Proto history in Indonesian archipelago marked by the fading of Neolithic / Proto metallic periods and the culture influx from mainland Asia (India) and Southeast Asia, in early CE to the rise of early Hindu Buddhist kingdoms in the 4th century AD. During these last 10 years, there have been several new sites showing evidence of this transition, especially in the eastern coast of South Sumatra and on the north coast of West Java. This session will discuss these proto history sites and recent findings that suggest early interactions between the Indonesian archipelago and the mainland of Asia and Southeast Asia.
Papers will be presented by:
- Eka Asih Putrina Taim
- Agustijanto Indrajaja
Affiliation:
National Research Center of Archaeology
Jln. Raya Condet Pejaten no.4
Jakarta Selatan 12510, Indonesia
Email: ekaasih_taim@yahoo.com
Amy J. Jordan (AECOM) and Michelle S. Eusebio (Archaeological Studies Program, University of the Philippines)
ajordan2@uw.edu; meusebio@ufl.
For over 50 years, archaeologists have been using the “hard” sciences to identify and interpret past human behaviors. This is, of course, a rather difficult endeavor full of false starts, ambiguous results, and many a series of unfortunate events. Since Binford called for a new, scientifically driven archaeology, archaeologists have been using experimental archaeology and ethnoarchaeology as ways to make inferences about past human behavior. Experimental archaeology and ethnoarchaeology are sources of modern analogs; data from the analyses of these reference materials are used to aid in interpreting data from similar analyses of archaeological materials. As new scientific processes-such as organic residue analysis or DNA analysis- were developed, archaeologists added these to their toolkits in their study of, for example, past dietary behavior, subsistence and culinary practices, as well as domestication and spread of different foods. Subsistence has long been a focus of archaeology and these “hard” science methods have been able to yield significant results, such as identifying what people ate with stable isotope analysis, identifying what was cooked in pots with chromatographic and mass spectrometric techniques, or what was killed with blood protein analysis on stone tools. However, the ability to infer past human behavior from these experiments and scientific analyses requires that the analogy or the scientific analyses will work with the available archaeological materials. For various reasons, this is not always true and the realization that one’s research goals cannot be achieved with the available material, or equipment, or humans involved often occurs long after it’s too late to turn back and start over. Archaeologists often gloss over these problems in published papers or presentations. However, it has been said that “crisis is another word for opportunity.” We would like to encourage knowledgeable scholars to share their experiences of how they turned their crisis into an opportunity. We also welcome any papers that are related to methodological process of using experimental and ethnoarchaeological work on past foodway practices. The papers in this session use a variety of analytical techniques to identify dietary, subsistence, and culinary, or behavioral choices of peoples during the past with a focus on how the processes of science can elucidate culture, including self-reflexive reviews of success and failure in the various processes archaeologists undergo to procure the final publishable results.
ajordan2@uw.edu; meusebio@ufl.
For over 50 years, archaeologists have been using the “hard” sciences to identify and interpret past human behaviors. This is, of course, a rather difficult endeavor full of false starts, ambiguous results, and many a series of unfortunate events. Since Binford called for a new, scientifically driven archaeology, archaeologists have been using experimental archaeology and ethnoarchaeology as ways to make inferences about past human behavior. Experimental archaeology and ethnoarchaeology are sources of modern analogs; data from the analyses of these reference materials are used to aid in interpreting data from similar analyses of archaeological materials. As new scientific processes-such as organic residue analysis or DNA analysis- were developed, archaeologists added these to their toolkits in their study of, for example, past dietary behavior, subsistence and culinary practices, as well as domestication and spread of different foods. Subsistence has long been a focus of archaeology and these “hard” science methods have been able to yield significant results, such as identifying what people ate with stable isotope analysis, identifying what was cooked in pots with chromatographic and mass spectrometric techniques, or what was killed with blood protein analysis on stone tools. However, the ability to infer past human behavior from these experiments and scientific analyses requires that the analogy or the scientific analyses will work with the available archaeological materials. For various reasons, this is not always true and the realization that one’s research goals cannot be achieved with the available material, or equipment, or humans involved often occurs long after it’s too late to turn back and start over. Archaeologists often gloss over these problems in published papers or presentations. However, it has been said that “crisis is another word for opportunity.” We would like to encourage knowledgeable scholars to share their experiences of how they turned their crisis into an opportunity. We also welcome any papers that are related to methodological process of using experimental and ethnoarchaeological work on past foodway practices. The papers in this session use a variety of analytical techniques to identify dietary, subsistence, and culinary, or behavioral choices of peoples during the past with a focus on how the processes of science can elucidate culture, including self-reflexive reviews of success and failure in the various processes archaeologists undergo to procure the final publishable results.
