The Fourth International Conference of the Society for East Asian Archaeology was held in Beijing in June 2008. This organization, established in 1996, brings together archaeologists and researchers.-

page 149
archaeological sites from Europe, Asia, the Americas, and the Pacific basin. Previous congresses of the society were held in Honolulu (Hawaii, 1996), Durham (Great Britain, 2000), and Daejeon (South Korea, 2004).

The conference, held at the Central Archaeological Institution of China-the Institute of Archaeology of the Academy of Social Sciences of the People's Republic of China, co-organizer of this event, became a representative international forum. While only 40 participants were registered at the founding conference in Honolulu, the Beijing conference had about 200 scientists.

The conference was attended by archaeologists studying East Asia from Russia, Japan, Mongolia, South Korea, China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines, India, as well as researchers of East Asian archaeology from Canada, USA, Mexico, Peru, Sweden, Great Britain, the Netherlands, France, Germany, Israel, Australia, and New Zealand. Presentations were made by leading experts in the archaeology of East Asia, such as Ikawa-Smith (Canada, Chairman of the society), Miyamoto Kazuo (Japan), Wang Wei, Xu Hong, Mei Jianjun (all from China), Chinh Nang Chung (Vietnam), L. von Falkenhausen (USA), J. Rawson (Great Britain), G. Shelah (Israel) and many others. Unfortunately, archaeologists from Cambodia and a number of scientists from India who were included in the program could not come. Nevertheless, the forum addressed a wide range of problems in the archeology of the Far East and Southeast Asia. Other disciplines related to archaeology are paleobotany, paleozoology, paleoclimatic research, paleoanthropology, chemical analysis of metal and glass, conservation, and preservation of cultural monuments. Major discoveries of recent years were widely covered, and the latest materials and achievements in archeology, primarily in China, were demonstrated.

The conference consisted of plenary sessions and symposia. At the plenary sessions, leading Chinese scientists spoke about the development of archeology in China. Central to the reports was a speech by the Director of the Institute of Archaeology, Wang Wei, on the main achievements and challenges in studying the problem of the origin of Chinese civilization. This is one of the priority projects of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Its goal is to jointly identify the stages of development of civilization, give a chronology and present the mechanism of its formation through the joint efforts of archaeologists, historians, and scientists from related disciplines - paleoecologists, anthropologists, and specialists in natural sciences. The main focus of the project is to study the period between 2500 and 1500 BC, i.e. the time before the formation of the Shan state, which is known from epigraphic inscriptions. The essence of the research will be to link archaeological data and traditional Chinese chronology, the Xia Dynasty and its previous legendary rulers ("five emperors"). The main focus of the project is on the Central Chinese Plain, where the Shan culture was formed (XVI-XI centuries BC), which is considered the basis of Chinese civilization. At the same time, according to Wang Wei, it is equally important to study "regional civilizations", especially the Yangtze civilization, which are considered as parts and sources of a single Chinese civilization. He attaches great importance to the study of the Liangzhu culture at the mouth of the Yangtze (dating from 3300-2200 BC) and the excavation of a large Liangzhu settlement in Mojiaoshan (Zhejiang).

Wang Wei calls Marxism the theoretical basis for studying Chinese civilization, which should not be accepted as a dogma, but creatively applied to Chinese specifics. Speaking about the various opinions that exist among Chinese archaeologists, Wang Wei sharply criticizes the Western theory of " chiefdom "as an intermediate stage between the state and primitive society, urging not to"cut off the feet to fit someone's shoes." He suggests distinguishing between the concepts of "civilization"and " state". He understands the latter according to F.'s work. The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State.

Wang Wei presents an interdisciplinary study of the main monuments of the considered era: Taos (in prov. Shanxi) and Wangcheng, Hsinzhai and Erlitou (in the prov. Henan). The ancient settlement of Erlitou, which has been actively excavated in recent years, is the center of the Bronze Age culture of the same name, immediately preceding the Erligan (early period of the Shan culture). Erligan is often associated with the Xia Dynasty in traditional chronology. Wang Wei places Erligan in the late Xia period. He attributes the Hsinchai hillfort to the early Xia Dynasty, and Wangchenggang and Taos to Emperor Yu. Special attention in the report was paid to Taos, a huge settlement covering an area of about 580 thousand square meters. m with a courtyard-

page 150
A medieval complex in the middle and dating from around 2100 BC, according to Wang Wei, at least from the middle layers of the Taos complex should be considered a state.

