大學圖書館藏豐富的考古報告和圖錄等配合同學的考古實習經歷，令參觀者可以一睹考古發現幕後的點滴，深化著大眾對於歷史和文化遺產的認知。學生亦有機會參與策展。在教授和研究助理的協助下，同學撰寫展覽圖錄和展板內容，把自己的親身經驗和感受轉化為文字。運用課堂上和實習中學習的有關田野考古、公眾考古學、博物館人類學等知識。

展覽開幕典禮於2018年10月19日 (星期五) 在大學圖書館地下的數碼學術研究室舉行，香港中文大學圖書館館長李露絲女士、香港中文大學人類學系系主任麥高登教授、香港中文大學新亞書院副院長朱嘉濠教授、北京大學考古文博學院教授及文化遺產保護研究中心主任孫華教授、一九八一新亞中文系校友中華文化活動基金捐贈人張倩儀女士、香港中文大學人類學系助理教授林永昌教授以及黃慧怡教授一同擔任主禮嘉賓。麥高登教授、孫華教授、林永昌教授、黃慧怡教授以及學生代表鍾禮筠同學先後在開幕典禮上致辭。一眾嘉賓進行了開幕剪綵儀式後，麥高登教授代表人類學系贈送紀念品予嘉賓，之後所有出席者一同觀賞同學們考古實習體驗的短片。展覽於2018年10月15日至12月20日在香港中文大學大學圖書館舉行，附以一系列相關講座。

學生整理展品

林永昌教授與學生一同整理展板

展覽籌備完成！

展覽開幕典禮在大學圖書館地下的數碼學術研究室舉行。

麥高登教授致歡迎辭。

開幕剪綵儀式，左起李露絲女士、黃慧怡教授、麥高登教授、孫華教授、朱嘉濠教授、張倩儀女士及林永昌教授

麥高登教授致送紀念品予李露絲女士

北京大學考古文博學院孫華教授和人類學系教授和學生交流 

開幕典禮後的茶會

[Friday Seminar Recap] Making Pots in Mainland Southeast Asia

Date: 7^th September 2018 (Friday)

Time: 1:00 – 2:30 pm

Speaker: Louise Allison CORT (Curator, Ceramics Freer Gallery of Art and Arthur M. Sackler Gallery Smithsonian Institution)

Venue: Room 12 Humanities Building New Asia College, CUHK

Text: Wong Pui Lim (Research Assistant)

Potters at work today in rural villages of Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Malaysia, and southern Yunnan province, PRC, make earthenware or stoneware for local and regional markets. Although under pressure from various social and material changes, these two basic types of ceramics still play important roles in local food preparation, and storage and in religious rituals. The technologies associated with their production reveal cultural continuities and boundaries that are obscured by the commonplace classifications of populations on the basis of language, ethnicity, or modern nationality. Ms. Louise Cort shared the summarized result of a long-term research project about village based pottery production in mainland Southeast Asia that took place between 1989 and 2010. It is a collaborated field research with Dr. Leedom Lefferts that visited more than two hundred communities, looking for distinctive patterns of productions in these villages.

According to Ms. Cort, there are few historical documents in mainland Southeast Asia. Most of the information about the production is from excavations in Indonesia, Philippines or from shipwrecks in particular.  However, there is a big gap in understanding why in the past ceramics were made in various part in Southeast Asia. How it is organized beyond the scale of village production?  How these ceramics come to be made? There are no written documents for how indigenous produce or how these ceramics are revalued by their makers and users. Therefore, Ms. Cort conducted this long-term field research by witnessing methods of pottery production to fill evidence in the gap. What method did she use to conduct the research?

‘Just sit down and let things happen,' she stated. She visited communities where potteries are still being made and conducted informal interviews with the villages to understand practical everyday use of this village-based produced pottery and for its local or regional distribution. Through close observation and videotape recording of potters at work, two fundamental patterns of production technology for stoneware and seven patterns for earthenware were identified. Ms. Cort emphasized the importance of not to edit the video or select a specific part of the production process. Instead, the researchers documented the whole process of the ceramics production process. Why is this so important? One big discovery in the research is that there is a variety of way to make earthenware pot that looks the same when they finish. By observing the whole process of pottery production, there are various ways to make pottery. Even the product may look the same in the end, their beginning can be very different. The project identified 6 types of different ways in making earthenware pottery, naming from A to F. Ms. Cort selected on type A, B and C to explain their patterns and distributions. Type C is special because it used a way that is similar to make stoneware potter at the very beginning. Therefore, it is key to understand the production by seeing it from the beginning to the end.

Through her past experience and study in Japan and India, Ms. Cort suggested that earthenware and stoneware ceramics usually do not exist together in a community. One will usually take dominate role and the other disappear. It is special in Southeast Asia that two different kinds of ceramics exist in same time and same place in the community and the market. They are also related to one another. Production of potters is regarded as one of the means to earn money. There is a seasonal variation which most people produced potters in the dry season when there is little or no rain for farming. Some people will choose to join the work team to overseas instead of producing ceramics. 

Earthenware production is the work of women in Ms. Cort’s study. It is used to store water or for cooking purpose. One special thing about it is that people will place it near the main road of the village which anyone walk pass can drink the water. This ritual still exists even in large and modern cities in the region that pottery will be placed at the door as decoration. Different shapes of potters are made to suit different cooking needs, for instance, the pot for steaming rice is different from those for steaming medicine.

Indigenous stoneware production of mainland Southeast Asia is located at the interior (Thai) and coastal (Vietnamese).  Historically, two different patterns of stoneware technologies were found in the region that is not defined by a modern national border. Stoneware is the work of men in many parts of the region, especially Northeast Thailand and Laos. In contrast, no men make pottery in Vietnamese. As high temperature is required in the production, people will use a kiln shared by the community in a rotation.  People usually work as a team, one as the shaper and the other as the spinner. It has a different role in storage. It is used to store rainwater in dry seasons, rice, textile, alcohol and so on. Some are for guest use only. Ms. Cort mentioned an interesting battle between the host and the guest. A larger potter of drinking water with long straw will be provided to the guest. The host will keep adding water into the potter while the guest is drinking. The one who stops first will lose the game. The shape of jars is designed for specific, practical use. Each of them has a distinctive role in households that cannot be replaced.

In the end, Ms. Cort suggested that the activities and sites would have changed in a certain level after the project ended. She believed that the activities and sites will reduce compare to a decade ago. Therefore, she encouraged other researchers to carry on the studies for a better understanding to the ceramics and its peoples.