We intend to invite our colleagues who use chemical or biological laboratory analyses, experimental archaeology, ethnoarchaeology, and those who use modern comparative reference materials for interpreting their archaeological data related to past foodway practices.
Thank you very much! We are looking forward to see you in Hue for the upcoming IPPA Meetings.
With best regards,
Michelle S. Eusebio and Amy J. Jordan
Session Conveners: Fredeliza Z. Campos & Edwin C. Duero
This session looks beyond archaeology’s scientific confines by exploring theatre, music and performance narrative of the Indo-Pacific region. It hopes to include both lectures and live performances to emphasize how the importance of modern visual, theatrical and musical materials can inform on the past. The heritage and diversity of the performative arts in the region is unquestionable. They are also almost often tied to cultural indigenous communitie
In collaboration with the Saranggani Provincial Government, home of the famous Maitum jars, this session is proposing to bring members of the B’laan community, a prominent indigenous group from Southern Mindanao in the Philippines to demonstrate their traditional music and dance.
Dear IPPA Community,
This is a second and final call for sessions and papers. The Congress will open on Sunday 23 September and sessions will run on Monday 24, Tuesday 25, Thursday 27 and Friday 28 September. Following IPPA tradition, we will keep Wednesday 25 September free for rest and local tours in and around the World Heritage city of Hue, where there is plenty to do and see. There is a good range of accommodation, from very inexpensive to higher-cost. Vietnam has an excellent tourist industry, so all tours (including pre- and post-Congress tours) will be the responsibility of individual IPPA delegates, not the conference organisers.
Program space is still available. There will be four 90-minute session blocks each day, with parallel sessions running in each time-block as required. A standard single session will be 90 minutes, ending in a coffee or lunch break. Sessions may take up more than one 90 block as required, but only in whole blocks. The session format is up to session organisers (ie standard group of presentations, discussion panel, forum etc). Individual papers that are not part of an organised session will be aggregated in unthemed general sessions.
Individual delegates may have their name on any number of sessions or papers but to keep the organisation of the program manageable each delegate will be limited to two (2) presenting/speaking roles only (such as presenter/speaker, discussant, panel member, forum member, facilitator, moderator, chair).
Please have your suggestions to me by no later than 31 March 2018. Acceptance of late submissions cannot be guaranteed.
Formal letters of invitation will be provided by the Vietnamese conference hosts as required after sessions and papers have been accepted. Funding assistance will be very limited, with priority given to currently-enrolled students.
Co-Chairs/-Organizers: Nam C. Kim and Clémence Le Meur
The Metal Age of Southeast and East Asia was a momentous period, marked by significant cultural transformation including the emergence of novel forms of sociopolitical entities, which would form the basis for historic era kingdoms, states and empires. In the material records of present-day northern Vietnam and southern China, the period spanning the late second to the late first millennia BC saw the development of specialized production skills in key handicrafts such as bronze objects, which allowed various agents to accentuate social status and political power. Exchanges across and within these regions were more numerous, and cultural contact fostered the transfer of technological knowledge across territories, along with the development of innovative technologies and social organizations. In this panel, we aim to highlight pertinent sites and new discoveries related to these two interconnected cultural spheres. Such findings can enhance efforts to underscore emergent globalizing networks and processes. These efforts rely upon examinations of the manufacture and exchange of key products and commodities, from metal ores to finished goods, as well as of varied social practices, such as funeral rites and architectural styles.