Gao Xing made a presentation on new research in the field of Paleolithic. He stressed that, as previously established, China in the prehistoric period went through all the stages of both anthropogenesis and the use of Paleolithic tools, the earliest of which date back to about 2 million years ago. Nevertheless, the report showed that Chinese scientists abandoned the previously existing hypothesis of polycentric anthropogenesis in favor of the spread of all human species from the African continent to Asia.

The report of Mei Jianjun from the Beijing Institute of Technology was devoted to the development of metallurgy. Mei Jianjun has been researching the earliest copper and bronze objects for many years, searching for ore mining sites and metal production sites in northwestern China (Gansu, northern Xinjiang). Mei Jianjun noted that the early metal in northeastern China is associated with the Andronovo culture in Siberia.

Two other reports were devoted to zooarchaeology, more precisely, the domestication of the main animal species in China (Yuan Jing) and paleobotany, i.e. the spread of wheat in China, one of the main crops in the Central Chinese Plain and in northern China, in contrast to the rice-growing crops of the Yangtze (Zhao Zhijun). Zhao Zhijun expressed the view that the spread of wheat from Western Asia was not only along the western or northern route, but also by sea from the south. He came to this conclusion thanks to the discovery of early rice in the prov. Fujian, in southern China, dating from 2300-1600 BC (it should be noted that this was the territory of the Yue peoples who grew rice). Thus, Zhao Zhijun suggests as one of the possible routes - a sea route from India through Southeast Asia.

The symposia were divided into sections over four days. Among them: "A New Perspective on Chinese Bronze Age Archaeology", "Comparative Studies of Early Complex Societies in East Asia and the World", "Prehistoric Landscape Changes in East Asia", "Burial Systems in Northeast Asia and the Formation of regional Cultures", "Island Archaeology in East Asia and the problem of isolation and isolation". inter-relations", "Public Archaeology in the Present and Recent Past in East Asia", "Bioarchaeological Research in East Asia", "Eurasian Metallurgy and Society", "Methods and Problems of Zooarchaeology in East Asia", "New Data and Problems of Archaeobotany in East Asia", "Paleolithic Archaeology in East Asia", "Human adaptation and socio-political changes in Northeast Asia", "Identification, conservation and research of wood artifacts in East Asia", "Inter-regional contacts in East Asia in Prehistoric and Historical epochs", "Jades and material resources of the Jade Age", "The significance of glass research for East Asian archaeology", "One hundred years of cultural heritage preservation cultural Heritage in East Asia", "Prehistoric Archaeology of South China and Southeast Asia", "Early Complex Societies in the Sichuan Basin and Surrounding Areas", "Burial Analysis in Chinese Archaeology", "New in Archaeological Research in Taiwan", "Vietnamese Archaeology", "Past in Modern China".

From the reports that were not included in any of the sections, combined panels were formed without a common topic and title. During the conference, special lectures were also organized, which were announced additionally. One of them, read by A. Perrin (France), was devoted to the preservation of cultural heritage in the DPRK in cooperation with UNESCO.

The conference was held shortly after the Sichuan earthquake, which destroyed many monuments and cultural heritage items, and therefore (although the program did not provide for such a problem) the issue of their urgent preservation was raised by participants.

Of course, it was impossible to visit all the sections and understand all the problems, just as it was impossible to describe, even briefly, the main problems that were addressed in each section. Therefore, in addition to the problems identified at the plenary sessions, we will limit ourselves to analyzing the work of sections related to the archeology of Southeast Asia, including the archeology of the peoples of Southern China, which is the scope of interests of the author of this review.

