Report from the 20th Congress of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association
in Siem Reap, Cambodia
by Anke Hein
Golda Meir Postdoctoral Fellow at the Friedberg Center of East Asian Studies
The Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association meets every four years in various parts of Asia, convening this time in Siem Reap, Cambodia, from January 12 to 17. This was the largest meeting so far, bringing over 700 scholars from over 40 different countries together. One of the major draws this year was the location of Siem Reap or rather the famous temple complex of Angkor Wat located in its vicinity. To respond to this interest in the site and provide a break in this intensive six-day event, all participants were invited to visit Angkor Wat and Angkor Thom on the fourth day. Very fittingly, the major panels discussing such complexes throughout Cambodia were held the day before so that everybody could get informed about the newest research before visiting the place itself.
It became very clear that the roughly 15 years of research that have gone into Angkor Wat and Angkor Thom – although providing first insights into the large cultural, political, and religious systems and developments behind these structures – have barely scratched the surface. Only recently has it become clear that these temple complexes were not standing alone but were surrounded by settlement clusters that are now undergoing intensive research. Additionally, a joined Cambodian-German team focuses on the desperately needed preservation of the sites. This conference and visit to the sites was a good way of raising awareness in the scholarly world for the necessity of further research into Cambodian archaeology and early history, as well as preservation work.
The international scholarly community was welcomed by large banners throughout the city announcing the conference and the event was acknowledged by various high-ranking government officials and representatives of the Royal Academy of Cambodia who gave welcoming speeches. It was the President of the Royal Academy of Cambodia who officially opened and closed the conference. The first day of the conference was a venue for scholars and officials from Cambodia to present their country, talking about its archaeology but also on the history of local research institutes and universities. It became clear that the government was investing considerable amounts of money in research endeavors and especially preservation of the monuments that since the early 2000s have been overrun by increasing numbers of tourists from all around the world. At the IPPA conference, local scholars emphasized the need to integrate research, conservation, tourism, and the education of local people to allow them to understand and actively preserve their heritage.
The remainder of the conference featured 68 sessions with five to twenty presentations each. Presentation topics covered the whole time range from the Paleolithic to recent historic periods as well as present-day ethnoarchaeological studies and papers on political and social aspects of archaeological practice and museum work. The majority of papers naturally focused on Southeast Asia, including Cambodia, Vietnam, Thailand, the Philippines, and even over 20 papers on Laos, a region that has so far been largely overlooked in archaeological research. Nevertheless, a considerable number of papers focused on China, particularly South and Southwest China, while Northern China, Korea, Japan, and South Asia, were less well represented, yet also present. Even a few comparative cases from Central Asia and the Levant were presented.
Scholars from Hebrew University were involved in two large panels, one on “The Rise and Decline of Societies: Economic, Political, and Environmental Causes in Comparative Perspective” organized by Gideon Shelach and Yitzchak Jaffe, and “A Perpetual Corridor of Contact and Exchange: China’s Western Frontier in Neolithic to Bronze Age Times,” where the author of this report presented.Further panels of interest for scholars of early China included “Social Economy and State Formation in China” (organized by Zhai Shaodong), “Recent Advances in the Archaeology of Prehistoric Southwest China” (organized by Chiang Po-Yi), “Political Economy and State Formation in China” (organized by Zhao Shaodong and Sheehan Bestel), and “The Bronze Age in Yunnan and SE Asia: Materials, Technology, and Migration” (organized by Jin Zhengyao and Li Sheng-Hua). Furthermore, there were single papers on China in various panels with a technical focus such as metal analysis or DNA research. Overall, there were too many papers to reflect on all of them in detail, but below, the main China panels will be introduced in turn.
The panel on “The Rise and Decline of Societies: Economic, Political, and Environmental Causes in Comparative Perspective” addressed the questions of mechanisms of and reasons for rise and “collapse” of ancient societies. It did so through single case studies from different parts of the world, thus automatically providing a comparative perspective. The session was opened by Yangjin Pak who applied the concepts of social complexity and collapse onto the Hongshan culture, re-evaluating the appropriateness of the use of these terms and their analytical value. Rowan Flad focused on the Sanxingdui polity of the Sichuan Basin, discussing the mechanisms that led to the rise of Sanxingdui and its later demise. He convincingly showed that networks of interaction between settlements in the Chengdu Plain and beyond were important factors in these developments. Based on burial material from Northeast China, Yitzchak Jaffe argued that changes in social structure did not have to mean decline. He showed that although pastoralism became dominant during the late 2ndmillennium BC, agricultural practice continued and population levels stayed high and social complexity remained, speaking against any form of collapse or decline.
Francis Allard suggested a new model for culture change in general (be it collapse or other kinds of changes), taking the Bronze Age of Southeast China as a basis. In the following presentation, Gideon Shelach asked “Did the late Bronze Age Societies of China Collapse?” He addressed this question focusing on ecological processes but also raised cultural reasons for the decline of the Shang polity and its final replacement by the Zhou state. As a contra-point, Sharon Zucherman presented on the fate of the Canaanite Kingdom, discussing similar processes of transformation and decline in the Late Bronze Age of the Southern Levant, testing various models of explanation that might also be applied to other parts of the world.
Katheryn Linduff then turned the audience’s attention back to China, using the Northern Borderlands of Early Dynastic China as a case study to discussvarious types of political processes in border situations and their reflection in the material record. Providing yet another example from other parts of the world, Ronnie Ellenblume discussed affluence, decline and other developments of classical cities in the Eastern Mediterranean, followed by lively discussions of the single case studies presented as well as of a general and comparative nature.
The panel entitled “A Perpetual Corridor of Contact and Exchange: China’s Western Frontier in Neolithic to Bronze Age Times” comprised eleven papers presenting case studies on how culture contact can be observed in the archaeological record. First, Wu Xiaohong took a material science approach, talking on the possible connection between Egyptian Blue and Chinese Blue based on their chemical composition. Together with Chui Jianfeng, Wu Xiaohong furthermore contributed a paper on metallurgical and lead isotope analyses on the famous Sanxingdui Bronzes from Sichuan, showing that both the local and the foreign form types were cast from material from the same source and in the same technique over a rather short period of time. What this means as to the actual place of production and the cultural and social meaning requires further discussion.
In the next two papers, Li Yongxian and Hung Ling-yu presented evidence for human movement and through the Hexi corridor and on the Tibetan Plateau based on ceramic typology and petrographic analysis. Both were particularly interested in the connection between the site of Karuo on the Tibetan Plateau and the early Neolithic Majiayao culture, which show both similarities and strong differences. Wang Hui’s presentation focused on a sub-region of the same area, talking about the upper Tao river valley and its Neolithic and Bronze Age burial sites which are reflecting the development and interplay of a variety of culture groups. Moving further West, Li Shuicheng presented on the famous Xinjiang mummies whose light hair and particular physiognomy is often seen as a sign of their western origin. Based on material culture properties and burial customs Li Shuicheng argued that these people had come from Russia over the Altai, Tianshan, and Lop Nor.
The following papers all focused on Southwest China, mostly Yunnan. The author of this report discussed mechanisms of interregional contacts throughout Southwest China, focusing on the Liangshan Region and its geographic particularities. Chiou-Peng TzeHuey then brought the discussion back to questions of metallurgy and its origin, suggesting that the early metallurgy in Yunnan and Southeast Asia originated from the Eurasian steppe and was conducted on a communal basis. Karen S. Rubinson then discussed the image of horse and rider in the Dian culture of Yunnan, suggesting that the horse did not actually play a central role in Dian society but was only depicted as a symbol of power in elite circles. Huang Tsuimei then drew attention to a generally overlooked type of items, the small jade slit rings used as earrings in graves in Yunnan during the mid to late 1st c. BCE. She argued that the form came from significantly earlier Neolithic cultures but that it had fallen out of use and then came to be popular again but only in the Southwest and South, and for reasons as of yet unclear. Chen Pochan then discussed an even later period, the time of the Qin and Han dynasties and their expansion into Southwest China. Instead of painting the usual picture of colonization and sinization, he painted a rather complex picture of replacement, creolization, acculturation, and commodification that took various shapes in different parts of China. On the whole, this panel thus showed very clearly that there are various ways in which different culture groups and individuals interacted in the past and that these interactions left a wide range of traces in the material record, requiring a strong methodology and firm theoretical framework in their research.
The panel discussing “Recent Advances in the Archaeology of Prehistoric Southwest China”comprised ten papers. First, Lo Chi Kei presented on the relationship of the Dian and Dong Son cultures in Yunnan and Vietnam under the influence of Lingnan in southern China, suggesting that Lingnan was one of the important factors leading to the development of Bronze-working cultures in Southwest China and Southeast Asia. Next, Lee Wantao discussed Neolithic remains from the lower Jinsha River, making some suggestions on the chronology and cultural development of this still poorly-understood region. Xin Zhonghua presented new evidence for contemporary developments along the middle Dadu River and Chen Wei discussed similar evidence from Jinchuan in Northwest Sichuan, paying particular attention to evidence for the dispersal of the Majiayao culture.
Three papers by Zou Houxi, Bai Jiujiang, and Qi Yu focused on Chongqing, discussing local developments, ceramic production, and contacts to northern China. Zhou Houxi focused mainly on the influence of the natural environment on local cultural developments, especially various forms of economy practiced by past culture groups. Bai Jiujiang suggested three sources and two routes of cultural dispersal throughout Southwest China and six routes of exchange, considering mainly ceramic types and geographic preconditions. Qi Yu presented an analysis of ceramic material, considering both raw material sources and production techniques and their changes over time. She pointed out that the available data is currently not fine-grained enough to be sure about raw material sources but that it could nevertheless be determined if two ceramic objects were made from the same raw material or not. Much work therefore needs to be done before laboratory analyses of archaeological material from this region allow for inferences on cultural developments.
The last two papers of the panel by Wan Jiao and Chiang Po-yi presented on the Chengdu Plain. Wan Jiao informed the audience about new excavation results from an early Neolithic site and its possible connections to Northwest China. Chiang Po-yi concentrated on the Bronze Age, suggesting a new chronological scheme different from the one generally accepted by most scholars working in Southwest China, leading to some raised eyebrows and new discussions. Overall, this panel’s main strength was the presentation of the results of recent excavations in Southwest China and – based on that – the re-evaluation of chronology and cultural developments in prehistoric times.
Due to a scheduling conflict with other sessions, the author was not able to attend the panel on “Political Economy and State Formation in China” herself. Judging from the program and comments from other scholars, this session had two main foci: early subsistence systems as discussed by Zhai Shaodong (“An investigation on the techniques related to ground stone tool production”), Sheehan Bestel (“Plant foods as part of the Peiligang economy at Zhuzhai site, Zhengzhou city”), Wang Weilin (“The Miaodigou culture and Chinese civilization: a case study of the Yangguanzhai site, Gaoling, Shaanxi”), and Zhao Zhijun (“Origin of rice agriculture in China”), and state formation processes which were the focus of presentations by Dai Xiangming and Tian Wei (“New evidence for the development of social complexity in the Yuncheng Basin, North-central China”), Sun Zhouyong and Shao Jing (“Northern China prior to 4000 BP: New archaeological discoveries in the Shimao site and early state formation”), and Li Xinwei (“Formation of the Chinese interaction sphere and development of a political economy”).
The panel entitled “The Bronze Age in Yunnan and Southeast Asia: Materials, Technology and Migration” was of a technical nature, presenting the results of laboratory analyses on various metal alloys, casting techniques, and stable isotope analyses that were used to throw some light on the origin of raw material, techniques, and particular objects found in the archaeological record of Southwest China and Southeast Asia. It became very clear that the results of many of these scientific analyses are still difficult to interpret as large databases on material composition of raw material sources in Asia are still lacking. It will therefore take many years of further studies before scholars can say with much confidence were specific objects (or at least the raw material used in their production) came from.
This line-up of papers and presenters shows that there is an increase in papers discussing the archaeology of China at the IPPA conferences, and that an increasing number of Chinese scholars take part in this scholarly event. Usually, the number of Chinese scholars participating in conferences organized by Western research associations is rather limited, partially because of language barriers, partially because of travel and visa issues. That the conference took place in Asia did probably help with the latter problem. The language barrier was partially overcome by scholars from Western countries inviting Chinese colleges and collaborators to join in the conference and translated for them if necessary. As opposed to many other conferences, the IPPA was a little more relaxed about the language of presentation and time-keeping issues, so that translating during a presentation was possible. Discussions took place in a mixture of languages and the relaxed atmosphere and smooth organization helped to facilitate a truly international exchange of ideas.
For further information on the conference consult