The Metal Age of Southeast and East Asia was a momentous period, marked by significant cultural transformation including the emergence of novel forms of sociopolitical entities, which would form the basis for historic era kingdoms, states and empires. In the material records of present-day northern Vietnam and southern China, the period spanning the late second to the late first millennia BC saw the development of specialized production skills in key handicrafts such as bronze objects, which allowed various agents to accentuate social status and political power. Exchanges across and within these regions were more numerous, and cultural contact fostered the transfer of technological knowledge across territories, along with the development of innovative technologies and social organizations. In this panel, we aim to highlight pertinent sites and new discoveries related to these two interconnected cultural spheres. Such findings can enhance efforts to underscore emergent globalizing networks and processes. These efforts rely upon examinations of the manufacture and exchange of key products and commodities, from metal ores to finished goods, as well as of varied social practices, such as funeral rites and architectural styles.
ABSTRACT:
The South and Southeast Asian regions have long been of interest to researchers of archaeology due to the cultural, linguistic, biological, genetic diversity they possess; the presence of intriguing archaic populations (e.g. Homo floresiensis, and the Callao cave and Narmada fossils); and even the potential introgression of ancient hominins (i.e. Denisovans) with anatomically modern Homo sapiens (AMHs). In recent years, growing research has put the regions under the limelight to elucidate its crucial role and strategic position in understanding AMHs movement(s) within the Indo-Pacific region.
This session seeks to highlight and discuss recent developments on modern human dispersals, population histories, and early material evidences in South and Southeast Asia. By promoting an interdisciplinary perspective and holistic understanding of the current debates of this theme, papers regarding palaeoanthropological, genetic, linguistic, and material evidences -- including those dealing with indicators of possible modern human behaviour, art and symbolism, that highlight their movement and exploitation of these regions -- are invited. Studies employing novel scientific methods such as 3D analyses are also welcomed.
A multidisciplinary effort in tackling debates involving the timing, routes, migration event(s), biological-cultural affinities of modern human arrival(s) into this region is most encouraged, and is
the primary objective of this session.
Session Convenors:
Andrea Dominique COSALAN
Manila, Philippines
admcosalan@yahoo.com
Akash SRINIVAS
Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Mohali, India
akashs91@yahoo.co.in
The South and Southeast Asian regions have long been of interest to researchers of archaeology due to the cultural, linguistic, biological, genetic diversity they possess; the presence of intriguing archaic populations (e.g. Homo floresiensis, and the Callao cave and Narmada fossils); and even the potential introgression of ancient hominins (i.e. Denisovans) with anatomically modern Homo sapiens (AMHs). In recent years, growing research has put the regions under the limelight to elucidate its crucial role and strategic position in understanding AMHs movement(s) within the Indo-Pacific region.
This session seeks to highlight and discuss recent developments on modern human dispersals, population histories, and early material evidences in South and Southeast Asia. By promoting an interdisciplinary perspective and holistic understanding of the current debates of this theme, papers regarding palaeoanthropological, genetic, linguistic, and material evidences -- including those dealing with indicators of possible modern human behaviour, art and symbolism, that highlight their movement and exploitation of these regions -- are invited. Studies employing novel scientific methods such as 3D analyses are also welcomed.
A multidisciplinary effort in tackling debates involving the timing, routes, migration event(s), biological-cultural affinities of modern human arrival(s) into this region is most encouraged, and is
the primary objective of this session.
Session Convenors:
Andrea Dominique COSALAN
Manila, Philippines
admcosalan@yahoo.com
Akash SRINIVAS
Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Mohali, India
akashs91@yahoo.co.in
From our hominin ancestors in the Palaeolithic world until the end of the ancient era there seem to have been closer contacts between Europe, Eurasia and Southeast/East Asia which might have been forgotten due to sheer time or diverse historical events like the formation of states. The archaeological evidence invites us to take a closer look at the similarities and to investigate the different cultural contexts. From sharing same ideas and concepts to influences by trade this panel tries to highlight the cultural markers to provide a more integrated view.
Function follows Form? – On the resemblance of prehistoric artefacts (Birte Meller, Hamburg)
Contact and communication between forager communities in the Pleistocene world and the beginning of the Holocene seem to be broader than in later times. This seems to be supported by the archaeological record, for example within the toolkits – which might just be due to the resources or the spread of pottery, which is similar in form and decoration. But some innovations take a different route than the transition to agriculture or ideas of antiquity. This paper will look at the connections in prehistoric times and tries to describe the ways of interaction often overlooked by historiography.