Many of the problems of Southeast Asia were discussed at the symposium on glass research organized by J. Lankton (University College London). The symposium opened with a report by An Jiayao on the history of glass in China, which appeared here in the 5th century BC.-

page 151
Rector of the Busan National Museum (Republic of Korea) Lee In-suk noted the findings of glass beads from the island part of Southeast Asia in ancient Korea. In her opinion, glass came to Korea at the turn of the new era not only from China, but also by sea from Southeast Asia. B. Borell (Germany) spoke about glass vessels from Guangxi (Hepu) and their connection with glass from South India (Arikamedu), suggesting the possibility of frequent sea contacts through the South-East Coast.St. Laptev (Institute of Practical Oriental Studies, Moscow) and Sunil Gupta (Allahabad Museum, India) presented a report on Indo-Pacific glass beads that appeared in India at the end of the 1st millennium BC and then spread widely in Korea and Japan. The authors of the report also believe that Southeast Asia (including the Indochina Peninsula) played a key role in the trade of glass beads in the prehistoric period, which, along with India, was one of the centers of their manufacture. The report was illustrated by the material of St. John the Baptist. Laptev from the excavations of the necropolis near the village of Snai in Northwestern Cambodia (Bronze-Iron Age).

J. Lankton also reported a large number of beads from India and Southeast Asia in Korea in the first centuries of the new era. Tantrakarn Kriengkamol (Thailand) spoke about the glass beads found in southern Thailand, who compared their technical characteristics with glass data from other regions of Asia. Of great importance are the data of chemical analysis of glass in China, Korea and Japan, which were presented by engineer Zhao Zitong (Shanghai, China), Furihata Junko (Nara, Japan), J. Lankton, Kim Gyu-ho (Republic of Korea). They show the close relationship of glass technologies throughout East and Southeast Asia, which also indicates the interpenetration of their cultures at the turn of our era.

Other aspects of the existence of the peoples of Southeast Asia in ancient times, including Southern China, were discussed in the sections on Southeast Asian Archaeology and Vietnam Archaeology. Here, too, emphasis was placed on the importance of interethnic contacts. Of great interest are the materials of excavations in Khao Sam Kaew (Southern Thailand), presented by S. Peronnet (France), where a huge amount of stamped ceramics, tiles, as well as bronze tools, mirrors and other artifacts from China of the Han Dynasty (late 3rd century BC - early 3rd century AD) were found. In all likelihood, Khao Sam Keo was an important trading port, where the Chinese probably settled. Previously, the spread of Chinese culture in the Han era was mentioned only in relation to North Vietnam. However, Le Thi Lien (Vietnam), who reported on the excavation of a tomb with a stone chamber in Northern Vietnam in the third and fourth centuries AD, i.e. during the Chinese conquest, stressed that, despite borrowing the idea of a stone chamber from China, the inventory of this and other graves is completely different from the Chinese.

Active cultural contacts between South China and Southeast Asia during the Han period are largely due to the cultural community of the peoples who lived here long before the Chinese conquest. This, in particular, is shown by long-term research by Chin Nang Chung (Institute of Archaeology of the Autonomous Non-Governmental Organization of Vietnam) of ritual stone shovels used in Guangxi, Guangdong, Hainan Island (Southern China) and Northern Vietnam during the 3rd millennium BC-II century AD. with the Laquiet people who inhabited both these areas, one of the ancient Viet (Yue) peoples. S. Chia (Malaysia) also spoke about the commonality of the peoples of Southern China with Southeast Asia, who spoke about the excavations in Semporn (Sabah, Borneo). An important result of the excavations was the discovery of wooden coffins in the shape of a boat, hollowed out of a single tree trunk. Interestingly, similar-shaped hollowed-out coffins were previously found in southern China (Yue peoples), Northern Vietnam, Thailand, and Luzon Island (Philippines), and they dated back to the 3rd millennium BC - 1st millennium AD, thus indicating the relationship of cultures of these territories mainly in the Middle Ages. prehistoric period.

