Showing posts with label Centre for Cultural Heritage Studies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Centre for Cultural Heritage Studies. Show all posts

Thursday, January 10, 2019

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.




【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
林永昌教授學生理展
展覽成!
展覽開幕典禮大學圖書館地下的數碼學術研究舉行
麥高登教授歡迎辭
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人類學系教授學生 
開幕典禮後的茶會

Wednesday, October 10, 2018

From the Mountains to the Sea: Archaeology Internship 2017-2018 Exhibition 上山下海:香港中文大學人類學系考古實習成果展


From the Mountains to the Sea
Sichuan Sanxingdui • Jiangkou Battlefield & Guangdong Nanhai No.I Shipwreck
Archaeology Internship 2017-2018 Exhibition

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 



Date: 15 Oct - 20 Dec 2018
Venue: University Library, The Chinese University of Hong Kong

Only through the “touching the ground” experience, can we understand the meaning of material culture in the past and explain to our contemporaries why we need to care about archaeological ruins. Our students learned a wide range of fieldwork skills and techniques through these meaningful archaeological internships. More important, the hands-on experience provides a great chance to them for better understanding the Bronze Age civilization in Sichuan and the Jiangkou sunken treasure legend. To team up with the underwater archaeology group, we want to present not only the fascinating archaeological experience “From the Mountains (Sichuan) to the Sea (Guangdong)” but also provide the general public some reflections inspired by these internships such as the variety and diversity of ancient civilizations in China and the role of Guangdong and Sichuan on the ancient Silk Roads. You are all cordially invited to visit this upcoming exhibition and attend the following activities.

(1) Opening Ceremony Online Registration
Date:19 Oct 2018 (Fri)
Time:2:30 pm
Venue:University Library, The Chinese University of Hong Kong

(2) Centre for Cultural Heritage Studies Talk Series 2018/ Exhibition Talk Series 1 Online Registration

Title: New Understanding of the Sanxingdui Site in Sichuan - The Ancient Walled Town and Sacrificial Pits at Sanxingdui (in Putonghua) 四川三星堆遺址的新認識 - 三星堆古城與器物坑 (普通話)

Speaker: Prof. SUN Hua (School of Archaeology and Museology, Peking University)
Date:19 Oct 2018 (Fri)
Time: 4:00-6:00 pm

Venue: C1 T.C. Cheng Building, United College

Abstract:四川廣漢市的三星堆遺址是古代蜀國的中心都城,這裡曾有著名的三星堆“祭祀坑”的發現。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,我們對三星堆遺址、三星堆文化和三星堆古代國家也有了全新的認識。講座分前後兩部分,第一部分是從三星堆遺址入手,對三星堆古城的演變、佈局、規劃思想及其影響提出了新看法;第二部分是從三星堆“祭祀坑”的器物入手,結合新的考古發現,對三星堆國家的族群構成、統治集團、宗教觀念和社會狀態進行新的闡釋。

Speaker bio:孫華,北京大學考古文博學院教授、北京大學考古文博學院學術委員會主任、北京大學文化遺產保護研究中心主任、國務院學位委員會考古學科評議組成員、全國古籍整理出版規劃領導小組成員。主要研究領域為中國青銅時代考古、中國西南地區考古和文化遺產保護。主要著述有《四川盆地的青銅時代》、《神秘的王國――對三星堆文明的初步理解和解釋》等。




Organizers 主辦:
Department of Anthropology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong 香港中文大學人類學系Centre for Cultural Heritage Studies 文化遺產研究中心
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

Thursday, March 2, 2017

[Cultural Heritage Talk Series 2016: Recap] Imagining Angkor: Politics, Myths, and Archaeology


Imagining Angkor: Politics, Myths, and Archaeology 
(想吳哥治、與考古)

Speaker: Prof. Miriam Stark (Department of Anthropology, University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa)
Time: 4:00 - 6:00 pm, 14th October, 2016 (Friday)
Venue: Lecture Theatre (L1), Institute of Chinese Studies, CUHK

Text: Sarah Chong (Research Assistant)

Angkor, as the capital city of the Khmer Empire for several centuries, has been mysterious and alluring in the eyes of many people. On 14th October 2016, our department and the Centre for Cultural Heritage Studies invited Prof. Miriam Stark from the Department of Anthropology, University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa to give a public lecture on Angkor, helping to unveil the mystery of this place. The public lecture was co-organized by the Institute of Chinese Studies, Chiang Ching-kuo Asia-Pacific Centre for Chinese Studies, and the École française d'Extrême-Orient (EFEO). The history of Khmer Empire and Angkor, dating back to the 9th century all the way to the 15th century, have been the study interest of scholars of different fields. Prof. Stark adopted a historical approach to present her arguments and highlighted the importance of Angkor as a cultural heritage. Three major topics—politics, myths and archaeology—were discussed in the talk.

Prof. Miriam Stark giving the public lecture
Angkor is “intrinsically political”, as Prof. Stark described. It has been regarded as a representation of the entire country. Angkor Wat was always the key element on the national flags of Cambodia in different regime—from the flag of the French Protectorate of Cambodia starting from the Mid-19th century, to the flag of the Kingdom of Cambodia between 1950 and 1970 and the flag of the Democratic Kampuchea (the period of the Khmer Rouge). Prof. Stark emphasized that even today Angkor Wat has an important role to play not only in the national flag of Cambodia, but also in people’s everyday life. For instance, the image of Angkor Wat as well as the slogan “My Country, My Beer” can be found on the packaging of one of the most popular beer brands in Cambodia.

The myths of Angkor have also framed the ways people view the past of Cambodia. In her talk, Prof. Stark discussed how Angkor has been imagined or interpreted by different groups of people. The European, as the outsiders, tend to portray Angkor with the image of Angkor Wat. The Musée Guimet in Paris has significant collections of the Pre-Angkorian and Angkorian artifacts and the replicas of Cambodian ancient temples’ fabrics. The Khmer, as the insiders, link up Angkor with different symbolic meanings. For the locals, Angkor is the key of their national identity and the sacred place of religion. Even when the Cambodian people moved to the refugee camp in Philippine during the Khmer Rouge regime, they built the model of Angkor Wat there, reflecting the importance of Angkor to them. Angkor, being a basic component of the Khmer identity, has significant influence on how people define Cambodia as well as how the Cambodian define their nation state.

“If you want to understand Angkor, you must do archaeology,” Prof. Stark said. Prof. Stark emphasized how archaeology plays its role in reconstructing the picture of Angkor. Archaeological research helps to reveal the history of Cambodia from the early historic period (500 BCE), to the Pre-Angkorian period (500 CE), as well as the Angkorian period (1000 CE) and the collapse of Angkor (1500 CE). Prof. Stark also talked about the Greater Angkor Project III, which is a collaboration of various institutes. The project sheds light on the Angkorian urbanism in different periods. Prof. Stark shared her experience of participating in the project, with a special focus on the archaeological research on people’s lives in the past, including their residential pattern, where they lived and how they used the space.

The audience
People from different countries are doing archaeological research in Cambodia now. Prof. Stark pointed out that development is an opportunity for the country but at the same time a very big challenge to Cambodia’s archaeological record. Fortunately, the Ministry of Environment and other stakeholders have been working together to ensure the protection of heritage and the continuous development of economy.

Sunday, February 26, 2017

[One-Day Workshop with Miriam Stark: Recap] Part II: Archaeology in Asia


One-Day Workshop with Miriam Stark
Part II: Archaeology in Asia

Speaker: Miriam STARK (Professor of Anthropology, University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa)
Time: 3:30 – 6:30 pm, 17 Oct 2016 (Monday)
Venue: NAH401, Humanities Building, New Asia College, CUHK

Text: Cheng Jing Saichia (Research Assistant)

Prof. Miriam Stark and the participants of the workshop

In October, the Department of Anthropology invited Prof. Miriam Stark to give a public lecture and two workshops on
archaeology. The second workshop ‘Archaeology in Asia’ was held in the afternoon of 17 Oct 2016.

At the beginning of the workshop, Prof. Stark shared with the participants some recent archaeological discoveries in Southeast Asia. She highlighted the contributions of Southeast Asian archaeologists in questioning the existing human evolution hypothesis (the multiregional hypothesis and the out of Africa hypothesis) and the human migration in the Southeast Asia region throughout Pleistocene period. In particular, the ‘Flores Man’, found on the island of Flores in Indonesia, has been one of the important contributions to world archaeology made by the Southeast Asian archaeologists.

Apart from human evolution, Prof. Stark also talked about the useful findings of these archaeologists in tracing the origin of potteries and food production. For instance, the discovery of a historical pottery —— the production of which dates back to 1200 YBP —— has challenged the previous understanding about the origin of potteries and agriculture. Furthermore, early cultivation and plant domestication evidence found in Southeast Asia have assured the importance of archaeological work in Southeast Asia.

Prof. Stark emphasized that there is a lack of concern on Asian archaeology. There are insufficient archaeologists working in some of the Asia regions such as ‘North Barbarian’ (Xiongnu Empire) and ‘Southern Barbarian’ (Lingnan Region). She also pointed out that world history education has undervalued the importance of Asia history. For example, the Han Dynasty was as significant as the state of Rome; however, it is seldom mentioned in world history education. 

Prof. Stark answering questions of the participants

In the workshop, Prof. Stark also introduced the history of Cambodia and Angkor, especially the Angkor Empire, which had been the world largest pre-industrial city. Last but not least, Prof. Stark shared her own archaeological experience in Cambodia and encouraged people to join the Cambodia archaeological field school in the future.

Suggested Readings:
Stark, M. T. (2015). Southeast Asia, Archaeology of. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed., Vol. 23, pp. 63-69). Oxford: Elsevier.
Stark, M. T. (2014). The Archaeology of Early Modern South East Asia. In J. Symonds & V.-P. Herva (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Historical Archaeology. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

Saturday, February 25, 2017

[One-Day Workshop with Miriam Stark: Recap] Part I: Materiality, the Social Lives of Things, and Kalinga Ethnoarchaeology


One-Day Workshop with Miriam Stark
Part I: Materiality, the Social Lives of Things, and Kalinga Ethnoarchaeology

Speaker: Miriam STARK (Professor of Anthropology, University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa) Time: 10:00am-1:00pm, 17 Oct 2016 (Monday)
Venue: NAH401, Humanities Building, New Asia College, CUHK

Text: Viviane Liu (Part-time Research Assistant)

On October 17, the Anthropology Department invited Prof. Miriam Stark from the University of Hawaii to give two workshops to CUHK students. In the first part of the workshop, Prof. Stark talked about “Materiality, the Social Lives of Things, and Kalinga Ethnoarchaeology”.

Prof. Miriam Stark
Prof. Stark’s talk was largely based on her ethnographic dissertation and fieldwork done in the Philippines mainly in the 80’s and 90’s. She began her talk by providing participants a short introduction and background information on women potters who resided in a village known as Dalupa, on the Upper Pasil Basin in the Phillippines. Her admiration and respect for these women were strongly conveyed when she mentioned all the names of the women shown in her presentation.  

She provided us with an overview of the history of “Americanist” / “Euro-Americanist” approaches in terms of conceptual framework in archaeology and how these approaches / paradigms have shaped our thinking regarding materiality. Since the foundation of Americanist archaeology was initially based on ethnology and anthropology, in earlier times it was believed that humans and objects were intrinsically entwined with each other. This correlation was believed by the German-American anthropologist Frans Boaz (1858-1942)—the founding father of anthropology.

In fact, early American studies regarding the study of objects intensely focused on culture history and social anthropology. One of Boaz’s PhD students, Alfred Kroeber (1876-1960), an American cultural anthropologist from the University of Columbia, had created a diagram to map time and space variations by placing the same types of objects to mirror the chronological sequence. These diagrams are still very important foundations for current archaeologists and anthropologists to document linear sequences of objects in their studies.

From the 60’s and 70’s onwards, archaeologists no longer followed the culture history approaches and a new era of approaching materiality had emerged. Known as “Processual” or “New Archaeology”, prominent archaeologists of this “movement” were American archaeologist Lewis Binford (1931-2011) and British archaeologist Colin Renfrew (b. 1937). However, epistemological tensions arose when it came to accepting materiality being an indisputable part of archaeology. Conflicts occurred between archaeologists who were against materiality and those who accepted it. Those who opposed thought that this notion was deemed too humanistic, hermeneutic and phenomenological; it didn’t fit into their own definition of “science”, where empirical data and evidences were the only valid forms of methodology. Prof. Stark clearly had her own view when it came to the notion of materiality. She emphasized that archaeologists are materialists themselves and focus on work about historical materialism, Marxist’s notions of organization, production and change etc.  

Though the majority of archaeologists were concerned with style, they believed they should accept notions of materiality. They believed that they should start with style in order to study function, context and process. However, the “hyper-social science” people argued that studying style alone was not scientific enough, instead they should engage themselves with function; and the two should be separated. This whole notion/study is also known as “New Materialism” or “Evolutionary Archaeology”. But Prof. Stark believed that function and style should be studied together, especially when it came to the study of pottery. 


There are mainly two kinds of approaches to deal with materiality in contemporary archaeology: artefact biography as social history, and artefact biography as use-life. The former is based on Kopytoff’s essay on the cultural biography of objects: commoditization as process, as written in The Social Lives of Things (edited by Appadurai in 1986). Kopytoff believed that objects are divided into animate and inanimate objects. Objects with animosity contain agency, potency, which, for example can be seen in a Buddhist ceremony, by, for instance, dressing a Buddhist statute as if it is alive. Inanimate objects, on the other hand, are on the receiving end of the “animosity spectrum”. The belief in animosity in objects are respected and taken into consideration by anthropological archaeologists who focus on the Southeast Asia region in particular. Though many other archaeologists are dealing with less-animate (dead) objects, the study on “style” is still important to questions related to social boundaries, mobility, the production, maintenance, co-residence, interactions, imperialisms of various artefacts based heavily on style as a social process etc.

Using this approach can be problematic though when it comes to the study of tribal cultures and their material culture. Prof. Stark drew participants’ attention to her Kalinga project and argued why an ethnoarchaeology is a more suitable approach when we deal with tribal people and their objects. The Kalinga Ethnoarchaeoloical Project in the Philippines, founded in 1973 by William Longacre, who (together with Lewis Binford) believed that local people and the natives were neglected in the studies done by cultural historians. Longacre believed that he could trace the patterns of post-marital residence based on clusters of very similar ceramic styles (i.e. ceramic style variability). This could reflect the tradition and skills that was passed on by mothers or aunts to (newly-wed) women.  




A case study that Prof. Stark discussed in detail was Dalupa, a village on the mountains of the Upper Pasil Basin. She mainly studied the ceramic change (primarily focused on utilitarian wares) in Dalupa and another village throughout the 20th century. Prof. Stark explained that the women potters were poor and desperately needed more income. In order to expand their current markets, these women potters had to become more innovative by, for example, making candlestick holders and goblets. She also noted that ceramics in different parts of the river valleys looked different despite they were serving for similar functions.  

She then proceeded to show the importance of style, by pointing out that exquisite designs known as tinoktoks could be found everywhere such as blankets, ceramics and tattoo’s on females. She also mentioned that it was difficult to ignore the notion of style since these patterns were related to how the women made the potteries and were reflected in their vessel forms. This brought us back to her earlier statement that style and function should be studied together.

And this all came back to the notion of artefact biography as use-life. People might no longer think about patterns, but these were basically "encoded" in the potteries. Though the manufacturing process of ceramics seemed to be mechanic, the actual process was institutionalized and was different for every production group.

Prof. Stark concluded the workshop by saying that the uniqueness of ceramics did not only depend on the manufacturing process, style and function, but also on how these ceramics were being used and justified in public spaces through dances, which defended and re-enforced a village’s social boundaries, so that everyone knew where they came from.

Suggested readings:

Stark, M. Social Dimensions of Technical Choice in Kalinga Ceramic Traditions. In Material Meanings: Critical Approaches to Interpreting Material Culture, edited by E. Chilton, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 24-43

Stark, M., Bishop, R., Miksa, E. 2000. Ceramic Technology and Social Boundaries: Cultural Practices in Kalinga Clay Selection and Use. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7(4), pp. 295-331.

Tuesday, October 4, 2016

[Upcoming Event] One-Day Workshop organized by Centre for Cultural Heritage Studies, Department of Anthropology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong


One-Day Workshop organized by 
Centre for Cultural Heritage Studies, 
Department of Anthropology, 
The Chinese University of Hong Kong

Date: 17/10/2016 (Mon)
Time: Part I:10:00am-1:00pmPart II: 3:30-6:30pm
Venue: NAH401, Humanities Building, New Asia College, CUHK

(Conducted in English)


Visiting Scholar’s Profile:

Miriam Stark is Professor of Anthropology at the University of Hawai'i at Manoa. Her PhD at the University of Arizona (1993) was an ethnoarchaeological study of ceramic production and exchange among tribal Kalinga potters in the highland Philippines, and her subsequent Smithsonian post-doctoral fellowship used Kalinga ceramic data to test the analytical limits of compositional techniques. Dr. Stark has conducted field-based archaeological work in Cambodia since joining the University of Hawai'i at Manoa in 1995, when she launched the Lower Mekong Archaeological Project in collaboration with Cambodia's Ministry of Culture and Fine Arts. She also joined the Greater Angkor Project as a Partner Investigator in 2010; this international collaboration (between the University of Sydney, EFEO, APSARA National Authority and the University of Hawai'i at Manoa) focuses on urban organization in Angkor. In 2014 she co-founded the Khmer Production and Exchange Project in partnership with APSARA National Authority, the University of New England (Australia) and Santa Clara University. She has edited or co-edited five books, authored/co-authored more than 70 journal articles and chapters, and serves on the Executive Board of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association.

**********

Part I: Materiality and Anthropology 物質性與人類學

Content/theme:
1. Discuss how social boundaries and ethnoarchaeological survey relates to the study of anthropology
2. Discuss how archaeologists conduct and then apply findings from actualistic research
3. Discuss the relationship between cultural anthropological theory and archaeological practice
4. Students discuss their research projects and Prof. Stark gives feedbacks

Time: 10:00am-1:00pm (lecture, fieldwork experience sharing, and discussion)
Target participants: All are welcome! Priority will be given to anthropological students and staff.
Venue: NAH401, Humanities Building, New Asia College, CUHK
Quota: 15-20
Registration on or before 11/10/2016 (Tue)
Registration Link: https://goo.gl/WKQOge

**********

Part II: Archaeology in Asia 考古學在亞洲

Content/theme:
1. Overview of Asian archaeology
2. Some Very Cool Discoveries that make Asian Archaeology interesting to study, such as human evolution, early pottery, ancient cities
3. Selected methodologies that Asian Archaeology has contributed to world archaeology
4. Some of Prof. Stark’s experiences in Asian archaeology
5. Why Cambodian archaeology is so wonderful?

Time: 3:30-6:30pm (lecture, fieldwork experience sharing, and discussion)
Target participants: All are welcome! Priority will be given to anthropological students and staff.
Venue: NAH401, Humanities Building, New Asia College, CUHK
Quota: 15-20
Registration on or before 11/10/2016 (Tue)
Registration Link: https://goo.gl/cJKQKT

**********

* Light lunch and refreshment will be provided.
* Confirmation email will be sent out by 13/10/2016 (Thurs).