Birte Meller is a prehistoric archaeologist at the University of Hamburg. As the research associate for pre- and early history at the Institute of Prehistoric and Early Archaeology her main focus is on the conception of the Paleolithic world and the transition from foragers to famers.
From Athens to Angkor and back (Jacobus Bracker, Hamburg/Freiburg)
Comparing large and architectural sculpture from ancient Greece and Cambodia seems to be an odd task at first. However, when taking a closer look at stylistic elements or narrative structures astonishing similarities are revealed. Fascinating examples for such comparisons are the styles of sculpture from Phnom Da (6th century CE) and the Aphaia temple on Aegina (6th century BCE) or the narrative structures of mythological reliefs from Banteay Chhmar or Angkor and classical Greece. Of course, no simple explanation is at hand considering the vast distances in time and space between these cultures. However, the paper will investigate how methods of comparative archaeology can contribute to the understanding of the similar phenomena in different cultures and indicate pathways for migrating images.
Jacobus Bracker is a classical archaeologist at the Archaeological Institute at the University of Hamburg and pursuing his PhD-project “Narratology for ancient images”. He is also co-editor of the online-journal VISUAL PAST, co-organiser of interdisciplinary conferences on visual culture, and currently a guest lecturer on “Visual Culture and Anthropology in Archaeology” at the University of Freiburg.
Economic & cultural trade between South Asia and the Mediterranean in the first Centuries BCE (Lilian Schönheit, Hamburg)
While the history of economy and culture of both regions – South Asia and the ancient Mediterranean – are well studied, the connections between them are barely recognized. Already in the first years BCE trading connections from Greece and Rome to India and Sri Lanka were well established. These contacts grew during the following centuries and provoked not only an economic, but also a cultural exchange from one end of the known world to the other. This effect is reflected in archeological remains from western China via the Thai-Malay-Peninsula and India to Egypt and Rome and will be discussed in the paper.
Lilian Schönheit is a classical archeologist at the Hamburg University. She finished her PhD on cultural contacts in South Italy in 2017. Her current research field is focused on cross-regional contacts in antiquity.
Function follows Form? – On the resemblance of prehistoric artefacts (Birte Meller, Hamburg)
Contact and communication between forager communities in the Pleistocene world and the beginning of the Holocene seem to be broader than in later times. This seems to be supported by the archaeological record, for example within the toolkits – which might just be due to the resources or the spread of pottery, which is similar in form and decoration. But some innovations take a different route than the transition to agriculture or ideas of antiquity. This paper will look at the connections in prehistoric times and tries to describe the ways of interaction often overlooked by historiography.
Birte Meller is a prehistoric archaeologist at the University of Hamburg. As the research associate for pre- and early history at the Institute of Prehistoric and Early Archaeology her main focus is on the conception of the Paleolithic world and the transition from foragers to famers.
From Athens to Angkor and back (Jacobus Bracker, Hamburg/Freiburg)
Comparing large and architectural sculpture from ancient Greece and Cambodia seems to be an odd task at first. However, when taking a closer look at stylistic elements or narrative structures astonishing similarities are revealed. Fascinating examples for such comparisons are the styles of sculpture from Phnom Da (6th century CE) and the Aphaia temple on Aegina (6th century BCE) or the narrative structures of mythological reliefs from Banteay Chhmar or Angkor and classical Greece. Of course, no simple explanation is at hand considering the vast distances in time and space between these cultures. However, the paper will investigate how methods of comparative archaeology can contribute to the understanding of the similar phenomena in different cultures and indicate pathways for migrating images.
Jacobus Bracker is a classical archaeologist at the Archaeological Institute at the University of Hamburg and pursuing his PhD-project “Narratology for ancient images”. He is also co-editor of the online-journal VISUAL PAST, co-organiser of interdisciplinary conferences on visual culture, and currently a guest lecturer on “Visual Culture and Anthropology in Archaeology” at the University of Freiburg.
Economic & cultural trade between South Asia and the Mediterranean in the first Centuries BCE (Lilian Schönheit, Hamburg)
While the history of economy and culture of both regions – South Asia and the ancient Mediterranean – are well studied, the connections between them are barely recognized. Already in the first years BCE trading connections from Greece and Rome to India and Sri Lanka were well established. These contacts grew during the following centuries and provoked not only an economic, but also a cultural exchange from one end of the known world to the other. This effect is reflected in archeological remains from western China via the Thai-Malay-Peninsula and India to Egypt and Rome and will be discussed in the paper.
Lilian Schönheit is a classical archeologist at the Hamburg University. She finished her PhD on cultural contacts in South Italy in 2017. Her current research field is focused on cross-regional contacts in antiquity.
Organisers: A/Prof Darren Curnoe, University of New South Wales, and Dr Mei Hsiao Goh, Universiti Sains Malaysia
In recent years archaeologists have begun to push the timescale for the earliest occupation of insular Southeast Asia by anatomically modern humans back beyond 70,000 years ago. Yet, this date contrasts with widely accepted ages from the molecular clock using DNA from contemporary populations of closer to 50,000 years ago. All of this potentially raises many questions about the sources, timing, population affinities, behavioural complexity and ecology of the earliest people to inhabit the region. However, the Pleistocene human fossil and archaeological records continue to be sparse across insular Southeast Asia with scarcely few discoveries published internationally for many decades. Suggestions of an early arrival also put into sharp focus the increasing complexities of using dating methodsat existing sites and the old spectre of site stratigraphic complexity and difficulties associated with reconstructing provenience. This symposium will explore recent developments in archaeology, palaeoanthropology, genetics and geochronology about the timing, settlement, ecology and behaviour of Pleistocene modern humans in insular Southeast Asia. Presentations outlining new Middle or Late Pleistocene human fossil or archaeological discoveries, no matter how preliminary, reanalyses of existing sites or fossils, or ancient or contemporary DNA studies,will be most welcome.
In recent years archaeologists have begun to push the timescale for the earliest occupation of insular Southeast Asia by anatomically modern humans back beyond 70,000 years ago. Yet, this date contrasts with widely accepted ages from the molecular clock using DNA from contemporary populations of closer to 50,000 years ago. All of this potentially raises many questions about the sources, timing, population affinities, behavioural complexity and ecology of the earliest people to inhabit the region. However, the Pleistocene human fossil and archaeological records continue to be sparse across insular Southeast Asia with scarcely few discoveries published internationally for many decades. Suggestions of an early arrival also put into sharp focus the increasing complexities of using dating methodsat existing sites and the old spectre of site stratigraphic complexity and difficulties associated with reconstructing provenience. This symposium will explore recent developments in archaeology, palaeoanthropology, genetics and geochronology about the timing, settlement, ecology and behaviour of Pleistocene modern humans in insular Southeast Asia. Presentations outlining new Middle or Late Pleistocene human fossil or archaeological discoveries, no matter how preliminary, reanalyses of existing sites or fossils, or ancient or contemporary DNA studies,will be most welcome.
Convenors:
Rebecca Kinaston (University of Otago, New Zealand. rebecca.kinaston@gmail.com)
Charlotte King (University of Otago, New Zealand. charlotte.king@otago.ac.nz)
Melanie Miller (University of Otago, New Zealand.melanie.miller@otago.ac.nz)
Monica Tromp (Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Jena, Germany. tromp.monica@gmail.com)
Anna Willis (James Cook University, Australia. anna.willis1@jcu.edu.au)
Panel Abstract:
Bioarchaeology is a rapidly developing field in the Asia-Pacific region. Through the direct analysis of human remains, bioarchaeologists are producing human stories. Researchers can build models of human biosocial change when bioarchaeological information is combined with other lines of evidence from archaeological, linguistic and ethnographic records. The incorporation of cutting-edge techniques (such as aDNA, proteomics and isotopic analysis), with more established osteological techniques allow bioarchaeologists to address the ‘big questions’ surrounding human migrations, histories of disease, development of social hierarchy and inequality, and subsistence change. This session will bring together bioarchaeologists from different regions and time periods to discuss emerging trends within their areas of research.
Number of talks: 28
Number of 90-minute blocks required: 4
In the pages following we present the abstracts submitted to us by our participants, and provisional titles from others who have confirmed their involvement but have not had the time to submit their abstracts to us. Currently they are in no particular order, running order will be decided upon when/if the panel is accepted.
Rebecca Kinaston (University of Otago, New Zealand. rebecca.kinaston@gmail.com)
Charlotte King (University of Otago, New Zealand. charlotte.king@otago.ac.nz)
Melanie Miller (University of Otago, New Zealand.melanie.miller@otago.ac.nz)
Monica Tromp (Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Jena, Germany. tromp.monica@gmail.com)
Anna Willis (James Cook University, Australia. anna.willis1@jcu.edu.au)
Panel Abstract:
Bioarchaeology is a rapidly developing field in the Asia-Pacific region. Through the direct analysis of human remains, bioarchaeologists are producing human stories. Researchers can build models of human biosocial change when bioarchaeological information is combined with other lines of evidence from archaeological, linguistic and ethnographic records. The incorporation of cutting-edge techniques (such as aDNA, proteomics and isotopic analysis), with more established osteological techniques allow bioarchaeologists to address the ‘big questions’ surrounding human migrations, histories of disease, development of social hierarchy and inequality, and subsistence change. This session will bring together bioarchaeologists from different regions and time periods to discuss emerging trends within their areas of research.
Number of talks: 28
Number of 90-minute blocks required: 4
In the pages following we present the abstracts submitted to us by our participants, and provisional titles from others who have confirmed their involvement but have not had the time to submit their abstracts to us. Currently they are in no particular order, running order will be decided upon when/if the panel is accepted.
Conveners: Parth R. Chauhan1 and Gao Xing2
1parth73@gmail.com & 2gaoxing@ivpp.ac.cn
In the last decade, new paleoanthropological discoveries have drastically changed our theoretical and interpretative perceptions on Pleistocene hominin evolution and adaptations in Asia. This includes extending the dates of the earliest hominin occupation and previously collected fossils, pinpointing the earliest Acheulean evidence outside Africa, respective discoveries of Modes 2 and 3 lithic technologies east of the ‘Movius Line’, possibly extending the respective dates of modern human arrival in southern, eastern and southeastern Asia, earliest modern human adaptations to rainforests, new evolutionary interpretations of previously-discovered specimens and geochronological revisions of select sites and specimens, thus all challenging traditional evolutionary paradigms. Some of these discoveries and studies dovetail with new genetic and paleoenvironmental data and offer views complementary to the African and European records. Nonetheless, prevalent debates and criticisms continue to persist between different researchers, partially due to missing required evidence (e.g. lithics at human fossil sites and vice versa) or general disagreement on various grounds. In addition, vast geographic zones of Asia continue to remain terra incognita and require more focused field surveys and multidisciplinary applications. This session offers a platform to present various recent discoveries, discuss their paleoanthropological implications, and how we can jointly confront existing methodological challenges and empirical limitations in Asian paleoanthropology. This session is dedicated to the dynamic scientific contributions of Robin W. Dennell to Asian paleoanthropology.
1parth73@gmail.com & 2gaoxing@ivpp.ac.cn
In the last decade, new paleoanthropological discoveries have drastically changed our theoretical and interpretative perceptions on Pleistocene hominin evolution and adaptations in Asia. This includes extending the dates of the earliest hominin occupation and previously collected fossils, pinpointing the earliest Acheulean evidence outside Africa, respective discoveries of Modes 2 and 3 lithic technologies east of the ‘Movius Line’, possibly extending the respective dates of modern human arrival in southern, eastern and southeastern Asia, earliest modern human adaptations to rainforests, new evolutionary interpretations of previously-discovered specimens and geochronological revisions of select sites and specimens, thus all challenging traditional evolutionary paradigms. Some of these discoveries and studies dovetail with new genetic and paleoenvironmental data and offer views complementary to the African and European records. Nonetheless, prevalent debates and criticisms continue to persist between different researchers, partially due to missing required evidence (e.g. lithics at human fossil sites and vice versa) or general disagreement on various grounds. In addition, vast geographic zones of Asia continue to remain terra incognita and require more focused field surveys and multidisciplinary applications. This session offers a platform to present various recent discoveries, discuss their paleoanthropological implications, and how we can jointly confront existing methodological challenges and empirical limitations in Asian paleoanthropology. This session is dedicated to the dynamic scientific contributions of Robin W. Dennell to Asian paleoanthropology.
Trang
Copyright © 2016 by khaocohoc.gov.vn.
Thiết kế bởi VINNO
Tổng số lượt truy cập: 9026192
Số người đang online: 20