Only a few reports were devoted to the development of cultures and economies of the peoples of what is now Southern China. J. Cameron (Australia) investigated the origin of stone and ceramic spinning wheels in Southern China and Southeast Asia, the earliest examples of which she identifies in Xianrendong, an Early Neolithic monument, about 10 thousand years ago. Interesting research by T. Lu (Hong Kong) on the economy of prehistoric settlements in Guangdong and Hong Kong. Here, despite the early appearance of agriculture (4 thousand years BC), for a long time, up to the present, thanks to good climatic conditions, it remains important.and gathering. The combination of these two types of economy depends not so much on the era, but on the geographical location of settlements. B. Rolette (Hawaii) reported on the results of studies of the ancient riverbed in Fujian in search of traces of ancient navigation,

page 152
F. Allard (USA) - on the development of a" complex society " in the Neolithic Shixia culture in Guangdong, which, despite the widespread use of luxury goods, he does not consider a state. Two reports on the Bronze Age in Yunnan were presented at the Sichuan section, but unfortunately they were not attended. The Southeast Asia section also included a report by He Kuan-chu-an and Chu Wei-li (Taiwan) on the excavation of a prehistoric necropolis and settlement in Huilai (central Taiwan), which for some reason was not included in the Taiwan Section.

In addition to the above-mentioned reports on Vietnamese archaeology, three more were read by the staff of the Institute of Archaeology of the Autonomous Non-Autonomous Republic of Vietnam. Nguyen Du Quang reported on his research on shoreline changes in Northern Vietnam, and Pham Thi Ning reported on his excavations at Dong Kyom, an urn-filled necropolis belonging to the Iron Age Sha Hin culture in Central and Southern Vietnam (5th century BC-2nd century AD). Nguyen Kim Dung's report on the jade section was devoted to the same culture.

Two more presentations were made on the prehistoric archaeology of Thailand: N. Chang (Australia) spoke about the features of the Neolithic and Bronze Age burial equipment on the example of the Ban Non Wat necropolis in Northern Thailand, and B. Vincent (New Zealand) - about the evolution of ceramic technologies in Northern Thailand in 2000-1000 BC., that is, also during the transition from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age.

In general, evaluating the results of the conference, which are important for the research of South-East Asia and Southern China, we can note the following. Although less attention was paid to this region in comparison with Northeast Asia, the conference attempted to present the main problems of development of this region in the prehistoric and partly historical period. Major discoveries in recent years, primarily in the Indochina Peninsula, were also highlighted. The interrelation of the peoples of this region with East and South Asia is also shown. Nevertheless, there are still a large number of problems that need to be solved in the future and which have not even been identified here. This is the problem of the origin of the bronze culture in Southeast Asia, the time of the beginning of the bronze cultures, the process of statehood formation and the connection of this process with India and China. The Yangtze region was hardly mentioned (apart from general speeches), and almost nothing was said about such key cultures of Southern China as Liangzhu and Wucheng. The archaeology of the island part of Southeast Asia was almost not affected.

So what are the remaining challenges in the study of Southeast Asia, based on the results of the Beijing conference? Obviously, this is primarily the expediency of a comparative approach to the study of the region as a whole. Given the interrelationship of cultures throughout Southeast Asia, once again demonstrated at the conference, the question arises of the need to see not only one "own" monument and several neighboring ones, but also monuments in neighboring countries and other parts of the region at the same time. A full-fledged study of the archaeology of mainland Southeast Asia is impossible without knowledge of the archaeology of Southern China and vice versa. In this regard, the key is the archaeological study of the culture of the Yue (Viet) peoples in Southern China and in the North of the Indochina Peninsula, which can be called necessary to recreate the picture of the development of the region as a whole. It is also necessary to abandon a number of stereotypes that interfere with the objective interpretation of archaeological material, such as the" obligatory " diffusion of culture that came from European colonial science. Finally, the biggest problem is the uneven excavation of the region: good excavation of North Vietnam, systematic excavations in South Vietnam, more or less regular excavations in Northern Thailand, and an almost complete lack of prehistoric archaeology in Cambodia and Laos. Archaeologists and researchers from related disciplines face many interesting and important challenges, and there is reason to believe that their solution is a matter of the near future.

Permanent link to this publication: